Paul L.

Seeing as lane filtering and passing within the same lane are not legal in Arizona except for motorcycles with each other and not cars are WOLs really VC in Arizona? This seems to be a bit of a paradox I thought about recently when people talked about WOLs being VC. It occured to me that the "Same Road Same Rules" philosophy does not apply to WOLs. Any thoughts?

Bekologist

one thought:

when a cyclist attempts to 'control' a wide outside lane, drivers will pass on either side of cyclist. this ambiguity comes into play approaching an intersection, where a cyclist moves left to prempt right hooks. some thru drivers will pass on the right.

Brian Ratliff

Personally, I don't think so; I cannot see how lane sharing is strictly vehicular, as no other vehicle on the road is permitted to share lanes on an ongoing basis. See my "working definition of VC" thread for my reasoning on that. It is an interesting question though. Those members here who favor WOLs, do you all filter up in traffic using the full lane width, or do you stay sitting in traffic?

Paul L.

The whole reason for a WOL is to encourage lane filtering by faster moving motorized vehicles. In the case of Motorcycles this is arguably VC but in all other cases I see a bit of hypocracy.

JRA

It's a paradox.

The existance of a WOL may mean that is illegal for a bicyclist to take the lane. This may set a precedent that could be applied to all lanes.

WOL's support the notion that bicyclists should be treated by different rules from the rules that apply to drivers of other vehicles.

Drivers of other vehicles are generally not required to share a lane while bicyclists, in any state that has a "ride right" law with a "lane too narrow to share" exception, are required to share a WOL.

It's discrimination, I tell ya. Why do VC-ists support something that encourages discrimination against bicyclists? It's a puzzlement.

It could be argued that, on a laned roadway, lane sharing is not vehicular (based on the special legal definition of "vehicular").

Bekologist

there is also greater ambuiguity in clear passing distances in a WOL.

Helmet Head

What AZ law specifically allows motorcyclists to share lanes with each other?

What AZ law specifically disallows vehicle drivers from sharing lanes with each other (it's rare, but some lanes are wide enough to fit 2 cars side-by-side, particularly at intersection approaches)?

Paul L.

It's in the drivers license manual and also the motorcycle manual supplied by ADOT.

Paul L.

https://www.azdot.gov/mvd/driver/mcma...-0129part4.pdf

The last page references lane sharing. Although the point is moot unless one witnesses cars sharing lanes constantly as they drive down the road.

chipcom 

IMO lane sharing is something unique to two-wheeled vehicles and not 'vehicular' in general. But as we already know, most vehicular cyclists don't really obey all of the vehicular rules of the road, just as they don't obey all the laws of the road...so they are pretty much just like most other cyclists, except that they have a thing against bikeways, which is when they like to yank out their mythical rulebooks.

Helmet Head

This statement seems to assume that "vehicular" some how implies that which applies to standard width 4-wheeled vehicles. With respect to the meaning of "vehicular" in "vehicular cycling", which applies to narrow 2 wheeled vehicles, this assumption makes no sense.

Anyway, drivers of all vehicles share lanes whenever it's possible and it suits their purpose. It just so happens that it's very rarely practical for drivers of standard width 4-wheeled vehicles to do so. That doesn't mean it's not vehicular.

Explain to us, as best as you can, chipcom, who you think "has a thing against bikeways", and why you think they have a "thing against bikeways". Thanks.

Helmet Head

That's a reference to a motorcycle manual, and does not answer either of my questions.
Here's all it says:
"Usually" is pretty vague. If a law prohibited lane sharing, then when would it be allowed?

Paul L.

Well I believe that the manual posted before said something about it being dangerous for Motorcycles to share lanes with other vehicles and that they need the full lane. I still haven't seen cars driving down the road trying to share lanes. Usually they change lanes to pass or a slower moving vehicle switches lanes to the right and onto the shoulder to let a faster moving vehicle pass. Rarely to they share lanes except at turns or stoplights. We are talking about the whole road here, not just intersections.

Helmet Head

Have you ever driven on a multilane road shortly after it was resurfaced, but before lane stripes were painted?

bbunk

I found this on the City of Mesa website. It is ARS 28-815.
their nature can have no application.
28-815. RIDING ON ROADWAY AND BICYCLE PATH; BICYCLE PATH USAGE
A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under
the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,
except under any of the following situations:
1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.
4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel
safely side by side within the lane.
B. Persons riding bicycles on a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways
set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
C. A path or lane that is designated as a bicycle path or lane by state or local authorities is for the exclusive use of
bicycles even though other uses are permitted pursuant to subsection D or are otherwise permitted by state or
local authorities.
D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path
or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain
access to a public or private road or driveway.
E. Subsection D does not prohibit the use of the path or lane by the appropriate local authority.


So from this I would say it is legal in AZ to share a lane with a car.

chipcom 

Give me an example of non two-wheeled vehicles sharing lanes legally.

Vehicular, means vehicles in general. Different types of vehicles have specific features that allow them to do certain things...but those are characteristics of the vehicle, not a characteristic of being vehicular.

IMO, for something to be vehicular, it must apply to all vehicles, not just certain types of vehicles. All vehicles do not share lanes.

Paul L.

Here's your stinkin statute as it applies to motorcycles. One could also infer that if cars can't lane share with motorcycles that they cannot also lane share with each other.

https://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00903.htm

chipcom 

Here we go, the wacky scenarios to support wacky theories. Honest debate my eye.

Paul L.

I guess what I am questioning here is the Same road same rules argument that VC'ers like to say to solve every argument. I do not think that WOLs fulfill this definition.

JRA

Whether any specific laws prohibit lane-sharing or not, mandatory lane-sharing laws that apply only to bicyclists are discriminatory, and are as much of a threat to bicyclists' right to the road as any other kind of mandatory law that applies only to bicyclists.

I would argue that lane sharing on a laned roadway violates normal vehicular rules (although, in some cases, special exemptions for certain vehicles apply). Lane sharing is an exception, not the general rule (if I'm not mistaken, Califorinia is one of few states that speciffically allows "lane-splitting" or "white-lining" by motorcyclists. By the way, I have seen a motorist ticketed for splitting a lane-- never seen a motorcyclist or bicyclist ticketed for it).

The implied intent of lane lines is to define areas of the roadway for the use of a single vehicle at a time. Lane-sharing kind of defeats the purpose of defining lanes.

The idea behind WOL's appears to be the notion that bicyclists should stay out of the way of cars. In a paper presented to the 'Preserving the American Dream Conference', 2005, in which he argued against other types of facilities, John Forester implied that one benefit of WOLs is that they keep bicyclists from delaying motorists:

"The appropriate facilities for bicycle transportation are well-designed and well-maintained standard roadways with width adequate for the amount of traffic that chooses to use them. Generally, this means adequate width in the outside through lane for motorists to overtake cyclists without delay." - John Forester

(emphasis mine)

https://www.johnforester.com/Articles...sportation.htm

Paul L.

No helmet I haven't. Usually they put up cones. I have witnessed blue hairs lane sharing with other cars though but I would not want to hold that up as our shining example as most drivers in the vicinity considered it highly dangerous.

rando

this is off-topic, but I just read that Phoenix has 500 miles of bikeways. I had no idea there were that many! sorry. Carry on.

Paul L.

And some of them even have tunnels and bridges bypassing intersections. Unfortunately none of them are near where I live so I have to be happy with what I can find which is mostly bike lanes and WOLs and occasionally a narrow lane.

rando

what part of Phoenix are you in, Paul?

Paul L.

I'm out in East Mesa but I commute through Gilbert and on through to the far edge of Chandler (I-10 and Chandler Blvd) most days of the week. I used to commute through Tempe over to Broadway and 52nd street so I can say I am pretty familiar with Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Tempe, and even commuted to Jury Duty and a class over in downtown Phoenix once or twice.