What does it mean to "Share the Road" - long

[Eden]

The "Hogging the Road" thread got me a bit wound up....I'm pretty willing to express what it doesn't mean - it doesn't mean "get out of my way", but it also got me thinking, what exactly does "Share the Road" mean to me....

Here's my thoughts - sharing the road is not about any individual getting to his or her destination as fast as possible, nor is it about anyone feeling that someone has been impolite to them by being "in their way". It is about using roads that contain a multitude of means of transportation in, first and foremost, the safest manner possible, and civility should follow.

Sharing the road isn't about who has more "right" to be there.... we all have the right to be there - whether we're commuting, running errands or even recreating. I hear a lot of people who complain that cyclists are just 'playing' and that we should be out of their way because they are trying to get to work, etc... Well, even forgetting that many of do use alternate commutes, recreation is a valid use of the roads... if you believe you have more right to be there to go to work or make your delivery, then perhaps the next time you decide to go to the movies, pop to the store just to get a pint of ice cream in your car, or just go for a drive somewhere pretty, you should be sure to move over for everyone who has a serious and valid reason for being there.... just saying....

anyway

as a cyclist

I will ride predictably and follow the rules of the road.

I won't block your way without reason. I will ride to the right when it is safe for me to do so. I'll use a bike lane or shoulder if it is contiguous, free of parked cars, copious pot holes, gravel or debris or other obstacles. I may choose to not use these areas if the above conditions apply. I may choose to occupy an entire lane of travel if I feel it is necessary.

I get to determine what is safe and what is not safe. I may be able to see things that you may not. I may have different tolerances for different situations than you do. I know the limitations of my equipment and physiology better than you do.

I will use lights and reflectors - lots of them. I want you to see me.

I will be respectful of pedestrians.

what I expect from motorists (and how I behave when driving)

I will drive predictably and follow the rules of the road.

I won't harass other road users - if they are going more slowly than I would like to go, I will wait until it is safe to pass and then I will do so. Even if annoyed, I will not tailgate, honk, yell, flash lights etc. I will not pass recklessly. I will wait until I can see far enough and until I have enough space to go all of the way around you. I will not attempt to pass you at all if your speed is reasonable for the conditions - regardless of the speed limit.

I won't take your turn at a 4 way intersection, just because I think I can accelerate faster than you....

I will be respectful of pedestrians.

I will remember that some road users are more vulnerable than I am and that I should exercise extra caution around them. I will not be upset at them for existing, nor will I call for their banishment from "my" roads for simply because I do not wish to be inconvenienced or to have to be properly careful.

I will freely admit I put more onus on drivers - because they have the bigger, more dangerous vehicle and therefore the greater responsibility. The bigger the vehicle the bigger the onus. Were it not this way we'd have dedicated super, super highways for big trucks, that wouldn't allow little cars and on other roads call for them to all move out of the way when a big truck wanted to get through... Of course not... we put more restrictions on big trucks to make them safer - in this state at least, they often have a lower speed limit and have to stay in the right most lane(s) on many highways, they have safety checks and have to be weighed - they have a lot more burden to operate safely.

I think that if drivers could be counted on to operate like this reliably, that in turn you'd find more cyclists would be more willing to give more too.... I know that I personally take more space on a road the more I am buzzed... on a shoulder-less road I may start out fairly near the fog line. If people are polite and passing safely I'll likely stay there. If I find motorists are buzzing by me because they can, I'll likely take up more of the lane to prevent that behavior, not because I want to punish them, but because I want to save my own skin...

feel free to agree/disagree, add....

[OakLeaf]

If you don't mind I'd like to borrow that for a Facebook post.

But if I do, I'm going to take out the part about cars not attempting to pass. If I can pass safely without cutting the person off, then I will. Even if I have to speed to get around someone, it's safer to be driving at my own speed than following someone at theirs. At best, I won't be able to see a lot of road hazards in front of them. At worst, staring at their bumper will make it difficult for me to maintain attention where it needs to be, which includes their bumper, but also everywhere else.

[Eden]

Feel free to use it.

