tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post7028639595966380324..comments2024-01-05T11:00:30.673-06:00Comments on DFW Point-to-Point: Bike Lane TeachingSteve Ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13650405341304401203noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-24644821466477717182011-09-12T16:05:00.567-05:002011-09-12T16:05:00.567-05:00Steve - Your post is well written and spot on!Steve - Your post is well written and spot on!Warren C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-23615550216422229292010-06-07T14:17:52.653-05:002010-06-07T14:17:52.653-05:00"...Political BS, to whatever extent it exist..."...Political BS, to whatever extent it exists, depends on the ignorance and support of its subjects. ..."<br /><br />That needs to be engraved in bronze and framed on the wall.Khalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866897914538110672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-85343737627384520542010-06-07T10:55:01.762-05:002010-06-07T10:55:01.762-05:00Regardless of words versus actions, it is the obli...Regardless of words versus actions, it is the obligation of Bike Ed to teach people to ride safely and defensively, under any circumstances they encounter. Political BS, to whatever extent it exists, depends on the ignorance and support of its subjects. Educated cyclists will recognize dangerous facilities and will demand better.Steve Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13650405341304401203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-89413564494415544412010-06-07T08:11:20.509-05:002010-06-07T08:11:20.509-05:00I have a much stronger and negative reaction to th...I have a much stronger and negative reaction to this statement than you do. I find the qualifications to be very weak, and presented as exceptions.<br /><br />My biggest objection is to the statement that motorists have the legal and practical obligation to avoid dooring bicyclists. The clear implication is that fixing dooring is an issue for motorists, not bicyclists. While I agree that motorists should and do have a legal requirement to avoid dooring bicyclists, I think the practical ability to avoid the issue belongs to bicyclists, who should (legally) ride outside the door zone (hence outside almost every bike lane I've seen in Philadelphia and Cambridge). For contrast, legally, motorists are required to wait at red lights. Nevertheless, there is a delay before cross traffic gets a green light. Since some motorists make mistakes or are agressive, there is a short delay where both directions have a red light to allow for mistakes. Door zone bike lanes indicate that bicyclists are entitled to allow for a margin of error the way motorists are required to. In fact, by placing the bicyclists so close to parked cars, they are harder for motorists to see. If a motorist runs a red light, they may be injured themselves. If they door a bicyclist they cannot see in the door zone, the bicyclist is injured. Somehow, avoiding your own injury seems like a bigger incentive.<br /><br />Further, I've never seen the Bicycle League or local affiliates object to mandatory lane or path use for actual paths, or when individual cyclists were harassed by police (i.e. pulled over by police in Philadelphia on Sunday when signs said no cycling on road Monday-Friday 4pm - 6pm). The MBL law in Baltimore makes no execptions for bicyclists traveling at the same speed as traffic. All I see is the League encouraging more bike lanes, even with MBL and door zone bike lanes.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454395470271733836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-9485173025830934662010-06-06T21:29:18.192-05:002010-06-06T21:29:18.192-05:00PP, here is what I meant. Sorry for the delay and ...PP, here is what I meant. Sorry for the delay and if I was not sufficiently clear. Just got back from the LAB Rally.<br /><br />A cyclist should not be riding in the door zone. Period. Stripes or no stripes. <br /><br />If the stripes say to ride in the door zone, disregard the stripes in establishing your riding position and be prepared to defend your actions if questioned. A cyclist who has taken TS 100 or done some web research should be able to do that. Just say "no more Dana Lairds".<br /><br />The problem with door zone bike lanes is that they put the cyclist who is riding correctly at odds with the traffic professional's lane markings. Many people assume traffic professionals have the wisdom of Solomon when putting in lane markings. Well, sometimes they don't and for a variety of reasons. This failure may result in the vehicular cyclist being hassled by motorists or questioned by police. Especially when there is a MBL law.<br /><br />So my earlier point was not to say the cyclist should ride in the door zone in order to avoid being hassled. My point was that the bike lane should not be striped in the door zone to begin with. If that were the case, the cyclist would not have to deal with being forced to defend himself for disregarding traffic controls that defy common sense or are downright dangerous if obeyed.<br /><br />Sorry if I got grouchy. Like Steve, I get easily crankly.Khalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866897914538110672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-1392087118454933012010-06-04T08:46:16.679-05:002010-06-04T08:46:16.679-05:00Based on something that was posted on a forum...
