Curious about youse guys' opinions

"fbloogyudsr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw07102005/onfitness.html

I was reading through the Pacific magazine last weekend and noticed this
article.
It talks a lot about the health benefits and injuries. But, the most
amazing
thing about the article is the picture: it's a pic of a cyclist lane
splitting!
Certainly one of the more dangerous - and in WA state illegal, I believe -
things to do on a bike.

Newspaper editors and art directors are probably the cause, but really!
Claire, did you notice this?

Floyd R

Look at the design on the guy's shirt.

"fbloogyudsr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw07102005/onfitness.html

I was reading through the Pacific magazine last weekend and noticed this
article.
It talks a lot about the health benefits and injuries. But, the most
amazing
thing about the article is the picture: it's a pic of a cyclist lane
splitting!
Certainly one of the more dangerous - and in WA state illegal, I believe -
things to do on a bike.

Newspaper editors and art directors are probably the cause, but really!
Claire, did you notice this?

Floyd R

Looks like a perfectly legal and safe way to make a left turn in the left
turn lane. Notice the car at the very right front of the picture, it's
turning left.

"JJ" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"fbloogyudsr" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw07102005/onfitness.html

I was reading through the Pacific magazine last weekend and noticed this
article.
It talks a lot about the health benefits and injuries. But, the most
amazing
thing about the article is the picture: it's a pic of a cyclist lane
splitting!
Certainly one of the more dangerous - and in WA state illegal, I
believe -
things to do on a bike.

Newspaper editors and art directors are probably the cause, but really!
Claire, did you notice this?

Floyd R

Look at the design on the guy's shirt.

It's a gal - easier to tell on the print version... ;->

Floyd

Fred said:

"fbloogyudsr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw07102005/onfitness.html

I was reading through the Pacific magazine last weekend and noticed
this article.
It talks a lot about the health benefits and injuries. But, the most
amazing
thing about the article is the picture: it's a pic of a cyclist lane
splitting!
Certainly one of the more dangerous - and in WA state illegal, I
believe - things to do on a bike.

Newspaper editors and art directors are probably the cause, but
really! Claire, did you notice this?

Floyd R

Looks like a perfectly legal and safe way to make a left turn in the
left turn lane. Notice the car at the very right front of the
picture, it's turning left.

Yup. Not obvious at first glance, but clearly the case.

(I have a left turn early on from my house that's exactly like this, but
with TWO left-only lanes. I always cue up on the front-outside of the
right-most left-turn lane. {How's THAT for a clear description?!?} <eg> )

fbloogyudsr said:

It talks a lot about the health benefits and injuries. But, the most
amazing thing about the article is the picture: it's a pic of a
cyclist lane splitting!

Something I do every day. When the cars are stationary it is
completely safe. When they start to move you keep pace just behind
the rear quarter of the car in whichever lane happens to be going
faster (or rather, less slowly).

As long as you keep your wits about you there is very little risk
involved.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer

In article <[email hidden]>,

fbloogyudsr said:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw07102005/onfitness.html

I was reading through the Pacific magazine last weekend and noticed this
article.
It talks a lot about the health benefits and injuries. But, the most
amazing
thing about the article is the picture: it's a pic of a cyclist lane
splitting!
Certainly one of the more dangerous - and in WA state illegal, I believe -
things to do on a bike.

Lane splitting is not very dangerous if the cars being split between
are stopped and packed closely (so that they cannot do surprise lane
changes across the path of the splitter), and their potential turning
movements are in directions away from the direction of the cyclist
(i.e. don't split between two turning lanes if you want to go straight).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

In article said:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw07102005/onfitness.html

Quoted message said:

thing about the article is the picture: it's a pic of a cyclist lane
splitting!

My first thought was I feel that I should have bike commuted today.

Looking at this picture the rider is in a left turn lane. Provided the
rider is turning left, this isn't lane spliting. But rather a legal lane
location for turning left given the way most vehicle codes can be
interpeted.

It's not something I do, because drivers cannot handle their vehicles
well. When I am in a turn lane, I take the lane. I accelerate and turn
faster than most drivers who are turning anyway.

Given the long queue of vehicles and large gap, that may encourage me to
do the option that rider is doing. However I've never faced a situation
like that.

fbloogyudsr said:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw07102005/onfitness.html

I was reading through the Pacific magazine last weekend and noticed this
article.
It talks a lot about the health benefits and injuries. But, the most
amazing
thing about the article is the picture: it's a pic of a cyclist lane
splitting!
Certainly one of the more dangerous - and in WA state illegal, I believe -
things to do on a bike.

Newspaper editors and art directors are probably the cause, but really!
Claire, did you notice this?

Floyd R

What's the problem? Should I ride on the left side of cars that are
turning left?

This is what I ride like all the time. Perhaps the right techinique is
to take up a lane and make the cars drive at 15mph?

"Brent P" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article said:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw07102005/onfitness.html

Quoted message said:

thing about the article is the picture: it's a pic of a cyclist lane
splitting!

My first thought was I feel that I should have bike commuted today.

Looking at this picture the rider is in a left turn lane. Provided the
rider is turning left, this isn't lane spliting. But rather a legal lane
location for turning left given the way most vehicle codes can be
interpeted.

It's not something I do, because drivers cannot handle their vehicles
well. When I am in a turn lane, I take the lane. I accelerate and turn
faster than most drivers who are turning anyway.

Given the long queue of vehicles and large gap, that may encourage me to
do the option that rider is doing. However I've never faced a situation
like that.

Ok, many people are saying that this isn't lane splitting (which
I've looked up in RCW and is illegal in WA). But, then what I don't
understand is: why is it ok to bypass cars in a LEFT turn lane (by
riding up the outside) but not in a RIGHT turn lane. Seems to me
you can't have it both ways... Both are dangerous, if not illegal
(in this case).

Floyd

"fbloogyudsr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Claire, did you notice this?

I was too busy on STP to read the Sunday paper.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Bill Sornson said:

Fred said:

fbloogyudsr said:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw07102005/onfitness.html

I was reading through the Pacific magazine last weekend and noticed
this article.
It talks a lot about the health benefits and injuries. But, the most
amazing
thing about the article is the picture: it's a pic of a cyclist lane
splitting!
Certainly one of the more dangerous - and in WA state illegal, I
believe - things to do on a bike.

Newspaper editors and art directors are probably the cause, but
really! Claire, did you notice this?

Looks like a perfectly legal and safe way to make a left turn in the
left turn lane. Notice the car at the very right front of the
picture, it's turning left.

Yup. Not obvious at first glance, but clearly the case.

(I have a left turn early on from my house that's exactly like this, but
with TWO left-only lanes. I always cue up on the front-outside of the
right-most left-turn lane. {How's THAT for a clear description?!?} <eg> )

Absolutely understandable, that's what we do too. The two-right-turn-lane
variant is somewhat different because at the far left of the leftmost
right-turn lane you can cause a nuisance to the cars who are using that lane
to legally go straight. Waiting between the two right-turn lanes is no better
if you want to go straight. At the nastier intersections like this the City
Fathers direct the bike traffic up onto the sidewalk, which would seem to
imply that bikes in the designated-for-bikes pedestrian crosswalk have the
right-of-way over cars just as if they were pedestrians.

They've recently spent money on metal SHARE THE ROAD signs and useless thick
slippery white lines designating the bike lane. Better they fix the potholes
and sweep up the glass if you ask me.

--
Cheers,
Bev
---------------------------------
aibohphobia - fear of palindromes

In article said:

Ok, many people are saying that this isn't lane splitting (which
I've looked up in RCW and is illegal in WA). But, then what I don't
understand is: why is it ok to bypass cars in a LEFT turn lane (by
riding up the outside) but not in a RIGHT turn lane. Seems to me
you can't have it both ways... Both are dangerous, if not illegal
(in this case).

I'll explain it this way. Let's say the bicyclist is going straight and
is in the right lane. He rides a bit inside the solid white line in the
right lane and motor vehicles pass within the same lane. This condition
is no different, except it's done in a left turn lane and everyone is
turning left.

Another way to visualize this is to pretend that right lane isn't there
and the road just curves to the left. Crop the right lane out of the
picture and look at it again. It will look correct to you then.

fbloogyudsr said:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw07102005/onfitness.html

I was reading through the Pacific magazine last weekend and noticed this
article. It talks a lot about the health benefits and injuries. But,
the most amazing thing about the article is the picture: it's a pic of
a cyclist lane splitting!
Certainly one of the more dangerous - and in WA state illegal, I believe -
things to do on a bike.

Real 'lane splitting' (= between the cars) should be illegal.

However, many streets are marked as having a wide right lane, partly to
accommodate bikes. I see no problem with it being used that way, but it
ought to always be considered (and preferably marked as) a separate bike
lane, so that if the road _does_ narrow, the bike will then have to yield
before taking up a space in the rightmost regular lane, where he will
block the normal flow of cars (and therefore _should_ be a second class
citizen).

In article said:

However, many streets are marked as having a wide right lane, partly to
accommodate bikes. I see no problem with it being used that way, but it
ought to always be considered (and preferably marked as) a separate bike
lane, so that if the road _does_ narrow, the bike will then have to yield
before taking up a space in the rightmost regular lane, where he will
block the normal flow of cars (and therefore _should_ be a second class
citizen).

I encountered a driver who probably thinks like you today galt. I was
riding my bicycle at 30mph in a 30mph zone, so I was out towards the
middle of the lane, after all I was doing the legal speed limit on this
two lane residential road with a double yellow line down the center. This
woman guns it up to 45-50mph to pass me, whips her car out into the
oncoming lane and then cuts back in front and then jams on the brakes to
avoid hitting the car already stopped at the intersection. I nearly
rear-ended her. I dove left and passed by her.

Asking her if she had wanted me to rear end her, she responded that I had
to look where I was going. Like you, she felt bicycle = slow and second
class.

