buzzman

Cool. You're back. Almost makes me want to come out of hiding myself. Hasn't been the same without you.

spare_wheel

the op's diagram was clearly not intended for 50+ mph freeways/rural highways. it was intended for someone riding on a lower speed road in an urban or semi-urban area. it's a bit tiresome to see the "interstate with semi-trucks inches from you" canard come up again and again and again.

buzzman

Huh? "Interstate with semi-trucks inches from you"?? Are you supposedly quoting me there? Or are you extrapolating a meaning from what I wrote and applying it?

I don't know what you weigh but a Honda Fit outweighs me by several thousand pounds and can accelerate to a much higher speed in very little time so when I say powerful vehicles I mean pretty much any motor vehicle.

And semi trailer trucks, at least in Boston, New York and San Diego, where I am currently riding, are not absent from urban and suburban streets. In fact, in Boston, two of the more recent cyclist fatalities involved collisions with semi trailer trucks.

So, basically, I don't understand your argument.

But what else is new?

spare_wheel

and that honda fit is far less likely to collide with someone or injure someone at lower speeds. i simply don't buy your argument that taking the lane is risky most of the time. (in my experience, only a minority of cyclists habitually ride in high speed environments.)

prathmann

I live in a pretty typical suburban area and the speed limits on most of the residential streets are 25 - 30 mph. But connecting the residential areas are arterial streets with higher speeds and these are used routinely by bicyclists both for utility trips (these streets are where most shopping and businesses are located) and recreation (these streets are the way to get between neighborhoods and towns). The road layout is such that the streets with lower speeds are rarely suitable for going any substantial distance. E.g. the main arterial that I use for shopping, other errands, and to get to the start of many club rides (as well as being part of those club rides) has a speed limit of 45 mph, but traffic pretty routinely flows at 50 - 55 mph with individual cars and trucks going even faster.

buzzman

#1 ) Please tell me where I state that "taking the lane is risky most of the time(itals. mine)"?

#2 ) There are so many variables at play in your statement: "that honda fit is far less likely to collide with someone or injure someone at lower speeds" as to make it basically inarguable. Ie. are cyclists involved in collisions at a greater rate with motor vehicles at higher speeds than at lower speeds? Higher and lower than what? 35 mph as opposed to 65 mph? 25 mph as opposed to 35 mph? Please provide your evidence that collisions between bicyclists and motor vehicles occur at greater frequency when the motor vehicle is traveling at higher speeds. I have no idea what you are basing that statement on other than a pile of blanket assumptions.

#3 ) I agree to a degree with your statement that the majority of cyclists ride in environments where traffic is traveling at slower speeds. Though I am less inclined to see it as a total given. I am currently riding in Southern California and a great deal of my riding in the San Diego area has been on roads that approach freeway speeds and with relatively high traffic volume.

I-Like-To-Bike

The OP gives no indication that his diagram for the best place to ride is intended only for low speed traffic environments. The OP does not indicate that there may be any scenario where this diagram is not the best way to ride a bike.

spare_wheel

i did not quote you. and i should note that you have repeatedly complained that i am misquoting you. the use of rhetoric and even a touch of exaggeration is an established debating tactic. if you don't want to debate then don't respond.

here is what you wrote:

despite the preceding vague reference to "wisdom" this is an absolute statement: "involves a rise in a certain level of other risks because of an increased exposure".

i am objecting to these statements and the general tone of your commentary on this thread because i believe it exaggerates the risks of cycling. i also believe that discouraging vehicular cycling is harmful to cycling in the USA.



i guess you accept at least part of my statement since i also mentioned injury.

Let me quote a presentation from the NHTSA:



sounds like fun but I would not want to commute on these roads every day.

buzzman

Actually, you did quote me. When you hit "reply with quote" what I have written appears as a "quote" in your post. I have no problem with that. My issue is that you then, in your response, put something else in quotes that has no relation to what I wrote and is a complete mischaracterization of any statement I made. You attribute the statement you put in quotes to no one in particular so it is easily assumed it is something I said.

Instead your added quote is something you have conjured in an imaginary "debate" with someone other than me. You call this an "established debate tactic". I might call it an "established da bait tactic". In other words it's a way of baiting someone into a ridiculous dialogue far from the actual topic. Pretty much what is happening now, within 3 posts of your original response.

