Advocacy & Safety - Filtering to the front? It makes sense...

I know this has been discussed before, but I was wondering what the law actually says here in IL.

Under normal circumstances (standard lanes, no bike lane, etc), AFRAP applies. Let's not get into an argument about AFRAP here. Suffice to say that's where you're generally "supposed to be."

Also under normal circumstances, no vehicle is supposed to pass another on the right, except in specific situations.

Am I to take this to mean that I am legally supposed to try to re-enter the traffic queue upon approaching every stop, and then leave it again? Honestly, this is kind of stupid and impractical:

1. I understand why most vehicles pass on the left. They also aren't allowed to pass other vehicles in the same lane. Bicycles are vehicles, but aren't cars. Rectangles are quadrilaterals, but not squares...

2. It is more logical to maintain a particular system of traffic organization, rather than changing positions constantly. If a cyclist is not to be "in the way" most of the time, why is it suddenly safe/practical to be so at a stop sign?

3. If you were to read other applicable laws, it could be construed that a "virtual" bike lane exists on every roadway when a cyclist is present. Some buffer is granted from objects and road conditions on the right, and cars must pass with 3 feet of clearance on the left. Painting them on is really only a formality. This interpretation would maintain one, constant arrangement of bikes and cars, and allow bikes to filter forward at stops, as they have their own lane. Basically, if a car can split with me, I sure as hell better be able to split with it. This is the obvious inconsistency in AFRAP laws.

This is really self-interest, obviously. But why does the situation change when there is a stop sign present? Why, if I can supposedly be passed safely on the left while both vehicles are moving, can I not pass by maintaining a straight course. Why is my speed dictated by the rest of traffic when I am not supposed to interact with it?

So what if the the lead vehicle is turning right? It is still their responsibility to signal (500 ft before, btw) the turn, and mine to avoid them. Easy. It is still my responsibility to avoid cross traffic, but a bike and car can continue straight at the same time.

Of course, if I've got the law all wrong, correct me. But by my understanding, what the law says is pretty stupid. I'm also tired from a long week of training, both bike and work, so forgive me. This all came up b/c I've been commuting down to Fullerton, and encountered all manner of illegal driving maneuver today.

All this being said, I did take the lane to keep a taxi from unsafely passing me, as I saw him preparing to do, and lived to tell about it. I really hate taxis, so this was a victory in more ways than one. I think I'll become a cop just so I can write them tickets all day. Easy money.

*Bing!*

You've just hit on one of the countless reasons why bike lanes cause more confusion then good. Might as well remain in the queue in the first place (VC/approximately VC), allowing faster traffic to pass on the right.

-Kurt

I'm new to bike commuting but just wanted to share my experience in dealing with coming to an intersection. As I approach an intersection, I try to move over to the left to join cars at the red light, lined up with them. I slow down and even stop if necessary for this. When the light is green and through traffic starts, I ride with them. When I get to the middle of the intersection (after passing the usual pedestrian crosswalk), I look over to check the right and drift over back into riding as far right as possible. I suspect many do the same or similar thing. After giving this some thought, I realize that this can be limited to the fairly light traffic that I deal with. I usually don't have to be concerned about lining up at a through traffic light with many cars stopped before and after me and really slowing others down for a while. It's usually only about a couple to five cars. I wonder how I'd deal with longer lines of stopped through traffic. I don't know if it's legal to split lanes as a bicycle (I've heard that it's not illegal for motorcycles to do so, in certain states), which would allow me to simply ride just to the right of stopped through traffic and reach the front of the line.

I'm usually in the right tire track and typically more center when approaching a signed/signaled intersection. Given a long queue of cars, I'd just pass on the left since I'm already halfway across the lane.

I know this has been discussed before, but I was wondering what the law actually says here in IL.

I think we all know that what the law says is not what happens in all instances


1. I understand why most vehicles pass on the left. They also aren't allowed to pass other vehicles in the same lane... if a car can split with me, I sure as hell better be able to split with it... a bike and car can continue straight at the same time... by my understanding, what the law says is pretty stupid...

I agree and one thing I cannot stand for is when motorists complain about cyclists breaking laws while breaking those laws themselves.

Filtering is legal and an accepted practice in most paces in the world, but AFAIK, in the US, it is only legal in California.

If it's safer for me to pass on a vehicles left (and it often is), that's what I'll do. I hear a lot of complaints of this behavior from motorists, but for some reason motorists think it's OK to pass a cyclist on the left even if it is within the single lane both are traveling. That seems hypocritical to me.