Another driver today, passed me as I had taken the lane and was slowing
to a stop for a red signal. The [censored] then proceeded to sloth his way
through the intersection, so he got a mouthfull of chastisement for his
slowness from me as I passed him, in the same lane on his left side as he
finally started to inch through his right turn. Maybe cars should be the
second class since they are often driven so slowly.

On the issue of wide curb lanes vs. bicycle lanes. Bicycle lanes add
needless complication to the roadway. Wide curb lanes provide all the
benefits of bicycle lanes with none of the drawbacks. Also bicycle lanes
are often substandard in design. A wide curb lane, will not have these
built in problems because the lane is simply wider. Be one foot or five.

Your concept of forcing a merge is actually going to be more dangerous and
slower. As the bike lane ends, timid drivers may actually come to a stop.
Remember, these are the same people who are likely enablers when
expressway lanes end. Now you'll be stuck behind a timid driver who
refuses to pass a bicyclist. Without the merge, as a wide curb lane, the
timid driver is more likely to simply pass.

"Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"fbloogyudsr" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Claire, did you notice this?

I was too busy on STP to read the Sunday paper.

Yes, I saw your other post; congratulations!
I actually didn't read it until mon/tue, since I had been backpacking...

Floyd

"Brent P" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article said:

Ok, many people are saying that this isn't lane splitting (which
I've looked up in RCW and is illegal in WA). But, then what I don't
understand is: why is it ok to bypass cars in a LEFT turn lane (by
riding up the outside) but not in a RIGHT turn lane. Seems to me
you can't have it both ways... Both are dangerous, if not illegal
(in this case).

I'll explain it this way. Let's say the bicyclist is going straight and
is in the right lane. He rides a bit inside the solid white line in the
right lane and motor vehicles pass within the same lane. This condition
is no different, except it's done in a left turn lane and everyone is
turning left.

Another way to visualize this is to pretend that right lane isn't there
and the road just curves to the left. Crop the right lane out of the
picture and look at it again. It will look correct to you then.

Except that the right lane is also a turn lane - you can just
see the point of the arrow on the pavement. So she's exposed
to a left turner in that lane...

Floyd

In article said:

"Brent P" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article said:

Ok, many people are saying that this isn't lane splitting (which
I've looked up in RCW and is illegal in WA). But, then what I don't
understand is: why is it ok to bypass cars in a LEFT turn lane (by
riding up the outside) but not in a RIGHT turn lane. Seems to me
you can't have it both ways... Both are dangerous, if not illegal
(in this case).

I'll explain it this way. Let's say the bicyclist is going straight and
is in the right lane. He rides a bit inside the solid white line in the
right lane and motor vehicles pass within the same lane. This condition
is no different, except it's done in a left turn lane and everyone is
turning left.

Another way to visualize this is to pretend that right lane isn't there
and the road just curves to the left. Crop the right lane out of the
picture and look at it again. It will look correct to you then.

Except that the right lane is also a turn lane - you can just
see the point of the arrow on the pavement. So she's exposed
to a left turner in that lane...

Looking at the picture it appears that lane is going straight or turning
right. Otherwise there would be a vehicle between the photographer and
the bicyclist blocking the view.

If it's two left turn lanes, then it's another issue and in a big grey
area of the vehicle code.

In article <[email hidden]>,

John David Galt said:

Real 'lane splitting' (= between the cars) should be illegal.

Why? If not done dangerously (dangerous = when the traffic
being split through is moving at more than crawl), lane splitting
effectively increases the road capacity by allowing two wheelers
to use road space that is otherwise wasted (and when traffic is
stopped or crawling, any extra road capacity will reduce the size
of the traffic jam and the length of time that any road user,
including car drivers, is stuck in it).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

fbloogyudsr said:

Brent P said:

fbloogyudsr said:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw07102005/onfitness.html

Looking at this picture the rider is in a left turn lane. Provided the
rider is turning left, this isn't lane spliting. But rather a legal lane
location for turning left given the way most vehicle codes can be
interpeted.

The only time I would be in that cyclist's position, is if the
right-hand line of cars is about to make a right turn, and the
other lane is going straight-only, and I am going straight. (This way
I'm not in the way of any flow of traffic, and there is no other
place I could safely be).

If the other lane is straight-and-turning, in heavy traffic I would
usually get off my bike and cross at the pedestrian crossing, there
is too much risk that people will turn when they weren't indicating,
etc.
(Unless the traffic is so congested that I could easily out-manoeuvre
any idiot).

Quoted message said:

Ok, many people are saying that this isn't lane splitting (which
I've looked up in RCW and is illegal in WA). But, then what I don't
understand is: why is it ok to bypass cars in a LEFT turn lane (by
riding up the outside) but not in a RIGHT turn lane. Seems to me
you can't have it both ways... Both are dangerous, if not illegal
(in this case).

Well, you are supposed to keep to the right of whatever lane
you're in, so there isn't any reason to expect symmetry.
Riding up the outside of a right-turn lane is dangerous because
you aren't keeping to the right !