Ignorant or Acceptable?

This evening as I was driving to work, I noticed 2 cyclists in the bike lane, riding abreast. Well, one was in the bike lane. The companion, riding next to her, was not in the lane at all but taking up a vehicle lane. This was rush hour, with lots of traffic around, on a one way street.

While I was initially happy to see fellow cyclists, I admit I was peeved that the cyclist outside the lane wouldn't ride in front of or behind his companion. The bike lane is only big enough for one cyclist to ride safely in without the other one leading or following.

I also noticed that as they came to a stoplight, they waited to see that traffic had disappeared in the right of way lanes, then blew through the red light.

What's your opinion? Was it ok for the cyclist to not ride in the bike lane and instead take up a vehicle lane because he was with a companion and 2 abreast is ok here?

In Washington it is not required for cyclists to ride in a bike lane. There are many legitimate reasons for not using them. 2 abreast is totally legal here - and that would be 2 abreast in the lane - so there could have been two cyclists in the normal lane and as many as could fit in the bike lane and that still would be legal.

Blowing a red light is another thing all together. Even if it is "safe" you shouldn't do it.

Honestly, chalk this up to reasons motorists dislike cyclists.

I know it is legal in many places, including around here, but I have found car drivers are particularly aggressive in the situation described by VeganBikeChick. You will hear more honking and experience close passing. Whenever I ride with someone else, I avoid that situation.

Bike Lanes:

Legal, probably. Rude, Yes. I wouldn't do it. But I wouldn't say something to anyone else for doing it.

Red Light:

Not OK. Under any circumstances (other than a light that won't trigger - which this wasn't).

There have been incidents of road rage against bicyclists so why they insist on doing these kinds of things I don't know. I have in the past said something to bicyclists who road in such a manner to let them know it's unsafe and it's asking for trouble.
Be smart about what you're doing. It's not a hill worth dying over.

It may or may not be legal, depending where you are. But even if legal it is rude and does not help the reputation of the biking community. I was in a town a few days ago that put out a local bike map. The map said that when there is a bike lane bikers are required to ride in that lane. The map didn't mention what to do if you were going to make a left turn.

I am very frustrated with red lights that won't trigger. I hate going through them and often end up doing some kind of convoluted loop to avoid it.

Be frank folks, do you ever run stop signs? I admit that I do too frequently on quiet streets but I check carefully to make sure no one is around. I have made a right turn at a stop sign without stopping, (I do slow to just short of a stop) when people are around but not going where I am going. I think that I am adding to bad biker reputation for doing this so I have been stopping if anyone is around. I never run a stop sign with a car. Never. So I have a hypocrite thing going here. :(

Right now I am in a city where a MUP runs through a residential neighborhood. There are stop signs on every alley entrance and every single street. I'm not stopping, I am looking, just like everyone else on the trail. Even the city knows that people are going to run the signs because when a busy intersection is coming up they also put a warning "important intersection" ahead of time so you be sure to stop.

St. Louis is infamous for the number of stop signs. Usually people slow to 3-5 miles per hour in their car and then roll through them... a 'st. louis stop'. On my bike, I'm traveling at about that speed when I roll them, so I'm fine with it. Naturally I stop if it's not my turn, just as I would with a car.

Red lights are a different story. In the morning when I am commuting to work at 5:30 and no cars are around whatsoever, I will ride through red lights. Not all of them trigger (it's even more frustrating when I'm on my registered scooter-- at which time I'll do that convoluted loop to get through it), and in those cases I'll go over to the cross walk and cross there.

If cars are around though, I make a point to be on my best behavior. I do not want to give drivers any more reason to be angry toward cyclists-- people really do lose their senses over them and car vs. bike is a losing battle for us. Being a courteous cyclist around autos may not do a whole lot (inevitably some asshat will do something stupid to set them off on all of us), but it's something!

Idaho has a great stop sign law for bicycles, they don't have to stop!!

but back to the original question; yes, I think it's rude. The law says you can do it, but common courtesy during heavy traffic would suggest that they go single file.

I have never ridden two abreast except once on a very empty country road for a few miles. As a motorist it annoys me when cyclists do this so I don't. Why? There's just no need. Be polite and give everyone some space.

As for running the red light, I only do it if I can't get the light to trigger AND I stop and make sure it's very clear to go (not a regular event). My regular route also has a couple lights where it's a three road intersection with no road on the right. Occasionally I will only slow way down but not stop since there's not traffic to my right and I have a wide shoulder.

I prefer to be that cyclist who follows the traffic signals so as not to contribute to the bad name a few bad apples give us. Even if there are no oncoming vehicles, we are responsible to ride like we are one. Just my .02......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biciclista

but back to the original question; yes, I think it's rude. The law says you can do it, but common courtesy during heavy traffic would suggest that they go single file.

---

Hang on now..... I have to disagree a bit here... we don't know all the details.

If traffic was heavy were the cyclists going as fast/nearly as fast as the cars? How many lanes is the street? Could traffic pass easily by simply moving over into the next lane? Were the cyclists really together - many people assume just because there are two that they are together, but he could have just been passing her. Is the bike lane a safe one? Would the second cyclist possibly/probably not have chosen it even if he had not had a companion?