You say, "then don't respond". Well, if you take one of my posts and hit "reply with quote" I am very likely to continue to respond so I kindly ask that should you do so restrain yourself from creating an imaginary quote based on your interpretation of what you think I said and either ask for clarification or actually make your points of disagreement. Or don't hit "reply with quote" and feel free to have your imaginary debate with your phantom opponent.

Since you did more or less move to responding to what I did write in your most recent post I will respond:

There is a tendency on the part of the general public to exaggerate the risks of cycling. We agree on that point. I think it's a large part of why more people don't cycle in this country. But you seem to feel my comments regarding proximity to motor vehicles and risk exposure feeds that misconception. This you attribute to my "general tone". Well, tone is tough to read in an on line forum. But let me say that when I post in here my assumption is that most of the posters in bike forums ride bikes regularly and are not the general public and so my comments are meant for a dialogue between fellow riders. In which case, I assume, perhaps mistakenly in your case, that most of us accept whatever risks we individually feel we may face in riding our bikes. I also assume, perhaps wrongly again in your case, that our discourse in BF and in A&S in particular, is about making it even safer than it already is-either through riding technique, legislation, education, law enforcement etc...

With all that said let me speak to you bike rider to bike rider for a moment. You pointed out that you wouldn't want to be riding along with cars traveling at freeway speeds on a daily basis as I am currently finding myself doing here in the San Diego area. Well, I don't find it too pleasant and I look forward to getting out on some quiet New England country roads before the summer is finished. Pretty much every road I commute on right now is a minimum of three lanes in each direction with added fourth and fifth lanes at intersections. The volume of traffic is extremely high and the speed is often approaching 50 or above. Fortunately, most of the ones I ride on are bike laned but crossing to make a left turn requires skill and fair bit of courage. It also requires a level of trust that the approaching drivers see you, are not texting or otherwise distracted or drunk.

I also ride recreationally. And my road rides in the area tend to involve riding long loops on similar roads or going north up the 101 with an endless stream of cars to my left, frequent intersections with long traffic lights or stop signs and beach going drivers pulling in and out of parking spaces along the side of the road.

Last night I had my most pleasant and what I would deem safest ride. On the way home from work (I worked until 10 pm) I found a roughly 1 mile loop on the USCD campus where I could time trial for an hour with absolutely not one car and with not one stop in a full hour of ridng. The road was smooth and well lit by both street lamps and my bike light and it was the best ride I've had since I got to San Diego---- why? NO CARS!!!!

So, if as a fellow bike rider you don't know what I mean when I say we are at higher risk when we are more exposed to automobiles I don't know what else I can say or do to convince you but it's just how I feel. And since statistically most cyclist fatalities and serious injuries involve collisions with automobiles I'd say theres plenty of evidence I'm correct.

The problem is how do we solve this dilemma when a good portion of the country lives in areas like Southern California or othr areas where current infrastructure means constant cyclists' exposure to motor vehicular traffic on a regular basis.

spare_wheel

1. my added comment was plain text – no quote tags were used.
2. it's common practice on bike forums to simply use the "quote function" to continue a conversation.


since this bothers you I will make an effort to quote you more selectively:


I don't know whether taking the lane on a 25 mph arterial tends to be on average less risky than riding on the right. Cycling is a safe mode of transport and there is little actual evidence one way or another suggesting that any particular cycling style is less risky than another. IMO, we spend far too much time discussing the supposed risks of cycling (or cycling styles) and not enough time discussing how to combat the stereotype of the cyclist as daredevil (or crazy other).


And I don't believe that taking the full lane instead of the right side tire track makes one less exposed to motorvehicles. Both positions are equally exposed to same direction traffic.


And many of those collisions occur at intersections where being more exposed may reduce risk.

buzzman

I won't belabor my point any more than this but look at your post. Who are you quoting? The Phantom Copenhaginista? All I ask is if you "reply with quote" respond to what I wrote and if you add a quote like the one above attribute it to its actual source. Is that such a big deal?


