Making a left turn, traffic and timing...

[John Forester]

If, like me, you learned to drive in a manual transmission car, heavy traffic situations were really intimidating mostly when you were stopped. No amount of pressing an accelerator would help if you couldn't get that clutch release timed right. Granted, most people nowadays seem to learn on automatics which take most of that fear factor away but it wasn't too long ago (though before I learned to drive 14 years ago) that many more autos on the road were manual transmissions. Didn't stop anyone from driving as far as I know.

Both my first car and my fourth car had 4-speed straight-cut (without synchronizers) gearboxes. One had to match engine speed with car speed for every gear change.

[BarracksSi]

If, like me, you learned to drive in a manual transmission car, heavy traffic situations were really intimidating mostly when you were stopped. No amount of pressing an accelerator would help if you couldn't get that clutch release timed right. Granted, most people nowadays seem to learn on automatics which take most of that fear factor away but it wasn't too long ago (though before I learned to drive 14 years ago) that many more autos on the road were manual transmissions. Didn't stop anyone from driving as far as I know.

"Intimidation" is hardly a problem for me, I'm sorry to say. "Annoyed", yes, but not "intimidated". I'm better at shifting than most yahoos out there (heel-toe in a Ford Transit van was certainly fun!).

On a bike, though, it's much harder to appreciate how bad many drivers really are. Riding along on a very different machine with a narrower speed range and greater maneuverability means that you're just not part of the same group, which makes it much more difficult to see the big picture -- what those cars are doing relative to each other and the tendencies of a whole pack of 'em.

Cyclists have to remember how much it can suck to be in a car. Not just, "Yeah, spending money on gas & insurance, getting fat, blah blah blah," but the continuous instances of unpredictability, lack of visibility, and limited options for escape.

A badly-ridden bike -- or an arrogantly-ridden one (insert hairy eyeball here) -- can be a danger. It's a distraction, sucking attention from more immediate dangers, and can be a blockage, especially when it's moving slower than the rest of the traffic.

My point is this: There's no need to create more problems just for your own convenience. You want to ride with traffic, then hustle your ass up and ride WITH traffic. If you can't do that, you'd better figure out something else.

[joejack951]

Both my first car and my fourth car had 4-speed straight-cut (without synchronizers) gearboxes. One had to match engine speed with car speed for every gear change.

The synchros in my soon-to-be-sold (hopefully) Eagle Talon's original gearbox (that had 160k miles on it when I took ownership) were so worn that downshifting to first, second, or third was impossible without matching engine speed to car speed. I got pretty good at it before finally replacing the transmission with a lower mileage one. I definitely did my share of disrupting traffic at first though not being able to get into a low gear while coasting. It's hard for me to imagine learning to drive on a non-synchronized transmission. That had to be painful at times.

[joejack951]

"Intimidation" is hardly a problem for me, I'm sorry to say. "Annoyed", yes, but not "intimidated". I'm better at shifting than most yahoos out there (heel-toe in a Ford Transit van was certainly fun!).

Annoyed by what? Not being to get moving when the light turned green? How did you feel when you stalled twice in a row causing everyone behind you to miss the green light (assuming that happened to you too at some point)?

On a bike, though, it's much harder to appreciate how bad many drivers really are. Riding along on a very different machine with a narrower speed range and greater maneuverability means that you're just not part of the same group, which makes it much more difficult to see the big picture -- what those cars are doing relative to each other and the tendencies of a whole pack of 'em.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. I drive a car too much like most other people positng on this forum. I don't think that most drivers are really bad, at least not what I've witnessed of their driving. Most drivers around me are able to drive home safely in the worst conditions that I've been out on the road in. Not everyone does everything the same way I would (following distance for one example) but that doesn't mean their bad drivers. On a bike, I have no problem seeing the big picture as my rearview mirror is always available to monitor traffic behind me. Most any time I caused a disruption in traffic, another is waiting just ahead for the same pack in the form of the next red light, school bus, slow moving truck, or merging traffic.

Cyclists have to remember how much it can suck to be in a car. Not just, "Yeah, spending money on gas & insurance, getting fat, blah blah blah," but the continuous instances of unpredictability, lack of visibility, and limited options for escape.

Again, I drive too. I don't think driving sucks very much, especially when travelling long distances with a large load of stuff. I also don't see "continuous instances of unpredictability, lack of visibility, and limited options for escape." If you do, I would suggest looking at how to improve your driving skill. I generally see predictable traffic flow clearly displayed to me and most often at least two means of escape (braking or moving aside). I find cycling to be much the same as driving, just slower usually.

