Re: What Motorist Advocacy Does For Cycling

[Frank Krygowski[_2_]]

On Mar 8, 10:42*pm, Dan O > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:08 pm, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
> > Seriously, isn't this your big chance? *There may be a bike lane I
> > (and others) would say we'd like, one that's truly valuable beyond
> > it's added width. *Why not post a photo?
>
> I don't have a pic handy, and it wouldn't matter anyway, since it's
> traffic dynamics that make a bike lane worthwhile, but the one I'm
> thinking of runs along the gutter of what was at one point in time the
> very busiest road in the state. *Most "cyclists" are scared ****less
> to ride the road at all (this "fact" is published), and I've had my
> share of close calls there, but since it's the only best most direct
> route for along way to where I need to get to, I ride it regularly.
> The bike lane is rough and debris-strewn and has some nasty standing
> water and buses stop in it and there are like a zillion driveways with
> lots of traffic pulling in and out, but without that bike lane
> allowing me to stay mostly out of the way of a million impatient
> cagers, I would go another way. *Take it FWIW.

I think you missed the phrase "beyond the added width." If you remove
the stripe, you have as much pavement in which to "stay mostly out of
the way." You'd have less debris too, which probably means more
available room. The stripe adds no room.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Mar 9, 9:03 am, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 10:42 pm, Dan O > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 3:08 pm, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
> > > Seriously, isn't this your big chance? There may be a bike lane I
> > > (and others) would say we'd like, one that's truly valuable beyond
> > > it's added width. Why not post a photo?
>
> > I don't have a pic handy, and it wouldn't matter anyway, since it's
> > traffic dynamics that make a bike lane worthwhile, but the one I'm
> > thinking of runs along the gutter of what was at one point in time the
> > very busiest road in the state. Most "cyclists" are scared ****less
> > to ride the road at all (this "fact" is published), and I've had my
> > share of close calls there, but since it's the only best most direct
> > route for along way to where I need to get to, I ride it regularly.
> > The bike lane is rough and debris-strewn and has some nasty standing
> > water and buses stop in it and there are like a zillion driveways with
> > lots of traffic pulling in and out, but without that bike lane
> > allowing me to stay mostly out of the way of a million impatient
> > cagers, I would go another way. Take it FWIW.
>
> I think you missed the phrase "beyond the added width." If you remove
> the stripe, you have as much pavement in which to "stay mostly out of
> the way." You'd have less debris too, which probably means more
> available room. The stripe adds no room.
>

I don't know how you could be more obtuse. Width is not the issue.
Sharing the lane is the issue.

Bike lanes wouldn't do much good on most roads IMO, but the bike lanes
on this particular road - a road and traffic that I know intimately
and you don't at all - are highly beneficial to the cooperative and
harmonious flow of traffic.

I have pretty much no problem sharing the road. What I have a problem
with is motorist hostility.

What is one of the most fundamental tenets of driving a car on the
road. Keep it between the lines, right?

Sharing the lane to pass a bicyclist in the same lane - no matter how
wide it is - presents drivers more of a stressful conundrum to drivers
than simply keeping it between the lines.

Many drivers will simply refuse to pass until they *can* move to the
next lane. On such very busy roads, just changing lanes can be a
stressful endeavor if feasible at all. Traffic stacks up traffic
behind, fomenting still more impatience, stess, frustration,
resentment, anger, and hostility in still more drivers. And to whom
will these drivers direct all of their pent up anger? That's right -
the bicyclist, who they feel is "in the way", and whom they are about
to take *their* crack at in this lane sharing gang bang.

[Nate Nagel[_2_]]