What I mean about passing is when the conditions are bad - say its slippery or visibility is limited, I don't pass someone just to do the speed limit and I don't get worked up because they have slowed... I'm OK with it when someone slows down for a good reason....

[oz rider]

Nicely put Eden. I ride wider now than I used to, because being 'polite' just encourages dangerous overtaking.

The capacity to inure others is exactly what Europe's 'strict liability' laws reflect. You hit a cyclist or a ped in those countries and you're in serious trouble.

[OakLeaf]

Shared.

I added this, a big pet peeve of mine:

As a motorist ...

I WILL take MY turn at a 4-way intersection, and not endanger you and myself by waving you through when I have the right of way.

[TxDoc]

Thank you Eden, this was interesting.

[Crankin]

Oak, I wish there was a way to get people in my state to understand what you said about 4 way stop signs. People here have no idea what to do. If one driver is approaching a 4 way stop and gets to the sign before another driver, s/he most often will come to a stop and instead of going on, as the law states, the driver will wait until the other driver has come to a complete stop. Sometimes, there are 4 cars at the intersection, just stopped, with the drivers all staring at each other, waving their hands, saying "you go." They think they are being nice, but it's dangerous. It's bad enough in a car. When you are on a bike, it's harder to tell what the drivers will do.
I live near a very busy 4 way stop sign. It's a pain to have to second guess everyone. This seemed to work automatically in AZ.

[Eden]

I guess I figured "take your turn when you have the right of way" was covered by behave predictably and follow the rules of the road - but yes - I so much agree and it probably does deserve a special call out, because it happens a fair amount and it does seem quite dangerous.

Just the other night a group of us had a guy stop at a *green* light while we were waiting in the turn lane to turn left..... (we had a yield on solid green sign) - I kept waiting for him to get rear ended or for someone to come around him because they couldn't figure out why in the world he was just stopped there looking a a green light...

[PamNY]

I would add something about cyclists being respectful to other cyclists, and watching out for vulnerable pedestrians (wheelchairs and the like). Cyclists are every bit as bad as auto drivers at being impatient with slower cyclists. The temptation to weave through crowds of pedestrians is greater for cyclists simply because bikes are smaller than cars.

Since riding on sidewalks is a big issue in some places, I'd give some thought to including that -- but technically, it doesn't fall under "sharing the road."

I'd suggest finding another way to express the idea the the cyclist decides what is safe. I know what you mean, but if New York City cyclists were suddenly put in charge of deciding what is safe, I'd never, under any circumstances, leave my home.

It depends on who your audience is, of course. But I don't think the average person would have any idea what that actually means. Having said that, though, I can't think of a better way to phrase it right now.

[smilingcat]

Thank you Eden!!

Very nicely said. Very thoughtful.

smilingcat

[Eden]

What I mean is that the person who is on the bike at that moment - the one who's neck is on the line has the right to decide - can I ride through that pothole or will it make me fall, is this shoulder too dirty, am I too close to these car doors, is this lane wide enough to share or do I need to take it, etc. No one else should get to decide that for you...

I have one to add (for both).... some people may not like this or agree with this one, but it is something I personally follow...

I will pay attention to what I'm doing. If I am on a bike I will keep my eyes *and* my ears open - no cell, no headphones. If I am driving I will not use even a hands free cell device and I certainly will NEVER text while driving.

[PamNY]

I have one to add (for both).... some people may not like this or agree with this one, but it is something I personally follow...

I will pay attention to what I'm doing. If I am on a bike I will keep my eyes *and* my ears open - no cell, no headphones. If I am driving I will not use even a hands free cell device and I certainly will NEVER text while driving.

I think adding cellphones/headphones is a good idea. Bikesnob had a photo of a Xootr rider today using a cellphone. While going the wrong way.

[Biciclista]

nice, Eden.
I too was very disturbed by that thread.
@Crankin re 4way stops in MA, it's probably because for so many years that was the only way people got through intersections. I can remember the same sort of thing in NJ 40+ years ago. "You go, no, it's okay, YOU go, no, really, go ahead!"
Out here in the west, perhaps we didn't have the volume before the 4 way signs appeared. On the east coast, you already had the volume of people having to decide by themselves when it was best to go.

[spokewench]

Lovely post!

[radacrider]

Thanks, Eden.

[arielmoon]

Well said Eden.

[kfergos]

This is very well put. I think it would be interesting to see if people would actually sign a pledge along those lines. If this went to a wider bike audience, I suspect "I will obey the rules of the road" would come under intense scrutiny and debate. The age-old stop sign argument would crop up again. If you don't mind, I'll see about putting a version of this up on the Bike Alliance of Wa's blog and see what happens. :rolleyes:

[Eden]

Feel free to use it.

(congrats on getting Lucy's bike by the way :D - it's got fast rubbed off on it by its former owner ;))

[kfergos]

Feel free to use it.

(congrats on getting Lucy's bike by the way :D - it's got fast rubbed off on it by its former owner ;))Thanks!

We should get together for another ride now that I'm more accustomed to the Seattle hills...

[Catrin]

I also shared this on my FB page, thank you for this very good and thoughtful list!

[Eden]

As far as the rules of the road go - here's how I feel about it. If a law is in place we need to heed it, because that is what is expected - it is part of "be predictable". That doesn't mean that we cannot disagree with it, and in turn fight to have it changed.

If you don't agree with the stop sign law, simply ignoring it doesn't help anyone. Ignoring it angers motorists and paints with a broad brush that somehow all cyclists are law breakers and that we do tons of terrible stuff that ties up traffic and endangers everyone - which we all know is not true... If you disagree and you think the Idaho stop law is better, then fight for it - things aren't going to change on their own. If you don't know how to fight for it yourself, help someone who does.

[PamNY]

If you disagree and you think the Idaho stop law is better, then fight for it - things aren't going to change on their own. If you don't know how to fight for it yourself, help someone who does.

A lot of things that cyclists want to do -- weaving between cars, for example, or not allowing room when passing a slower cyclist -- aren't likely to be codified into a law.

What I see is a generalized belief that bikes shouldn't be governed by the same laws as cars. It's more a change in attitudes that's needed. Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

[indigoiis]

Where I live, there are a lot of students and messengers who think for some reason because they are young and hip and relatively cute, they can ride against traffic, helmetless, lightless, through stop signs, etc. It bugs me but then I am not sure if it is the crotchety old adult in me or the worry that they are giving all cyclists a bad name.

[PamNY]

Where I live, there are a lot of students and messengers who think for some reason because they are young and hip and relatively cute, they can ride against traffic, helmetless, lightless, through stop signs, etc. It bugs me but then I am not sure if it is the crotchety old adult in me or the worry that they are giving all cyclists a bad name.

I would suggest being bugged because it's dangerous.

[OakLeaf]

Where I live, there are a lot of students and messengers who think for some reason because they are young and hip and relatively cute, they can ride against traffic, helmetless, lightless, through stop signs, etc. It bugs me but then I am not sure if it is the crotchety old adult in me or the worry that they are giving all cyclists a bad name.

Where I live, there are a lot of middle-aged, poorly dressed, strikingly unattractive people (mostly men) who think that they can ride against traffic, helmetless, lightless, through stop signs, and on the freeway.

It's got nothing to do with young, hip, or cute. Some people just have no sense, some people have no fear, and when you put those two things together it's really scary for the rest of us.

[kfergos]

As far as the rules of the road go - here's how I feel about it. If a law is in place we need to heed it, because that is what is expected - it is part of "be predictable". That doesn't mean that we cannot disagree with it, and in turn fight to have it changed.

If you don't agree with the stop sign law, simply ignoring it doesn't help anyone. Ignoring it angers motorists and paints with a broad brush that somehow all cyclists are law breakers and that we do tons of terrible stuff that ties up traffic and endangers everyone - which we all know is not true... If you disagree and you think the Idaho stop law is better, then fight for it - things aren't going to change on their own. If you don't know how to fight for it yourself, help someone who does.I think that at the heart of that debate is the question: Should bicyclist have to follow the same rules as motorists? Ever since John Forester wrote Effective Cycling, the majority of bicycle advocates have fought for bicyclists to have all the same "rights and responsibilities" -- a phrase you hear often -- as motorists. I haven't heard much cogent discussion about why bicyclists should (or should not) follow the same rules as motorists. We're hybrid vehicles, fast as cars sometimes but almost as maneuverable as pedestrians. Why should we be treated exactly the same as motor vehicles, when we aren't? (This is a genuine question: I'm not settled, myself, on where bikes should fit in the scheme of laws governing road users.)

