Design Template by Bikingtoronto

« Tuesday Afternoon Commute - Basement | Main | A brief history of biking in Rock Creek Park »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I agree with the driver being annoyed by the group of cyclists that filtered by her at the light. For them to filter back to the front at that point is dumb, certainly rude, questionably legal, nor does it improve their safety. Better off just queueing up in line with traffic.

I'll queue in traffic as soon as drivers stop looking at their cellphones at every stop light. After being nearly rear ended a couple times (granted at very low speeds) by texting drivers while I was queued up waiting at lights, I've decided filtering on the right (and being very careful about right turners and car doors) is safer for me. I really don't care if drivers are annoyed. When they stop texting and start watching the road all the time, I'll be reconsider the impact of my approach on their delicate feelings.

Either way, whether you wait in the queue as UrbanEngineer wants you to, or you go to the front of the queue, per Greenbelt, get yourself centered in the lane when you come to a stop. Don't be off to right or you may not be seen.

I ran over those rumble strips, and I'm positive those were the type designed for cars, because all my filling fell out. They're really bad.

Maryland law requires slower vehicles to move to the right of the road upon audible signal to allow a faster vehicle to pass. I think that the statute means a quick warning toot, not a "get out of the way" blast. But this is probably where people get the idea that cyclists should yield upon a horn honk. MVA Driver handbook advises not to honk at cyclists, but this is a bit of a mixed message.

I prefer to queue up with the rest of the traffic. Greenbelt's concerns are valid, and I worry about the same thing. But on the whole, I feel that being on the right side puts me at greater risk than being in the center of the lane at a traffic light. Especially when I'm riding the triplet with my wife and daughter. It's just too big to be maneuverable in the narrow space between a line of cars and the curb.

As an aside, in the past if I was the first person queued up at a traffic light and a car would come up behind me with its right turn signal on, I would move over to to the left side of the lane (from the center) to let the car get by me on the right and make the right turn. I don't do that anymore. I figure that if it were a car in the first position instead of me on my bike, the turning car would have to wait for a green light and it would be no big deal. Even a motorcycle wouldn't be expected to somehow scooch over to let the car get by. So I'll just hold my position until the light changes.

It is wise to filter to the front at the light because other wise you can be caught behind right turning cars then forced to either wait or pass on the left. Further it is your right to do so so why not. After more then 20 years of being a bike messanger I can say it is safer to be at the front and if the traffic is heavy you can miss the light altogether by not moveing to the front. If you are on the road some drivers will be annoyed no matter what you do or don't do. Why at all cycle if you are just going to sit there in traffic like a motorist. Try to please a motorist by for example moveing further to the right will just cause them to push you even further into the door zone. A biker must look to his or her own safety not whether or not a driver is annoyed. In fact I have many times be annoyed by drivers who pass me, most often to close with a red light just ahead.

Up to the light I actually think filtering is safer provided it's not really light traffic on a higher speed road. I say that because I have had people try to pass me when occupying the middle of the lane in between another car. It looks like a scene from the Italian Job and it's downright dangerous. So I prefer getting ahead of the traffic, plus I think it increases the liklihood that the cars realzie I'm there and don't make blind lane changes/passes/etc (not that it increases it much, but every little bit helps). So I wouldn't apologize for it.

Unrelated, but what are Alexandria's new "On-road bicycle facilities." Is this their way of saying they extended the lane markers down there? Maybe I'll ride by tonight and check it out. I was thinking it was some sort of bicycle fixing station similar to what Metro is doing<--and something I absolutely love and wish NPS would consider.

Sadly, most of Alexandria's new "on-road bicycle facilities" are sharrows. The more I ride, the more I like bike lanes instead.

OTOH, it's great that they are building the Chambliss crossing bridge.

Agreed w/ Jim's comment on horns. Also, my drivers ed class back in high school (in 2000 up in Pennsylvania) included a film produced in the 1950's whereby the instructor -- himself still dressed like it was the 1920's -- repeatedly quipped to give three honks of the horn for pretty much anything.

- Passing someone? Three honks of the horn.
- Want to alert the bicyclist you're nearby? Three honks of the horn.
- Want to tell someone to proceed at an all-way stop? Three honks of the horn.
- Merging onto the highway & want to make sure people beside you know you're there? Three honks of the horn.
- Want to tell the pretty dame carrying shopping bags that you see her in the crosswalk & aren't going to run her over but also want to say hi? Three honks of the horn.

