LittleBigMan

I predict that someday, bicycles will be faster than cars, due to gridlock.

thbirks

It already is in many places.

nathank

yes, in some high-traffic areas it is already true -- in Munich for example between 4 and 7pm i can get anywhere within 15km significantly faster than a car -- my girlfriend and i work at the same place and we've left at the same time, she in the car and i on the bike many times, and in the evening i ALWAYS get there first and usually have to wait 15-55 minutes(not including parking!) after a 10-15km distance --- especially if you also count time to find a parking spot.

i also fear that it will soon be generally so bad almost everywhere most of the time...

unfortunately it will probably first require routine gridlock traffic for people to realize that driving everywhere doesn't work as both the population and distances continue to increase... (it's a classic Tragedy of the Commons it just takes 60 or 70 years before the end state is reached)

but yes, i agree with your prediction... some time in the next 50 years (probably about 20) i predict traffic will be so bad that people no longer use the car for their main transportation (when it takes 3 hours to drive to work or 2 hours to pick the kids up from school)

...and eventually most city centers and communities will be free of cars with lots of small personal motorized scooters (something like IT though not necessarily it) as well as pedestrians, bicycles (unfortunately most people are inherently pretty lazy so i think some motorized vehicle will always be more popular than cycling or walking) --- hopefully we don't screw things up too badly building so many ugly huge paved roads between now and then (i guess it can always be torn up and rebuilt???) - and it's too bad we can't just implement the right solution now (see Tragedy of the Commons)

aturley

I'm a little lost on this one.

I hear all the time that bikes are faster than cars in cities because of gridlock. The only way I can see this as being possible is if the bikes are weaving through the cars that are stopped. And as far as I know, that is illegal in most places. I suppose if you have a good bike path then this is the case (I routinely beat cars when I'm on the bike path going to work), but unless we have paths parallel to all roads, this has to break down eventually.

I'll be the first to admit that maybe I haven't considered all the posibilities, so if anyone can tell me how bike can be faster than cars while riding legally in the street, I would love to hear it.

andy

Matadon

Not so. How many times have you been sitting in traffic, and seen a bike just zoom past on the side of the road? During rush hour, when I commute by bike, I'll pass mile-long lines of cars that are all just sitting there in traffic, unable to move because of their sheer size.

You don't need to weave in-and-out between them, just ride on the side of the road.

MichaelW

Passing a slower vehicle on the outside is a perfectly valid overtaking manouvre. Overtaking a whole line of cars like this is quite legal and normal in gridlocked cities and much safer than using bike lanes.
The secret of safe cycling is to see when traffic starts to move again, and negotiate back into the line of traffic before it starts moving.
Traffic jamming is fast, fun and safe if you use your head.

mrfix

Ya got it all wrong.
It's not about speed, It's the roses man, the roses, Ya gotta take the time to smell the roses. That's really what it's all about. I want all of my commutes to be longer, I want it all, the hills, the flats, the sun, the rain, the cold, the ice, the heat, the dogs, the people, the cars and most of all, the pure unadulterated pleasure of riding a bike anywhere and everywhere.
Keep on crankin.

aturley

If by "outside" you mean the passenger side (I'll try to avoid right/left), then no, this really isn't legal in the States. Legally, you are only supposed to pass on the driver's side. Yes, people pass on the other side all the time, but they aren't supposed to.

But that completely ignores the problem of cars in traffic. In most traffic jams I have seen, all lanes are filled with vehicles. Therefore, there are no open lanes in which to pass. You can weave in between vehicles, but again, this is not legal, at least not here.

Maybe the laws are different in England, but around here if you "traffic jam", you are breaking the law, and if you get hit, it's your fault. I'm a big stickler for legal riding these days, because I know how much it sucks to get hit by a car and find out that it is your fault, so you have to pay.

andy

MichaelW

In the UK by outside and overtake, we mean on the off-side.
The other way, the nearside/curbside/inside can be a more dangerous place, but it is still do-able with care.
Just be really careful about getting doored and crossing junctions on the inside through stopped traffic. You do not have right of way on the main road over a turning vehicle if the traffic is stopped. You do if you ride on the offside, but on the nearside, according to several (US) court cases, you have to yield.

Cyclists dont need a whole lane to themselves, so can pass standing cars in the gaps between lanes. There is nothing illegal about that. I get cars passing me in the gap between my vehicle and the other lane.

aturley

Passing standing cars in the gaps between lanes is called lane splitting, and it is illegal in California, excpet for motorcycles.

As far as cars passing you in the same lane, around here bikes and cars are required to share the lane with the bicycle riding on the right, as long as the bicycle is moving "at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
at that time".

Now, if cars are stopped in traffic, several things are true:

1) If I am on my bike and I plan to "traffic jam," I will be moving faster than the normal speed of traffic, so I can no longer share the lane.
2) I am required to pass on the left.
3) Lane splitting is illegal.

Combining these facts, it becomes impossible for me to legally "traffic jam".

I say all this knowing that I am not a lawyer, but I have some familiarity with the laws. If anyone can tell me of a mistake I have made in the application of the laws, I would love to hear it. As far as I can tell, the only way to beat a car on a bike in California is to find a faster route, or use a road with bike lanes where I believe you can legally pass on the right.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, I just want to get some feed back on my line of reasoning, and to make sure others have considered the legality of their actions. If "traffic jamming" is legal in other places, that's great. I wish I could do it here, but I'm pretty sure I can't.

andy

LittleBigMan

Andy,

Obey the law and teach motorists to do the same.

Yet, don't be too legalistic. Motorists aren't!

nathank

i'm not sure exactly when it went into affect, but about 2 years ago OREGON passed a law making it legal for cyclists to pass on the right if cars are slowed b/c of traffic. This was a huge victory for cycling and BTA (Bicycle Transportation Alliance) and other cycling advocacy groups... previously it was technically only legal to pass on the right in a marked bike lane (something like 60% of urban)

to my knowledge no other US state has such laws, although i have done it in quite a few states... as far as cycling is concerned i think most of the laws are made w/o consideration for bicycles so i bend some of the rules while at the same time working for advocacy to try and get the official rules changed - if i am in gridlock traffic somewhere i don't think it is correct that the bicycles which are contributing very little to the traffic problem should have to wait hours for all the cars...

in Europe/Germany i don't know the official rules, but there is usually a bike lane/path so lane-splitting is not usually necessary and i whizz pas kilometers of stand-still traffic every day in Munich legally in the bike lane (although i do not like the sidewalk bike lanes of Munich)

nathank

mrfix

hey, i totally respect that...

but there are times when speed is important (say getting to work on time). but this type of thing does not mean that you HAVE to ride fast and hurriedly, only that you have the opportunity if you want/need to: as a user of a mode of tranportation that is safe, efficient and requires little space for operation or parking to do so safely and quickly if you so choose...

there are tons of people who would ride if it were significantly faster than driving (and safe in their eyes) so this issue is important

MichaelW

Being quicker than traffic doesn't mean riding fast. It just means not riding at 0mph for long preriods of time.
If you cruise at a moderate 12mph through any city centre , you will beat a car that is crawing along in traffic.
Riding at 20mph through traffic jams is exceedingly dangerous. You dont have time to react to opening doors or jaywalking pedestrians.

If cyclists have to obey traffic jams and congestion then they can never compete as a form of city transport.

Juha

Here in Finland bike lanes are usually on sidewalk level, not on street level. If there's no bike lane, cyclists ride among the cars and are well within their legal rights to pass other vehicles from the passenger's side. Though I would not do that unless the traffic has slowed down to walking pace.

--J

aturley

Just spotted this on metafilter.com. It's a discussion of lane splitting. Pretty standard arguements from both sides.

andy

MichaelW

By lane splitting, do they mean riding between 2 lines of moving traffic?
Sometime in big cities, you get complete gridlock. There is plenty of space for cyclists between the lanes, and cars going 0mph are not going to run you over. It simply isnt a safety issue.
Riding like that when the cars are doing 20-30mph is insane and very dangerous.

LittleBigMan

Funny how motorists often believe that bicycles will hold up traffic, when the reverse is often true.

Allister

First, to andy: If you are certain that lane-splitting is illegal in your area, and that you are uncomfortable stretching the law in that respect, then I guess you'll have to wait in traffic with the motorists.

mrfix: there's not many roses on my route to work. I enjoy my ride to work, but in the end the bike is just a transport choice and the purpose is to get me to work as efficiently as possible. I'll save the roses for the weekends.

The following is a rather long dissertation on the pitfalls and their solutions of lane-splitting. I'm not saying that anyone should lane-split, but if you do, here's a few pointers I've picked up over the years.

In Australia lane-splitting is, as far as I can tell, legal. I say this because, while there isn't a law specifically forbidding it, neither is there one specifically permitting it. I've gone through the rules, and my interpretation from inferences in other laws is that it is legal. On the road, I have split the lane many times in plain sight of the police and have never been pulled over, although admittedly this may be simply because they couldn't catch me.

I lane-split regularly, and personally I enjoy the challenge. Actually I find it as natural and easy to lane-split these days as riding along a quiet bike path - it's simply a matter of practice. Part of my route takes me down a small hill where the lanes are narrow and the traffic backed up, and I regularly hit 45km/h splitting the lane. This is quite safe as long as I maintain focused awareness, and stay alert for hazards.

Doors rarely open between lanes - that happens more on the kerbside lane. That, and the fact that motorists tend to leave less room between their cars and the kerb than they do between adjacent cars, and the fact that footpaths are narrow, rough and have many driveways and road crossings means that the lane-split is often the safest and quickest route through slow traffic. (Passing on the outside is also legal here by the way.)

There are hazards whilst lane-splitting, but these are known and can be accommodated, the same as the traffic hazards in any other situation we encounter. Things to watch for:

Indicators blinking - cars moving across lanes, generally without looking for lane-splitting cyclists (who would?). In slow moving traffic, cars tend to likewise change lanes slowly. If there are bumper to bumper cars in the lane they're moving into, chances are you can breeze past them whilst they're waiting for a gap, but slow down a tad, and watch 'em like a hawk.

Brake lights at intersections, even if the light is green - chances are they're stopping to let a car out of the side street, or let a car turn across them into it. In the former case, even if they're moving into the kerbside lane, the nose of the car will often poke into the lane-split - try and time it so you don't pass them until they've straightened up. In the latter case, slow down and get ready to stop - they won't see you, and you won't see them until it's almost too late (I've lifted the back wheel a couple of times after not taking this advice)

Motorcyclists - When I lane-split, I take the line and stay there, even if the traffic speeds up temporarily and might be passing me on either side. I'll only move back to the kerbside when I know the traffic will maintain the higher speed for a significant distance. Motorcyclists I've observed tend to move in and out of the lane split far more often. If the traffic's moving at all, they seem to be content sitting in the lane. However, they are very unpredicatble as to when they move into the lane-split. Some seem to never do it, others do it often. Of all the things that concern me whilst lane splitting, approaching motorcyclists from the rear worries me the most. They don't seem to look in their mirror before moving out of the lane. Often I'll shout out that I'm passing as I come within earshot, but it's still a worry. I watch them very closely as I'm approaching them for the slightest sign of moving into the lane, and I'll slow down a bit in preparation for it. If the traffic in their lane stops moving, there's a good chance they're going to split, so keep your eyes open.

Also they tend to ride the lane-split a lot slower than I like to. Sometimes I'm happy to sit behind and wait for them to move back into the lane when they're ready, sometimes a gap between cars affords me the opportunity to pass, other times, if they're really going slow, I'll zip over to the footpath and pass them there before moving back into the lane split (this is my less preferred choice - riding on the footpath is dangerous.)

Pedestrians - when traffic is stopped, jaywalkers sometimes cross the road weaving between the cars. Generally they're not looking for lane-splitting cyclists - so I either slow down to let them cross, or give them a warning shout, depending on my proximity. Still, it amazes me how many people cross the road looking in the direction the cars are going, rather than coming from.

Wing mirrors - they seem to be set at exactly handlebar height on the average motorcar - effectively reducing the amount of lane-splitting room by a good six inches. Wing mirrors lined up on both sides of the lane-split can make things a bit tight. Adjusting speed to time it so that one car or the other moves ahead gives you a bit more room. This is the one good thing about SUVs - their wing mirrors are significantly higher and your handlebars can pass underneath them. Bus and truck mirrors are wider still, but they're high enough to duck under.

Cars moving to deliberately block your path - In the 7 years I've been regularly lane splitting in three separate countries, this has happened twice, and both times I saw it coming and still passed them safely (one guy even opened his door at me). In fact, it is far more common for motorists to see me in their mirror and move over to give me more room. I always give them a wave of thanks or a 'thanks mate' as I pass them. This is the one thing that is culturally determined (the others are purely phyicical properties of lane-splitting and pretty much universal), so it may be different in the States. Keep your eyes open.

LittleBigMan

This whole argument of lane-splitting is based on the density of traffic. If traffic is heavy and you have to wait with the cars, you will also have to let them pass you. As they pass you, notice that they are "lane splitting."

Do you want to wait through 3 lights as you huff car exhaust?

surreal

i split lanes, and i'm not going to stop. ever. i'm in the usa, and i pass slow/stopped traffic on the right, throughout my commute. if i didnt, it'd take me like an hour to ride 3 miles to get to work.

legal? i *know* ppl round here(these forums) are phanatical about riding legally, and i mostly understand why. but i also know that the bulk of non-bicyclists (and possibly bicyclists, as well) are unaware of traffic laws regarding bicycling. sure, i'd like to paint a pretty picture of bicycling by riding by the letter of the law, but i have realised that motorists do not know/care about bicycling laws. they get pissed b/c im not riding on the sidewalk. they get pissed b/c im not in a car.

why do i ride on the proper side of the road? cause it's legal? hardly. i ride there b/c it's safer and more practical. it would be neither safe nor practical to stop with traffic and get in line behind the cars in a high traffic situation. i play it like i have a little tiny narrow semi-private road to the right(im in the usa) side of the main road. this seems like the safest, most practical way to swing it. i remain aware of traffic and pedestrians around me, but i'm concerned with safety, not legality. i stay outta their way, and that's all i owe them.

i think the bottom line of the legality issue is, so long as the po-po doesnt ticket us for lane splitting, and so long as it remains faster and safer than stopping in the shoulder needlessly(it's almost funny that this is even being discussed!), i see no reason to stop riding carefully past slow/stopped cars before i stop at the light/stopsign at the root of the problem.

i hope this makes sense; please dont flame me unless you feel you have to.

-rob

ps-consider this while considering legality: if your the gov't made it a legal requirement to wear a bright orange jersey with the word "moron" embroidered on it in large letters, wouldja do it?

thbirks

Gridlock means that the cars are not moving. In these instances you could pick up your bike and walk with it on the sidwalk and still beat the cars.

LittleBigMan

Andy, I read a few posts from both sides. Neither side seems anything like representative of motorists or cyclists, at least, that's my view as both a motorist and a cyclist. These folks seem to be badgering each other endlessly without purpose.

I don't have a hatred for motorists and I don't think they hate me.
We just need to accomodate one another.

hayneda

Here in the US, in most places, the law does not specifically address cyclists passing cars. In many it does not even address cars passing bikes. Nevertheless, in the absence of exlicit rules for these occasions, common practice prevails and is a valid court argument (I'm no lawyer but do try to keep up on it). Since it is nearly universally accepted to pass a slow moving bike via lane splitting (assuming the lane is big enough--often not the case here in Alabama), it stands to reason that the opposite should be acceptable as well. Also, given that the vehicle code specifically states that bicycles must operate "as near as practiable" to the right hand side of the roadway, that gives justification and valid legal argument to passing on the right when auto traffic is moving slower than the cyclist (again, assuming that the lane is wide enough for sharing).

Remember that, in general, something that is not explicitly forbiden or permitted in the law is often a grey area. Just because the vehicle code doesn't address the possibility of cyclists moving faster than autos does not mean that passing isn't permitted, or must be done in the same manner as one car passing another. I think that unless your locale has specific laws regarding bikes passing autos, you should more often than not be able to successfully argue that since cars are (generally) allowed to pass bikes via lane sharing, that bikes should be entitled to the same privilage; and that the "near to the right as practicable" rule means cyclist should be permitted to pass on the right.

Now, is this a good idea? I have done it and will do it again. However, I don't think it advisable for cyclists in general as it leads to greater likelyhood of crossing vehicle collisions. In other words, it must be done with extreme caution and an eye out for the turning/fed up motorist. Thus, I don't think that it should be a explicit rule.

Dave

LittleBigMan

In reality, I don't make a practice of passing on the right. I tend to stop behind a vehicle, either directly behind or to the right. I wait until traffic moves again and go with traffic.

I don't like to be side-by-side with another vehicle. I prefer for them to pass me on the left, or stay behind me. But, if traffic is backed up for a long distance and hardly moving, if there is enough room to pass safely on the right, I will. If it starts moving again, I try to either find a place behind a motorist or allow them to pass.

The same holds true for driving: I always try to drive so that the lane next to me is empty. But if traffic is stopped, or moving slowly, I will be surrounded by traffic, until it moves again.