The LCI training talks about how it's much safer for bicycles to act as cars. From a predictability standpoint, I can see it. Motorists don't need any special training to anticipate what a bicyclist will do if the bicyclist is following the same rules as the motorist. I confidently bicycle on the existing road infrastructure following the same rules I do when driving. But then you have the typical problem that you encounter when a multi-use path crosses a road. Who gets priority? And precisely because bicyclists aren't motorists -- because we have different concerns, like not losing momentum and having to go slow up hills -- I can also see how it might be valuable for bicyclists to have different rules, like the Idaho stop law. And, frankly, many, many bicyclists are fearful of riding on the road with cars. Very few are going to feel confident taking the lane or moving across three lanes of traffic into a left turn lane. Legitimate fears of cars aren't really addressed with the injunction, "Just ride the same way you'd drive a car." That fear confines lots of people to sidewalks and multi-use trails, which aren't necessarily safer but feel like they are.

Back in September I rode with an LCI in Spokane. She's a fabulous lady, but she drove me NUTS by adhering rigidly to every single law. She put her foot down and looked right-left-right at every stop sign before going, even on totally deserted neighborhood streets. She refused to let motorists wave her on, but insisted they go if they had the right of way. After a while, I confess I started yearning to ride through stop signs just out of craziness. Her example actually made me start thinking about whether that kind of legalism was desirable. It's certainly what the League of American Bicyclists instructs their LCIs to teach in all their classes. I've actually really relaxed my stance on many aspects of the "rights & responsibilities" thing as a result of riding with her, so now I'm probably a bit lax according to the League's standards. I even ride through stop signs on occasion (gasp! don't tell my bike students) :rolleyes:.

[OakLeaf]

Now, see, I'm the opposite (and I've never taken an LCI course yet).

I totally agree about the stop signs - and it's not just momentum, it's control - that issue applies equally to motorcycles and bicycles. Maybe that particular law should be different for two-wheeled vehicles regardless of whether they have a motor.

But from a political standpoint, the absolute worst thing we could do is set ourselves apart even more.

As far as being waved through a stop, that's just DANGEROUS. I refuse to accept it because I don't want to be flattened by a motorist other than the one who's doing the waving, and I don't particularly want to witness that motorist getting rear-ended, either. I will sit there for however long it takes for them to take their right of way.

[Eden]

Nah - I think it would be silly to require cyclists to follow the *exact same* rules as motorists..... we aren't after all cars

In many ways we already don't - for instance here in Washington (check your local laws... not all of these apply everywhere):

we don't need a license, nor do we have to register our vehicle

we don't have to have seat belts, turn signal lights or other safety equipment that only makes sense in cars

depending on the jurisdiction, we can use sidewalks and crosswalks

we are allowed to travel on the shoulder of the road

we are allowed to drink and cycle (really! - if the cops think you are a danger to yourself they can impound your bike and offer you a ride home, but you *cannot* get a DUI on a bike here - which in itself is *very* interesting.... it sets a precedent that recognizes that cycling is not inherently dangerous to others....)

I know there are other things - when you look at the RCW's you'll notice that sometimes they specifically say *motor* vehicles, rather than just vehicles in certain codes

Personally I'd support an Idaho stop law. I tend to track stand stop signs myself and only put a foot down if I need to stop for a fair amount of time. Technically its not illegal..... as long as you come to a full stop at some point.... Then again, I also tend to try to use bigger streets with lights rather than smaller ones with a ton of stops....

It may sound counter-intuitive to some people, but I often feel safer on a bigger 4 lane street with faster flowing traffic than I do on a smaller street. The bigger ones with extra lanes have plenty of room for impatient people to pass, tend to have lights rather than stop signs - and fewer of them, they tend to have *no* on street parking, which hides short me very well from traffic on side streets. On smaller streets I often feel the need to go much slower because many of the intersections are uncontrolled, the road has less room for passing and I am a lot more hidden.

[laura*]

It may sound counter-intuitive to some people, but I often feel safer on a bigger 4 lane street with faster flowing traffic than I do on a smaller street.

I've found the same thing. For a certain commute, I've had the option of winding through residential neighborhoods, or taking the 6 to 10* lane main thoroughfare. Both have on street parking, but the residential area requires constant vigilance for vehicles that may suddenly pull out of a driveway. Or the child chasing a ball into the street.

* A merge lane, three through lanes, two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a right turn lane.

[OakLeaf]

DH asked me yesterday whether he did the right thing in a traffic situation yesterday, on his motorcycle.

The road he was on was six lanes (three in each direction) plus a continguous bike lane. Midway between intersections, the rightmost motor vehicle lane becomes a turning lane. There's a right turn arrow in the MV lane, an adjacent STRAIGHT arrow in the bike lane, then there's a short break in the bike lane before it resumes adjacent to the middle MV lane, the rightmost one that will go straight through the intersection.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_3vDkQwuSTy0/TT1p79y3AgI/AAAAAAAAASg/qYa2pIqFf6o/intersection.jpg


(I love Google Maps...)

So DH is approaching the intersection intending to turn right. (Not the parking lot entrance in the foreground ... he would be turning at the intersection with the traffic light that's just visible ahead.) Two cyclists are ahead of him, intending to go straight. They merge over to their proper position a bit *before* the bike lane resumes in that position - riding near the white line in what will be their bike lane as soon as it resumes. IOW, he reached them opposite the parking lot entrance.

DH asked me whether it was okay to have passed them on the right, in that situation. I told him definitely yes - same as he would pass a slower motor vehicle. It's what he had done, and he was glad that I affirmed it. But the fact that he wasn't sure was sort of an eye-opener. He's been a motorcyclist for decades, and he thinks and talks and reads about traffic safety, and traffic flow, just about every day. If he isn't 100% sure how to ride/drive around bicyclists, then nobody is, and it just points up the crying need for better drivers' ed.


ETA:

Now that I think about it, it's also a great illustration why the rules need to be the same for everyone. We're all in the road together, and if the rules are different for, say, blue vehicles, but I've only ever driven a white vehicle, I might not know the rules for blue vehicles. "Predictable" means OTHER road users know what I'm going to do, and if they have no reason to know the rules that I'm operating by, they have no way to predict my behavior. Equipment regulation is one thing (there are also different equipment regulations for different classes of motor vehicles) and lane restriction is one thing (there are also lane restrictions for different classes of motor vehicles), but as far as right of way and traffic control devices, it totally needs to be the same.

Eden, I find it VERY surprising that OVI isn't a crime on a bici in your state. I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure you're in the minority there. I know it's a crime in Florida and Ohio.


Edit again:

"Same rules for everyone" is also TOTALLY relevant to the four-way-stop situation (or even the situation where automobile drivers with NO traffic control device, or with a green light, will stop out of the blue and attempt to yield to a bicyclist who has a stop sign or red light). I do the California stops when I believe it's safe, I freely admit it, but I'd MUCH rather continue to take my chances with getting a ticket, than take my chances with automobile drivers who would be even MORE confused than they are now, about who has the right-of-way. Honestly, I think the California stop issue is a non-issue. If I didn't see the cop who wound up giving me a ticket for blowing the traffic control device, then I have absolutely no right to claim that I WOULD have seen a vehicle with the right-of-way that might have flattened me.

[Eden]

Eden, I find it VERY surprising that OVI isn't a crime on a bici in your state. I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure you're in the minority there. I know it's a crime in Florida and Ohio.

To tell you the truth it surprised me too, but I'm from the east coast, which tends to be a bit more straight laced.....Public drunkenness (though having an open container is) isn't a crime here either. If you are dead drunk and wandering down the street, if you aren't explicitly breaking any laws or being an active danger to yourself, you cannot be picked up. Again, the police can ask you if you want a ride home or if you need to go to a hospital, but if you refuse they have to leave you alone....

What that says to me is that some law maker sometime recognized that a bicycle is not an inherently dangerous machine to the general public. They can take it away (its just impounded - no fines or fees to get it back) if you are going to hurt yourself, but you aren't a menace to society the way a drunk driver is.

Your pic above is a great example of why I often don't like bicycle lanes.... the whole painted mess on the road is so confusing for everyone.... but if I understand correctly, yes if the cyclists were continuing straight and your husband was going right, he can certainly pass them in the turning lane.

[PamNY]

What that says to me is that some law maker sometime recognized that a bicycle is not an inherently dangerous machine to the general public. They can take it away (its just impounded - no fines or fees to get it back) if you are going to hurt yourself, but you aren't a menace to society the way a drunk driver is..

If this hypothetical lawmaker were an elderly pedestrian in a city, he might change his mind about bicycles having the potential to be a menace to society.

[oz rider]

we are allowed to drink and cycle (really! - if the cops think you are a danger to yourself they can impound your bike and offer you a ride home, but you *cannot* get a DUI on a bike here - which in itself is *very* interesting.... it sets a precedent that recognizes that cycling is not inherently dangerous to others....)
It's the same here. You can't be booked for being 0.05 BAC on a bike because the offence includes 'motor' vehicle, but I think you can be 'drunk in charge of a vehicle' or something like it. Have never heard of it happening though.

I got our national 'road deaths' data for 2010 yesterday, which sadly included 173 pedestrians, but none of them involved a bike AFAIK (and it's so rare that we do hear about it). I think we are pretty benign.

[PamNY]

II think we are pretty benign.

New York City averages one pedestrian fatality caused by a cyclist per year; the cycling advocacy organization says there are about 500 non-fatal incidents.

Delivery bikers are a big part of the problem, but that's a topic for another thread, probably one called "What does it mean to share the sidewalk?"

[oz rider]

New York City averages one pedestrian fatality caused by a cyclist per year; the cycling advocacy organization says there are about 500 non-fatal incidents.
How many peds killed by cars a year? If they break it down to NYC.

[PamNY]

There were 256 pedestrian deaths in 2009. Eighty percent of drivers in fatal or serious injury incidents were male, BTW.

[Eden]

I know that it can happen (fatal ped-bike accidents), but 1 a year does not an epidemic or a widespread public hazard make..... That doesn't mean I'm making light of it, that I'm condoning reckless riding, or think that it shouldn't be prevented, but we do have to have some perspective. More people are killed each year in the US by slipping on ice, or by lightening (interestingly around 60 per year for each) than are killed by being hit by a bike..... and I get the feeling NYC has bigger numbers than most places.... our rate of fatal bike ped accidents out here in Seattle is around one every 10-15 years... (yes one just happened recently)

Cars (or should I say drivers) on the other hand kill around 40-45,000 people in the US every year and around 1.2 million per year world wide....

[PamNY]

I know that it can happen (fatal ped-bike accidents), but 1 a year does not an epidemic or a widespread public hazard make..... That doesn't mean I'm making light of it, that I'm condoning reckless riding, or think that it shouldn't be prevented, but we do have to have some perspective. More people are killed each year in the US by slipping on ice, or by lightening (interestingly around 60 per year for each) than are killed by being hit by a bike..... and I get the feeling NYC has bigger numbers than most places.... our rate of fatal bike ped accidents out here in Seattle is around one every 10-15 years... (yes one just happened recently)

Cars (or should I say drivers) on the other hand kill around 40-45,000 people in the US every year and around 1.2 million per year world wide....

I'm not sure who you are arguing with, but I did not state that cycling-related fatalities were an epidemic or a widespread public hazard. Nothing that I said requires any perspective whatsoever.

I know of absolutely no reason to compare cycle-related fatalities to car-related fatalities. Nothing an auto driver does justifies unsafe cycling.

I responded to your statement about a hypothetical lawmaker who thought that bicycles are not an "inherently dangerous machine to the general public." I've had too many near-misses with cyclists to let that go without comment.

[laura*]

DH asked me whether it was okay to have passed them on the right, in that situation. I told him definitely yes - same as he would pass a slower motor vehicle.

What state did this happen in? Or more importantly, is lane splitting allowed in your state?

If lane splitting is not allowed, then, no, the motorcyclist didn't do the correct thing. We can declare that the bicyclists "took the lane" before their bicycle lane ended. At that point, there was no motor vehicle lane available to pass them on the right. It is only once the bicyclists reached the resumption of the bike lane that a lane was available to pass them on the right.


Now that I think about it, it's also a great illustration why the rules need to be the same for everyone.

The image is also a great illustration of why the rules can't be the same for everyone. It also shows that traffic engineers don't have a clue with regard to bicycle riding. You'd never find braided motor vehicle traffic lanes! But current road designs seem to say this is OK if one of the lanes is a bike lane.

I've encountered this same "magically teleporting bike lane" in two locations. In one, the road forks and the right lane peels off to the right. Stoplight cycling pretty much guarantees that a bicyclist will reach the lane crossing just as a pack of very fast moving cars reach the same point. In the other instance, the right lane becomes a freeway on ramp with rapidly accelerating cars.

In the first instance, my solution is to ignore the bike lane and instead lane split for a tenth of a mile with a traffic lane to both my left and right. I get into position during the traffic gaps caused by the preceding traffic signal.

In the second instance, the bike lane teleports between one side and the other of an intersection. Several times I've been able to get into position by lane splitting and moving to the head of the pack while traffic was stopped at a red light. Then I was only without a dedicated lane for 100 feet across the intersection.

[OakLeaf]

What state did this happen in? Or more importantly, is lane splitting allowed in your state?

If lane splitting is not allowed, then, no, the motorcyclist didn't do the correct thing. We can declare that the bicyclists "took the lane" before their bicycle lane ended. At that point, there was no motor vehicle lane available to pass them on the right. It is only once the bicyclists reached the resumption of the bike lane that a lane was available to pass them on the right.


This was Florida and lane splitting is not allowed. (I think California is the only state where it is.) But I disagree. I don't think this is a case where the rules would or should be different for motorcycles and automobiles/trucks, and that wasn't what DH was asking. The cyclists were in the middle lane (the rightmost lane that was continuing straight). Why shouldn't all other traffic continue to use the left and right lanes normally?

If the cyclists had been turning left rather than going straight, would you reach the same conclusion? Would you say that no motor vehicles could pass them in either the curb lane or the middle lane, if they were in the left lane???

[Jo-n-NY]

Excellent post Edan as well as interesting replys.

[laura*]

The cyclists were in the middle lane (the rightmost lane that was continuing straight). Why shouldn't all other traffic continue to use the left and right lanes normally?

If the cyclists had been turning left rather than going straight, would you reach the same conclusion? Would you say that no motor vehicles could pass them in either the curb lane or the middle lane, if they were in the left lane???

Assuming the cyclists moved left before the discontinuance of the bike lane, they shouldn't be passed on the right because there is no motor vehicle lane to their right.

In the interval while the cyclists were between the discontinuance and resumption of the bike lane, they were in the "rightmost" lane. No one should be passing them on the right at that point. It doesn't matter that the "lane" there is 16-20 feet wide, and that a narrow motorcycle wants to pass.

Once the cyclists reached the resumption of the bike lane, then it would be OK to pass them on the right using the (dedicated) right turn lane.

At all times the cyclists could be passed on the left using either of the two straight through motor vehicle lanes.

[OakLeaf]

Seriously? If the cyclists had been in the left lane preparing to turn left at that break in the median, you'd still say no one could pass them on the right?

Sorry, I just totally disagree.



ETA: regardless of which one of us a traffic court judge would agree with, once again, that we're even debating it here illustrates perfectly why the rules NEED to be the same for everyone. No one's getting flattened or roadraged talking about it on the internet, but the same can't be said for real life.

[laura*]

(Redacted)