randya

I'd be most interested in knowing when the honks occur.

genec

Yeah it does read funny... OK to clairify, what I mean is that a regular wide WOL without BL is usually used by sharing that lane... but that adds ambiguity to the situation... who has ROW, when...?

But a BL gives separate lanes, then introduces other issues.

Narrow lanes remove the other issues, and clarify the abigious issues of a shared lane. Further, you also called for signs that remove any doubt in motorists' minds about whether a cyclist should be in the street at all... and how they may use it. ("Cyclists may use full lane"). BL indicate to motorists that cyclists should be in the street, not the sidewalk... but then BL come loaded with other issues.

Using the narrow lane approach (with a sign), there are no "other issues."

The lack of a sign puts the onus back on the cyclist to defend their use of the street to ill informed motorists. (get on the sidewalk... no, I have rights to the street... sigh... )

The narrow lane puts all the traffic (bike and car alike) on the same footing. Adding the sign tells the motorist what is what. My biggest reason for BL is simply that they do indicate that cyclists should be using the road, just like motorists... and since nothing else tells motorists that cyclists have rights to the road, then something has to inform motorists that we don't belong on the sidewalk. (motorists barely read drivers' handbooks... so that doesn't work... and motorists generally don't recall ever having been told that cyclists have rights to the road.... so signs, in lieu of stripes, work for me)

Lastly the biggest advantage of using the narrow lane concept is that a cyclist would actually have more room on the road in a fast multilane situation. With a BL, a cyclist has about some 5 feet to rattle around in... and the fast motor traffic is very close to that outside elbow. Give me some 9-10 foot "narrow lane" and I have several feet to rattle around in; and if I center myself in that lane, that means that my elbow is about 2-3 feet from the edge of my lane, and likely about 5 feet from the nearest fast car.

Now the trick is getting motor traffic to buy in... to believe the sign, (cyclists may use full lane) and to give the cyclist that entire lane.

genec

Yeah but at the same time you are letting a confused motorist carry on with their beliefs that you are in the wrong place... and that doesn't do the world of cyclists any good.

Helmet Head

No need to clarify when JoeJack already did. If he can understand the meaning, why can't you? Oh, that's right, you're a sophist playing games by intentionally taking statements out of context.

When you intentionally take statements out of context you can notice all sorts of meaningless patterns. Wow, I'm impressed.

joejack951

Maybe we are thinking of ROW in two different ways. ROW means yielding to someone who's occupying space first (in a very general sense). In a wide outside lane, the cyclist who off to the side is not occupying space that the motorist needs so there is no ROW confusion. The only concern is if the cyclist decides to change his position. The WOL makes the cyclist's expected position a little more ambiguous than in a bike lane (I consider this a good thing as an ambiguous position affords more freedom for the cyclist and more concern on the part of a motorist. At intersections, a WOL will do nothing to help with the motorist dead set on getting to the intersection before the cyclist and turning in front of him, but it does help out the average motorist by making it very clear that it's ok to merge fully to the right as they normally would to make their turn. Certain motorists are easily confused (all humans are at some time depending on the topic at hand) and a solid stripe along with "bikes only" signage certainly contributes to that.

My preference for NOL with frequent intersections is simply to reduce the amount of negotiating I need to do while effectively using the space provided. Limiting the space means that I can't do anything but sit in the middle of the lane so this is easier for me. With widely spaced intersections, merges become less frequent and thus less time consuming so I'm ok with being in a position that will require a merge eventually.

My trick for getting motor traffic to buy in was using the lane like I belonged in it. This means no further right than the right tire track and more often being in the left tire track. Any slight change of position I might make to the right would still leave me in a position when it's perfectly clear that a motorist cannot use the same lane. I'd love a commute with all roads like this, instead of a choice between narrow, single lane roads that occassionally widen at intersections or multilane high speed roads with frequent intersections and shoulders of varying width (that are often interupted by right turn lanes).

Helmet Head

What do you suggest I do instead? Capitulate to the honking? Does that do any good for the cyclists?

If you're talking about having a chat, i have done that. Last time a cop took care of it for me .

randya

My experience with WOLs is that (1) they encourage motorists to drive too fast and (2) motorists frequently don't care to 'share' a WOL with cyclists and consequently they pass too closely and/or too aggressively.

Helmet Head

The last time I was honked at was in March, and I wrote about it here:

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/280800-honking-jam-lesson-teacher-learns-lesson.html

About a year ago I was honked at by a guy in a car in his mid 40s. I caught up with him at a light. He reluctantly opened his window and asked why I wasn't further right. I explained to him about the door zone, especially at 30 mph (it's a slight downhill). He seemed satisfied.

Another guy honked at me also about a year ago on the same block going the opposite direction. He changed lanes and passed. I caught up with him too, but I don't remember that conversation, but I recall he seemed to acknowledge he was out of line. I think emailed Gene about that one (it was eastbound LJ Village Drive).

Part of my commute requires a non-intuitive early left merge. See map. What most (all other?) cyclists do is stay on Torrey Pines Rd eastbound until after the intersection with La Jolla Shores. I always merge out of the bike lane and into the left lane well before I get to that intersection. If you stay right at that point, the merge left later is much harder (it's late, it's a slight uphill, you're trying to get folks who are accelerating from a red light to slow down for you, etc.). Earlier it's all downhill, you're going 25-35, there are gaps, traffic is often slowing for a red light, etc. Anyway, one time a couple of years ago I did that, as usual, and some old lady honked at me. I know I corresponded with Gene about that one, either here or email. I smiled and waived back. I never got a chance to talk to her.

For the last couple of years that's about it. I might have forgotten a couple of other incidents, but those are all the most major ones. I think the last time I got honked at by a bus driver was over three years ago, but I seem to encounter at least one on every commute.

Oh, I'm not counting honks at the peloton on weekend rides. We do get those once in a while. Usually surfers razzing us.

natelutkjohn

Exactly, I clearly remember a discussion where HH said in VERY certain terms that he does not hear honks all the time, so maybe that is why he feels he is treated better on the road than he may really be - paraphased of course, I am not going to hunt for the exact quote. Just sufice it to say that we remember your contradictions VERY well HH, even though you choose to selectivley forget whatever does not fit your current argument.

Helmet Head

Sophistic nonsense.

Helmet Head

That makes no sense. How could someone know he didn't hear a honk if he didn't hear it?

randya

that's easy - the same way someone can know he didn't see the bike lane stripe when he didn't see it.

natelutkjohn

Well, I'm just recalling what you wrote man, but then again, a lot of what you write makes no sense

randya

no sense = nonsense

Helmet Head

If something I write doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

All concepts get conveyed in writing through two interpretation processes like this:


[Concept in writer's mind] -> (translation into written word) -> [written word] -> (translation into read word) -> [concept in reader's mind]

Therefore, there are two points of possible error due to translation that can lead to misunderstanding, and stuff "not making sense".

Plus, the kind of stuff we talk about here is often not effectively conveyed through written English, but that's pretty much all we've got.

Anyway, if something that I write truly doesn't make sense to you (or anyone else), please let me know. If I miss it, please PM me.

joejack951

#2 seems to be in direct contradiction to what the UT bike lane study showed.

I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of motorists' speeds and distance when passing cyclists in a WOL or in a bike lane.

Helmet Head

Do you mean TX?

zeytoun

Well, there was this:

But he wasn't riding his bicycle at the time (I assume/hope)

Helmet Head

Sophistic nonsense again.

Yes, I never pay attention to the striping in order to determine where to ride, but I'm aware that I often happen to be in the bike lane there because the space the stripe demarcates is the appropriate place to be in the presence of high speed traffic. But I couldn't tell ya if the stripe is dashed or solid off hand.

zeytoun

Fair enough.

About how many bike lanes did you measure by the way?
Was there any guiding factor in determining which ones you measured?

Helmet Head

I was watching/listening Al's video clip at my desk.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...se#post3980883

zeytoun

whew!

Helmet Head

It was a while ago, when I first learned about the 200' law. The measurements were "rough" guesstimates, but good enough to determine if it was below 100 feet or not. It was at 2 or 3 places on my commute, including at Regents and Executive.

The only "guiding factor" was noticing (for those who need context clarified every time, despite its irrelevance to where I positioned myself while riding) that the dashed section seemed well short of 200'.

genec

Provided the motorist has any concern, and is not just flat out irritated by "the cyclist." WOL work well when motorists are paying attention and when they actually care. They work very poorly when the motorist is busy on a cell phone and frankly doesn't give a hoot about some cyclist. Plus there is the issue of constantly negotiating for position... remember, we are talking fast roads here... so you spend a minute next to one motorist, then another one comes along and they play the guessing game about where they are supposed to be... and then another one comes along... You might be riding fast straight and precise in the lane and never swerve one bit, but each motorist comes along and plays a little bit with the space...

Exactly... So the WOL has "issues" too.


Yeah I play that game too... but there are motorists that feel that my presence on "their road" should just not be... and they crowd, rev, honk, yell... etc. All doing things other than simply drive. I have even had motorists team in on me because I was using "their lane... " in a place where there was simply no other choice but the sidewalk... that is why I like the idea of the signs... it removes that last bit of ambiguity.

While it should be clear to a motorist that I am in the right place when I am centered in the lane... often enough it apparently does not get through... and frankly I am tired of putting on the "alpha dog." It just should not be a requirement to ride a bike to have to "cop an attitude."

Yeah I can put that attitude hat on and ride that way... but not everyone can... and there is no such requirement to drive a car... so pi$$ on that whole idea... one should be able to ride a bike with no more "attitude" than it takes to drive a car. Period.

genec

Yup, have that chat.

Funny in all my years of cycling a cop has never happened to be right there "right then."

Have chatted with a few cops over the years... but usually because they pulled me over. Never more than a conversation though.