How about a thread to share and discuss ideas about how to be safe and comfortable in traffic?

Here are some ideas that I've picked up, in no particular order...
<ul>
<li>Ride outside of door zones... <em>at least FIVE FEET from parked cars.</em>
<li>Control lanes that are too narrow to be safely shared (any lane less than 14 feet wide).
<li>When to the right of traffic, always keep your front wheel behind the rear bumper of any car, especially one that can and might turn right, including when it suddenly slows.
<li>Always check for cross traffic before entering any intersection, even on green
<li>Control lanes as you approach intersections, often even minor ones with driveways and alleys.
<li>Assume full responsibility for your safety (to avoid crashes - assigning responsibility after a crash is another matter); don't put your safety in the hands of nitwit motorists!
<li>Never more left or right without looking back first
<li>Make sure you have the crucial ability to maintain course while looking back by practicing with a straight stripe in an empty lot.
<li>Learn to create space by "negotiating" for it, remembering that you don't have right of way to move laterally in front of others unless it is yielded to you.
<li>Use clear arm signals - with your arm straight out, hand open, straight fingers, palm forward.
</ul>

Great additions to the list! I see you and raise you! <ul> <li>Learn to be good at predicting motorist behavior. Test yourself. The goal is to know that they'll be turning before they know it! <li>Don't let the false sense of security that bike lanes tend to install lull you into complacency - especially as you approach any intersection, driveway or alley crossing! <li>Personal experience alone is a reliable but inefficient way to learn traffic safety. The cumulative experience of others, as accumulated on sites like this, and in books, can get you the knowledge much faster, and is usually preferable to the often painful and even deadly path of learning through the school of hard knocks. Do you really need to get doored to learn that the door zone is basically over 4 feet wide, and five feet is really how far you need to track from parked cars, allowing for a small margin of error? Do you really want to get hit by a red light runner before you learn to make sure an intersection is clear before entering, even on green? <li>Read: <strong>Cyclecraft </strong>by John Franklin <li>Read: <strong>Effective Cycling</strong> by John Forester <li>Read: <strong>Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)</strong> by Tom Vanderbilt <li>Read: <strong>Bicycling Streetsmarts</strong> by John S. Allen. <a href="http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm">Free dowload!</a> </ul>

<blockquote><cite> Hans:</cite>A little more...
I mentally ride like I'm invisible (not invincible).
Most accidents are due to not being seen. That hideous lime-yellow you see around is the most visible color to the eye, and doesn't blend in with ANYTHING. Sunburst-yellow is second place for visibility. Red and green are the first colors to go in colorblindness, and red turns almost black in low light conditions. Wear whatever color you want. Just ride accordingly. The best safety equipment is skill and defensive riding.
Lights and moving reflectors are the best. Studies have shown that moving yellow reflectors are exponentially more attention grabbing than a stationary red reflector.

(Yes, I know. I was the guy last night riding the "light" black bike with the generator powered tail lamp, while wearing the "light" chocolate brown tweed)</blockquote>
Great stuff... one nit though.

I used to ride "like I was invisible", but that turns out to be debilitating except in light traffic. It's just impossible to "assume invisibility" in medium to heavy traffic... if you're in the road in traffic like that, you have to be seen, especially, if, for example, you're negotiating with traffic to achieve right-of-way for a left turn. So I'm not into that particular wording any more. That said, I do try to avoid being in a situation where my safety depends on being seen by some particular driver without first establishing that I've actually been noticed by him or her. I mean, if you're actually assuming you're invisible there would be no point in doing that.

The other thing is that in the area of making yourself visible, bright clothing, lights and reflectors generally gets appropriate coverage, especially among the experienced, but the role of <strong>conspicuous lane positioning</strong> in getting yourself noticed seems to be underappreciated even by the guys with decades and thousands of miles of racing, touring and/or commuting experience. Time after time when I hear someone complain about being overlooked and I ask where they were riding, they'll say something like "in the bike lane" or "by the edge where I'm supposed to be"... Uhh... weren't you overlooked and almost hit at an intersection? No need to keep right there, and you're much better off further left. That's not to say that conspicuous lane positioning <em>guarantees</em> you'll be noticed (ask any motorcyclist), no way, you still have to verify you've been noticed before having your safety depend on being noticed, but it surely helps a great, great deal, I think much more than most people realize.

