UniChris

Indeed - most people don't understand how cycling in traffic works, at least not without pausing to really think it through.

And many people who own bikes don't ride them on the road enough to understand how to do so safely. One could almost observe that the more non-road options there are, the more road-ignorant bike owners one is going to find.

Except that unfortunately, a lot of current "bike advocacy" is actually pushing the message that ordinary roads are not for bikes.

Providing alternatives to road routings can be great, especially when they can go real distance without interaction, and if they're maintained to be usable. But what tends to get lost is that any time a cyclist on a non-road path interacts with crossing or turning traffic, they do so from a drastically disadvantaged position compared to what they'd be in if they were already on a good road.

We decide drivers can't safely maneuver around obvious, visible cyclists - but then advocates and road redesigners tell us same those very same drivers who can't be trusted with what is right in front of them, are going to rember to look in an illogical direction to make sure they aren't about to be overtaken by cyclists shooting out of a hidden channel at quite possibly faster than current traffic speed.

I'd much rather ride through the picture in a designated bike lane - but there's now a pretty substantial voice calling for grade separation, or just being resigned to a road remaining "unusable" - which lets the ignorance of how bikes are supposed to use roads continue.

That ignorance shows up in reaction to the situation of the picture.

Even worse, it also shows up in how unaware many users of designated infrastructure are of the actual nature of the danger at each of its interactions with possible crossing traffic.

making

I really hate riding in the city on a dedicated bike lane even if safely separate most of the time. The problem is turns and crossing side streets. I would rather ride in traffic making turns and holding my lane predictably like a car than transition from a safe area to the street and back over and over.

Daniel4

The OP would have a fit over the new UK traffic law giving pedestrians, cyclists, and horses priority over motor vehicles who must give right of way. Predictably there is a lot of back lash from, you guessed it, motorists.

But it's strange to me that this will become a new law because when I was attending driving school in Vancouver, BC back in the 1970s, we were all taught that pedestrians did have the right of way, even if they did something dangerous or unexpected. I remember the film clip with a little kid chasing after his ball that rolled into the street.

I think drivers just need to be reminded during renewals to give vulnerable road users the right of way. Either that or regularly rescheduled re-education.

livedarklions

You're conflating two issues--right of way with duty of care. The child with ball example isn't an issue of right of way, it's about your duty to avoid a collision regardless of issues of right of way. Right of way has to do with who is legally entitled to proceed first, it's not a license to mow people down if they don't follow the right of way rules.

BTW, last year I actually had a ball roll in front of my car while I was driving, and I stopped immediately about 10 feet from the ball (I wasn't going fast). Sure enough, a very small child started running into the street, followed closely by a panicked man yelling "stop, stop" (not sure if that was aimed at me or the child, I was already stopped but he was, of course, looking right at the kid and not me). After grabbing the kid, the man looked at me, looking rather upset. I tried to defuse the situation for him by saying, with a smile, "those drivers ed films were right!", but he didn't seem to get it and kind of glowered at me. I'm pretty sure he was full of fight or flight juice at that point, so I can't say I blame him for the dirty look. The kid, of course, was oblivious.

jack pot 

i have ridden a lot in downtown Austin and other big cities. in Austin I ride the main streets around the Capital and South Congress ... i always ride (under 15mph) in a car lane and in the midst of traffic because it's safer than weaving in and out in the Bus/curb lane ... the main danger that i have encountered doing this is from other bicyclers who are riding 20+mph down the hills and whizzing around and in between cars. on more than 1 occasion sheer luck saved me from being crashed into by these psychocyclists ... head on a swivel plus a "Take a Look" are required to survive on urban roads

UniChris

You appear to have a drastic misunderstanding of the law. Apart from a few "bugfixes" it doesn't really change right of way, just clarify things.

In particular, the "hierarchy" is not a system of right of way. This becomes obvious if you look at the entire hierarchy and not just the first few lines - you'll find that there's an ordering to various types of motor vehicles, too - but one that does not determine the right of way between - the right of way is determined by situation as it's always been.

And that that hierarchy doesn't even reflect any relative public benefit of various modes, since it ranks private cars over buses!

What it actually is, is an aspect of what we'd call a due care law.

njkayaker

No, pedestrians have no right to run into the street without taking care (even in Canada).

This is an example of the "don't run into things/people" (implied) rule. Not a "right of way" issue.

Avoiding collisions overrides "right of way".

livedarklions

Not disagreeing with you, just clarifying. The hierarchy is explicitly ranked from most to least vulnerable, which is why cars are rated above buses and lorries.

Daniel4

Where in my post did it say they did?

Daniel4

Well, you can argue with the UK government about that.

njkayaker

Pedestrians have no universal "right of way". In Canada or elsewhere. There are situations they are required to yield to other traffic.

(That a pedestrian doesn't yield when they are supposed-to doesn't mean you can run them over.)

UniChris

Argue with them about what? I'm not the one misunderstanding their law. Their "hierarchy" is NOT a right of way law, and they don't present it as one.

What may be confusing is that at the same time, they've clarified how the right of way works in a variety of situations involving cyclists, and some media articles may have done a poor job with the distinction. But those are actually completely different aspects of law.

The situations where their law gives cyclists the right of way are either

a) Vehicle-like situations where a car doing the equivalent thing would also have the right of way, which have been adjusted for a few unique details of bikes or bike routings

b) Pedestrian-like situations where the bike is doing something on dedicated infrastructure made or also authorized for bikes and comes to a marked crossing authorized for bikes. But in the latter case, it's critical to note that just like a pedestrian you can't automatically barge into the crossing without care, but have to actually give approaching drivers time to yield. If I recall (though I'm having trouble re-finding the specific cite) cyclists also get this pedestrian-like priority when wanting to use marked crossings in places as exotic as... Connecticut.

CliffordK

As others have mentioned, if you are "taking the lane", then one or two wide doesn't make any difference. It would be tight to pass a cyclist riding along the edge.

Is 1:30 PM on a Sunday afternoon considered "Rush Hour"?

To me, this is a case of poor municipal design. With the convoluted neighborhood roads, it funnels everyone onto the main roads. And, the main roads aren't made bike friendly.

One thing that would help would be to put bike routes through all greenways, and along all rivers and streams. Plus bridges as necessary. The city seems to have some, but not a lot.

UniChris

Exactly, though this is non-obvious to many, and that's the issue. I can't even say I necessarily see it as immediately looking at the picture, as I'd feel it if I were trying to ride there.

Yes - that's likely the root of it though they were likely intentionally not wanting to make neighborhood streets car shortcuts. Some sort of bike-only connectors could be interesting, but they'd need to have good sightlines and not be chokepoints that create their own hazards.

These help a lot for casual cyclists and family rides. Though cities where the roads are so bad that the greenways are also the only place where roadies can go for an intense ride tend to see a lot of mode conflict between users of the paths there. Really, road rides work better on road like things than path like things.

CliffordK

It likely depends on the city. I know of a few places that are closed for cars, but open for bikes, and it generally works OK. One must be vigilant, of course.

How big of a problem is the shortcuts? There are features that can be put in that make it OK for bikes, but discourage cars. Not through?

I've been on some wonderful riverfront paths, that can be like bike freeways. But, not necessarily bike race tracks.

Here we have sawdust jogging trails that more or less go parallel to some of the paved bike trails. Perhaps it helps reduce bike/jogger conflicts. There are still walkers. So, the trails are good for commuting, but perhaps not training rides. Fortunately, around here, it is easy enough to get out of the city if one wishes.

UniChris

I'm thinking of things like a meter wide bridge with a chain link fence on each side and behind that overgrown reeds that block visibility as the problem case for a connector.

Vs something that's basically a short bit of single lane road with decent sightlines and bollards to keep out errant private vehicles being more the way it should be done.

mcours2006

This is obviously a troll thread, and I'm surprised that no one has called OP out for it. It's interesting that someone who's been on the forums since 2008 and with over 600 posts would think that anyone here, especially on A&S, would agree with his views on these two riders. But good on all you guys for striking down OP. The thrashing is well deserved and and even better delivered.

We should all be 'these guys'. Great example of how one should be riding on a busy four-lane roadway with narrow lanes.

curbtender

I used to train drivers for a garbage company. One of the points I made was nobody likes to ride behind the truck so expect some silly driving in traffic. I'm going to say the same thing here.

rydabent

Does it make any difference if you are "taking the lane" if there is one or two bikes??? And again if one or two bikes are taking the lane on a four lane road it is no big deal.

rydabent

But the true fact seems to be lost in history, especially by motorist, good roads were first created by cyclist crusading for better smoother roads. Cars came later.

Digger Goreman

Wish I could remember where in the Georgia code, but two vehicles cannot travel side by side in the same lane except for a pair of bicycles. Ignorance is bliss, but the OP is still angry?

rydabent

Actually here in Nebr we passed a law that gives bicycles the protection in crosswalks that pedestrians have.

Clyde1820

IMO, by far the safest way to be traveling via bike on that road. (Minus any presumed attitude, which I seriously doubt they had.)

As others have suggested: no shoulder, nowhere to go, ONLY occupying of a lane exists as an option. It's not as though a motor vehicle's going to lawfully squeeze by a bike that's riding the right-hand line (inches off the curb/rut).

I've seen two riders, a half-dozen, and scores ... and they all ride similarly on roads that have no other options like that. By far the safest way to go. Creates an unmistakable visual ahead of everyone behind them, so they can't be missed. Which cannot be said about a single line of riders along the extreme right-hand side of a lane.

Kudos to those two riders for doing it right, IMO. Their bad, for disregard of the traffic signal, though that's a typical thing (cars and bikes, these days).

Digger Goreman

Today had an example of who you REALLY don't need to be: Cyclist going uphill on Rosser Rd., me downhill. We pass each other in our respective lanes. A gashole decides it's ok to pass between us, blind uphill double-yellow line, straddling the middle.... Oh and, of course, he had just passed the yellow caution sign that said, "Hill obstructs view."

That's the attitude you DON'T need in this world!

UniChris

I've restored the response history to show that your comment has nothing to do with what you responded to.