Advocacy & Safety - Fellow Rider says, "Don't take the lane, there is a bike path"

Here is a photo from google street view:

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9572/picture1mh8.png
This is the massachusetts ave bridge in Boston, MA, USA.

There is a bike path on this bridge as you can see. I think that picture makes the bikepath out to look wider than it is though. Cars frequently speed on this bridge, while the speedlimit is probably like 30-40 cars often drive really fast across the bridge because it is just a long straight shot. However at the end of the bridge is a series of stoplights which makes going fast rather pointless.

I was riding over the bridge today, monday around 2:30pm. The bike path is usually pretty clean but we had a storm recently and while the roads are perfectly clear, the bike path was filled with debris, gravel, salt, sand, who knows what. Their was nobody on the road in front of me, some cars were behind me but the traffic wasn't heavy. It was really windy.

My three options for crossing the bridge were:
1. ride to the far left of the bike lane and try to avoid crappy road conditions, and not get clipped by a speeding driver.
2. ride in the far right of the right lane and hope people don't try to squeeze by and hit me.
3. take the right lane.

I chose number 3. I took the whole lane. I probably was going at between 15-20mph. The wind made it hard to go faster. As I road across the bridge I felt as if I was in very little danger of being hit. Cars went to the left lane and passed me, nobody honked (I dont think), no traffic got backed up. At the end of the bridge I caught up with most of the cars that past me because they were stuck at traffic lights.

Anyways just after the bridge, I'm still taking the lane because at this part there is a good chance of being doored if you ride in the bike lane, and traffic can move no faster than I'm riding. This person rides up parallel to me, in the bike lane and says "Don't take up the whole lane like that, it pisses off the drivers." We talked for maybe 20 seconds where I tried to explain that I was taking the lane because the bikelane was filled with debris, I have the right too, and that it was for my safety. He said something like "you just have to ride more carefully then in the bikelane, taking up the lane pisses off the drivers more than they already are." Then he turned a corner and road away.


I'm pretty sure I made the right decision by taking the lane. I felt much safer and I didn't create a traffic problem at all as far as I'm aware.

What would you have done in my situation? Would you have taken the lane? What would you have told this person who tried to tell me the proper way to ride a bike to "avoid angering drivers" ?

I would have done the same thing as you.

There are two traffic lanes in both directions right? So cars could just go around you if they thought you were going to slowly.

There are two traffic lanes in both directions right? So cars could just go around you if they thought you were going to slowly.

Yep, two lanes in both directions. I don't remember what the head on traffic was like, but I'm positive it wasn't dense. Cars just shifted into the left lane to pass me. There were no obvious problems as a result of my taking the lane.

I was just really confused by this biker's comments. He was like "you make it worse for all of us bikers by taking the lane like that. There is a bikepath, so use it."

Maybe he wasn't aware that bikers don't have to ride in bikepaths if they are present. Maybe he wasn't aware of a bikers right to the lane. Maybe he just has a weird sense of advocacy. I dunno.

Same as you until I started to slow down the auto traffic... then I would have slipped into the bike lane and would have gone carefully.

Sometimes "sharing the road" means knowing when it is good diplomacy to give way.

Also if I was moving fast, (on skinny tires) I'd be less inclined to move to the BL... but if I were commuting with a full load... (on fat tires) I'd probably BL the whole way.

Same as you until I started to slow down the auto traffic... then I would have slipped into the bike lane and would have gone carefully.

Sometimes "sharing the road" means knowing when it is good diplomacy to give way.

Also if I was moving fast, (on skinny tires) I'd be less inclined to move to the BL... but if I were commuting with a full load... (on fat tires) I'd probably BL the whole way.

A lot might depend on how bad the bike lane was. Sometimes it is both horrible and sort of OK, meaning really bad sections and some decent ones. For that I'd pull in if there were any cars behind me when I got to a decent section.

Depends a lot on traffic level also. Big difference between midday and low traffic and rush hour.

Zomar,

Though that stretch of road is not currently a section I ride on a daily basis I still ride it with some frequency. I used to ride it (pre-bike lanes) daily.