A badly-ridden bike -- or an arrogantly-ridden one (insert hairy eyeball here) -- can be a danger. It's a distraction, sucking attention from more immediate dangers, and can be a blockage, especially when it's moving slower than the rest of the traffic.

This sounds like a lot of fear mongering to me. Any immediate danger present for other traffic around me is likely an immediate danger for myself as well. If I can pay attention to them and something else, surely they can do the same (of course, I'm paying attention to them just in case they don't). I don't consider causing traffic to temporarily slow a "blockage" any more than I consider stopping at a red light a blockage. They are both common regardless of which vehicle type I choose to drive and are expected by all motorists (some motorists just don't expect the cause to be a cyclist but that doesn't mean it's dangerous or jackass-like to be causing it on a bike).

My point is this: There's no need to create more problems just for your own convenience. You want to ride with traffic, then hustle your ass up and ride WITH traffic. If you can't do that, you'd better figure out something else.

Useless advice. Go tell that to all the 18 wheeler trucks who can't accelerate at the same pace as the rest of traffic and that can't navigate narrow roads at normal speed. Or school buses and mail delivery trucks who make frequent stops in the middle of the road. Or people looking to park on a busy street.

I'm not sure how to get through to you that anyone who uses a public road at some point (and likely every time they drive) causes a delay for someone else. If you see that as a problem, then perhaps you need to remove yourself from the driving pool.

[BarracksSi]

Useless advice. Go tell that to all the 18 wheeler trucks who can't accelerate at the same pace as the rest of traffic and that can't navigate narrow roads at normal speed. Or school buses and mail delivery trucks who make frequent stops in the middle of the road. Or people looking to park on a busy street.

Useless example. A cyclist is not an 18-wheeler, nor a school bus, mail truck, or whatever else.

Your whole counterpoint is invalid. Sorry.

[joejack951]

Useless example. A cyclist is not an 18-wheeler, nor a school bus, mail truck, or whatever else.

Your whole counterpoint is invalid. Sorry.

Please elaborate on what makes my point invalid. Remember that we are discussing disrupting the flow of traffic.

[Allister]

the single biggest factor in traffic cycling safety and cycling advocacy is cyclist attitude and behavior. Facilities ... are almost entirely extraneous to that.

Why do you whine about them so much then?

[Allister]

Useless advice. Go tell that to all the 18 wheeler trucks who can't accelerate at the same pace as the rest of traffic and that can't navigate narrow roads at normal speed. Or school buses and mail delivery trucks who make frequent stops in the middle of the road. Or people looking to park on a busy street.


Does VC training come with a free stupid analogy generator or something?

[BarracksSi]

Please elaborate on what makes my point invalid. Remember that we are discussing disrupting the flow of traffic.

We are talking about needlessly disrupting the flow of traffic.

An 18-wheeler pretty much has no choice; even less than anyone else since truck routes are more limited. It has to go in the middle of traffic, so motorists are a little more tolerant; plus, it's slow, highly visible, and relatively predictable.

A bike has a large amount of flexibility, being able to take options that motor vehicles can't use (sometimes better than motorcycles or scooters, depending on conditions). It's also NOT a method of travel for someone who's in a hurry -- which, really, is the only reason why any cyclist would want to force their way through traffic that, speed-wise, is out of their league.

This nonsense of forcing traffic to slow down is only banking on drivers who aren't willing to fill out a police report describing how they ran over a cyclist. They're not doing it out of goodwill, they're doing it because it's illegal to kill people.

I'm not "fear mongering" -- I'm trying to knock some sense of reality into this stupid forum.

[BarracksSi]

Does VC training come with a free stupid analogy generator or something?

Apparently, it does.

[Allister]

Please elaborate on what makes my point invalid. Remember that we are discussing disrupting the flow of traffic.

The rules here have a clause about 'not unreasonably obstructing' other roads users. If your move can pass the test of reasonableness, there's no problem.

[Allister]

I'm not "fear mongering" -- I'm trying to knock some sense of reality into this stupid forum.

HA! Good luck with that.

[BarracksSi]

HA! Good luck with that.

Right; I can see that it'll never happen.

After all, the people who post here haven't been killed by their methods, so they'll never feel that they might be wrong and, instead, merely lucky.

[joejack951]

We are talking about needlessly disrupting the flow of traffic.

Oh, now I get it. It comes down to who really NEEDS to use the roads. So when I'm going to work on my bike and someone else is just driving to get some coffee and donuts, they should yield to me at all times, right? Or is it only when I'm driving a car to work?

