Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Just so we're clear

Just so we're clear on the whole 'take the lane' thing, what we're doing is putting our lives in the hands of the person driving that 2-tonne meat grinder quickly approaching us from behind, and that person could very well be someone just like these...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9aWSKMiPL0&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ12Ry-hD6I&NR=1

If you're OK with that then more power to you, but I will take segregated facilities or the sidewalk before putting my life in those hands.

Yikes! And remember these are only the ones that got recorded and sent to youtube.

Funny thing is the lady in the car didn't really get any help. If she forgets the phone call she's screwed again.

This is a hoot, too. (http://www.psychomessages.com/voicemails.cfm?pagenum=2&sortby=creationdate%20DESC)

Funny thing is the lady in the car didn't really get any help. If she forgets the phone call she's screwed again.

This is a hoot, too. (http://www.psychomessages.com/voicemails.cfm?pagenum=2&sortby=creationdate%20DESC)

no doubt she's probably the type that just yaks away at the phone all day while driving... clueless bimbo!

Riding on the sidewalk is illegal in many places, and is actually less safe than riding on the street. The last cyclist killed in a collison here--or at least the last one that made the paper--was killed while riding on the sidewalk, the wrong way on a one-way street. A woman pulled out of a parking garage and naturally was not expecting a cyclist on the sidewalk coming from the wrong direction.

Wonder if the woman pulling out of the parking garage was aware that sidewalks aren't one-way and there could have been joggers, children, and even bicycles coming from both directions. It's her responsibility to look both ways crossing the sidewalk and the cyclist probably should have slowed down and paid more attention.

Uninteresting bit of trolling, this.

Riding on the sidewalk is illegal in many places, and is actually less safe than riding on the street. The last cyclist killed in a collison here--or at least the last one that made the paper--was killed while riding on the sidewalk, the wrong way on a one-way street. A woman pulled out of a parking garage and naturally was not expecting a cyclist on the sidewalk coming from the wrong direction.

Was she expecting pedestrians "coming from the wrong direction?"

I've watched countless motorists look only one way as they enter a road while making right turns on red or while entering a road from a parking lot... they simply never look to the right... and thus have no clue that anyone (bike or otherwise) can be there. (this IS one of those car slapping situations, BTW.)

Uninteresting bit of trolling, this.

Oh I donno, I got a chuckle out of it...

Hypotheticals like this always leave out one salient point that makes the whole drama go away -- in this case, the idea that the '2-tonne meat grinder' is always driven by someone like the careless fools in the vids, or someone who immediately reaches critical road-rage mass upon seeing a bike in the road. Also, there's the idea that there are roads that won't be cluttered with meat grinders at every moment -- y'know, like side streets and such.

Play with your routes whenever you can; seek variety. Keeps things fresh. And you will more likely find that 'magic' route that only sees a reckless driver once every 100,000 drivers.

Hypotheticals like this always leave out one salient point that makes the whole drama go away -- in this case, the idea that the '2-tonne meat grinder' is always driven by someone like the careless fools in the vids, or someone who immediately reaches critical road-rage mass upon seeing a bike in the road. Also, there's the idea that there are roads that won't be cluttered with meat grinders at every moment -- y'know, like side streets and such.

Play with your routes whenever you can; seek variety. Keeps things fresh. And you will more likely find that 'magic' route that only sees a reckless driver once every 100,000 drivers.

But it only takes ONE!

... there are roads that won't be cluttered with meat grinders at every moment -- y'know, like side streets and such. Play with your routes whenever you can; seek variety. Keeps things fresh. And you will more likely find that 'magic' route that only sees a reckless driver once every 100,000 drivers.
Consider someone taking a not extremely busy route who encounters just 8 cars per day of biking commuting 5 days/week for 25 weeks/year. That would be 1,000 such encounters per year. Do that for 10 years for 10,000 motor vehicle encounters. Odds you are not hit would be 0.99999^10,000 = 0.9048369 or about 90%. Over 20 years it is only 82% you would go motor vehicle collision free. Only a tiny percent of inattentive, incompetent, etc. drivers is needed to have the odds of a collision with a motor vehicle 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 for a frequent cyclist.

