Commuting - Today in the Bike Lane

I don't usually work on Sundays, but rode down to the office today to put some time in on a project. Interesting to see how different the traffic was.

I was stopped at a red light in a painted bike lane. A guy on a motorcycle pulls up behind me. In the bike lane. I pull out on the green, the guy swings out and passes me, and then goes back into the bike lane and rides off into the distance. In the bike lane. Left me scratching my head.

Later, a *gang* of kids on those nasty motorized scooters come barreling at me going against traffic in the bike lane. I thought I was gonna die -- there were at least six of them, and there was nowhere to go. No way I was going to trust a bunch of 12 year olds to know what to do or even to be able to control their machines.

I was able to accelerate and merge left into the traffic lane into a gap between two cars and get around them, but jeeze, these stupid scooters are becoming a plague in Philadelphia. This is not the first time I've had to deal with wrong-way scooters, but if they're traveling in packs now there will be a death soon, I feel certain.

There were more than the usual number of wrong-way cyclists today (it was Sunday, after all), but they seemed almost harmless after the incident with the scooters.

Also occupying the bike lane at one point was the corpse of a Honda Accord, crashed and abandoned, sitting perpendicular to the curb and halfway into the right traffic lane.

On one stretch there's a bike lane that's to the left of a parking lane, but the parking lane is almost always empty on this industrial arterial. I'm moving out after stopping for a red light when some idiot passes me *on the right* (in the parking lane).

A lovely pastoral Sunday in the city? I think I prefer rush hour!

RichC

Today the dead Accord had been pushed to the side so that it was blocking *only* the bike lane. :rolleyes:

RichC

.......Great!:rolleyes:

It's amazing just reading some of the bike lane stories. The other day the remains of a travelling funfair were parked on the bike lane I use - and further down the way, the gas board were digging it up!

Nowhere is safe ;)

Cheers,

Ed

And yet you ride in the official ghetto--the bike lane. Why not just swing out and share the lane like the rest of the vehicles. I do it everyday in heavy, urban, traffic, and have done it in Boston, NYC, LA, and other major cities. Give it a try; it really is much safer than the bike lane.

Paul

Gee whiz, Rich. I know whereof you speak.

I've had wrong-way cyclists in the bike lane :confused: but motorized scooters?

Welcome to the "Twilight Zone."

Originally posted by OregonBound
And yet you ride in the official ghetto--the bike lane. Why not just swing out and share the lane like the rest of the vehicles. I do it everyday in heavy, urban, traffic, and have done it in Boston, NYC, LA, and other major cities. Give it a try; it really is much safer than the bike lane.


Oh, sure, I'm a veteran lane-taker, and in any case my route has more diamond lanes or wide-right lanes than bike lanes. Philadelphia has such a vast array of different (mostly dysfunctional) implementations that it's a mistake to be hard-nosed about it; you have to pick the best line, which on some streets is a thru lane, on some is the diamond lane (on those few arterials that have them) and on only one mile-long stretch of my route actually is a bike lane where it makes sense to ride.

I've been doing this for 40 years, and one thing I've learned is how to pick the best positioning for my own safety. I'm not too proud to ride in a bike lane if it's the best place to ride, and I'm not too stupid to avoid them when they're dangerous.

RichC

Once the bike lane is striped, the motorists expect you to segregate yourself into it, just like 'good' colored folks used to move to the back of the bus. Most of the recent incidents of road rage I have witnessed involve motorists honking and swearing at cyclists that weren't using the bike lane. There is actually some case law in Oregon that seems to require cyclists to ride in the bike lane if it is present, even if the local transportation or public works dept. HASN'T officially held hearings and declared the bike lane safe to use, as required by state law.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115242.htm

My own policy is to treat the bikelane like any other shoulder on the road, because in practical terms that's all it really is. I won't stay in it for the sake of broken glass or parked cars or abandoned shopping trolleys or whatever other rubbish is dumped there.

Those (mufflerless) gasburning scooters are showing up here too, along with the odd electric. But is it legal for minors to ride these on the street?