I think that the lanes have improved overall bicycle traffic flow both over the bridge and heading into Cambridge past MIT and through Central Square. However, as you may be aware there was a well publicized death in the bike lane when a rider was doored and fell in front of a bus. Some adjustments to the bike lane have been made since that time. And given the amount of bike traffic in the bike lane the accident rate is relatively low.

I haven't ridden the bridge since the storm but I am sure that debris has built up on the roadside and into the bike lane. Personally I make a judgement call based on how ridable the lane is and if I judge that it is definitely not ridable then I move into the lane. But it balances with what is actually safer as well as not just convenient, faster or less likely to throw grit and dirt all over me and my bike or cause a flat.

My bike and clothing in the winter allow me to ride in just about any circumstances and I use a studded tire that can go through most of the ice, slush and sand. As much as I'd like the cities of Boston and Cambridge to do a better job of plowing and really clear the bike lanes (and the roads) down to bare pavement I also have to chalk it up to "it's winter in New England and the roads are a mess". So long as I haven't moved into the lane solely to prove a point ie.- the bike lane is not well enough plowed but I'm genuinely riding in the lane because the bike lane is unridable then I suffer no guilt at all for riding in the lane.

If the other rider was able to match your speed while traveling in the bike lane and your bike is equipped for winter travel it sounds like it may have been a matter of convenience and speed- in other words the lane was clearer and you could move faster in it more easily. In any case, it's your call I'd tip the balance in your favor since I'm not too trusting in riders that feel the need to "instruct" other riders as to these kinds of decisions. So, I'd ignore the other rider's comments outright and if you're really prepared for winter riding and couldn't manage the bike lane then stick with your decision.;)

i would have done the same thing as you.

+1

Zomar,

You rode the bridge exactly the way I would have.

Don't worry about the clueless bike lane advocates that do not understand the danger they are putting themselves in. His words are the standard rant.

A lot might depend on how bad the bike lane was. Sometimes it is both horrible and sort of OK, meaning really bad sections and some decent ones. For that I'd pull in if there were any cars behind me when I got to a decent section.

Depends a lot on traffic level also. Big difference between midday and low traffic and rush hour.

Yup all those things bear consideration... I think the OP probably did fine.

I would have done the same thing as you.

+1

I like my bike path but don't take it when it's covered in debris--or more often, broken glass for some reason. I take the road.

I cross that bridge pretty frequently. You did the right thing.

Personally I would have weaved sharply between the two lanes, obviously twice as safe.

What's the big deal? The bridge is only 364.4 Smoots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot) (plus or minus one ear) long.

Speedo

What's the big deal? The bridge is only 364.4 Smoots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot) (plus or minus one ear) long.

Speedo

haha thanks for sharing that! I saw those smoot markings before but never gave a thought to them.

..l. He said something like "you just have to ride more carefully then in the bikelane, taking up the lane pisses off the drivers more than they already are." Then he turned a corner and road away.

Correction:

".... He said something about 'having to ride more carefully [in the road] then in the bikelane, because taking up the lane pisses off the drivers more than they already are.' Then he nonchalantly turned a corner and immidiately wiped out on a big patch of sand that was strewn over the ill-maintained bike lane.

-Kurt

My three options for crossing the bridge were:
1. ride to the far left of the bike lane and try to avoid crappy road conditions, and not get clipped by a speeding driver.
2. ride in the far right of the right lane and hope people don't try to squeeze by and hit me.
3. take the right lane.

4. Right up the double-yellow.

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=90516&stc=1&d=1230611844

You probably think I am kidding.

Unless the "very windy" was a crosswind. Then I own the right lane.

....

4. Right up the double-yellow.

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=90516&stc=1&d=1230611844

You probably think I am kidding.

Unless the "very windy" was a crosswind. Then I own the right lane.

That bridge runs roughly north/south, and there are often pretty strong cross winds running down the length of the river (which runs east/west) since there are no buildings to impede it.

Even if it were calm I'd be pretty hesitant to ride the yellow line. Most of the time you'd not be able to keep pace with traffic (cars traveling 30 to 40 mph usually), and the lanes are narrow. I'd feel uncomfortable with cars passing me that close, that fast, on the right.

But that's just me I guess.

I'd feel uncomfortable with cars passing me that close, that fast, on the right.

