If you follow California law by staying in the bike lane until it ends, you wouldn't be able to safely and effectively negotiate across the lanes for a left turn.


Check 21208. If you're preparing for a left turn, you are legally exempt from remaining in the bike lane. It does not specify when you can leave the bike lane. One must assume that leaving the bike lane when it's reasonable to start preparing for the left turn is legal, which is often hundreds of feet prior to the intersection.

I know about the mental block. That's what I'm trying to break through. It certainly isn't easy.

Vehicular Cycling can be right biased or center biased. My interpretation of Forester's writing and the EC video is that he is right biased. That is, he recommends staying on the right unless you have a specific reason to be in the center. My understanding is that John Franklin (Cyclecraft) is center biased. That is, he recommends the center of the lane as the primary position, and moving over to the secondary position on the right only when and for long as necessary.

I find that center bias works much better for me.

Serge

Bike lanes are in my book are no more then a suggestion and a way for politicians to score point with the larger motoring public. As with most things political they are not for the greater good of anyone.

My only bias is on roads with traffic over 45MPH...

Especially up 10% or greater grades where you are doing substantially less than the speed of traffic.

Gene - what is your bias on 45 mph with 10% grades?

Specifically, if there is no faster traffic, and you have a mirror, and the sight lines are good, where do you believe a cyclist is safer: along the right, or in the center. Assume the cyclist is checking the rear with his mirror (which takes a fraction of a second) ever few seconds. Further, assume that if the cyclist is in the center, and he sees faster traffic approaching from the rear, he has plenty of time to move to the side before they reach him.

Can you explain why I believe the cyclist is is safer in the center of the lane?

Consider the climb up Balboa Ave out of PB. A good climb, 2 fast lanes (45+ mph) and a wide shoulder. You're half-way up, and there are no cars coming that you can see in your mirror. Do you ride in the shoulder, along the right edge of the right lane, or in the center (on or just inside the right track)?

Bike lanes are in my book are no more then a suggestion and a way for politicians to score point with the larger motoring public. As with most things political they are not for the greater good of anyone.


I am of course against bike lanes, but I disagree with you. I do believe bike lanes are effective at keeping cyclists out of the way of motorists, and they inhibit proper learning of dynamic lateral lane positioning, which ultimately makes cycling less appealing. Therefore bike lanes are for the greater of good of motorists who want to minimize the amount of cycling, especially cycling that impedes them.

Gene - what is your bias on 45 mph with 10% grades?

Specifically, if there is no faster traffic, and you have a mirror, and the sight lines are good, where do you believe a cyclist is safer: along the right, or in the center. Assume the cyclist is checking the rear with his mirror (which takes a fraction of a second) ever few seconds. Further, assume that if the cyclist is in the center, and he sees faster traffic approaching from the rear, he has plenty of time to move to the side before they reach him.

Can you explain why I believe the cyclist is is safer in the center of the lane?

Consider the climb up Balboa Ave out of PB. A good climb, 2 fast lanes (45+ mph) and a wide shoulder. You're half-way up, and there are no cars coming that you can see in your mirror. Do you ride in the shoulder, along the right edge of the right lane, or in the center (on or just inside the right track)?


:lol: I use an alternate route... Moraga... where I ride on the right tire track generally... Balboa is a zoo... and traffic there does greater than 50MPH generally. While there are no driveways and few crossing streets, the narrow canyon feel of the area is not comfortable to me, coupled with the climb... I would rather not try to "direct traffic" with "my ***** on a bike" as you have so eloquently stated in the past.

There is that small area from PB to Moraga that is not too steep, and there for that short bit, I am a VC rider; I position myself in the right lane, and work over to the left lane. But there have been times where no traffic would let me over, when the traffic would bunch up behind me and simply go left around me with looks that could kill. On those occasions, I would simply go to the Moraga left turn and then wait for that light to turn red and go straight across the front of the vehicles stopped there. The drivers there, between the lights from Mission Bay Drive to Moraga, hardly ever get to 45MPH, although the drivers coming off of Morena sometimes hardly notice autos, much less bikes...

Gee, your Balboa scenario is bit odd... but if there were no "faster traffic" (no one doing more than 45??) I would be on the right... as I would be doing 10 or so up the grade. Why incur the wrath of drivers that want to do 45 or faster?

If I saw traffic approaching... especially as I have no clue as to whether they are putting on makeup, talking on cell phones, changing CDs, etc... I would still be on the right.

