Here is another example of a motorist holding me up - 35sec delay!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuqKE7rXwbQ
Al

??? dice analogies ???
Yes, Beck, we know you have trouble with analogies.
Here's a suggestion, don't bother reading any books by Richard Dawkins. You won't get it.

Congratulations, Pete, you picked one of the busiest roads in all of San Diego!
I'm still trying to picture that as busy. I don't think I'd have a problem, there. (Then again, you can't judge everything by a static picture.)

As you would be blocked if you were driving a car. What's the big deal? If you're that impatient you should use your narrow profile to your advantage and bust left around the cars in front of you or pop onto the sidewalk.

And if motorists who feel they are being blocked by me are that impatient then they should use their extra horsepower to their advantage and make up the time once they get to a stretch of open road.

The point is that if they aren't willing to pull over to let me through then why should I be willing to pull over to let them through?

As I expected, your examples are ridiculous. Silly me for thinking that you might post something rational.

Only you would call the reality of everyday riding conditions ridiculous. Call them what you will, but no matter how much you want to live in your own little world, the reality of the road will not go away.

And in that scenario, you stop behind, and off to the right of, the car in front of you, and wait for the car which is parallel parking to finish the job. You don't have to go by anyone.




And if a vehicle slows down to make a turn, you slow down behind, and off to the right of, that car.


In neither of those cases are you legally allowed to go by the cars. Besides, it's only courteous to stop or slow down for the vehicles. :)

If the lane is wide enough it's perfectly legal for me to split it with a car in any of these scenarios.

The question is whether it is discourteous for them not to move over so that I have enough room to do so, just as some people say it is discourteous for bicycles not to move over so that cars have enough room to legally pass. Since motorists don't extend such courtesy to me, why should I extend it to them?

No, here is what you claimed, in your own words:
"An objective way to check your impression is to use google maps to look at satellite photos of roads where you think there is always traffic. These are all daytime photos (when traffic is presumably higher than at night) and yet I bet you can't find a suburban area without long stretches of no traffic."
I've already retracted the extremism in the way I worded that twice. This is now three times.



Only a pedant would believe that.
It's not pedantic. It's fundamental to my point. I can see how Beck might have trouble grasping that, but surely you're smart enough to see it.

I'm still trying to picture that as busy. I don't think I'd have a problem, there. (Then again, you can't judge everything by a static picture.)
By "busy all day" long I meant high daily volume that's consistent all day long, though it definitely peaks at commute times (into La Jolla in the mornings and out in the evenings). It's the only 4 lane arterial in and out of downtown La Jolla.

By "busy all day" long I meant high daily volume that's consistent all day long, though it definitely peaks at commute times (into La Jolla in the mornings and out in the evenings). It's the only 4 lane arterial in and out of downtown La Jolla.
Serge, check this out:


...Serge's alleged commute route, and these old photos...sure do show a good amount of traffic.
Like I said, I don't see that as very busy...

;)

you said--


Serge's alleged commute route, and these old photos...sure do show a good amount of traffic.

...and you said--

Given the above, those roads look incredibly tame...


I'm searching for "context..."

I also said "30 seconds tops" even though there have been instances where it may have been slightly longer. Like others have pointed out though, the delay is not really 30 seconds as we are all still moving at 15-25 mph during that time. I do pick up the pace while taking the lane when motorists are behind me just to be considerate, and it seems like most drivers can sense this and are then more accepting of the situation. The funny thing is when I drive the same roads I actually delay the speeders (which is everybody) even more, as I will drive the speed limit and they get "stuck" behind me much longer. I'm sure this upsets some of them too. Oh well.

Serge, check this out:



Like I said, I don't see that as very busy...

;)
You're comparing apples to... nothing.

Tell me the name of a road and nearest cross street that you feel is an example of very busy all day long.

Look back a few posts to Pete's two contradictory statements. Then watch the smoke billow...

