Before & after bike lanes

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Sep 29, 8:18 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:


The purpose of the bike lane is to allocate the space for bikes. Without
that and just a bit wider lane, the car has as much right to it as the bike.
I get that this isn't always useful but in cases like this one, it provides
the
cyclist a lane.

I think you're somewhat confused on "right of way" concepts.

This might help.
http://ohiobikelawyer.com/uncategori...e-road-stinks/

I'm not at all confused on right of way concepts. If the motorist is in
the lane, he has the lane. For the cyclist, he has the right to the lane
as well. But in this case, he will ride at his 20 - 30kph or so speed and
all of the traffic will back up. With the bike lane, this doesn't
happen.

On 9/29/2010 8:25 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

This is why we should all drive more -- generate gas tax for road
maintenance.

If you look at the numbers, gas taxes don't even fully fund highways
(never have).

"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message ...
On 9/29/2010 7:18 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:

You fail to understand rules of right-of-way here. The vehicle (motorized or not) has the right to use the lane farthest to the
right [1] (or the only lane on two-lane roads), regardless of whether the traffic behind wants to go faster or not (with a few
exceptions, like California's pull over rule if more than 5 vehicles are being held up).

The cyclist inferiority attitude "I must get out of the way of the cagers" is dismaying.


Maybe it's dismaying but if cyclists cause traffic jams it's not
going to be good for anyone. On the road that I'm
talking about, there is no problem.

"Dan O" wrote in message ...

The cyclist inferiority attitude "I must get out of the way of the
cagers" is dismaying.


Yes, that's the car culture I keep harping on.

Right but putting your bike in the lane and blocking
traffic for miles isn't going to help change that culture.

On 9/29/2010 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 29, 8:18 pm, "Duane wrote:


The purpose of the bike lane is to allocate the space for bikes. Without
that and just a bit wider lane, the car has as much right to it as the bike.
I get that this isn't always useful but in cases like this one, it provides
the
cyclist a lane.

I think you're somewhat confused on "right of way" concepts.

This might help.
http://ohiobikelawyer.com/uncategori...e-road-stinks/

or

http://tinyurl.com/24ehjmj

That article was OK as far as it went, but it left out some issues which
were covered in one of the comments:

"The rule is that once you have the “right of way” you have the right to
proceed uninterrupted. In any scenario ONE vehicle has the “right of
way” to proceed over the rest of the vehicles in the equation. People
BEHIND you are subject to your right of way – they cannot hit you, crowd
you, or otherwise interrupt your right to proceed. YOU must be
proceeding “lawfully” to have the right of way. In the bike setting,
this can get a little goofy as the whole “AFRAP” thing comes into play.
Are you “as far right as practicable” under your state’s law??"

It's the "practicable" bit of legalese that creates all the friction.

On 9/29/2010 9:57 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:14:37 -0400, "Duane
wrote:

Don't understand your question. Without the bike lanes the cyclist
would have to ride in the single lane with the cars. The traffic would
back up for miles.

By what magical means does painting a line on a lane that isn't wide
enough to share make it wide enough to share?

It couldn't, of course.

I think the choice is between a sharable lane with visual cues and one
without.

By encouraging drivers to overtake with minus-one inches between their
door handles and my elbow?

Not to sound too cynical, but that's all too common on virtually all
streets in my experience.

I usually follow the standard advice of responding to too close passing
by moving further left (US), particularly when it's the result of
motorists reluctant to cross the median who will squeeze by if you give
the opportunity.

That strategy, while usually effective, often creates the situation
where a motorist, either unsure of the passing law (solid median), or
simply too timid to pass, creates a traffic slowdown behind. Not the end
of the world, but not a happy situation, either.

What's a bit more disturbing is when motorists notice I'm further left
than they feel I need to be, and assume I'm blocking the road
deliberately (which, in a sense, I am). This can precipitate some very
aggressive reactionary behavior. Maybe this is more common in some areas
than others. Again, not the end of the world, but decidedly unpleasant.

Bike lanes aren't a panacea, but there is the "good fences make good
neighbors" effect.

"Peter Cole" wrote in message ...
I usually follow the standard advice of responding to too close passing
by moving further left (US), particularly when it's the result of
motorists reluctant to cross the median who will squeeze by if you give
the opportunity.

In Quebec, the driver is allowed to cross the solid line
if it's in order to pass a cyclists and there are no oncoming
cars. The car is required to allow 1.5 meters when passing
a cyclist. Unfortunately, most people here don't know that.

That strategy, while usually effective, often creates the situation
where a motorist, either unsure of the passing law (solid median), or
simply too timid to pass, creates a traffic slowdown behind. Not the end
of the world, but not a happy situation, either.

What's a bit more disturbing is when motorists notice I'm further left
than they feel I need to be, and assume I'm blocking the road
deliberately (which, in a sense, I am). This can precipitate some very
aggressive reactionary behavior. Maybe this is more common in some areas
than others. Again, not the end of the world, but decidedly unpleasant.

Bike lanes aren't a panacea, but there is the "good fences make good
neighbors" effect.

Yep.