[Allister]

Oh, now I get it. It comes down to who really NEEDS to use the roads. So when I'm going to work on my bike and someone else is just driving to get some coffee and donuts, they should yield to me at all times, right? Or is it only when I'm driving a car to work?

Don't be so melodramatic. That's not what it means, and you know it.

[BarracksSi]

Oh, now I get it. It comes down to who really NEEDS to use the roads.

NO IT DOESN'T.

It's who is STUCK with using the roads. It's about who has no other choice than to use the roads.

You're on a bike. A goddamn BIKE. You can go on the road, or off, or between -- and STILL not freak out drivers at the same time.

Keep twisting my statements and you might as well be nothing more than a troll.

[John E]

On a matter of cycling practice in difficult circumstances.

Here's one. Driving on the right (USA) It can be difficult at times to judge the correct time to move left in order to execute a left turn. This is especially true if there are 1 or more lanes to cross and traffic moving at differing speeds. (The same is true for right turns in the UK etc.)

There are a couple of places on routes that I ride where this is the case. Occasionally there will be a situation where a platoon of traffic is approaching, such that it would preclude safe & easy manouvres at the usual distance from the intersection. In this case one can choose to move early, whilst you have the road to yourself. This brings the problem of riding in the leftmost lane with traffic for some distance before the left turn lane is reached. I have a tendancy to bias left in this situation, such that cars pass to my right, but there is the option of full lane occupancy. This latter choice might be vehicular, but it certainly feels exposed. Occasionally there is a honk on the horn from a motorist .

Then there is the need to move through steady traffic that is moving faster than the cyclist e.g. a 2 or 3lane (each direction) expressway with 45 mph limit. Cars often let you in, but there is no guarantee, and it can be hard to trust that each has acknowledged you as you shift lanes.

I'm not a shy cyclist, but these situations can still put the wind up me on ocasion.

Thoughts please.

Ed

Thoughts please. I am a very experienced cyclist who is also somewhat timid and well aware of my own (and motorists') physical limitations. If I can easily merge leftward for a vehicular left turn, great, but I do not feel guilty, remorseful, unworthy, etc. when I decide that a two-part left turn will be safer for me at that particular time and place. A two-part turn can even be quicker and more efficient than a vehicular left, such as when I have just missed the left turn phase at a traffic light and know that the cross street will get a green before the next one.

There is no absolute "right" or "wrong" way to turn left from a 6-lane augmented 55mph / 90kph arterial, provided that one executes the turn cautiously and safely. I am comfortable with waiting for a generous gap and moving into it, and I am comfortable with negotiating and creating a gap in 25mph / 40kph traffic, but not in high-speed traffic. Your Mileage May Vary.

[Allister]

I know of several cyclists that refuse to commute even though they are quite strong riders and should not have any problems with it... but mentally, they cannot overcome that hurdle. It can be far more intimidating then we recall.


This is what the VC cultists seem unable to grasp. While many people may have the abilities to take up riding on the road with traffic, they simply don't have the will. It does take an effort of will to learn how to ride a bike in traffic, same as it does with a car, it's just that people manage to more readily find the willpower to at least get a working knowledge of car use. How many of them do any advanced training though?

The thing is, should it really be necessary? What is fundamentally wrong with providing facilities for people that want to ride a bike, but, for whatever reason, prefer to avoid traffic? Or, god forbid, making the existing road space more conducive to cycling?

[Helmet Head]

This is what the VC cultists seem unable to grasp. While many people may have the abilities to take up riding on the road with traffic, they simply don't have the will. It does take an effort of will to learn how to ride a bike in traffic, same as it does with a car, it's just that people manage to more readily find the willpower to at least get a working knowledge of car use. How many of them do any advanced training though?

The thing is, should it really be necessary? What is fundamentally wrong with providing facilities for people that want to ride a bike, but, for whatever reason, prefer to avoid traffic? Or, god forbid, making the existing road space more conducive to cycling?
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with providing facilities for people that want to ride a bike and avoid traffic, but this thread is about left turns, particularly from multi lane roads. Unless you're willing to build split grade facilities at all intersections, how can facilities help?

If you lack the will, then fine, do the two-step or the do-see-do. Sometimes that's even faster than a vehicular left. But, having the skill, knowledge, and, yes, the will to do a vehicular left turn in busy traffic where negotiation is required, even though it may cause others to slow down a bit :eek:, has unique value to the traffic cyclist.

[Helmet Head]

NO IT DOESN'T.

It's who is STUCK with using the roads. It's about who has no other choice than to use the roads.

You're on a bike. A goddamn BIKE. You can go on the road, or off, or between -- and STILL not freak out drivers at the same time.