As you suggest, taking the side roads is often a way to tilt the odds more in a cyclist's favor. And that is one of the things I do.

It also makes me think (or hope) the odds of a really drunk, etc. driver are less than 1 in 100,000.

Consider someone taking a not extremely busy route who encounters just 8 cars per day of biking commuting 5 days/week for 25 weeks/year. That would be 1,000 such encounters per year. Do that for 10 years for 10,000 motor vehicle encounters. Odds you are not hit would be 0.99999^10,000 = 0.9048369 or about 90%. Over 20 years it is only 82% you would go motor vehicle collision free. Only a tiny percent of inattentive, incompetent, etc. drivers is needed to have the odds of a collision with a motor vehicle 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 for a frequent cyclist.

As you suggest, taking the side roads is often a way to tilt the odds more in a cyclist's favor. And that is one of the things I do.

It also makes me think (or hope) the odds of a really drunk, etc. driver are less than 1 in 100,000.

So if good drivers are 99% of all the motorists out there, 1 in 100 is a bad/distracted/drunk driver... The odds don't look that great for a cyclist on busy roads.

Consider someone taking a not extremely busy route who encounters just 8 cars per day of biking commuting 5 days/week for 25 weeks/year. That would be 1,000 such encounters per year. Do that for 10 years for 10,000 motor vehicle encounters. Odds you are not hit would be 0.99999^10,000 = 0.9048369 or about 90%.

No, by your calculation the odds are 90% that you won't encounter a reckless driver, not avoid being hit. Not every pass/encounter by a reckless driver is a guaranteed collision. Of course, not every collision is caused by habitually reckless drivers, either. Even good drivers can have a bad moment.

No, by your calculation the odds are 90% that you won't encounter a reckless driver, not avoid being hit. Not every pass/encounter by a reckless driver is a guaranteed collision. Of course, not every collision is caused by habitually reckless drivers, either. Even good drivers can have a bad moment.
In the hypothetical example, the previous poster posited a driver that would be highly likely to collide with the cyclist. The point is that even if an event seems rare, if it you experience this risk numerous times it becomes surprisingly probable it will happen to you at least once.

To be sure, if a motorist is extremely impaired, they probably do not get far before colliding with a lamp post etc. The dangerous motorists are those impaired within a range where they can keep the car on the road but have a relatively high probabliity (say, 1 in 1000) of colliding with a cyclist because cyclists are encountered less frequently, are less visible, etc. To that end, minimizing the number of encounters with motor vehicles is a good strategy provided it does not create other hazardous situations. One that affects my commuting route choice is mid-block crossings by bike paths, particularly where parked cars obscure the sight lines. I take the bike path for about two miles because it has only three grade-level crossings, all mid-block. However, once the path has a mid-block crossing about every 200 feet, I take the side streets with minimal motorized traffic and change the hazards I look for (e.g. potholes, L&R crosses, etc.).

Yikes! And remember these are only the ones that got recorded and sent to youtube.In general, 911 calls are all recorded, and available via FOIA requests (or maybe you could just ask?) Though you're right about those that make it to youtube ...

As for the original troll, we're aware of the dangers of riding in the street and riding on the sidewalk, and we generally make an informed decision. Troll fail.

As for the original troll, we're aware of the dangers of riding in the street and riding on the sidewalk, and we generally make an informed decision. Troll fail.
+1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EWGpZwwoM8

If you're OK with that then more power to you, but I will take segregated facilities or the sidewalk before putting my life in those hands.

1) Statistically one of the rarest accidents.

2) You can still be killed (and apparently at a higher rate, actually) on the sidewalk. Or even bike lanes, etc.

3) Try again.

