VC is just natural

[Helmet Head]

"When traffic is moving more than 15MPH faster than you, negotiation is impossible, though your position to the lane lines is a pretty clear signal. You have to play road sneak and more left only if there is a gap in traffic long enough that you won't affect any vehicles." - John Forester, Effective Cycling, p. 311

I don't have the book in front of me so I can't verify, but that's stronger language than I recall. Anyway, if that's what it says, it's wrong. I routinely negotiate across three lanes of 50-60 mph traffic (one lane at a time, of course) in order to merge across over to a left turn lane, while I'm going 8-15 mph (up hill).


In both cases on my commute my negotiation requires 50-60 mph traffic to slow down to my speed when the differentials are on the order of 40 mph.

[joejack951]

"When traffic is moving more than 15MPH faster than you, negotiation is impossible, though your position to the lane lines is a pretty clear signal. You have to play road sneak and more left only if there is a gap in traffic long enough that you won't affect any vehicles." - John Forester, Effective Cycling, p. 311

I don't have the book in front of me so I can't verify, but that's stronger language than I recall. Anyway, if that's what it says, it's wrong. I routinely negotiate across three lanes of 50-60 mph traffic (one lane at a time, of course) in order to merge across over to a left turn lane, while I'm going 8-15 mph (up hill).


In both cases on my commute my negotiation requires 50-60 mph traffic to slow down to my speed when the differentials are on the order of 40 mph.

I'm pretty certain that EC does actually state that. Regardless, I negotiate in the same situations as you do HH on a daily basis. It took some getting used to but I can't imagine doing it any other way now. Waiting for a natural gap would have me missing my left turn (and getting stuck in a right turn only lane) every other day.

[Helmet Head]

OMG!. The followers are turning on the cult leader! :eek:

:rolleyes:

(this is in reference to claims made in other threads that VC is some kind of cult of personality)

[Helmet Head]

I'm pretty certain that EC does actually state that. Regardless, I negotiate in the same situations as you do HH on a daily basis. It took some getting used to but I can't imagine doing it any other way now. Waiting for a natural gap would have me missing my left turn (and getting stuck in a right turn only lane) every other day.
Ironically, I learned to negotiate one lane at a time like that that from the instruction provided in EC. I guess I ignored the part about it being "impossible" when speed differentials are over 15 mph!

[Allister]

Ironically, I learned to negotiate one lane at a time like that that from the instruction provided in EC.

I learned that from my driving instructor as a teenager. It's the safest way to cross multiple lanes for every road user, and is basic driving knowledge. What, one therefore asks, were you doing in your car prior to getting your EC training?

[Helmet Head]

I learned that from my driving instructor as a teenager. It's the safest way to cross multiple lanes for every road user, and is basic driving knowledge. What, one therefore asks, were you doing in your car prior to getting your EC training?
Of course I did it while driving my car. But it did not occur to me to do it while riding my bike, particularly in fast/busy traffic.
Apparently it does not occur to other cyclists either, because I've never seen any other cyclist do it, except in LAB classes. What they usually do is a pedestrian "two-step" left turn (cross along the right side, stop at the other side, turn bike 90 degrees, then cross again), or wait for a gap in their "as far right as practicable position", and then dash across all the lanes in one move. But to start signaling in order to merge across 2-4 lanes of fast/busy traffic, by creating a gap using negotiation, then moving over, one lane at a time? I've never seen another cyclist do that (outside of LAB classes and Al's video clips).

[joejack951]

Of course I did it while driving my car. But it did not occur to me to do it while riding my bike, particularly in fast/busy traffic.
Apparently it does not occur to other cyclists either, because I've never seen any other cyclist do it, except in LAB classes. What they usually do is a pedestrian "two-step" left turn (cross along the right side, stop at the other side, turn bike 90 degrees, then cross again), or wait for a gap in their "as far right as practicable position", and then dash across all the lanes in one move. But to start signaling in order to merge across 2-4 lanes of fast/busy traffic, by creating a gap using negotiation, then moving over, one lane at a time? I've never seen another cyclist do that (outside of LAB classes and Al's video clips).

I learned how to negotiate gaps from EC too (ignoring the bit about speed differentials as well). Negotiating a gap while moving at the speed of traffic for some reason seemed a lot more "doable" to me than negotiating a gap while going much slower. Until I tried it, I didn't believe it could work. Like HH, I had never seen a cyclist do it so it never occurred to me that it could be done (and I consider myself reasonably intelligent :eek: :)).