Keep twisting my statements and you might as well be nothing more than a troll.
What if there is no reasonable/practicable/safe alternative to performing a vehicular left turn with negotiation that will cause others to have to slow down in order to make your left turn?

By the way, no one's talking about any other situation, so far as I know.

[Daily Commute]

. . . A bike has a large amount of flexibility, being able to take options that motor vehicles can't use (sometimes better than motorcycles or scooters, depending on conditions). It's also NOT a method of travel for someone who's in a hurry -- which, really, is the only reason why any cyclist would want to force their way through traffic that, speed-wise, is out of their league. . . .

* * *

. . . .It's who is STUCK with using the roads. It's about who has no other choice than to use the roads.

You're on a bike. A goddamn BIKE. You can go on the road, or off, or between -- and STILL not freak out drivers at the same time.

I want to get to work more quickly, that's why I take a bike. I can't afford the second car, parking, gas, and insurance it would take to drive every day, so the choice is between cycling and taking the bus. I regularly pass city buses when cycling. Why would I take an always-late, lumbering bus that stops every 200' when I can ride with traffic? Yes, sometimes cars have to wait 10-30 seconds before they can find a gap in other traffic to pass me, but I also frequently get stuck behind cars for 10-30 seconds. That's part of being in traffic.

I have opposed striping lanes on my route into work (and, thankfully, the route is not on the list to get striped lanes) because I can ride 20-30 mph down the road (it's slightly downhill to work). I could not ride that fast if confined to the right edge of the road because I'd be right hooked and because traffic from side streets couldn't see me around the parked cars until it was too late.

I can take an MUP route, but it adds about 50% to my commute time wise. Most days, my goal is to get to work efficiently. So I will ride in the traffic lanes on the main roads. Not the side streets. Not the sidewalks. Not the MUP's.

. . . .What is fundamentally wrong with providing facilities for people that want to ride a bike, but, for whatever reason, prefer to avoid traffic? Or, god forbid, making the existing road space more conducive to cycling?
The problem really comes when localities build facilities and then ticket cyclists who don't use them, like Portland does. I was part of the Bike Plan process in my town, and, as a result, at least the draft bike plan now says that bike facilities are additional space and that cyclists can still choose to ride in the regular traffic lanes. If that becomes effective, it would take a lot of the sting out of an otherwise bad plan.

[genec]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with providing facilities for people that want to ride a bike and avoid traffic, but this thread is about left turns, particularly from multi lane roads. Unless you're willing to build split grade facilities at all intersections, how can facilities help?



He also mentioned making the roads conducive to cycling... which may not mean bike lanes or split grade facilities, but simply opposing high speeds and free merging turns that turn "surface streets" into near freeways.

If the motoring public however is going to insist on freeway like conditions for surface streets, perhaps we should insist on freeway shoulder like "wide areas" to ride our bikes...

[ChipSeal]

NO IT DOESN'T.

It's who is STUCK with using the roads. It's about who has no other choice than to use the roads.

You're on a bike. A goddamn BIKE. You can go on the road, or off, or between -- and STILL not freak out drivers at the same time.

Keep twisting my statements and you might as well be nothing more than a troll.

I am on a bike. I can go on the road, (But to do so I will be a jerk if I happen to slow down another road user, right?) or off, (It is against the law in my jurisdiction to ride on the sidewalk. Are you advocating lawless behavior?) or between... Could you you give an example of what you mean by "between"? Do you mean riding on the gutter pan?

I am also interested in what your understanding of the term "public street" means. You seem to have the notion that only vehicles capable of high speed ought to be allowed free access to them. Is that what you think?

[Helmet Head]

He also mentioned making the roads conducive to cycling... which may not mean bike lanes or split grade facilities, but simply opposing high speeds and free merging turns that turn "surface streets" into near freeways.

If the motoring public however is going to insist on freeway like conditions for surface streets, perhaps we should insist on freeway shoulder like "wide areas" to ride our bikes...
Roads with intersections many of which are controlled with traffic signals are hardly "freeway like conditions".

[genec]

Roads with intersections many of which are controlled with traffic signals are hardly "freeway like conditions".

True, no self respecting engineer would attempt to put stop lights on freeways...

yet they do insist on freeway speeds on roads with stop lights... Now why is that I wonder?

[noisebeam]

True, no self respecting engineer would attempt to put stop lights on freeways...

yet they do insist on freeway speeds on roads with stop lights... Now why is that I wonder?

I've asked you before. How far apart are these lights usually? How far between any kind of intersection (controlled or not)?