Might as well remain in the queue in the first place (VC/approximately VC), allowing faster traffic to pass on the right.I'm in the US, so faster traffic can pass on the left (I think that's what you meant). Passing on the right is not allowed, except when the lead vehicle is waiting to turn left. In fact, I seem to remember seeing that in IL, bikes aren't even allowed to do this.


degnaw

I'm usually in the right tire track and typically more center when approaching a signed/signaled intersection. Given a long queue of cars, I'd just pass on the left since I'm already halfway across the lane.

I honestly hadn't considered doing this, but it seems legitimate. The problem would be rejoining the queue again, as you'd have to move across the lane. Drivers are probably also not used to having a bike on their left. At least you wouldn't get right-hooked, though.

I still maintain that it makes more sense for everyone to move in one predictable path, and if a has passed me on my left only moments before, I don't see why, since this arrangement is deemed safe, it can't be done again. The only difference is that my speed is greater than theirs this time. If there is room for it to be done when the car gets the benefit, it can be done for the bike's.

I have never really understood the utility of filtering as commonly practiced. I was riding with some people in an urban area, and the lights were spaced such that cars would pass us, and then the other guys would filter to the front and the cars would have to pass again when the light turned green. Of course, there was no utility in the cars passing, but it was obviously frustrating the motorists. Generally the feelings of motorists are not primary to how I operate my vehicle, but I see no reason to annoy others for no good reason.

There is a very good reason why passing to the right of left turning cars is illegal, it's dangerous. I have seen some pretty exciting near misses.

There is one downhill intersection on my commute where 90% of the traffic turns right. The average cyclist goes straight. Most cyclists ride down to the right of the cars at a fairly high speed and goes straight. I'm amazed that I haven't seen a right hook there. I check the car turn signals and pass to the left. I usually don't pass the cars that are going straight.


3. If you were to read other applicable laws, it could be construed that a "virtual" bike lane exists on every roadway when a cyclist is present. Some buffer is granted from objects and road conditions on the right, and cars must pass with 3 feet of clearance on the left. Painting them on is really only a formality. This interpretation would maintain one, constant arrangement of bikes and cars, and allow bikes to filter forward at stops, as they have their own lane. Basically, if a car can split with me, I sure as hell better be able to split with it. This is the obvious inconsistency in AFRAP laws.
Cyclists are legitimate road users. When a cyclist is in a travel lane, the cyclist occupies that lane. A motorist approaching from the rear has a responsibility to determine if they can pass safely, and if they can't they have an obligation to slow and wait until an opportunity to pass safely presents itself. FRAP doesn't change this basic assumption of traffic law. I agree that frap implies that we can pass on the right, but I have difficulty in seeing how that is safe under most circumstances. Motorists are not expecting for us to appear to the right from behind.

I have never really understood the utility of filtering as commonly practiced...

There is one downhill intersection on my commute where 90% of the traffic turns right. The average cyclist goes straight. Most cyclists ride down to the right of the cars at a fairly high speed and goes straight. I'm amazed that I haven't seen a right hook there.

Cyclists are legitimate road users. When a cyclist is in a travel lane, the cyclist occupies that lane. A motorist approaching from the rear has a responsibility to determine if they can pass safely, and if they can't they have an obligation to slow and wait until an opportunity to pass safely presents itself....

Motorists are not expecting for us to appear to the right from behind.

Motorists often turn right, often immediately after passing cyclists on their left.

Motorists approaching from the rear do have a responsibility to determine if they can pass safely, and if they can't they have an obligation to slow and wait until an opportunity to pass safely presents itself, but they often do not.

Cyclists are legitimate road users but often are not treated as such. To be safe, a cyclist has to be on the look out for potential trouble and ride to avoid it.

CORNYBUM

Im pretty much in agreement with you. I maintain my position in traffic, cross the intersection and then move to the right. I can do this because I can ride at the speed of traffic that far, as cars generally take off fairly slow.

The reason I do not filter up on the right, is it angers drivers that have already passed me. I feel that I am getting and giving respect from the auto traffic. The fewer car drivers we tic off the better. And I feel it will cause drivers to accept cyclist as regular traffic.

Cyclists are legitimate road users but often are not treated as such. To be safe, a cyclist has to be on the look out for potential trouble and ride to avoid it.
Generally, your post has nothing to do with mine although you quoted it. What I'm saying is that filtering, particularly at speed, is potentially asking for trouble, often at very little gain.

One objection I do have to filtering is that it makes people blame cyclists for right hooks. A right hook as I define it defies rational explanation -- a motorist turns right even though they should know a cyclist is to their right. People look for a rational explanation for things, and almost everyone has seen a cyclist ride past traffic to the right. Thus they assume that a right hook is caused by a cyclist catching a turning car. I'm not one for catastrophizing, but it is a concern. So far, I've been able to avoid right hooks because the sound of a car beside me slowing to turn is rather unmistakable.