[Allister]

Of course I did it while driving my car. But it did not occur to me to do it while riding my bike, particularly in fast/busy traffic.

Ah. I might've known. You've already explained that you're a slow learner (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6248317&postcount=40) - I should've kept that in mind.

[John Forester]

Originally Posted by Helmet Head

"When traffic is moving more than 15MPH faster than you, negotiation is impossible, though your position to the lane lines is a pretty clear signal. You have to play road sneak and more left only if there is a gap in traffic long enough that you won't affect any vehicles." - John Forester, Effective Cycling, p. 311

I don't have the book in front of me so I can't verify, but that's stronger language than I recall. Anyway, if that's what it says, it's wrong. I routinely negotiate across three lanes of 50-60 mph traffic (one lane at a time, of course) in order to merge across over to a left turn lane, while I'm going 8-15 mph (up hill).


In both cases on my commute my negotiation requires 50-60 mph traffic to slow down to my speed when the differentials are on the order of 40 mph.

I'm pretty certain that EC does actually state that. Regardless, I negotiate in the same situations as you do HH on a daily basis. It took some getting used to but I can't imagine doing it any other way now. Waiting for a natural gap would have me missing my left turn (and getting stuck in a right turn only lane) every other day.

I think that there is a misunderstanding in this. What I say is that with high speed differentials it is impossible to send the signal to the motorists in the fast lane in time for them to understand it and to slow to the cyclist's speed when the cyclist is ready to move across. But that does not mean that the cyclist must never affect traffic. It only means that, in such traffic, the cyclist must wait for a gap sufficient for his move into the new lane, and once he is in it he has the right of way to continue at his best speed: first come, first served is the phrase. And, I discovered long ago, that if the lanes are 12-foot lanes it is reasonable to ride the stripe. The cyclist then has to make two moves per lane change, the first across the lane he has been sharing, the next into the new lane that he intends to use. Takes longer, which is all the more reason to start preparing early for that left turn.

[joejack951]

I think that there is a misunderstanding in this. What I say is that with high speed differentials it is impossible to send the signal to the motorists in the fast lane in time for them to understand it and to slow to the cyclist's speed when the cyclist is ready to move across. But that does not mean that the cyclist must never affect traffic. It only means that, in such traffic, the cyclist must wait for a gap sufficient for his move into the new lane, and once he is in it he has the right of way to continue at his best speed: first come, first served is the phrase. And, I discovered long ago, that if the lanes are 12-foot lanes it is reasonable to ride the stripe. The cyclist then has to make two moves per lane change, the first across the lane he has been sharing, the next into the new lane that he intends to use. Takes longer, which is all the more reason to start preparing early for that left turn.

I'd agree that there is a misunderstanding, but it's mainly Bek intentionally misunderstanding what you were trying to say :)

I have found that even at higher than 15mph differentials (30mph at least), it is possible to send the signal to motorists in the next lane over in time for them to slow to my speed and allow me to move across. It might not be the first guy but the second or third or fourth has plenty of time to see my signal and has always (except on very rare occasion, so rare that I can't remember the last time it happened) allowed me to move over.

While I'm at it, I've also found that riding lane lines with 12 foot lanes is still too ambiguous for most motorists to understand what I want them to do (pass me on both sides). I gave up on this after a lengthy trial period where I found that too often both lanes of motorists would slow to my speed (this happened frequently with long right turn only lanes). I now use an all-or-nothing approach (at least with full speed traffic) where I'm either completely and unmistakeably in the lane or out of the lane.

Your book gave me a great starting point and these are probably the only few exceptions I've found to your traffic cycling advice (if you can really call them that).

[Bekologist]

yet more bad bicycling advice by john forestor.

a 12 foot lane is a shareable lane, according to john??? to play 'road sneak in?' buahahahaha. that's as funny as you not taking the lane on high speed rural roads, john.

[Helmet Head]

Originally Posted by Helmet Head

"When traffic is moving more than 15MPH faster than you, negotiation is impossible, though your position to the lane lines is a pretty clear signal. You have to play road sneak and more left only if there is a gap in traffic long enough that you won't affect any vehicles." - John Forester, Effective Cycling, p. 311

I don't have the book in front of me so I can't verify, but that's stronger language than I recall. Anyway, if that's what it says, it's wrong. I routinely negotiate across three lanes of 50-60 mph traffic (one lane at a time, of course) in order to merge across over to a left turn lane, while I'm going 8-15 mph (up hill).


