Commuting - OK to ride between stopped traffic?

A brief search didn't bring me anything, apologies if this has been covered before. I'll be commuting to work starting next week. I'm quite comfortable riding in traffic in all conditions (well about as comfortable as you can be -sometimes it feels like I'm an ant on a pool table and 8 year olds are trying to squash me with the balls) My question:

I'm riding in traffic on a city street, vehicles pass me, all is right with the world. Up ahead a traffic light turns red. Cars stop.

Do I

a) stop behind the car currently in front of me, just as if I were a car myself.
b) ride down the side of the lane to stop at the light next to the first car in line.

I'm asking specifically about traffic light situations. Generally I wait my turn as If I were a car at stop signs. Thanks.

I have been told by fellow cyclists. The law says you are to stop where you are? I don't . I don't believe it either..I should check in with the DMV handbook...Seems it did not address this specific topic..If so, that would take away most of the advantage of bike commuting to work..Why...Cars don't think our bike lane a traffic artery.?
as a side issue...One problem I find difficult at stop lights..Preparing to get into the left turn lane...Ever try to get over there when all cars are stopped and you want to get over there before the light changes...
Some motorists will not allow you to do such, even tho they can't move.. They will inch up to not allow it...Safest is to cozy up to pedestrian walk and try to move over there before the light changes, or they will intentionally pin you in and break your legs.

I usually inch my way up the side of traffic on the right. One time I went up the middle and fell on the side of a car because I underestimated the space. Dood didn't do anything, which was cool, but after that, I just stay to the right unless it's a one way... then I stay to the left and sneak up the left side instead.

Koffee

There are a few schools of thought. One is that you're slower than other traffic so there's no reason to pass everyone if they're just going to have to pass you again in a little bit. If the premise is true there's some merit to this line of thought. In that case you hold position unless you don't think you'll make it through on the next cycle in which case you move up to the 2nd-in-line position.

On the other hand, if there's a chance that you'll be able to pass and not be passed again I say go for it.

As to the legality, I don't know. That's going to be defined by Seattle and WA state law. Here in Mass cyclists are explicitly given the right to move up on traffic on the right side. Personally I try to pass on the left, even if it means moving between two lanes of stopped traffic, instead of taking the chance that someone who's not expecting moving traffic to the right of the rightmost lane will decide to move out of line and take a right turn and hit me. It's happened to me before. Or you could just get doored. That's probably not fun either.

sometimes it has to be done, outa sheer boredom if nothing else.

If I didn't get to self-righteously blow by all the cars waiting for lights I think I would leave my bike at home. That's the joy of the commute. I don't care that they'll pass me again later on. What I try to do is make sure it's surprising to them how far I got before they came up to me again. My hope is somebody'll say to themselves, Gee this driving thing really isn't much of an advantage, is it. Maybe I should ride my bike instead, too.

I do it on the right if there's enough room. I lane split on my Vespa, too, at lights if there's enough room. I laugh all the way to the front.

Off the go i'm faster than cars across an intersection.
So I often run the gauntlet to get to the front, or to a turn lane, then I get over and out first.
If short city blocks and less cars, i'll get in line if going straight.
It's best to be careful if in the park side lane, a car sitting parked may open a door, 'tween lanes of traffic almost never.

Oh hell, i ride over meridians, hop curbs..any thing to bust some speed, but I ride well, and in a manner that gets me out of the way.

I love cruising past backed up traffic..I figure it might be some incentive for them to consider cycling as a way to commute.

When I do pass on the right at a stop light, I don't EVER stop to the right of the first car at the light. I either move directly in front of them (after makeing eye contact), or stop several cars back (when the light turns, and traffic moves, I signal my intent-preventing a possible right hook).

By crossing intersections while "taking the lane", I've also found left turning drivers actually see me better, preventing left hooks. Never take the lane immediately behind a huge land tank (SUV, box truck, etc), which will block your (and oncoming traffics) site lines. Never, ever pass trucks or buses on the right-if they do turn right you may get crushed.

It's also a good idea to keep up on your "emergency turning skills", in case you are planning to pull up to the front of the line of traffic-but the signal turns green-as you are rite next to the lead car (and it decides to turn right).