Now on the other hand, on Clairemont Mesa Blvd, between Clairemont Drive and points east, which tends to be somewhat flat and the speed limit is 35 to 45... there are no bike lanes, and there are parked cars; I take a lane and hold it all the way... but there I am probably riding between 15 and 22 MPH, and there are good sight lines, but lots of cross streets and driveways too.

Yes, I understand your DLP and the center lane thing... but as I have stated, I probably would never ride in the actual center as that is where auto grease builds up... so I would probably ride in the right tire track such as my example on Clairemont Mesa Blvd... except where there are parked cars or I wanted to change lanes to make a left turn.

As good as you may think VC riding is, and your DLP thing, I still believe taking a lane, in rush hour (OK not your scenario but one a commuting cyclist is most likely to encounter) up a steep hill, is just foolish. You are asking to be Dead in your Rights! If you can get a cooperative motorist to ride cover for you the whole way, fine… but what happens if they move off… is the guy behind going to be as gracious, or the motorist behind them… eventually you don’t know who you are going to face, and what their attitude is… what then? Remember you are doing 10MPH, traffic wants to do 45 or more, and you are between them and home. I am sure they just want YOU to have a nice day… :rolleyes:

Specifically, if there is no faster traffic, and you have a mirror, and the sight lines are good, where do you believe a cyclist is safer: along the right, or in the center. Assume the cyclist is checking the rear with his mirror (which takes a fraction of a second) ever few seconds. Further, assume that if the cyclist is in the center, and he sees faster traffic approaching from the rear, he has plenty of time to move to the side before they reach him.
I know you didn't ask me, but I can't help but wonder how you find it easier to constantly check for people behind you and pull over rather than just stay on the side and not worry about it? I would end up pulling over so often that I'd just give up trying to be in the center, or even in the right tire track. I'm just not that fast.

While we are pummelling Serge with questions, I have one as well. You have mentioned that you make eye contact for several seconds with drivers as you make lane changes. That sounds fine, but aren't you concerned about hitting something in front of you while your're looking for so long behind you? A bump on the road, a bumper on a truck?

Lastly, you have spoken against mirrors on other threads. How do you keep track of the traffic behind you without one?

I haven't ridden for 12 years and am thinking of coming back to it. Still, I recently managed to get a rail-to-trails bike path created in my Indiana community (with help from many others) before moving South. I just never could ride on it. That's by way of credentials as a 25-year rider and someone who has worked successfully to get bike lanes and bike paths built, written on bicycle safety, yaddayadda..

As I travel, I observe various differences in bike facilities:

In Indiana, bike paths AKA linear parks (bikes contend with pedestrians and roller bladers and usually end up banned) :mad:
Bike lanes as in many communities which, as you note, compete with parked cars and trash gutters
Off-road bike lanes that parallel roads but have to observe pedestrian rules at intersections (Carmel, IN)
Really well-designed paths away from parked cars and well marked (Los Altos)
Bike Routes where bicyclists have input to the safest (but not necessarily 'safe') roads to ride
Absolutely nothing, including no berm at all, which is common here in the South.


I'm sure there are many other variations. Among those I have observed, the parallel off-road bike lane -- basically a wide sidewalk -- is by far the best for the casual rider. A parent can control the kiddies. There isn't a lot of other traffic -- no 'view' and long distances discourage walkers and runners. I find them awkward, as I think you would, but they are a great solution for many riders.

Here, where there are no facilities (your preference), what I see is NOT novices learning to take a lane and control it for their own safety. What I see is novices riding straight into oncoming traffic and dodging out of the way at the last minute. Bear in mind that we have NO BERMS, twisting roads, hills, and there are often fall-offs from the edge of the road. Yesterday I saw a novice riding on the grassy verge toward traffic, unable to make progress, unable to use the road bed. He did not look happy.

My point is this. For you and me, 'no bike path' is the best solution. We have learned to control traffic with our lateral position. But for novice riders, almost any bike lane will do and the off-road parallel lanes are probably best. The question is, how do we move novices to expert status? The only way I know is to get them into club rides and sposored rides where they can be instructed. Otherwise, they ride blithely into oncoming traffic -- for their own safety!

My point is this. For you and me, 'no bike path' is the best solution. We have learned to control traffic with our lateral position. But for novice riders, almost any bike lane will do and the off-road parallel lanes are probably best. The question is, how do we move novices to expert status?
Amazing where a little empathy can get you. Thank you, 79.

I'm sure there are many other variations. Among those I have observed, the parallel off-road bike lane -- basically a wide sidewalk -- is by far the best for the casual rider.