...Unless I've distorted those memories over the years, I'm pretty sure I'm not kidding on any of those.

@JimT

Can you cite that statute? I mean, you make it sound like any driver can just honk, and any "slower" driver in front of them is legally required to pull over, which sounds absolutely ridiculous.

@Greenbelt Whether you're at the front or somewhere in line, there is still a car behind you. Not sure why being directly in front of the first car is any more or less susceptible to being rolled into than being directly in front of any other car in line.

Also, when cyclists filter to the front of the traffic queue there is nowhere for them to go except into the crosswalk (or beyond it). Clearly an illegal position to be in and definitely not helping pedestrian safety.

@UrbanEngineer - Most cars, once stopped, stay stopped until they look up to see the red. I often see drivers roll up to a red and pull out their phones -- they're still rolling, but not paying full attention.

Besides, filtering is 100% legal (at least in DC and VA, the jurisdictions I know best), and generally good road design. The best road design would be to have bike boxes for bikes to wait in after filtering, but we're not there yet. As to why it's good design, it's akin to why it's best for drivers to stay in lanes that are ending all the way to the merge point.

@MM: Section 21-303(d).

Clearly an illegal position to be in and definitely not helping pedestrian safety.

I'm not sure that's true. It's illegal to block the crosswalk, but a cyclist can easily move out of the way.

And while being in the crosswalk may not help ped safety, I don't think it reduces it either.

@UrbanEngineer "dumb, certainly rude, questionably legal" This sums up how many American motorist feel about bicyclist and you as well. Why don't you just come out and admit you are opposed to cyclists period. Maybe if you rode a bike to work or for a living you would get it.

@Urbanengineer, have you ever seen a cyclist "blocking the box?" Nope. So if you rather they don't filter and follow in the footsteps of cars then you're welcome to create a bigger traffic mess. As it stands the biggest problem with filtering is if the light turns green/higher speed road or at the end for right hooks. Otherwise, it's saving everyone involved time.

Maryland law requires slower vehicles to move to the right of the road upon audible signal to allow a faster vehicle to pass.

you make it sound like any driver can just honk, and any "slower" driver in front of them is legally required to pull over

I don't think that is what the law says at all.

ยง 21-303. General rules governing overtaking and passing vehicles
(d) Overtaken vehicle to give way to right. -- Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle, on audible signal, shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle.

In order for someone to be driving the "overtaken vehicle", someone else has to be actively in the act of overtaking. So you're driving (or riding a bike) down a road with one lane in each direction. A driver comes up from behind you and then pulls into the oncoming lane to pass you. Crap! An oncoming car appears over the crest of a rise! The overtaking driver does not want to experience a head on collision! He honks his horn! You are now required to let him back into the lane. That's it. You don't have to move over for every jerk who comes up behind you and honks.

@Washcycle One cyclist may be able to move out of the way, but if the standard is for all cyclists to filter to the front, you'll often times have many more than one. Better off to not have the standard result in cyclists occupying the crosswalk. Traffic engineers with cyclists in mind agree with this, hence bike boxes being incorporated into traffic design.

I think Neil's got it. On a two lane road, if one moves up to block an overtaking vehicle, the Code has a way of breaking the standoff. It's a statement of who has to yield in certain situations. That makes more sense than a reading that on the same two lane road, the overtaking car can make the slower vehicle pull over to let them pass.

I avoid filtering to the front in traffic because it annoys the cars, but then I am risk for right hooks. My solution is to ride in the middle of the lane. If you are on the right, and given the balance of annoying vs getting killed, I think cyclists are not dumb to filter.


Also: I thought it was funny the letter writer complaining about packs of cyclists in RCP. Its a park, and most of them are doing the speeed limit.

I see bike boxes as tacit agreement that moving to the front is better than being behind, but being out of the crosswalk is better than being in it. So when there's no bike box, I feel like they're saying the crosswalk is the next best option.

For me, filtering is totally contextual. Where I'm riding with the flow of traffic, I don't filter. Where traffic ahead of the light is backed up, I will filter. If I'm at the front, I always pull farther to the left than I ride.

We probably need to distinguish the rights that this provision gives the overtaking driver, with the duties imposed on the overtaken vehicle.

Many states both require the overtaking driver to sound the horn and require the overtaken vehicle to give way. But Maryland only has the latter provision.

So in Maryland, it seems that the driver still has the broad right to sound the horn as a warning, but no obligation to do so. People who learned to drive elsewhere may think it is an obligation.

