View Full Version : Lane Control video
invisiblehand
03-16-08, 09:04 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yp32rEpecQ
Two cyclists with cameras demonstrate lane control techniques.
Gee, 20 cars pass in some 9 minutes... 3 of which pass while the cyclist is waiting to turn left... If I had that kind of traffic, I would never complain.
They should try this in an area where 20 cars are trying to pass in 3 minutes or less, during rush hour, on a street marked at 50MPH.
This was a "park ride."
Perhaps they could stay on "Ocean Blvd" (the 6 lane street) on a busy Monday morning and then reshoot the video.
Perhaps they can try Jamboree from Santa Ana to Newport Beach (near their area) that is 3 lanes wide, marked at 60MPH and has no bike lanes... control that on a Monday morning.
Oh and be sure to turn up the audio... so we can hear the reaction of motorists behind the cyclist.
Yeah, nice "control." :rolleyes:
Nice video, Dan and Brian. I wish it were required viewing for all prospective motorists and bicyclists. It would be great to get it put into traffic school courses, as well.
I was interested that Dan often took the right tire track, as I frequently do, rather than the center of the lane, as HH would insist.
The lower the speed limit and traffic flow, the more I endorse the principles of vehicular cycling. It is at freeway-style high speed free merges and diverges where our opinions sometimes "diverge." :)
I do fully concur with gene's comments, above. Let's see a cycling training video shot on Jamboree Rd. when traffic is heavy, but still fast. The more I think about it, the more I realize that, except for horrendous air quality, I actually preferred transportation cycling in Los Angeles over San Diego. When I lived in the vast west central L.A. floodplain, with its tight grid of well-connected local streets, I could almost always chart an efficient route on 35mph or slower streets. In much of San Diego and southern Orange Counties, high-speed streets are sometimes all that is available. Speed kills -- physics is physics, there is less time for motorists to react, etc.
maddyfish
03-16-08, 11:00 AM
Basically the way I ride, but remember there is no 'control'.
Harsh
I think for 2 guys with a couple cameras, making a video like this as a service, they did a fine job.
Maybe they picked a quiet rode on purpose to show the techniques? Maybe?
Why don't you all go find a friend and shoot the same video on a busy street? I would bet that while it looked more "real" it would be more difficult to illustrate the techniques.
-D
I do not think we are being harsh at all. Dan and Brian are great guys who have given much of their valuable personal time and financial resources to the cause of cycling safety. I acknowledge this gift with profound gratitude. The video is quite good, and I have already stated that it should be viewed by motorists, cyclists, and law enforcement officers.
I would simply like to see the same route shot under fast and heavy traffic conditions, just as I would welcome a training video shot at one of our nightmarish fast freeway-style merges or diverges, again under fast and heavy traffic conditions, preferably into the rising or setting sun.
crhilton
03-16-08, 03:24 PM
Seems like they're in a downtown area where they can keep up with the 22-24 mph pace of traffic. Try the burbs guys. You can do that, but you'll get honks, fingers, and buzzed.
There are times where I control the lane, but these guys never give up control. They also never seem to ride on no parking streets, heh. I wonder if cali has the as far right as practicable law. I'm beginning to loathe that law. I'll do it out of kindness, but what do I get out of it? The feeling that it's not so bad to illegally pass on the right at the intersection?
crhilton
03-16-08, 03:25 PM
I do not think we are being harsh at all. Dan and Brian are great guys who have given much of their valuable personal time and financial resources to the cause of cycling safety. I acknowledge this gift with profound gratitude. The video is quite good, and I have already stated that it should be viewed by motorists, cyclists, and law enforcement officers.
I would simply like to see the same route shot under fast and heavy traffic conditions, just as I would welcome a training video shot at one of our nightmarish fast freeway-style merges or diverges, again under fast and heavy traffic conditions, preferably into the rising or setting sun.
I don't think it even has to be at rush hour traffic. Just fast paced traffic would be nice to see. Maybe they have that video too?
They do keep up with that Chrysler for most of the ride. I've kept up with cars for a few blocks, but never for a significant distance.
John E
I should have clarified, I was mostly responding to Genec's tone in his post.