... for novice riders, ... the off-road parallel lanes are probably best.

Noted bicycle transportation engineer Richard Moeur describes the following four
"principles of good design" for bicycle facilities on page 4 of his Bicycle Facility Design presentation
http://members.aol.com/n7wtb/bikepres/bikepres.pdf

Treat bicyclists as operators of vehicles
Encourage operation in accordance with traffic flow and traffic law
Connect destinations in a continuous network
Accommodate cyclists without inconvenience or extra travel distance/time

Here are some more quotes from that presentation:

Page 8;
* When accommodating less skilled cyclists, do not make conditions more difficult for skilled cyclists

Page 9;
Facilities that are perceived to be safer can actually increase overall crash risks for cyclists

Page 10;
Sidewalks should never be considered to be an acceptable alternative to on-roadway accommodations

Page 16; Pathways
Can form valuable links in a transportation network when placed on independent alignments

Page 17; Problems with Pathways
Pathways parallel and adjacent to roadways create severe intersection and driveway conflicts

Page 18; Are Pathways Safer?
Unless grade-separated, pathways still have intersection conflicts - often severe

Page 19; Other Pathway Design Issues
Requiring cyclists to yield at intersections and driveways or operate at pedestrian speeds may not be feasible or reasonable

Bwileyr.....I see you've only been on BikeForums since 1/17/05.....Thank you for being here.... :)

While we are pummelling Serge with questions, I have one as well. You have mentioned that you make eye contact for several seconds with drivers as you make lane changes. That sounds fine, but aren't you concerned about hitting something in front of you while your're looking for so long behind you? A bump on the road, a bumper on a truck?

Lastly, you have spoken against mirrors on other threads. How do you keep track of the traffic behind you without one?

Related questions are:
1. How is the eye contact and head turn communication made when not cycling in daytime good weather in San Diego or Cannes? Or with motorists approaching from behind at speed differentials of 40+ mph?
2. What are motorists "trained" to predict after encountering Serge a few times practicing his dynamic lane shifting/wandering theory? I presume that they are being trained by Serge to expect that other bicyclists "in the way" can also be counted on to get out of speeding motorists way by shifting in a timely manner to some always available (at least in SergeWorld) sharable location off to the right.
3. Where are US urban areas where there is so little traffic on arterials that cyclists could even consider assuming that traffic is the exception rather than the rule during normal commuting/daylight hours?

Yes, I understand your DLP and the center lane thing...
I'm sorry Gene, but I don't think you do understand center-biased dynamic lateral lane positioning (CBDLLP). If you did, then you wouldn't say stuff like this:


Gee, your Balboa scenario is bit odd... but if there were no "faster traffic" (no one doing more than 45??) I would be on the right... as I would be doing 10 or so up the grade. Why incur the wrath of drivers that want to do 45 or faster?

If I saw traffic approaching... especially as I have no clue as to whether they are putting on makeup, talking on cell phones, changing CDs, etc... I would still be on the right.
If you undertood CBDLLP then you would know that I move out of the way of motorists before I impede them, and, so never incur their wrath. In your description you also show no comprehension of the aspect of CBDLLP that increases the likelihood that the motorist will see the cyclist because the cyclist is in the motorist's path (up ahead, but out of the way before the motorist is impeded).


Yes, I understand your DLP and the center lane thing... but as I have stated, I probably would never ride in the actual center as that is where auto grease builds up
Do I really need to clarify every time I say "center of the lane" that I mean between the left and right tire tracks, or do you think about twenty times is enough for you to remember it?

Gene, please consider this statement carefully:

CBDLLP does not involve riding in the center (between the left and right tire tracks) of a wide lane (wide enough to safely share) when doing so would impede motorists. The cyclist practicing CBDLLP in a wide lane moves out of the way of motorists before he impedes them.

sbhikes - I answered your question in the Commuting/bike lane poll thread.


You have mentioned that you make eye contact for several seconds with drivers as you make lane changes. That sounds fine, but aren't you concerned about hitting something in front of you while your're looking for so long behind you? A bump on the road, a bumper on a truck?

Lastly, you have spoken against mirrors on other threads. How do you keep track of the traffic behind you without one?
You can see far enough ahead to safely take a look back for 2 seconds or so. You can also glance forward quickly, make sure it continues to be clear, then look back again.

Mirror use is required for CBDLLP. Without a mirror, I would practice SBDLLP (side-biased dynamic lateral lane positioning - where you ride in the center only when necessary, and only for as long as necessary). Note that both CBDLLP and SBDLLP can be practiced consistent with the vehicular cycling principle.

