njkayaker

Someone from Los Angeles took kind of an issue with your term and you are trying to convince him using an irrelevant example of LA traffic?

People from LA don't use the term "bumper to bumper" in the way you do.

It's not "semantics", It's nonsense.

(And, yes, I've driven in LA traffic.)

JoeyBike

OK then. The traffic on the road I first mentioned was much like LA traffic. Fast with inadequate distances between cars.

Now that I've satisfied the California people here I'm sure the rest of the world knew what I was talking about the first time.

livedarklions

We have our differences, but I absolutely had no problem understanding the point of your story and I don't believe anyone who says that they couldn't because of your use of the term bumper to bumper. I don't know anyone who uses it that way, but I also don't know a short-hand term for unbroken fast-moving traffic. "70 mph bumper to bumper" is probably a good coinage.

livedarklions

All the silly nit-picking about the words "bumper-to-bumper" kind of lost an important part of the story which is your strategy of if and how to ride on a particular road can vary depending on what time of day it is. I have a main road near me that I ride on several times a month during riding season, but I won't ride on during rush hour because its badly designed combination of merging and turn lanes leads to so many confused drivers that I just don't trust them not to run me right over.

JoeyBike

Same here. Mid 90s. I was touring into Quebec from New York and exited Vermont. A lot of mean spirited close passes. Read a Quebec newspaper headline about a cyclist hit from behind on a 2-lane so hard that he and his bike got spread out over 100 yards of roadway. I could easily see why after only a short time there. So I bailed.

jon c. 

I've used the phrase myself over the course of my life.

Probably didn't think of it on my own so I'd suspect it was common in some circles.

urbanknight

Eh, it sounds like what I inferred was exactly what Joey meant, but I understood why it struck NJ as well. Having lived in Los Angeles County for my entire life, I could easily be the ignorant one and not realize that most other places use the term in a broader sense.

urbanknight

We tend to have very slow traffic during rush hour in the city itself, but your experience is indeed common either outside of rush hour or in surrounding areas once past the slow traffic. I would say the slow traffic is very safe for riding, but the fast conditions which you describe are indeed dangerous. The situation I posted in this was before the afternoon rush, in a more remote part of Los Angeles, and with a nice wide bike lane to make it "safe".

livedarklions

Naah, the NJ post you quoted is indefensible. As usual, he can't let something like that go when the person has obviously cleared up any ambiguity and would rather just repeat his nitpick over and over.

Even at slow speed, "bumper-to-bumper" is a figure of speech. The bumpers don't actually touch. I don't use it the way Joey did, but he explained it and it made sense. As you said, you knew exactly what he meant. NJ did too, but he'd rather pretend he's got some lame gotcha.

njkayaker

No, they don't. His usage was odd.

Paul Barnard

Another BF thread has descended into pedantry. Alarming, I tell ya.

livedarklions

​​​​​​OTOH JoeyBike is back to actually talking about riding strategy, which I think is something to celebrate. I don't think anyone wants useless repetitive writing style notes from the NJ guy.

Seriously, if it is going to actually be constructive, someone should come up with a shorthand term for unbroken lines of fast-moving vehicles. It's a real thing we need to deal with.

FBinNY 

Do we really need more jargon?
Can't we simply say something like dense fast moving traffic.

For my part I had no issue with "bumper to bumper" here. Even though I'm from NYC where it implies a slowly oozing parking lot, the context made it clear that was a suburban highway moving along at a decent clip.

FWIW Jerseyites might think about route 22 which crawls along bumper to bumper near Newark, but accordions out to dense 60mph as it moves west at rush hour.