In both cases on my commute my negotiation requires 50-60 mph traffic to slow down to my speed when the differentials are on the order of 40 mph.



I think that there is a misunderstanding in this. What I say is that with high speed differentials it is impossible to send the signal to the motorists in the fast lane in time for them to understand it and to slow to the cyclist's speed when the cyclist is ready to move across. But that does not mean that the cyclist must never affect traffic. It only means that, in such traffic, the cyclist must wait for a gap sufficient for his move into the new lane, and once he is in it he has the right of way to continue at his best speed: first come, first served is the phrase. And, I discovered long ago, that if the lanes are 12-foot lanes it is reasonable to ride the stripe. The cyclist then has to make two moves per lane change, the first across the lane he has been sharing, the next into the new lane that he intends to use. Takes longer, which is all the more reason to start preparing early for that left turn.
I find that if the sight lines are good and I issue a clear/obvious turn signal, motorists from a 1/4 mile back or more see me and can and do slow down. I do this eastbound on La Jolla Village Drive between Lebon and Regents Rd (to turn left/north onto Regents), and westbound going up LJVD past the separated grade intersection with Gilman Ave and the intersection with La Jolla Scenic Way, to turn left onto Torrey Pines Road. The last one is particularly tricky because it's up a significant gradient, there is a blind curve at the top, and my initial lateral position is in a bike lane - so I need to merge across three traffic lanes. That's why I need to get across early - before the blind curve, so motorists can see me when they're still a long ways back. It's not a place for newbies to turn left! Oh, and the ped option sucks because there is only a crosswalk on the near side.

[Helmet Head]

yet more bad bicycling advice by john forestor.

a 12 foot lane is a shareable lane, according to john???
Not if you define "shareable" in terms of car, cyclist and bike all fully fitting within the lane, but yes if you include lane splitting as a way to share the lane, which is what JF wrote. But he's a lot more comfortable with lane splitting in fast traffic than most vehicular cyclists I know - most of us prefer to control lanes and make others change lanes.

[John Forester]

While I'm at it, I've also found that riding lane lines with 12 foot lanes is still too ambiguous for most motorists to understand what I want them to do (pass me on both sides). I gave up on this after a lengthy trial period where I found that too often both lanes of motorists would slow to my speed (this happened frequently with long right turn only lanes). I now use an all-or-nothing approach (at least with full speed traffic) where I'm either completely and unmistakeably in the lane or out of the lane.



That's an interesting observation. I discovered that, on multi-lane streets with 12-foot lanes (the majority condition in California), when I rode the lane stripe motorists would pass by me on both sides with no diminution of speed. I also observed the same while I observed my students during instruction or test. I don't remember thinking that this was limited to California, but city lanes in many other parts of the nation are less than 12 feet. Where did you reach your conclusion? Are you sure that this was with lanes of 12-foot width?

[Helmet Head]

Call it fear if you want, but I don't like fast traffic on both sides of me at the same time with only a few feet in space where I might not be expected to be, but maybe I'm just not used to it. I'm with John on motorists in both lanes continuing to pass me without diminution of speed. I'm not sure the lanes on La Jolla Village Drive are 12 feet, but I think they're pretty close.

I much prefer to control a whole lane at a time, but I might give lane splitting in high speed traffic a try again.

[joejack951]

That's an interesting observation. I discovered that, on multi-lane streets with 12-foot lanes (the majority condition in California), when I rode the lane stripe motorists would pass by me on both sides with no diminution of speed. I also observed the same while I observed my students during instruction or test. I don't remember thinking that this was limited to California, but city lanes in many other parts of the nation are less than 12 feet. Where did you reach your conclusion? Are you sure that this was with lanes of 12-foot width?

I do most of my cycling in between West Chester, PA and Wilmington, DE, although, in general, I will add that there's nothing special about motorists in this area. The road that I tried this on has a 12 foot right lane and a 10.75 foot right hand turn lane, so a little less width than two side by side twelve foot lanes. Maybe that's where the difference is coming from (I forgot about the slightly narrower width of the right turn lane when I made my original post).

[special sauce]

Call it fear if you want,

That is the a common theme in a great many of your posts. Fear.

Irrational fear of riding on the road and the obsessive need to "control" the lane and/or drivers while quaking about "hazards" that normal folks have no trouble dealing with while riding on the roads.

[Helmet Head]

That is the a common theme in a great many of your posts. Fear.