I do not recommend mirrors (or CBDLLP) for novices. You have to be an expert at the use of the the look back to the rear before you start using a mirror. A mirror never should be used in place of a look back prior to a merge. I've seen too many cyclists with mirrors rely on the mirror too much. They merge without actually turning their heads to look back.


1. How is the eye contact and head turn communication made when not cycling in daytime good weather in San Diego or Cannes? Or with motorists approaching from behind at speed differentials of 40+ mph?
2. What are motorists "trained" to predict after encountering Serge a few times practicing his dynamic lane shifting/wandering theory? I presume that they are being trained by Serge to expect that other bicyclists "in the way" can also be counted on to get out of speeding motorists way by shifting in a timely manner to some always available (at least in SergeWorld) sharable location off to the right.
3. Where are US urban areas where there is so little traffic on arterials that cyclists could even consider assuming that traffic is the exception rather than the rule during normal commuting/daylight hours?
1. Actual eye contact is not possible in the dark, of course. At night, I look for other signs of communication: when I signal a desire to merge left, the motorist's car must slow to let me in, for example. Same with 40+ mph. I use a hand signal and wait until someone slows to let me in.

2. They learn to not honk in attempt to get me to move right into the door zone. They learn to change lanes to pass me.

3. Traffic signals routinely cause significant gaps in traffic that I find long enough to warrant riding in the center of a wide lane, perhaps for durations of around 30-60 seconds (note that I move to the side before I impede anyone, but not before I've significantly increased the likelihood that they will be aware of my presence, and, hence, decreased the likelihood that they inadverdently drift into me). Of course, the more visible and predictable center position also helps reduce the possibility of conflict and collision with side traffic, and oncoming/turning traffic.

3. Traffic signals routinely cause significant gaps in traffic that I find long enough to warrant riding in the center of a wide lane, perhaps for durations of around 30-60 seconds (note that I move to the side before I impede anyone, but not before I've significantly increased the likelihood that they will be aware of my presence, and, hence, decreased the likelihood that they inadverdently drift into me). Of course, the more visible and predictable center position also helps reduce the possibility of conflict and collision with side traffic, and oncoming/turning traffic.
Serge I don't know where these type of quiet streets are around where you live, but on my daily commute on 50mph suburban streets with stop lights every 1/2 to 1 milie I have cars going past me every 5-10sec Sure there are lights which should break up traffic, but all the x-streets fill up those gaps. It is on these streets (which are everywhere around here) where I advocate strongly for a WOL.
Al

Serge I don't know where these type of quiet streets are around where you live, but on my daily commute on 50mph suburban streets with stop lights every 1/2 to 1 milie I have cars going past me every 5-10sec Sure there are lights which should break up traffic, but all the x-streets fill up those gaps. It is on these streets (which are everywhere around here) where I advocate strongly for a WOL.


Yes. If there are no significant gaps in traffic then even cyclists who practice CBDLLP will not move away from the side except when necessary (to prepare for a left turn, to avoid a hazard, etc.)

Serge

Serge... where is Out of the Way in your CBDLLP if the road has no WOL?

And by the way... it was once called VC riding... you trying to patent a new term? When does YOUR book come out?

Most of our bike lanes are just a stripe establishing a 5-8 foot bike lane on the right side of a very wide road,


Wow, the only bike lanes near my house are, at most, 3 feet wide. They are pretty much unrideable, so I don't use them at all. I never thought of them from the standpoint of other cars, I just won't ride over all the broken glass and such.

Serge... where is Out of the Way in your CBDLLP if the road has no WOL?

And by the way... it was once called VC riding... you trying to patent a new term? When does YOUR book come out?


If the outside lane is too narrow to be safely shared, Gene, then bias is irrelevant. Regardless of your bias, in a narrow lane you have no choice but to take the lane which is likely to impede faster traffic (which is inconvenient to the faster motorists, but I continue holding that it does not make it unsafe for the cyclist).

What Forester describes is VC riding. As I've already explained earlier today, vehicular cycling can be center biased or side biased. If my view Forester advocates side biased VC.

Regardless of the bias, if the lane is narrow (too narrow to be safely shared) you must take the lane.

So, the difference between center biased and side biased only matters on roads with WOLs and/or with bike lanes.