+1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EWGpZwwoM8

Anti-literacy dogs! :p

Well, the sidewalk isn't exactly safe either ...

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZYRh6Gjy7k
etc.

You have to use some common sense when picking routes. I don't ride my bike on the 5-lane 40-55 mph urban freeway that I take to work when I'm driving my truck. I've seen people do it on a bike, but it's not for me.

1) Statistically one of the rarest accidents.

2) You can still be killed (and apparently at a higher rate, actually) on the sidewalk. Or even bike lanes, etc.

3) Try again.

Killed at a higher rate in BL... is that perhaps because bike lanes are at the side of the road where most cyclists statistically ride? That is like saying that MUPs are more dangerous because there are more collisions there... and how often do MUP collisions lead to death?

Take away the BL stripes and most cyclists are killed at the side of the road, get cyclists to ride somewhere else on the road, and it still comes down to most cyclists are killed by motor vehicles.

Nice twist on statistics. Lies, damn lies and statistics...

You have to use some common sense when picking routes. I don't ride my bike on the 5-lane 40-55 mph urban freeway that I take to work when I'm driving my truck. I've seen people do it on a bike, but it's not for me.

What if that is the ONLY road? Then how would you get to A from B?

Truthfully? I'm not sure I'd ever ride my bike to work.

You have to use some common sense when picking routes. I don't ride my bike on the 5-lane 40-55 mph urban freeway that I take to work when I'm driving my truck. I've seen people do it on a bike, but it's not for me.
It is illegal to cycle on all the urban freeways (http://azbikeclub.com/interst.html) in metro Phx. They may be 40-55 during rush hour, but they are posted at 55 or 65mph.

You have to use some common sense when picking routes. I don't ride my bike on the 5-lane 40-55 mph urban freeway that I take to work when I'm driving my truck. I've seen people do it on a bike, but it's not for me.


It is illegal to cycle on all the urban freeways (http://azbikeclub.com/interst.html) in metro Phx. They may be 40-55 during rush hour, but they are posted at 55 or 65mph.

When speaking of "urban freeways" is this a true limited access freeway? Or is it the multilaned arterial roads often found in the west that motorists treat as freeways... but that have intersections, stoplights and may the the ONLY ROAD between two points? (this latter situation occurs quite often in the west, where there is no grid pattern in some cities, and the ONLY road is one of these high speed arterial roads... thus there are NO alternative roads)

Sure, Metro-Phoenix is a 1mi grid of arterial roads, but they are nothing like a freeway. To start there are light controlled stops at least every mile, most often every 1/3-1/4 mile and many more non signalized intersections within each mile block. Three are also no on ramps or at speed merges.

This map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=phoenix&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.817312,63.808594&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Phoenix,+Maricopa,+Arizona&ll=33.367811,-111.863136&spn=0.168596,0.249252&z=12) shows the arterial roads as yellow. Note the many intersections between the 1mi grid.

Arterial roads may be the only way to get from pt. A to B (most often as pts. A & B are located on the arterial road) but there are often back ways thru residential or industrial area to get around, although these can add distance and often have greater 'intersection type interaction' with other drivers.

Locally whenever someone is talking about an urban freeway (http://www.arizonaroads.com/urban/index.html) they always mean of the freeways in the urban area. Do an internet search for 'Phoenix urban freeway' (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=JYg&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=NxnfS5nIFYfCsgPE_7HrBg&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CAYQvwUoAQ&q=urban+freeway+phoenix&spell=1) and see.

When I said "Urban Freeway" that's what I call the Multi-lane arterial that I take to work when I drive my truck (Broadway Road in Tempe), not referring to an interstate highway. I call it "UF" because speeds are freeway speeds during the middays when I commute. sorry for the confusion.

Sure, Metro-Phoenix is a 1mi grid of arterial roads, but they are nothing like a freeway. To start there are light controlled stops at least every mile, most often every 1/3-1/4 mile and many more non signalized intersections within each mile block. Three are also no on ramps or at speed merges.