The thing is, they wouldn't be as close to the double yellow with you on it.

1. Motorists are very conscious, aware, and afraid of any object on the driver's side that will land in their lap if they hit it. Much, much less afraid of clipping something/someone on the passenger side. So they move the hell over.

2. There is more room on that line than you might imagine.

3. Something out of the ordinary makes cars slow down and move over.

Given an acceptable bike path on the right, I'll take that as my first option. Then the "proper" position just inside the right traffic lane fog line as my second choice. My third option is the double-yellow. If too windy to control my machine there, I am taking the right lane.

Another choice is to roll the bike lane until you have a clear space in the right traffic lane. In other words, ride just outside the fog line when traffic is roaring by, then just inside the fog line when there is a gap in traffic. You need a rear view mirror to make this work.

The joker in the deck is wind. If you can't hold a decent line, and you can't ride the bike path....then you need to control a lane.

Given an acceptable bike path on the right, I'll take that as my first option. Then the "proper" position just inside the right traffic lane fog line as my second choice. My third option is the double-yellow. If too windy to control my machine there, I am taking the right lane.

Does this mean you consider riding the double yellow to be a safer option than controlling the right lane? Or is there some other reason you placed it ahead of taking the right lane? Please explain.

I would ride near center of the right lane and only move over into the shoulder if it was safe to do so. If the traffic was as light as it appears in the photo there probably would be very little need to move over.

You did the right thing for the right reasons. Your fellow rider was mistaken in his recommendation.

This bridge is one example of a bike lane I wouldn't mind using for most of the bridge span, if the surface were clear of mud and sand and gravel and glass and other debris. There are no intersections and no parked vehicles and no restrictions to visibility. (The bike lane is pretty narrow at the ends though - I would merge left into the traffic lane.) In the normal traffic area on shore, with lots of parking and intersections, I would take the lane.

(By the way, the StreetView images show several people riding bicycles on the pedestrian walkways between the railings. I don't see any "bikes prohibited on sidewalks" signs, which I find surprising.)

(By the way, the StreetView images show several people riding bicycles on the pedestrian walkways between the railings. I don't see any "bikes prohibited on sidewalks" signs, which I find surprising.)

There are always a lot of cyclists on that sidewalk. People get spooked by that bridge even with the presence of a bike lane. The sidewalk can get pretty thick with pedestrians and joggers too, so you'd have to ride about 3 mph at certain times. Yet they still do it. Go figure.

The thing is, they wouldn't be as close to the double yellow with you on it.
Because as we all know, double yellow lines are as good as brick walls. People never cross them.

It takes one idiot taking five minutes to "change the radio station" and you're dead.

Oh and they'll walk away being as you were on the double yellow.


Oh duh, trolling.

i would go home and grab a broom and dustpan to clean the bike lane with to make things better for fellow cyclists and improve my own sense of self worth.

I'm with Genec here, take the lane but be willing and ready to hit the bike lane when needed or it's clear enough.

I'm all for lane rights, but don't feel like going head to head with a buick over it.

Ken.

i would go home and grab a broom and dustpan to clean the bike lane with to make things better for fellow cyclists and improve my own sense of self worth.

I used to do "self imposed" community service on a bridge about 100 yards long - both sides. Man, that's a lot of work. Impossible on the bridge he is riding for one person to clean.

Although, I always enjoyed when a car would pass me sweeping the bike lane and someone would yell at me "That's good for you ya drunk!" :twitchy:

yeah, i was sorta joking, but i do want to get a mini brush and dustpan and at least get some large piles of glass, maybe it will catch on. but not too many people like to haul around a bunch of junk in an army rucksack the way i do.

Random aside: I used to see Michael Dukakis picking up litter in the parks around the fens in Boston. (He may still do it for all I know.)

...not too many people like to haul around a bunch of junk in an army rucksack the way i do.

I used a pair of Jandd grocery panniers. Man, it would not take long before I had 50 lbs of cr@p in them. Then I would have to go dump it in a Wendy's dumpster three blocks away and then continue. I still have the telescopic push broom handle.

I fantasized about mounting one of those high power blowers to my rear rack with the blow tube spout pointing rightward just below my rear derailleur. I could just bike along at walking speed and blow everything over the curb.