I'll end with some quotes from Cyclecraft (pp 91-92):

<blockquote>
It has already been said that positioning is one of the most important traffic skills for a cyclist to acquire, yet it is precisely here that most cyclists perform badly. Many cyclists fail to position themselves properly because of their fear of traffic, yet ironically, it is this very fear that probably puts them most at risk.
...
<strong>Good road positioning is <em>not </em>about keeping out you of the path of other traffic as much as possible.</strong>
...
Of all cycling skills, road positioning is probably the most important, for it is through their position on the road that cyclists can exert the greatest influence on their safety in traffic.

Children should learn to position in the same way as adults. The risks introduced by poor positioning are the same and so are the solutions.
...
Motorists primarily give attention to that part of the highway where there is risk to themselves: they are not nearly so good at noticing anything outside their path. This zone of maximum surveillance is often very narrow, especially at higher speeds - it does not extend to much more than the line of traffic that the driver is following, plus the lines of traffic that are most likely to conflict with the driver's own movement. For you to be safest as a cyclist, you must normally ride within this zone of maximum surveillance, not outside it.
</blockquote>

I like the safety wobble -when you hear a car coming close, fast, or loud, do a little wobble before they pass, giving the idea that you're less stable than you really are. The driver will likely give you more room.

<blockquote><cite> Njord Noatun:</cite>Disagree on the the lack of usefulness of arm signals: Right arm - turn right; left arm - turn left (or change lane) -- what can conceivably be less confusing than <strong>that</strong>?

I figure the worst thing that can happen from using hand signals is that 100% of motorists ignore you 100% of the time -- and the upside from that scenario is a whole better than the downside: Sticking my arm out in addition to taking all other precautions for safe riding represents no cost or risk to me with a minimum of effort.</blockquote>

I'm talking about the DMV hand out ones mentioned in most how to bike hand outs and instructions.

Pointing to where you're going ~ essentially a hand signal. But the whole arm up, arm down, ect about telling a motorist, an unknown amongst many....and uneffective.

Pointing, from my experience, works really well.

One thing I have trouble with in many of the publications and many of peoples cut and paste of those is the <blockquote>at least FIVE FEET from parked cars.</blockquote>. It makes me shake my head and wonder, where do people ride that it's safe and acceptable to ride 5 feet out from parked cars? Scott and I tried this several times, in a variety of places. I was curious, and Scott was pretty sure this must be a good idea. 5 feet is a lot of ground, essentially putting you on the inside edge of a cars right tire. We did this from La Mesa to down town. Aside from the honks, which don't concern me so much; were the near death brushes, the sideswipes, the cars swerving left around us, brakes slammed on.... It was probably the most hair raising riding expereince I've ever done. And you're taking to a guy who once road down Diamond Back in Hawaii with his feet over the rear tire, laying prone like superman, on a fixie. It was horrible. I thought at times I would get hit. You're out there. I mean, on a 40 MPH road? On curves, lights... Just so not practical. At all. How far is 5 feet. In the photo below, I'm the uberbald guy in a bow tie. I'm standing about 6 inches from the cars. Not a good spot. A foot. Two feet. Good place to be. 5 feet, puts me smack dab in the middle of the lane. Creating a dangerous situation for all concerned. A little more acceptable on side streets due to calmer speeds. But just barely so. <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/4185084164_d881e9b43f_b.jpg" alt="" /> And, to say this is recommended for begginers? Horrible. They'll do it once, and then, 10 years from now, sell thier "ridden once" bike on craigslist. I'm not saying hug the right or ride in the curb. But 5 feet? Not healthy, in fact, dangerous. I will also say, going pendatic here, I'm not a fan of riding defensively. Or aggresively. But really, proactively. If you've got your eyes open, paying attention, and are aware of where you are, you'll do much better.

<blockquote><cite> William:</cite><blockquote><cite> Njord Noatun:</cite>Disagree on the the lack of usefulness of arm signals: Right arm - turn right; left arm - turn left (or change lane) -- what can conceivably be less confusing than <strong>that</strong>?

I figure the worst thing that can happen from using hand signals is that 100% of motorists ignore you 100% of the time -- and the upside from that scenario is a whole better than the downside: Sticking my arm out in addition to taking all other precautions for safe riding represents no cost or risk to me with a minimum of effort.</blockquote>

I'm talking about the DMV hand out ones mentioned in most how to bike hand outs and instructions.

Pointing to where you're going ~ essentially a hand signal. But the whole arm up, arm down, ect about telling a motorist, an unknown amongst many....and uneffective.

Pointing, from my experience, works really well.</blockquote>
I agree that signaling right with the left arm is close to useless, but that's designed for automobile and truck drivers. Motorcyclists and bicyclists are allowed to use the right arm for right signals, and I do. I have found a CLEAR arm signal, and I mean the arm straight and parallel to the ground, palm open and facing forward, to be <strong>extremely effective</strong>, especially when coupled with a turn-the-head-around look-back. Whenever I do that, almost always the very first car slows for me and makes space, once in a while I have to wait for one or two cars, but never had to wait more than 3 or maybe 4 cars before someone let me in. Never. Not once. The difference in effectivity between a CLEAR and assertive arm signal and one that is even a tad bit lame (e.g., angled down), is really amazing. Someone once told me this and I just didn't believe what seemed to me to be a minor difference in how I signaled could actually matter, until I tried it myself.

As to the slow/stop signal (with the left arm), I find that to be highly effective too, especially to get tailgaters to back off. Anytime I see someone in my mirror too close or approaching too fast, I pull out my left arm straight, and straight down with a 90 degree bend at the elbow, and I watch as they INSTANTLY react by backing off. I don't think that has ever failed to work.

Serge

5 feet, puts me smack dab in the middle of the lane. Creating a dangerous situation for all concerned.

I think that -- whether or not being in the middle lane creates a dangerous situation -- the core question being debated in almost all the disagreement about how to ride in city streets, etc.

Personally, I feel *way* safer being smack dab in the middle of the lane, compared to riding alongside parked cars or on the edge of a lane where drivers may try to squeeze by me or not see me. Even if I'm going 10mph and the speed limit is 40mph, if there's not ample room for a car and for me to ride safely alongside each other, I want to be right in the middle where the cars have to slow down n there is and wait for me. I know if I'm in the middle of the lane, no one is going to hit me by accident. They might hit me on purpose because they're frustrated at having to wait, but for whatever reason I'm not that afraid of being murdered like that -- I'm much more afraid of being killed by someone who is driving negligently or recklessly.

However, I note that other cyclists feel really endangered or exposed being out in the lane like that, particularly when the aggro drivers come up and start honking or whatever, and I respect that those cyclists would rather take their chances with the doors of the parked cars, people coming out from between them, random right turns by inattentive motorists, etc., than with the anger and impatience of motorists who feel that cyclists do not belong in the middle of the lane.

I do wonder if the impatience with cyclists in the lane is a more American thing -- we were riding in TJ a couple weeks ago on a busy multi-lane road on a Saturday nite, we took the whole right lane and every single car just changed lanes behind us and gave us plenty of room -- no anger, no honking, etc. We talked about how we never would have experienced that in San Diego, where on an empty road with 3 lanes in one direction, oftentimes a driver would rather pull up behind a cyclist and honk than change lanes to pass (I saw Beany comment about this in the last couple months, so I'm pretty sure it's not just me).

In the end, though, I would disagree with the perspective that bicycling in the middle of the lane creates a dangerous situation. Because pretty much nothing you can do on a bicycle, other than riding fast through a crowd of pedestrians, creates a dangerous situation.

There's only one dangerous thing happening on the asphalt, and that is people driving 2-ton boxes of steel at high speeds, when humans are not really well-adapted to that task. If there is a dangerous situation inherent in bicycling in the lane, that danger is created by drivers having the expectation that the roads will be completely free of anything that might impede them driving ever faster.

<blockquote><cite> Serge:</cite> As to the slow/stop signal (with the left arm), I find that to be highly effective too, especially to get tailgaters to back off. Anytime I see someone in my mirror too close or approaching too fast, I pull out my left arm straight, and straight down with a 90 degree bend at the elbow, and I watch as they INSTANTLY react by backing off. I don't think that has ever failed to work. Serge</blockquote> This is the one I talked with a few people about after reading about it on line and in a few books. It sounds logical. The answer from asking people who drive, alot: I got: "WTF does that mean?", with a comical "you're gonna give me the finger?". Perhaps we ride in different areas, but frankly, hand signals, not effective or usefull in my singular experience. From engaged conversation, and my miles, simply pointing in traffic works really, really well. Others have tried it and it seems to work for many. It's quick, simple, and effective, with most drivers knowing what I mean and intend.. and it seems a bit dangerous to be doing an arm signal, and looking in a mirror while riding in city traffic, hueristically speaking. A quick back glance, know your space, know who's coming and look forward and generally, things are GTG. Anyway, perhaps we're splitting tomatoes with 5lbs sludge hammer. Jim Baross taught a neat trick at cycling 101 (a pretty good class for anyone who wants to sharpen thier skills), I used to be an over the shoulder look, but the under the arm if you're up out of the saddle works pretty good to. Takes a bit of getting used to. Like Thom said, using common sense is huge. Some places, "the law says" will get you a ticket or hit... Some places, taking the lane is not only desired, it's required to remain safe.

My 2nd biggest "danger" cycling is the 805 cross over on Imperial (west). It goes from 2 lanes to 3 lanes, but in a less than a block area. #3 begins, is of course, an optional right. Past the first light, #3 becomes a mandatory right. #2 lane is an optional right. Now, under the idea of taking the lane, a person should take this lane. But, as it's the optional right, it's also "I'm in a Mother @#$#@ hurry" lane for making a right to get on the freeway. At the light, if it's red, we typically ride out in front of stopped cars, ending in the cross walk, so we're seen. If traffis is moving, we'll actualy go all the way left, merging over with traffic at the back while we can either match or overtake. We started by riding on the right of the #2 (middle lane), but after being passed and right hooked onto the freeway on ramp twice.. we started to straddle the lane in a pair. Which is effective, but when you hear tires locking up, or can feel the heat out line of "ford" from the truck behind you..effective is questionable when you consider risk management. We take the #1, all the way on the left, and it works wonders. Have for years. This section is a down hill, and very dodgy lighting early in the morning. We hit 4 lights on this section. I was stopped once, once by the sheriff (I'm guessing's it still considered an unincoperated community here) on this section asking me why I was in the #1 lane. After I explained it to him, he left. Two days later he stopped me again and said that, aside from getting off the bike and using the cross walk, he couldn't see a better way to do it.

<blockquote><cite> Serge:Serge:</cite>
This is the situation I was thinking about. First, the setup. You're off to the right, perhaps in a bike lane, and a car on your left passes you. Happens all the time, right? At the instant that rear bumper passes you, you are behind (and to the right of) that bumper. I don't see how you can avoid that. It must happen countless times on every ride. That's the classic setup for a right hook, and it happens all the time.Serge</blockquote>

If they slow down for the turn, I get on thier left side and pass. :face-devil-grin:

Legal and works. Unless they change thier mind.

jay:

5 feet, puts me smack dab in the middle of the lane. Creating a dangerous situation for all concerned.

I think that -- whether or not being in the middle lane creates a dangerous situation -- the core question being debated in almost all the disagreement about how to ride in city streets, etc.

Personally, I feel *way* safer being smack dab in the middle of the lane, compared to riding alongside parked cars or on the edge of a lane where drivers may try to squeeze by me or not see me.

I also feel safer in the middle, or slightly left of middle in the lane. Lately I've been going more left of middle in narrow lanes. It does seem to cut down on the close passes.

