these special interest groups kill me...

[NE2]

Riding in the middle of the lane is a defensive driving thing. Enough people drive cars like shit and pass way too closely and right hook you when you ride on the far right side that you sometimes need to ride in the middle to indicate "yes, you do have to move over to pass me". Unless the right lane is extra-wide, a car passing a bike will need to cross the lane line, and so the added disruption to traffic flow is minimal to nonexistent if the bike is farther left.
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/animations/lane-control/

[vdeane]

Most of those stop situations were bikes would be better with a yield are also situations where cars would be better off with a yield.  We should take some ideas from Europe: traffic lights go to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night, and replace most stop signs with yield signs.

I was speaking to your assessment of the bike lobby.

How is the bike/ped/urbanist conglomerate not trying to move to a car-free future?  Most of their proposals are hostile to motorists as far as I can tell.

Interesting take. 

For decades, the infrastructure (and culture) of this country has been geared strictly to motor vehicle travel.  The average work commute rises as the population moves their residence farther and farther from their workplace.  All the while fossil fuels deplete and become more and more expensive.  It's a trend that cannot be sustained and people are now realizing that.  So, now there's a movement to accommodate a valid mode of transportation within the existing travel corridors to where people need to be, either to work, shop, or recreate.  To have the gall to ask for a *small* *portion* of that corridor that's safe, direct and convenient; that's hostile to motorists.

The push isn't for car-free society.  It's for sensible multi-modal transportation.  And as many of our roadways come to the end of their design lives, now is a perfect time to include those elements within the reconstruction.

If we put even a fraction of the research into electricity storage that we do to finding locations for new oil wells we'd have viable long-distance electric cars within a decade.

Plus you can accommodate multiple modes of transport without inconveniencing drivers.  We'd also need a lot less accommodations from all sides if everyone would follow the law.  That includes NO JAYWALKING.  If people want to complain about the length of the walk signal that's fine, but the fact is the number of lanes is perfectly safe (especially given that they're narrow; as the plan is, it's more like four lanes from a pedestrian's point of view) as long as the walk signal is long enough and people don't jaywalk.

[NE2]

Jaywalking when no traffic is coming is like speeding. If you want pedestrians to follow what they feel are silly laws, you should do the same and always drive the speed limit or below.

[J N Winkler]

How many people who think jaywalking is a problem are aware that the crime of jaywalking can exist only when there are signals on consecutive street blocks?

[NE2]

How many people who think jaywalking is a problem are aware that the crime of jaywalking can exist only when there are signals on consecutive street blocks?

I've also seen jaywalking used to mean crossing on a don't walk, as I think deanej did here.

[vdeane]

Jaywalking when no traffic is coming is like speeding. If you want pedestrians to follow what they feel are silly laws, you should do the same and always drive the speed limit or below.

In general I do, but how on earth is jaywalking a silly law?  Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?

How many people who think jaywalking is a problem are aware that the crime of jaywalking can exist only when there are signals on consecutive street blocks?

I've also seen jaywalking used to mean crossing on a don't walk, as I think deanej did here.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

[english si]

Agreed... for the most part.  The difference being that traffic control/traffic law is currently geared for motor traffic.  There are certain instances when it makes little sense to require non-motor vehicles stop when there is no traffic.  Take for example mag-loop sensors at most intersections.  While sometimes it is possible for a bike to trigger the sensor, many times they just don't have the metal content to cycle the light.  So, there they sit...  My opinion is to treat Stop conditions as Yield in most cases.

Yes, that must be awful for you in America (then again, there were tons of lights when I cycled around Southampton. And despite the smart system, it was annoying early morning with no traffic and the loops didn't sense your bike, so didn't change), with a default stop, rather than default yield.

A stop on a bike is horrendous, especially if there's nothing there, as you've killed all your momentum for nothing. Especially if you actually stop fully - it makes sense that cyclists treat stop signs (though not red lights) as yields - slow down until they can guarantee it's clear, but not have to stop.

Mixing peds and transport-focused bikes is not often a good idea.  As a cyclist traveling from point to point, I need to be in traffic that follows a predictable pattern.  Ped traffic is much too erratic with joggers, dog walkers, stroller-pushing soccer moms, etc...  Also, separating bike traffic from normal vehicular traffic becomes hazardous at intersections, especially for through-traveling bikes as motor vehicles turn right.

My old cycling commute went on a road that had two options - cycle and turn right (so cross all traffic, as we drive-on-the-left) on a busy 4-lane divided highway, or use a shared use path alongside the road. I always felt less safe among the pedestrians than among the cars, plus couldn't go much faster than walking pace without it being unsafe.

Often times, that far right portion of the right lane is where debris collects and pavement degrades, making it a hazard for cyclists.  If I was to cling to the right side as you suggest, I'd constantly be swinging left to avoid these hazards, which makes an even more hazardous situation as motor traffic approaches from the rear.  As a cyclist, I want to keep a predictable line down the street, so the safest place for me to be is in the wear path of the street.

Yes - the keep to the kerb idea is the way cyclists die. Good practice is riding at least 3 ft out (cars typically give you about the same room on the other side when passing, plus you avoid the drains and stuff that mean that you are erratic), moving to the middle of the lane if going straight on/left (in drive-on-right countries) at junctions so you don't get hit by traffic that will conflict with you trying to pass you.

I typically cycle on quiet roads in the middle of the lane, moving left and slowing down a bit to left cars pass if needed to and it's possible, while on busier roads being a couple of feet over, so there's about 2.5-3.5 ft between me and the kerb minimum, adjusting speed and position to let cars pass and not block the road if they won't.

As for jaywalking, being a Brit I have no idea why that's such an issue - clearly there's a don't be a knobhead common sense to apply, but it's funny with visitors from Germany who won't cross until the light is green, even if the road is clear. Often, on signallised crossings, I won't push the button to stop road traffic unless I can't cross in a gap and need to make a gap. I also get annoyed if the lights stop one car, and behind them is a gap (for similar reasons I avoid zebra crossings when I can, crossing near them, but not forcing traffic to give way to me). I'd also not cross at a crossing if I could cross in a gap when it arrives - especially if I can do a diagonal and save walking a few feet.

[NE2]

Jaywalking when no traffic is coming is like speeding. If you want pedestrians to follow what they feel are silly laws, you should do the same and always drive the speed limit or below.

In general I do, but how on earth is jaywalking a silly law?  Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?

It's a victimless crime if nobody is delayed. (And before you question why motorists have to wait at red lights, their field of vision is significantly limited compared to that of a pedestrian (or a cyclist, for that matter).) Speeding may delay people who want to cross the speeder's path. Do you have the same dislike of them as you do for jaywalkers?

[J N Winkler]

How many people who think jaywalking is a problem are aware that the crime of jaywalking can exist only when there are signals on consecutive street blocks?

I've also seen jaywalking used to mean crossing on a don't walk, as I think deanej did here.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Yes, Deanej, that is what I thought you might mean.  That behavior is generally legal.  It becomes illegal only if the signal whose don't-walk indication is being ignored is one of at least two signals on consecutive blocks.

It is unfair to denigrate pedestrians as scofflaws if what they are doing is perfectly legal, even if it is contrary to a signal indication.

Edit:  Inaccurate information now struck out.

[NE2]

Yes, Deanej, that is what I thought you might mean.  That behavior is generally legal.  It becomes illegal only if the signal whose don't-walk indication is being ignored is one of at least two signals on consecutive blocks.

Huh? "A pedestrian shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device specifically applicable to the pedestrian unless otherwise directed by a police officer." This or a variant (search for "A pedestrian shall obey the instructions") is in many states' codes and is probably in the UVC. "Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk." is an additional restriction, not the only one.

[J N Winkler]

Yes, NE2, you are right--I was under the impression that the upraised hand/"DONT WALK" was advisory in nature, but I have checked the MUTCD (Chapter 4E) and I see that it is a positive prohibition ("a pedestrian shall not enter the roadway in the direction of the [steady] signal indication").  I have therefore edited my last post upthread accordingly.