I believe in Massachusetts you are allowed to pass on the right on a bicycle, such as at stop signs and traffic lights. I only do so personally if I have plenty of room to do so, otherwise I hang back next to a car (and sometimes take the lane right behind a car if I need to, such as to stay in a straight lane when a right turn lane is next to me, or if I'm going to turn left).

Every single intersection (and usually every time you approach one) is a different situation on a bike and must be treated independently. A single rule/procedure wont help 99% of the situations you'll encounter. Just use common sense.

... What I'm saying is that filtering, particularly at speed, is potentially asking for trouble, often at very little gain.

I don't disagree that filtering can be tricky, but it can be safer than an alternative.


One objection I do have to filtering is that it makes people blame cyclists for right hooks. A right hook as I define it defies rational explanation -- a motorist turns right even though they should know a cyclist is to their right. People look for a rational explanation for things, and almost everyone has seen a cyclist ride past traffic to the right. Thus they assume that a right hook is caused by a cyclist catching a turning car...

Yup. People blame cyclists for it, even if it's incumbent on a motorist to look to the right to be sure it's clear before making a right turn, and they don't. They even turn right knowing full well a cyclist is on the right. That's one good reason to pass the right turning motorist on the left, to the right of cars in the left lane.

Don't get me wrong. Passing on the right is tricky and should be done with care. Passing to the left of a motor vehicle can be even more tricky, but sometimes it is safer than a motorist who is turning right, in the cyclists path.

I suspect that filtering betwen motor traffic and the kerb is more about local custom than any evidence about the potential dangers. Our Highway Code (part list of laws and part advice about what is advisable, as opposed to what must be done), para 72 says:

On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. . Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

i.e. undertaking/filtering is allowed and should be looked for by drivers being undertaken by cyclists and cyclists filtering should be aware of vehicles signalling left.

Since it is allowed, then drivers, generally speaking, don't get het up in the way that US ones seem to do. I've over or undertaken as seemed best, considering traffic conditions, road layout, etc., and only been left hooked on a handful of occasions over many years of commuting until I retired.

I know this has been discussed before, but I was wondering what the law actually says here in IL.

Under normal circumstances (standard lanes, no bike lane, etc), AFRAP applies. Let's not get into an argument about AFRAP here. Suffice to say that's where you're generally "supposed to be."

Also under normal circumstances, no vehicle is supposed to pass another on the right, except in specific situations.

Am I to take this to mean that I am legally supposed to try to re-enter the traffic queue upon approaching every stop, and then leave it again? Honestly, this is kind of stupid and impractical:

1. I understand why most vehicles pass on the left. They also aren't allowed to pass other vehicles in the same lane. Bicycles are vehicles, but aren't cars. Rectangles are quadrilaterals, but not squares...

2. It is more logical to maintain a particular system of traffic organization, rather than changing positions constantly. If a cyclist is not to be "in the way" most of the time, why is it suddenly safe/practical to be so at a stop sign?

3. If you were to read other applicable laws, it could be construed that a "virtual" bike lane exists on every roadway when a cyclist is present. Some buffer is granted from objects and road conditions on the right, and cars must pass with 3 feet of clearance on the left. Painting them on is really only a formality. This interpretation would maintain one, constant arrangement of bikes and cars, and allow bikes to filter forward at stops, as they have their own lane. Basically, if a car can split with me, I sure as hell better be able to split with it. This is the obvious inconsistency in AFRAP laws.

This is really self-interest, obviously. But why does the situation change when there is a stop sign present? Why, if I can supposedly be passed safely on the left while both vehicles are moving, can I not pass by maintaining a straight course. Why is my speed dictated by the rest of traffic when I am not supposed to interact with it?

So what if the the lead vehicle is turning right? It is still their responsibility to signal (500 ft before, btw) the turn, and mine to avoid them. Easy. It is still my responsibility to avoid cross traffic, but a bike and car can continue straight at the same time.

Of course, if I've got the law all wrong, correct me. But by my understanding, what the law says is pretty stupid. I'm also tired from a long week of training, both bike and work, so forgive me. This all came up b/c I've been commuting down to Fullerton, and encountered all manner of illegal driving maneuver today.

All this being said, I did take the lane to keep a taxi from unsafely passing me, as I saw him preparing to do, and lived to tell about it. I really hate taxis, so this was a victory in more ways than one. I think I'll become a cop just so I can write them tickets all day. Easy money.

Filtering makes sense if you want to get right hooked. Generally the SAFEST thing to do, is to be far enough left that you join the queue. If there is a right turn out, then vehicles turning right can still use the turn out. If there is a bike lane that is properly marked, it will be marked with a dashed line instead of the normal solid line some distance from the intersection, this is so that other vehicles outside the bike lane can cross it.