Yeah, dude. move to the front of the line if there's enough room to do so. If you're comfortable riding between lanes, or on the left, do it. Get up ahead of the lead car. I don't get right in front, because I think that's rude, but ahead of the cars bumper to be visible. When making a turn, I usually give a hand signal if its appropriate. Then, bust balls when the light goes green. If you're cranking you can get a half or full block before the cars catch up. I wouldn't wait in line at stops, either, but roll to the front of the line, stop until it's your directions' turn, and ride. Is this all proper VC, I don't think so.

Check your Motor Vehicle Act (MVA), or equivalent state legislation - I know in BC, for instance, bikers are prohibited from passing any vehicle that is signalling a right turn (which is often the case in traffic lines).......meaning if you are passing on the right (including intersections) and someone signalling smacks you, not only are you hurting (or dead), but you're also at fault. But, in BC, cyclists are considered slow-moving vehicles and governed by and large by vehicular laws under the MVA.

That said, if there's a long line and it's not moving, and you can move up - I have no idea what the law is here. I actually haven't encountered the situation on my commute since I started (a very short time ago) - I commute mainly via side streets (it's the most direct route). So, when approaching a light and there's a couple vehicles there, I take the vehicular cycling route, and stop behind the last vehicle, "taking the lane". I don't get ahead (for a whole 5 secs, anyways), but I find the traffic respects me more, by not trying to edge past on my left - I have yet to get a mirror bump. And then, I am not starting out next to a vehicle, the time I find I am most unstable (especially on some uphill starts on my ride).

Sometimes I do and sometimes I don´t- at least in most of Europe it is not illegal to cycle past stopped cars- it is called filtering.

You have to be careful while doing it- there is a chance of getting doored or hitting a ped (they often cross without looking when the cars are stopped) or being turned in to or something so I would recommend that you drive past the cars quite slowly and stay alert. When you get to the front of the queue then move out in front so the car drivers can see you and you can get a lead. Don´t lurk about inside the pack of cars. If the cars start off before you get to the front and you end up crossing the intersection with a car then be sure the car is not turning into you even if it is not signalling to turn.

Sometimes it is not worth the bother (if it is only a couple of cars) and also it can annoy the car drivers so then I just position myself as if I were a car and wait.

Personally I love it though when I am in my car (rarely) and a cyclist keeps up with the flow of car traffic. It is the best advert for bike commuting. But I suppose I am not normal.

Thanks y'all! My inclination was to move on up the line, and now I feel like at least I'm not breaking some unwritten code of commuting. I figure moving up is expected, and driver's won't get mad and start hating bikers just because of this, which was my worry.

I love really standing on it and getting across the intersection way ahead of cars froma dead stop! 'Course they always catch me in about 100 feet, but it's worth it and gives me a bit of room before they have to pass me again.

Partially, I feel that when a car doesn't totally move into the other lane to pass me, it's in effect given me permission to share the lane with it, so moving up at the stop is perfectly OK.

Yes I have developed sophisticated rationalization mechanisms.

Thanks again for all the tips, I can't wait to ditch the 25 min. drive for my new 2 mile commute.

I always check to see if cars are turning right. that will be my first clue if I want to do it. Of course not all cars use turn signals. so if there is plenty of space I am ygo forward but I will usualy not get in front. I iwll be right at the tail of the front car. that way the car behind me can see me and I don't worry what the car in front will do (maybe turn left) if there are only a few cars I get in line.

Generally speaking, I'll move up on the right and go to the front of the line when a huge line of cars is stopped. I also tend to get in front of the front car (provided it's not turning right) so that they can see me. I have lane split on occasion, though only in one section of town where it was actually feasible to do so. Cars are generally pretty amused/amazed when I blow by them on the right hand side as they sit stuck in traffic. I'm smiling and enjoying the ride. They're moaning and groaning about the horrible traffic. Makes the commute all that much more worthwhile. :)

On a 2 lane street, I pass on the right. I also pull forward so I am visible to the 1st car in case they are not signalling they want to make a right turn. If they are signaling for a right I stop behind them & wait for them to "right on red" At multi-lane intersections, I take the right turn lane to get to the front of the line then lane split the right turn and straight ahead lanes. This puts me in position to be passed by right turning cars, be visible to the straight ahead cars both behind me and oncoming, and more importantly, to be visible to the oncoming left-turners. If the intersection allows, as is often the case at the intersection of 2 multi-lane highways, I will actually pull about a bike length ahead of the stop line to make myself even more visible. I do this partially because I am short and often ride a bike with 2x 24" wheels and extra small frame. I would be prime "I didn't see her" roadkill without these defensive maneuvers.

