[OT] A good bike lane

I've said I rarely find benefit in a bike lane, but this sounds like a good one. (The article calls it a bike path, but it sounds like a bike lane to me.)

Here's the article:

http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2013/...rn-california/

- Frank Krygowski

On 09-03-2013 22:45, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I've said I rarely find benefit in a bike lane, but this sounds like a good one. (The article calls it a bike path, but it sounds like a bike lane to me.)
Here's the article:
http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2013/...rn-california/

It's a nice article, but I don't believe they
averaged "18-19 miles per hour" on Pacific Coast Highway
"while chatting easily the entire way."

Makes me wonder if, like "The Butler," it was "based on a true story."

--
Wes Groleau

“Would the prodigal have gone home if
the elder brother was running the farm?�
— James Jordan

Per Wes Groleau:
...I don't believe they
averaged "18-19 miles per hour" on Pacific Coast Highway
"while chatting easily the entire way."

That's what the roadies are doing when they pass me on the Schuylkill
path near Philadelphia... and the ones that are talking appear to be
holding relaxed conversations.

OTOH, that path follows an old rail bed and is dead flat....
--
Pete Cresswell

On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I've said I rarely find benefit in a bike lane, but this sounds like a good one. (The article calls it a bike path, but it sounds like a bike lane to me.)



Here's the article:



http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2013/...rn-california/

Another dopey advocacy piece trying to elevate a Sunday morning group ride in to a political statement about road position and the relative rights of bikes and cars. Try "controlling the lane" on the PCH on a busy day as an individual rider. It's the difference between marching in a parade and walking down the middle of a busy highway.

What would be helpful is an accurate statement of when a cyclist legally can take the lane, like when "unsafe passing" is reasonably anticipated -- which is incredibly rare on a low-traffic, two-lane road (in each direction). "Controlling the lane" just to control the lane is unnecessary and against the law if it impedes traffic -- even in California.

These stories of personal triumph written with the zeal of an adolescent who just finished Catcher in the Rye always drive me crazy. They prevent real dialog regarding the law and the relative rights of motorists and cyclists. Up here, where pack riding on narrow roads is not a novelty, these issues get aired on a regular basis, sometimes in formal settings: http://bikeportland.org/2011/11/11/r...d-safety-61831

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie writes:

On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I've said I rarely find benefit in a bike lane, but this sounds like a good one. (The article calls it a bike path, but it sounds like a bike lane to me.)



Here's the article:



http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2013/...rn-california/

Another dopey advocacy piece trying to elevate a Sunday morning group ride in to a political statement about road position and the relative rights of bikes and cars. Try "controlling the lane" on the PCH on a busy day as an individual rider. It's the difference between marching in a parade and walking down the middle of a busy highway.

What would be helpful is an accurate statement of when a cyclist
legally can take the lane, like when "unsafe passing" is reasonably
anticipated -- which is incredibly rare on a low-traffic, two-lane
road (in each direction). "Controlling the lane" just to control the
lane is unnecessary and against the law if it impedes traffic -- even
in California.

Are you familar with that stretch of PCH? Google

23166 California 1

go to the street view and check it out. There is no bike lane. There
are lots of cars parked on the shoulder. Two lanes in each direction.
There is no CA law requiring a cyclist to ride on the shoulder (with
some exceptions). Taking the lane there is the right thing to do.
Doing it as an individual would be daunting. In a group, not a big deal
and it's where they should be riding.


--
Joe Riel

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 10:55:14 AM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:
Jay Beattie writes:



On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've said I rarely find benefit in a bike lane, but this sounds like a good one. (The article calls it a bike path, but it sounds like a bike lane to me.)







Here's the article:







http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2013/...rn-california/



Another dopey advocacy piece trying to elevate a Sunday morning group ride in to a political statement about road position and the relative rights of bikes and cars. Try "controlling the lane" on the PCH on a busy day as an individual rider. It's the difference between marching in a parade and walking down the middle of a busy highway.



What would be helpful is an accurate statement of when a cyclist

legally can take the lane, like when "unsafe passing" is reasonably

anticipated -- which is incredibly rare on a low-traffic, two-lane

road (in each direction). "Controlling the lane" just to control the

lane is unnecessary and against the law if it impedes traffic -- even

in California.



Are you familar with that stretch of PCH? Google



23166 California 1



go to the street view and check it out. There is no bike lane. There

are lots of cars parked on the shoulder. Two lanes in each direction.

There is no CA law requiring a cyclist to ride on the shoulder (with

some exceptions). Taking the lane there is the right thing to do.

Doing it as an individual would be daunting. In a group, not a big deal

and it's where they should be riding.


Nobody is saying they have to ride on the shoulder. They have to ride as far right as is practicable, subject to certain exceptions. That's what I'm getting at. We're not talking about the law or the exceptions, we're doing puff pieces about taking up the entire lane.

And even when there are exceptions that allow the cyclist to take the lane, we're not talking about what is prudent. Many places north of the Golden Gate, simply riding the PCH is "taking the lane", e.g. the twisting, shoulderless road between Bodega Bay and Jenner. The discussion there is "where do you want to be" on the road surface in light of auto speeds and sight lines. Being a live gutter bunny beats being a dead or severely injured "vehicular cyclist."

-- Jay Beattie.

http://blog.breckenridge.com/wp-cont...es-613x460.jpg

DO WHAT ? we're supposed to read something ?
are you snorting tapping oil again ?