-D
Bekologist
03-16-08, 08:06 PM
ah, videotaping of weekend LCI strokefests!!
A 'feelgood' Bike101 video of slow speed, low volume traffic!
The joys of weekend pleasure riding with a buddy and a camera or two!
I loved the 'don't pass on right' FEARMONGERING they did, such orderly cyclists waiting in line!! what if traffic gets REALLY bad?
good lane positioning. how are we going to get all the bicyclists to do that again? the old folks, the timid, and the out of shape? and how will the motorists like that during weekday rush hour?
how would they have ridden on a well accomodated, major arterial with a buffered,vehicular bike lane and heavy traffic? I BET the LCI strokefest crew don't want to show THAT to the public!!
DCCommuter
03-16-08, 08:07 PM
While it's easy to find things to criticize, I like the videos. I applaud the video-makers for at least advancing the argument by showing specific riding positions on specific roads. Watching the video, the streets look very much the ones I ride on every day, and they're riding pretty much the way I ride. I agree that they don't really show any tough situations -- traffic is slow, and where it's not there are ample passing opportunities.
I would be very interested in seeing video comparing competing riding styles in really tough situations -- where there are long stretches where passing is impossible, and the cars move at much greater speed than bicycles. I'm not sure any riding style works all that well in those conditions.
DCCommuter
03-16-08, 08:09 PM
I would simply like to see the same route shot under fast and heavy traffic conditions.
If those streets are anything like mine, there is no such thing as fast and heavy. Any appreciable volume and things start slowing down.
Bekologist
03-16-08, 08:15 PM
i think its a good video. show the folks how its DONE. They should show roads with good bike lanes & generally how to ride them, as well as roads with poor bike lanes & how to generally ride them, but that's asking a bit much from most LCI!
the advanced stuff is more ambiguous :D anyways.
The Human Car
03-17-08, 08:57 AM
I really like this kind of double camera set up for getting a feel of the whole picture.
noisebeam
03-17-08, 09:59 AM
I find lane control as shown in video really helps to make cycling in traffic an enjoyable experience. Here is 9min of mostly (except the first 1min) lane controlling on 45 and 40mph roads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_87u2tPCemw
(edit: I counted 29 vehicles pass me in the first 2min, then stopped counting)
Al
I do not think we are being harsh at all. Dan and Brian are great guys who have given much of their valuable personal time and financial resources to the cause of cycling safety. I acknowledge this gift with profound gratitude. The video is quite good, and I have already stated that it should be viewed by motorists, cyclists, and law enforcement officers.
I would simply like to see the same route shot under fast and heavy traffic conditions, just as I would welcome a training video shot at one of our nightmarish fast freeway-style merges or diverges, again under fast and heavy traffic conditions, preferably into the rising or setting sun.
I too think it is a great video... It shows how a cyclist can use vehicular cycling on the right streets... and frankly I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is strict vehicular cyclists insisting that vehicular cycling can work anywhere and for anybody... And with that mantra... insisting that "all roads are bike lanes... "
I firmly believe that on higher speed roads the difference in speed between motor traffic and cyclists can make vehicular cycling "less than suitable... " and that if road engineers are going to insist on building near Freeway like conditions into surface streets shared by cyclists and pedestrians, provisions such as separated paths should be provided.
I feel that Vehicular Cycling works quite well on streets posted up to about 35MPH (my personal experience), and beyond that, it becomes increasingly difficult for cyclists to negotiate with motorists. (Forester says when there is a 15MPH difference... negotiation becomes "impossible.")
I feel that there are separated roadways for fast auto traffic and those are just fine... (limited access Freeways) but that should be the only place that motor traffic should be moving at those speeds...
I base all this not only on the speed issue, but also traffic density, roadway design, and driver distractions.
I don't think it even has to be at rush hour traffic. Just fast paced traffic would be nice to see. Maybe they have that video too?
They do keep up with that Chrysler for most of the ride. I've kept up with cars for a few blocks, but never for a significant distance.
Which shows that this traffic situation is probably ideal for cycling... And perhaps not the reality that some of us face.
If those streets are anything like mine, there is no such thing as fast and heavy. Any appreciable volume and things start slowing down.
