CommuterRun

I have found what you describe to be the quickest and safest method of negotiating a left turn. The heavier the traffic, the early the left merge must be commenced.

If following traffic will have to slow, then they just have to slow. No big deal. Nobody can get on the road in or on any kind of vehicle without expecting to slow for other vehicles.

I would be more leery of positioning myself in the left lane to invite passing on my right, than taking the center of the lane for the relatively short amount of time I'll be in it.

The other option is a two step left, but that isn't as efficient in time for me nor the motorists, and seems to be the less safe option by increasing exposure to red light runners and motorists in the far on coming lane turning right.

lotek 

I cleaned up the above post, no matter how much you agree or disagree with
someone lets keep the personal insults/attacks out of these threads

lotek

Helmet Head

None of my arguments were about you, BarracksSi, much less about making it sound like you are a bad person. I would appreciate it if you would point out to me what it is that I wrote that made you take this traffic cycling discussion so personally, for apparently I am too foolish to see what it is.

genec

No one parallel parks from the left lane... motorists have an expectation that the left lane is going to flow smoothly... "the fast lane."

No they should not have that expectation, but for too long they have heard and been "fed" the same old BS and have taken it to heart.

ChipSeal

All vehicles on the road are traffic. Traffic gets in the way of traffic. Vehicles who are on the road first have the ROW. Safe operation of any vehicle demands that it yield to ROW traffic.

There is no expectation that one should never be delayed by any other road user- where do you get that notion from?

If you, as a legitimate user of the public road, while following the rules of the road, slow other traffic- where is the harm? YOU ARE TRAFFIC!

If a motorist slows to allow you to safely merge, and then some motorist rear-ends another, explain to me how you are at fault? It is the poor decision of that motorist to follow at an unsafe distance that caused the collision, not you.

Ha! Everyone has the right to interrupt traffic flow, and it is exercised all the time! As joejack951 points out, isn't that precisely what happens when one pulls up to a stoplight and trips the light sequence?

To follow the logic of your statement, the fastest motorist determines the speed of traffic, or everyone else is a selfish jackass?

Does not the law and conscience demand that we avoid striking obstacles in our path? (First use has ROW) Road users delay one another continually. Next time you take a car trip, notice how constrained by other cars you are during your trip. You don't even notice it because motor vehicles are legitimate users of the road. But, apparently, cyclists don't belong. It is outrageous that a cyclist would disrupt traffic! Why, to think that a cyclist would demand to make a left turn! What a jackass!

The implication of your post is that bicycles are not "traffic" and are not legitimate public road users. It implies that cycling is an inferior method of travel, and it obstructs traffic rather than being traffic. From where I ride, it looks a lot like cyclist inferiority complex to me, and this post makes it seem even more so. (This is not meant to insult, rather, it is a description of my perception of your attitude. If it is in error, please set me straight.)

I am not distressed if I cause a delay to a motorist while lawfully using the public streets. If he doesn't like cyclists on the road, he is free to choose a different route, perhaps a freeway where cyclists are not allowed.

Some road users have the right not to be delayed by other traffic. They are generally easy to spot because of their flashing red lights and sirens. Other than that exception, all road users have equal priority on the road, whether they are trucks, automobiles, farm equipment, cyclists or livestock.

Helmet Head

So, are you saying that although cyclists might be inferior in some ways we are also superior in other ways so that "cyclist inferiority" isn't the right term?

Let's try this... Have you ever been in a social or cultural context in which you felt out of place? Perhaps your wife or mom was having a Tupperware party, or you went to a party where everyone was doing drugs, or you were on a vacation in a foreign country where the language, food and customs were all unfamiliar. In other words, some place where you didn't see yourself as being inferior or superior to others, just, well, "out of place". I don't know what name to give to that, but it seems to me that most cyclists feel this way when cycling on roads with respect to motor traffic, and you don't seem to be an exception. That's not meant as a criticism.

On the back cover of the 1st edition of Robert Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling, there are some words that liken cyclists to rats in sewers. The intended analogy is that although cities are created for humans, rats can still thrive there; similarly, although roadway systems are created for motorists, cyclists can still thrive there, by "lurking" at the edges, and taking advantage of certain aspects of it that motorists cannot (much like rats can take advantage of using the insides of walls, and sewers, to get around).

Given the rats in sewers paradigm, discomfort in causing disruption in traffic flow in order to make a left turn is understandable. In order to get past that, I think you have to drop the rats in sewers paradigm, and adopt the vehicular cycling paradigm.

Helmet Head

You have a point with respect to parallel parking on two-way streets, but not on one way streets with curb parking on both sides. And all lanes stop in order to yield right of way to a pedestrian crossing at an uncontrolled intersection.

More importantly, as any cyclist who regularly makes vehicular left turns on high speed busy multi-lane roads knows (hi Al), the most difficult merge step is from the bike lane or margin into the center of the rightmost lane. Once you have slowed traffic in the rightmost lane and established right of way there, negotiating for right of way in the adjacent lanes is even easier.

Bekologist

not always.

Helmet Head

Perhaps not always, but I've made thousands of vehicular left turns on multilane roads, and I can't recall a single time having any difficulty quickly and easily obtaining right-of-way in any lane left of the outside/rightmost lane.

Helmet Head

Nice. Very nice. I'm sure my wife and daughter will appreciate it too. You're a piece of work, but thanks for revealing your true colors.

BarracksSi

Hey, you're not my fault. I tried to warn ya.

Ed Holland

Good grief! I thought we were finished here.... it seems there were a few drops left at the bottom of the bottle.

I do like that analogy. You have to work with the flow, perhaps influence it, even avoid it if possible.

The "position early during a trafic lull" approach works well and I'm getting a bit more experienced with it now. It never seems to bring a conflict, as there is clearly a good reason, obvious to other road users for being in that road position. Lane changes in traffic are usually OK - it's a matter clear signalling and of timing. Bear in mind, however that I mostly do this during daylight hours. At night, even with excellent lighting and visbility enhancement it is much harder to confirm that drivers have seen you in anticipation of a safe move.

Formerly, on UK roads I'd had little cause to cross multiple lanes in order to make turns such as these, so I'd tip my hat again to the value of experience and its reward, confidence.

Ed

Helmet Head

It's an okay analogy, but it implies you are separate from the traffic flow, when what you need to do is become one wih it.

Well, that's fine if there is a traffic lull, but often you have no such luxury, or the lull is really too far back before your turn. In any case, I think the approach is more basic: "position early, period". If there is a lull, great. If not, use negotiation.


I actually prefer moving left with negotiation over moving left during a lull, because with negotiation you're only moving in front of someone who has explicitly given you the right of way. If you move left during a lull, then you're causing someone (the first one to appear after the lull) to slow for you who you didn't ask. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I just prefer getting in front of someone who has explicitly invited me to do so.

What do you mean it's a matter of timing?

I'd say it's a bit harder, not much harder. And remember, you're not merely confirming that they see you; you're confirming that they are yielding right of way to you. It's harder at night, but only because it's not as easy to recognize relative slowing down in a vehicle when all you can see is the headlights. But you get better at that too, with practice.

I think the value is skill and knowledge for which the reward is confidence, though of course a key source of skill and knowledge is experience. But experience alone is usually not enough.

BarracksSi

You time it so that you don't DIE.

God dammit, some days I feel like a relative GENIUS.

Ed Holland

Perhaps I am separate from the flow of traffic at some times, but not at others.

Certainly, but with respect, this is the crux of my timing issue... see later.

Each to their own. Every rider has a different perception of traffic. This is why the topic of riding method is so well discussed. We all operate within our perceived level of comfort. This is modified by experience and practice.

This is the reason I posted originally i.e. when to begin one's move to the center of the road and the issues in judging this move appropriately. The "right time" can vary substantially depending on traffic density, average speed, and the speed of the cyclist.

Also, drivers find it harder to recognize cyclists present on the road at night. Even with good lights, it is IMHO harder to judge speed, distance etc. of a rider.


OK, so I skipped a step. But anyone is able to ride out across 3 lanes of traffic, not everyone has the confidence to do it, let alone skills or judgement. This is not a dig at you, but I do think this is a point missed by many advocates who themselves are well seasoned cyclists that would not bat an eylid in situations that make others blanch.

Ed

Ed Holland

Its a fair point... I win by arriving in one piece

BarracksSi

Same here, and I have a hell of a lot more fun doing it on a bike than in a car.

Helmet Head

Certainly, but in order to make a vehicular left turn, you have to become one with the traffic flow, unless you're lucky enough to have a gap when you need it, in which case you alone are the traffic flow.

In my experience the single biggest factor by far, arguably the sole factor, in determining when to start is cyclist speed. Now, sure, if the road is empty you can argue that it really doesn't matter, that you can wait until you're almost at the intersection and cut across, and, so, traffic density is very important, but that's assuming you're accepting of that kind of maneuver. In general, it takes a certain time/distance (for a given cyclist's speed) to properly get across all of the lanes, and that time/distance does not vary much ( a few seconds one way or the other) based on whether there is other traffic present or not.

I start each of my left turns on my commute at approximately the same point each day. It's analogous to when you start merging out of the fast lane to get to the rightmost lane prior to the exit you take to get home, except that traffic density matters more in freeway driving than it does to traffic cycling. This is because when you start merging left on a bike, there is what I shall call the Instant Moses effect - the traffic flow seems to magically part open for you, as the Red Sea allegedly did for Moses. I find motorists to be much less cooperative with me when I'm trying to merge in a car across freeway lanes than when I'm on a bike trying to merge across multiple urban or suburban street lanes.


The only difficulties I've had at night is when wearing a black jacket and black gloves - they definitely had a harder time noticing my arm signal then. So now I always wear my bright yellow wind/rain jacket and have no issues having my signal noticed during negotiation. If they have any trouble judging speed/distance, they seem to err on the side of caution and give me more room sooner at night than during the day.

Right. Which is why we teach classes and recommend certain books.

Ed Holland

Couldn't agree more

noisebeam

When I got into cycle transport in the area I live in I first started cycling on low volume low speed roads, before I even needed to get anywhere real. I had no interest in recreational cycling, my rides were just to re-learn cycling and learn cycling in traffic. This was only four years ago. After a couple months of further increasing the reach of my travels I decided it was time to cycle to work. I picked the route that had the fewest left turns from multi lane roads. That was the uncomfortable situation for me. My routes did include left turns on residential street some with multiple lanes and moderate traffic and some left merges on arterials where lanes ended. In a matter of a few weeks these became comfortable.
My point is that I am really not well seasoned and recently enough learned and gained experience that I can still recall how intimidating it was, but also look back and know it took much less than a year to be confident and comfortable. I also know that unless one trys and builds up from easier to more difficult conditions that one will never be comfortable.

It really is no different than learning to drive a motor vehicle in more difficult situations. No one would suggest taking a new driver out in the streets of NY or on an freeway in high speed rush hour.

Al

genec

Right... this is exactly the sort of thing that long seasoned cyclists writing on A&S or even giving classes need to keep in mind. And in some places, where the roads from A to B are only 6 laned arterials... it may be difficult for newer riders to even want to attempt such a move as they are "chased back" to the side by rude motorists who have no patience for feeble attempts.

genec

No, but the intimidation factor can be a lot higher on a bike when facing fast moving auto traffic...

in the case of the freeway examples for instance, one really can quite easily keep up with traffic by simply pressing down on the accelerator... since that option doesn't exist for cyclists, the intimidation can be quite "heady." Glad you can recall those instances... it can be somewhat difficult to look back on such things sometimes.

I know of several cyclists that refuse to commute even though they are quite strong riders and should not have any problems with it... but mentally, they cannot overcome that hurdle. It can be far more intimidating then we recall.

Just something to keep in mind.

joejack951

If, like me, you learned to drive in a manual transmission car, heavy traffic situations were really intimidating mostly when you were stopped. No amount of pressing an accelerator would help if you couldn't get that clutch release timed right. Granted, most people nowadays seem to learn on automatics which take most of that fear factor away but it wasn't too long ago (though before I learned to drive 14 years ago) that many more autos on the road were manual transmissions. Didn't stop anyone from driving as far as I know.

Helmet Head

Which brings us to my most fundamental point: the single biggest factor in traffic cycling safety and cycling advocacy is cyclist attitude and behavior. It's mostly about the perceptions each cyclist has in his own mind, which is closely connected to his knowledge and skills. Facilities and motorist behavior are almost entirely extraneous to that.

Helmet Head

I learned to drive in '71 VW bus with manual transmission and 60 hp. Maybe that's why disrupting traffic flow does not seem like a big deal to me.