Unfortunately in most places where there is a bike lane properly marked or not, the government traffic authority, has never informed the driving public how these lanes are supposed to work, and drivers not expecting traffic to the right of their lane, simply do as they do without a bike lane, whip around the corner, signalling about half way through the turn, without looking. Here I think the safest thing to do, is when the bike lane turns dashed, merge left into the traffic lane. This puts you into the queue again. Never ever ever pass a slowing truck on the right. Trucks, especially tandem and above, require more room to turn, any truck/bus over about 40' in length will need to go left to turn right. They usually signal their intent here, but this time of year in Northern climes, the backs of trucks and buses can be so dirty that the signals can be partly obscured, especially in bright sunlight. Around here you can wash your car at 9am and by 9:03 it looks like it hasn't been washed in months....

As for taxi's, when they do stupid things, note the company, vehicle number, date and time, then call the company and complain. If they break the law, then note the tag number, date and time, and inform the local constabulary instead, just like with any other driver.

I know this has been discussed before, but I was wondering what the law actually says here in IL.

Under normal circumstances (standard lanes, no bike lane, etc), AFRAP applies. Let's not get into an argument about AFRAP here. Suffice to say that's where you're generally "supposed to be."

Also under normal circumstances, no vehicle is supposed to pass another on the right, except in specific situations.

Am I to take this to mean that I am legally supposed to try to re-enter the traffic queue upon approaching every stop, and then leave it again? Honestly, this is kind of stupid and impractical:

1. I understand why most vehicles pass on the left. They also aren't allowed to pass other vehicles in the same lane. Bicycles are vehicles, but aren't cars. Rectangles are quadrilaterals, but not squares...

2. It is more logical to maintain a particular system of traffic organization, rather than changing positions constantly. If a cyclist is not to be "in the way" most of the time, why is it suddenly safe/practical to be so at a stop sign?

3. If you were to read other applicable laws, it could be construed that a "virtual" bike lane exists on every roadway when a cyclist is present. Some buffer is granted from objects and road conditions on the right, and cars must pass with 3 feet of clearance on the left. Painting them on is really only a formality. This interpretation would maintain one, constant arrangement of bikes and cars, and allow bikes to filter forward at stops, as they have their own lane. Basically, if a car can split with me, I sure as hell better be able to split with it. This is the obvious inconsistency in AFRAP laws.

This is really self-interest, obviously. But why does the situation change when there is a stop sign present? Why, if I can supposedly be passed safely on the left while both vehicles are moving, can I not pass by maintaining a straight course. Why is my speed dictated by the rest of traffic when I am not supposed to interact with it?

So what if the the lead vehicle is turning right? It is still their responsibility to signal (500 ft before, btw) the turn, and mine to avoid them. Easy. It is still my responsibility to avoid cross traffic, but a bike and car can continue straight at the same time.

Of course, if I've got the law all wrong, correct me. But by my understanding, what the law says is pretty stupid. I'm also tired from a long week of training, both bike and work, so forgive me. This all came up b/c I've been commuting down to Fullerton, and encountered all manner of illegal driving maneuver today.

All this being said, I did take the lane to keep a taxi from unsafely passing me, as I saw him preparing to do, and lived to tell about it. I really hate taxis, so this was a victory in more ways than one. I think I'll become a cop just so I can write them tickets all day. Easy money.

Filtering makes sense if you want to get right hooked. Generally the SAFEST thing to do, is to be far enough left that you join the queue. If there is a right turn out, then vehicles turning right can still use the turn out. If there is a bike lane that is properly marked, it will be marked with a dashed line instead of the normal solid line some distance from the intersection, this is so that other vehicles outside the bike lane can cross it.

Unfortunately in most places where there is a bike lane properly marked or not, the government traffic authority, has never informed the driving public how these lanes are supposed to work, and drivers not expecting traffic to the right of their lane, simply do as they do without a bike lane, whip around the corner, signalling about half way through the turn, without looking. Here I think the safest thing to do, is when the bike lane turns dashed, merge left into the traffic lane. This puts you into the queue again. Never ever ever pass a slowing truck on the right. Trucks, especially tandem and above, require more room to turn, any truck/bus over about 40' in length will need to go left to turn right. They usually signal their intent here, but this time of year in Northern climes, the backs of trucks and buses can be so dirty that the signals can be partly obscured, especially in bright sunlight. Around here you can wash your car at 9am and by 9:03 it looks like it hasn't been washed in months....

As for taxi's, when they do stupid things, note the company, vehicle number, date and time, then call the company and complain. If they break the law, then note the tag number, date and time, and inform the local constabulary instead, just like with any other driver.