I no longer use that route, so it is up to someone else to do glass patrol now.

Random aside: I used to see Michael Dukakis picking up litter in the parks around the fens in Boston. (He may still do it for all I know.)

:eek: OMG! Me too!! Across from the REI in the old Sears Building. The 2 of us stranded by the traffic on a traffic island as he picked up the litter while we got ready to cross. Got to say I was impressed by his dedication and his humility but just a little bit odd. But I'm a bit strange myself so I couldn't really judge.:p

I used a pair of Jandd grocery panniers. Man, it would not take long before I had 50 lbs of cr@p in them. Then I would have to go dump it in a Wendy's dumpster three blocks away and then continue. I still have the telescopic push broom handle.

I fantasized about mounting one of those high power blowers to my rear rack with the blow tube spout pointing rightward just below my rear derailleur. I could just bike along at walking speed and blow everything over the curb.

I no longer use that route, so it is up to someone else to do glass patrol now.

hey thats a great idea, you should get a patent for that device and cities can pay people to ride the blower bikes around, or maybe a vacuum would be better, anyway, i would do that for a living providing they offer benefits.

What would you have done in my situation?

I wouldn't worry about what other riders told me so much. Honest difference of opinion. The end.

I probably would have positioned myself where the right tire of a car would be in the right lane. when the bike lane was clear I would probably move over to it. This way the cars would still need to make an effort to go around, but they would not need to shift over as much. I also have a mirror on my bike for this reason.

On a bridge I go over, there is no shoulder or bike lane, so I take the same position. I do not like taking the whole lane because it is not too far of a bridge and at the end there are 3 lanes, so it could hold up traffic. I sometimes take the sidewalk on the side if there is too much traffic, but I don't like taking it because it is not that wide and there are usually walkers using it.

Random aside: I used to see Michael Dukakis picking up litter in the parks around the fens in Boston. (He may still do it for all I know.)

Random aside reply: When he was governor, around 1978, someone on the Green Line subway had a seizure. A call went out for medical help; he and two MD's responded and he helped carry the unconscious rider off the train (I don't mean to imply that this is the same as removing litter, but attests to his sense of civic responsibility).

My philosophy is always when in doubt, take the lane. You have to look after your own safety and in most cases taking the lane is safer than skirting along the side of the road and risking getting sideswiped by a car thats cutting it too close.

That being said, the bike lane would have to be in absolutely horrible condition before I, with skinny tires, would take the lane in that situation rather than use the bike lane.

I'm a little confused. You and the other posters mention both a bike path and a bike lane, but all I see besides the general vehicle lanes is what appears to be a shoulder and a sidewalk. I'm assuming that what appears as the shoulder is the "bike lane"; maybe there's a stencil in it beyond this picture? Is the sidewalk supposed to be a multi-use path? In any case, that's no good because of having to move out of it at the end. How wide is the shoulder/bike lane? It's hard to tell from the picture. Is it in good shape?

I guess my position would basically depend on the width and condition of the shoulder. If good condition, I would probably ride near the left side of it, left to increase my visibility and probability of cars making an allowance for me. If bad condition, somewhere in the right part of the general travel lane, between 1-2' of the usable right edge of the pavement. I don't care to take the entire lane unless that is where my 1-2' rule happens to place me, but I know others disagree about this.

Another way of looking at it: Pretend the shoulder line is not there, so the right-hand lane is a wide outside lane. Assuming the pavement is good there, ride as far into it as still allows safe passing by cars, regardless of the line.

I'm a little confused. You and the other posters mention both a bike path and a bike lane, but all I see besides the general vehicle lanes is what appears to be a shoulder and a sidewalk. I'm assuming that what appears as the shoulder is the "bike lane"; maybe there's a stencil in it beyond this picture? Is the sidewalk supposed to be a multi-use path? In any case, that's no good because of having to move out of it at the end. How wide is the shoulder/bike lane? It's hard to tell from the picture. Is it in good shape?

The "shoulder" is the bikelane. You can't see any bike stencils in the photo, but they do exist on the bridge. The sidewalk is just a sidewalk for pedestrians, though often bike riders will take it anyways.

The bike lane is probably no more than 3 feet wide I'd guess, and there is that barrier on the right side so you can't ride too close to the right. It's in okay physical shape, though at the end it starts to get bumpy with deep cracks in it, so a rider either has to slow down considerably or get into the bike lane.

I rode this bridge and bike lane tonight.

Though we just had another storm it was a light weight snowfall compared to the snow storm that preceded the OP's post. We've since had a thaw and now this new storm.

The bike lane is actually closer to 4' wide than 3'. I found it fine for riding. Granted I'm riding 1.9 studded tires but it was a bit more sand than on the road but otherwise fine. Perhaps a bit of sludge on the extreme right of the lane. The only place it seemed challenging was at the very end of the lane where it meets Memorial Drive. There was a good amount of slush there. I was going to move into the lane but traffic was bearing down on me and it was at night- I wear a reflective vest and have good lights and chose to weave through the 6" gap in the slush to the intersection

I'm curious what the OP and others who ride this frequently thought of the conditions of the lane tonight in comparison to the past storm.

was the dooring on this bridge an intentional act of aggression? There isn't any parking on there, is there?

I rode this bridge and bike lane tonight.
I'm curious what the OP and others who ride this frequently thought of the conditions of the lane tonight in comparison to the past storm.

I haven't ridden it since that day. I almost always take that bridge when I go into Boston, but I've been staying around here the past few days.


was the dooring on this bridge an intentional act of aggression? There isn't any parking on there, is there?

There is no parking on the bridge, but right after the bridge if you are riding north up Massachusetts Avenue, you'll ride through a busy stretch where the bike lane runs right along car parking. These parking spots are always filled with cars, and often there are cars in the bike lane itself. It's a really busy section, but traffic doesn't move that fast because there are a lot of traffic lights. I find myself taking the lane here very often, because traffic is slow moving and the risk of being doored is high.

was the dooring on this bridge an intentional act of aggression? There isn't any parking on there, is there?

no. It was an accident right in front of MIT, where there is legal parking. Tragic and, unfortunately, a combination of errors- idiot person opening their door, bad bus driving and the cyclist in the door zone. Whether the bike lane contributed to the accident is arguable but John Allen (StreetSmarts) tends to blame the lane. However, a recent study in Cambridge showed that cyclists tended to ride closer to parked cars on streets without bike lanes than on the streets that had them. That bike lane has since been restriped and some modifications to the street and curb (slight widening of the parking lane) that will hopefully help prevent a recurrence.

I worked for years at Wheelworks when it was in Porter Square on Mass Ave long before there were bike lanes in Cambridge. Doorings on Mass Ave were a serious problem then, I don't have the statistics that would show whether they've decreased, increased or stayed the same in Cambridge since the addition of the bike lanes. There are certainly more cyclists in Cambridge than there were in 1980 when I moved there. So it might be difficult to measure whether bike lanes have added a positive or a negative effect.

"Don't take up the whole lane like that, it pisses off the drivers."

CR: "Who cares? If they want to be pissed-off, it's not my problem. The bike lane is dangerous. If that's where they expect me to ride, then they need to clean it up."

CR: "Who cares? If they want to be pissed-off, it's not my problem. The bike lane is dangerous. If that's where they expect me to ride, then they need to clean it up."

Um, define "they". Are drivers expected to get out and clean up the bike lanes? Cyclists? And have you ridden in New England in the winter? The condition of the roads, particularly in the winter, is not all that much better than the bike lanes. If I'm traveling in any lane in/on any vehicle and encounter a road hazard should I adopt the attitude as I change lanes that the person coming up behind me is somehow responsible for the condition of the road I am traveling on?

The inability to separate between larger civic responsibilities and the personal, immediate consequences of our actions can sometimes cause a cyclist to "take the lane" more as a political statement than due to an actual need. I happen to think that is what can give the impression to motorists of a kind of FU attitude that can read as arrogance and entitlement.

The time to have the "if you want me to ride in the bike lane clean it up" argument is at city hall or in a town meeting or with your local advocacy group not with stranger in a car who may be completely unaware that it's even an issue.

no. It was an accident right in front of MIT, where there is legal parking. Tragic and, unfortunately, a combination of errors- idiot person opening their door, bad bus driving and the cyclist in the door zone. Whether the bike lane contributed to the accident is arguable but John Allen (StreetSmarts) tends to blame the lane. However, a recent study in Cambridge showed that cyclists tended to ride closer to parked cars on streets without bike lanes than on the streets that had them. That bike lane has since been restriped and some modifications to the street and curb (slight widening of the parking lane) that will hopefully help prevent a recurrence.
[SNIP]
So it might be difficult to measure whether bike lanes have added a positive or a negative effect.

1. In regard to this specific accident, how was "bad bus driving" involved? I thought the victim suddenly swerved around an opening car door into the path of the bus? What should the bus driver have been doing differently?

2. Difficulty in measuring won't stop John Allen and his Mass Bike associates from jumping to the preferred 'Blame Bike Lanes" conclusion when it fits their anti bike lane agenda; at least if their past attempt at trying to make political hay from the tragic death of Donna Laird is any guide.

I rode that bridge 2-6 times every day for the last semester, even in crap-tastic conditions. I would say that in the vast majority of cases, regardless of legality, taking up the entire right lane is unnecessary. The best way to deal with bad conditions on that bridge is to ride slower and more carefully. Staying on the left of the bike lane should have been enough if there was no ice. Though, if as you say, there really was barely any traffic, I suppose you didn't piss many people off. I hate having to deal with drivers venting about the idiocy of other bikers.

Side note: I frequently see idiot bikers riding on the double yellow and dodging around traffic. I have to say, I wouldn't have much sympathy for those guys if they got hit.

1. In regard to this specific accident, how was "bad bus driving" involved? I thought the victim suddenly swerved around an opening car door into the path of the bus? What should the bus driver have been doing differently?

Leaving 3' of passing room might have minimized the possibility of a collision. From my understanding of the accident the victim was struck by the opening car door and fell into the path of the bus. ( The bus was in the process of passing the cyclist).My experience with buses on Mass Ave at that time was that they seldom, if ever, gave appropriate passing room( whether there is a bike lane or not). They still cut close to this day but MBTA buses are frequently chided for not giving passing room and have improved somewhat. John Allen and the city did not find the bus driver negligent but John Allen makes no mention of "passing room". There is also no minimum passing law in Massachusetts and so this would not have been a chargeable offense.

I'd rather not divert this thread much further with this discussion. I realize I made reference to this accident but I agree with your assertion that capitalizing on this tragedy on either side of the bike lane argument is reprehensible. I happen to feel John Allen's synopsis of the accident is particularly self-serving in this regard.

Um, define "they". Are drivers expected to get out and clean up the bike lanes? Cyclists? And have you ridden in New England in the winter? The condition of the roads, particularly in the winter, is not all that much better than the bike lanes. If I'm traveling in any lane in/on any vehicle and encounter a road hazard should I adopt the attitude as I change lanes that the person coming up behind me is somehow responsible for the condition of the road I am traveling on?

Yes, actually, they are. Sometimes both cyclists and motorists get stuck behind slower moving vehicles. That's part of riding and driving in traffic.


The inability to separate between larger civic responsibilities and the personal, immediate consequences of our actions can sometimes cause a cyclist to "take the lane" more as a political statement than due to an actual need. I happen to think that is what can give the impression to motorists of a kind of FU attitude that can read as arrogance and entitlement.
Well, under Ohio law, I am "entitled" to use the full lane if it isn't wide enough for me to share safely side-by-side with other traffic. As to bike lanes, the problem is that different cyclists value them differently. Someone who is grateful that the city striped the lane is much more likely to tolerate poor conditions than someone who fought the striping in the first place. Edit: The willingness to put up with poor conditions in bike lanes probably depends in part on whether the cyclist sees the lanes as something the city did for cyclists or something the city inflicted upon cyclists.


The time to have the "if you want me to ride in the bike lane clean it up" argument is at city hall or in a town meeting or with your local advocacy group not with stranger in a car who may be completely unaware that it's even an issue.
So, I'm supposed to ride in an unsafe, unswept bike lane because some driver doesn't know that the lane is not as clean as the roadway? That's insane. The driver's ignorance is not my problem. The driver's irritation is also not my problem. Have you noticed that drivers get irritated when anyone slows them down for any reason?

And people here did take it up with the local authorities and the local advocacy folks. Our new bike code will expressly state that bike lanes are optional. The city attorney and the traffic department wanted language that stated that we could leave the lane only under limited circumstances, but those circumstances were removed because a cyclist-friendly member of council did not want cyclists to have to depend on persuading non-cyclists cops and judges that the bike lane's condition was unsafe. Unfortunately, for too many motorists, "unsafe" means, "slowed me down, a little."

Edit: I would not ride to the left of a striped bike lane just to make a point, but I am going to ride where ever I think it's safest. I expect bike lanes to be clear enough for me to ride quickly and safely. I will not ride in a bike lane anywhere near an intersection when I am to the right of a lane from which cars can turn right. I also will pick a straight-line path on the road. So if there are a lot of intersections or other curb cuts, I would likely ride to the left of the lane to avoid weaving in and out at the intersections.

Um, define "they". Are drivers expected to get out and clean up the bike lanes? Cyclists? And have you ridden in New England in the winter? The condition of the roads, particularly in the winter, is not all that much better than the bike lanes. If I'm traveling in any lane in/on any vehicle and encounter a road hazard should I adopt the attitude as I change lanes that the person coming up behind me is somehow responsible for the condition of the road I am traveling on?

Umm, "they" would be the motorists who don't know how to share the road well enough to accommodate other vehicles without getting themselves upset, as the guy on a bike who spoke with Zomar was referring too. That should have been obvious, since I quoted his statement. And yes, the motorists who want me out of "their" way can clean it up themselves, or wait until the city gets around to it. Makes no difference to me, I can ride with or without a designated lane.

The locations that I have personally ridden is not relevant to this conversation.

I could be facetious and say, "No, you should plow right into any and all road hazards you come across, regardless of your choice of vehicle", but no, under the conditions you describe then you need to make the decision where the least hazardous conditions lie as to your road position and ride there, just as Zomar was doing. Yes, that means you will have to sometimes change lanes, but to somehow think that makes the operator of the vehicle behind you responsible for the road hazard being there is patently ridiculous. However, they are responsible for accommodating you as another road user, whether or not you are avoiding a hazard.


The inability to separate between larger civic responsibilities and the personal, immediate consequences of our actions can sometimes cause a cyclist to "take the lane" more as a political statement than due to an actual need. I happen to think that is what can give the impression to motorists of a kind of FU attitude that can read as arrogance and entitlement.

The inability of some cyclists to differentiate safer conditions from less safe conditions often leads to them putting themselves in bad situations, and causes crashes.


The time to have the "if you want me to ride in the bike lane clean it up" argument is at city hall or in a town meeting or with your local advocacy group not with stranger in a car who may be completely unaware that it's even an issue.

Not necessarily. In Florida, the situation as described in the OP would allow the cyclist to ride as far to the left as necessary for the sake of their own safety under the exceptions to the "as far right as practicable" rule covered under "316.2065 Bicycle regulations". Another individual being ignorant of the law is not my problem. Likewise, another individual being unobservant of road hazards is not my problem. Zomar was not speaking with a stranger in a car. Even so, if that had been so then all the better. Let the motorists pressure City Hall. They would likely get better results, as their numbers are greater.

Zomar was correct in leaving the bike lane under the conditions described. The guy on the bike that approached him about his choice of road position was foolish in his choice of road position.

...I could be facetious and say, "No, you should plow right into any and all road hazards you come across, regardless of your choice of vehicle", but no, under the conditions you describe then you need to make the decision where the least hazardous conditions lie as to your road position and ride there, just as Zomar was doing. Yes, that means you will have to sometimes change lanes, but to somehow think that makes the operator of the vehicle behind you responsible for the road hazard being there is patently ridiculous. However, they are responsible for accommodating you as another road user, whether or not you are avoiding a hazard...

I have previously stated on BF, Jim's Law of the Road: No matter how lightly traveled or well paved the road, a car will likely be passing you on the left as you encounter an obstacle on the right.

BTW, LOL at JoeyBike's strategy as illustrated on his reply to this thread, post #17. Having seen his video, I'm sure he is serious.