Don't pass stopped cars on the right, pass on the left. More room, less doors. Use your judgement appropriate for the specific situation you find yourself in.

Truth be told, I go thru stop lights as if I were a law abiding pedestrian. CA state law says I am a slow moving vehicle, but I feel more comfortable using the system made for pedestrians. If I wait in line, I significantly slow down the cars behind me (I am slow...) and most of the lights I encounter have either bike lanes or crosswalks painted, so I use them.

I know, this is not vehicular cycling, but I cannot slam thru as a vehicle, I am much closer to pedestrian speeds than many of you.

My philosophy is that if it's okay for drivers to pass me when I am going slower than they are, it should be okay for me to pass them when they're going slower than I am.

For the drivers who complain about having to pass me again, well, if you hadn't blown past me in your effort to get to the red light, this wouldn't be happening at all, would it?

Do I

a) stop behind the car currently in front of me, just as if I were a car myself.


I would never stop directly behind a car. You are less visible to motorists and if the next car coming doesn't see you in time, you may get rearended and sandwiched. I've had this happen on a motorcycle when I didn't have my stoplight activated.

Truth be told, I go thru stop lights as if I were a law abiding pedestrian. CA state law says I am a slow moving vehicle, but I feel more comfortable using the system made for pedestrians. If I wait in line, I significantly slow down the cars behind me (I am slow...) and most of the lights I encounter have either bike lanes or crosswalks painted, so I use them.

I know, this is not vehicular cycling, but I cannot slam thru as a vehicle, I am much closer to pedestrian speeds than many of you.

The primary problem with cycling in crosswalks in your example, is that you are less maneuverable than a ped (you can't "jump" out of the way). Also, although many cyclists state that they "go slow" in cross walks (or go fast&"zip" across)-they are easily faster than walking speed. Walking speeds are what drivers "expect" in crosswalks.

A right turning driver will be looking left for cross traffic (perhaps after a quick right look-if at all-that the crosswalk is clear), once the right turning driver has an opening they will turn-a "slow moving" cyclist will then be partially across the cross walk (in an unexpected position to the turner) as the right turning driver looks for peds again, they will be looking near the curb-then be turning. The cyclist could easily get clipped in the rear wheal (or worse).

Just an observation--I don't drive much now a days (mostly bike), but I've allmost clipped 2 cyclists (one as described above, one a "wrong way" cyclist) while driving--and I ALLWAYS look for cyclists (as well as looking left&right before turning).

Crosswalks are for walking. I dissmount and walk if crossing in one.

Oh, that's a bunch of BS about expecting "walking speeds" in the crosswalk. A car that sees a bike in the cross walk won't expect anything of which you say. It's not like once you get into a car you lose all depth perception and all ability to judge relative speed.

What's likely to happen is if you are travelling against traffic in a cross walk, cross traffic won't look in your direction (your right turning motorist won't look to his right) and may hit you. This happens to me all the time as a pedestrian and makes me want to carry a bike flag so I can wave it in front of cars who aren't looking my way.

Never take the lane immediately behind a huge land tank (SUV, box truck, etc), which will block your (and oncoming traffics) site lines.

It's also a good idea to keep up on your "emergency turning skills", in case you are planning to pull up to the front of the line of traffic-but the signal turns green-as you are rite next to the lead car (and it decides to turn right).

Some street-smart advice...good thinking!

I would never stop directly behind a car. You are less visible to motorists ... I've found that the quickest way to get the attention of overtaking drivers is to postion my vehicle right in the middle of the marked travel lane (which is usually where they are too 8-)

... and if the next car coming doesn't see you in time, you may get rearended and sandwiched. Trade offs. The decrease in your visibilty and predictability caused by not traveling where almost every other driver travels (and expects others to travel) is, IMHO, a greater danger.

I've had this happen on a motorcycle when I didn't have my stoplight activated.
Daylight visible tail lights are now available for those bicyclists who want one. For example:
http://www.cateye.com/en/products/viewProduct.php?modelId=41&catId=7&subCatId=4

I would never stop directly behind a car. You are less visible to motorists and if the next car coming doesn't see you in time, you may get rearended and sandwiched. I've had this happen on a motorcycle when I didn't have my stoplight activated. how will you handle the situation: if the car at the red light --- was parked/stopped in such a way --- was blocking your access to park/pass to its right-hand side.? Be it the car in the front of the line, or the 3rd, 6th, from the front, etc.

I have been told by fellow cyclists. The law says you are to stop where you are? I don't . I don't believe it either..I should check in with the DMV handbook...Seems it did not address this specific topic..If so, that would take away most of the advantage of bike commuting to work..Why...Cars don't think our bike lane a traffic artery.?
as a side issue...One problem I find difficult at stop lights..Preparing to get into the left turn lane...Ever try to get over there when all cars are stopped and you want to get over there before the light changes...
Some motorists will not allow you to do such, even tho they can't move.. They will inch up to not allow it...Safest is to cozy up to pedestrian walk and try to move over there before the light changes, or they will intentionally pin you in and break your legs.
Yes, abput that left-nad turn lane: If I understand You correctly. What I (also) do, if it's too difficult to get into that lane, as I'm approaching a bunch of cars in front of me. {depending which bike {road or cruiser** I'm using, I'll simply pass the cars, via the bike lane or in between the car lanes. And then cross the cars horizontally, via the pedestrian crosswalk. they hate that!!! And I will be the front one in that left-hand turn lane, period.

The primary problem with cycling in crosswalks in your example, is that you are less maneuverable than a ped (you can't "jump" out of the way). Also, although many cyclists state that they "go slow" in cross walks (or go fast&"zip" across)-they are easily faster than walking speed. Walking speeds are what drivers "expect" in crosswalks.

A right turning driver will be looking left for cross traffic (perhaps after a quick right look-if at all-that the crosswalk is clear), once the right turning driver has an opening they will turn-a "slow moving" cyclist will then be partially across the cross walk (in an unexpected position to the turner) as the right turning driver looks for peds again, they will be looking near the curb-then be turning. The cyclist could easily get clipped in the rear wheal (or worse).

Just an observation--I don't drive much now a days (mostly bike), but I've allmost clipped 2 cyclists (one as described above, one a "wrong way" cyclist) while driving--and I ALLWAYS look for cyclists (as well as looking left&right before turning).

Crosswalks are for walking. I dissmount and walk if crossing in one. that one paragraph is too large to be understood --- all those words in one sentence. I will make My version simple: Too many times, what I classify in My cases as car drivers {the most common problem**. They will only look on the opposite side of Me/My bike ---- before making that turn. This especially applies to them making right-hand turns.Rather than them looking on both sides.

I ride between traffic if I can maintain with traffic, like during rush hour, otherwise I stick to a lane/shoulder.

.......and when you want to get in that left-hand turn lane. Once you get in there. If youdevide to be the one in front of the line, at the crosswalk, keep the lead --- all the way until at the lane of the intersecting road. That car behind will do anything to cut you off.

that one paragraph is too large to be understood --- all those words in one sentence. I will make My version simple: Too many times, what I classify in My cases as car drivers {the most common problem**. They will only look on the opposite side of Me/My bike ---- before making that turn. This especially applies to them making right-hand turns.Rather than them looking on both sides.

Yesyessorryaboutthat! Ihaveissueswithmyrunnonsentences! :)

-I agree the most common problem is the driver.

We can help ourselves not get hit, by not cycling in an "unexpected" manner.

-or-

We can reduce our chances of being hit, by cycling where one would expect.

We can reduce our chances of being hit, by cycling where one would expect.

Ok, this thread is going away on a tangent, so I may as well get in my two cents while it is - this is exactly the point. In BC, cyclists are vehicles under the MVA, not pedestrians. So if you want to use a cross-walk, you have to dismount. If you are cycling across, and get whacked - your fault. Vehicles should not have to anticipate cyclists where they do not belong.

As the saying goes - "If you don't want to go to Boston, why are you on the train?" Read - if you can't ride a bike in the manner stipulated by law, what the hell are you doing on the road?

Using bike lanes to get through an intersection though - nothing wrong with that. That's what they're there for, and you can move up all you want in them. Many busy intersections in Victoria have been outfitted with them now, even if it's only a few hundred feet on either side of the intersection. Eliminates the worry of moving up (still have to watch for right-turning vehicles, of course).

how will you handle the situation: if the car at the red light --- was parked/stopped in such a way --- was blocking your access to park/pass to its right-hand side.? Be it the car in the front of the line, or the 3rd, 6th, from the front, etc.

If the car was that far to the right I would have to assume that they are either taking a right hand turn or they like to hug the curb while driving. In either instance I would not want to get in front of them. 3, 6, or even 8 cars back, they will eventually pass you and creeping up at a light will not save you all that much time in this instance.

I should say I do go to the front of the line whenever I deem it safe enough. Personally, I am of the opinion that, whatever I feel is safer is the right way when it comes to cycling in traffic.

One place to find info on states that you plan on riding in is http://www.massbike.org/

A brief search didn't bring me anything, apologies if this has been covered before. I'll be commuting to work starting next week. I'm quite comfortable riding in traffic in all conditions (well about as comfortable as you can be -sometimes it feels like I'm an ant on a pool table and 8 year olds are trying to squash me with the balls) My question:

I'm riding in traffic on a city street, vehicles pass me, all is right with the world. Up ahead a traffic light turns red. Cars stop.

Do I

a) stop behind the car currently in front of me, just as if I were a car myself.
b) ride down the side of the lane to stop at the light next to the first car in line.

I'm asking specifically about traffic light situations. Generally I wait my turn as If I were a car at stop signs. Thanks.
I think that you have answered your own question. "Generally I wait my turn as if I were a car at a stop sign. " It's safer if you wait in back of the car that's stopped in front of you. If you are stopped besides a car that's stopped in the curb lane, and you pull up on your bicycle between that car and the curb, you could get forced off the road or onto the curb, accidently or otherwise.

There are a variety of circumstances and a variety of appropriate actions during any given ride. I try to adjust to each using a "defensive common sense" approach. Since I am riding for exercise and am not a commuter, I ride to keep the motion up, not for efficiency or speed associated with a specific arrival time.

My question:

I'm riding in traffic on a city street, vehicles pass me, all is right with the world. Up ahead a traffic light turns red. Cars stop.

Do I

a) stop behind the car currently in front of me, just as if I were a car myself.
b) ride down the side of the lane to stop at the light next to the first car in line.

Both are legal. Both are pretty effective. (b) is by far more popular by cyclists and what I did for decades. I rarely see cyclists do (a), but that's what I've been doing consistently for the last year. Most cyclists seem to feel awkward doing (a). Never-the-less, that's what I strongly recommend. Here's why...

I believe - though I have no statistics to back it up - that (a) is safer. Why? Simply because you are more visible and predictable when you do (a) instead of (b). If you do (a), even if motorists see you, they might not be as aware of you because your lane position is essentially saying: don't worry about me, I'm doing my own thing and staying out of your way. If you stay in the lane: you're saying "here I am - please deal with me like any other vehicle driver on the roadway". By increasing motorists' awareness of you by your position, I believe you are reducing the chances of conflict and collision.

Doing (b) can be rude. Next time you're stopped normally at a light (taking your place in line, regardless of whether you are in a car or on a bike) and see a cyclist do (a), watch carefully for what happens. Basically, the cyclist cuts in front of a bunch of people, and then impedes them (note that when motorcyclists do this it's not impeding, since they accelerate through the intersection often before the car drivers even realize the light turned green). Now, it's okay to impede people at a light - as long as they got there after you did. That's the "first come, first served" rule. But I believe it's rude to impede people at a light who got there before you. Maybe that's just me. Maybe other's don't care if they're rude to motorists. That brings me to my next point...

I find that I'm treated with more respect by motorists when I ride respectfully in accordance to the rules of the road (including, "first come; first served"). If you're going to treat the rules of the road with comtempt (e.g., by cutting to the front of the line at a light), then isn't it hypocritical to expect motorists to obey the rules of the road with respect to how they treat you? Of course it is. I find the two approaches to be a real dichotomy. In order to be treated like a driver of a vehicle on the road, you have to act and feel like the driver of a vehicle. You can't act and feel like a vehicle driver as you sneak and scurry up to the head of the line as if you're some kind of rodent, trying to use the part of the roadway not needed by the "real users" - the motorists.

If you want to feel and be treated like a real legitimate user of the roadway, then act like one. Take your place in line at the light, and wait your turn. If nothing else, do it in the name of getting respect for all cyclists.

Serge

Oh, that's a bunch of BS about expecting "walking speeds" in the crosswalk. A car that sees a bike in the cross walk won't expect anything of which you say. It's not like once you get into a car you lose all depth perception and all ability to judge relative speed.

What's likely to happen is if you are travelling against traffic in a cross walk, cross traffic won't look in your direction (your right turning motorist won't look to his right) and may hit you. This happens to me all the time as a pedestrian and makes me want to carry a bike flag so I can wave it in front of cars who aren't looking my way.

Yes, sure, if the motorist sees the cyclist he may not expect "walking speeds". You're missing the point, which is: in general, everyone expects pedestrians moving at walking speeds on sidewalks and in crosswalks, and behave accordingly.

How far up a crosswalk or sidewalk does a motorist look, and I mean really look, to see if it is clear? Let's call it, whatever it is, X feet. Now, how is X determined? Of course, X varies based on conditions and factors, but the point is that one of the factors is the assumption that whoever is moving in the crosswalk or sidewalk is moving at pedestrian speeds, and that helps determine X. If you're traveling at only 6mph that's already 2x typical pedestrian speeds (3mph). 12mph is slow for a bike, but that's 4x ped speeds.

You connect the dots.

Serge

How far up a crosswalk or sidewalk does a motorist look, and I mean really look, to see if it is clear?
Speaking as a pedestrian, they look 0 feet up the crosswalk.

I'm not saying you should ride a bike in the crosswalk, just that it's pretty silly to say that if you are riding a bike in the crosswalk that a motorist who sees you would be surprised you were going at bike speed. That's silly.

I'm not saying you should ride a bike in the crosswalk, just that it's pretty silly to say that if you are riding a bike in the crosswalk that a motorist who sees you would be surprised you were going at bike speed. That's silly.
Yes, that's silly. That's probably why no one said that, "if you are riding a bike in the crosswalk that a motorist who sees you would be surprised you were going at bike speed".

This habit to paraphrase inevitably leads to exaggerations and mischaracterizations of what others said, and any response to such is pointless, because it's responding to positions no one has taken. What's the point?

Look at what camel originally actually wrote:



The primary problem with cycling in crosswalks in your example, is that you are less maneuverable than a ped (you can't "jump" out of the way). Also, although many cyclists state that they "go slow" in cross walks (or go fast&"zip" across)-they are easily faster than walking speed. Walking speeds are what drivers "expect" in crosswalks.

A right turning driver will be looking left for cross traffic (perhaps after a quick right look-if at all-that the crosswalk is clear), once the right turning driver has an opening they will turn-a "slow moving" cyclist will then be partially across the cross walk (in an unexpected position to the turner) as the right turning driver looks for peds again, they will be looking near the curb-then be turning. The cyclist could easily get clipped in the rear wheal (or worse).

Just an observation--I don't drive much now a days (mostly bike), but I've allmost clipped 2 cyclists (one as described above, one a "wrong way" cyclist) while driving--and I ALLWAYS look for cyclists (as well as looking left&right before turning).
Did he say anything about anyone even seeing a cyclist, much less seeing one and being surprised at their speed? Where do you get this stuff?

His whole point was that because of the difference in the actual and expected speeds of the cyclist, the motorist will never see him. Each time the motorist looks in the crosswalk he will look where it's important to look for potential conflicts with pedestrians moving at walking speeds - that's not where he should be looking for potential conflicts with cyclists moving at cyclist speeds. I don't know how to make it clearer, but it has nothing to do with seeing a cyclist and being surprised at their speed.

Did he say anything about anyone even seeing a cyclist, much less seeing one and being surprised at their speed? Where do you get this stuff?



The primary problem with cycling in crosswalks in your example, is that you are less maneuverable than a ped (you can't "jump" out of the way). Also, although many cyclists state that they "go slow" in cross walks (or go fast&"zip" across)-they are easily faster than walking speed. Walking speeds are what drivers "expect" in crosswalks.

That's where I got it.

If a motorist looks at all they'll see a bike as easily as a ped, and they'd probably be expecting the bike to go at bike speed, whatever that is.

The problem is, they won't look.

If a motorist looks at all they'll see a bike as easily as a ped, and they'd probably be expecting the bike to go at bike speed, whatever that is.

The problem is, they won't look.
Then how do they happen to avoid hitting peds?

They do look - they look where peds walking at ped speeds would be if they are a potential conflict. The problem is that cyclists riding at cycling speeds are somewhere else, perhaps 4x further away.

3mph is 4.4 feet per second. Consider a pedestrian 12 feet from the car, walking towards it. He's a potential conflict in 3 seconds. If there is no ped there and the motorist will move within the next two seconds, he should be okay. He looks left, it's clear and immediately proceeds.

What he didn't see when he was looking for peds within 12 feet was the cyclist 34 feet away. Of course he didn't see him! He wasn't even looking there. Why was the driver not looking there? Because Walking speeds are what drivers "expect" in crosswalks.. So the motorist see that it's clear to his left (he also looked for vehicles where vehicles would be- in the traffic lane not in the crosswalk - and sees none), looks to the right, and proceeds, 2 seconds after verifying that there were no peds coming from his left.

Of course, within those 2 seconds, the 12 mph ( 17.6 feet per second) cyclist has covered those 34 feet and his front wheel is right in front of the left side of the car as the motorist hits the gas...

The motorist really never saw him, and it's not because he wasn't looking. It's because he didn't look to his left in the crosswalk potential conflict zone within the final fraction of a second that the cyclist was in it.

Happens all the time, and the cyclist always blames the motorist for "not looking". What term did you use? Oh yeah, "that's a bunch of BS".

Then how do they happen to avoid hitting peds?

They do look - they look where peds walking at ped speeds would be if they are a potential conflict. The problem is that cyclists riding at cycling speeds are somewhere else, perhaps 4x further away.


I guess you aren't a pedestrian very often. They don't look. They might see you by happenstance if you happen to be walking the same direction as the traffic they are looking toward (i.e. the right turning motorist only looks left, so if you're on their left maybe the'll see you.)

But mostly they barely look, or if they do or if they see you, they gun it so they don't have to wait for you. Good luck to anybody who tries to walk in a direction the opposes traffic on a one-way street.

How to they avoid hitting pedestrians? They don't always. The stats on pedestrian/auto accidents are pretty high, especially in LA.

Look, I don't disagree that riding in the cross walk is not a good idea because it's not a good idea. It's dangerous. I only disagreed that a motorist who saw you there would expect you to be going at walking speed.

I only disagreed that a motorist who saw you there would expect you to be going at walking speed.
I disagree. It's a bunch of BS to say there is no salt in ocean water.

[20 posts later of you trying to figure out what I'm talking about]

Look, I only disagreed that there is no salt in ocean water.

My point is, NOBODY SAID THAT "a motorist who saw you there would expect you to be going at walking speed."

So your disagreeing with that position is about as pointless as me disagreeing with the contention that there is no salt in the ocean, since nobody has taken either position.

I love it!!! You guys are dickering all over the boards.... :rolleyes:

A brief search didn't bring me anything, apologies if this has been covered before.
It has, actually. I asked it (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=80685) on the Safety & Advocacy board when I first joined a few months ago. But that's okay, obviously people are still enjoying (?) talking about it. :)



a) stop behind the car currently in front of me, just as if I were a car myself.
b) ride down the side of the lane to stop at the light next to the first car in line.
I used to do (b) all the time, and still do sometimes, but I've gotten into doing (a) more often, for many of the same reasons Serge mentioned in his post. (In fact, he has probably influenced me in this.) In the thread I started, someone mentioned a rule of thumb that I've since adopted, which is I'll stop where I am if there's not too much of a line to make it through on the next cycle. If the line is longer than that, I will consider filtering.

I think it also depends a lot on the road. People talk about not filtering to the right due to risking a right hook. But at the intersection in which I most often do it, there are not many side streets to the right prior to the intersection, so I'm not that worried about it. And it's just one lane each way with a small shoulder, no parked cars on the side, so I'm not too worried about dooring (unless a passenger in a car stopped for the light does it, which seems unlikely). Therefore it makes much more sense to me, at this intersection, to filter on the right rather than the left. Filtering on the left means I'm going through the intersection on the left-hand side of the lane, then I have to worry about negotiating back to the right, which doesn't make sense to me. And I would feel like I was being unpredictable, which is not good (IMHO). But other cyclists know their intersections better than I do, so I don't want to start an argument. Just saying what I personally feel.

But speaking of left turns, which you didn't ask but someone else brought up. If there's a separate left-hand turn lane, you should be in it (if there is more than one, probably the right-most one), and you should plan ahead of time to move over to it as you approach it. You should definitely have a rear-view mirror to make it easier to see behind you as you do this. (Although it has also been noted that even with a mirror, a head swivel can be good in that it is a clue for the drivers what you are about to do.) I wait in the lane, between the middle and the right tire area of the lane, so I can easily move back to the right after I'm through the intersection. If, on the other hand, there is not a separate left-turn lane, I would get between the middle and the left tire area of the lane.

In one case on my route, I have to turn left to a side street from the main two-lane road (one each way) with no traffic light. For this one, I start looking as soon as I'm in sight of the turn for a space where there's no traffic immediately behind me, signal clearly, and move over to the middle of the road, where I can wait if necessary for the opposing lane to clear so I can make the turn, yet cars behind me have room to pass me on the right (pulling into the shoulder a bit) while I wait. That's a bit tricky. If all else fails, I can always go on to the next one instead.

Enjoy your commute! :)

LOL stopping behind a car. If I did that on my commute, I might as well sit in a car and line up in a traffic jam and be gayed. The whole point of commuting especially during rush hour is that you can lane split and get to where you're going faster than you could in a car.

All while you look over and watch people sittin in their cars in a ginormous traffic jam. Of course there's risk, you evaluate it and you accept it - or take the bus. Is it more dangerous than lining up behind a car, of course.

But then again you also have a good chance of slipping in your bathtub and breaking your neck.

I ain't breathing no diesel or any other exhaust. Screw the double negative, I'm going up the line of cars...

Motorcyclists call this filtering. I do it all the time.

Except ... If the cars already waiting at the red light have passed me once already, meaning they had to make a lane change to go around me, and they will have to make a lane change again to get around me once the light turns green and we all start moving, then I will hesitate. I mean, I'll still probably do it, but I'll feel bad for the drivers. And I probably wouldn't make the same car pass me more than twice, if they have to make a full-fledged lane change to do so each time.

These cases are fairly rare, however, as I usually pick routes that are more bike-friendly. By bike-friendly I mean wider lanes, less traffic or well-implemented bike lanes (Serge, don't start).

I believe the law states it is illegal to pass on the right, which is what you are doing. To me, this just illustrates how unrealistic the law is with respect to cyclists. If I were to stop at every light without passing any cars, it would take me a hell of a lot longer to get to work in the morning, and I don't think I would be much, if any safer for it. Car drivers have no problems with passing me in the same lane that I am using-weather there is adequate room or not. Why should I be concerned about passing them when the situation is reversed?

From what I've seen in the European cities I've visited, the motorists actually let the scooters and other two wheel vehicles through. In California it's legal for motorcycles to 'split' the lane.

And I completely agree with darkmother.

What the law states depends on where you live. For example this is from Massachusetts law: "the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way."

That is, passing on the right is legal.

What the law states depends on where you live. For example this is from Massachusetts law: "the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way."

That is, passing on the right is legal.


Interesting. I wonder if that is the case here as well. It makes more sense that way, for sure.