not arguing, not obsessive. I mention a once influential bike advocate disapproves of WOLs and really wants NOLs - even on 50MPH roads- in a discussion about WOLs, this is obsessive? sorry, don't think so.


Hey, I think this whole subforum can be collapsed now that the root cause of this subforum has left..... believe me, I have no particular interest in this subforum, i simply take GRAVE OFFENSE at the sabotage wreaked by the unaccomodationalist bent of the VC platform.. ******ing American cycling for 40 years is what's happened here...

Being to the right, or in the possible turning arc of traffic that can turn right? Most definetly not vehicular.
Bek, wasn't it you who said, "One can ride vehicularly in a bike lane?"

Isn't a bike lane "...in the possible turning arc of traffic that can turn right?"

Just asking.

...NOT about the bike lanes.

a bike lane that is well provided, (examples being ones that have neither parking or intersections to its right, bike lanes with mixing sections prior to RTO boxing at signalized intersections) can most definetly be ridden in vehicularliy by even the most stalwart VC. However, this has been discussed before and in other posts....

this post is describing WOLs with steady faster traffic and near continuous stream of minor intersections, streets and curb cuts....

invisible hand, do you think this type of situation occurs as frequently between other motorists, or would bicyclists perhaps be MORE prone to the hook becasue of the greater speed differential? I don't buy for a second motorists and bicyclists both face the same level of danger from faster traffic overtaking on the left....

I don't recall writing the sentence emphasized in this font. But reading your sentence more carefully, you don't write that I did.

Considering that most motor vehicles are traveling (much) faster and are physically larger than bicycles, I believe bicycles are more likely to be aggressively passed on the left by a driver getting ready to turn right.

unfortunately, that system falls apart with two lane roads and traffic with speed differentials...

What system? You have not demonstrated that here.

...NOT about the bike lanes.

Clearly it is since WOLs and bike lanes are considered alternatives. In other words, for someone to prefer WOL doesn't mean that a WOL is perfect, just better than a bike lane.

Bek, wasn't it you who said, "One can ride vehicularly in a bike lane?"

Isn't a bike lane "...in the possible turning arc of traffic that can turn right?"

Just asking.

...NOT about the bike lanes...this post is describing WOLs with steady faster traffic and near continuous stream of minor intersections, streets and curb cuts....
You didn't address my question.

I think the strict VC, JF approved approach is now 'no wide lanes, narrow lanes only to purportedly ensure vehicularity- one lane, one vehicle.

Oh ... assuming you are not trolling ... why do you think this?

Clearly it is since WOLs and bike lanes are considered alternatives. In other words, for someone to prefer WOL doesn't mean that a WOL is perfect, just better than a bike lane.

Functionally, I reckon WOLs and BLs are pretty much identical.

i'd have to search into some of the paper's i've read of forestor he's presented to the american dream coalition, invisiblehand, and have no interest in reading his billous spew at the present time to prove he holds this POV.

however, bike lanes and foresters' opinion of wide vs. narrow lanes are quite off topic to the OP.

Please stop trying to morph this discussion of the tacit hazards along WOLs with steady traffic and a continual stream of intersections. Invisiblehand, littlebigman, stop steering this thread off topic.

I'm not going to discuss WOLs versus bike lanes in a thread about hazards of WOLs.

my assertion is you cannot [ride safely in a WOL]. if you ride too far left, motorists pass irritated on YOUR right, a violation of the rules of the road. if you ride too far right, you violate being to the right of traffic that may turn right.

Where do YOU ride?


I've gone back to the OP to try to figure out exactly what you're asking. Basically you are asserting that WOL's are not safe to ride in at all. So your only solution, hypothetically, is to take another road. But I would wager that since you posted the OP you have ridden that road again or one like, it, deciding in reality that they are safe enough to ride in. So how did you do it?

Hey, I think this whole subforum can be collapsed now that the root cause of this subforum has left..... believe me, I have no particular interest in this subforum, i simply take GRAVE OFFENSE at the sabotage wreaked by the unaccomodationalist bent of the VC platform.. ******ing American cycling for 40 years is what's happened here...

LOL

No particular interest, yet Bek, you have started 75% of the new threads in this subforum since the root cause was banned. If you have such little interest why don't you just leave? You can always come back and refute whatever you want. If you hadn't created the threads you have lately, there probably wouldn't be any traffic in the subforum at all.

-D

isn't it great? glad to see you keep coming back for more.

what do you think about the points I raise about WOLs with steady, faster traffic, and a series of minor curb cuts and intersections, derath?

Once a lane is wide enough, riding 'as far right as practicable' with steady traffic and near constant intersections places a bicyclist in a constant and vulnerable, hookable road position?

derath, he's addressing valid questions...

Instead of taking a shot at Bek, why not try discussing the questions and not the poster. :(LOL

No particular interest, yet Bek, you have started 75% of the new threads in this subforum since the root cause was banned. If you have such little interest why don't you just leave? You can always come back and refute whatever you want. If you hadn't created the threads you have lately, there probably wouldn't be any traffic in the subforum at all.

-D

I've gone back to the OP to try to figure out exactly what you're asking. Basically you are asserting that WOL's are not safe to ride in at all. So your only solution, hypothetically, is to take another road. But I would wager that since you posted the OP you have ridden that road again or one like, it, deciding in reality that they are safe enough to ride in. So how did you do it?



the "solution', cooker, is to ride WOLs with awareness.

I'm pointing out VC and 'far right as practicable' rules stll place bicyclists in vulnerable, hookable road positions. I don't like to share 14 foot lanes, but when a lane gets 18-24 feet wide it's a bit difficult to control the lane and apply the 'one vehicle, one lane' rule to further minimize right hooks. (Chipseal in Dallas faintly raves about narrow lanes along high speed arterial, but that extremist VC point of view leaves a LOT to be desired for the general and potential cycling population.)

Hey, I was riding home in a busy WOL and the recurrent hookability of my road position seemed a good topic for A&S. I've been riding for almost 4 decades now, I've got it pretty well figured out. I'm not looking for solutions, i was looking for discussion....

I'm pointing out VC and 'far right as practicable' rules stll place bicyclists in vulnerable, hookable road positions.
Let's forget what VC does or doesn't say - that's off topic. You asked how we all ride in WOLs. Can you say more about how your "awareness" influences your actual behaviour in WOLs? What exactly do you do to keep yourself safe?

i'd have to search into some of the paper's i've read of forestor he's presented to the american dream coalition, invisiblehand, and have no interest in reading his billous spew at the present time to prove he holds this POV.

OK, then you have little basis for the statement below.

I think the strict VC, JF approved approach is now 'no wide lanes, narrow lanes only to purportedly ensure vehicularity- one lane, one vehicle.

Please stop trying to morph this discussion of the tacit hazards along WOLs with steady traffic and a continual stream of intersections. Invisiblehand, littlebigman, stop steering this thread off topic.

I'm not going to discuss WOLs versus bike lanes in a thread about hazards of WOLs.

Unfortunately, this is a discussion among the community. If bike lanes are relevant to a discussion regarding WOLs to a majority of the discussants, then you are free to skip it. You brought up the support of WOLs and -- by your own definition -- that it is vehicular. Consequently, bike lanes were introduced to the discussion.

If you are trying to write that riding on a road encapsulates risk -- you can be right-hooked anywhere on the road except presumably when driving/riding on the left side of the road whereby you can be "left-hooked" -- your point is made. But the choices of where and how to ride are about relative risk, not exposure to risk in general. Clearly minimizing risk such that it is zero is impossible. So to say something is hazardous begs the question, "hazardous with respect to what?"

... but when a lane gets 18-24 feet wide it's a bit difficult to control the lane and apply the 'one vehicle, one lane' rule to further minimize right hooks.

Where do you find 18-24 foot wide lanes next to an intersection? Can you show us one?

Functionally, I reckon WOLs and BLs are pretty much identical.

I agree that their functional differences to an experienced rider -- assuming we are not talking about something perverse -- are minimal. Perhaps there is a greater expectation to stay within the lane and more debris is collected. Perhaps there is better** lateral clearance with a bike lane away from the intersection.

Personally speaking, as the speed differential increases, the more I am willing to trade the former for the latter. Although the qualifier that we omit things are perverse can be important with regards to how government functions since I believe matters are more likely to be perverse with bike lanes.

** "Better" in this case would mean achieving some minimal amount of distance with very few instances of passing less than that distance. IMO, we should also value designed which allows for faster traffic flow in general; i.e., motorized and human-powered. A well designed and maintained bike lane makes much of the lateral negotiation trivial which I speculate speeds up traffic.

Where do you find 18-24 foot wide lanes next to an intersection? Can you show us one?


neighborhood 'arterial' roads with WOL and parking are often 36-48 feet wide going into intersections, or wider if there's a center turn median.

they stop parking 30 feet from most residential intersections around here. AND, If there are no cars parked in the spots prior to the intersection (3-6PM no parking rules), 2 lane roads thru neighborhoods are quite often 36-48 feet wide.

OK, then you have little basis for the statement (regardling Jf's take on WOLs being a waste of pavement.


Really, invisible hand? I'd think that, since I've read JF thinks WOLs are a waste of pavement and the natural progression of road design will be to maximize road use with only narrow lanes, and you haven't heard that before, maybe that means I've got MORE information than you, NOT that my statement has little basis for mentioning it.....


get over the 'require proof' for every questionable statememt. if you're intrigued that much by forestors take on waste of pavement in some of his addresses to the American Dream Coalition, look into it yourself, i find his writing particularily offensive.

Really, invisible hand? I'd think that, since I've read JF thinks WOLs are a waste of pavement and the natural progression of road design will be to maximize road use with only narrow lanes, and you haven't heard that before, maybe that means I've got MORE information than you, NOT that my statement has little basis for mentioning it.....

Given the body of his writings I think that your statement is false.

get over the 'require proof' for every questionable statememt. if you're intrigued that much by forestors take on waste of pavement in some of his addresses to the American Dream Coalition, look into it yourself, i find his writing particularily offensive.

You are correct that your statement is questionable.

Isn't that what a discussion is? Present your case with evidence and debate its merits?

EDIT: Also, your quote is incorrect and misleading. Either attribute my writing correctly or omit it.

since you haven't heard jf's take on WOLs being a waste of pavement when he addresses the ADC, you'll need to get more familiar with his body of writings, obviously.

I don't have to, nor am i debating the merits of WOL vs NOL in this thread.

since you haven't heard jf's take on WOLs being a waste of pavement when he addresses the ADC, you'll need to get more familiar with his body of works. I don't have to, nor am i debating the merits of WOL vs NOL in this thread.

You brought it up. Show that it isn't fluff instead of avoiding the issue or simply retract the statement. Again, this forum is about discussing ideas. Doesn't a discussion merit evidence?

And I will point out that you are still misquoting me ... when did "waste of pavement" enter my reference?

You brought it up. Show that it isn't fluff instead of avoiding the issue or simply retract the statement. Again, this forum is about discussing ideas. Doesn't a discussion merit evidence?

And I will point out that you are still misquoting me ... when did "waste of pavement" enter my reference?

no, 'waste of pavement' is my reference, im not misquoting you.

dude, you post like a member of the bteo, for goshsakes....

The strict neuvo VC approach for multilaned roads - NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ORIGINAL SCENARIO- is that narrow, multiple lanes represents 'adequate pavement width for overtaking' . Sorry if I bring up this slippery new approach to unacoomodationalism by the VC crewe, It does NOT APPLY to the original post.

you're 'doubting thomas' routine is quite odious, invisiblerhand. you always step in and 'demand proof', like demanding in this thread I 'prove' how narrow 2 lane roads, busy traffic and speed differentials between motorists and bikes 'breaks down' the smooth flow of traffic...... you seem to demand an AWFUL LOT of PROOF for the most basic traffic constructs.

It's really quite simple. Ride to the right and share the lane when the pavement is clear and there are no intersections ahead. When there are intersections ahead move right far enough as needed to nearly eliminate the possibility of a right hook and so one is more visible to drivers entering from right or making a left (potential cross)

Al

ARE you a member of the bteo, invisiblehand? you can be honest to the forum...

you're 'doubting thomas' routine is quite odious, invisiblerhand. you always step in and 'demand proof', like demanding in this thread I 'prove' how narrow 2 lane roads, busy traffic and speed differentials between motorists and bikes 'breaks down' the smooth flow of traffic...... you seem to demand an AWFUL LOT of PROOF for the most basic traffic constructs.

Then remove it from my quote.

I don't know what BTEO is.

Hey ... why don't you follow Tom Stormcrow's advice and respond to the question instead of addressing the poster?

Part of the exercise is to determine whether you are just trolling or really have something to say. Tom thinks you have real questions and -- presumably -- thinks you are not trolling. So I answered your questions and as part of a discussion you should honestly debate the merits of your statements. If you can't ... well then that says something about the trolling.

what do you think about the points I raise about WOLs with steady, faster traffic, and a series of minor curb cuts and intersections, derath?

I have no practical experience with WOL, as there are none that I can think of that I have ever ridden on in my area. So any points I would make would be pure conjecture. So I'd rather not just to pretent to know something on the subject.

derath, he's addressing valid questions...

Instead of taking a shot at Bek, why not try discussing the questions and not the poster.

Tom,

Well for one it is sometimes just plain fun.:roflmao2: (just being honest)

And actually I was addressing a valid comment. Bek claims he doesn't particularily care for this subforum. He feels it should be collapsed. And in fact this subforum was pretty much dead, and probably would have remained that way had Bek not taken it upon himself to actually create new threads. I think finding that a bit curious is valid.

I would understand if Bek came back from time to time to defend his positions on other threads. But instead he is creating the arguments himself, almost in some cases to draw out others to spar with. So his comments seemed a bit disingenuous, which makes me question why he bothers to further the VC subforum with new threads.

-D

...dismantling the VC platform, derath. this forum was created to discuss 'vc' and I am doing so.


I choose to dissect and question some of its tenets. However, my questions and discussions on VC really seem to perturb you.

The forum moderators can completely zap this section into neverneverland as far as I'm concerned.

However, my questions and discussions on VC really seem to perturb you.

Are you addressing the question or the poster?

Then remove it from my quote.

I don't know what BTEO is.

Hey ... why don't you follow Tom Stormcrow's advice and respond to the question instead of addressing the poster?

Part of the exercise is to determine whether you are just trolling or really have something to say. Tom thinks you have real questions and -- presumably -- thinks you are not trolling. So I answered your questions and as part of a discussion you should honestly debate the merits of your statements. If you can't ... well then that says something about the trolling.

'the exercise' is to determine if I'm trolling? Remove a paraphrase that describes MY POV?

I thought the 'exercise' was discussion on the tacit unvehicularity of WOLs with steady faster traffic and a multitude of intersections. How a VC road position of 'as far right as practicable' leaves a cyclist vulnerable to hooks, and how a wide enough lane becomes difficult to defend appropriately in the face of faster traffic.

from all your input in this thread I asscertain you belive that WOLs ARE vehicular, and that bicyclists are generally more susceptable to hooks than motorists. I contend that some busy WOLs place cyclists in near constant hookable positions, and I feel this ambiguity is unvehicular. you do not. very good.

I think most of us feel WOL risks can be mitigated fairly effectively with basic cyclist awareness. However, busy WOLs as described in the original post leave cyclists vulnerable to hooks by a steady stream of motorists and intersections..

'the exercise' is to determine if I'm trolling?

I thought the 'exercise' was discussion on the tacit unvehicularity of WOLs with steady faster traffic and a multitude of intersections. How a VC road position of 'as far right as practicable' leaves a cyclist vulnerable to hooks, and how a wide enough lane becomes difficult to defend appropriately in the face of faster traffic.

from all your input in this thread I asscertain you belive that WOLs ARE vehicular, and that bicyclists are generally more susceptable to hooks than motorists. I contend that some busy WOLs place cyclists in near constant hookable positions, and I feel this ambiguity is unvehicular. you do not. very good.

You ignored the descriptor "Part of ...".

What do you mean by VC? What do you mean by vehicular? Using your definitions, you should believe that VC is vehicular. If you don't like your own definitions, you can change them.

What about Little Big Man's question? If you believe riding in a bike lane is vehicular, how is riding in a WOL non-vehicular? What is the difference between the two that alters the "vehicular" label assuming the definition you used earlier?

Could you show us a picture of one of these super wide lanes "with steady traffic and a continual stream of intersections"? 30 feet is very short and unlikely to create much confusion for anyone; particularly for a cyclist, tractor, a slow-driving grandma/grandpa, and so on, driving practicably close to the right. Moreover a road with intermittent parked cars and varying width isn't really a classic WOL anyway.

Just to be clear, I doubt that this 30 feet of unguided merging is an issue for many riders ... but this is just speculative since I don't recall any contradicting or supporting evidence. How often are several cars not in the spots next to the corner? If cars are intermittently parked on the side, where is the VC lateral placement while riding down this arterial road? Are these two lanes -- including the one where cars park -- really 18-feet wide or more each? Is this common where you ride? It isn't around here ... at least not by memory ... in fact I can't think of 30-40 yards of a WOL greater than 15 to 16 feet (allow for some error for measurement). The closest thing I can think of around here is Wilson Blvd. and N. Oak St. (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&q=Wilson+Blvd+%26+N+Oak+St,+Arlington,+VA+22209,+USA&um=1&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title) And -- anecdotally -- this is not a problem area by any stretch. A picture would be really helpful to make the discussion more concrete.

On most roads with no parking at certain times of the day, the parking "lane" is typically marked; i.e., there is a line there making a new lane instead of a super wide outside lane. Consider Constitution Avenue (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=constitution%20Avenue%2C%20washington%20dc&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl) right off the National Mall. With the cars removed, there are two lanes instead of a WOL. I can't recall a counter-example, but there are some strange roads out there. So it is possible that such a road exists. If you have long stretches of 40-foot-wide lanes of then I can see your point. If there is a gradual widening to two 15-foot lanes -- say to a straight travel and RTO lane -- then I don't think that there is an issue here ... either for practical safety or VC positioning.

The BTEO referenced here may be the Bicycle Transportation Engineering Organization. As far as I know, this is an idea and not an organization in the sense of having members, meetings, or bake sales.

Bicycle Transportation Engineering Organization. As far as I know, this is an idea and not an organization in the sense of having members, meetings, or bake sales.

OK. Membership = 1?

Around here, when parking is removed on streets 3-6 PM for the conveinence of motorists, roads here with WOLs & parking effectively become 14+8 or 9 feet so that's 22, 23 feet on a side. add a center turn island, and the road approaches 54, 56 feet wide.... or so it seems. without any side of road striping the road appears to have one unbroken lane each side encompassing the WOL and parking strip.

I also ride along busy streets with WOLs and parking at night in the industrial district. when the day parkers are gone, these outside lanes take on appearances of being 22 feet wide or wider.

Around here, when parking is removed on streets 3-6 PM for the conveinence of motorists, roads here with WOLs & parking effectively become 14+8 or 9 feet so that's 22, 23 feet on a side. add a center turn island, and the road approaches 54, 56 feet wide.... or so it seems. without any side of road striping the road appears to have one unbroken lane each side encompassing the WOL and parking strip.

I also ride along busy streets with WOLs and parking at night in the industrial district. when the day parkers are gone, these outside lanes take on appearances of being 22 feet wide or wider.

That sounds more like a 5 lane road. Use the outside lane.

Al

Here is an example. At intersection approach move fully out of shoulder. Right turning traffic can use WOL to pass and turn.

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

Al

not if you're riding it at 6:30. cars start to clog the parking strip & they don't ever officially become a 'four' lane road.

I'm am familiar with that type of road noisebeam describes, this is not that type of road..

not if you're riding it at 6:30. cars start to clog the parking strip & they don't ever officially become a 'four' lane road.

I'm am familiar with that type of road noisebeam describes, this is not that type of road..

I thought there was no parking 3-6pm at which point the road is a 5 laner, right? If not then why no on-street parking at this time?

Al

it's never officially a four lane road. there are no stripes except the center striping, no right edge striping or parking lines of any kind- think crumbling infrastructure -

this WOL plus parking, during periods of no parking, sometimes (if there's a car turning left, for example-) results in two lanes, usually just one fast moving stream of traffic roughly centered in the single wide lane. the intent may be to morph into four lanes, however it fails in execution and usually defaults to one lane each wersus two. I've noticed this in my car as well as bicycling.

And as parkers begin to reuse the strip it definetly becomes a two lane , WOL + parking road, yet with significant gaps between parked cars..

I think the answer Bek is looking for is that WOL's are just as dangerous at intersections as John Forester claims bike lanes are, despite Forester's claim that WOL's are a better option.

This entire thread is all about WOL's vs. BL's, despite the OP's consistent arguing that it's "not about bike lanes."

He might as well also say, "...it's not about forestor..."

C'mon, we all get it. Can we move on?

;)

Bek, how do most motorists execute a right turn?

Bek, how do most motorists execute a right turn?

The Republicans are currently in power, so only the left turns get executed, right turns get pardoned.
Oops, wrong forum!

The Republicans are currently in power, so only the left turns get executed, right turns get pardoned.
Oops, wrong forum!

Aw, WTH. :D

That sounds more like a 5 lane road. Use the outside lane.

Al

I think the reason these relatively unimproved 'cross-neighborhood arterials' never turn a two lane each way ,al , is that even the motorists don't like the high static and conflicts from driving that far right. removing the parking was a simpleminded stopgap measure to cope with increasing traffic that falls flat in execution.

the streets become streams of single lanes of fast, stop and go traffic on streets, only splitting into two lanes of motorized traffic when cars line up to turn left at an unsignalized intersection in spots without a center turn strip.

If motorists don't want to drive there becasue of the high static, its even more odious for bicyclists due to the steady, faster traffic. like I described in my first post.

I would avoid such a street in favor of side streets with low Speed limits, or sidewalks. I do ride a WOL on my route, but it has basically no/very light traffic.