This map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=phoenix&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.817312,63.808594&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Phoenix,+Maricopa,+Arizona&ll=33.367811,-111.863136&spn=0.168596,0.249252&z=12) shows the arterial roads as yellow. Note the many intersections between the 1mi grid.

Arterial roads may be the only way to get from pt. A to B (most often as pts. A & B are located on the arterial road) but there are often back ways thru residential or industrial area to get around, although these can add distance and often have greater 'intersection type interaction' with other drivers.

Locally whenever someone is talking about an urban freeway (http://www.arizonaroads.com/urban/index.html) they always mean of the freeways in the urban area. Do an internet search for 'Phoenix urban freeway' (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=JYg&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=NxnfS5nIFYfCsgPE_7HrBg&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CAYQvwUoAQ&q=urban+freeway+phoenix&spell=1) and see.

Sure, technically an urban freeway is a freeway in an urban area... but if you look at the comment below, I think you'll see that some folks here on BF are talking about multi-laned arterial roads that are used as freeways by motorists. Consider that 55MPH arterial roads have the speed limits that ALL freeways had back in the early 80's.

Regarding " back ways thru residential or industrial areas," that isn't the case everywhere. Places like San Diego, LA, Seattle, all have arterial roads through certain parts of their cities that are the ONLY roads available due to the geography of those areas. Phoenix on the other hand is largely built on a regular grid.


When I said "Urban Freeway" that's what I call the Multi-lane arterial that I take to work when I drive my truck (Broadway Road in Tempe), not referring to an interstate highway. I call it "UF" because speeds are freeway speeds during the middays when I commute. sorry for the confusion.

Just trying to clear up the terminology here... Yeah, I too call these high speed arterial roads "urban freeways." After all, with speeds like 55 MPH and 65 MPH, these muli-laned arterial roads DO have the speed limits of all freeways from back in the 70's and early 80's. 5 foot Bike Lanes on roads like this are something of a joke... as motor traffic rushes past at near interstate freeway speeds. The interstate is actually safer... after all, it has wide lanes, AND wide 8 foot shoulders.

Well, "just so we're clear."

Let's not be ridiculous. These arterial roads in metro-phx are posted 35, 40 and 45. I recall Broadway in Tempe is 40. There are frequent stops. Drivers need to slow and stop for turning vehicles, buses, etc. They do not have the expectation of free flowing traffic as on a freeway. These roads have none of the characteristics of a freeway.

except for the speeds. posted 45 but as a practical matter, speeds up to 60. try it during non-rush hours, it can be a high-speed nightmare. there are multiple lanes, Al, only the right one needs to stop for buses and turns. Show me a few of these multi-lane arterials that are posted at 35 MPH other than AT school zones. stop being a VC apologist for roads most people find un-bicycling friendly, dude.

I am apologizing for nothing. I am only encouraging correct use of terminology and asking that facts vs. exaggeration are used as basis for discussion. Starting with false information will only result in meaningless discussion and worse when ideas and solutions are suggested they will not be appropriate.

For example I believe based on visits to S.Cal that the so called urban freeways that Gene speaks of do have freeway like characteristics - they are true arterial connectors between communities/business areas with longer stretches of uninterrupted roadway with posted and actually speeds higher than the grid of arterial roads in Phx. For roadways like this they could be improved for cyclists by adding wide shoulders or bike lanes. However here the grid of arterial roads have a different characteristic (which I mentioned in previous post) Applying the S.Cal improvements would be inappropriate due to the frequent intersections (of all kinds commercial, roads, bus stops, etc.). Here I would suggest lowering speed limits (35mph) and wide outside lanes. Unlike in S.Cal lower speed limits would minimally affect motorized travel time and also encourage use of the true urban freeways that connect the valley.