Irrational fear of riding on the road and the obsessive need to "control" the lane and/or drivers while quaking about "hazards" that normal folks have no trouble dealing with while riding on the roads.
I thought you were banned.

[special sauce]

I thought you were banned.

You "thought" wrong.

That is something that you have a special gift for.

[randya]

I discovered that, on multi-lane streets with 12-foot lanes (the majority condition in California), when I rode the lane stripe motorists would pass by me on both sides with no diminution of speed.

sounds like good, sound, safe cycling instruction. NOT!

:eek:

:rolleyes:

:roflmao:

[Allister]

sounds like good, sound, safe cycling instruction. NOT!

:eek:

:rolleyes:

:roflmao:

Yeah, I'll do that sort of thing occasionally, but it's less than ideal, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to newbies.

[RobertHurst]

Of course I did it while driving my car. But it did not occur to me to do it while riding my bike, particularly in fast/busy traffic.
Apparently it does not occur to other cyclists either, because I've never seen any other cyclist do it, except in LAB classes. What they usually do is a pedestrian "two-step" left turn (cross along the right side, stop at the other side, turn bike 90 degrees, then cross again), or wait for a gap in their "as far right as practicable position", and then dash across all the lanes in one move. ...

It's not really a pedestrian's way of turning left unless they're walking the bike. The two-step turn is a uniquely bicycular method of adaptive navigation of high traffic areas. No other vehicle has that option.

If there's really that much traffic -- so much that a process of 'negotiation' with faster traffic, lane by lane, must occur well in advance in order for the cyclist to make a vehicular-style left turn -- then the rider is not likely to lose much time at all by using the far more carefree two-step turn. In fact, it is quite possible that the rider opting out of the multi-phase negotiation dance will actually save time; if there's really that much traffic then the rider trying for the vehicular turn will probably have to wait through the light cycle until the green arrow comes around again, while the two-stepper pedals off into the distance.

If there's really that much traffic, the two-step option is quite possibly the superior option.

Robert

[Helmet Head]

It's not really a pedestrian's way of turning left unless they're walking the bike. The two-step turn is a uniquely bicycular method of adaptive navigation of high traffic areas. No other vehicle has that option.

If there's really that much traffic -- so much that a process of 'negotiation' with faster traffic, lane by lane, must occur well in advance in order for the cyclist to make a vehicular-style left turn -- then the rider is not likely to lose much time at all by using the far more carefree two-step turn. In fact, it is quite possible that the rider opting out of the multi-phase negotiation dance will actually save time; if there's really that much traffic then the rider trying for the vehicular turn will probably have to wait through the light cycle until the green arrow comes around again, while the two-stepper pedals off into the distance.

If there's really that much traffic, the two-step option is quite possibly the superior option.

Robert
Sometimes that's the case and I do use the two-step turn once in a while. Actually a slight variation - I turn right, then U-turn - but, then, I do that in my car once in a while too. I prefer the U-turn variation when there is traffic already stopped there, because then I can U-Turn and just stop in turn behind them. If I just go straight across, then I'm in the awkward position of having to stop in front of the first vehicle, or off to the right out of line with vehicular traffic.

It's true that it's technically not a ped left turn unless you ride in the crosswalk to the other corner, hit the ped button, then ride in the crosswalk across again.

[Bekologist]

..and sometimes I do the do-si-do. But it isn't natural either. I learnt it.

I've been getting a lot of exposure to the founder of 'ec' 'vc' methods here in this forum. And reading his methods of riding he endorses seem a very inferior way of bicycling.

I do think the not taking the lane on high speed roads, his don't inconveinince the motorists, the' can't negotiate' with traffic moving 15 over your speed, don't slow the motorists down, splitting 12 foot lanes for the motorists conveinence, the 'road sneak' methods of john seem a bit, oh, so childishly natural - it makes perfect sense. to me it reads the vc way is the childish way.

Us 21st century traffic cyclists are doing something entirely different from how john spins it.

[genec]

"When traffic is moving more than 15MPH faster than you, negotiation is impossible, though your position to the lane lines is a pretty clear signal. You have to play road sneak and more left only if there is a gap in traffic long enough that you won't affect any vehicles." - John Forester, Effective Cycling, p. 311

I don't have the book in front of me so I can't verify, but that's stronger language than I recall. Anyway, if that's what it says, it's wrong. I routinely negotiate across three lanes of 50-60 mph traffic (one lane at a time, of course) in order to merge across over to a left turn lane, while I'm going 8-15 mph (up hill).


In both cases on my commute my negotiation requires 50-60 mph traffic to slow down to my speed when the differentials are on the order of 40 mph.

I quoted chapter and verse... If it is wrong, then speak to the "master." Oddly enough, he found your description of vehicular cycling "wrong" as posted in wikipedia... so you two are now even with your accusations that the other is wrong in their descriptions of vehicular cycling... thus rendering all "expertise" on VC null and void.

:rolleyes:

[genec]

I'm pretty certain that EC does actually state that. Regardless, I negotiate in the same situations as you do HH on a daily basis. It took some getting used to but I can't imagine doing it any other way now. Waiting for a natural gap would have me missing my left turn (and getting stuck in a right turn only lane) every other day.

Which is exactly what often happens to me on my commute... due to the speed and density of traffic, I then become a rolling pedestrian and have to "play games" that are anything but vehicular, to get to my destination. And this is on a road marked at only 45MPH.

[genec]

I find that if the sight lines are good and I issue a clear/obvious turn signal, motorists from a 1/4 mile back or more see me and can and do slow down. I do this eastbound on La Jolla Village Drive between Lebon and Regents Rd (to turn left/north onto Regents), and westbound going up LJVD past the separated grade intersection with Gilman Ave and the intersection with La Jolla Scenic Way, to turn left onto Torrey Pines Road. The last one is particularly tricky because it's up a significant gradient, there is a blind curve at the top, and my initial lateral position is in a bike lane - so I need to merge across three traffic lanes. That's why I need to get across early - before the blind curve, so motorists can see me when they're still a long ways back. It's not a place for newbies to turn left! Oh, and the ped option sucks because there is only a crosswalk on the near side.


The key is the good sight lines... and the density of traffic as well as their speed... if the sight lines are not good... then you simply do not have the time to negotiate...

Such is the case when road speeds are raised, and nothing else changes... as cyclists are not part of that road speed equation. This gets right back to my original issue of speed differential and the 85 percentile rule and the effect of mandating road speeds for and by motorists... very autocentric.

[noisebeam]

Sometimes that's the case and I do use the two-step turn once in a while. Actually a slight variation - I turn right, then U-turn - but, then, I do that in my car once in a while too. I prefer the U-turn variation when there is traffic already stopped there, because then I can U-Turn and just stop in turn behind them. If I just go straight across, then I'm in the awkward position of having to stop in front of the first vehicle, or off to the right out of line with vehicular traffic.

I do this right and u-turn occasionally too.

I've tried long ago the across and 90, but it is very awkward. As you note putting yourself in front of lead vehicle which means you need to put yourself in the crosswalk. Also the light may change as one is making the 90deg turn which can mean one is not ready to go.

Anyway to what Robert wrote about it (either 90deg turn or right and U-turn) perhaps being faster, not in my experience unless one is lucky that the light changes just as you arrive, one needs to wait for the next light cycle.

Merging across lanes of faster traffic is no faster or slower than if there was no traffic, as long as one starts the merge early enough so as not to run out of road length before the turn. I never slow down when making vehicular lefts, if anything sometimes I speed up.

Al

[Helmet Head]

..and sometimes I do the do-si-do. But it isn't natural either. I learnt it.

I've been getting a lot of exposure to the founder of 'ec' 'vc' methods here in this forum. And reading his methods of riding he endorses seem a very inferior way of bicycling.

I do think the not taking the lane on high speed roads, his don't inconveinince the motorists, the' can't negotiate' with traffic moving 15 over your speed, don't slow the motorists down, splitting 12 foot lanes for the motorists conveinence, the 'road sneak' methods of john seem a bit, oh, so childishly natural - it makes perfect sense. to me it reads the vc way is the childish way.

Us 21st century traffic cyclists are doing something entirely different from how john spins it.
The idea that splitting lanes on a high speed arterial is childish behavior is beyond the pale, Bek.
This forum could be so much better if you would take the discussions seriously. That means focusing on the underlying issues and ideas seriously and discussing the reasons you agree or disagree, rather than childishly finding excuses to make fun of others.

[randya]

THe right turn and U turn may work fine for you VCers, but when I follow one of you into your right turn because I'm really making a right turn and then you immediately pull a U turn in front of me without looking, signaling, or anticipating my presence; then you are a hazard and you are responsible for almost causing a crash, avoided only because I am alert and paying attention and half expecting such an illegal maneuver, having encountered you doing it several times in the past.

[Helmet Head]

I quoted chapter and verse... If it is wrong, then speak to the "master." Oddly enough, he found your description of vehicular cycling "wrong" as posted in wikipedia... so you two are now even with your accusations that the other is wrong in their descriptions of vehicular cycling... thus rendering all "expertise" on VC null and void.

:rolleyes:
yeah, the vc cult is quite dysfunctional. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

I quoted chapter and verse... If it is wrong, then speak to the "master." Oddly enough, he found your description of vehicular cycling "wrong" as posted in wikipedia... so you two are now even with your accusations that the other is wrong in their descriptions of vehicular cycling... thus rendering all "expertise" on VC null and void.

:rolleyes:
Okay, now I'm looking at the book. Here is another one from page 311, "Never ride in the center of a high-speed lane unless you are going at the speed of traffic -- always ride at one edge or the other, to give cars room to pass you." That's the technique demonstrated in the Effective Cycling video.

That may be appropriate on some roads, even many roads, but I take issue with the use of never and always in that. That's not what the LCIs are teaching today, at least not in southern CA.

[Helmet Head]

Which is exactly what often happens to me on my commute... due to the speed and density of traffic, I then become a rolling pedestrian and have to "play games" that are anything but vehicular, to get to my destination. And this is on a road marked at only 45MPH.
I don't understand why you characterize using signaling and negotiation to move over one lane at a time as becoming "a rolling pedestrian" and "having to 'play games' that are anything but vehicular". Have you ever driven any kind of slow moving vehicle besides a bicycle? Ever need to make a left turn while driving a slow moving vehicle on a fast/busy multi-lane high speed arterial, perhaps on an uphill grade? It's essentially the exact same thing. It's not playing games. It has nothing to do with pedestrian rules. It's quintessential vehicular behavior.

[Helmet Head]

The key is the good sight lines... and the density of traffic as well as their speed... if the sight lines are not good... then you simply do not have the time to negotiate...

Such is the case when road speeds are raised, and nothing else changes... as cyclists are not part of that road speed equation. This gets right back to my original issue of speed differential and the 85 percentile rule and the effect of mandating road speeds for and by motorists... very autocentric.
Yes, but the sight lines are almost always plenty good on a high speed arterial. There may be a curve or a hill crest here or there which you need to work around, but other than that good sight lines are the norm.

I know speed limits are your pet peeve, and of course longer sight lines are required for higher speeds, but again this is only a factor when there are curves or crests involved. All that means is if there is a curve or crest right before your left turn, you need to get over to the left side early, and if the speeds go up, then you need to start moving left a few seconds earlier. Big deal. If the speeds go down, you can start a few seconds later. But the higher speed differentials don't change anything at the essence of what needs to be done.

[Bekologist]

"Never ride in the center of of high speed lane?" I'm crying here!!!!!

[Helmet Head]

Anyway to what Robert wrote about it (either 90deg turn or right and U-turn) perhaps being faster, not in my experience unless one is lucky that the light changes just as you arrive, one needs to wait for the next light cycle.

There is one particular intersection on my commute with a really long cycle because there are high volume/long left turn cycles as well as the normal stuff. I know the order the cycles are programmed and can tell when it's faster to do the right/U rather than merge/left.

[Helmet Head]

THe right turn and U turn may work fine for you VCers, but when I follow one of you into your right turn because I'm really making a right turn and then you immediately pull a U turn in front of me without looking, signaling, or anticipating my presence; then you are a hazard and you are responsible for almost causing a crash, avoided only because I am alert and paying attention and half expecting such an illegal maneuver, having encountered you doing it several times in the past.
Of course, I would never do that. I'm sure Al wouldn't either. Have you looked at his video clips? Do you really think a guy who rides like that would suddenly pull a midblock U turn in front of someone without looking, signaling or anticipating the effect that would have on a motorist behind him? Now, if Robert or Bek did that, I wouldn't be so surprised... But Al? Please.

As to the only intersection where I do this regularly, this is a low volume right turn place (when they reconfigured this intersection a few years ago they initially did not even have a right only lane). But if a motorist is behind me, I'll either pull aside to let him pass, or I'll continue then legally slow, signal left and pull my U-turn (it's a very short distance to the next left turn, which is where I make my U).

[Bekologist]

none of that is natural, dude. What the heck are you are you trying to legitimize?

do i pull U turns without knowing what's going on behind me? please.

[Bekologist]

The idea that splitting lanes on a high speed arterial is childish behavior is beyond the pale, Bek.
This forum could be so much better if you would take the discussions seriously. That means focusing on the underlying issues and ideas seriously and discussing the reasons you agree or disagree, rather than childishly finding excuses to make fun of others. Um ,HEAD, "Childish cycling" is one of john forestor's cycling theories. I accuse him of the very behavior he ceaslessly gripes about, and has griped about for decades. It's in print in the book you've just quoted.

I suggest you take your complaint up with the originator of the concept. I simply cast his aspersions back on him.

[noisebeam]

If I am making a right and there is a vehicle behind me I communicate of course.

That right will be made usually from a centerish lane position to a centerish position. If there was a motor vehicle making a right behind me I am always faster on the turn. Assuming I am not and they are right on my tail I'll signal slow down and left signal indicating I am making a U-turn. If there was another cyclist behind me I'd turn to a left biased lane position before the signaled u-turn.

I've only done this about a dozen times, vehicular lefts thousands of times.

Al

[noisebeam]

Here is a new video. Looks natural to me. :)

9min long. Starts out with me in a bike lane, the rest is narrow outside lanes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_87u2tPCemw

[randya]

Of course, I would never do that. I'm sure Al wouldn't either. Have you looked at his video clips? Do you really think a guy who rides like that would suddenly pull a midblock U turn in front of someone without looking, signaling or anticipating the effect that would have on a motorist behind him? Now, if Robert or Bek did that, I wouldn't be so surprised... But Al? Please.

As to the only intersection where I do this regularly, this is a low volume right turn place (when they reconfigured this intersection a few years ago they initially did not even have a right only lane). But if a motorist is behind me, I'll either pull aside to let him pass, or I'll continue then legally slow, signal left and pull my U-turn (it's a very short distance to the next left turn, which is where I make my U).

shows your bias. I'm talking about when I'm on my bike, not motoring. and of course you're a saint...

:rolleyes:

[genec]

Yes, but the sight lines are almost always plenty good on a high speed arterial. There may be a curve or a hill crest here or there which you need to work around, but other than that good sight lines are the norm.

Riiiiiight... I gotta sight line on a street that leaves my neighborhood that is so poor I cannot even drive it... the cars race around the curve (over the speed limit of course) in such a manner that using that particular street to enter Genesee is dangerous. The same thing happens when trying to signal to make left turns... don't tell me that "good sight lines are the norm." That is really not the case.

In fact further south, they have even set up special stoplights so that motorists can tell the light is red before they actually can see the regular light... so much for "good sight lines are the norm.. " :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



I know speed limits are your pet peeve, and of course longer sight lines are required for higher speeds, but again this is only a factor when there are curves or crests involved. All that means is if there is a curve or crest right before your left turn, you need to get over to the left side early, and if the speeds go up, then you need to start moving left a few seconds earlier. Big deal. If the speeds go down, you can start a few seconds later. But the higher speed differentials don't change anything at the essence of what needs to be done.


Curves and crests... oh boy... taken a good look at San Diego topology lately? I live on a mesa... that is a "crest..." Every road to and from that "crest," curves. Take a look at your own route on TPR... that thing is a switchback.

You know sometimes your responses are just flat out laughable... :rolleyes:

[RobertHurst]

Of course, I would never do that. I'm sure Al wouldn't either. Have you looked at his video clips? Do you really think a guy who rides like that would suddenly pull a midblock U turn in front of someone without looking, signaling or anticipating the effect that would have on a motorist behind him? Now, if Robert or Bek did that, I wouldn't be so surprised... But Al? Please.

Are you talking about me? What gives you the impression I would pull a u-turn without looking?

In fact I hardly ever pull the bush-league stunt of making a right turn then a u-turn. There are much easier, smoother and more effective ways to save time if that's what you're after.

Robert

[genec]

I don't understand why you characterize using signaling and negotiation to move over one lane at a time as becoming "a rolling pedestrian" and "having to 'play games' that are anything but vehicular". Have you ever driven any kind of slow moving vehicle besides a bicycle? Ever need to make a left turn while driving a slow moving vehicle on a fast/busy multi-lane high speed arterial, perhaps on an uphill grade? It's essentially the exact same thing. It's not playing games. It has nothing to do with pedestrian rules. It's quintessential vehicular behavior.