The duty of the overtaken vehicle is to be reasonbable, given that someone is passing. I think that mainly means to not move left or speed up, but as you say, it also means to give the overtaking vehicle room should the need for room to arise.

Certainly the provision does not impose the same duty on slow vehicles as would an ambulence siren. But if a driver who intends to pass sounds a horn hoping the cyclists will move to the right, and the cyclist does not do so, I don't think either violated the law.

If I ring my bell while overtaking, do they have to give me the right of way?

I guess that depends on whether your bell is audible to the driver you are passing. I'm too slow for this to be a problem for me.

By the way, "give way to the right" is probably pretty similar to the standard duty of a pedestrian on a trail. The only difference seems to be that cyclists may have a duty to give an audible signal on trail while drivers on Md roads do not.

I thought it was funny the letter writer complaining about packs of cyclists in RCP. Its a park, and most of them are doing the speeed limit.

Sure but the tension here is that every single driver is doing at least 5-10 mph over the speed limit. If you want to experience the full law-abiding nature of our area's drivers, drive RCP sometime with your cruise control set to 25 mph.

People will honk; people will pass you on a double-yellow; people will lose their shit.

Filtering tremendously safer in the case of a line of cars backed up far enough that the cyclist isn't going to make the light anyway. The cars are going to be whizzing by, trying to get through before the light turns (looking at the light, not the road). I'd much rather the passing happens when the cars are stopped and the cyclist has more control over the situation. In the case of a couple of cars stopped at a light on a side street, I'd just wait in line.

@washcycle The crosswalk is an illegal option. Also, the safety risks associated with lane splitting far outweigh the safety benefits of being stopped in the crosswalk (which I question even exist relative to being stopped in queue).

@T "the biggest problem with filtering is if the light turns green/higher speed road or at the end for right hooks. Otherwise, it's saving everyone involved time."

So you're saying the benefits of lane splitting are overall time savings and the cons are safety hazards? That's one of my reasons for being against lane splitting. Unnecessary risks resulting in marginal gains.

It's illegal AND it's the best option. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If being in front isn't safer, then why put in bike boxes?

Y'know, Jim, I'm going back to my conclusion that this only applies to passing on a two-lane road. One, that use of the horn is essentially consistent with use for safety reasons only. Second, the language about it not applying when passing on the right is permitted pretty much eliminates the application of this provision to four- or six-lane lane roads.

Whatever the law, my gut reaction to someone honking at me will still be to give them the finger and continue doing whatever I was doing.

To clarify, it should never be from a vehicle behind a rider. Only from one abreast that needs to merge back in, for safety reasons.

The only reason I give any substance to is it reduces inhalation of vehicular exhaust. All other benefits such as reducing encroachment on crosswalks, reducing right hooks, improving visibility, etc...can all be rectified by taking the lane and waiting in line with traffic.

Whatever the law, my gut reaction to someone honking at me will still be to give them the finger and continue doing whatever I was doing.

Only slower, and closer to the center of the traffic lane.

All other benefits such as reducing encroachment on crosswalks, reducing right hooks, improving visibility, etc...can all be rectified by taking the lane and waiting in line with traffic.

You ignored the big one: if there's a significant backup, there's a good chance a cyclist will miss the light because they can't accelerate as fast as autos.

That's one of the many reasons I'll always move to the front.

@Oboe A vehicle can only accelerate as fast as the vehicle in front of it. By filtering to the front (and taking the lane), every vehicle behind you will accelerate at or below your rate of acceleration (Unless you jump the red). So by filtering to the front you've just slowed the rate of acceleration down for all the vehicles just so you can make the light.

Do you see a safety issue with missing the light?

Jumping the light is another good reason for filtering to the front.

@Crickey. The cases I have scanned (same provision but not in Maryland) all seem to be about someone who sounded (or didn't sound) the horn before overtaking. See e.g.6 Ohio St. 3d 100, n.2(1983)

Employers Fire Ins. Co. v. Cliff Wood Coal & Supply Co. (1948), 85 Ohio App. 77, 83 [40 O.O. 68], states: "The purpose of the section requiring the giving of a signal by the overtaking vehicle is to warn the driver of the overtaken vehicle of the intention of the driver of the overtaking vehicle to pass so that he will not turn his vehicle to the left into the lane of traffic of the overtaking vehicle and thereby obstruct or interfere with its passage, and so, if necessary to permit the passage of the overtaking vehicle he will give way to the right."

So, filtering is legal. And if I don't filter then I am likely to miss a light cycle. (Since I'm on a bike, the lights are already timed so that I likely hit each one, but leave that aside.)

So...do I see a safety issue with missing the light? No. I see an "pointlessly adding 10 minutes to my commute" issue. This balanced against some driver's having to spend an extra few seconds passing me. And that assumes our average speeds are significantly different--which in the city is rarely the case. (If that line of cars was forced to drive 17-20 mph, they'd get to the next light just as fast.)

Might this pose a minor inconvenience to some drivers. It might. But I make up for it in other ways. Like not getting in the left-hand lane until a half block before my left-hand turn comes up. Purely as a courtesy to drivers, and at a minor increase in risk to myself.

Anyway, if you rode on my commute, you'd probably not be particularly receptive to lectures about courtesy from folks with a windshield perspective.

The Maryland Driver Manual advises drivers approaching bicyclists to avoid honking their horn. The sections describing passing in general, and passing slow vehicles and bicycles, do not recommend using a horn. So it's disfavored as a general matter, which is not to say it's illegal. I did find some indications that excessive use, or use in an aggressive fashion, could be considered illegal. Interestingly, were the driver making a political statement regarding their belief that bicycles don't belong on the road, they might avoid sanction.

To recap: It may not be illegal in Maryland as it is in DC, but the "polite honk" is disfavored as a driving practice and may result in ticketing if used in aggression or if repeated.

When I was getting my drivers license in Ohio many years ago they taught us in drivers ed to honk when passing, so I always assumed it was the rule and/or best practices. Then when I was getting my motorcycle license there the instructor told us that this is a terrible idea and very dangerous because the likely response from the driver being passed is to freak out and possibly swerve into your path. Of course unlike a car overtaking a cyclist, a motorcycle rider actually suffers some consequences if he runs into the vehicle he's passing.

I think for this reason it is a horrible idea to honk at cyclists. When I'm out riding I expect cars to pass me; I don't need them to announce it ahead of time. I don't expect them to honk at me though and even though I'm a fairly experienced city cyclist it can be quite startling some times. I imagine for some people they might be shocked into losing control or swerving into the oncoming car's path.

@washcycle Are you advocating red light jumping?

Well, I'm for the Idaho Stop, but I would never tell someone to run a red light if they didn't want to. So it depends on what you mean by "advocating".

@Oboe:be interesting if an unmarked PP cruiser would troll RCP doing the speed limit. But to do that they would have to give a damn.

@Washcycle: VDOT most definitely didn't install rumble strips on the W&OD Trail, since they don't have jurisdiction. It was most likely NVRPA, unless there's a rogue rumble stripper out there.

Unless I misunderstood the meaning entirely of the word, the writer complaining about the group of cyclists that passed her to be at the front of the light, complained about "shoaling." Isn't shoaling considered bad manners and a sign of a poor cyclist?

@Crickey: I wish I had been thinking about the statutory provision when we wrote the bicycle section in the Driver Manual, since there might have been an opportunity to distingish the concerns of the statute, which are rarely if ever applicable to a motor vehicle passing a cyclist. I think they are reasonable to a cyclist passing a cyclist, which may have been your point about ringing a bell, but the driver manual is not the place for that issue anyway. Possibly some amendment to the statute would be worthwhile, though lower priority than all the other things that need fixing. The states that still require the audible signal have a bigger problem; I'm not sure how they address bikes.

@oboe: I think that there is a continuum between taking a detour to avoid a bottleneck and in so doing making the system more efficient and cheating on a queue.

Part of it it demonstrable--maybe the issues you mention would make a good masters thesis for transportation modeler. My hunch is that what you are doing, in a conjested system, probably has negligible loss to the total system performance, but it might shift the benefits of the system. The driver who had to pass you 4 times (your pass partner) by changing lanes may well miss a light, and thereafter be one light later, as well as people behind him. But the next light is filled to capacity, so someone coming from a different street jumps ahead of your pass partner. The perception that cyclists slowed traffic down results from the fact that your pass partner will remember that you made him miss the light.

An equal number of drivers get home 2 minutes earlier because they make a light they would have missed but for the delay you caused your pass parner. But they rarely if ever realize that they have you to thank. Perhaps they are fuming at their pass partner on a different road. Perhaps we need a PR campaign on how to spot the cyclist that just saved you 2 minutes on your commute.