Yes there are already 35mph arterial roads here - Rural for example (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tempe,+az&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.107327,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Tempe,+Maricopa,+Arizona&ll=33.406903,-111.926269&spn=0.013613,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.407003,-111.926268&panoid=Q9i1IDJII7viOGNQPQRrMA&cbp=12,175.65,,0,2).

except for the speeds. posted 45 but as a practical matter, speeds up to 60. try it during non-rush hours, it can be a high-speed nightmare. there are multiple lanes, Al, only the right one needs to stop for buses and turns. Show me a few of these multi-lane arterials that are posted at 35 MPH other than AT school zones. stop being a VC apologist for roads most people find un-bicycling friendly, dude.


Let's not be ridiculous. These arterial roads in metro-phx are posted 35, 40 and 45. I recall Broadway in Tempe is 40. There are frequent stops. Drivers need to slow and stop for turning vehicles, buses, etc. They do not have the expectation of free flowing traffic as on a freeway. These roads have none of the characteristics of a freeway.

Arterial roads in So Cal can have speed limits of 55 and even 65MPH. If I need to go north from where I live, I have a choice of three roads (and 3 freeways). The roads are posted 45, 55 and 65 MPH. To go north from Carmel Valley, I would have a choice of two roads and one freeway, both roads are 55MPH. (the freeway is ONLY 65MPH).

To go from the western part of Carlsbad to the eastern part of Carlsbad, it is a 55MPH arterial road. Miramar Road just north of me, a major east-west arterial road is 55MPH. SeaWorld Drive is 55MPH.

These are just a handful of quick examples of the "urban freeways" in the area, and their posted speeds... the actual travel speeds can vary quite a bit... Miramar road can be a dead standstill at times, or have traffic moving well over 55MPH.

This area has a geography consisting of mesas and canyons... often the mesas are connected by arterial roads which either go by bridges from mesa to mesa or by arterial roads through canyons... these tend to be the only roads through, and are high speed roads... maybe with bike lanes. If any grid pattern exists, it is on the flats or mesas. Thus cyclists have no alternative routes.

This type of roadway system is common in many areas in the west... such as along the CA coast, and further north to places like Seattle. This roadway structure also tends to exist in more rugged areas of New Mexico, and Arizona, where again cyclists share high speed roads and few if any alternative roads exist. If bike lanes or shoulders exist, they tend to be narrow (5 feet or less) and not even as wide as the shoulders on an interstate freeway, even though the speeds on these arterial roads approach those of interstate freeways.

I would hardly call this "ridiculous," nor would I call it "cyclist friendly."

Gene, did you read my last post? I agree with what you just wrote about these roads in CA - and similar ones in other states and 'rugged' areas of AZ. But what is ridiculous is comparing these uninterrupted 55-65mph+ flow 'urban freeway' roads to the stop and go grid of streets in the metro (hardly rugged) Phoenix area. Here the posted speed limits are lower and the actual speeds are too, usually ~5mph over PSL because going much more over that has very diminishing returns with all the stops. Randy's example of 60mph is extremely rare, a driver doing 60mph on an 40mph posted urban arterial road stands out to everyone as a reckless outlier.

Gene, did you read my last post? I agree with what you just wrote about these roads in CA - and similar ones in other states and 'rugged' areas of AZ. But what is ridiculous is comparing these uninterrupted 55-65mph+ flow 'urban freeway' roads to the stop and go grid of streets in the metro (hardly rugged) Phoenix area. Here the posted speed limits are lower and the actual speeds are too, usually ~5mph over PSL because going much more over that has very diminishing returns with all the stops. Randy's example of 60mph is extremely rare, a driver doing 60mph on an 40mph posted urban arterial road stands out to everyone as a reckless outlier.Around here there's a whole bunch of "reckless outliers" on some of these streets.

Gene, did you read my last post? I agree with what you just wrote about these roads in CA - and similar ones in other states and 'rugged' areas of AZ. But what is ridiculous is comparing these uninterrupted 55-65mph+ flow 'urban freeway' roads to the stop and go grid of streets in the metro (hardly rugged) Phoenix area. Here the posted speed limits are lower and the actual speeds are too, usually ~5mph over PSL because going much more over that has very diminishing returns with all the stops. Randy's example of 60mph is extremely rare, a driver doing 60mph on an 40mph posted urban arterial road stands out to everyone as a reckless outlier.

Saw it just after I posted... I must have been "composing" while you posted. I have to agree with you... and your example also holds true in certain areas of San Diego (on top of mesas and in flats), where there is a good grid structure, and there is in fact something of a bike culture. North Park and the beach areas for example.

The thing we have to keep in mind is that there is quite a bit of road diversity across America... and some attitudes are formed in places where for instance you have old narrow streets such as in Boston, or fast isolated farm roads, such as in Texas, or the "urban freeway" arterial roads of So Cal, or the well formed grids of "modern" cities such as Salt Lake or Phoenix. So where one area could serve cyclists quite well with existing 25-30 MPH grid streets, another area might need shoulders or WOL or even isolated paths, and yet another area might be just fine with high speed roads, but minimal traffic.

The "issue" is a one size fits all "solution" that really isn't "one size fits all." Not to mention slightly varying laws, state to state. Whereas one state has 3 foot laws, another may not... whereas one state may encourage merging into BL before turns, yet another may not. So the whole issue of "being clear" really is an "issue."

And beyond all that, are the motorists that bring their habits from one state to another... such as CA drivers going to OR... :rolleyes:

It's NOT rare on Broadway, Al. posted 45 mph, many people drive in the 50-60 mph range in the middle of the day. (non rush hours)

...
The "issue" is a one size fits all "solution" that really isn't "one size fits all." Not to mention slightly varying laws, state to state. Whereas one state has 3 foot laws, another may not... whereas one state may encourage merging into BL before turns, yet another may not. So the whole issue of "being clear" really is an "issue."
...But the whole point of this forum (and ESPECIALLY this subforum) is people telling other cyclists how they HAVE TO ride. :p

Don't ride on the sidewalk, don't ride on the MUP, don't ride in the bike lane, don't ride at the side of the road, don't ride with a helmet, do ride with a helmet, don't ride on the left...I could go on for pages.

But the whole point of this forum (and ESPECIALLY this subforum) is people telling other cyclists how they HAVE TO ride.

Hang in there brother. Though the noise level gets high every so often a productive discussion breaks out.

But the whole point of this forum (and ESPECIALLY this subforum) is people telling other cyclists how they HAVE TO ride. :p

Don't ride on the sidewalk, don't ride on the MUP, don't ride in the bike lane, don't ride at the side of the road, don't ride with a helmet, do ride with a helmet, don't ride on the left...I could go on for pages.

Yeah, which is why especially this subforum is often ridiculed. ;)

Just so we're clear on the whole 'take the lane' thing, what we're doing is putting our lives in the hands of the person driving that 2-tonne meat grinder quickly approaching us from behind, and that person could very well be someone just like these...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9aWSKMiPL0&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ12Ry-hD6I&NR=1

If you're OK with that then more power to you, but I will take segregated facilities or the sidewalk before putting my life in those hands.

Dunces like that, are exactly why I 'take the lane'. :mad: I would worry about them if, I rode the shoulder or, on the sidewalk.:rolleyes:

I make it so, I am so obvious they can't say they didn't see me. :mad: Even to the point of forcing them to pass me, just like they would pass another four-wheel vehicle or, a motorcycle.:mad:

Riding on the sidewalk is illegal in many places, and is actually less safe than riding on the street. The last cyclist killed in a collison here--or at least the last one that made the paper--was killed while riding on the sidewalk, the wrong way on a one-way street. A woman pulled out of a parking garage and naturally was not expecting a cyclist on the sidewalk coming from the wrong direction.

While it is not illegal to ride on the sidewalk in Montgomery County(MD; next to DC), I choose not to. Because, I find that is more dangerous riding on the sidewalk, than in the street.