On 03/09/2011 08:40 PM, Dan O wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:03 am, Frank > wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 10:42 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 3:08 pm, Frank > wrote:
>>
>>>> Seriously, isn't this your big chance? There may be a bike lane I
>>>> (and others) would say we'd like, one that's truly valuable beyond
>>>> it's added width. Why not post a photo?
>>
>>> I don't have a pic handy, and it wouldn't matter anyway, since it's
>>> traffic dynamics that make a bike lane worthwhile, but the one I'm
>>> thinking of runs along the gutter of what was at one point in time the
>>> very busiest road in the state. Most "cyclists" are scared ****less
>>> to ride the road at all (this "fact" is published), and I've had my
>>> share of close calls there, but since it's the only best most direct
>>> route for along way to where I need to get to, I ride it regularly.
>>> The bike lane is rough and debris-strewn and has some nasty standing
>>> water and buses stop in it and there are like a zillion driveways with
>>> lots of traffic pulling in and out, but without that bike lane
>>> allowing me to stay mostly out of the way of a million impatient
>>> cagers, I would go another way. Take it FWIW.
>>
>> I think you missed the phrase "beyond the added width." If you remove
>> the stripe, you have as much pavement in which to "stay mostly out of
>> the way." You'd have less debris too, which probably means more
>> available room. The stripe adds no room.
>>
>
> I don't know how you could be more obtuse. Width is not the issue.
> Sharing the lane is the issue.
>
> Bike lanes wouldn't do much good on most roads IMO, but the bike lanes
> on this particular road - a road and traffic that I know intimately
> and you don't at all - are highly beneficial to the cooperative and
> harmonious flow of traffic.
>
> I have pretty much no problem sharing the road. What I have a problem
> with is motorist hostility.
>
> What is one of the most fundamental tenets of driving a car on the
> road. Keep it between the lines, right?
>
> Sharing the lane to pass a bicyclist in the same lane - no matter how
> wide it is - presents drivers more of a stressful conundrum to drivers
> than simply keeping it between the lines.
>
> Many drivers will simply refuse to pass until they *can* move to the
> next lane. On such very busy roads, just changing lanes can be a
> stressful endeavor if feasible at all. Traffic stacks up traffic
> behind, fomenting still more impatience, stess, frustration,
> resentment, anger, and hostility in still more drivers. And to whom
> will these drivers direct all of their pent up anger? That's right -
> the bicyclist, who they feel is "in the way", and whom they are about
> to take *their* crack at in this lane sharing gang bang.
>

I think that likely most often happens on narrow rural two-lanes...
reluctance to stripe for passing lanes might have something to do with
it; also laws explicitly allowing motorists to briefly straddle the
double yellow to pass a cyclist when safe to do so might go a long way.

The latter is explicitly illegal in Virginia (§ 46.2-804), although I
have to admit to having done it, because of the reluctance of the
authorities to stripe for passing zones and also because it takes far
less space to pass a bicycle going 15-20 MPH than it does to pass a car
going 40-45ish, so a straightaway that may be too short to pass a slow
moving motor vehicle is more than sufficient to pass a bicycle (or farm
tractor, or what have you.) A willingness to use the loud pedal helps,
too, unfortunately many motorists believe that using its full travel is
somehow de facto unsafe. I can't find anything authoritative, but I
believe that it is also technically illegal in Virginia to temporarily
exceed the speed limit while passing, so there's yet another instance of
laws not being aligned with common sense and best practices for safety.
I dunno about you, but if I'm on a 55 MPH two-lane road following a
vehicle doing 40, and I feel the need to pass and I am legally able to
do so, I'm going to mat it until I am moving back into my correct travel
lane to minimize my exposure time. (well, OK, maybe not if I'm driving
a 427 Cobra or something with a similar power-to-weight ratio, but I
haven't had the pleasure of that experience.)

In Virginia there is also a two foot clearance rule, meaning that in
many cases it is simply not possible to completely legally pass a
cyclist on a striped two-lane, even if the cyclist is "as close as
safely practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway."

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[Frank Krygowski[_2_]]

On Mar 9, 8:40*pm, Dan O > wrote:
>
> I have pretty much no problem sharing the road. *What I have a problem
> with is motorist hostility.
>
> What is one of the most fundamental tenets of driving a car on the
> road. *Keep it between the lines, right?
>
> Sharing the lane to pass a bicyclist in the same lane - no matter how
> wide it is - presents drivers more of a stressful conundrum to drivers
> than simply keeping it between the lines.

So it's your duty to reduce stress for the poor motorists? Give me a
break! They've got enough privileges. And if the lane is wide enough
for their travel lane plus a bike lane, the least competent of them
would be able to fit their car next to you, stripe or no stripe.

Apparently, you're much more willing to be rude to people here on the
internet than on the road. On a bike, you turn into a shrinking
flower who prefers to stay in his ghetto to maintain bowing, scraping
deference.

To quote you, Dan: "No offense," but grow some balls.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski[_2_]]

On Mar 9, 9:01*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> I think that likely most often happens on narrow rural two-lanes...
> reluctance to stripe for passing lanes might have something to do with
> it; also laws explicitly allowing motorists to briefly straddle the
> double yellow to pass a cyclist when safe to do so might go a long way.