Something's burning...

those roads picturing helmet heads' commute ARE tame. and

No vehicular cyclist worth his salt needs to be claiming the traffic lane in front of packs of 50 MPH traffic or be out slowing up traffic for even ONE second without compelling reason on roads like those picturing part of Head's commute. And risk violating the "slower traffic keep right" :roflmao: universal traffic rule?

"Paranoid" springs to mind.

Steve Goodridge's Wide Outside Lane presentation has a graphic showing lane sharing with a city bus on a low speed road. It shows 18 feet as a minimum safe shareable lane (bus width of 10.5 feet across mirrors). I know that in a 12 foot lane (like that lane I was pulled over in) there is NO room for sharing with tractor trailers or busses which are common on that road.

But Steve Goodridge's Wide Outside Lane presentation is a load if ill thought out Bo$$ox.

The lane you're cycling in is as wide as the traffic behind you in adjoining lanes and oncoming traffic from the other direction allows it to be.

If there is no oncoming traffic then this "so-called" 18 feet minimum safe shareable distance is crap and totally irrelevant, just like this 12 foot one you go on about because any traffic behind you can move across into the other lanes be they adjoining lanes or oncoming lanes.

But Steve Goodridge's Wide Outside Lane presentation is a load if ill thought out Bo$$ox.

The lane you're cycling in is as wide as the traffic behind you in adjoining lanes and oncoming traffic from the other direction allows it to be.

If there is no oncoming traffic then this "so-called" 18 feet minimum safe shareable distance is crap and totally irrelevant, just like this 12 foot one you go on about because any traffic behind you can move across into the other lanes be they adjoining lanes or oncoming lanes.

Do you understand the meaning of a "shareable lane"? It does not appear that you do from the above post.

If there is no oncoming traffic then this "so-called" 18 feet minimum safe shareable distance is crap and totally irrelevant, just like this 12 foot one you go on about because any traffic behind you can move across into the other lanes be they adjoining lanes or oncoming lanes.

True, when there is no oncoming traffic the cyclist can move a little right to make the pass easier. But what about when there is oncoming traffic? Then others can't infringe on adjoining lanes as much (or at all) so it's better to discourage them by not leaving enough room to squeeze through.

I got a 20-second plus horn blast this morning taking the lane on a 4-lane arterial. The first shorter blast came as soon as the car caught up behind me and the long blast was about 10 sec later.

The lane is about 10 ft wide to begin with, including the gutter pan, and with the snowbanks it was down to maybe eight. There wasn't much traffic in the left lane, but repeatedly blasting the horn must have seemed more productive than passing me normally like all the other cars.

She caught up later on a wider road with plenty of room to pass, and slowed down to give me the finger.

After that she got caught in a backup and I left her behind for good.

As has been advised on here, I just smiled and waved.

She caught up later on a wider road with plenty of room to pass, and slowed down to give me the finger.

After that she got caught in a backup and I left her behind for good.

As has been advised on here, I just smiled and waved.
:roflmao:

I live for moments like these...

:D

She caught up later on a wider road with plenty of room to pass, and slowed down to give me the finger.

After that she got caught in a backup and I left her behind for good.

As has been advised on here, I just smiled and waved.

Props on that one for sure!


I voted that I don't wory how long I hold up traffic, in the sense that I don't time it. However, if I'm aware I'm holding other road users up significantly I'll pull over and let them pass - for example if I'm climbing a twisty one-lane road. It's just common courtesy, and I'd do the same if for some reason I was operating any slow vehicle.

In the city, where my speed really isn't much different to the cars (and is close to the legal limit in most cases), I just hold my line. Normally though there's more traffic / lights a reasonably short distance up ahead.