I don't think it is the case, however, that the equivalent indication in European countries ("red man") is always a compulsory instruction.  In Germany I believe it is but in the UK I think it is not; instead, when red man is showing, the pedestrian loses priority and must not cause vehicles to change speed or direction if and when he chooses to cross.  The offense of jaywalking also does not generally exist because there is no concept of a street block for purposes of defining an adjacency criterion.

[NE2]

One gets into fuzzy legal territory when dealing with bikes using the sidewalk. Can you turn right on don't walk? (Since you're not crossing the road, I think it's legal.) What if you're turning left from the left turn lane onto the near-side sidewalk? (I think you have to wait for the light to turn, even though you're only going just past the stop line.) What about a left turn from a divided highway onto a multi-use trail with no actuation buttons in the median? (I'm not sure about this one - you may have to turn right and U-turn, Michigan left style.)

[Duke87]

how on earth is jaywalking a silly law?  Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?

Pedestrians have special status because they do not risk anyone but themselves. If I am driving, I can kill someone if I run a red light. If I am walking, and I disobey don't walk, nobody but me is possibly going to get hurt.

There is also the very real issue that all cars are more or less made equal but all pedestrians are not. An old man hobbling along with a cane needs a lot more time to cross the street than I do.


Of course, hailing from New York City, I tend to find the idea of pedestrian traffic control to be rather silly in the first place. You scamper across the street whenever and wherever you spot an opening. Who needs pedestrian control? Oncoming traffic is cause to wait before you cross. Orange hands are not.


I tend to take the same attitude about cyclists. Yeah, they're technically supposed to obey red lights and whatnot, but they hurt no one if they just treat it as a yield.

[hobsini2]

Some of you guys missed the point I was trying to make with my 3 conditions.

First of all, while i think that making signals at night become a flashing red/yellow is a good idea, that still does not change the fact that so many cyclists believe that signals and stop signs do not apply to them.

In my second condition about the sidewalk, notice I said in much small cities and towns where there is little to no foot traffic. You guys can't deal with say 3 pedestrians per mile? Come on now. How many times have you seen the sidewalk in front of your house in the burbs be crowded enough that it would be impassable for a bicycle? My guess is almost never unless you have a school or downtown businesses nearby.

In the last condition, you do bring up good points about a deteriorating pavement being a hazard for a bicycle. But most places out in the country, at least around here, have a shoulder that at the very least is crushed gravel if not completely paved with a with of 1 to 6 feet. That is not enough room for a bicycle to manage without getting all the way into the driving lane? I would think that riding in the driving lane would be more unsafe. Yes there are drivers who need to yield room to pass a cyclist. I myself do always cross the yellow line when I can if I am passing a cyclist but I do that more as a courtesy.

Duke, the problem with that mentality of treating a stop sign as a yield is that when you get into a more dense area, cyclists tend not to change their habits and do become a hazard.

[NE2]

You can't deal with passing 3 cyclists per mile? You shouldn't be driving.

[vdeane]

Jaywalking when no traffic is coming is like speeding. If you want pedestrians to follow what they feel are silly laws, you should do the same and always drive the speed limit or below.

In general I do, but how on earth is jaywalking a silly law?  Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?

It's a victimless crime if nobody is delayed. (And before you question why motorists have to wait at red lights, their field of vision is significantly limited compared to that of a pedestrian (or a cyclist, for that matter).) Speeding may delay people who want to cross the speeder's path. Do you have the same dislike of them as you do for jaywalkers?

If I'm on the Thruway waiting to pass some old person or truck(s) going 5-10mph below the speed limit while a line of cars is in the left lane doing 10 over?  Yes.

You can't deal with passing 3 cyclists per mile? You shouldn't be driving.

Depends on traffic.  In heavy traffic on a two lane road, you're basically stuck.

[NE2]

You can't deal with passing 3 cyclists per mile? You shouldn't be driving.

Depends on traffic.  In heavy traffic on a two lane road, you're basically stuck.

Same applies to heavy traffic on a sidewalk.

Oh, and

I would think that riding in the driving lane would be more unsafe.

is a common misconception. A motorist's field of vision is concentrated straight ahead, and it's almost impossible to miss a cyclist there. But one on the extreme side of the road is too easy to ignore, leading to right hooks (turning right just after passing) and other shitty driving. Riding on the sidewalk is even worse. It gets back to defensive driving: is the convenience of motorists more important than the safety of cyclists? If you say yes, fuck you.

[kphoger]

Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?

No, but pedestrians also shouldn't be given inferior status–which could mean having less right to the road than a motorist, having their interests ignored in favor of motorists', etc.

[Duke87]

A motorist's field of vision is concentrated straight ahead, and it's almost impossible to miss a cyclist there. But one on the extreme side of the road is too easy to ignore, leading to right hooks (turning right just after passing) and other shitty driving.

There is some responsibility to preventing right hooks on both parties involved. If you are driving and you pass someone on a bike, make sure you're aware of where they are before you attempt to make a right turn and make sure you use your turn signal. Meanwhile, if you are cycling and you see someone signaling a right turn in front of you, either go around them to the left or slow down and wait for them to turn.

[Special K]

A motorist's field of vision is concentrated straight ahead, and it's almost impossible to miss a cyclist there. But one on the extreme side of the road is too easy to ignore, leading to right hooks (turning right just after passing) and other shitty driving.

There is some responsibility to preventing right hooks on both parties involved. If you are driving and you pass someone on a bike, make sure you're aware of where they are before you attempt to make a right turn and make sure you use your turn signal. Meanwhile, if you are cycling and you see someone signaling a right turn in front of you, either go around them to the left or slow down and wait for them to turn.

So wrong for several reasons...

- As a through-traveling cyclist, I have the right of way over a right-turning motorist.  I need to ride in a predictable manner, which includes maintaining a constant speed through the intersection.  It is certainly not my "responsibility" to yield that right of way.

- Not all motorists use those things called "turn signals".

- I don't know the intentions of a vehicle approaching from the rear.  If I'm right at the intersection, I won't see a signal if the vehicle is turning right in front of me. (This is the definition of right-hooking, BTW.  A vehicle that overtakes me first, before turning right, certainly has the right of way)

- Swinging left around the car is also a very poor move, putting me in the path of any other vehicle which might be immediately behind the turning vehicle.

[mightyace]

I don't bike here in Middle TN for a couple of reasons:

1) The poor driving habits of so many people.
2) Out where I live, there are no shoulders to speak of and the lanes are of sub-standard width.  That wouldn't be too much of a problem except for #1.
3) The road grid in this part of the world doesn't have a lot of redundancy and most through routes have speed limits of 40mph and up.  (even in Nashville) I don't like to bike on a road unless the speed limit is 35 or under.

[Scott5114]

Walking SUCKS if it's hot, cold, raining or snowing outside.

Your opinion.  I enjoy walking in the heat, the cold, and especially the snow.  Rain, you can have.  When there's a foot of snow on the ground, and blizzarding all around, it's the perfect time to take a walk.

The Oklahoma Tourism Board called...wanna be their spokesperson?

[vdeane]

Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?

No, but pedestrians also shouldn't be given inferior status–which could mean having less right to the road than a motorist, having their interests ignored in favor of motorists', etc.

When it comes to boating, the larger, less maneuverable boats (ships and sailboats) take priority over the smaller, more maneuverable ones (motor boats and jet skis).  Surface transportation has it backwards.  While good drivers do recognize that they shouldn't cut off trucks, bikes and pedestrians seem to think that all the traffic should bend to their wishes.

[NE2]

good truckers do recognize that they shouldn't expect cars to get out of the way

Fixed for you.

[Special K]

When it comes to boating, the larger, less maneuverable boats (ships and sailboats) take priority over the smaller, more maneuverable ones (motor boats and jet skis). Surface transportation has it backwards. 

Bad analogy.  Water transport has a completely different set of variables they deal with.

For instance, land vehicles are limited to very rigidly placed roadways, while vessels are more or less free to maneuver in any direction they choose.  It's for this reason that less maneuverable vessels are given way while land vehicles have generally equal rights and responsibilities to the road.

While good drivers do recognize that they shouldn't cut off trucks, bikes and pedestrians seem to think that all the traffic should bend to their wishes.

There are good and bad drivers, but all cyclists and peds are self-absorbed pricks?  Using these generalities, it seems it's you who is inflexible.