Come out here to the west some time... where 50MPH arterials are the norm... From Houston to Phoenix to LA and San Diego... fast and heavy are conditions that we see daily.
invisiblehand
03-17-08, 10:37 AM
Come out here to the west some time... where 50MPH arterials are the norm... From Houston to Phoenix to LA and San Diego... fast and heavy are conditions that we see daily.
I think that some of the discussion is getting lost in the vagueness of language. That is, what does someone mean by fast and/or heavy.
I think that some of the discussion is getting lost in the vagueness of language. That is, what does someone mean by fast and/or heavy.
A steady stream of traffic moving at or near 50MPH. No significant gaps. Traffic that is difficult to change lanes in while driving... much less bike.
AlmostTrick
03-17-08, 11:07 AM
A steady stream of traffic moving at or near 50MPH. No significant gaps. Traffic that is difficult to change lanes in while driving... much less bike.
While cycling in those conditions is certainly no picnic, wouldn't you agree that using VC techniques is the best way to handle it? Other than not cycling there at all, I don't see any other workable solutions, at least not in the present.
While cycling in those conditions is certainly no picnic, wouldn't you agree that using VC techniques is the best way to handle it? Other than not cycling there at all, I don't see any other workable solutions, at least not in the present.
No, VC is not the answer... except for perhaps the best and highest skilled cyclists.
To proclaim that VC is for everybody and that anyone can do it under those conditions is turning a blind eye to reality... and certainly this does nothing to promote cycling... by telling cyclists to simply suck it up and do it... :rolleyes:
We cyclists should insist on lower traffic speeds and well designed bikeways in the face of such motorways.
AlmostTrick
03-17-08, 11:24 AM
No, VC is not the answer... except for perhaps the best and highest skilled cyclists.
To proclaim that VC is for everybody and that anyone can do it under those conditions is turning a blind eye to reality... and certainly this does nothing to promote cycling... by telling cyclists to simply suck it up and do it... :rolleyes:
We cyclists should insist on lower traffic speeds and well designed bikeways in the face of such motorways.
Oh, I agree. But if one is insistent on going out there and riding the road the way it is today, what technique would be safer than VC?
Oh, I agree. But if one is insistent on going out there and riding the road the way it is today, what technique would be safer than VC?
There isn't any other immediate technique available... changing of the roads and motoring habits will take time.
But the "road the way it is today" did not spring up overnight... so why should we insist on using a technique that may not apply to "road the way it is today?" This is akin to standing in front of tanks with bows and arrows and saying... "well we have no other way... "
We can change laws, we can insist on changes to roadways... but to do so we must first acknowledge that there is a problem... and not just "go along."
Bear in mind that "the road the way it is today" is not the same road of yesteryear... it is more crowded, faster, and the motorists are more distracted... still want to use the same old techniques?"
noisebeam
03-17-08, 11:29 AM
We cyclists should insist on lower traffic speeds and well designed bikeways in the face of such motorways.
I too advocate for lower speed limits and enforcement of existing speed limits with zero tolerance. This is good no matter what the on-street facilities do or do not include.
However if an intersectionless road must have a 50mph PSL, then there are two on road choices vs. a narrow outside lane: One is a bike lane, the other a wide (>16') lane.
If this bike lane is designed just to meet minimum AASTHO (4' lane) then I'd much rather have the 16' WOL.
But if the bike lane can be at least 6' wide with a regular and very frequent (1/2wks is not enough) sweeping schedule, then it acceptable too.
Al
pretty good demonstration...those streets even I would ride, and I'm a wimp. what was it, sunday morning?
noisebeam
03-17-08, 01:30 PM
I've noticed that in videos where cyclists communicate with motorists, make intents clear and prevent sharing narrow lanes that it can (accurately) look like a ho-hum thats easy type traffic situation. In similar traffic situations where cyclists don't do these things can results in video documentation showing a road that looks bad to cycle on.
I am not saying that traffic was heavy or fast in this particular video.
