jon c. 

I've never seen evidence of that. Never seen stats which would allow us to even determine that. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what it means. The majority of roads I ride have no shoulder or bike lane, so I'm always going to be in the vehicle lane on these roads.

Leisesturm

There is in the lane and in the lane. Obviously. Or maybe it isn't that obvious. If we can't agree that most roads at least have a fog stripe we can't have a discussion. There will be at least 12" of hard surface to the right of the fog stripe before the soft shoulder. And unless it is a semi-truck, the vehicle lane will be wider than most vehicles using it. Add all that up and a safety minded cyclist can minimize their risk of a collision with an overtaking vehicle. Not totally eliminate it. But at least minimize the risk of, and in the event of actual contact, be positioned so the contact is a glancing blow. But what we really need to target is how cyclists behave during a close pass. There are no 'stats', but I know that cyclists have died because they could not hold their line during a close pass. A majority of drivers are triggered to act aggressively by seeing bikes in the road. Cyclists think that by riding FRAP they invite close passes. Maybe. But they don't get hit! Close is a matter of interpretation, and the sad truth is that way too many cyclists don't actually know what 3' looks and feels like. They really want 5' or 6' to feel comfortable with a pass and that rarely happens. So when a pass is 3' most cyclists are scared. When it is less than that they outright panic and all kinds of bad things can happen. A cyclist lane center is like a red flag to a bull. By the time the cyclist registers that there is a car behind and thinks about letting it pass the driver has already seen them and has had several seconds to get good and pissed. By the time they are close enough to pass, all regard for the cyclists well being is gone. That should change, of course. I don't even begin to know how that should be accomplished. But knowing how things ARE. I don't understand the resistance to working around that.

Leisesturm

The car was overtaking him. I'll say it again: the car was OVERTAKING him. Even a horn advocate has to understand that horns are not going to be effective when you are being overtaken by a much faster vehicle? Or is this just another example of "to a hammer, all problems look like a nail"? Let's all admit that when you see a cyclist (or a driver) chasing down the vehicle that cut them off or passed too close, the horn blaring or the slowly draining Airzound tank are not about safety but instead its all about expressing outrage. If all that outrage and the need to express it could be channeled into judgement and skills improvement ...

livedarklions

Everything looks like a nail to your FRAP hammer.

If you're riding in a city, a fog line is often quite unusual, and they are by no means a universal on rural roads where I ride.

I take the lane if the alternative is trying to stay safe in drivers' blind spots, these FRAP always people seem to assume you're dealing with one car at a time, when the realty is it's not the car immediately behind you that's not going to see you, it's the one behind him who will soon be zooming up.


Basically, though, I don't think anyone can figure out what you're trying to say. If you're going to keep lecturing people, you need to learn to write a lot more clearly. Also, "a majority of drivers...." is nonsense. Nothing in there makes anyone think you know what you're talking about.

Notso_fastLane

There are multiple wrong assumptions in this:
1) Lots of roads, and I've ridden in multiple states in most every season, don't have 12 inches to the right of the fog line.
2) Lots of roads don't even HAVE fog lines.
3) Every state that I've ridden explicitly states that bikes have the right to the full lane, usually accompanied by wording like 'when the cyclist deems it necessary for safety'. Just because drivers get angry about that is not reason to adopt a FRAP approach when it's unsafe.
4) Most cyclists that ride more than casually (especially those of us who commute) aren't really bothered by passes of even as little as 2 feet in typical traffic, since it's such a common occurrence. That doesn't mean we won't complain about it, but really, it's not going to stop us from riding/commuting.
5) Most drivers need to learn to deal with their road rage. Again, not our problem. It is,however, one reason I ride with a camera. Just in case they can't control themselves.

You're basically ok with continuing to enabling bullying behavior on the roadway. That's good for you, but some of us are going to do what we can to actually improve things for all cyclists, and not just for those driving motorized vehicles.