In those cases if you are center biased your primary lateral lane position is the center (please tell me I don't need to remind you that by "center" I mean the area between the left and right tire tracks, not necessaraliy the very center where a grease track might be), and your secondary position is the side of the road. That is, you ride in the center unless you have a reason not to, like you would be impeding faster traffic by riding in the center.

Side bias is when your primary lateral lane position is at the side of the road (even in lanes wide enough to safely share), and your secondary bias is the center. That is, you ride on the side of the road, not the center, unless you have a specific reason to move away from the side (like to avoid a hazard, to prepare for a left turn, approaching an intersection where you're not turning right, etc.).

I find that center biased riding works better for me.

Does that make sense?

Wow, the only bike lanes near my house are, at most, 3 feet wide.


3 foot BLs are substandard. They're supposed to be 5 feet, but the minimum is 4 feet. That's measured from the curb to the stripe. BLs are often wider than they look.

If the lane is too narrow to be safely shared, Gene, then bias is irrelevant. Regardless of your bias, in a narrow lane you have no choice but to take the lane.

What Forester describes is VC riding. As I've already explained earlier today, vehicular cycling can be center biased or side biased. If my view Forester advocates side biased VC.

Regardless of the bias, if the lane is narrow (too narrow to be safely shared) you must take the lane.

So, the difference between center biased and side biased only matters on roads with WOLs and/or with bike lanes.

In those cases if you are center biased your primary lateral lane position is the center (please tell me I don't need to remind you that by "center" I mean the area between the left and right tire tracks, not necessaraliy the very center where a grease track might be), and your secondary position is the side of the road. That is, you ride in the center unless you have a reason not to, like you would be impeding faster traffic by riding in the center.

Side bias is when your primary lateral lane position is at the side of the road (even in lanes wide enough to safely share), and your secondary bias is the center. That is, you ride on the side of the road, not the center, unless you have a specific reason to move away from the side (like to avoid a hazard, to prepare for a left turn, approaching an intersection where you're not turning right, etc.).

I find that center biased riding works better for me.

Does that make sense?


Oh it makes sense, but now I have to wonder, as I have been a VC rider as defined by Forester... thus a "side biased rider." (and one that likes to have room over there on the side when I can get it.)

I have to wonder what extensive studies YOU have done to justify your center biased system that you have been touting?

3 foot BLs are substandard. They're supposed to be 5 feet, but the minimum is 4 feet. That's measured from the curb to the stripe. BLs are often wider than they look.

That's possible, I guess. I haven't actually measured them.

Gene, I have not done any studies.

I believe what I'm describing as "center-biased dynamic lateral lane positioning" is consistent with what John Franklin advocates in the book, Cyclecraft (which I haven't read but have on order).

I also believe that CBDLLP is consistent with behavior that should reduce the likelihood of the types of collisions studies show to be most frequent (left/right crosses/hooks at intersections), as well as reducing the rare but deadly motorist drift into cyclist the he "didn't see". But I've already explained all this upteen times.

I wouldn't recommend anyone try it unless they too believe it will make them safer.

Serge

Noted bicycle transportation engineer Richard Moeur describes the following four
"principles of good design" for bicycle facilities on page 4 of his Bicycle Facility Design presentation
http://members.aol.com/n7wtb/bikepres/bikepres.pdf

Treat bicyclists as operators of vehicles
Encourage operation in accordance with traffic flow and traffic law
Connect destinations in a continuous network
Accommodate cyclists without inconvenience or extra travel distance/time



I am aware of these principles. In fact, I used just these points in frequent and vehement discussions with the Hamilton County Traffic Engineer, included them in letters to the editor of the local paper, and generally made as much of an issue of it as possible. I think you left out the safety issues of crossing driveways and entering streets, the safety issues of two-way traffic in a narrow pathway, and, in much of Carmel, the problem of boulevarding and getting bikes from one side of the road to the other. I hit all the buttons and lit all the lights. The Traffic Engineer held fast, citing his own set of studies and statistics.

Once the paths were designed and built and used, I had to eat some crow. I've seen parents try to control two children on a roadway and on the parallel paths. No contest! I've seen casual riders just out to enjoy the day waiting patiently at corners for lights to change while I whizzed by in the traffic lanes. For them, it was the best alternative. For me it was a pain in the fanny to wait and an insult to my status as a vehicle.

Most novices -- people new to biking as a sport or occassional riders doing short distances -- seem to want safety and ease more than commutability. I think the bike paths are for them and ought to be designed with their peculiar needs in mind -- high safety, even at the expense of utility. For me -- and you -- the roads are just fine, thanks. Just watch those bike-trap grates and other bike unfriendly features.