If the queue of cars is relatively short, I'll wait my turn, but if the intersection is operating at Level of Service F, in which motorists are waiting through 1 or more full light-change cycles before being able to proceed across the intersection, I feel no obligation to share their frustration. I filter forward if I can do so safely, particularly if there is a bike lane or usable shoulder on the far side of the intersection, such that I am not constantly playing leapfrog with the motorists.

I make every effort to be courteous to car drivers. filtering is a good opportunity to show them how we are considerate of their position on the road. when we show courtesy we get courtesy. when they see us making an efforrt on their behalf meven while we are doing our own thing to use our fair share of the road.

Here I think the safest thing to do, is when the bike lane turns dashed, merge left into the traffic lane. This puts you into the queue again. Never ever ever pass a slowing truck on the right.

At that rate, rip up the darn bike lanes, mark the lane as a sharrow, and be done with it.

Dashing the lanes at intersections ignores the fact that left-hooks can happen at driveways as well.

-Kurt

when we show courtesy we get courtesy. not in my world we don't. Imagine a world where cyclists screamed obscenities at motorists for just using the road -- then we would be at parity. I think that would be fun "scream obscenities at innocent motorist day."

It depends, but I generally take the lane. AFRAP has enough exceptions in Texas that it's effectively meaningless (for instance, does not apply for lanes narrower than 14 feet in width). If I'm at the front of a lane that is either straight or turn right, and I'm going straight, I'll get to the point toward the left of the lane where I'm still in the lane but a right turning car can get past me.

I'll pass cars within the lane when one or more of the following applies:

(a) there is low potential they will re-pass me
(b) they have already passed me within the lane at a location where the lane was similar or lesser width.
(c) the cars are positioned illegally in a designated bike or diamond lane.

On the few arterial roads I ride these days, I'd say 75% of the cars I pass within the lane meet two or more of these criteria.

Like any overtaking vehicle, it is my responsibility to manage the risk that a car might turn right or change lanes without adequate signalling.

I'll pass cars within the lane when one or more of the following applies:

Add the following:

(d) When the road is a single lane in one direction, wherein the motorist has come to a complete halt over the normal travel lane and the bike lane.

Had that happen once when some jerk in a Cadillac found it prudent to hold up traffic by gawking at 12 people on the median, mourning over a dead dog.

I'm sure A&S can assume that the dog-related incident was a result of an inattentive motorist and a pooch owned by a jerk who freely allowed it roam loose.

-Kurt

Am I to take this to mean that I am legally supposed to try to re-enter the traffic queue upon approaching every stop, and then leave it again? Honestly, this is kind of stupid and impractical:


You were already in the traffic queue. AFRAP makes it easier to pass, it doesn't put you in a lane of your own.

I would recommend moving to the left at intersections that are in use at the time: It gives you more maneuvering room when someone else screws up, makes a right hook look less attractive to vehicles behind you, probably makes you easier to see for left turners, and it takes away the temptation to illegally pass you within the intersection.

I appreciate the discussion, guys. I have practiced VC, following traffic laws and such in the past, and it works really well in lower-traffic situations. It can be more of a burden at 4-ways in the city, though. Just wondered what the community thought.

No more of a burden for you to wait than it is for the cars.

filter to the front when it makes sense and don't when it doesn't is my advice.

you'll be the best judge of it. sometimes I've filtered up on a truck in a bikelane near where right turns are authorized, it's all a matter of judgement but general advice is

don't pass a slow moving trucks bumper anywhere in proximity of a turn. stay behind that rear bumper.

In Missouri there is a specific law I think applies to this discussion that is often overlooked and there may be a similar law in other states. You aren't supposed to pass any other vehicles within 100 feet of an intersection. It seems this law would apply to filtering up at any intersection even if there was plenty of room on the right.

If the queue of cars is relatively short, I'll wait my turn, but if the intersection is operating at Level of Service F, in which motorists are waiting through 1 or more full light-change cycles before being able to proceed across the intersection, I feel no obligation to share their frustration. I filter forward if I can do so safely, particularly if there is a bike lane or usable shoulder on the far side of the intersection, such that I am not constantly playing leapfrog with the motorists.

+100

This is cycling in an efficient and safe and co-operative manner. Queuing up when the traffic is light and the motorists would likely leapfrog you anyway one side of the coin; taking advantage of being on a bike when the the other traffic is bound up is the other side. This is what I do too. I don't like filtering unless there is a good reason, and getting to the front so motor traffic can just pass me again is NOT a good reason.

But taking advantage of being on a narrow vehicle IS one of the advantages of cycling... when "fat traffic" can't get out of it's own way. :D

I concur

No more of a burden for you to wait than it is for the cars.

Disagree here. The operating characteristics of a bicycle are different from an automobile. An automobile is most stable when stopped, a bicycle is most stable when in motion. Applying the same rules blindly to both types of vehicles does not make sense. I believe that coming to a complete stop is a greater burden to a cyclist than it is to an auto driver.