I get held up by motorists quite often, especially on one stretch that has regular raised pedestrian crossings. They blast past me, then have to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting the ramp too fast. I usually overtake them at this point (well, it's either that, or slam on my own brakes and risk going into the back of them). Then I speed up to 40km/h (the speed limit), and hear them gun their engines to catch me up. Just as they get to me they realise there's another hump, and as I fly over it, I hear the squeal of brakes, and the crump of suspension hitting a bump too hard. Ahhh, it makes me smile every time.

True, when there is no oncoming traffic the cyclist can move a little right to make the pass easier. But what about when there is oncoming traffic? Then others can't infringe on adjoining lanes as much (or at all) so it's better to discourage them by not leaving enough room to squeeze through.

Yes BUT.... oncoming traffic is never a continuous stream. There are always breaks which allows one to use to overtake, therefore the cyclist should always anticipate this and cycle near to the kerb.

In any case the motorist is more likely to pass the cyclist by a larger distance if the cyclist is closer to the kerb than he would if he was taking the centre lane.

If I was the motorist and the idiot cyclist was taking the centre of the lane I'd make damned sure I overtook him, even if the margin was inches, accompanied by an extremely loud and long blast on the horn.

Do you understand the meaning of a "shareable lane"? It does not appear that you do from the above post.

Joe, you just don't get it do you?

ALL LANES ARE SHAREABLE - irrespective of size. The only drawback to this statement is the size of the intellect of the cyclist.

If I was the motorist and the idiot cyclist was taking the centre of the lane I'd make damned sure I overtook him, even if the margin was inches, accompanied by an extremely loud and long blast on the horn.

You are a moronic menace; overtaking a cyclist (with an accompanying blast from the horn) by only a matter of inches is intimadatory, unnecessary and dangerous.

I just hope that your vehicular bullying never injures a more vulnerable road-user.

But Steve Goodridge's Wide Outside Lane presentation is a load if ill thought out Bo$$ox.

The lane you're cycling in is as wide as the traffic behind you in adjoining lanes and oncoming traffic from the other direction allows it to be.

If there is no oncoming traffic then this "so-called" 18 feet minimum safe shareable distance is crap and totally irrelevant, just like this 12 foot one you go on about because any traffic behind you can move across into the other lanes be they adjoining lanes or oncoming lanes.

I like (and practice) John Allen's advice from his "Street Smarts" book, which has been adopted by a few states as a bicycle driver manual.

He recommends always taking the lane on a road with multiple narrow lanes going the same direction. However, on narrow two-lane roads (one lane each direction) he recommends taking the lane when there is oncoming traffic, and otherwise staying right to reduce drivers' encroachment into the next lane when passing.

I think this is good advice because if there is enough room for a driver to encroach into an adjacent same-direction lane, they might as well, and as easily, change lanes completely.

If an adjacent lane is not available for safe encroachment, e.g. it is a narrow lane with oncoming opposite-direction traffic present, it is good to make it clear there isn't room to pass within your narrow lane. But if the opposite-direction lane is temporarily available, it is safer to minimize the amount of time that a driver must use it, and the amount of space in it they use.

Personally, on 2-lane urban streets with marginal lane widths, such that buses may need to move across the center of the roadway to pass a cyclist safely, I prefer that no centerline be marked. This seems to encourage negotiation between drivers for the space they need - same-direction drivers pass me at wider distance and oncoming drivers adjust toward the curb, apparently with less sense of turf violation.

-Steven Goodridge

Joe, you just don't get it do you?

ALL LANES ARE SHAREABLE - irrespective of size. The only drawback to this statement is the size of the intellect of the cyclist.

No, apparently you don't understand the meaning of a shareable lane as I thought. All lanes are most definitely NOT shareable. Ever see a 10.5 foot wide bus or truck? How about a 10 foot wide lane with a 10.5 foot wide vehicle in it? I've seen those wide vehicles in those narrow lanes (and even narrower lanes) and I can assure you that there is no sharing the lane. If attempting to pass any obstruction in the lane (including a cyclist right on the edge of the lane), the driver MUST encroach into another lane to pass. As soon as that driver is encroaching into another lane, be it oncoming or same direction, he's no longer lane sharing. He's either changed lanes (moved entirely into the other lane) or he's occupying two lanes at once.