Serge,
Thanks for the quick repy re: use of mirrors. Makes sense to me. For what it is worth, I don't use a mirror. I found that I was always screwing around with the damned thing and looking at it while I shoudl have been wathing the road. In the end you still have to do a shoulder check, as you pointed out. I've never tried a helmet mounted mirror as I don't wear a helmet...

Do you think, Serge, that you can practice dynamic postioning by using the sound of approaching vehicles?

... parallel paths ... casual riders ... For them, it was the best alternative.

Most novices ... seem to want safety and ease more than commutability.

Here is an opinion from Richard C. Moeur, P.E., about the safety & convenience of parallel pathways:

Q.) Our local bicycle committee is working to reduce the number of accidents that occur where bicycle paths cross major streets... Our city has no intention of replacing the bike paths with lanes. Note that, even if a parallel on-street bike lane were built, pedestrians would still face the same problem.

A.) The best solution by far for safe and convenient bicycle travel would indeed be to remove the parallel separated pathways and to integrate the bicycle traffic with other vehicular movements.

Pedestrians, however, have different operating characteristics than bicyclists. They can stop and turn instantly, and their cone of vision is far less constrained (a typical pedestrian can turn his/her head to the side without swerving in their path, unlike many bicyclists). Add to this the fact that bicyclists' approach speeds to this intersection may be 3-4+ times higher than pedestrians, ensuring that there is no way for the conflicting movements to have adequate sight distance.

Q.) In addition to this problem, what about improving safety in the more common circumstances where bicycle paths cross streets or driveways? Again, our city council and public works department has made it clear that they will not tear out any bicycle paths to replace them with bike lanes. Given this (unfortuate) fact, our bike committee is seeking suggestions for bicycle safety or public information campaigns, signage, etc. We specifically would like to know what has worked and what hasn't.

A.) This is the precise reason that sidewalk and parallel pathway cycling has shown a significantly higher rate of motor vehicle-bicycle collisions. See Wachtel and Lewiston's article in the September 1994 ITE Journal for examples. Also, the AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities cites similar examples (among others) for why parallel separated pathways are officially discouraged.

I don't know of any effective signing to treat parallel pathway crossings.

http://members.aol.com/rcmoeur/opinbike.htm

I'm not sure mirrors should be written off so easily. I find the handle-bar mirror to be easy and natural to use. I think most auto drivers know not to rely on their mirrors to know what's going on, that they have to look back as well. It's an easy transition. I see more and more "folk" riders using them (not sure I like that term.)

As a recumbent rider I cannot look back as easily, and when I do, it's much easier to swerve by accident. Some recumbent styles cannot look back at all. Mirrors are a necessity for recumbents.

sbhikes:

Don't misunderstand me. I don't write off mirrors. In my case, I have not been able to incorporate them into my cycling as smoothly as I would like. If I rode a recumbent, I may be more likely to use one, especially if I encountered the issues that you describe.

Speaking of recumbents, how do you feel on your low bike when you are taking a lane or are turning left behind a car? Do you feel visible enough?

Speaking of recumbents, how do you feel on your low bike when you are taking a lane or are turning left behind a car? Do you feel visible enough?
Ha ha ha. Serge'll love this. I feel perfectly safe taking a lane or turning left behind a car. What I don't like is being behind and to the right, especially of big ones like the Chevy Suburban. The tail pipe on that sucker is about 6" diameter and right in my face. Being to the right of cars at intersections when we're all stopped is the only time being low bothers me. So I either wait behind them, taking my place in line or I go up to the front and position myself to the right but well ahead of everybody.

If the outside lane is too narrow to be safely shared, Gene, then bias is irrelevant. Regardless of your bias, in a narrow lane you have no choice but to take the lane which is likely to impede faster traffic (which is inconvenient to the faster motorists, but I continue holding that it does not make it unsafe for the cyclist).


Does that make sense?
It makes sense, but it is simply not practical where I live to take up the center of the OL. Traffic is dense and fast and while motorists should accept being impeded it is simply not an option here. It would be like riding down 101 freeway as I've seen it is San Diego during a busy time (but when traffic is above 50mph) and simply claim that its OK to take the lane since traffic can go around you. Sure 99% of traffic will, but it is all too possible that a car approaching you at 50mph will suddenly merge to the left to squeeze in a gap in the next lane and the car behind them will miss seeing you in time. People get rear ended in cars making right turns due to this scenario and cars are a little easier to see than a cyclist taking the lane. A little story - I was once pulled over by a police officer while driving in my car in the OL at 30mph in a 45mph zone. My reasoning was that the light ahead was not yet green, why should I accelerate to it? The officer was concerned I was impeding traffic (and also probably assuming I was impaired as who would otherwise would drive in such a 'paranoid' manner) I of course got off without a ticket, but it goes to show the level of tollerance for impeding traffic.

Guess what - I ride on the side of roads with both NOLs and WOLs. It may be more dangerous to ride to the side of NOLs, but I am used to being passed close (I still ride enough away from curb to visually push cars to pass wide) and the times I've tried taking the center of the NOL have been on quiet weekend times which has generally worked. However I've also thought about and tried to take the center (just this past Monday) during rush hour and simply could not find a place to squeeze into the high speed traffic. I also take the lane at stopped intersections and other places where my visibility is critical, but not during the half mile stretches between lights.

I keep bringing up these issues I have with no WOLs with the traffic patterns/design where I live because I think the real issue is not no-bike lane vs. bike lane, but WOL vs. NOL. With a WOL a 'pure-VC' cyclist can still choose to take the center of the lane, but the WOL still allows the option not to and an escape when taking the center is not possible.

I also want to know what infrastructure would make cyclist safer if there is no adocacy for WOLs? I agree and understand that WOL cost money, but the alternate that seems to be proposed it do do absolutely nothing except educate other cyclists. Many millions are spend on infrastructure for motorized vehicles, why should it be an issue to put some very small percentage toward WOL where they are needed?

Al

Do you think, Serge, that you can practice dynamic postioning by using the sound of approaching vehicles?
Too funny, I was doing exactly that (practicing center biased dynamic positioning by listening) this morning and planning on mentioning it. The answer is a qualified yes: yes, on quiet roads. But if there is traffic on the other side, or sounds of traffic or anything else from other sources that will muffle the sound of an approaching vehicle from the rear, I'd probably go back to side biased riding without a mirror. Note of clarification (not that Mars needs it, but I know some of you do...): by side biased I mean your primary position is at the side of the road in wide lanes (lanes wide enough to be safely shared), but you move to a secondary position away from the side any time conditions and safety dictate: like preparing for a left turn, approaching an intersection or any place where right turns are authorized (and you're not turning right), to avoid a hazard, the lane becomes too narrow to be safely shared, etc.

Serge

I need to add to my earlier comments that the parallel paths in Carmel, Indiana are laid along limited access boulevards with traffic circles. The uninterupted runs are about half a mile. In another location, especially one with numerous road intersections and driveways, this solution would not be nearly as appealing.

I am not arguing that any one bike path design is the be-all end-all solution for every situation. I have simply observed that novice bikers seem to have much different needs than accomplished bikers and that I have no idea how you train occassional and recreational riders effectively. For these riders, bike paths are a much better solution than putting them into traffic where they are untrained in how to maneuver safely and unequiped (mirrors, fanny bumpers, etc.) to be safe.

I am gathering an impression that the 'experts' are misinterpreting a high accident rate on parallel bike paths due to an intervening variable of riding expertise. Anyone have the statistics to test this?

The issue is whether the "different needs" of novice cyclists are real needs, or are misconceptions.

And the high incidence of collisions at path/road intersections might be due to higher incidence of less experienced cyclists, but the point is that novices are lured to the paths. They understand they don't have the skills to ride in traffic, but they don't understand that that means they also don't have the skills to intersect traffic from a path, much less ride in a bike lane (which is no safer than riding in traffic without a bike lane).

Serge

There really is a major difference among bike path designs, which range from the previously mentioned "limited-access boulevards" to the "sidewalk blueprint," which makes an intersection out of every driveway.

Whether bike paths can be constructed so as not to cross driveways or streets in an urban area remains to be seen. Along railroad tracks and freeways this might be possible, but can in no way substitute for the convenience and accessibility of city streets.

Sometimes I really enjoy a ride along a bike path, pedestrians, dogs, baby strollers and all. I would hate to see those types of facilities removed. They aren't commuter facilities, they are for recreation, which is valuable.

I've been observing more closely our bike lanes in Santa Barbara. I think what makes them useful is that very often, right turn lanes for autos are carved out of the right side of the road so the bike lane does not veer from its course. Same goes for bus turnouts. The bike lane is straight and the cars must do the lateral transitioning. With the exception of left turns of course. I think this is what makes bike lanes less better in Santa Barbara than other places.

Sometimes I really enjoy a ride along a bike path, pedestrians, dogs, baby strollers and all. I would hate to see those types of facilities removed. They aren't commuter facilities, they are for recreation, which is valuable.
I enjoy them too and don't think anyone is promoting the elimination of MUPs (multi-use paths) here.

What we don't want are:
1) Side paths. For all the reasons Bruce posted.
2) MUPs substituting for cyclist access to roadways.

Serge

I am gathering an impression that ... a high accident rate on parallel bike paths [is] due to an intervening variable of riding expertise. Anyone have the statistics to test this?

The "Bicycle sidepaths: crash risks and liability exposure" article gives links to several studies (which show elevated risk for cycling on parallel paths range from 1.8 to 10 times compared to street cycling).
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/sidecrash.htm

The following excerpts are from one of those studies:
Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections
Alan Wachtel and Diana Lewiston, Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, Sept/Oct 1994

"The average cyclist in this study incurs a risk on the sidewalk 1.8 times as great as on the roadway. The risk on the sidewalk is higher than on the roadway for both age groups, for both sexes, and for wrong-way travel. The greatest risk found in this study is 5.3 times the average risk for bicyclists over 18 traveling against traffic on the sidewalk."

"Wrong-way sidewalk travel is 4.5 times as dangerous as right-way sidewalk travel. Moreover, sidewalk bicycling promotes wrong-way travel: 315 of 971 sidewalk bicyclists (32 percent) rode against the direction of traffic, compared to only 108 of 2,005 roadway bicyclists (5 percent)."

"Even right-way sidewalk bicyclists can cross driveways and enter intersections at high speed, and they may enter from an unexpected position and direction for instance, on the right side of overtaking right-turning traffic. Sidewalk bicyclists are also more likely to be obscured at intersections by parked cars, buildings, fences, and shrubbery; their stopping distance is much greater than a pedestrian's, and they have less maneuverability."
http://www.crankmail.com/sidewalk-laws.html#Accident

Bwileyr....Are you a cycling article librarian?.....You seem to come up with pertinent informative articles at the drop of a mouse click....Thank you..... :)

The "Bicycle sidepaths: crash risks and liability exposure" article gives links to several studies (which show elevated risk for cycling on parallel paths range from 1.8 to 10 times compared to street cycling).
Could part of these statistics be due to inexperienced cyclists preferring sidepaths?

Could part of these statistics be due to inexperienced cyclists preferring sidepaths?

Perhaps partly, but the following factors make sidepath travel more hazardous for all cyclists regardless
http://www.crankmail.com/sidewalk-laws.html#Guides

Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Amer. Assoc. of State Highway Transportation Officials
"...Sidewalks are typically designed for pedestrian speeds and maneuverability and are not safe for higher speed bicycle use. Conflicts are common between pedestrians traveling at low speeds (exiting stores, parked cars, etc.) and bicyclists, as are conflicts with fixed objects (e.g., parking meters, utility poles, sign posts, bus benches, trees, fire hydrants, mail boxes, etc.) Walkers, joggers, skateboarders and roller skaters can, and often do, change their speed and direction almost instantaneously, leaving bicyclists insufficient reaction time to avoid collisions."
"Similarly, pedestrians often have difficulty predicting the direction an oncoming bicyclist will take. At intersections, motorists are often not looking for bicyclists (who are traveling at higher speeds than pedestrians) entering the crosswalk area, particularly when motorists are making a turn. Sight distance is often impaired..." [p.58]

From the Traffic Safety Toolbox published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1993)
"Sidewalk bike paths. From the late 1970s through the mid-1980s a number of communities signed some sidewalks or built new paths for bicyclists parallel to roadways. Several states even passed laws forcing bicyclists to use such facilities if they existed. Bicycle/car crashes increased dramatically in some corridors, especially at driveways, intersections, on bridges, and other locations. Sidewalk or paths parallel to a roadway force bicyclists to ride against traffic half of the time. In either direction, motorists are often surprised by the presence of cyclists [on sidepaths], since [motorists] are neither conditioned nor capable of searching these locations for traffic moving at 8-15 mph. Many pedestrians were also hurt, or complained that it was no longer comfortable to walk. Also, many motorists became less considerate of bicyclists who continued to use the often safer roadway sections.--in no case should a bicyclist be forced to use the sidewalk pathway. Never sign a sidewalk or parallel path as a bikeway, since many motorists who see these signs will assume that those bicyclists riding on the roadway section are not permitted to be there."