hagen2456

Ian + Chris, you might find the following informations usefull for deciding how to ride: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post14987615

ianbrettcooper

Maryland law allows you to use the full lane in almost any circumstance, since the only time you must ride in a bike lane is if it's safe to do so, and since bike lanes are not as safe as the road, it is never safe to do so. Besides, bike lanes are so rare around here that, since moving here nearly 3 years ago, I have never cycled on a road that has one. If there was one, I could easily take a different route.

It rarely happens. In my experience it hardly ever happens. Maybe once every three or four miles, and only then if I'm not riding at the speed limit or at the speed of traffic, which is rare because my commute is on low-speed roads with on-street parking.

But even if my commute was on major arteries, I would always take the lane, because on busy roads it's even more important. Besides, here in Silver Spring, there has been a big push on the part of DOT to mark main roads with 'Cyclists may use full lane' signs.

'Recommended cutoff speed 40mph'? Where does that come from? In the US, cyclists are generally allowed on every road except limited access roads and roads where the speed limit is over 50mph.

ianbrettcooper

The vast majority of travel lane rear end crashes happen to those who are riding in the gutter. That's because gutter-cyclists are far less visible than those who are taking the lane.

And rear-end crashes are the rarest of collisions. Turning collisions are far more likely, and riding in the gutter or in a bike lane make such collisions even more likely.

ianbrettcooper

Rubbish. Firstly, it's not failing to operate under the rules of the road, and secondly, taking the lane keeps everyone safer.

Bekologist

you might want to work on that logical process, Ian. it's a faulty premise as well as a flawed execution of logic.

you THINK bikelanes are 'less safe' despite all evidence to the contrary.

a specious 'less safe' assessment does not equate into NOT safe.

Not one, but two fallacies drive your road position.





wow, you only get passed once every 3 to 4 miles. a traffic anomaly or a real specimen of bicycling mastery. and a very curious backwater pocket in Maryland masquerading as a bedroom community to this nations capitol.

i have to ask, are you sure you're actually living in Maryland,INSIDE the capitol beltway????

this place you live must be a hidden place on the east coast-inside the beltway, right next to washington DC, but no one is driving! it's truly AMAZING to hear of such idyllic traffic conditions so close to megalopolis of this nations capitol- pardon my doubts, but this traffic report sounds VERY suspect.






it's Chris's speed limit. he thinks cyclists shouldn't even RIDE on roads faster than 40mph, much less 'take the lane'. it's Chris' cuttoff speed. but don't forget, your state restricts cyclists off roads only 10mph faster.

Bekologist

MORE flawed logic on your part, Ian.

Failing to operate a vehicle under the rules of the road can unequivocally create conditions of reckless endangerment to other road users.


a rider taking the lane does not necessarily keep everyone safer, there are plenty of conditions this isn't true, like a 14 foot wide outside lane, where sharing is safe, legal, and the norm, and riding obtusely in the lane could create hazardous conditions for other road users under certain traffic and environmental conditions.

riders can be convicted of reckless riding. Reports in this forum (like Ian's) appear to confirm the presence of inchoate lane positioning on the part of cyclists convinced lane control is the only road use standard they ride under.

A VERY small minority of cyclists position themselves bluntly, failing to adhere to the spirit and letter of the laws governing use of public roads. It's likely they will never be cited or convicted. Rider censure for reckless riding is nearly non-existant.

hagen2456

The usual rubbish. Rear-end crashes happen mostly in the lane. And though they are rarer than many other collisions, they are by far the greatest danger to cyclists.

But perhaps you didn't bother to read the link before you answered it? Well, your excuse is as good as it can be, if you've read and are following Forester's advice. But he's plain and simple wrong about the risks on the roads and streets.

John Forester

Much equivocation in the above posting, which I know is deliberate on Bek's part but is probably no more on Ian's part than failure to recognize the need to be specific when dealing with Bek. Bek presents what seems to be an unanswerable argument when he writes: "Failing to operate a vehicle under the rules of the road can unequivocally create conditions of reckless endangerment to other road users." Who in the normal world would disagree with that argument? However, what Bek is really writing harks back to the Chip Seal case, in which Chip Seal was convicted of using the outside lane of a four-lane highway, convicted with the argument that his use of that lane constituted reckless endangerment to other road users. True, that constituted violation of one of the laws for cyclists that do not apply to other drivers of vehicles. On the other hand, when Ian replied that using a lane does not violate rules, he was referring to the basic traffic laws, the rules of the road that apply to all drivers of vehicles.

As you all can read, Bek supports and advocates the view of the motoring establishment that cyclists ought to be bound by the cyclist-discriminatory laws that apply to cyclists alone, whereas many of us believe, and advocate, that cyclists ought to be bound only by the laws that apply equally, without discrimination, to all drivers of vehicles.

Bekologist

Hahahaha.

i support cyclists right to control lanes when needed.

what a propagandist. Mr Bates was convicted of RECKLESS DRIVING , not a bike law.

