Ignorant or Acceptable?

[Brina]

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.

[Eden]

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...

[Biciclista]

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

[Eden]

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.

[Kathi]

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.

[Eden]

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.

[pll]

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.