Part of the queue jump issue it is emotional, and depends on the nature of the detour, such as whether you were in view the entire time. If you butt into a long line at metro, people will think you are a queue-jumping jerk. But hop a train going the other way, quickly change trains, and even if people notice you on that train that they still can't get onto, they will think you are "clever". Driver up the shoulder: "jerk". Cut through the neighborhood, "clever". Filter alongside traffic in the door zone (to some drivers): "jerk". Filter alongside traffic in that same door zone after it is striped with a bike lane: "road user on a bike".

@UrbanEngineer: My 0-10 acceleration is generally better than that of the motor vehicle behind me (or next to me, when there is more than one travel lane). By the time I clear the intersection and the MVs have caught up, everyone's at a reasonable speed to consider passing safely. When I queue up (which *is* most of the time), the MVs have been travelling at my speed much longer by the time we've cleared the intersection. Are you advocating passing within, or approaching, an intersection? Honestly, I think I get *more* right hooks from people who whip around because I'm not getting to the green light fast enough than by the first guy at the light.

I don't filter past waiting cars, just as I don't want cars to attempt to "share" the stoplight or stop sign with me, pulling up next to me so they can get the jump.

There's a spot on my daily commute where there are two stop lights. They are timed so that I can just make it through the second light before it turns red if there's a car ahead of me at the first light. When there's more than one car, I can't make it. I also can't make it if other cyclists filter to the front and slow the acceleration of that single car ahead of me.

Filter alongside traffic in the door zone (to some drivers): "jerk". Filter alongside traffic in that same door zone after it is striped with a bike lane: "road user on a bike".

This describes what I've been thinking - for the people posting here for and against filtering up to the front of the queue, I wonder if this holds true:

*You primarily ride in the center of the lane, even avoiding door zone bike lanes when they are present = you don't filter to the front and wait your turn in the lane.

*You primarily ride in bike lanes and stay way right even when there is no bike lane = you do filter up to the front.

I think there is an safety argument for having bikes positioned at the front of waiting traffic.

Intersections are the most dangerous section of the road for bikes and by having them at the front they are more clearly visible to turning traffic.

Intelligent road design would even use a leading pedestrian interval on the signals to allow bikes to clear the intersection before traffic and establish a safe line of travel on the road ahead. I don't think the dangers of filtering up through crowded lanes, though, is worth the safety benefit of reaching the front.

Tonight I happened to have done a lot of filtering on my commute home. I came down 23rd NW and after sitting through several lights cycles waiting behind traffic I gave up and hopped on the sidewalk.

Road the sidewalk (at a walking pace) for 2 blocks - easily outpacing the gridlocked traffic and then turned onto L St NW.

I've been riding L lately in order to get the feel of it before the cycle track is laid down. L right now is a royal cluster F*** of traffic and the only way to make any headway on it is to filter.

Most of the traffic on L appears used to cyclists filtering and, anyway, they can only move inches at a time while cyclists are able to squeeze through. But you have to be comfortable with cars only a foot or so to the side.

After L I turned down 11th and filtered up to NY Ave. There was a commuter bus several vehicles back in line and as I was filtering up the driver attempted to use the bus to block me.

I got by but, at the time, I wasn't certain it was a deliberate attempt. Anyway the light turned green and I crossed NY heading south and within 2 blocks the commuter bus got onto my back wheel about 3 feet behind.

Every time I turned my head to try and fix how close the bus was the driver blew the horn.

After crossing H St with the bus on my tail the driver saw enough room ahead and swung the bus every so slightly to the left and passed me in my lane. I was riding the center of the lane and the bus driver only gave me a foot of clearance.

Upon passing the driver then aggressively swung the bus back in front of me and I had to brake hard to keep from getting swept aside by the tail end. This maneuver was so obviously aggressive that several pedestrians on the walk simultaneously pointed at me and the bus.

The bus got held up at the next light so I filtered up again and when I got up alongside the drivers window was open. So I yelled at the driver that she shouldn't be using her bus as a weapon.

Normally I'm pretty mellow in traffic and I don't go out of my way to confront drivers but I have yelled enough over the years to figure out by their response when they have just been oblivious or when they were deliberately road raging on me.

The oblivious driver normally looks clueless and confused when you yell at them which makes sense their being oblivious and all. The road rager, however, is quick with the typical response "bikes don't belong on the road" or some variation. And that was EXACTLY the response the driver gave me so I knew she was trying to intimidate me for having filtered past her earlier.