Staying to the far right when the lane is narrow almost always seems to result in a lot of close passes. I get a lot fewer by being in the middle, and so I feel safer. I do occasionally get the idiot who honks because he or she thinks that they are too important to have to change lanes to pass a bicycle. It amazes me that people have so much trouble and anger over having to change lanes. It really does. As near as I can tell, the anger is based in a belief that bicycles are not allowed to be in the middle of the lane and that we are somehow "getting away with something" that we aren't allowed to do. Of course, that's legally wrong, not to mention hypocritical since most of these people are full on road ragers who typically do all sorts of illegal driving.

<blockquote><cite> William:</cite><blockquote><cite> Serge:Serge:</cite>
This is the situation I was thinking about. First, the setup. You're off to the right, perhaps in a bike lane, and a car on your left passes you. Happens all the time, right? At the instant that rear bumper passes you, you are behind (and to the right of) that bumper. I don't see how you can avoid that. It must happen countless times on every ride. That's the classic setup for a right hook, and it happens all the time.Serge</blockquote>

If they slow down for the turn, I get on thier left side and pass. :face-devil-grin:

Legal and works. Unless they change thier mind.</blockquote>
That's exactly what I meant, which implies getting behind them (to get from the right side to the left side to pass), no?

<blockquote><cite> William:</cite>Since you're here Serge and pretty well versed in Vehicular cycling, let me ask you: My number one "un happy" cycling portion of one of my routes: University, going east, right at the Chollas Parkway cross over. (Or anyone, for that matter) There's an angled, yeiled (or stop) cross over from University going east to west. Of course, I've got the right of way. But, on the other side, there's a 2 lane merge Chollas Parkway into the 2 lane on University. A little while later, the 2 lanes of the formally Chollas becomes 1 lane. I've got to hit the merge, and cross over to the right. My speed at this point hits around 16-22 mph. Depends on how tired I am, how good a speed I pick up. Traffic speed limit is, I think 35, could be 40.

#1 problem, likely unavoidable is the head on. My opinion is the city should just shut that crap down. But, there's been a specific absence of any accidents, and I don't intend on becoming one to prove a point. The crossing two lanes of high speed traffic with traffic on my left, occasionaly some of which want to cross all the way right for some of the stores. Reality: things have gone pretty well over this stretch. I usually watch right as soon as I can, and if it's clear, I'll dive over really fast to get out of the way. Not to poke fun, but neither arm signals or pointing is going to do much, thier view is somewhat obstructed... What are your thoughts? (anyones)</blockquote> Here's the view from Chollas: <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=university+ave+at+chollas+parkway,+san+diego,+ca&sll=32.74776,-117.074068&sspn=0.011857,0.024247&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=University+Ave+%26+Chollas+Pkwy,+San+Diego,+California&ll=32.747327,-117.07469&spn=0.012236,0.024247&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.747548,-117.074385&panoid=Y4iePl3FJ41oOWYyy1ycaA&cbp=12,37.4,,0,7.23">maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=university+ave+at+chollas+parkway,+san+diego,+ca&sll=32.74776,-117.074068&sspn=0.011857,0.024247&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=University+Ave+%26+Chollas+Pkwy,+San+Diego,+California&ll=32.747327,-117.07469&spn=0.012236,0.024247&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.747548,-117.074385&panoid=Y4iePl3FJ41oOWYyy1ycaA&cbp=12,37.4,,0,7.23 </a> I don't see any significant obstructions, the sight lines look great. Take this with a grain of salt because I have not ridden there and I might be missing something, but my initial take is that I would control the right lane of University as I approached the merge, and pretty much continue controlling as long as the stripe to my right was solid. Now, if I look back and see no traffic coming from Chollas, and there is traffic approaching from behind on University, yeah, I would probably cut across. But if there is traffic coming from Chollas they have the right of in that lane, and I have the right of way, so I'm staying put (laterally speaking, continuing to progress longitudinally, of course) until they pass me and there is room to move over. If I'm approaching the end of the solid stripe and there is still a stream of traffic coming in from Chollas on my right, then I know I need to create a gap to move over. That's when I use the CLEAR and obvious straight arm right signal, probably coupled with a look back over the right shoulder. They will let you in, and certainly will notice you. Here's a bicyclist looking to get over to the edge of the road - they get that. They'll let you through. After the merge on University the lane looks plenty wide for safe sharing, unless the curbside area is occupied with parked cars. If there are parked cars, then I would probably stay near the center of the rightmost slow lane. Those need to pass need to change lanes; sorry. The frequency of the driveways and intersection might cause me to control the lane even without the parked cars. Serge

<blockquote><cite> William:</cite><blockquote><cite> Serge:</cite>That's exactly what I meant, which implies getting behind them (to get from the right side to the left side to pass), no?</blockquote>

Nope. I swap sides immediately. They go right, I go left, one for one. We're sharing the road, not getting ready to for greek.

:face-devil-grin:</blockquote>
I think we're trying to say the same thing.

Once they pass you you are behind them, longitudinally. Laterally, you are, at least initially, also off to the side, but you're behind (and off to the right). Now during the swap, as you go left and they go right, you're behind them (they're not behind you), so, again, you're behind them.

I guess you meant you would not get directly behind them (not off to the side) <em>and stay there</em>; that if you're going to move left, you're going all the way to their other side. Okay, I can see that. But sometimes I just stay behind, if nothing else because of other traffic passing is not possible at that point, and I want them to know I'm behind them so they don't wait for me to pass on the right (I hate when they do that, though I understand why they expect it since 98% of cyclists do it).

Serge

.

In Tom Vanderbilt's Traffic:. . . he cites a study that showed drivers were more likely to misinterpret a cyclist's intentions, or react more slowly to those intentions, when a cyclist used hand signals rather than just looked over their shoulder/indicated with position where they intended to go. I'm not going to look up the passage now, but it's in there. This fact doesn't keep me from pointing where I intend to go, or holding my palm out to people when I want them to make room for me, but I'll offer it as food-for-thought. . .

<blockquote><cite> il Pirati:</cite>.

In Tom Vanderbilt's <li>Traffic:. . .</li> he cites a study that showed drivers were more likely to misinterpret a cyclist's intentions, or react more slowly to those intentions, when a cyclist used hand signals rather than just looked over their shoulder/indicated with position where they intended to go. I'm not going to look up the passage now, but it's in there. This fact doesn't keep me from pointing where I intend to go, or holding my palm out to people when I want them to make room for me, but I'll offer it as food-for-thought. . .</blockquote>
That's a good point, I often rely on just looking back to signal my intent to motorists - which alleviates the need to take one hand off the bars. If they yield the right of way to me, I have the right of way. Depending on how one interprets the statute requiring signalling, one might argue that a look back is all that is required (but don't cite me on that one!).

This is another advantage of using a mirror - it prevents the "false signal" problem in which the cyclist looks back merely to check out the traffic condition for some reason, and a motorist assumes it's because he wants to move left <em>now</em>. With a mirror you can check back without turning your head and issuing a "false signal" - it's very useful for seeing if and when a gap is coming to decide if you're going to use an existing gap (if one gets to you at the right time), or whether you're going to have to negotiate to create one. But looking back alone sometimes just doesn't do the trick, and I have to add in an actual arm signal too. I do wonder about the quality of the arm signals used in the study that Vanderbilt cites. Again, the difference between a clear signal issued by a straight arm is amazingly more effective than one that is, well, even somewhat lame (for lack of a better term).

But with a mirror it's also very important to never rely only the mirror. Before actually moving left (or right), I always double-check to make sure it's clear with an old-fashioned over-the-shoulder head turn look.

if the traffic is moving at a slow-medium pace (maybe 10-25mph?), and you think you can ride as fast as the cars, ramp up your pace, go hard and take the lane as if you were a car/motorcycle. if you are moving with the flow, it seems much safer than riding on the shoulder, and cars can't help but see you. if a gap forms, close it up, or get back on the shoulder.

don't space out. your life is literally in your hands. look out for danger: brake lights, doors, cracks, peds, dogs, soccer balls. if you are paying very close attention, you can stop a 20lb bike much faster than a driver can a 2000lb car.

learn how to bunnyhop over shit. this can be very helpful/crucial.

if you want to get through town on the quick, draft a bus. yeah.