Al
Allister
03-17-08, 06:51 PM
I too think it is a great video... It shows how a cyclist can use vehicular cycling on the right streets... and frankly I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is strict vehicular cyclists insisting that vehicular cycling can work anywhere and for anybody... And with that mantra... insisting that "all roads are bike lanes... "
I'm not sure what you think VC is, but I'm pretty sure it's not something you switch on and off depending on the road conditions. Saying you can only use VC on certain streets is as silly as saying you can only drive a car vehicularly on certain streets.
The way I see it, if you're riding a bike in public space, you are governed by rules. That includes every road, path bikeway, shoulder or other 'road-related area', and you either ride in accordance with them ie. 'vehicularly', or you don't. If you do decide to ride according to the rules, why would you only do so under certain conditions?
VC is not just riding in the middle of the lane. In fact, my reading of Effective Cycling suggested exactly the method of lane claiming that I prefer - to only do it when it's necessary. HH's legacy of over-emphasising lane-claiming as a technique is gonna take a while to dissipate, I see.
The only real failing of the VC education system I really see is a refusal to deal with the rules for paths and bikelanes, and teaching how to ride on them 'vehicularly'.
Now, whether VC can 'work for everybody in every situation' is entirely dependant on the individual. I ride on roads that not many other cyclists prefer to use. I always obey the rules, I claim the lane when necessary, and I mostly feel safe, but I'm not going to insist that they emulate me if they are more comfortable on a path. Some roads are simply too daunting for all but the most experienced cyclists, and even then in some spots, I really start thinking that I'd prefer to be elsewhere. To deny that is foolish. If you are going to ride on a path though, do it vehicularly.
I feel that Vehicular Cycling works quite well on streets posted up to about 35MPH (my personal experience), and beyond that, it becomes increasingly difficult for cyclists to negotiate with motorists. (Forester says when there is a 15MPH difference... negotiation becomes "impossible.")
There are many factor that determine the riding comfort of any road - speed of traffic is just one of them. There's lane width, traffic density, number of lanes, amount of crossing traffic etc. Added to that is the relative rarity of needing to cross lanes to make a turn. There's a variety of techniques one can employ to achieve this, depending on the situation, but I can't say I've ever encountered a situation that was 'impossible' to negotiate by one means or another.
maddyfish
03-17-08, 07:01 PM
. I've kept up with cars for a few blocks, but never for a significant distance.
Not to be harsh, but either you haven't noticed them, or you are very slow. Around downtown Cincinnati, and Newport, Ky. a fast biker is significantly faster than a car. From my house, to my wife's office building in downtown Cincinnati at morning rush hour, me on my bike about 7 minutes, my wife in her car, if traffic is good, 11 minutes, if not 20.
maddyfish
03-17-08, 07:06 PM
I think you guys over think this stuff.
Be seen. Take up space. Be alert. Be confident. Don't worry. Works for me. In Cincinnati, Oh., Madison, Wi., Norman, Ok., Lexington, Ky., Indianapolis, In., and all the other places I have cycled.
I love traffic, I love riding in the city. Embrace your enemy, make him yours.
crhilton
03-17-08, 07:54 PM
Not to be harsh, but either you haven't noticed them, or you are very slow. Around downtown Cincinnati, and Newport, Ky. a fast biker is significantly faster than a car. From my house, to my wife's office building in downtown Cincinnati at morning rush hour, me on my bike about 7 minutes, my wife in her car, if traffic is good, 11 minutes, if not 20.
Or I live in the burbs ;). Traffic averages between 30 and 35mph, unless it's very busy.
I'm not sure what you think VC is, but I'm pretty sure it's not something you switch on and off depending on the road conditions. Saying you can only use VC on certain streets is as silly as saying you can only drive a car vehicularly on certain streets.
The way I see it, if you're riding a bike in public space, you are governed by rules. That includes every road, path bikeway, shoulder or other 'road-related area', and you either ride in accordance with them ie. 'vehicularly', or you don't. If you do decide to ride according to the rules, why would you only do so under certain conditions?
VC is not just riding in the middle of the lane. In fact, my reading of Effective Cycling suggested exactly the method of lane claiming that I prefer - to only do it when it's necessary. HH's legacy of over-emphasising lane-claiming as a technique is gonna take a while to dissipate, I see.
The only real failing of the VC education system I really see is a refusal to deal with the rules for paths and bikelanes, and teaching how to ride on them 'vehicularly'.