Personally, if the road is wide enough for me to ride in a position where I feel comfortable sharing the lane with automobiles, then I will take a lane position which allows automobiles to pass me within the lane. When approaching an intersection or slowed traffic, I can maintain my lateral line, and pass autos on their right - as if there were two lanes there. When doing so, I am very cognizant of the danger of right turning vehicles and therefore ride slowly, and if there are vehicles that seem to be preparing for a right turn, either by their lane position or by their turn indicators, I will tend to pass them on their left. With a wide lane like this, it is no burden for the motorist to then pass me after the intersection, so my filtering forward should be a non issue to the motorists.

If the lane is not wide enough to permit sharing, I will position myself in the middle of the lane, and when approaching a light, will take my turn in the queue. Filtering forward in this circumstance would be unfair to the motorists due to the greater burden involved in passing with a narrow lane.

not in my world we don't. Imagine a world where cyclists screamed obscenities at motorists for just using the road -- then we would be at parity. I think that would be fun "scream obscenities at innocent motorist day."

Sadly doesn't that happen to many cyclists in reverse? Motorists screaming obscenities at cyclists? Every now and then I even have pedestrians yelling at me to get on the sidewalk. You'd think that if any other group of individuals understood why cyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk it's pedestrians.

Sadly doesn't that happen to many cyclists in reverse? Motorists screaming obscenities at cyclists? Every now and then I even have pedestrians yelling at me to get on the sidewalk. You'd think that if any other group of individuals understood why cyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk it's pedestrians.

Even more sad is that this happens no matter how legal and proper you ride... I can be setting the perfect example out there for cyclists, while "acting just like the driver of a vehicle," and along comes some driver that not only fails to "treat me as the driver of a vehicle" but berates me for doing exactly what the laws say I should be doing.

I have to agree with unterhausen... maybe we need a "scream obscenities at innocent motorist day."

Sadly doesn't that happen to many cyclists in reverse? Motorists screaming obscenities at cyclists? Every now and then I even have pedestrians yelling at me to get on the sidewalk. You'd think that if any other group of individuals understood why cyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk it's pedestrians.

Sadly doesn't that happen to many cyclists in reverse? Motorists screaming obscenities at cyclists? Every now and then I even have pedestrians yelling at me to get on the sidewalk. You'd think that if any other group of individuals understood why cyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk it's pedestrians.The fact is, most drivers are not cyclists and do NOT know cyclist road rules. OTOH, most (actually, a HUGE majority) cyclists are also drivers and KNOW motorist road rules. There's the disparity. Even if I know I'm in the right during a conflict, I try to keep this in mind and keep my cool. If there's a chance I can educate them, I will. But sadly, often there is no opportunity.

Back on topic: I filter most of the time and know the risks I'm taking by sidling up to a car at an intersection. It makes the most sense to me, majority of the time. The only times I won't filter through is at a left-turn lane or at a stop sign controlled intersection where there's only 2 or 3 cars waiting. And yes, big trucks and buses are no-nos.

Even more sad is that this happens no matter how legal and proper you ride... I can be setting the perfect example out there for cyclists, while "acting just like the driver of a vehicle," and along comes some driver that not only fails to "treat me as the driver of a vehicle" but berates me for doing exactly what the laws say I should be doing.

I have to agree with unterhausen... maybe we need a "scream obscenities at innocent motorist day."

Exactly, it happened to me today after I made my left turn going home. Some Bubba in a pickup yelled at me to get off the road. Before that after I left the pet shop with a couple of crickets. I had some moron in a pickup honking at me. This was on a narrow two-lane access road with a speed limit of 25MPH.

People need to brush up on and learn the changes in the law.

Sadly doesn't that happen to many cyclists in reverse? Motorists screaming obscenities at cyclists? Every now and then I even have pedestrians yelling at me to get on the sidewalk. You'd think that if any other group of individuals understood why cyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk it's pedestrians.
that's what I'm saying. When people in cars are screaming obscenities at me I am operating my bicycle legally and safely. Either they do it for fun or they are ignorant. The U.S. is not one of the many countries in the world where motorists commonly scream obscenities at each other. It's not even common for motorists to honk at each other to any great degree. But it's pretty common for people to scream obscenities at cyclists.
I agree about pedestrians. There is nothing I hate more than sharing a sidewalk with a cyclist, no matter how slow they are going. I have been known to weave.