Serge:

William:Since you're here Serge and pretty well versed in Vehicular cycling, let me ask you: My number one "un happy" cycling portion of one of my routes: University, going east, right at the Chollas Parkway cross over. (Or anyone, for that matter)

There's an angled, yeiled (or stop) cross over from University going east to west. Of course, I've got the right of way. But, on the other side, there's a 2 lane merge Chollas Parkway into the 2 lane on University. A little while later, the 2 lanes of the formally Chollas becomes 1 lane. I've got to hit the merge, and cross over to the right. My speed at this point hits around 16-22 mph. Depends on how tired I am, how good a speed I pick up. Traffic speed limit is, I think 35, could be 40.


#1 problem, likely unavoidable is the head on. My opinion is the city should just shut that crap down. But, there's been a specific absence of any accidents, and I don't intend on becoming one to prove a point.

The crossing two lanes of high speed traffic with traffic on my left, occasionaly some of which want to cross all the way right for some of the stores.

Reality: things have gone pretty well over this stretch. I usually watch right as soon as I can, and if it's clear, I'll dive over really fast to get out of the way. Not to poke fun, but neither arm signals or pointing is going to do much, thier view is somewhat obstructed...

What are your thoughts? (anyones)

Here's the view from Chollas:

maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=university+ave+at+chollas+parkway,+san+diego,+ca&sll=32.74776,-117.074068&sspn=0.011857,0.024247&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=University+Ave+%26+Chollas+Pkwy,+San+Diego,+California&ll=32.747327,-117.07469&spn=0.012236,0.024247&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.747548,-117.074385&panoid=Y4iePl3FJ41oOWYyy1ycaA&cbp=12,37.4,,0,7.23


I don't see any significant obstructions, the sight lines look great.

Take this with a grain of salt because I have not ridden there and I might be missing something, but my initial take is that I would control the right lane of University as I approached the merge, and pretty much continue controlling as long as the stripe to my right was solid.

Now, if I look back and see no traffic coming from Chollas, and there is traffic approaching from behind on University, yeah, I would probably cut across.

But if there is traffic coming from Chollas they have the right of in that lane, and I have the right of way, so I'm staying put (laterally speaking, continuing to progress longitudinally, of course) until they pass me and there is room to move over.

If I'm approaching the end of the solid stripe and there is still a stream of traffic coming in from Chollas on my right, then I know I need to create a gap to move over. That's when I use the CLEAR and obvious straight arm right signal, probably coupled with a look back over the right shoulder. They will let you in, and certainly will notice you. Here's a bicyclist looking to get over to the edge of the road - they get that. They'll let you through. After the merge on University the lane looks plenty wide for safe sharing, unless the curbside area is occupied with parked cars. If there are parked cars, then I would probably stay near the center of the rightmost slow lane. Those need to pass need to change lanes; sorry. The frequency of the driveways and intersection might cause me to control the lane even without the parked cars.

Serge

The 3 trees in the Google image and the shrubbery beneath them blocks some of the view of westbound drivers crossing over to Chollas. This is particularly sketchy at dusk when it's hard to see those cars when heading eastbound on University. I'm just extra careful there and prepare to yield, if necessary.

I find it prudent to always have my flashing head and tail lights going even during the day because of the numerous shadows cast by tall buildings, trees and overpasses. It also doesn't hurt to have them aimed at parked cars' side mirrors.

Is it just me, or are bicyclists, particularly male bicyclists with some experience, especially resistant to bicycle traffic safety education?

I mean, if I think about just about any other activity that has some risk involved in it -- piloting airplanes, driving cars, rock climbing, SCUBA, riding motorcycles, paragliding, backcountry backpacking, ice climbing, etc. -- it's pretty much accepted that there are some standard basics to be learned, and taking classes and/or reading books is how you do it. The vast majority of participants in these activities, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong), have at least taken some courses and/or read some books about how to engage in these activities safely.