I don't think it was necessarily rude at all..... it could have been that the cyclist not in the bike lane may have chosen that position regardless of whether or not he had a companion for the ride. If he was solo and still chose to not use the bike lane, would you condemn him?

From what I can see, he was riding in a way that is perfectly legal (well, up until he ran the red at least), rather than say he shouldn't do that because motorists might get upset, why not say educate motorists so that cyclists can do things that are legal without being harassed?

@Eden: The original poster mentioned "rush hour, with lots of traffic around, on a one way street." In that situation, unless the bike path is full of debris or cracks, I agree that it is rude, just as I would also think it is rude for cars to park or otherwise stop on the bike lane.

My .02$: it's never OK to run a red light. And when I go on red when there's a defective sensor, I'm not running the light; whether you're travelling by car or bike, when you encounter a defective light, you're supposed to treat it as a stop sign, stopping then proceeding when it's safe to do so.

I agree, if the bike lane was usable, it would have been better for the rider to use it, except to pass. But at least around here, a lot of bike lanes aren't usable. Sometimes they keep you in the door zone of parked cars, sometimes there's gravel and broken glass and other trash. Sometimes there are cars (and one notorious porta-potty) illegally parked there.

Quote:

---

I don't think it was necessarily rude at all..... it could have been that the cyclist not in the bike lane may have chosen that position regardless of whether or not he had a companion for the ride. If he was solo and still chose to not use the bike lane, would you condemn him?

---

Yes, I would condemn him. The town south of me did a massive road reconstruction about 2 years ago. They dug down to gravel, re-leveled, did all the sewers, etc and then built the road back up. They put in a bike lane in each direction. The road is two lanes, one north, one south and two bike lanes. This is a beautiful, new asphalt road. The bike lanes are kept free of debris. Most of us use the bike lanes. And then there are the assholes who choose to ride in the lane. You cannot pass them without pulling across the dividing line and depending on time of day this cannot always be done. Close to the speed of traffic is not the same as the speed of traffic, so often you will see a big back up of cars behind the guy who just sees himself as too good for the bike lane - yeah, it is almost always a guy. This is not just a situation where a cyclist pulled into the car lane to pass, these are guys who just ride in the car lane. To me, this is a case of being an ******* and making it harder on your fellow cyclists.

Hm - I choose to not use bike lanes often, and always for good reasons, whether or not from your car you can tell why. It's nice to know that I'm being judged in that manner.....

@pll - the fact that it was rush hour and a one way street, around here (and the OP and I are both in Seattle) doesn't mean that the street is not a)more than one lane or b) full to capacity. If it was full to capacity, traffic wasn't likely to be moving any faster than the bikes were going.... Our bike lanes also tend to be pretty awful. 90% of them are dangerously narrow and close to parked cars. (and note the OP mentioned the bike lane was not wide enough for 2 cyclists.... if it was next to parked cars, that indicates to me that it is probably not wide enough for one who doesn't want to be doored) We also are not required to use them just because they are there. IMHO it is no more rude to legally use a lane on a bike and potentially hold up a motorist for a few seconds than it is rude to stop to make a left hand turn and potentially hold up a motorist for a few seconds... City streets are not highways - there is traffic of all types on them and if you are using them, you need to not expect to never have to slow down...

well, Eden, your points are all good and since neither of us were there, I guess we can only imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biciclista

well, Eden, your points are all good and since neither of us were there, I guess we can only imagine.

---

Exactly - from the described circumstances we can only say until the red light, he wasn't breaking any laws here in WA. I think people are too quick to judge without knowing any of the why's. There are places that I will never use a bike lane even it it is provided and cared for -for example steep/long down hill - I just will not limit myself to 3 or 4 feet of pavement for a 35mph descent. I want the whole lane when negotiating a corner at that kind of speed.

From Colorado Department of Transportation.

"When to take a lane
A bicyclist may take the travel lane where traffic is slow
and the lane is narrow, there is no shoulder or bike lane,
when approaching an intersection, or if you are moving
at the same speed as the flow of traffic. Moving to the
center of the lane establishes your position and prevents
motorists from passing until there’s enough room."

Also, bicyclists may ride 2 abreast only if they are not impeding traffic.

I do habitually run a red light but it is during the low traffic time of day, rarely does a car show up to trip the light so I stop, make sure there is no traffic then proceed thru the light to the bike lane.

Remember traffic law is very location specific. Here in WA it is always legal to ride 2 abreast. In some places it is never legal. Here in WA bicycle lanes are always optional - in other states they are always mandatory.

Eden,

I agree with you on most of the points you make -- on a descent, you might be going faster than car traffic and it is not safe to be next to curb or edge of the road. And if the bike lane is dangerous because of car doors, debris or crack, the same applies.

I still think it is rude to ride two abreast when there is heavy traffic. Yes, it might be legal, but "legal" is not the same as courteous (or ethical in other contexts). In Illinois, that has been 'codified' into the law already ("Persons riding 2 abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane..."). In heavy traffic, two riders abreast also make life difficult for cyclists that might need to pass.

Regarding running red lights, as many have expressed here, I won't run one unless it is one that only changes when cars are present. In my usual riding route, there is only two of those and I have reported them to IDOT. I am curious to see what happens, because one of those lights won't even react to three big motorcycles -- I saw this last weekend. 3 motorcycles and two cyclists, the light never turned green. The next day, I arrived at the same intersection, with a car behind me, and within seconds we had a green light.

In Washington our law reads...

Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Technically they weren't even two abreast if they were in separate lanes. (you don't think of cars in adjacent lanes as two abreast do you?)

And I still don't think that there was nearly enough information to form any sort of judgment about what he was doing.... If he was on a street like Roosevelt, which is one way, but has 2-3 lanes at all times, not using the bike lane doesn't generally impede anyone. If traffic is so heavy that all of the lanes are full and a car could not simply change lanes to pass, then traffic is likely going more slowly than a bicycle can easily travel. In any case, the OP hasn't chimed back in to answer my questions, so while maybe he was noodling down the street and just being an obstruction, from the initial description he was acting in, at very least, a legal manner, so I still think that people shouldn't be so quick to judge the guy.

Let's agree to disagree on this one. Personally, I would rather avoid what my family used to call the 'German driver's epitaph': "But he had the right of way."

Eden, like you, I am going by what I know. The bike lanes you describe, with broken pavement, lots of debris, cars parked right along side and major hills, I can understand your not using them. I was basing it on our local bike lanes as described above - brand new and free of debris. In addition maybe I should add this is waterfront just north of Chicago and there are no hills - flat as a pancake around here. In addition, there is no parking on the road in question. These bike lanes are beautiful and probably 98-99% of cyclists use them - me included, I can attest how nice they are. To choose to ride in the car lane, knowing you will be forcing cars to either slow down or go around you - traffic permitting - may be legal, but it is rude. In an environment where there is animosity between cyclists and drivers purposefully behaving in this way for no good reason just throws fuel on the fire. When the drivers repeat the story it is not, 'this one ******* on the road today,' it is 'those damn bikers who can't stay in their own lane.' We all get painted with the same brush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eden

Technically they weren't even two abreast if they were in separate lanes. (you don't think of cars in adjacent lanes as two abreast do you?)

---

If they are going the exact same speed and impeding traffic...yes. It isn't legal for cars to "pace." Now, it happens on occasion by accident, but it isn't legal for me to decide to deliberately match the speed of the person in the lane next to me and prevent the normal flow of traffic.

I'll "chime back in" as I was the one to start the post. It was on 2nd Ave, downtown, which is a one-way, three lanes wide, with a painted bike lane on the left. The bike lane was wide open although yes, cars do park next to it at the far left. It was typical rush hour commute, busy but steady flow.

It was irritating, because, although traffic wasn't jammed, not going slower than a bicycle's speed, it was busy enough that it was hard to merge into the right lane to pass the cyclist taking up the whole left lane. So yes, it was irritating, even if he was allowed to take the lane. He and his partner were riding at a very leisurely pace.

I don't know if this adds to the discussion or fuels the fire.

I've found that it's often very hard to judge if somebody has behaved "acceptably" in traffic from hearing a story told, precisely because there are so many small details that affect the situation. Like how fast were the bikes going, did they change position, were they aware of the situation, were they blocking cars, how long did this go on, what were the road conditions like. I could probably defend either viewpoint quite sensibly. So I try just to be aware and flexible in my riding, help traffic flow but still stay safe, and not think much about what others are doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeganBikeChick

It was on 2nd Ave, downtown, which is a one-way, three lanes wide, with a painted bike lane on the left. The bike lane was wide open although yes, cars do park next to it at the far left. It was typical rush hour commute, busy but steady flow.

---

Just speaking for myself, I rarely use the bike lane on 2nd. The combination of cars parked to the left side of the bike lane and cars making left hand turns from the right side of the bike lane make it a less than safe feeling to ride there. I take a proper traffic lane whenever possible on that particular road.

Thank you LPH - that is what I've been trying to say... short of someone clearly noodling down the middle of of a busy street aimlessly, you weren't in their shoes. They may have had a legitimate reason. If what they are doing isn't illegal, then don't judge.

As for 2nd Ave, yeah - I've only used it two or three times and I'd say that bike lane on 2nd is a bad one. With the bike lane unusually on the left, though opening doors are not as big an issue (but still there) drivers really forget that it is there and especially during rush hour there are lots of people who are pulling out of the parking lane that is next to it. Add to that the large number of people who want to turn left to get up to the freeway ramps and its a quite un-nerving place to be. Ironically in serious rush hour traffic, cars on 2nd get pretty gridlocked, so you can move through downtown a lot quicker on a bike if you do use it... (which is the only reason I have used it... I was with a bunch of other people, and had I used the far right traffic lane as I would have if I was alone, they would have left me far behind) but you really have to be on your toes - because if parked drivers see an opening in the cars they will shoot out of that parking lane without looking for bikes.

Could he have been piddling around a bit, maybe - but, there are definite reasons why on that particular street one might choose to not use the bike lane.