In Missouri there is a specific law I think applies to this discussion that is often overlooked and there may be a similar law in other states. You aren't supposed to pass any other vehicles within 100 feet of an intersection. It seems this law would apply to filtering up at any intersection even if there was plenty of room on the right.
So tell me how well this law is observed or enforced at a traffic light on a multi-lane thoroughfare. Let's say there are 3 lanes in each direction and there are already 4 or 5 cars lined up in both the 1st and 3rd lanes waiting at a red light, but only one car is in the 2nd lane. Now another car comes up to the intersection in the 2nd lane. Are you really suggesting it'll stop way back in the lane so as not to 'pass' any of the cars in the 1st and 3rd lanes? That hasn't been my experience, nor do I see any reason why it should be required. Nor is the usual 'pass on the left' rule generally followed on multi-lane urban roads. If the righthand lane is moving and there's someone stopped or slower in the lane to the left then traffic in the right lane will keep moving and pass the traffic in the left lane.

That strikes me as the equivalent situation to most filtering done by cyclists. They're moving up alongside traffic that is stopped - either because of a traffic light or due to congestion. If done with proper care it can be very safe, but the cyclist has to remain aware that any of the vehicles might start moving to the right and be prepared for that situation.

So tell me how well this law is observed or enforced at a traffic light on a multi-lane thoroughfare. Let's say there are 3 lanes in each direction and there are already 4 or 5 cars lined up in both the 1st and 3rd lanes waiting at a red light, but only one car is in the 2nd lane. Now another car comes up to the intersection in the 2nd lane. Are you really suggesting it'll stop way back in the lane so as not to 'pass' any of the cars in the 1st and 3rd lanes? That hasn't been my experience, nor do I see any reason why it should be required. Nor is the usual 'pass on the left' rule generally followed on multi-lane urban roads. If the righthand lane is moving and there's someone stopped or slower in the lane to the left then traffic in the right lane will keep moving and pass the traffic in the left lane.

That strikes me as the equivalent situation to most filtering done by cyclists. They're moving up alongside traffic that is stopped - either because of a traffic light or due to congestion. If done with proper care it can be very safe, but the cyclist has to remain aware that any of the vehicles might start moving to the right and be prepared for that situation.

I think he was talking about one lane in each direction. You aren't allowed to change lanes in an intersection, and not allowed to pass. Being in two separate lanes is a different situation. One lane can move faster than the other. It's a different type of "passing."

I think he was talking about one lane in each direction. You aren't allowed to change lanes in an intersection, and not allowed to pass. Being in two separate lanes is a different situation. One lane can move faster than the other. It's a different type of "passing."
But the multi-lane road is very similar to the situation of a cyclist on a reasonably wide street. Either he's in a bike lane, i.e. a totally separate lane, or there's an outside lane that's wide enough for sharing and the cyclist is being passed by cars or passing cars without either party having to leave their lane position on the road. That's much more similar to the situation of cars passing each other on a multi-lane road than it is to the situation where all passing is done by leaving the original lane and temporarily moving into the lane used by opposing traffic.

If the queue of cars is relatively short, I'll wait my turn, but if the intersection is operating at Level of Service F, in which motorists are waiting through 1 or more full light-change cycles before being able to proceed across the intersection, I feel no obligation to share their frustration. I filter forward if I can do so safely, particularly if there is a bike lane or usable shoulder on the far side of the intersection, such that I am not constantly playing leapfrog with the motorists.

+1, This, however, requires common sense, as such it is not a recommended approach for most.

+1, This, however, requires common sense, as such it is not a recommended approach for most.

Well, even if you do apply your experience and have good observation it can still go wrong.

Tonight I am riding along, in the dark but on a well lit street and I've got lights on. The traffic light ahead is red and the traffic slowing, stopping and backing up. I have half a metre of road, so it is easy for me to ride up to the front between the curb and the cars. There is even a hand rail on the curb to stop pedestrians wandering between the stationary cars.

I feel something brush my face and hit my shoulder just as I pass a mini bus (Toyota Coaster 20 seaters, popular flexible public transport in Hong Kong). I hit brakes, swear and look back.

Doors had opened (internally, so hard to see) and a girl was just stepping out as I passed. These buses will pick up and drop off anywhere along their route - not just as official bus stops. I did not see her at all until I was passed and looked back. She just walked along the gutter until she reached the end of the handrail and walked on her way.

If I was traveling a little slower or was a little later she would have been smashed down pretty hard.

So do I keep filtering to the front? Do I watch the mini-buses like a hawk (I thought I already did)? Who knows...

If I have been sharing the lane and willing continue sharing after the intersection I will cautiously filter forward on the right. When doing this I consider avoiding right hooks my responsibility.

If I have been taking the lane, I get in line with other vehicles. If motor vehicles have been backed up behind me, I take the stoppage as an opportunity to "step aside" and let them go ahead.

I think he was talking about one lane in each direction. You aren't allowed to change lanes in an intersection, and not allowed to pass. Being in two separate lanes is a different situation. One lane can move faster than the other. It's a different type of "passing."