We got that law passed in Ohio. It's legal to cross a no-passing line
when safe to do so, to pass a vehicle (which includes bicycles) going
less than half the speed limit. It formally legalizes what was
already common practice.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tºm Shermªn™ °_°[_2_]]

On 3/9/2011 10:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:01 pm, Nate > wrote:
>>
>> I think that likely most often happens on narrow rural two-lanes...
>> reluctance to stripe for passing lanes might have something to do with
>> it; also laws explicitly allowing motorists to briefly straddle the
>> double yellow to pass a cyclist when safe to do so might go a long way.
>
> We got that law passed in Ohio. It's legal to cross a no-passing line
> when safe to do so, to pass a vehicle (which includes bicycles) going
> less than half the speed limit. It formally legalizes what was
> already common practice.

That rule needs to be in place in all areas with winding roads;
otherwise one gets stuck behind people taking the corners at one-quarter
the possible speed or less.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Peter Cole[_2_]]

On 3/9/2011 11:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:01 pm, Nate > wrote:
>>
>> I think that likely most often happens on narrow rural two-lanes...
>> reluctance to stripe for passing lanes might have something to do with
>> it; also laws explicitly allowing motorists to briefly straddle the
>> double yellow to pass a cyclist when safe to do so might go a long way.
>
> We got that law passed in Ohio. It's legal to cross a no-passing line
> when safe to do so, to pass a vehicle (which includes bicycles) going
> less than half the speed limit. It formally legalizes what was
> already common practice.

I think that confusion over this law (or its lack) causes a great deal
of conflict on narrow roads. Changing the law is important, but I'm not
optimistic that the behavior would too.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit Campaign[_2_]]

On Mar 9, 11:18*pm, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:40*pm, Dan O > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have pretty much no problem sharing the road. *What I have a problem
> > with is motorist hostility.
>
> > What is one of the most fundamental tenets of driving a car on the
> > road. *Keep it between the lines, right?
>
> > Sharing the lane to pass a bicyclist in the same lane - no matter how
> > wide it is - presents drivers more of a stressful conundrum to drivers
> > than simply keeping it between the lines.
>
> So it's your duty to reduce stress for the poor motorists? *Give me a
> break! *They've got enough privileges. *And if the lane is wide enough
> for their travel lane plus a bike lane, the least competent of them
> would be able to fit their car next to you, stripe or no stripe.
>
> Apparently, you're much more willing to be rude to people here on the
> internet than on the road. *On a bike, you turn into a shrinking
> flower who prefers to stay in his ghetto to maintain bowing, scraping
> deference.
>
> To quote you, Dan: "No offense," but grow some balls.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

What a loaded word you use... ghetto. So it sounds like the Jews or
the blacks in their hellish places.

Then the cyclists in Holland or Copenhagen as subject to
discrimination and subjugation, while you Americans --less than 1%
that is-- are "free" to ride among traffic. That was a good joke.

Tell you what, if you can't deliver a bike lane then give me the whole
traffic lane. I don't want to share with drivers talking on the phone
or texting.

[Nate Nagel[_2_]]

On 03/09/2011 11:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:01 pm, Nate > wrote:
>>
>> I think that likely most often happens on narrow rural two-lanes...
>> reluctance to stripe for passing lanes might have something to do with
>> it; also laws explicitly allowing motorists to briefly straddle the
>> double yellow to pass a cyclist when safe to do so might go a long way.
>
> We got that law passed in Ohio. It's legal to cross a no-passing line
> when safe to do so, to pass a vehicle (which includes bicycles) going
> less than half the speed limit. It formally legalizes what was
> already common practice.

Stop that, that makes too much damn sense.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[Dan O]

On Mar 9, 8:18 pm, Frank Krygowski > wrote:

<snip>

>
> So it's your duty to reduce stress for the poor motorists? Give me a
> break! They've got enough privileges. And if the lane is wide enough
> for their travel lane plus a bike lane, the least competent of them
> would be able to fit their car next to you, stripe or no stripe.
>

Dude, you're still being obtuse, and now you're flailing.

> Apparently, you're much more willing to be rude to people here on the
> internet than on the road. On a bike, you turn into a shrinking
> flower who prefers to stay in his ghetto to maintain bowing, scraping
> deference.
>

Really. *Me*? A "shrinking flower" on a bike? Did you really think
anybody would buy that? :-)

> To quote you, Dan: "No offense," but grow some balls.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

(Reeling from a devastating one-two - haggard, rummy, and on the ropes
- Frank takes a desperate, ineffectual swing below the belt :-)