No, rolling ped is what happens when I cannot make the left turn due to motorists not giving gaps or ignoring my signals... I therefore am stuck on the side of the road and end up rolling to the next corner, doing a U turn, pushing the walk button (as the loop detectors do not detect me... yet another autocentric issue) and then rolling down the crosswalk when I get a walk signal.

When I need to make a left turn in my truck, I do not do the same thing... no matter how slowly I am going...

[genec]

Okay, now I'm looking at the book. Here is another one from page 311, "Never ride in the center of a high-speed lane unless you are going at the speed of traffic -- always ride at one edge or the other, to give cars room to pass you." That's the technique demonstrated in the Effective Cycling video.

That may be appropriate on some roads, even many roads, but I take issue with the use of never and always in that. That's not what the LCIs are teaching today, at least not in southern CA.

Well then it appears that you and John have some issues to work out... as to whose vehicular cycling is "correct."

Sort of gets back to the whole issue of how far "left" is "left enough... "

I have a feeling that in a court, if you were called as an expert witness and John was called as an expert witness on the other side... cyclists would lose, no matter what.

[Ed Holland]

I have a feeling that in a court, if you were called as an expert witness and John was called as an expert witness on the other side... cyclists would lose, no matter what.

Ding ding ding :D

[Helmet Head]

Riiiiiight... I gotta sight line on a street that leaves my neighborhood that is so poor I cannot even drive it... the cars race around the curve (over the speed limit of course) in such a manner that using that particular street to enter Genesee is dangerous. The same thing happens when trying to signal to make left turns... don't tell me that "good sight lines are the norm." That is really not the case.

Gene, we're talking about sight lines from same-direction faster traffic to you up ahead, not sight lines to someone pulling out of a side street. Anyway, yes, again, curves and crests curtail sight lines, and so you need to merge left earlier when they are right before the place you need to turn left. Can you give me an example of turning left from [n,w,s,e]-bound X to Y where this cannot be done safely?


In fact further south, they have even set up special stoplights so that motorists can tell the light is red before they actually can see the regular light... so much for "good sight lines are the norm.. " :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Discussions like this are like trying to play ball with a dog who has a death grip on the tennis ball and won't let go.

Pointing out there are exceptions with short sight lines does not refute my assertion that good sight lines are the norm. That these special stoplights are "special" and thus not the norm makes my point. Would you be so kind as to concede this point, or explain why not?





Curves and crests... oh boy... taken a good look at San Diego topology lately? I live on a mesa... that is a "crest..." Every road to and from that "crest," curves. Take a look at your own route on TPR... that thing is a switchback.

You know sometimes your responses are just flat out laughable... :rolleyes:
Well, it has to be a relatively tight crest to impede sight lines to a significant extent, and, like I said, when that happens, that just means you have to merge left earlier than you would otherwise.

[Helmet Head]

Well then it appears that you and John have some issues to work out... as to whose vehicular cycling is "correct."

Sort of gets back to the whole issue of how far "left" is "left enough... "

I have a feeling that in a court, if you were called as an expert witness and John was called as an expert witness on the other side... cyclists would lose, no matter what.
Neither is "correct", Gene. The vehicular rules of the road allow for a lot of latitude in behavior, and whether you choose to control a lane or split lanes is one of those choices you can make and still be vehicular either way.

[Helmet Head]

No, rolling ped is what happens when I cannot make the left turn due to motorists not giving gaps or ignoring my signals... I therefore am stuck on the side of the road and end up rolling to the next corner, doing a U turn, pushing the walk button (as the loop detectors do not detect me... yet another autocentric issue) and then rolling down the crosswalk when I get a walk signal.

When I need to make a left turn in my truck, I do not do the same thing... no matter how slowly I am going...
If motorists are ignoring your signals, you need to work on your signals. Whenever I signal either the first or second car yields almost always. Rarely do I have to wait for the 3rd. I don't think I've ever been ignored by 3 drivers in a row.

Remember, they are not obligated to yield to you - they have the right of way - so what you're doing is asking them to yield to you so that you can merge left. It's surprising how important it is to make sure you're not doing a lame signal, but a firm/confident signal: hold your left arm straight out parallel to the ground (make sure it's not tilted down towards the ground at all), open hand, palm forward (the back of your hand should be facing the traffic behind you), fingers stretched out straight and pressed together, thumb up (or pressed down - I haven't discerned a difference either way). Practice that right now at your desk.

Put your left hand on your heart like it's time to do the pledge. The way you have shaped your hand is how it should be when signaling.