This is what I meant.


. . .or there's an outside lane that's wide enough for sharing and the cyclist is being passed by cars or passing cars without either party having to leave their lane position on the road. . .

I could understand and agree with filtering if this was the case. But if you mean filtering as in squeezing through a space that you wouldn't be comfortable with if you and the vehicle were moving full speed, and then the vehicle you just squeezed by having to wait to pass you again on the other side of the intersection, I think you should wait in line.

Exactly, it happened to me today after I made my left turn going home. Some Bubba in a pickup yelled at me to get off the road. Before that after I left the pet shop with a couple of crickets. I had some moron in a pickup honking at me. This was on a narrow two-lane access road with a speed limit of 25MPH.

People need to brush up on and learn the changes in the law.

"Changes?!?" Heck people need to just learn the basics, period.

Had a long discussion with my hair cutter on Sunday... she had no idea that cyclists have the same rights to the road as motorists... I gave her one of my cyclist's rights cards and she was astounded... "oh wow, really?" She has been around a while... and yet had no idea. I still contend that most drivers really don't know the laws... they only give us room as a favor.

I really believe if everyone really knew the laws, and acted properly to them, it would be a vastly different environment out there. As it is, I'd settle for just "Drive Friendly."

"Changes?!?" Heck people need to just learn the basics, period.

Had a long discussion with my hair cutter on Sunday... she had no idea that cyclists have the same rights to the road as motorists... I gave her one of my cyclist's rights cards and she was astounded... "oh wow, really?" She has been around a while... and yet had no idea. I still contend that most drivers really don't know the laws... they only give us room as a favor.

I really believe if everyone really knew the laws, and acted properly to them, it would be a vastly different environment out there. As it is, I'd settle for just "Drive Friendly."

I've often wondered if it would do any good to go to say Kinko's and print out the relevant law pertaining to bicycles and go around to the various parking lots and slip it under the windshield wipers of cars. With the exceptions to the AFRAP highlighted. Or would they just be crumbled up and tossed aside like so many takeout menus?

I mean I think that as we've said it's really a lack of education that causes a lot of motorists to behave the way that they do. And as you've shown with your hair cutter I think that most are willing to learn. Which "papering" the cars in a parking lot would help with, that and trying to get more TV stations to air bicycle related PSAs.

I've often wondered if it would do any good to go to say Kinko's and print out the relevant law pertaining to bicycles and go around to the various parking lots and slip it under the windshield wipers of cars. With the exceptions to the AFRAP highlighted. Or would they just be crumbled up and tossed aside like so many takeout menus?

I make it a point to look at stuff under my wiper only enough to determine if it's a ticket. If not, I fold it up and toss it on the floor of the car and drop it in recycling when I get home (I'm not enough of an a55 to throw stuff on the ground).

Disagree here. The operating characteristics of a bicycle are different from an automobile. An automobile is most stable when stopped, a bicycle is most stable when in motion. Applying the same rules blindly to both types of vehicles does not make sense. I believe that coming to a complete stop is a greater burden to a cyclist than it is to an auto driver......

The same can be said for motorcycles. Do we allow them to filter?

roughstuff

The same can be said for motorcycles. Do we allow them to filter?

roughstuff

in CA, yes.

in CA, yes.

Thanks Genec...I was wondering if ever this issue was specifically addressed. Of course all the willy-willies of filtering has to be taken into consideration.

roughstuff

I modify my behavior at intersections based on numerous variables such as traffic volume, width of shoulder, number of lanes, etc. The bottom line for me is, if I am approaching an intersection with a red light and traffic backed up to the point that if I were to stop directly behind the last car I would miss the light, I am going to at least try to filter up farther in the line and make that light. this line of action is at its most deadly serious cutting across 2 lanes of traffic to get to a left turn lane with an advance left turn, lanesplitting past half the cars in both lanes line as the left turn lane begins to move, and then riding somebodys outside right fender through the intersection. I feel that as long as i'm not actually holding up the traffic in that lane, it shouldn't be an issue for the motorists i am cutting in front of, and like I said manuvers such as this are generally reserved for when I am likely to have to wait for the next light if I line up with everyone else. If I wanted to do that, I'd drive a car. sitting in rush hour traffic if for SUCKERS! does anybody actually do that?

For straight through situations in heavy traffic I am not above riding on the sidewalk, awkwardly shuffling my way forward, or lanesplitting to get up near the front at an intersection. I'm pretty much only passing people who arn't going to be moving very far any time soon anyway. My approach in light-medium traffic is usually to just line up with the cars unless there is a bike lane or really wide shoulder on that road. no sense in passing 6 cars that just passed you just so you can save the 10 seconds or so lead off time.