I don't know either. But 25 mph arterials? A pretty small percentage of the roads I travel on, whether in NYC, Boston, Western, MA or where I am currently riding fit that description. When I do have the chance to ride on such a road my lane placement is based on a variety of factors from lane width to traffic volume to how many cross streets, driveways, intersections, stop signs. Certainly there are times on such a road that a more center lane position makes sense to me. But, frankly, I'd have to see and ride the specific road not make a blanket statement that I think should apply to all cyclists everywhere.

Regarding efficacy of certain "riding styles". I think we can all agree that riding with the flow of traffic, not against it, riding on the road as opposed to the sidewalk (though admittedly there are exceptions), following the basic rules of the road, signaling, using lights, checking your bike regularly for mechanical soundness are some things riders can do to improve their safety. Whether that is a "style" or not is debatable. There is an endless loop thread here on VC, so I won't go into it but there are aspects of VC that are useful under many conditions but not, IMO, all.

Well, how do we, in Bike Forums, discuss how to combat the image of the cyclist as a daredevil. It's an image, which I am sure you are aware, dates back to the 1800's. There is something of the rogue, independent, devil may care, libertarian in the nature of bicycling and some of us somewhat revel in that bad boy/girl counter culture image". The alternative being a kind of Pee Wee Herman, nerdy 40 Year old Virgin image, which maybe you would prefer we cultivate? Maybe we should all look more like we just stepped out of the sports pages of a 1960's Sear's Catalog dressed in khakis and penny loafers?

The fact of the matter is when you show up at work and you've ridden into a raging downpour with a 30 mph headwind and slipped on the wooden bridge on the bike path and jammed your chain and yanked it out from between your front chain rings by hand and arrive just in time for that committee meeting your co-workers, who arrived in their warm comfy car, listening to NPR and got a drop or two on their raincoat in their umbrellaed trot 100' through the parking lot tend to think of you as a bit of a crazy.

Personally, I kind of understand their perspective. They drive into work surrounded by metal and glass and airbags and seat belts and safety features doing battle on a daily basis with the same traffic I do and they come in freaked out by how dangerous their drive was. Imagining me doing the same thing on a flimsy little bike seems insane to them. I really don't know how to counter this because, in a way, they're right! How we have have grown to see it as acceptable to have allowed our streets and cities to be so dominated by the automobile is insane. Even if we took all the cyclists off the road look at how many pedestrians we tolerate getting crushed and killed by cars.

The truth is cyclists represent a very small percentage of road users and more than our share of the of fatalities. Yeah, it's relatively safe, compared to a lot of things, and yes, we can reduce our risk by how and where we ride but frankly I am not interested in putting up with the status quo of allowing automobiles to dominate our landscape and wearing blinders and not admitting to the dangers cyclists face due to the dominance of the automobile- it does us no service.

spare_wheel

And neither am I. This is why I try to forcefully defend cycling as a safe and normal thing to do.

I could not disagree more. Cycling and walking should be much safer (see Nations with strict liability and/or non-auto-centric traffic law) but it is by many measures safer than motoring.

Bekologist

its not Buzzman's comments that increase the risk for cyclists operating further in the lane, spare wheel.

Absolute physics have a play in it, as does the social conditioning of motorists.

Have you heard of that ' biking in the Easy Bay' "advocate" out taking the lane by himself on the PCH? Characterized by him as 'worst day ever', something that left stains in his shorts from the level of harassment received choosing to control the lane more assertively than may be required out of a pique of thinking he needs 12 feet of lane + 5 feet of paved shoulder to give him enough clearance to feel comfortable around traffic.

Worst day ever, and suggests riders have to 'get out and do what he's doing' - get terrified taking the lane solo, soil his chamois. Even if he didn't realize he'd increased his objective level of risk, riding with terror, adrenalin, and Cortisol from riding so far outside ones comfort zone the rider loses control of bodily functions is BOUND to affect sensible lane positioning judgement and overall rider safety. Like, when i've been chased by bear on my bike..... not really convinced i was making sound judgements amidst the fear except to ride like a banshee in a habitrail.

....I think I may have just hit on something..... those scared in traffic somehow become convinced they need to steel themselves and ride further in the lane - to compensate for their fear of traffic?