But have the vast majority of bicyclists taken classes or read books about how to ride bikes in traffic safely? Have you? If not, why the difference?

I don't know about Australia or non-English speaking countries, but the UK, Canada and the U.S. all have bicycle traffic safety programs that teach the techniques and best practices of safe traffic cycling, and they all say pretty much the same thing, and what that is is basically very different from how most bicyclists, even most experienced bicyclists, ride.

There seems to be a sense within the bicycle community that pretty much anything goes, that there is no one correct way to behave, and different techniques work for different people. Can you imagine a driving instructor saying something like that? Or a SCUBA or pilot instructor? How about the training chief at a nuclear reactor? I mean, sure, there is a some variance based on personal preference, there is on all of these activities. But I perceive a resistance to even the most basic notions and rules about bike traffic safety among bicyclists, like the importance of stopping at red lights, clearly indicating intent before moving laterally, avoiding door zones, controlling narrow lanes, riding visibly and predictably out in the lane when approaching intersections, etc. These are the kinds of things that ALL the courses and books in the field agree on, and yet to that there seems to be resistance. <em>A lot</em> of resistance.

What is that about? Or am I off base?

Thanks,
Serge

<blockquote><cite> burnsadam:</cite>people don't like to follow rules. </blockquote>
I think you're on to something. There is a difference between dumb pointless rules and rules that we follow for our own safety. People definitely don't like to follow dumb pointless rules.
For some reason in bicycling many of the safety rules seem to be largely perceived as dumb pointless rules. And maybe some of them are in some contexts (coming to a complete stop at every mindnumbing stop sign comes to mind), but I think that excuse is used to ignore even the good ones. Is that because the rules are perceived to be designed for cars, and that they really shouldn't apply to bicyclists?
Most of the basic traffic rules and principles were conceived before cars were invented. I wonder if there is a way to market the notion that following the traditions of traffic that predate cars is somehow cool and retro?

because the rules are perceived to be designed for cars, and that they really shouldn't apply to bicyclists?

and this. many, many people think this way. yes, some of the rules may be bent reasonably, but the majority should be followed. if more people did that, there would be much more respect for cyclists, and it would be safer out there.

<blockquote><cite> Velo Cult:</cite>Serge, ever thought of holding bike classes with the bike coalition? you can sit down 10-30 people at a time and teach them the ways of the road point by point.</blockquote>
The coalition offers classes that do exactly that. I'm certified to teach those classes, but am personally not active in teaching for various reasons (not the least of which is weekend time commitment).

I haven't been reading this thread - but it may be worth noting that when I saw it pop up - I promptly added the thread on Tips for Happy Riding, as I knew what might ensue...

Esteban

Serge:Is it just me, or are bicyclists, particularly male bicyclists with some experience, especially resistant to bicycle traffic safety education?

I'm a big Tom Vanderbilt fan and I don't really buy the safety angle. I am not really sure Traffic Safety courses accomplish much. There are a lot of good things to be said for taking the lane, staying x feet away from y obstacle and so on, but I think there are equally good things to be said about being completely unpredictable on the road. Although annoying, I'm not convinced bike salmons are quite threat to everyone they're made out to be. I'm not in favor of people getting from point A to point B in the fastest possible way. I'm a bigger advocate for traffic calming measures. If a cyclists A is riding all wobbly ahead of you, I think that is a good thing. Speed kills and I think being too predictable on the road lulls roads users into a false sense of security.

<blockquote><cite> beany:</cite> Although annoying, I'm not convinced bike salmons are quite threat to everyone they're made out to be. </blockquote> Salmons post a much bigger threat to themselves than to anyone else. <blockquote> A study in Washington State found that 11% cycling fatalities involved wrong-way riding. Subtracting out 11% of the nationwide deaths, we find that cyclists who don't ride against traffic are 3x to 10.2x more likely to get killed than motorists.</blockquote>
[[_linker_]]
That said, salmon cycling is probably a lot safer than how dangerous most cyclists seem to imagine controlling lanes is.