TTC
§ 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or
wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

John Forester

Well, yes, in a way. Because the police believed that Bates was violating the side-of-the-road law, which was then found to be inapplicable, they managed to get him prosecuted and convicted of doing what he obviously was not doing, and was incapable of doing. That was, acting to damage the property and injure the persons of such motorists as might be so negligent as to run over him while he was operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Of course, as always, Bek is arguing for the motorists' side of the discussions rather than for the cyclists' side.

chipcom 

Paint doesn't make something more or less safe. I mean really, what kind of idiot would come upon a painted line of any kind and think "that could be a bike lane...it must be safe (or not safe)", or "that must be the car lane, it must be not safe (or safe)"? Ignore the paint, pay attention to the million and one other things that have way more impact on your safety.

chipcom 

Based on my personal experience, I don't agree, but it's not a point worth arguing about. I mean really, if I cited some stats that went totally against your own experience, would you decide that you have been doing it wrong and change your behavior? Neither would I.

ChrisM2097

Gotta agree with that. Especially around these parts lately...the bike lanes are usually great, but lately, the city hasn't been cleaning them often enough, and keep letting people put their trash cans & yard waste piles in them. Even where there is a bike lane, I find myself riding in the "vehicle lane" more often than not.

Also, I've seen drivers who are not paying attention, drift into the bike lane and nearly hit the cars parked at the curb.

hagen2456

In my case, I've changed my cycling slightly, due to discussions here. I've become more wary of door zones (but that is also the result of riding a lot faster in central Copenhagen than I used to) and I'm more willing to take the lane in relatively slow traffic when needed (according to "VC-observations"). So not so much stats as being made aware of hitherto overlooked issues.

nerys

"As you all can read, Bek supports and advocates the view of the motoring establishment that cyclists ought to be bound by the cyclist-discriminatory laws that apply to cyclists alone, whereas many of us believe, and advocate, that cyclists ought to be bound only by the laws that apply equally, without discrimination, to all drivers of vehicles. "

I can't agree with this. to say only laws that apply equally to all drivers of vehicles presumes all vehicles are equal. they are not.

If you think a bicycle is the equal of a 4000 pound car your not going to last very long.

JUST LIKE if you think your 4000 pound car is the equal of an 80,000 pound semi YOU ALSO will not last long.

There are different rules for TRUCKS because they are NOT EQUAL to CARS. SO therefore I see no problem with different (but fair) rules for bicycles.

it is UNLAWFUL for me to ride my bicycle on the AC Expressway. this is not discrimination. this is to keep MORONS from operating a vehicle "flat out unsafe" on such a roadway. Period.

NOW if there is no "reasonable" alternative path between two points it should be lawful to use that roadway in a safe manner and the road way should be designed accordingly.

a tyical consumer bicycle is capable of max sustained 15mph for the average person and not for very long. even SKILLEd riders can go much faster than 20mph sustained for any serious timespan with "seriously" trained and equipped riders (rare) able to go 25+ sustained.

I would say its reasonable to call bicycles equal to around 30-35mph. over 35mph they are FAR from equal and different rules can and should apply (as long as they are FAIR) over 35mph the closing velocity potentials create a danger by their very existence.

The only time you should take the lane is when it is UNSAFE not too and when that is the case YOU CAN AND SHOULD take the lane.

if the law disagrees with this the law is wrong. its that simple and it needs to be changed.

Everywhere I ride so far the law "jives" with this concept.

Riding on a highway and taking a lane IS dangerous. at 55mph with you doing 20mph that is a closing velocity of 35mph !! 45-50mph is most cases since on most highways people will actually be doing 60-65+mph

at that closing velocity your reaction time is dramatically reduces when you encounter an "unexpectedly" slow vehicle.

this is why many highways have a minimum speed you must comply with and or a requirement to engage your flashers if your going slower than that minimum. SO OTHERS have the reaction time expectation they assume.

John Forester

Nerys brings up the freeway situation. He considers that the prohibition of cyclists from freeways is a justified breach of cyclist equality. Yes, it is, but it is accepted because it is acceptance of the existence of roads designed for continuous movement at speeds which cyclists cannot reach. If motorists want such roads in addition to the normal roads running from place to place, then let them have such. After all, this takes such fast motorists away from cycle traffic. The problem occurs in those places where the freeway has taken over the only road that served that transportation need; in that case special treatment ought to be taken to allow cyclists to still move between those points. There's no point in continued discussion of this accepted position.

Bekologist

I see. Glad to see full disclosure that you are fully aware and DO admit Mr. Bates was convicted under Texas general vehicle statutes and nothing bicycle related as you had errantly postured in your earlier post.

......so willing to discard ones' integrity and deliberately mislead Bike Forums in order to fabricate controversy about a convicted reckless driver.