8-9 more likely....even on the DOWNhill's into arroyo uh maybe 5-600 feet in 2 miles yagotta go around switchbacks n hairpins.

you know my story abt the Euro's ? I passed em, took photos at the top, they caught up. This went down maybe 3-4 times.

I pulled into Quarry State Park at sundown was fooling with the entry form n water spicket and LO !

Euro's ! one guy doahn have ankles only calves. Its cold now. They wanna know if there's a shower.

I hold up a gallon.

gnaw gnaw we gotta shower. ? hey do your thing right ?

where they wanna know...

I look....11 more miles.


OFF THEY GO !

CRAZEEEEEEEEE

Jay Beattie writes:

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 10:55:14 AM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:
Jay Beattie writes:



On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've said I rarely find benefit in a bike lane, but this sounds like a good one. (The article calls it a bike path, but it sounds like a bike lane to me.)







Here's the article:







http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2013/...rn-california/



Another dopey advocacy piece trying to elevate a Sunday morning group ride in to a political statement about road position and the relative rights of bikes and cars. Try "controlling the lane" on the PCH on a busy day as an individual rider. It's the difference between marching in a parade and walking down the middle of a busy highway.



What would be helpful is an accurate statement of when a cyclist

legally can take the lane, like when "unsafe passing" is reasonably

anticipated -- which is incredibly rare on a low-traffic, two-lane

road (in each direction). "Controlling the lane" just to control the

lane is unnecessary and against the law if it impedes traffic -- even

in California.



Are you familar with that stretch of PCH? Google



23166 California 1



go to the street view and check it out. There is no bike lane. There

are lots of cars parked on the shoulder. Two lanes in each direction.

There is no CA law requiring a cyclist to ride on the shoulder (with

some exceptions). Taking the lane there is the right thing to do.

Doing it as an individual would be daunting. In a group, not a big deal

and it's where they should be riding.


Nobody is saying they have to ride on the shoulder. They have to ride
as far right as is practicable, subject to certain exceptions. That's
what I'm getting at. We're not talking about the law or the
exceptions, we're doing puff pieces about taking up the entire lane.

Who is we? Agreed the article was not particularly helpful in that
regard.

The significant, and relevant, exception being whether the lane is wide
enough to safely share with a vehicle. That doesn't look to be the case
here, so I'd say the rider has no requirement to be as far right as
practical.

Note, also, that when I now look at google maps I must be seeing
a differenct section of the road. There does appear to be a ridable
shoulder, with no cars in it. In that case, I'd be riding there.
Where I looked before that wasn't the case. Cars parked all along
the shoulder.

And even when there are exceptions that allow the cyclist to take the
lane, we're not talking about what is prudent. Many places north of
the Golden Gate, simply riding the PCH is "taking the lane", e.g. the
twisting, shoulderless road between Bodega Bay and Jenner. The
discussion there is "where do you want to be" on the road surface in
light of auto speeds and sight lines. Being a live gutter bunny beats
being a dead or severely injured "vehicular cyclist."



--
Joe Riel

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 1:26:04 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've said I rarely find benefit in a bike lane, but this sounds like a good one. (The article calls it a bike path, but it sounds like a bike lane to me.)







Here's the article:







http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2013/...rn-california/



Another dopey advocacy piece trying to elevate a Sunday morning group ride in to a political statement about road position and the relative rights of bikes and cars. Try "controlling the lane" on the PCH on a busy day as an individual rider. It's the difference between marching in a parade and walking down the middle of a busy highway.



What would be helpful is an accurate statement of when a cyclist legally can take the lane, like when "unsafe passing" is reasonably anticipated -- which is incredibly rare on a low-traffic, two-lane road (in each direction). "Controlling the lane" just to control the lane is unnecessary and against the law if it impedes traffic -- even in California.



These stories of personal triumph written with the zeal of an adolescent who just finished Catcher in the Rye always drive me crazy. They prevent real dialog regarding the law and the relative rights of motorists and cyclists. Up here, where pack riding on narrow roads is not a novelty, these issues get aired on a regular basis, sometimes in formal settings: http://bikeportland.org/2011/11/11/r...d-safety-61831

I'm not surprised you'd find some disagreement with the article. IIRC, you've made it very clear in the past that you prefer riding the fog line, or thereabouts.

Still, I don't understand your objections. First, calling it a "puff piece" is silly. Not every article is supposed to meet high standards for legal (or other) scholarship. I thought it addressed pretty well the idea that a person will _not_ get run over if they're riding prominently in the lane. I thought it also illustrated the fact that the majority of cyclists still fear leaving the far right, using the author's club members as examples. And it illustrated that riding further out causes fewer problems - flats, bumps, debris, door zones, etc.

The article you propose as an alternative was fine. But it seems to make clear that cyclists are not required to ride at the extreme right out of deference to operators of other vehicles. There was mention of singling up when appropriate (and we can discuss that) but I don't see the articles as being in opposition. They're two different treatments of the same principles..

BTW, a few years ago riding in the Portland area, I had a guy harass me much like Wheeler harassed Walle, although my incident was in a residential street. Yes, there are people who think a bicyclist must never be in the way, despite statements to the contrary from people like Capt. Reiser and Atty.. Ginsberg.

It's too bad that so many people who think cyclists should never be in the way happen to be bicyclists.

- Frank Krygowski