Al

[genec]

I've asked you before. How far apart are these lights usually? How far between any kind of intersection (controlled or not)?

Al

I answered you... as much as half a mile, but often less... in fact, in one area that I am quite familar with there is no way to reach the posted speed limit between red lights unless you have a high performance car and you floor it... meaning that the speed limit is NOT set for the 85% of cars driving in that area.

This is not a case of long uninterrupted roads with lights few and far between...

[noisebeam]

I answered you... as much as half a mile, but often less... in fact, in one area that I am quite familar with there is no way to reach the posted speed limit between red lights unless you have a high performance car and you floor it... meaning that the speed limit is NOT set for the 85% of cars driving in that area.

This is not a case of long uninterrupted roads with lights few and far between...

I know you answered, but with the new search engine I couldn't find it again.
So these roads are posted at 65mph with a light every 1/2mi? Crazy.

Here the arterials with that frequency of stop light are posted at 45mph. Drivers have no issue getting up to 55mph between lights and of course just because there is a light every 1/2mi doesn't mean it will be red. Many roads have lights timed at 45mph (which is strong motivation to cycle at 22-23mph between them ;) )

edit: I found your answer searching for '65mph' in A&S (gotta have specific search terms to get desired results ;) ):
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6374169&postcount=77

Al

[Helmet Head]

True, no self respecting engineer would attempt to put stop lights on freeways...
Actually, they do, as you know, they just stop calling them freeways in those sections (hint: 101 north of Marin County).


yet they do insist on freeway speeds on roads with stop lights... Now why is that I wonder?
Because sight lines support those speeds, even with traffic signals.

[Helmet Head]

I know you answered, but with the new search engine I couldn't find it again.
So these roads are posted at 65mph with a light every 1/2mi? Crazy.

Here the arterials with that frequency of stop light are posted at 45mph. Drivers have no issue getting up to 55mph between lights and of course just because there is a light every 1/2mi doesn't mean it will be red. Many roads have lights timed at 45mph (which is strong motivation to cycle at 22-23mph between them ;) )

Al
Gene exaggerates. There is only one road, and it's 65 mph in only one (n/b) direction, and that stretch is much longer than a 1/2 mile, the speed is reduced well before reaching any light, there are no left turns from it, and the shoulder/bike lane is used by cyclists all the time. But Gene likes to make a big deal out of it as if it is something significant.

In the southbound direction there is a challenging merge/diverge section at which 2 or 3 cyclists have been killed over the last 10 years or so, but the speed limit is not 65 mph there, and has never been so far as I know.

[genec]

Actually, they do, as you know, they just stop calling them freeways in those sections (hint: 101 north of Marin County).

See, no one would put stop lights on "freeways..."


Because sight lines support those speeds, even with traffic signals.

Go to the latest SDCBC discussion of "what were they thinking" and take note of the issues of the 55MPH speeds and the cresting hill just prior to the lateral change of the BL and freeway onramp...

I somehow doubt that real engineering is actually being applied in these situations... especially based on the response I got from an engineer working on the Carmel Mountain/805 ramps some years ago... "I followed a standard... " The result was a bike lane that lead right to the onramp... (it has since been corrected)

That kind of "engineering" would get me "called on the carpet..." How about you?

[genec]

Gene exaggerates. There is only one road, and it's 65 mph in only one (n/b) direction, and that stretch is much longer than a 1/2 mile, the speed is reduced well before reaching any light, there are no left turns from it, and the shoulder/bike lane is used by cyclists all the time. But Gene likes to make a big deal out of it as if it is something significant.

In the southbound direction there is a challenging merge/diverge section at which 2 or 3 cyclists have been killed over the last 10 years or so, but the speed limit is not 65 mph there, and has never been so far as I know.


HH doesn't know of what he speaks... perhaps he needs to get out and ride more...

In the Del Mar area there are 55MPH arterial roads; there is a current discussion of a 55MPH road on the SDCBC mail list; Regents Road is a 55MPH arterial, Vista Sorrento is a 65MHP arterial... And yes, all of these do have BL... narrow 4-5 foot BL. But for even more examples, head up to Newport Beach and check out Jamboree which is a 65MPH arterial going from Santa Ana to Newport Beach, with no BL and narrow lanes...

No, I am not exaggerating... There are probably more... but these are the roads I am very aware of.

Care to drag race on Vista Sorrento Parkway... between lights... bet you can't get to 50MPH.

Perhaps HH needs to get his car off the freeways and ride a bike on surface streets more... :rolleyes: Oh and put down the phone.... so you see the speed limit signs.

[John Forester]

HH doesn't know of what he speaks... perhaps he needs to get out and ride more...

In the Del Mar area there are 55MPH arterial roads; there is a current discussion of a 55MPH road on the SDCBC mail list; Regents Road is a 55MPH arterial, Vista Sorrento is a 65MHP arterial... And yes, all of these do have BL... narrow 4-5 foot BL. But for even more examples, head up to Newport Beach and check out Jamboree which is a 65MPH arterial going from Santa Ana to Newport Beach, with no BL and narrow lanes...

No, I am not exaggerating... There are probably more... but these are the roads I am very aware of.

Care to drag race on Vista Sorrento Parkway... between lights... bet you can't get to 50MPH.

Perhaps HH needs to get his car off the freeways and ride a bike on surface streets more... :rolleyes: Oh and put down the phone.... so you see the speed limit signs.

Genec has mentioned Jamboree Road several times as being, in his opinion, particularly dangerous or particularly difficult. I knew Jamboree Road in the late 1960s, but I had not been on it since. However, a few weeks ago I had morning business in Beverly Hills that ended early enough that I was returning along 405 and reached Jamboree a few minutes after noon. So I exited onto Jamboree and drove it, staying in the right-most through lane as if I had been cycling. Traffic was slow and congested. I drove down into East Bluff, and then went looking for a lunch stop, which I did not find. So I returned along Jamboree to 405, again driving in the right-most lane as if I had been cycling. The part of Jamboree north of the river is business and was crowded, with outside lanes that varied in width, depending on the turn lanes present, and with signalized intersections probably 1/4 mile apart. The part of Jamboree south of the river is residential, less crowded, with wide outside lanes, and with signalized intersections probably 1/2 mile apart. I saw no particular difficulties inherent in cycling on either section.

[Ed Holland]

I am a very experienced cyclist who is also somewhat timid and well aware of my own (and motorists') physical limitations. If I can easily merge leftward for a vehicular left turn, great, but I do not feel guilty, remorseful, unworthy, etc. when I decide that a two-part left turn will be safer for me at that particular time and place. A two-part turn can even be quicker and more efficient than a vehicular left, such as when I have just missed the left turn phase at a traffic light and know that the cross street will get a green before the next one.

There is no absolute "right" or "wrong" way to turn left from a 6-lane augmented 55mph / 90kph arterial, provided that one executes the turn cautiously and safely. I am comfortable with waiting for a generous gap and moving into it, and I am comfortable with negotiating and creating a gap in 25mph / 40kph traffic, but not in high-speed traffic. Your Mileage May Vary.

Fair point well made :)

As for being well experienced in cycling but timid, I can certainly identify with that.

Ed

[genec]

Genec has mentioned Jamboree Road several times as being, in his opinion, particularly dangerous or particularly difficult. I knew Jamboree Road in the late 1960s, but I had not been on it since. However, a few weeks ago I had morning business in Beverly Hills that ended early enough that I was returning along 405 and reached Jamboree a few minutes after noon. So I exited onto Jamboree and drove it, staying in the right-most through lane as if I had been cycling. Traffic was slow and congested. I drove down into East Bluff, and then went looking for a lunch stop, which I did not find. So I returned along Jamboree to 405, again driving in the right-most lane as if I had been cycling. The part of Jamboree north of the river is business and was crowded, with outside lanes that varied in width, depending on the turn lanes present, and with signalized intersections probably 1/4 mile apart. The part of Jamboree south of the river is residential, less crowded, with wide outside lanes, and with signalized intersections probably 1/2 mile apart. I saw no particular difficulties inherent in cycling on either section.

Did you note the speed limit on that road John? Near East Bluff did you take note of the narrow lanes that a cyclist would have to "claim?"

Of course you would do a cycling evaluation in a car... :rolleyes: (Helmet Head uses a camper) Did you drive at 12-15MPH to actually simulate acting like a cyclist? Or did you drive it at automobile speeds?

[genec]

Fair point well made :)

As for being well experienced in cycling but timid, I can certainly identify with that.

Ed

If experienced but timid is the reaction of some of the cyclists here... how then do we expect "less experienced and timid" to react.

Apparently even John Forester drives routes to check them out first... ;)

[Helmet Head]

HH doesn't know of what he speaks... perhaps he needs to get out and ride more...

In the Del Mar area there are 55MPH arterial roads; there is a current discussion of a 55MPH road on the SDCBC mail list; Regents Road is a 55MPH arterial, Vista Sorrento is a 65MHP arterial... And yes, all of these do have BL... narrow 4-5 foot BL. But for even more examples, head up to Newport Beach and check out Jamboree which is a 65MPH arterial going from Santa Ana to Newport Beach, with no BL and narrow lanes...

No, I am not exaggerating... There are probably more... but these are the roads I am very aware of.

Care to drag race on Vista Sorrento Parkway... between lights... bet you can't get to 50MPH.

Perhaps HH needs to get his car off the freeways and ride a bike on surface streets more... :rolleyes: Oh and put down the phone.... so you see the speed limit signs.
Al was asking about 65 mph roads. I only knew of n/b Kearny Villa Road which has no lights on the section posted at 65 mph. I never noticed 65 mph speed limit signs on Vista Sorrento, but that's on the sdbc club route, and I've ridden on it dozens if not hundreds of times. That road is piece of cake to ride - traffic speed is certainly not an issue. And I trust JF's assessment of Jamboree above. You exaggerate. Heck, even mentioning these roads as if they present problems peculiar to cycling on them is an exaggeration in and of itself.

[noisebeam]

If experienced but timid is the reaction of some of the cyclists here... how then do we expect "less experienced and timid" to react.

two step turn

[genec]

Al was asking about 65 mph roads. I only knew of n/b Kearny Villa Road which has no lights on the section posted at 65 mph. I never noticed 65 mph speed limit signs on Vista Sorrento, but that's on the sdbc club route, and I've ridden on it dozens if not hundreds of times. That road is piece of cake to ride - traffic speed is certainly not an issue. And I trust JF's assessment of Jamboree above. You exaggerate. Heck, even mentioning these roads as if they present problems peculiar to cycling on them is an exaggeration in and of itself.

No, I point out the reality of why more people are not cycling...

Even respondents of the SDCBC mail list used the terms "not for the "faint hearted... "

[Ed Holland]

When I got into cycle transport in the area I live in I first started cycling on low volume low speed roads, before I even needed to get anywhere real. I had no interest in recreational cycling, my rides were just to re-learn cycling and learn cycling in traffic. This was only four years ago. After a couple months of further increasing the reach of my travels I decided it was time to cycle to work. I picked the route that had the fewest left turns from multi lane roads. That was the uncomfortable situation for me. My routes did include left turns on residential street some with multiple lanes and moderate traffic and some left merges on arterials where lanes ended. In a matter of a few weeks these became comfortable.

This is similar to my experience. There is a general change in comfort level as one becomes accustomed to riding. Another big factor is familiarity with the routes one uses. I know I feel less confident when riding in an unfamiliar part of town than on frequently travelled routes where the traffic patterns are more familiar.


My point is that I am really not well seasoned and recently enough learned and gained experience that I can still recall how intimidating it was, but also look back and know it took much less than a year to be confident and comfortable. I also know that unless one trys and builds up from easier to more difficult conditions that one will never be comfortable.

I couldn't agree more. It does take will power, as mentioned elsewhere.


It really is no different than learning to drive a motor vehicle in more difficult situations. No one would suggest taking a new driver out in the streets of NY or on an freeway in high speed rush hour.

Al

Quite right. Added to this, few cyclists have the benefit of any form of guided training and must learn use of the roads for themselves on an ad hoc basis. Learning the basic principles from a book (of which I understand there are well written examples) may help, but there is no substitute for practice.

Ed

[noisebeam]

Gene,

To continue your question about the timid and/or less experienced...

What speed limit should be set (lets assume, incorrectly, for the moment that drivers will follow the PSL) on a generic flat multi lane road with good sightlines and a range of density from typical rush hour to late night to accommodate the level of experience that you feel is minimal to support your goals for comfortable left turning. 15mph? 25mph, 35mph, 45mph, 55mph.
At this point I hear 65mph is too fast.
aL

[Helmet Head]

No, I point out the reality of why more people are not cycling...

Even respondents of the SDCBC mail list used the terms "not for the "faint hearted... "
It's because they've bought into the notion that slow bikes and fast cars don't mix on surface streets, whether they realize it or not.

The solution therefore lies in dispelling the notion, as I try to do, not reinforcing it, as you try to do.

[genec]

Gene,

To continue your question about the timid and/or less experienced...

What speed limit should be set (lets assume, incorrectly, for the moment that drivers will follow the PSL) on a generic flat multi lane road with good sightlines and a range of density from typical rush hour to late night to accommodate the level of experience that you feel is minimal to support your goals for comfortable left turning. 15mph? 25mph, 35mph, 45mph, 55mph.
At this point I hear 65mph is too fast.
aL

Well I find that above 35MPH on flat roads I can experience difficulties with motorist negotiations. Since I ride between about 20MPH on flat road, this experience is very consistent with John Forester's claim of "difficult negotiations" when there is a 15MPH difference in speed. At 45MPH longer sightlines are needed to get a left turn negotiated, and above that, motorists seem very reluctant to slow down to cycling speed.

Now this is not to say that one cannot negotiate with motorists even at higher speeds... it just becomes increasingly difficult... especially in fast, dense traffic.

65MPH is fine on a lightly traveled country road... or even on weekend (when HH travels some of these roads with a pack of cyclists) so the whole issue is the combination of density and speed of traffic, not just speed alone. In fact, when traffic is very heavy, as we all know, it tends to slow way down and cyclists can easily slip on by.

So the real question is why near freeway speeds on roads that are shared? You mentioned that in your area they lower the speeds to 45 as they become more widely used... I don't see that happening here... typically road speeds are raised.

I would like to see a high speed limit set however at 45 for arterial roads... just to set upper bounds. And of course this would have to be enforced.

[John Forester]

If experienced but timid is the reaction of some of the cyclists here... how then do we expect "less experienced and timid" to react.

Apparently even John Forester drives routes to check them out first... ;)

I have been pointedly informed by the moderator that we are to act as if all participants are equally well-informed and well-intentioned. I rather wish that you would play your part also according to the standards of the moderator.

[John Forester]

Did you note the speed limit on that road John? Near East Bluff did you take note of the narrow lanes that a cyclist would have to "claim?"

Of course you would do a cycling evaluation in a car... :rolleyes: (Helmet Head uses a camper) Did you drive at 12-15MPH to actually simulate acting like a cyclist? Or did you drive it at automobile speeds?

I drove slowly, but probably a bit faster than cycling speed. The difference in speed would make very little difference to the situation.

[noisebeam]

I would like to see a high speed limit set however at 45 for arterial roads... just to set upper bounds. And of course this would have to be enforced.

If that is your answer, then I think we are in close agreement. I actually prefer 40mph PSL (although I can't say for me I see a noticeable difference in merge ease/comfort) and see no reason for how arterials are laid and and use and integrated with the system of urban freeways than 40mph is unreasonable. I'd also prefer to motor if the arterial PSL were reduced from 45-40mph as already has been done in parts of Tempe.

Al

[John Forester]

I

Apparently even John Forester drives routes to check them out first... ;)

Please inform us all of your wide experience in this matter, on which you have made this claim. Otherwise I might have to displease the moderator a second time by describing the truthful basis for your claim.

[genec]

I have been pointedly informed by the moderator that we are to act as if all participants are equally well-informed and well-intentioned. I rather wish that you would play your part also according to the standards of the moderator.

I have never been "called on the carpet" for any of my comments here. I strive to present the truth as I see it as an experienced cyclist actually riding on the roads and dealing with what I observe and having lived "car free" for several years.

I find it rather amusing that those that tend to defend VC practices also tend to be the ones that invoke the "I'm telling the moderator" card. :rolleyes:

[John Forester]

Well I find that above 35MPH on flat roads I can experience difficulties with motorist negotiations. Since I ride between about 20MPH on flat road, this experience is very consistent with John Forester's claim of "difficult negotiations" when there is a 15MPH difference in speed. At 45MPH longer sightlines are needed to get a left turn negotiated, and above that, motorists seem very reluctant to slow down to cycling speed.

Now this is not to say that one cannot negotiate with motorists even at higher speeds... it just becomes increasingly difficult... especially in fast, dense traffic.

65MPH is fine on a lightly traveled country road... or even on weekend (when HH travels some of these roads with a pack of cyclists) so the whole issue is the combination of density and speed of traffic, not just speed alone. In fact, when traffic is very heavy, as we all know, it tends to slow way down and cyclists can easily slip on by.

So the real question is why near freeway speeds on roads that are shared? You mentioned that in your area they lower the speeds to 45 as they become more widely used... I don't see that happening here... typically road speeds are raised.

I would like to see a high speed limit set however at 45 for arterial roads... just to set upper bounds. And of course this would have to be enforced.

Genec has entirely ignored the issue of signalized intersections. Most of these roads have signalized intersections which break up the traffic stream into platoons. If a cyclist wishes to make a left turn on such a road, he should time his lateral move to be between platoons, when the traffic is much less dense.

[John Forester]

I have never been "called on the carpet" for any of my comments here. I strive to present the truth as I see it as an experienced cyclist actually riding on the roads and dealing with what I observe and having lived "car free" for several years.

So this very recent statement of yours is an example of your presenting the truth as you see it: "Apparently even John Forester drives routes to check them out first... " You condemn yourself out of your own keyboard.