Now, whether VC can 'work for everybody in every situation' is entirely dependant on the individual. I ride on roads that not many other cyclists prefer to use. I always obey the rules, I claim the lane when necessary, and I mostly feel safe, but I'm not going to insist that they emulate me if they are more comfortable on a path. Some roads are simply too daunting for all but the most experienced cyclists, and even then in some spots, I really start thinking that I'd prefer to be elsewhere. To deny that is foolish. If you are going to ride on a path though, do it vehicularly.
There are many factor that determine the riding comfort of any road - speed of traffic is just one of them. There's lane width, traffic density, number of lanes, amount of crossing traffic etc. Added to that is the relative rarity of needing to cross lanes to make a turn. There's a variety of techniques one can employ to achieve this, depending on the situation, but I can't say I've ever encountered a situation that was 'impossible' to negotiate by one means or another.
You are right you cannot just turn it off... but what happens on fast streets with heavy traffic is not the same as what happens on the slow streets shown.
On fast streets with heavy traffic you will find making those left turns quite difficult if not impossible, (John Forester then tells you to become a "road sneak") you will not be able to "control the lane" but will be crowded over to the far right side by honking aggressive motorists. Thus VC fails, it is not "turned off."
The very statement you make above "bolded" is what I am also saying... and for those situations where vehicular cycling "fails" (as indeed not everyone is of the same skill, nor has the same nerve) alternative paths should exist.
Consider this, some motorists are frightened of Freeways... but an alternative exists, in the form of surface streets. Such an alternative does not generally exist for cyclists... as cycling is not taken as a serious form of transportation in many countries. Sure, sidewalks may exist in some places, but are they really a safe haven? And if so, certainly one has then chosen to "not be vehicular" when using sidewalks.
The failing I see of vehicular cycling is that of not teaching it to every cyclist... and not informing the motoring public that indeed we have rights to the road. I still contend that many motorists have no clue that we have the same rights to the road as they. Yet vehicular cyclists insist that "all roads are bike lanes," when clearly there are roads that only the most skilled can handle.
Further, surface streets do not have to be designed as freeways with 50, even 60MPH posted speeds and high speed free merges, as those types of roads are decidedly not cyclist friendly.
CommuterRun
03-18-08, 02:45 PM
Damn, now I feel like going for a ride, after I've already ridden home from work.
One of them could have worn a different color shirt so I wouldn't feel cross-eyed watching it.
Other than that, great clip.:)
maddyfish
03-18-08, 04:13 PM
Or I live in the burbs ;). Traffic averages between 30 and 35mph, unless it's very busy.
It's still hard to believe you've never come across a situation where a bike was faster.
Do you have a gray beard? No you ride a Raleigh 3 speed? Do you own a wicker basket?
It's still hard to believe you've never come across a situation where a bike was faster.
Do you have a gray beard? No you ride a Raleigh 3 speed? Do you own a wicker basket?
Hey watch that gray beard stuff... I know I have come across plenty of situations where bikes are faster than cars. What I find interesting is that so many motorists just sit there in their cars (one driver to each car) and don't consider other means of transportation.... ;) Even when I pass them uphill at my lowly 8MPH.
I know I am home with beer in hand before some of these folks even get to a freeway.
crhilton
03-18-08, 06:41 PM
It's still hard to believe you've never come across a situation where a bike was faster.
Do you have a gray beard? No you ride a Raleigh 3 speed? Do you own a wicker basket?
I ride around 17mph typically (sometimes I push it and go faster, sometimes I'm lazy and go slower; and sometimes the hills decide). I ride an aluminum road bike (not a single or fixie). I'm not a speed demon.
But out in the burbs, here in the midwest, cars normally average around 30mph down city roads. You just aren't going to be faster unless you've got a better route: And in the burbs, the only straight routes are the multi-lane throughways; everything else zig-zags and dead ends.
bkrownd
03-18-08, 07:01 PM
But out in the burbs, here in the midwest, cars normally average around 30mph down city roads.
I'd say the average is closer to 45 in mixed residential/retail roads in the burbs I'm used to. 35 feels like crawling in the burbs, especially in todays huge overpowered cars. (even Japanese cars are huge these days...) I dread the thought of riding on more heavily trafficed suburban roads - they're a disaster. Funny how the "suburbs" are often more urban and congested than the city centers these days.