Nice one, John! who's got the stash of Forum integrity medals for posting such accurate information about cases of bicycle jurisprudence! Cases where the cyclist was wrong about their belief they can always 'take the lane' without considerations of other road users safety and lane use.

What does the forester method say anyway, "yield to faster traffic?" (the ol' self-styled inferiority complex creeping its head into the vehikular cykling instruction)" slower traffic near the curb", something like that - these are embodied in the five principia of vehikular cykling instruction of 'speed positioning' and 'slower traffic keep right,' which are embodied in all states traffic codes and form the basis for 'the rules of the road'

to have to defend the arguments of the author against his own diatribe is absurd.

John Forester

Don't be so silly, Bek. I have never denied that Bates was convicted under an entirely trumped-up charge that could not possibly be correct. That's the fact of the matter, but it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the reasoning by which this trumped-up charge was created. Bates was not committing reckless driving; it was the others who might possibly have been, but were not shown to have been, who were the reckless ones whom the feckless judge protected.

Bekologist

John,

quit dodging your deliberate misinformation to the rest of the Bike Forum members.

This, in talking about a bicyclist convicted of reckless driving, you try to claim he was convicted for a

but Reed wasn't convicted of a law that does not apply to other drivers of vehicles.


Reed was convicted of a general vehicle law and principles of general traffic laws.

A person driving a Yugo at 15mph in the manner Reed was known for operating a bike in Texas would in all likelyhood get that Yugo driver convicted of reckless driving as well, if they refused a officers order to move safely right the way Reed did.

it's inflammatory and deliberately misleading to suggest reed was convicted of bike law that doesn't apply to other vehicles.

John, your running commentary at Bike Forums has proven itself to be little more than chronic, deliberate misstatements of fact.

Specifically in this thread, misleading bikers in a public forum with deliberate misrepresentation of legal cases involving bicyclists in order to fabricate controversy about traffic law principles involved with 'taking the lane' -

isn't that a violation of Bike Forum (or any forum) guidelines - deliberately misleading and being disrespectful of the rest of the forum?

despite which, the forester bike tehniique of adhering to the rules of the road by yielding to faster traffic and slower traffic near the kerb would have kept Reed from getting a ticket of a violation of general vehicle law in texas.

John Forester

Bek's argument that the driver of a slowly-driven Yugo car would receive the same treatment as Bates received is rather an assumption. You have to admit that such a driver, just as Bates was doing, was operating in accordance with the Texas law for slowly driven vehicles. That law requires such vehicles to be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic. That is why Bates could no be convicted of violating traffic law, because he was not doing so. Bek here argues that the Texas justice system would apply to the driver of a small, cheap, low quality foreign car the same discriminatory view applied to cyclists, producing another trumped-up false charge of reckless driving. That, if it were correct, would be an indictment of the Texas justice system, and, whether or not it is true, it utterly illustrates Bek's view that cyclists are inferior to all motorists except, possibly, drivers of Yugos.

Bekologist

ooooh, such the logician!

-the lengths people will go to play the fool!!!!



just so we're clear - John admits he was aware Reed Bates was convicted under general Texas traffic laws and not bike specific laws - yet he deliberately misinformed the forum about the legal specifics of the case.

The reed bates case involved a road user with an inflated, deliberately reckless and misinformed sense of absolutism about his 'taking the lane' overriding his duty of care to other road users.

Just so the forum is clear - John was deliberating misinforming the forum about a traffic case involving a cyclist in order to fabricate controversy about bike laws that the cyclist was NOT convicted under..

John Forester

But that's not the whole story. The police attempted to prosecute Bates for violating what they believed to be a cyclist FRAP law, but, unfortunately for them, Texas apparently has no such law. So they then tried to prosecute Bates for violating the slow-moving vehicle law, but they could not do that because he was obeying, rather than violating, that law. So they then got him prosecuted for doing something that he could not possibly be doing, endangering the faster road users, but they got a conviction anyway for, I repeat, doing something that Bates could not possibly be doing. Consider this, if Bek's argument, or that of the judge in the case, were correct, then if a lawfully-operating cyclist were hit from behind by a faster motorist, then that cyclist, or his estate if he had been killed, would be legally liable for the cost of repairing the damage to the motor vehicle. How does that strike the readers of this list as a proper application of justice?

Bekologist

since john is deliberately misleading the forum surrounding basic facts about the reckless driver on a bike in Texas it's best to simply move on from the deceit.

Chris516

I have been back since 2007. In those five years, the emergence of bike lanes has been as slow as molasses. But even if a road does have a bike lane around here, I don't use the bike lane. Like you, I find a different route.

I totally agree with this. I have a bi-weekly commute from Gaithersburg, down to Bethesda n' back. I take major roads my whole route.

Ian, I said 40mph because, I feel that is a good benchmark, of where a cyclist will choose not to ride.

Chris516

I think it is more a case of them getting knocked/run, off the road. But yes, they are far less visible.