Leisesturm

Yes, a majority. I didn't say they do anything but they do get upset at the mere sight of a cyclist being a cyclist it gets worse if that cyclist runs a red light or takes the lane. That's bad because upset people don't make the best judgements. I don't ride around upset. Do you? If I believed in cameras I would post a ride video of our morning tandem commute. There is one stretch where I have found it expedient to leave the bike lane and ride a full three blocks in the left hand vehicle lane to make an upcoming left turn. Drives them crazy. My wife has learned to ignore them when they call out to her to tell me to stay in the bike lane. She knows what happens when we do that. We never get a chance to merge left. That's just one example. It's impossible to convey online the nuances of vehicular cycling. FRAP does not mean "terrified to take the lane gutter hugger". But the take the lane advocates never show any nuance either. Every now and then I see a cyclist that has drunk the take the lane Kool-aid, riding like they are a motorcycle or scooter but without any of the mass or the horsepower. It sounds as bad as it looks. Even in Portland, OR. When I 'take the lane' a car 'could' get by me if it really wanted to. Most won't. But they will let me know they are unhappy with my placement. Some will force the pass I made possible, to make me sorry, but as long as they don't actually hit me I'm good with that. I'm sorry you have so much inability to understand me. Put me on ignore. I don't mind.

njkayaker

"FRAP" refers to the "far right in the roadway as practicable" law in the states' traffic laws.

"Roadway" doesn't include the shoulder (which, if there is one, is to the right of the "fog line").

"Roadway" is, basically, the lanes normally used for travel.

Riding in the shoulder (which can be reasonable to do, sometimes) isn't riding FRAP.


"A certain person" is using his own personal definition of FRAP.

livedarklions

Careful, definitions are going to vary from state to state. NH uses "way", not roadway and defines it as the entire width between the boundary lines. The word is defined very broadly so people can't claim they weren't driving off of the way and therefore not subject to traffic law (a formerly common dui defense). It would definitely include the shoulder.

Practicable is the word that gets me away from many shoulders, and also the exception for lanes where right turns are allowed. That exception pretty much swallows the rule.

njkayaker

Traffic laws are state laws. So, of course, they could be different between states.

Most states, it's "roadway". New Hampshire's law is unusual: it's at the right of the "way".

"Way" in NH appears to include sidewalks and berms as well as the shoulder and roadway.


New Hampshire Statutes - Table of Contents

Right turn are permitted at intersections (where right turns are allowed). Driveways are intersections.

If there is no intersection or a right turn is not allowed, you have to be to the right of the way.



Stretches of roadways were there are no intersections isn't "exceptional".

jon c. 

that's what I figured

Leisesturm

I don't recall conflating riding FRAP with riding a shoulder (should one be present). What I said was, in essence: stay the bleep out of the way of faster traffic. It's really that simple. I thought by using a term that I have seen in this very forum that it might help things, but of course, no. Some people want to split hairs and put words in other peoples mouths. I asked you nicely to stop stalking me.

njkayaker

You talked about riding in the shoulder to "stay out of traffic" and you used FRAP in saying that. There's your conflation.

No, it doesn’t help things.

No one is doing either of those things.

Some people want special privileges.

It’s a public forum.

If you can only handle people agreeing with you, you should probably not post.

livedarklions

I'm pretty sure there's no uniformity in how states define the word "roadway" but I don't care to spend the time researching it.

You are correct, I should have qualified what I said about the exception swallowing the rule to apply to urban areas. Even in NH, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of bicycling miles occur in urban areas where places without intersections and driveways are the exception, not the rule.
The actual exception is: "When proceeding straight in a place where right turns are permitted". It does not in any way define how far back from the intersection or the driveway this exception extends, but I don't think it reasonable to assume the legislature intended that bicyclists be popping in and out of the lane willy-nilly a couple times per block, so I will take the lane and hold it for a while if there are sufficient frequently used right turn places. On most urban streets, I tend to take the lane just long enough to assure that the cars behind me know I'm there before/while we're going through the intersection.

livedarklions

I ride on plenty of roads where the speed limit is 55 mph. I do not take the lane on those. I ride on others where I'm basically matching the car speed on my bike, my mass or my horsepower is basically irrelevant there. I am far more likely to take the lane under such circumstances.