Get it now?

Yes BUT.... oncoming traffic is never a continuous stream. There are always breaks which allows one to use to overtake, therefore the cyclist should always anticipate this and cycle near to the kerb.

What the cyclist should anticipate is that some motorists will attempt to pass when it is not safe (blind curve, hill crest, oncoming traffic , etc.) and it is good defensive driving practice to position yourself in a position which discourages this behavior. The position I've found that's most likely to discourage that behavior is the middle of the lane, and it just so happens that many other cyclists agree with me (not that it was my idea originally).

In any case the motorist is more likely to pass the cyclist by a larger distance if the cyclist is closer to the kerb than he would if he was taking the centre lane.

Motorists want to get somewhere as quickly as possible encountering as few delays as possible (same goes for most people travelling somewhere). Sometimes, if given the option of waiting for a safe place to pass or squeezing closely between a cyclist and oncoming traffic, or passing at an ill-advised spot, the motorist will choose getting there sooner over getting there without taking a stupid chance. If the cyclist makes it clear that the motorist will need to take a big chance in order to execute their unsafe pass (by forcing the motorist entirely into the oncoming lane), the motorist is MUCH less likely to attempt the unsafe pass. For those of us who care about our own safety and the safety of others using the road, it's a no brainer to move a few feet left and discourage these unsafe passing attempts.

Your comment above is in disagreement with so many others' experience that I've read about on this forum. In general, the more room a cyclist takes for himself, the more room motorists are likely to give that cyclist.

If I was the motorist and the idiot cyclist was taking the centre of the lane I'd make damned sure I overtook him, even if the margin was inches, accompanied by an extremely loud and long blast on the horn.

And your true colors finally shine through. A brilliant example of an anti-cyclist who happens to ride a bike too.

He recommends always taking the lane on a road with multiple narrow lanes going the same direction. However, on narrow two-lane roads (one lane each direction) he recommends taking the lane when there is oncoming traffic, and otherwise staying right to reduce drivers' encroachment into the next lane when passing.

For the most part I agree although I will generally not move very far right as sometimes it can be difficult to regain a lane controlling position, especially if a long line of traffic is attempting to pass. If I know the whole line won't be able to pass before we reach a situation where it is unsafe to pass, I will hold the middle of the lane (while allowing faster traffic to overtake) so that I can shut the door as soon as I feel it is necessary.

Joe, you just don't get it do you?

ALL LANES ARE SHAREABLE - irrespective of size. The only drawback to this statement is the size of the intellect of the cyclist.
There are two reasonable ways to interpret "shareable lane". One is what you apparently intend - shared by a bike and motor vehicle at the same time, side-by-side, regardless of whether the motorist and bicyclist can simultaneously fit fully within the lane or not. However, legally, there is another definition, and this is the one usually assumed in contexts like this, and its meaning is the opposite of a "substandard width" lane, whose meaning is this:
a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
- CVC 21202 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm)So what Joe and others mean by a lane being shareable is that it is wide enough for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

If you define "shareable lane" as you do, then the "shareable" descriptor applies to all lanes and becomes meaningless and useless.

The distinction between a "shareable lane" (defined in contrast to a "substandard width lane" per CVC 21202) and a narrow lane (i.e., a lane of "substandard width", per CVC 21202) is important for practical and legal matters.

That said, it is true that a narrow lane can be partially shared by a cyclist and overtaking motorists, as long as it is safe and reasonable for the overtaking motorist to encroach into the adjacent lane before, during and after the overtaking, be it same-direction or oncoming. One of the points here is that it is the cyclist who should decide whether now is an appropriate (safe and reasonable) time to partially share his lane or not, and that he is never obligated (legally, practically or morally) to move aside in order to partially share a narrow lane., though often it is the safe, courteous and reasonable thing to do.

Wow, those photos of Helmet Head's commute look idyllic. I don't know why he has so much fear on his route. He's got nice wide boulevards with ample bike lanes. The roads look to be in good shape. Not too much traffic.

Have any cyclists actually been killed on that route? They have been killed on mine, which coincidentally has no bike lane AND has multiple narrow lanes of heavy traffic. There are even memorials for killed pedestrians on the sidewalks. Those hapless souls who tried to use the cross walks. Bless them.

You are a moronic menace; overtaking a cyclist (with an accompanying blast from the horn) by only a matter of inches is intimadatory, unnecessary and dangerous.

I just hope that your vehicular bullying never injures a more vulnerable road-user.


It's exactly what I would expect any motorist with any sense would do to me if I took the centre of the lane.

And your true colors finally shine through. A brilliant example of an anti-cyclist who happens to ride a bike too.

Not at all Joe, I'm just anti idiot cyclist. Most cyclists are fine in my experience.

There are two reasonable ways to interpret "shareable lane". One is what you apparently intend - shared by a bike and motor vehicle at the same time, side-by-side, regardless of whether the motorist and bicyclist can simultaneously fit fully within the lane or not. .

Sharing a lane definately does NOT mean side-by-side.

It's exactly what I would expect any motorist with any sense would do to me if I took the centre of the lane.

Taking the lane (under the conditions allowable by law) is not illegal or unsafe.
Passing a cyclist recklessly (as you recommend above) is illegal and unsafe.
Who is the sensible one here?

Easy just seems to want to antagonize it seems. Must be him honking here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z6rLcJqhE4
Al

Sharing a lane definately does NOT mean side-by-side.
So are you saying one-behind-the-other is "sharing a lane"? That would be an unusual interpretation; one that I have never encountered before.

Sharing a lane is side by side
Sharing the road can be either is front-back or side by side.
Al

So are you saying one-behind-the-other is "sharing a lane"? That would be an unusual interpretation; one that I have never encountered before.

Thanks for asking the question. I'm anxiously awaiting Easy's definition of lane sharing (especially since I've apparently been arguing with him about something completely different than what he is arguing with me about). I love the internet.

Easy just seems to want to antagonize it seems. Must be him honking here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z6rLcJqhE4
Al

Hate to say it, but that's blocking traffic, not sharing anything. If you were a tractor or an Amish horse carriage, that's one thing; but, unlike those large vehicles, you could've moved over a couple feet for the mere thirty seconds that it took for all those cars to get past you, too.

Not saying that the honk wasn't excessive (it was), but I understand their aggravation, too. That's not a bike-friendly world.

Hate to say it, but that's blocking traffic, not sharing anything. If you were a tractor or an Amish horse carriage, that's one thing; but, unlike those large vehicles, you could've moved over a couple feet for the mere thirty seconds that it took for all those cars to get past you, too.

Not saying that the honk wasn't excessive (it was), but I understand their aggravation, too. That's not a bike-friendly world.

Have experienced what happens when moving over to the very far right on this road? Didn't think so. I wasn't even center biased, but to the right most of the time. Moving over a couple feet would have put me in the gutter and not for 30sec, but for the near endless stream of traffic flow.

There was no blocking. If you note everyone else has no problem passing me if they focus on passing me instead of honking at me. In fact the person honking had no problem passing as soon as they gave up on honking.

Al

Have experienced what happened when moving over to the very far right on this road? Didn't think so.

That phrase -- "didn't think so" -- is a jackass comment. You're assuming that I don't know anything, but you're wrong.

I wasn't even center biased, but to the right most of the time.

If you note everyone else has no problem passing me if they focus on passing me instead of honking at me. In fact the person honking had no problem passing as soon as they gave up on honking.

Al

The person honking was -- and I'll almost put money on it -- behind you, trying to find a way around, and only able to pass once everyone to their left went around (which included everyone who had also been behind them).

If the person honking was not, in fact, the one right behind you, then it must've been the person behind them, wondering why the one in between was driving so slow (drunk? high? on a cell phone? eating a burger?). Nobody further than one car back can see a cyclist.

Yes, you had a legal right to be there, but you can't say that you weren't holding up traffic, either.

That phrase -- "didn't think so" -- is a jackass comment. You're assuming that I don't know anything, but you're wrong.

I only assume you have never ridden on this road at rush hour, especially not over 500 times with the experience of trying different lane positions varied from left tire track to close to the curb. I otherwise assume you know quite a lot.


The person honking was -- and I'll almost put money on it -- behind you, trying to find a way around, and only able to pass once everyone to their left went around (which included everyone who had also been behind them).

If the person honking was not, in fact, the one right behind you, then it must've been the person behind them, wondering why the one in between was driving so slow (drunk? high? on a cell phone? eating a burger?). Nobody further than one car back can see a cyclist.

Yes, you had a legal right to be there, but you can't say that you weren't holding up traffic, either.
Guess what, they found a way around and would have found one quicker (note in the video there are gaps larger than the one they pulled into much earlier) if they hadn't been fixated on trying to intimidate me and make a scene. They also had the opportunity to pass me before they even got on my ass like nearly every other driver does who would rather pass and get on their way instead of making a self-centered scene about some cyclist going 15mph below the SL.

The bottom line is no matter what lane position I took the motorist would have to find that gap to pass me, unless they chose to pass with 1' or less of clearance. Yes, I've tried approach that more that I should have and no longer am willing to take that risk.

Al

Yes, you had a legal right to be there, but you can't say that you weren't holding up traffic, either.
Of course he was holding up traffic. So what? You say that as if that's necessarily a bad thing.

The relevant question is: was he holding up traffic unnecessarily? I don't see any evidence of that. If the only way he could have allowed motorists to pass him without encroaching in the adjacent lane is by riding in the gutter, at 20-25 mph, that would not be a safe or reasonable option. So what's the problem?

The problem is being just as much of a jackass as the motorists out there.

Honestly, on that stretch, I'd take the sidewalk instead. I'm not going 35 mph on the bike, the sidewalk looked relatively wide and well-maintained, there's obviously no pedestrians to get in the way, and there are plenty of smooth transitions between the sidewalk and the cross streets (that is, no curbs to jump).

I should get my own helmet cam so that I can strut around about how much of a commuting God I am. :rolleyes:

The problem is being just as much of a jackass as the motorists out there.

Honestly, on that stretch, I'd take the sidewalk instead. I'm not going 35 mph on the bike, the sidewalk looked relatively wide and well-maintained, there's obviously no pedestrians to get in the way, and there are plenty of smooth transitions between the sidewalk and the cross streets (that is, no curbs to jump).

I should get my own helmet cam so that I can strut around about how much of a commuting God I am. :rolleyes:
Wait. You're suggesting Al should ride 20-25 mph on the sidewalk?
Do you expect him to slow for every street intersection and driveway junction, or just blow through at 20-25?

And remember, this isn't a one-time recreational ride. He does this every day to get to work.

What passes for cycling advocacy is really bizarre sometimes.

What passes for cycling advocacy is really bizarre sometimes.

You're telling me...

Okay, then, get that sidewalk cut down and a bike lane painted instead. Might as well put that space to good use.

20 mph or 15 mph, he wouldn't have made the next light anyway.

What I like about taking the bike is that I can go almost anywhere. I'm not stuck on the road like a car, and I'm not stuck on the sidewalk like a pedestrian, either. Between the two, I can work out a route that lets me hustle along without experiencing a lot of hazards.

Oh yeah --

Wait. You're suggesting Al should ride 20-25 mph on the sidewalk?

Tell 'im to "harden the f' up", as so many BF'ers love to say.

You're telling me...