Allister
03-18-08, 07:08 PM
On fast streets with heavy traffic you will find making those left turns quite difficult if not impossible, (John Forester then tells you to become a "road sneak") you will not be able to "control the lane" but will be crowded over to the far right side by honking aggressive motorists. Thus VC fails, it is not "turned off."
The very statement you make above "bolded" is what I am also saying... and for those situations where vehicular cycling "fails" (as indeed not everyone is of the same skill, nor has the same nerve) alternative paths should exist.
Saying that 'VC fails' is like saying that the rules of the road fail. Perhaps some do, but as far as merging across lanes and making turns, they are all clearly spelled out in the rules. The only failng is in the part of other road users that attempt to deny cyclists the ability to do so with bullying tactics. A point, I believe, you've repeatedly made.
It's the unfettered aggression, no matter how overstated it is sometimes, of motorists that creates the perception of danger.
The only way you could ever say 'VC fails' is if the configuration of the road or path makes it impossible to follow the rules of the road, and in that case it's the road that fails, and it fails equally for every road user. Thankfully, those places are rare.
The failing I see of vehicular cycling is that of not teaching it to every cyclist... and not informing the motoring public that indeed we have rights to the road. I still contend that many motorists have no clue that we have the same rights to the road as they. Yet vehicular cyclists insist that "all roads are bike lanes," when clearly there are roads that only the most skilled can handle.
They don't require any more skill. The same skills apply irrespective of the traffic. If you can hold a line, and ride one handed for signalling, you're golden. Some just require a bit more bravado, and that usually comes with experience.
To be fair, I do believe educating all cyclists and informing the motoring public is the VCists stated aim. They haven't been very effective at it to date, but they get points for trying.
Further, surface streets do not have to be designed as freeways with 50, even 60MPH posted speeds and high speed free merges, as those types of roads are decidedly not cyclist friendly.
Well, no. I ride plenty of non-cyclist freindly roads. Not necesserily by choice, but I refuse to be cowed off riding any road I need to. If that's what they're building, that's what I ride on. Until the cycling utopia we all dream off eventuates, I'm making do. Some make do by riding on the footpath, or seeking out off road bikepaths or quieter routes, and that's fine too.
Dahon.Steve
03-18-08, 07:43 PM
I would simply like to see the same route shot under fast and heavy traffic conditions, just as I would welcome a training video shot at one of our nightmarish fast freeway-style merges or diverges, again under fast and heavy traffic conditions, preferably into the rising or setting sun.
The same exercise under heavy traffic conditions with higher speeds would be dangerous. The conditions on U-Tube presentation were ideal and should not be followed under all conditions.
Dahon.Steve
03-18-08, 08:28 PM
I was thinking about making a U-Tube presentation about riding on sidewalks. Seriously. There are millions doing it badly so someone should show people how to do it correctly. ;-) I think I'm an expert on this and it would be a first.
Here are some problems on the presentation.
The cyclist was taking the lane all the time -- I have problem with this because it's just inviting trouble. I wondered how many times he was honked during that ride because motorist go into a rage if you take the lane like in the video. Even when there was plenty of room on the shoulder, he still remained in the middle of the road taking the entire traffic lane blocking traffic.
The cyclist did not lane split --- I guess he doesn't mind breathing in exhaust but it gets hot and toxic at a stop light surrounded by cars, trucks and buses.
Allister
03-18-08, 08:39 PM
Alrighty, I finally got to watch the vid last night (:em:)
I reckon it's a pretty good demonstration of lane claiming. The rear rider took a slightly more kerbward position than the front one, and that's where I'd normally favour, but the difference is negligible.
One question: Is that the most boring place to ride on the planet, or what?
I reckon it should be edited into several shorter clips showing normal lane travel, and left and right turns.
It's a good basic demonstration of the techniques, and I think the light traffic suits that intent. It might be an interesting addendum to show the same techniques in conditions where it isn't so easy for cars to move into the next lane to pass, to show how they work in less ideal conditions, but for showing the techniques, they are pretty sufficient.