One thing to remember in thinking about traffic is that the linear distance between cars is less important than the time distance, or the number of cars per hour at a reference point.

livedarklions

"dense fast moving traffic" works for me. So did "50 mph bumper-to-bumper" really. The issue is obviously no gap in which to take the lane without risking the next car not being able to slow down in time. As a driver, it's also a situation where it's risky to slam your brakes, and while I'm not concerned as a cyclist with short delays of motor vehicle traffic if that slight inconvenience is making me safer, I don't think it's a good idea to deliberately put drivers in a safety dilemma where they are choosing between their safety and mine. I think you and I agree that lane-choice is highly contextual, and Joey's point as I understood it is that the same road may be a completely different context at another time of day. That's a point worth discussing while the "proper" meaning of bumper-to-bumper is a complete waste of time.

I'd bet money that you would have something interesting to say about "same road different context" whether you agreed or disagreed with the idea.

FBinNY 

I suspect that just about everyone who read the "b2b" reference understood what was being described, because we all know of roads like this.

Ideally, we'd simply avoid them, especially at peak times. But this isn't an ideal world, and all too often they're the only option.

So, everyone will need to develop an appropriate strategy some time in their cycling lives.

There are no rules here, it's about adjusting to each situation. For example, these arteries often have lights every half mile or so. (could be more or less, but I'm talking about more than the typical urban spacing).

On roads like this, the traffic comes in pulses defined by the lights. So, coming off a light, I'll hold back and let the pulse be ahead of me. Later, when the light's behind me, I'll speed up trying to stay in the gap. As the next wave catches up, I'll pull off, then jump back into the next gap.

urbanknight

I feel like half of the threads do something similar if they don't fizzle out within a few weeks.

Tailgating party?
Drafting train?
Butt sniffers?
I wouldn't even mind "LA traffic" in honor of Joey.

Amitoj

Ok this is not exactly a "bumper to bumper" line of cars but still I thought of posting it here because it is a miraculous instance of each and every driver overtaking me the right way!! Maybe it is not really a miracle and we tend to focus only on the close calls (I am guilty of that as well). I hope at the very least this clip gives us all some sense of relief that not everyone behind a wheel is out there to run us off the road.

FBinNY 

IME the VAST majority of drivers pass safely with more than adequate separation if/when road conditions allow for it. In many places there is still confusion over whether it's legal to cross a double yellow to pass a bicycle. In most places it is, if sightlines and oncoming traffic allow it to be done safely, but drivers (and some cops and judges) don't know that).

My experience in NYC, surrounding suburbs, and the open road is that close passes generally happen when drivers don't have an immediate opportunity to move over due to traffic, and opt to squeeze by rather than wait for a safer opportunity. In those situations, I wouldn't mind if they slowed down while threading the needle, but some don't. I don't take it personally, but rather suspect that they don't have any idea what that close pass feels like from the other end.

Of course, there are people who are spiteful, or simply don't care. Thankfully these are a very small minority.

Amitoj

Exactly. But hang around on bike forums or even talk to other experienced cyclists and you get the impression that there is a war going on between cyclists and motorists.

Daniel4

As in...war on cars?

Amitoj

I meant as if every motorist is out to get cyclists, and at the same time no cyclist knows how to ride their bike in traffic.
War "on" cars is actually need of the hour, given how we have been enslaved to them over the years.

livedarklions

It's not a matter of it being a war, it's that it's inevitable that if you do a lot of riding that you will have encounters with some of the small percentage of drivers. If I take a long ride, I will probably get passed by hundreds of drivers. If 0.1% of them are not good at passing, it's not going to take a lot of rides before I encounter one by chance.

Amitoj

True. That is why I strongly believe driver education and awareness is strongly needed here, along with very strict punishments for colliding with a bicyclist or pedestrian. The NH DMV and law clearly states that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure safety of a bicyclist, but not many know about it even though most do follow this. Publicizing these laws and rules may reach that 0.1% and reduce their numbers to 0.05%.

livedarklions

Did I ever tell you about the time I almost got taken out while riding in the breakdown lane on 111 in Windham? Van driver actually crossed 4 lanes of traffic to swoop in in front of me like he was just blindly entering a right turn lane.

Amitoj

Yes, you did and it often crosses my mind whenever I am on 111. Was this somewhere near Dunkin Donut? I am scared of that section even when I am in my car.