Originally posted by Ebro38
Those (mufflerless) gasburning scooters are showing up here too, along with the odd electric. But is it legal for minors to ride these on the street?

My understanding is that in some (many?) states, including Pennsylvania, motor vehicles must be registered to be used on the street, and since these scooters have no VIN they can't be registered. So the vehicles themselves are not street legal, minor operator or not.

Of course, as we all know, once you're on the roadway, no matter what your mode of transport (even your feet) or your age, you're subject to the traffic code.

RichC

>>>>Once the bike lane is striped, the motorists expect you to segregate yourself into it<<<<


Jack-pot. I also want to state that motorists will go FASTER in passing you by because you are REQUIRED to maintain postion in that bike lane. Do you notice ALL bike lanes are NOT doted like the car lanes? Therefore you are required to hold onto that lane all all costs. No exceptions.

When I visited Philadelphia, what bothered me more than the bike lanes were all the abondoned trolley tracks that were still on the roads even though the lines were not in service. I love trolleys but if they are not in use, the city should remove them as they can be leathal for cyclists. I made the mistake and got myself in the middle of one and fell off the bike trying to ride out of the center.

Do you notice ALL bike lanes are NOT doted like the car lanes? Therefore you are required to hold onto that lane all all costs. No exceptions.

You can always merge left if you need to for safety, if the lane you're in is obstructed or otherwise unsafe. You just have to signal and merge safely, like any other vehicle.


When I visited Philadelphia, what bothered me more than the bike lanes were all the abondoned trolley tracks that were still on the roads even though the lines were not in service. I love trolleys but if they are not in use, the city should remove them as they can be leathal for cyclists. I made the mistake and got myself in the middle of one and fell off the bike trying to ride out of the center.

I had an embarrassing moment like that awhile back, too. Very entertaining for the watching idlers gathered in front of a tavern on Woodland Ave watching me go over sideways.

But there are still a surprising number of functioning trolley lines in Philadelphia, and since these are relatively quiet, non-polluting vehicles that can't cut off a cyclist or block one's path, I like them. But you have to be careful of cars that try to pass them on the right while they're stopped to discharge passengers.

RichC

Originally posted by Dahon.Steve
>>>>Once the bike lane is striped, the motorists expect you to segregate yourself into it<<<<


Jack-pot. I also want to state that motorists will go FASTER in passing you by because you are REQUIRED to maintain postion in that bike lane. Do you notice ALL bike lanes are NOT doted like the car lanes? Therefore you are required to hold onto that lane all all costs. No exceptions.



Actually, in California, there are very explicit exceptions to the requirement that you ride in the bike lane:


Vehicle 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.
(Amended by Stats. 1996, Ch. 674, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1997.)

Personally, I construe (a)(3) very liberally to include the area equal to the length of an opened car door.

Originally posted by Dahon.Steve
>>>>Once the bike lane is striped, the motorists expect you to segregate yourself into it<<<<


Jack-pot. I also want to state that motorists will go FASTER in passing you by because you are REQUIRED to maintain postion in that bike lane. Do you notice ALL bike lanes are NOT doted like the car lanes? Therefore you are required to hold onto that lane all all costs. No exceptions.

Our laws only actually state that you are required to do so "if practicable". Hence, bike lane or not, I do not ride through pot holes or broken glass.

Atleast you have a bike lane :(

Bike lanes are proliferating steadily in my part of Atlanta, and the ones I've encountered range from useless to actively dangerous. One particularly noxious one on Glenwood Avenue is filled with sand, tree branches, and all manner of debris. The only time I move into it is to allow cars to pass, and at the crest of a hill (so that cars travelling too fast into the hill don't rearend me). Otherwise I use the main travel lanes, as I am allowed to do under Georgia law where roadside debris poses a hazard.

In Oregon, you are only required to use the bike lane 'if a hearing has been held and the bike lane has been declared safe'. Despite the fact that hearings of this nature have ever been held anywhere in the state, that hasn't stopped an appeals court judge in the 'Potter case' to declare that, since the bike lane was designed, approved and installed by the City Engineer, it is in fact 'safe' to use, and thus that all bicyclists are required to use the bike lane if one is present.

The cops are using this ruling to herd cyclists into the bike lane, even if the number of cyclists present exceeds the capacity of the bike lane, if the bike lane is in reality unsafe, or if other circumstances allow cyclists to 'take the lane', such as being able to keep up with traffic in the downtown area where signals are timed to 12-15 mph.

I have also on more than one occassion observed motorists honking / screaming at cyclists to use the bike lane in instances where they had left the bike lane either to turn left, or to get around obstructions (including stopped busses) in the bike lane.

Personally, I think that although bike lanes may work in suburban areas with long distances between intersections and no parked cars, in dense urban areas I think bike lanes create more of a hazard since there are parked vehicles adjacent to and/or vehicles turning across the bike lane at frequent intervals.

:D Heeeey, nice place, I really like the new site! My deal with the bike lane is from limited experiance. Houston Texas has a lot of bike lanes... Unfortunatly, none of them are in my regular commuting route. Here we have multi-laned roads with no shoulder and a six to eight inch concrete curb. Therefore, I just take the lane. I have ridden in the bike lanes a couple of times, but I find that they are only a place where road debris collects. It's a nice concept, but leaves some things to be desired in actual practice.

The Quebec regulations state that if a bike path is provided, bikes must use it. I consider that if there are no signs prohibiting pedestrians, rollerbladers, skateboarders etc, it is not a bike path but a multi-use path, particularly if no sidewalk is provided. I only take these paths, if it suits me. I have not yet had to put my view to the upholders of the law.

Actually, in California, there are very explicit exceptions to the requirement that you ride in the bike lane:



Personally, I construe (a)(3) very liberally to include the area equal to the length of an opened car door.


The California Highway Patrol was fighting a new law that would allow us to specifically stay far enough from parked cars to avoid being "doored". I usually stay to the right, but ride where I need to avoid debris. Since most debris in the bike lane comes from motor vehicles, if they want us to stay in it, they have an easy solution.

So, as I understand the last post, the Cali HWY patrol is actually on record as supporting exposing bicyclists to 'dooring' risks?

So, as I understand the last post, the Cali HWY patrol is actually on record as supporting exposing bicyclists to 'dooring' risks?

Looks like the bill (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1408_bill_20030624_amended_sen.pdf) never got out of committee. I pulled this from the Sen. Trans. Comm. analysis on AB 1408:

5. The California Highway Patrol had adopted a position of
"Oppose Unless Amended" regarding the previous version of
the bill. The department noted in a letter to the Senate
Transportation Committee that it was "the Department's
belief that the provisions contained in Vehicle Code
Section 21202 regarding the operation of a bicycle are
appropriate and adequate," and the "repeal of Vehicle Code
Section 21208 will result in decreased highway safety as it
will expose bicyclists to potential collisions." While not
having an authorized position on this version of the bill,
the department indicates that it continues to have concerns
regarding changes to these provisions. In addition, the
department also expressed concern about the provisions
regarding bicycle reflectors and "door zones."


In the meantime, ride safely and take the lane when safety warrants. If I get cited for violating this section, I'll go to court on it.

Looks like the bill (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1408_bill_20030624_amended_sen.pdf) never got out of committee. I pulled this from the Sen. Trans. Comm. analysis on AB 1408:

5. <snipped>

In the meantime, ride safely and take the lane when safety warrants. If I get cited for violating this section, I'll go to court on it.

Looks to me like the changes to that sections weren't substantive, they merely clarified the details. Nothing in the existing law says you can't ride outside the bikelane to avoid the door zone. However, I fail to see how the changed law puts cyclists at any more risk of collision than the existing one. Why not pass it, if only to remove any ambiguity from the existing law? Surely the government can't be supporting ambiguous laws? The court costs in quibbling over these points of law must be astronomical, why not nip it in the bud?

Nothing in the existing law says you can't ride outside the bikelane to avoid the door zone. However, I fail to see how the changed law puts cyclists at any more risk of collision than the existing one.

Well put, Allister. As usual.