I don't believe I can be a safe an effective rider if I ride with the primary intention of not making irrational drivers more angry. If I have assessed that I'm safer taking a head start at the stoplight or cheating up so I'm not in their blind spot, I'm going to do that. If they can't see that those "infractions" are actually making it easier for them to avoid me without having to give up speed, I'm really not going to worry about it. I occasionally have drivers going the other direction two lanes over from me, rolling down their window so they can yell "moron" or worse--I'm not even interacting with them in any way and they're too far away to observe what I've been doing, how is my behavior contributing to THAT hostility?

I find that most drivers are actually pretty courteous if they can figure out what you're doing--I put a lot more emphasis on signalling my lane changes and left hand turns than I do paying attention to rules that actually make me less safe.

njkayaker

It appears it's a standard (or nearly so). The laws are fairly standard (NH and MA are ones I know are kind of different.)

No, it doesn't define how far back (I'm not sure if doing so would make sense).

While they probably don't intend that cyclists should be "popping in and out of the lane", the law seems to suggest that that's what they should do.

It's also fairly understood by motorists that cyclists should hug the curb.

In any case, effectively, what's important is what the cop (who is likely not going to be a cyclist) writing the ticket thinks the law means.

The NH law is poor because it's different than what most of the other states appear to have.

livedarklions

Well, actually riding here, I find it quite sensible--hugging the curb is a pretty stupid strategy in a lot of places because it puts you right into blind-spotville, and this gives the rider some discretion to cheat out into the lane where best to avoid right-turning drivers. MA doesn't even have FRAP, BTW. I do a lot of riding there, and I tend to keep to the right, but there's a lot of multiple lane roads with complicated turn patterns where I wouldn't want to risk getting trapped on the right.

Most states don't have the clearly superior Idaho stop, so I don't think that's a good criterion for poor vs. good law.

One thing to keep in mind is that typical New England cities often have streets that wind around a lot, and grids are not always the rule, so one-size-fits -all rules tend to be problematic.

njkayaker

Doing an Idaho stop is an option (the law allows it but doesn't require it).

For things that are requirements, consistency between states is better. The NH law requires the use of shoulders (in an unclear, ambiguous way). Most states don't require the use of shoulders.

The NH law is poor because it is a vague, ambiguous requirement that is inconsistent with what most states have.

There's no benefit for the odd NH law (other NE states don't have it).

I said MA law wasn't typical.

livedarklions

Sorry, but since I ride in several states, including NH and MA, I think you don't know what you're talking about. FRAP is always subjective, and if you're riding in states with lots of five way intersections and traffic circles, you really want it made clear that cyclists need a lot of discretion. "Practicable" is an obvious compromise term chosen because it really isn't a clear standard. MA abandoned it, and NH has, in effect, made it clearer than most states that the bicyclist is the best judge of it. Bicycle laws canbe incredibly local, often set by local ordinance. If you think they're generally uniform throughout the country you must not be thinking about the U.S.

njkayaker

The NH law is worse because it makes riding in the shoulder a requirement in a vague way.

The MA law isn't poor because it's less restrictive.

The NH is poor because it's more restrictive (requiring cyclists to ride in the shoulder).

I'm talking about the state laws.

Local ordinances are bad. But I wasn't talking about them.

livedarklions

Says the guy who probably hasn't ridden one foot on NH roads.

As someone who actually has ridden many thousands of miles on them in cities and on rural roads, I actually know how these laws work out in practice. There are many hundreds of miles of NH roads where the ONLY practicable place to ride is the beautiful 12 foot breakdown lane alongside a 55 mph limit road (cars are obviously going faster than that limit). Even on those, there are plenty of intersections with right turn lanes, and I have had to take the lane there, and have done so with largely no problems. I have done this maneuver enough times in the view of police cars that I believe the law is specific enough so that I don't get stopped for making this clearly correct discretionary move.

The state law is very clear that you do not need to ride on the shoulder if it is unsuitable for riding, either because of the condition of the road or because it puts you into blind spots on right hand turns. I ride in MA about as much as I ride in NH, and functionally, the laws work out about the same. There are plenty of places in NH where the shoulder isn't practicable, and I never have been stopped for not using them.

If you have some data that actually shows there's a problem with NH's law as compared to other states, produce it. Otherwise your judgment of what is "poor" is not worth much, and repeating it umpteen times isn't making it more convincing.

njkayaker

No state says you can't ride in such a place. NH makes it a vague requirement to use the shoulder (or the berm).

No state requires you to ride in an unsuitable place.

The problem is that NH does require you to use the shoulder when it is suitable.

There are no objective standards for suitable.

If you are not ever required to use the shoulder, then you don't need any reason not to ride in it (more power is given to the cyclist).

The law in most states makes arguing whether or not a shoulder is suitable moot.

With the poor NH law, if you get a ticket for not riding in the shoulder deemed suitable by the cop, you have to argue what "suitable" means (less power is given to the cyclist).

Many motorists think that nearly every shoulder is suitable. That's the sort of person you you will likely be arguing against.

livedarklions

And if you ever rode in NH you would know how laughable that scenario is. People just don't get pulled over for this, ever. The only time this would be an issue is in a situation where you would almost certainly be riding on the shoulder anyway if you had a lick of common sense.

I'm really not seeing a law that discourages riders from taking 55 mph lanes unless absolutely necessary as being "poor". I have the discretion to do what's safe in the situations where there really are discretionary calls to be made. Maybe that's not radical enough for your agenda, but I can't see any practical reason to respect that.


What's really quite hilarious is that I actually ride in the two states that you would categorize at the opposite ends of this supposed power allocation (NH and MA), and in my experience people in the two states are basically identical in their use or nonuse of the shoulders, your armchair theorizing to the contrary.

Leisesturm

You are arguing for a culture of cyclist anarchy to be supported by the DMV of NH and other places. Not gonna happen. Cyclists are some of the most contrarian and subjective road users going. Look at recent threads of yours and the person you are squabbling with. I wouldn't trust most cyclists to know a suitable shoulder from an unsuitable one. Cyclists already have more discretion than they know what to do with. My state does not have Idaho Stop, but I have been doing exactly that for years without incident. To say I am beneath the radar of LE scrutiny when operating in a more or less sane fashion is an understatement. Literally, no one cares. As long as I don't get myself knocked over and cause traffic to be backed up for hours NO ONE CARES.

Use the shoulder or don't, but if you don't you MAY get hit one day. I can't promise that if you hug the curbs and slither in the gutter and ride the shoulder whenever you are on the road that you will NEVER get hit or right hooked or any other bad thing but we have the data. The bad things that happen to cyclists are when they are in the path of careless or indifferent drivers. Some cyclists make being in the path of careless or indifferent drivers a modus operandi. On principle mostly. They can tell you all about 'door zones' or 'bad shoulders' or 'narrow lanes'. Five years, 10 at the outside. That's how many years till I hang up the cycling shoes. I don't think its dumb luck why I've managed to put so many accident free miles behind me. Cyclists half my age have already had multiple serious collisions with cars and with no trace of irony promote reactionary cycling behavior informed by their bad outcomes.

Why listen to people who have been clobbered, as experts on anything? The person whose opinion carries real weight should be the one who has demonstrated an ability to rack up an impressive amount of miles without serious incident, I think. But just know that whatever you do, it's literally all good as far as oversight goes. It would have to be a really slow news day to get pulled over on a bicycle for popping into the travel lane to avoid a car parked in the bike lane. Holding a lane of traffic to 15mph. because you don't think the bike lane is safe? You might still get away with that if you only did it for a few minutes. If it did come down to an actual citation then you were really over the top with the lane control thing. You would be deserving of some negative LE attention in that case IMO.

njkayaker

No, I am not.

njkayaker

People being pulled over and what the law says are not the same thing. The NH law requiring the use of shoulders (and berms!) is bizarre.