I wish I had thought of getting the bus number so that I could have complained to her company. At no point did I do anything illegal. The driver may not like cyclists filtering but she needs to get over it. She, on the other hand, used her bus as a weapon on the road against an unprotected cyclist in an act of aggression. For the safety of others she should loose her license and find another line of work. Something away from people.

@Joe D "Are you advocating passing within, or approaching, an intersection?"

No....what?

@washcycle Those that currently red light jump, generally do so within the bounds of the Idaho Stop law. I would find the law better suited for dense urban environments if it also addressed yielding to pedestrians.

As it applies to stop signs, I fear misinterpretation of the law will result in cyclists treating it solely as "bikes don't have to stop" and will completely forego the right of way portions of the law. If instituted, failure to yield would need to be enforced.

Whether I'm for it or against it...who cares.

My thoughts are plainly that if it's currently against the law, don't do it unless doing so increases your safety. You can justify breaking the law if it increases one's safety, but nowhere in any law applied to cyclists, do exceptions exist for speed related reasons. Currently red light jumping is done primarily because it's faster for the cyclist.

I've been riding L lately in order to get the feel of it before the cycle track is laid down. L right now is a royal cluster F*** of traffic and the only way to make any headway on it is to filter.

Darned inconsiderate drivers! It's the height of chutzpah when they complain about two cyclists riding abreast when 95% of the cars on the road have only a single occupant, and take up as much space as folks on bikes riding four abreast.

I would find the law better suited for dense urban environments if it also addressed yielding to pedestrians.

As it applies to stop signs, I fear misinterpretation of the law will result in cyclists treating it solely as "bikes don't have to stop" and will completely forego the right of way portions of the law. If instituted, failure to yield would need to be enforced.

My thoughts are plainly that if it's currently against the law, don't do it unless doing so increases your safety. You can justify breaking the law if it increases one's safety, but nowhere in any law applied to cyclists, do exceptions exist for speed related reasons. Currently red light jumping is done primarily because it's faster for the cyclist.

While I disagree that red light jumping is done primarily because of speed (in fact, jumping the light is usually safer--an obvious example is the case where the cyclist jumps the light to go straight during the interval between cross-traffic coming to a halt, and left-turn only traffic beginning to move.)

But everyone ignores laws in the interest of speed at some point. And that's perfectly fine so long as you're not transferring risk to others.

The majority of traffic signals in suburbia are designed to change only if an automobile triggers the sensor. If I arrive at one of these intersections I could either wait some arbitrary length of time for a driver to come along and trip the signal, I could walk over and push the pedestrian button, then walk back out to the road, or I could just jay-bike.

Even worse are the left-turn lights, which increasingly only trigger when a car is waiting.

Bottom line: if we want bikes to follow traffic regulations & signals, we need to stop designing them explicitly for automobiles. Same goes for pedestrian signals/regulations.

I'm with Urban Engineer on this one. I think it's like speed limits. If they're 50, people drive 60. If they're 55, people drive 63. Even if the road is exactly the same. With cyclists and stop signs, that same dynamic would result in a mental shift in deciding when one must yield.

I say this even though I love you like a brother, Oboe.

I don't know, in general people already behave as though that is the law. And neither Idaho nor Paris reports any sort of uptick in injuries or death following changes in the law. Most fears seemed to be based on uncertainty rather than fact.

@oboe 99.9% of the traffic cars sit in is motor vehicle traffic (rounded to the nearest .1%...add some more .9's if you want more accuracy). The thing I don't get with bike traffic from the drivers perspective is why they see us as being in their way even if we're keeping up with the flow of traffic. Just last night I had a car pass me across the double yellow lines and merge into me, forcing me to move over. I filtered right back in front of him after he did this, gave him the finger, and went on taking the lane. I probably pissed him off, but I did so in the most courteous and legal of ways with the intent of letting him know that if he wishes to pass me, he may do so in a legal manner when there's room for it. At the next light I queued up in line with traffic with him right behind me.

On a side note, chutzpah is my new favorite word.

In regards to red light jumping, primarily it is done for speed. Obviously there are exceptions.

"Bottom line: if we want bikes to follow traffic regulations & signals, we need to stop designing them explicitly for automobiles. Same goes for pedestrian signals/regulations."

ugh Cars...Bicycle rights man...10 foot rule

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3nMnr8ZirI

That's all I got.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader