Vehicular Cycling (VC) - shared lane, faster steady traffic, driveway or curb cut- how do the VC cope?

Related to my last thread about right hooks at parking spots or shoulders.....

riding along on a road with wide, 18 foot shareable lanes. STEADY traffic moving 2.5-3X the bicyclists speed. Bicyclist is sharing the lane vehicularily, riding to the right of traffic as it seamlessly flows past the bicyclist.

UHOH- here comes a driveway to a residence or minor side street. The bicyclist can see there's no car waiting to pull out, but there's a stream of faster traffic that could potentially turn right. Bicyclist is not able to move further left to enter the traffic stream. Let's postulate there's hundreds of these minor intersections along the bicyclists' route.

HOW does the VC rider cope with this UNVEHICULAR road position of sharing lanes while being to the right of traffic that might turn right at any number of minor intersections?

Well here we go again. Bekologist is still unable to figure out how to deal with the most common and innocuous situation facing the urban cyclist. I don't know, do you have a velodrome in Seattle? That would be one place to ride where you don't face this befuddling situation. ;)

You listen for a car to slow down behind you.

you really don't get it do you, roody?

I'm not asking for advice, I'm deconstructing vehicular cycling. It's kind of entertaining.

How can you stand it being to the right of traffic that might turn right as you bicycle along in a shared lane and there's steady traffic? How do the rabid VC stand for this distinctly UN-vehicular position?

why is it okay for the 'vc crewe' for a bike to be of the right of steady traffic at potential right hook intersections?

D

Sorry Bek, I didn't get it, but boy do I ever do now. Sarcasm is hard to put across in text.

you really don't get it do you, roody?

I'm not asking for advice, I'm deconstructing vehicular cycling. It's kind of entertaining.

How can you stand it being to the right of traffic that might turn right as you bicycle along in a shared lane and there's steady traffic? How do the rabid VC stand for this distinctly UN-vehicular position?

why is it okay for the 'vc crewe' for a bike to be of the right of steady traffic at potential right hook intersections?

D
I got the sarcasm a long time ago, but I don't see the point of it. It's like laughing at a three legged dog. I mean, the dog doesn't mind his own condition, and he isn't bothering anybody else, so why go to the trouble of pointing it out?

I can't speak for the whole vc crew, but for me it is vehicular for slower traffic to travel to the right of faster traffic. Maybe you've heard of the fast lane on the freeway? The fact that the lane's shared doesn't matter to me at all. I learned how to share when I was in kindergarten. Back then, if I had a whole bag of candies I would share them with my classmates, but if I only had one candy I would eat it myself (or give it to the cute kid I had a crush on). Nowadays, if the lane's wide enough I'll gladly share it, but if it's too narrow I'll hog it all to myself. What's the big deal about that?

aw shucks :D

Roody, I know how to share too!(well,I'm pretty hoggy in very wide lanes but that's just me :D)

and your feelings are so homebred and heartwarming but totally dodge the issue.

routing thru traffic to the right of potentially right turning traffic is distinctly un vehicular and is part of the vcist screed. for traffic to flow vehicularily in principle there can be no thru lanes of traffic to the right of a turning lane at intersections, ever.

You're telling me this is now no big deal, no problem? It's no problem becasue it is normal state of affairs, but it isn't vehicular. It might be 'sharing' but it isn't 'vehicular' in any strict sense of traffic routing.

Achmed say "Silence! I keel you!"

aw shucks :D

Roody, I know how to share too!(well,I'm pretty hoggy in very wide lanes but that's just me :D)

and your feelings are so homebred and heartwarming but totally dodge the issue.

routing thru traffic to the right of potentially right turning traffic is distinctly un vehicular and is part of the vcist screed. for traffic to flow vehicularily in principle there can be no thru lanes of traffic to the right of a turning lane at intersections, ever.

You're telling me this is now no big deal, no problem? It's no problem becasue it is normal state of affairs, but it isn't vehicular. It might be 'sharing' but it isn't 'vehicular' in any strict sense of traffic routing.

As far as I know, the only time when "through traffic [is routed] to the right of potentially right turning traffic" is when there's a bike lane striped to the right of a right turn lane. This is not part of the normal "vehicular" design of roads. I don't advocate or design bike lanes, so I'm not the one to ask about this "distinctly unvehicular" departure from normal road design. Maybe you could ask, I don't know, yourself.

In the sarcastic situation you're talking about in this thread, bike traffic is not "routed" to the right of right turners. The individual cyclists may have chosen to ride right of turners, but they were not routed there, as they could have chosen to travel in a different section of the road.

Related to my last thread about right hooks at parking spots or shoulders.....

riding along on a road with wide, 18 foot shareable lanes. STEADY traffic moving 2.5-3X the bicyclists speed. Bicyclist is sharing the lane vehicularily, riding to the right of traffic as it seamlessly flows past the bicyclist.

UHOH- here comes a driveway to a residence or minor side street. The bicyclist can see there's no car waiting to pull out, but there's a stream of faster traffic that could potentially turn right. Bicyclist is not able to move further left to enter the traffic stream. Let's postulate there's hundreds of these minor intersections along the bicyclists' route.

HOW does the VC rider cope with this UNVEHICULAR road position of sharing lanes while being to the right of traffic that might turn right at any number of minor intersections?
Oops. I mistakenly wandered back into the VC forum, where we all love to devote gigabytes to nailing down just how difficult cycling really is.

I think I'll drift back to P&R......

Less argument and contention there ;)

At least in California, motorists are required to move "as close as practicable" to the right hand curb or edge prior to beginning a right turn. To me this implies the motorist and cyclist would have to negotiate a merge in this situation. Either the motorist merges in front of the cyclist and the cyclist chooses to slow down or pass the motorist on the left, or the motorist slows and merges behind the cyclist. If the motorist fails to merge to the right side of the lane and unexpectedly cuts off the cyclist while entering a driveway or making a right turn, the motorist isn't operating his/her vehicle vehicularly and should be punished :p

you really don't get it do you, roody?

I'm not asking for advice, I'm deconstructing vehicular cycling. It's kind of entertaining.

How can you stand it being to the right of traffic that might turn right as you bicycle along in a shared lane and there's steady traffic? How do the rabid VC stand for this distinctly UN-vehicular position?

why is it okay for the 'vc crewe' for a bike to be of the right of steady traffic at potential right hook intersections?

D

Ooh, Bekologist, so learned of you to have met with deconstruction theory! And so broad-mouthed of you to have swallowed it whole, too! However, this is not a discussion of the baser aspects of modern literary criticism, in which the universe is a reflection of the words. Rather, this is a discussion in the scientific and engineering context, in which the words are not reality, but only our attempt to accurately describe the reality that actually does exist. Of course, we know from all of your previous discussions that you believe in the deconstructionist system in which only words are real, because you refuse to accept the facts about the real world that disprove your imaginary world.

By the way, Bekologist, you are behind the times, for even the literary critics have started to recognize that deconstructionism has been rather overdone, while, of course, the scientific and engineering worlds never accepted that error.

jhon,

'deconstruct' doesn't ONLY mean deconstructionism.
I like to use it in a more general sense, ' to pull apart' but also a little bit of 'to illustrate the contraditions.'

care to address the point raised rather than sniping about semantics and wordplay, jhno?

jhon,

'deconstruct' doesn't ONLY mean deconstructionism.
I like to use it in a more general sense, ' to pull apart' but also a little bit of 'to illustrate the contraditions.'

care to address the point raised rather than sniping about semantics and wordplay, jhno?

Um, I thought you said you were being sarcastic, Eklobogist. Wouldn't that imply that you don't really have a point, other than to point out the perceived faults of others?

routing thru traffic to the right of potentially right turning traffic is distinctly un vehicular and is part of the vcist screed.

Please elaborate. Based on your previous thread, I'm assuming you are referring to having a wide outside lane where cyclists may travel straight through an intersection to the right of potentially right turning traffic. Am I correct? If so, how is that a case of "routing thru traffic to the right of potentially right turning traffic?" There are no lines indicating that either party must stay in one area of the lane or the other. They are left to sort that out. The motorist can move right in the lane to turn or the cyclist can move left in the lane if he feels it is necessary. Contrast this situation with a bike lane and the faults of the bike lane should be obvious, especially in states where motorists are not allowed to merge into the bike lane.


for traffic to flow vehicularily in principle there can be no thru lanes of traffic to the right of a turning lane at intersections, ever.

Which is exactly what a wide outside lane allows and what a bike lane fail miserably at except where right turn lanes are involved AND the engineers who designed the lane had a clue. There may be two LINES of traffic going through an intersection where the inner line has the potential to turn right, but if they are going to be turning right, a law abiding motorist would be doing it in-line with the outer line of traffic. Again, the faults of the bike lane are obvious in comparison.

New year, same Bek ;)

jhon,

'deconstruct' doesn't ONLY mean deconstructionism.
I like to use it in a more general sense, ' to pull apart' but also a little bit of 'to illustrate the contraditions.'

care to address the point raised rather than sniping about semantics and wordplay, jhno?

I have discussed the issue in the terms that it deserves. You have invented a problem based on words only when there is no problem in real life. As others have written, I have cycled many tens of thousands of miles under the conditions that you define, with practically no problems at all. All that you have is wordplay; there is no issue in the real world at all.

despite joe's post that wrongly insists routing thru traffic to the right of potential right turning traffic in wide lanes is not a problem (joe, its a problem wether there's a bike lane or not!)

jhon forester says he's ridden 10 of 1000's of miles in this unvehicular position and admits though it presents 'practically' no problems, it appears it does present problems and is unvehicular.

I'm with jhon. I've ridden tens of thousands of miles in this unvehicular position as well, and so have the rest of us. it presents practically no actual, bonifide collision issues despite it's unvehicularity. It poses little problem to those of us used to dealing with the unvehicularity of riding to the right of traffic that might turn right.

lane positioning and negotiation is what makes wide lanes work to allow bikes and faster traffic to mix at intersections. it works because there is such a small share of slower traffic (bicyclists) needing to be passed at any one point in time at an intersection.

Imagine a steady stream of bicyclists, unbroken, moving to the right of much faster traffic streams that needs to make any number of turns at driveways and curb cuts- it's unvehicular. the cars will be unable to turn past the bikes.

The biggest waste of time I ever engaged in. I apologize for the role I played in this debacle.

really? :rolleyes: page one, post 18, a 'debacle'? 'biggest waste of time'? such sensationalism, such hyperbole.

...imagine an unbroken line of bikes, roody, and cars that need to turn right across it.

How's it NOT unvehicular?

Well, that one went down quick. i believe john agrees that it is unvehicular despite most bicyclists being able to deal with it.

I love it. the very premise of vehicular cycling, when applied as a method to move large numbers of bicyclists, fails miserably.

engineering controls HAVE to be introduced to mix a substantial number of bicyclists with automobile traffic. The ambiguous and murky 'vehicularity' of sharing wide lanes fails miserably when a substantial number of bikes are plugged into the transportation grid. :eek:

really? :rolleyes: page one, post 18, a 'debacle'? 'biggest waste of time'? such sensationalism, such hyperbole.

...imagine an unbroken line of bikes, roody, and cars that need to turn right across it.

How's it NOT unvehicular?

If someone was to the left of a line of traffic and needed to turn right, they'd merge into that line of traffic and make their right turn. Completely vehicular.

If someone was to the left of a line of traffic and needed to turn right, they'd merge into that line of traffic and make their right turn. Completely vehicular.

Evidently not in Seattle, where there's a constant stream of cyclists in the righthand gutter of every road. :rolleyes:


...imagine an unbroken line of bikes, roody, and cars that need to turn right across it.

Evidently not in Seattle, where there's a constant stream of cyclists in the righthand gutter of every road. :rolleyes:

Well in that case the motorist can negotiate a merge into the line of traffic. Put the right turn signal on and a cyclist can slow to open up a gap for the motorist to merge into.

Just yesterday on a 5 lane arterial. I was riding centerish in outside lane, city bus comes up behind and merges fully into adjacent lane to pass. I noted ahead a bus stop with pickup needed, but the bus was ahead of me to my left. The bus driver started to slow to let me pass before merging back right, but instead I slowed and waved them ahead of me and passed them on their left.

Al

Evidently not in Seattle, where there's a constant stream of cyclists in the righthand gutter of every road. :rolleyes:

Cyclists who can only go one speed too :)

Cyclists who can only go one speed too :)

Well, get enough cyclists out there and that will pretty much be the case... a steady stream of cyclists moving at about the same speed... Ever go on a large group ride? Not a whole lot of speed variation in a huge group. I wonder how fast RAGBRAI moves?

I've seen it in China; we have video here of that kind of situation in Copenhagen, and I'd bet it occurs in other places where cyclists are well more than meager 2% of the commuters that we have in the US. Hey traffic is traffic.

Now the real question is what happens when this "train" of cyclists moving at 12MPH or so meets the 45MPH motor traffic that thinks it owns the road? That is real critical mass.

Related to my last thread about right hooks at parking spots or shoulders.....

riding along on a road with wide, 18 foot shareable lanes. STEADY traffic moving 2.5-3X the bicyclists speed. Bicyclist is sharing the lane vehicularily, riding to the right of traffic as it seamlessly flows past the bicyclist.

UHOH- here comes a driveway to a residence or minor side street. The bicyclist can see there's no car waiting to pull out, but there's a stream of faster traffic that could potentially turn right. Bicyclist is not able to move further left to enter the traffic stream. Let's postulate there's hundreds of these minor intersections along the bicyclists' route.

HOW does the VC rider cope with this UNVEHICULAR road position of sharing lanes while being to the right of traffic that might turn right at any number of minor intersections?
Good to see you're actually thinking about this stuff, Bek. Maybe in 2008 you'll catch on?

As others have noted, there is nothing "unvehicular" about a "road position of sharing lanes while being to the right of traffic that might turn right at any number of minor intersections".
What's "unvehicular" is having a right or through LANE to the left of a through or right [bike] lane.

When you erase that bike lane stripe, what you have is a big wide (perhaps 18') shareable lane in which through traffic keeps left, and slow through and right-turning traffic keeps right.. At intersection approaches, slow moving through traffic and right turning traffic need to anticipate potential conflicts, and plan/negotiate/merge accordingly, as needed. Without the BL stripe, it's all very orderly and vehicular.

Well, get enough cyclists out there and that will pretty much be the case... a steady stream of cyclists moving at about the same speed... Ever go on a large group ride? Not a whole lot of speed variation in a huge group. I wonder how fast RAGBRAI moves?

I've seen it in China; we have video here of that kind of situation in Copenhagen, and I'd bet it occurs in other places where cyclists are well more than meager 2% of the commuters that we have in the US. Hey traffic is traffic.

Now the real question is what happens when this "train" of cyclists moving at 12MPH or so meets the 45MPH motor traffic that thinks it owns the road? That is real critical mass.

My "joke" was about the cyclists not being able to brake to allow a motorist to merge into the steady line. I have been on large group rides and motorists must merge into the slower line of traffic to turn right. On any multilane road I've cycled on, motorists have merged from the left lane behind me in the right lane to prepare for a right turn. It's really no different. I've had motorists slow and allow me to merge into a steady (but slow) moving left lane so that I could pass stopped traffic on the right. So un-bicyclicular of me :)

(...in wide lanes)it's all very orderly and vehicular.

That explains why no bicyclists get hooked or crossed riding in a lane sharing position :rolleyes:

That explains why no bicyclists get hooked or crossed riding in a lane sharing position :rolleyes:
No, what explains why bicyclists get right hooked riding in a lane sharing position is:

violating the rules of the road by the motorist. Even in Oregon right turning motorists are required to move right, and thus merge/negotiate with cyclists riding in the margin, prior to turning right.
lack of attention on the part of the motorist
lack of attention on the part of the cyclist
lack of appropriate positioning on the part of the cyclist.Usually all four have to happen for a right hook to occur. A cyclist that habitually handles 3 and 4 is very unlikely to ever get right crossed.

how the hell did bike lanes get mixed up in this one again?

the original post is about a very wide lane and multiple minor intersections.

i'm sorry, the bike lane is irrelevant.

it's either vehicular or its not, with or without a bike lane stripe.

Bikes being passed by cars at intersections where cars might turn right if bikes are to the right- vehicular or non vehicular?

how the hell did bike lanes get mixed up in this one again?

the original post is about a very wide lane and multiple minor intersections.

i'm sorry, the bike lane is irrelevant.

it's either vehicular or its not, with or without a bike lane stripe.

Bikes being passed by cars at intersections where cars might turn right if bikes are to the right- vehicular or non vehicular?
Bikes being passed by cars at intersections where cars might turn right if bikes are to the right is vehicular, bike lane or not.

Motorists actually turning right from positions to the left of through bicyclists, that's non-vehicular, and bike lanes encourage that behavior (indeed, in Oregon that non-vehicular behavior is legally mandated). That's how bike lanes got mixed up in this again.

Helmut, please go ride your bike.

Helmut, please go ride your bike.

Another pithy rebuttal. :rolleyes: