PatrickGSR94

On a road like that, if traffic is not backed up, I would be in that right lane with the symbol, what is called "sharrows". Usually those symbols are painted on the road, along with signs that say "Bike may use full lane" or something like that. Sharrow is kind of a shortened form of "Share the road".

However, if traffic is really congested and backed up, I would honestly consider using the sidewalk, if nobody else is using it. The most dangerous part of sidewalks is where cars cross them at driveway entrances, a.k.a "curb cuts" in the architecture and engineering world. But it looks like curb cuts are very few and far in between on that route.

So in my opinion, the sidewalk would be a good place to ride when traffic is heavy, if it's not illegal in your area. But even if it were I might still ride on it if I felt it was the safest option for me at the time.

wphamilton

Looking at your google map, I dunno. Probably. With no other cyclists, it falls on you to train the drivers on what to expect.

gregjones

This.

If you do what you are supposed to do, according to the big guys (cars and up), you can exist with them better, and longer.

Most my direct mingling with cars is at highway crossing stop signs. I have not the first problem acting like a car. I wait in line then go when it's my turn to safely go.

At the few stop lights I that I go through I take the lane as if I'm anywhere else I don't care to be pushed off the right side of the road with a close pass. It's just the length of the intersection and I haven't yet had any problems.

All in all, I've been a bit surprised how well I co-exist with cars in my little town (30110). I am the only regular local bike rider with the exception of a few folks training on the weekends. The closest thing I have to problems is young punks attempting to show off in their truck.....like I would really be envious of their belly and their fuel expense.

PatrickGSR94

I'm familiar with the type of road the OP is showing, and very familiar with what they're like when they get jammed up. When you have a line of 10-20 cars queued up in both straight-forward lanes, and you're in the middle of that queue on the right lane, when the traffic starts moving finally then all that traffic behind you has nowhere to go because the lane to the left is also bumper-to-bumper. People starting getting anxious and angry. For that reason I would take the sidewalk in that location, simply because there are so few curb cut driveways along there, AND you would get to bypass all that traffic easily!

If traffic was moving along steadily with only a few cars having to queue up at lights then yes I would definitely be in that right lane with the sharrows.

spare_wheel

bingo. i would also argue that filtering/splitting is often (but not always) safer than passing cars on the right in a bike lane.

spare_wheel

1. when i filter it's incredibly rare for traffic to start moving at anything other than a crawl.
2. on the rare occasions that i see traffic starting to move faster i simply insert into the lane. no swerving required.

ironhands

If only it were 10-20 cars backed up, it's usually more, and on Friday it's insane. I've seen it backed up solid then entire length of my trip!

That's what I'm worried about, if I'm taking up too much of a lane waiting, when it opens up ahead and I can't accelerate fast enough, they may not have enough room in their mind to pass me, so I just take the initiative to sneak my way up where I can into what I feel is the safest place.

Figures, on my ride tonite I have the first "incident". Some cabbie crawling up my a$$ for a block thinking he can't pull around me... I'm practically scraping the curb with my pedals... Where do you want me to go!??!?!

Sidewalks, yeah, I've had my fill of them. Nobody stops at the walk or the line, it's straight out to the curb. Not so much on my bike, but walking, I nearly get run down weekly from people either pulling out without looking or stopping, or making a right and only looking for oncoming traffic.

RPK79

Yeah, sidewalks are dangerous.

memebag

Call it what you will, it will piss them off.

droy45

^I find this is a really good way to look at. It makes a lot of sense. I share the lane all the time and filter up to the front in straight ahead lanes only if possible. Even if I stop at a light and get in line behind other cars they all pass me when the light turns green and were back to sharing the lane anyway.

jralbert

Again, much depends on the law in your area. Where I live, lane-splitting is illegal for all vehicles on the roadway: motorcycles are not permitted to ride two (or more) abreast, and passing any other vehicle regardless of its width requires a signal and lane-change manoeuvre. Realistically, of course, there's a lot of flex in how those rules are applied and obeyed - nobody signals to pass me when I'm riding in the curb-side third of the lane - but I try as much as possible to follow the intent of the rules scrupulously in order that other drivers will (hopefully) see my show of good faith and return it in kind. For me, that means no filtering up past traffic that's stopped in the lane: there's no legal way for me to do so, so I don't.

FBinNY 

That's the crux of the matter. Nobody is ever going to care if you filter up past stopped motor vehicles. Feel free to do, but exercise due care.

Bike Gremlin

Filtering is good if the traffic is stationary. You just pay attention to what's going on INSIDE vehicles: is someone trying to exit a stationary car, spit through the window, turn right/left (you see wheels turning usually, driver checking mirror - sometimes) etc. So do it slowly, carefully, expect people to do sudden things.

When traffic is moving, even slowly, filtering is not very wise. I do it, but rarely on those occasions.

Be aware of your surroundings, look and plan (far) ahead (I got stuck between two rows of cars just as the light turned green, with a bus to my right - not very smart).

I filter on a bicycle, motorcycle. Those who think it's not fair: I filter and get out of the way, try not to slow people down or punish them for letting me pass through. If that's not fair, than drivers should open their roofs to let the rain fall on them too and never drive faster than 30 km/h - so we're all equal.

PatrickGSR94

Hmm yeah sitting in that much traffic while on a bike is pointless, and IMHO would be worse than sitting there in a car. Just take the sidewalk and get on out of there.

spare_wheel

you should check the text of the statute in your state. if a statute explicitly makes splitting illegal for for motorcycles it does not apply to bicycles. a small number of states have more expansive statutes that cover all vehicles.

jralbert

In fact I live in Canada, in the province of BC, where the Motor Vehicle Act specifically forbids overtaking on the right for all types of vehicles:

https://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...xml#section158

niuoka

I live in a small hick town yet oddly enough kind of bicycle friendly. My main commute roads have nice bike lanes or nice wide shoulders and several of the interssections have a bike lane that goes up the middle, so if your gonna go straight or left its real easy. But you still have to be careful.
On some intersections I do filter up on the right then swing over to the crosswalk signal, hit that and wait my turn
During early morning commute hours (7-9am) and afternoon ( 4-6) I do take extra caution. I use extreme caution on Fridays during beer-thirty hours

I will add that even if it is my small town, it is growing, we have a branch community college and last year just opened a teaching hospital. So this town will grow. But the planners are really thinking about the future and bicycles, as all new roads are being built very bicycle friendly...not bad for a logging town

rebel1916

I don't sit in stopped traffic on a bicycle or motorcycle. It's a policy of mine.

alan s 

Section 158 prohibits passing on the right, but Section 159 specifically allows passing on the left, so just make sure you filter to the left of stopped cars, but in the same lane, if you are really worried about this.

Astrozombie

Makes sense on a motorcycle, when you're gonna smoke everyone off the line, but i wouldn't bother on a bike.
I'm having trouble seeing the point if it's a really wide highway? That should be an ideal situation for VC, if it's bumper to bumper then you need to find a more scenic/bike friendly/side street route.

Like the other guy said i'd try the sidewalk if there is no alternate route and traffic is bumper to bumper

If it must be done, like say it's turning into a really wide lane with plenty of shoulder I would only do it on the left, then move right as the light turns green.

spare_wheel

imo, filtering between lanes or on the left is always preferable. i've seen far too many skilled cyclists get right hooked.

spare_wheel

in many areas it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk and in my experience riding on the sidewalk is one of the most dangerous manoeuvers possible on a bike.

i filter on clogged city arterials, not really wide highways. in fact, there are no really wide highways to ride on in the urban center of portland. none.


cycling inferiority complex.

wphamilton

It's nitpicking but I'm not sure it does, since it refers to a "driver of a vehicle". I don't know about Canada, but some courts in the USA have construed this phrasing to refer to motor vehicles. I mention it because I can't imagine it being safer to lane split between two lines of moving cars if there's room to the right.

jralbert

Augh! See, I wanted to leave this alone when I saw alan's reply, but I just can't stand to see the argument made unopposed that the law somehow supports filtering or lane splitting. The Act in question was indeed written originally to describe motor vehicles; when roadway cycling became commonplace, the Legislature extended the Act with a section (183) to specifically describe variances for bicycles, which section begins with a clause asserting that "In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle." Just to forestall further nitpicking, the term 'highway' is defined by the Act as "...every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles".

The act is deliberately unspecific about the particulars of most of its prohibitions, with lots of phrases like "where safe to do so", with the intent to give broad latitude to law enforcement to ensure safety on the roads by application of their judgment and common sense. The legal process of challenging citations and appealing verdicts in cases where the Act is applied eventually leads to a body of case law which describes the practical application of the law as it stands.

The BC Supreme Court has conclusively ruled that lane splitting is illegal in the case of a motorcyclist who travelled between two lines of cars (https://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2003...03bcsc437.html), as alan s suggests above. The text of the decision makes clear that while the Justice believes the letter of the law supports his opinion that lane splitting is prohibited, even if there were a technicality of language which could be used to argue that the law didn't technically prohibit lane splitting the intention of the law clearly is to regulate and normalize vehicle interactions, and that lane splitting is in the Justice's view counter to that intention, so that he has ruled to prohibit it - see in particular part 13 of the decision.

It is conceivable, were you to attempt the same manoeuvre on a bicycle and be cited for it by an officer, that you might succeed in having an appeal heard on the grounds that the Act doesn't specifically refer to the action you undertook on the vehicle you were operating; but given the Supreme Court's rulings in the past on the MVA, it seems unlikely that appeal would succeed.

All of that is a very long-winded, legalistic way of saying that lane-splitting is illegal both de jure and de facto in BC.

As I noted above, everyone will do what they choose on the roadway, and some decisions will be taken that don't result in a crash or citation that are nonetheless against the law. Everyone must make their own decision about whether they wish to follow the law or not, and I am not trying to moralize about that decision here. However, it does concern me when cyclists assert that the law either supports them in taking dangerous actions on the road, or that the law either doesn't or shouldn't apply to them when they choose to take those actions. We don't help to reduce the rate of cyclist traffic injuries, or to cast cyclists in general as responsible road users who deserve to be taken seriously when we raise safety concerns about roadway design or the behaviour of other motorists, when we treat the law as a standard that applies only to others.

PatrickGSR94

Check out the link the OP posted to the street view and the associated aerial view of the area. The sidewalks along the particular stretch of road have extremely few places where cars cross it. And it's the type of area (judging by what the OP posted and just looking at the area) that pretty much NO ONE uses the sidewalk for walking. That's why I said I would take the sidewalk if it were literally jammed up solid between lights with cars barely inching along. It would be stupid to sit on your bike forever in that mess.

One of the great things about cycling is being able to go where cars cannot go. In this case I would take full advantage of that fact.