There's what seems to be passing for cutting edge, lane control advocacy in Cali, scare yourself in traffic so you sully your chammy.

-What would the Dutch think of such insanity?

Of course, spare wheel, you know me - I'm usually the furthest to the left in the lane of any rider i've ever encountered on the PCH - or anywhere else i've ever ridden - and I'm STILL able to share the road smartly when safe to do so.

Bekologist

"all over Germany"????


Maybe you didn't realize that's a 30km/hour TEMPO zone? Very low speeds, under 20/mph, strict enforcement of speed violations, limited length. Bikes have always been allowed to ride in the lane in TEMPO zones.

Unfortunately, riders will not be spinning their wheels on many roads as slow and polite as TEMPO zones in many cities, anywhere in the US. The TEMPO zone, like the neighborhood greenways and woonerfs i have ridden in the US, are quite the rarity.

Spare wheel, it reads like you're suggesting these German 18/mph greenways are the class of roads B.Shanteau is suggesting bicyclists ride in the left tire track on?

Okay, seems pretty sensible so long as they stay alert, but i wonder if Shanteau would agree with you?

Control the lanes when they're signed 18/mph and you're riding a greenway on roads geared towards non-motorized users, in nations with 10 percent rider share? Sounds very vehicular, very European!

~Remember - 'ride big' - throw your elbows out.

Bekologist

and i'd have to object to any blanket statements made by the vehicularistas that riding the right tire track doesn't control the lane.

bollocks.

Sure works well enough in many scenarios of riding US roads when there's genuinely not enough room to share the lane!

Maybe B Shanteau and the rest of the vehicularistas are hinting that controlling wide lanes in the right tire track is not controlling the lane? But why would the vehicularistas feel the unwarranted compulsion to control a lane when the road is safe to share?

Is unnecessary lane control some kind of maladaptive, vehicularista fidget? A symptom of something being reviewed for the next DSM manual - characterized by asocial behavior, persecution complex, compulsion for recognition and degraded social interaction skills.

Perhaps.

------------
As to this 'riding in the right tire track is not using the full lane' -

Some of you may not be deploying the vehicularista script of de rigueur buttwaggles and elbow gestures in the most effective manner.

Work on those communications skills with other motorists, and stop getting in the way of the rest of America's cyclists!

buzzman

(bold mine)


I don't understand why you say you "could not disagree more" and then go on to say "cycling...should be much safer" and add the caveat of other nations with more strict lability and and/or non -auto centric traffic law. Do you think I am opposed to such things. I am also saying that cycling should be safer.

We do seem to be in some disagreement about the safety of cycling as opposed to motoring. by "many measures" I take it you are cobbling the scant statistics that exist regarding numbers of cyclists, miles travelled etc and comparing them to the more accurate measures of miles travelled by automobile. If such weak foundations of evidence support your illusion that you are safer traveling by bicycle then I will not waste my time attempting to dissuade you. Bicycling, as you rightly point out, is a relatively safe activity under most conditions and if you are comforted by the thought that you are safer cycling than driving that thought may actually keep you safer.

I am, however, much more of the skeptic and pragmatist, and while it would certainly be nice to believe that I am safer bicycling than driving I think the math may be against me. For one thing, there are such poor actual cyclist counts and often they are inflated in favor of more cyclists for a variety of reasons. Also, even occasional riders claim to ride for more days of the week and far more miles than they do in reality so most surveys and questionnaires are flawed. I think given the fatality rate we fare better than motorcyclists (mostly due to our slower speeds- and possibly our lane position- but that is really arguable) but we do fall on the less safe side of automobile travel.

The simplest metric may be to do a crash test much in the way they crash test models of automobiles. Drive a car into a cement wall at 20 mph all strapped in and air bagged and then do the same thing on your bike- which fares best? The conclusion is obvious. That kind of simple logic and reality, for me at least, outweighs unsupported miles per rider statistics that attempt to prove otherwise.

Which brings us to another point of apparent disagreement. You felt my posts increase the perception on the part of the general public that cycling is an unsafe activity. You feel advocates' time is better spent convincing the general public cycling is a safe activity under the status quo. I feel advocates need to do more to change the status quo and make it safer. There are cities, regions, states, even certain countries where cycling is already quite safe- you may live and ride in such a region- but my experience, especially as someone who rides in a lot of diverse locales, is that this is by absolutely no means universal. There are a ton of places in the US that desperately need improvement and convincing people who live those areas that they are just as safe on their bikes as they are in their cars is, in my opinion, dangerous, disingenuous and not good advocacy.

genec

It's also tiresome to see the 50+MPH reference applied only to interstates... in the west, interstates typically have speed limits of 65 to 75 MPH, while arterial surface streets, shared with cyclists, can easily have 50MPH speed limits. (and in places like Southern California, this occurs often...) these are not highways or interstates, but high speed, wide, (read: many lanes... lots of merging) arterial roads, which indeed place cyclists "within inches" of traffic.

California is instituting a 3 foot law this September... and local areas are preparing by adding 3 foot buffer zones to some of these high speed arterial roads... of course the caveat exists... "where possible..." meaning that there are still locations where narrow bike lanes exist or no bike lanes exist. The latter of course means taking the lane on a 50MPH arterial road, thus using the full lane.

spare_wheel

True.


I feel advocate's time is best spent emphasizing that motoring is dangerous (and destructive of our quality of life). A focus on the dangers of cycling is akin to blaming someone for wearing too short a skirt.

As far as I am concerned the more people cycling, the better!

IMO, better infrastructure is a result of cycling mass, not the path to critical mass!

spare_wheel

Only a tiny minority of cyclists *commute* on these routes. And this is not going to change until motorized traffic is calmed or separate infrastructure is installed (your guess on which is more likely in the next generation).

spare_wheel

Note the decommissioned cycle track and the sign saying that bikes may take the lane.

buzzman

Well, good luck with that!

Genec rides in the San Diego area, where I am currently riding and I'll let him respond because he has more experience in this area. but actually it's surprising to me how many cyclists do ride on these streets. Often in "bike lanes"- basically the road's shoulder, which has been marked and designated a "bike lane". Part of my commute is on such a road. These roads are not just the best option, they are the only option. Frankly, I am not crazy about them. I often find myself deliberately plotting my routes so that I will have to take as few left turns as humanly possible.

Southern Californians LOVE their automobiles. They are their status and their socioeconomic structure has been built around the private automobile to an extent that is incomparable anywhere in the world.

And your comparison to "blaming the short skirt" is so off the mark that it borders on offensive. Are you seriously drawing a comparison between bicyclists and **** victims?! Please, let's not go there in this discussion.

spare_wheel

my reference was to sexual harassment...but thanks for letting me clarify. and i also hope that you will agree that harassment of cyclists by motorist bigots and women by human sexists can have different but equally tragic consequences.


this is changing...rapidly. and as i watch kalifornia dessicate i can't help but feel a little schadenfreude.

Bekologist

ah, a picture that shows 50 percent sidepath use along a tempo 30 zone! how refreshingly innovative!

Just so you're clear, you're referring to a road on which traffic moves 18 miles an hour.

You're referencing European traffic safety emphasis zones signed 18 mph, spare wheel.

Tempo 30 zones. you should brush up on them. Bikes on multiple lane, 50mph highways in Germany will be much more rare if not still prohibited. if you're suggesting cyclists should take the lane along neighborhood greenways signed under 20mph? concensus from planners on both sides of the atlantic suggest 'yes'- but still - fully separated travel options, like sidewalks for pedestrians, should always be available for bicyclists. Especially along high speed traffic routes.

In other words, the bikeways in Germany aren't going away anytime soon.

all about TEMPO zones- euro wikipedia

Bekologist

San Diego has over 500 miles of Class II bikeway (bikelanes) - most of them along high speed surface streets.

i'd bet money on the infrastructure, because that's a half thousand mile of bikelane installed, and San Diego hasn't calmed the traffic any!

Bwuahghahaha.

spare_wheel

i just enjoyed posting the sign along a decommissioned cycletrack (). and i hope you will agree that no one here has argued more vociferously for traffic calming than i. in fact, i'd be happy to make most of portland a freaking "20 is plenty" zone (with the exception of a few major arterials).

Mwuhahahahahah!