Bekologist

traffic slower than you are. sometimes its easier to pass on the right, sometimes on the left, isn't it? and sometimes across the double yellow... although that isn't strictly vehicular....


seriously. sometimes the better line is on the right of slowed/stopped traffic, sometimes on the left, even with drive/intersection approaches.

Vehicular cyclists can ride on both the left or right of slow traffic in wide lanes, shoulders or bike lanes.

genec

Well for me when the motor traffic is acting like a parking lot, and there is a nice bike lane to the right, I pass at a moderate clip, keeping in mind that at any moment someone can chose to turn right or open a door. So I am quite cautious about where and how fast I go. But indeed I do GO. I prefer riding along the right instead of splitting lanes as I then only have to maintain my "watch" on one side. But there are times when splitting lanes is the only choice, such as when I plan on turning left up ahead, or the right lane becomes right turn only.

But bottom line passing stopped motor traffic is our "right" for riding a skinny vehicle.

Allister

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuUXax1LegE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRPFcqdsrfI

Whatever keeps you moving.

ChipSeal

"Whether passing on the right is "VC" or not is arguably a gray area, nor is it important.

What is important is to understand the potential dangers of passing on the right, and lane splitting, and to keep those in mind while engaging in either. And understanding VC principles is helpful in doing this." -HH

LittleBigMan

When I pass motorist who are gridlocked, I usually prefer the right side, so I don't have to merge back across them when their speed picks up again.

Simpler is best.

Allister

That's fine if there's room. Often there isn't, but drivers will keep a lot more clearance to other cars than to stationary objects like the kerb, so there's usually more room between the lanes. Merging back across isn't a problem IME. At some point as they speed up again to faster than my speed (if they do at all) they are going at the same speed as me, and that's when I time my merge.

Bekologist

I find little issue lateralling thru slowed lines of traffic to get a sweeter line. if the line starts moving, pick your side and be there. Even along looooong stretches of congested traffic where you pass the same motorists a half dozen times or more along a couple mile stretch. Dance, shuffle, two step, repeat.

I think its equally vehicular to ride either side, bikelane, shoulder or not, while passing motorists safely. If anything, a well implemented bike lane allows a vehicular cyclist to pass lines of traffic with greater ease than unaccomodated roads.

LittleBigMan

That's just me.

LittleBigMan

I've never had any difficulty passing lines of traffic without bike lanes, nor have I had any difficulty with traffic passing me.

Bekologist

you've NEVER gotten stuck, attempting to pass traffic in narrow lanes??? that hardly jives with reality, littlebigman.

motorists pull up and stop all over lanes of traffic, all over the lane. If you are trying to advance on stopped traffic, a bicyclist often has to weave from one side to the other of the lane, and often gets 'closed out' by larger vehicles taking up almost all space. think 2 busses side by side....


despite your incessant need to attempt to deny the validity or usefulness of bike infrastructure, little big man, you cannot deny the VC traffic maxim that

a well implemented bike lane allows a vehicular cyclist to pass lines of traffic with greater ease than unaccomodated roads.

invisiblehand

That is something widely accepted? Hardly.

However, I do like these new "emoticons."

Roody

It depends on what you mean by "getting stuck". I often have to wait my turn in heavily trafficked narrow lanes--just like all the other vehicles. I have no problem with that, although I wish there were fewer cars on the roads.

But I think you mean "getting stuck" between two lines of cars, in the process of filtering between them. That happens sometimes when I get a little too pushy, but I see it as my fault, not the fault of the paint stripes. Luckily, such slow moving traffic is unlikely to kill you. They usually just honk and curse.

Addendum: I agree that a bike lane can make this situation easier, as long as it doesn't go to the right of the right turners at intersections.

Bekologist

invisiblehand, you do not understand how a well implemented bike lane provides faster egress past stopped traffic that an unacomodated -ie unwidened, un bike 'friendly' road?

it's pretty cut and dried. I'm calling it a maxim. it's a general truth, dude. seen in cities with well implemented bike infrastructure on a consistent basis. why you think a well provided bike lane wouldn't make it easier to ride a road past stopped traffic versus a narrow lane is a frank denial of physical reality.

Bekologist

its part and parcel of the NEW VC PARADIGM that recognizes the validity of well implemented bicycling specific infrastructure.

derath

I always pass on the right.

-D

invisiblehand

Is that a question?

Only if you can get people to agree what well implemented means and the standards that it is being measured by. And the US is in Iraq for things that people claimed were obvious and "pretty cut and dried." If you pick and choose what is obvious, someone else will use the same strategy to force something not so obvious later.

BTW, the text is red is not "a well implemented bike lane allows a vehicular cyclist to pass lines of traffic with greater ease than unaccomodated roads".

Bekologist

....wonder what the LAB thinks about bike infrastructure.

VC is in a period of redefinition in america.

a well implemented bikelane allows, no argument, easier egress passed stopped lanes of traffic versus riding past lanes of stopped traffic on unaccomodated roads. why you think the contrary is more than a bit puzzling, as if you want to deny reality, dude.

and attempting to equate the complexities of the iraqi war to consideration of two straight forward road striping methods? plueaze.....

invisiblehand

You failed to address my point. For instance, can you get people to agree what is well implemented? If not, then you can't have a maxim.

Just to demonstrate, are bike lanes that need blue paint to emphasize conflict areas well implemented? If you think that question is debatable then you have no maxim.

Why do you think this?

Are you addressing the poster again? Tom is going to be disappointed in you.

The point is that ignoring uncertainty and overstating knowledge when making decisions often leads to negative consequences.

What do you think I mean?

noisebeam

The wider the lane the easier it will be to pass traffic with a bicycle generally, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is not possible to pass if the lanes are narrow.

There are many narrow laned roads where I don't pass, however physically I could but that would mean the drivers I passed would need to repass me moments later. Since they were courteous, took their time and passed safely the first time using the adjacent lane, I wouldn't want to make them do it again for no gain on my part.

Al

Ed Holland

Whilst I was commuting in the UK, Oxford ring road problems would cause gridlock on surrounding roads. Once or twice I would met a line of stationary cars, about a mile long on a straight stretch with good visibility, and passed them all riding on the wrong side of the road. Things were so congested there was no traffic from the opposite direction. Made me smile .

If there's a bike lane, Its likely I'm in it, and if it gives the opportunity to filter forward or pass slow traffic I will do so with caution. It's not as if side turnings are invisible - but one does have to be careful. If we're all in regular lanes. I dont usually do this, for similar reasons stated above by Al.

Ed

Catweazle

I'm having difficulty getting my head around the implications of this. Are you talking about situations where a cyclist might be travelling in the traffic lane rather than the provided bike lane, but move over into the bike lane to pass traffic which is at a standstill?

Here where I live that'd be illegal, because where a bike lane is provided it is mandatory for cyclists to be in it rather than in the traffic lane. Where a bike lane is available for use by cyclists, cyclists are supposed to be in it. You don't get to choose. Not legally, anyways. It wouldn't be the moving over into the bike lane which would be deemed wrongful behaviour. It'd be the riding in the traffic lane to begin with.

Technically, that applies where 'shared pathways' are available for cyclists also. But where it's a shared pathway rather than a bike lane running alongside the road traffic police will only pursue action against cyclists who are in the traffic lane and travelling at an 'unreasonably' slow pace. 'Granny' trundling along slowly with her shpping basket full would be frowned upon for being on the road rather than the shared path, but a commuter or roadie or whatnot who is travelling at a reasonable clip wouldn't really get a second glance. That's only for shared pathways, though. Bike lanes are there for bikes, and bikes are supposed to be in them.

Bekologist

My original post works at debunking the 'never on the right' edict of the VC. a vehicular cyclist can choose to pass motorists either side depending on expedience and safety, and that riding in a shoulder or bike lane doesn't contradict VC rules. That it is still 'vehicular' to pass motorists on right or left.

the maxim bike laned roads generally provide easier passage of a stopped line of traffic VERSUS a narrow laned, unaccomodated road is what invisiblehand is questioning?

because the uncertaintity principle>>not Heisenbergs'

between riding a road with a 5' well provided bike lane past a line of stopped traffic, versus riding up line of stopped traffic in unaccomdated road. the bike lane stripe does leave a demarcation, on wide OR narrow lanes motorists stack up across the width of the lane, often requiring a filtering or passing bicyclist to weave or be stopped out by traffic altogther.


maxims don't have to be believed by everyone to be a maxim, invisiblehand! It's truth, not perception! although such a discussion should be on the philosophy forum, shouldn't it???

invisiblehand

You failed to answer my questions.

For something to be a maxim, it has to be widely believed and accepted. But more fundamentally it has to possess a well understood meaning. The maxim as it was stated fails that condition.

Moreover, your statement of the maxim -- which you brought up -- has changed a few times. For instance, in its original version, the lines of traffic can still be moving. If you would prefer to drop the idea, feel free to do so. I will not belabor the issue.

Note that if you are just saying that more space allows one to filter forward past stopped traffic easier than less space ignoring any changes in risk, then it is obvious. Although there is nothing "VC" about it.

Ed Holland

Aha! MC (Maximal Cycling) trancends VC

invisiblehand