Okay, then, get that sidewalk cut down and a bike lane painted instead. Might as well put that space to good use.

20 mph or 15 mph, he wouldn't have made the next light anyway.

What I like about taking the bike is that I can go almost anywhere. I'm not stuck on the road like a car, and I'm not stuck on the sidewalk like a pedestrian, either. Between the two, I can work out a route that lets me hustle along without experiencing a lot of hazards.


Just make sure whatever you do, don't hold up traffic. :p

Just make sure whatever you do, don't hold up traffic. :p

More often than not, traffic's holding me up (yes, they're often that slow on my routes)... :D

More often than not, traffic's holding me up (yes, they're often that slow on my routes)... :D

Look where I'm from... Happens to me all the time too.:D

It's exactly what I would expect any motorist with any sense would do to me if I took the centre of the lane.

How can you equate "sense" (presumably "good sense") with a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre. A considerate motorist would overtake using the full width of the opposing lane - that would be more sensible than the aggressive, rebarbative, "teach 'em a lesson" style of driving that you advocate. Moreover, why would you want to deliberately endanger the life of another?

Okay, then, get that sidewalk cut down and a bike lane painted instead. Might as well put that space to good use.

20 mph or 15 mph, he wouldn't have made the next light anyway.


The city has plans to widen the road and stripe a bike lane by 2030. I can't wait that long to start commuting to work. I may be retired by then. I have always advocated for wide outside lanes (but without the bike lane stripe). They help motorists by giving the option to cyclist to let them pass safely and quickly. Widening the outside lane on this road would be a great thing, instead the city's focus heavily guided by some advocates, is to add bike lane stripes, speed bumps, bulb outs, etc. to 25mph roads, but without adding any pavement space (actually in one case they are removing pavement space to add landscaping, then a BL, then a narrow traffic lane, instead of two wide lanes on a 25mph road)

I usually ride 25-30mph down this road. Not only will I not make the next light, but neither do any of the motorists. I ride this 2mi stretch and there are 6 or so lights and the motorist pass, I catch up, wait in line behind them repeat. That is when it is busy like during rush hour. I've sometimes waited 3 light cycles at some of the lights.

This video is from the same road - where I got honked at in the above video is near the end of this video. This is early rush hour before it gets backed up. Note after the main intersection I am going not much slower than the blue car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NnobUTTcHk

Al

The city has plans to widen the road and stripe a bike lane by 2030. I can't wait that long to start commuting to work. I may be retired by then. I have always advocated for wide outside lanes (but without the bike lane stripe). They help motorists by giving the option to cyclist to let them pass safely and quickly. Widening the outside lane on this road would be a great thing, instead the city's focus heavily guided by some advocates, is to add bike lane stripes, speed bumps, bulb outs, etc. to 25mph roads, but without adding any pavement space (actually in one case they are removing pavement space to add landscaping, then a BL, then a narrow traffic lane, instead of two wide lanes on a 25mph road)

I usually ride 25-30mph down this road. Not only will I not make the next light, but neither do any of the motorists. I ride this 2mi stretch and there are 6 or so lights and the motorist pass, I catch up, wait in line behind them repeat. That is when it is busy like during rush hour. I've sometimes waited 3 light cycles at some of the lights.

This video is from the same road - where I got honked at in the above video is near the end of this video. This is early rush hour before it gets backed up. Note after the main intersection I am going not much slower than the blue car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NnobUTTcHk

Al

That is about as vehicular as possible... but bear in mind that not every cyclist rides at your pace. Note the cyclists riding on the sidewalk to your right... consider John Forester at his age... I wonder what his speed is today. What might be the reaction from those motorists to a cyclist riding at say 10-12 MPH in "their" lane. (yeah I said it that way on purpose, as that is how motorists view the streets)

While you didn't really slow traffic... how well do you think that sort of riding might work on a 50 MPH road with very heavy traffic... moving at 50MPH?