One way you could solve the camera problem with showing proper shoulder checking, would be to take the camera off the front cyclist, and mount it rearward on the following bike, just to show a 'rear view mirror' view of how motorists behave. You don't really need to see the rear cyclist - the front one shows the techniques well enough.
AlmostTrick
03-18-08, 08:50 PM
It's still hard to believe you've never come across a situation where a bike was faster.
Do you have a gray beard? No you ride a Raleigh 3 speed? Do you own a wicker basket?
Haha. You must live in a large downtown city center. Even if I shave and dump the flower basket there's nowhere near my suburb where a bike would ever be faster than a car, unless you can hold at least 40 mph. On the main arterials try 55. At least ten over the limit is the norm.
DCCommuter
03-18-08, 08:54 PM
The cyclist was taking the lane all the time -- I have problem with this because it's just inviting trouble. I wondered how many times he was honked during that ride because motorist go into a rage if you take the lane like in the video. Even when there was plenty of room on the shoulder, he still remained in the middle of the road taking the entire traffic lane blocking traffic.
I watched the same video and I can't say there was any point where I thought he was taking the lane inappropriately. At what time mark in the video did you see this?
Allister
03-18-08, 09:00 PM
I watched the same video and I can't say there was any point where I thought he was taking the lane inappropriately. At what time mark in the video did you see this?
I concur. I didn't see any traffic getting 'blocked' either. They all seemed to pass safely within an acceptable time to me.
AlmostTrick
03-18-08, 09:03 PM
I watched the same video and I can't say there was any point where I thought he was taking the lane inappropriately. At what time mark in the video did you see this?
I agree with DC, especially since no motorists were ever "stuck" behind them for even a few seconds. I have cars waiting behind me for much longer than that every day. Occasionally they even honk, (oh my!) but almost never put me in any real danger. All of my close calls were from motorists who showed no signs of road rage.
crhilton
03-18-08, 09:53 PM
I'd say the average is closer to 45 in mixed residential/retail roads in the burbs I'm used to. 35 feels like crawling in the burbs, especially in todays huge overpowered cars. (even Japanese cars are huge these days...) I dread the thought of riding on more heavily trafficed suburban roads - they're a disaster. Funny how the "suburbs" are often more urban and congested than the city centers these days.
The average includes stops at traffic lights.
Haha. You must live in a large downtown city center. Even if I shave and dump the flower basket there's nowhere near my suburb where a bike would ever be faster than a car, unless you can hold at least 40 mph. On the main arterials try 55. At least ten over the limit is the norm.
this is true here too. except on neighborhood streets. arterials 45-60 when they can get away with it.
maddyfish
03-19-08, 05:28 AM
The cyclist did not lane split --- I guess he doesn't mind breathing in exhaust but it gets hot and toxic at a stop light surrounded by cars, trucks and buses.
I noticed the no lane split thing. They'd have been ahaed of the chrysler if they'd have ridden like bikes, and not like cars.
maddyfish
03-19-08, 05:35 AM
. They all seemed to pass safely within an acceptable time to me.
What is "an acceptable amount of time"?
My answer is simple- driving is about waiting, they can wait, forever if needed.
Example- here in town there is a 25mph 2 lane road that runs through town, about 4 miles with on street parking on both sides. I drive my car no faster than 19 mph on it. No exceptions. People sit back there and stack up, somtimes several deep. Too bad. 25 mph is the speed limit, not the required speed.
I ride my bike on the same road in the 24-25 mph range.
Example- when stopped waiting for trafic to clear to turn left, I feel no guilt whatsoever, they wait, that's the way it is.
Driving is about waiting, that's why cars have comfy chairs, radio, tv, internet, and so forth.
Allister
03-19-08, 05:48 AM
What is "an acceptable amount of time"?
Any time less than it takes a particular driver to get p!ssed off?
My answer is simple- driving is about waiting, they can wait, forever if needed.
No argument there.
In the case of the video though, there's no such need. I'm just saying there was no 'blocking' going on. Even on a road where they can't get around and have to wait, I don't consider that 'blocking' traffic any more than I consider being stuck in traffic in my car as 'blocking' the people behind me.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.