...Based on something that was posted on a forum...<br /><br />BL stripes provide guidance with respect to where <b>not</b> to ride.<br /><br />1) "For consistent surface condition, sensible intersection approach behavior, minimizing unnecessary lateral merges so I can maximize my attention forward, and to always impart earliest the concept "INTEGRATE" to my fellow road users, I actively avoid bikelane delimited space most of the time. "<br /><br />2) "The stripe is a few inches to the left of the rightmost area of pavement that is swept and smoothed by traffic. ... Since some of the debris is hard to see (e.g. glass nestled down in the asphalt grain) I appreciate the bike lane stripe's assistance in finding clearer pavement". <br /><br />I think these are valid points, but even you look to the BL stripe as a good proxy for establishing where the edge of the usable surface is (the stripe itself in (1) or a few inches to the right of it in (2)), this is still ignoring the stripe with respect to using it as a lane stripe.Principled Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821076135942791400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-14332869305757395352010-06-03T20:12:40.934-05:002010-06-03T20:12:40.934-05:00Of course, cafiend is correct. I don't experie...Of course, cafiend is correct. I don't experience such things so I'm a bit rusty on the official terms for each of these. They all mostly have the same root cause - a motorist doesn't have the cyclist in his center of attention at the critical moment. I try not to encourage such neglect in MY motorists. I learn how to do it a little better each day...Steve Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13650405341304401203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-64915780777692926042010-06-03T18:47:59.280-05:002010-06-03T18:47:59.280-05:00Terminology suggestions: Right hook is well unders...Terminology suggestions: Right hook is well understood. I refer to a collision or near collision caused by an ONCOMING motorist turning left as a LEFT CROSS. A LEFT HOOK would actually come from the cyclist's RIGHT, as a motorist to the right forced a left turn across the cyclist's path in the same direction of travel. Picture yourself in the left of two lanes, and an impatient motorist passes you on the right and then launches a left turn from beside you.cafiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05749761363337659545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-15000012397717044192010-06-03T15:58:51.821-05:002010-06-03T15:58:51.821-05:00Also, I never suggested that a motorist - who is n...Also, I never suggested that a motorist - who is not supposed to drive in bike lanes - should be ignoring the bike lane stripe. <br /><br />The reason bicyclists should ignore bike lane stripes is that following their guidance is all too often bad guidance. Whatever factors determine whether following the stripe's guidance happens to be good or bad in a given situation is what should always guide the cyclist, <i>never</i> the stripe itself. Any guidance from the stripe should never be considered in deciding where to position the bicycle laterally. That's what "ignore the stripe" means. Where's the flaw in that?Principled Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821076135942791400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-72970048688256432322010-06-03T15:50:55.690-05:002010-06-03T15:50:55.690-05:00Khal, any twisting of your post by me was not deli...Khal, any twisting of your post by me was not deliberate. I'm honestly trying to understand what you are saying. Any "twist" is just a misunderstanding. Sorry. Let's try again.<br /><br />My argument is that the only instruction necessary on roads with bike lanes is "ignore the [bike lane] stripe". You said there is "a flaw with this thinking if put into practice". I'm trying to understand what you think that flaw is.<br /><br />You wrote: "Anyone else out there "ignoring the stripe", i.e., a motorist driving half in two lanes, etc, is probably going to be pulled over for erratic driving. Likewise for a cyclist riding outside a DZBL in a state with a MBL law."<br /><br />Doesn't that last sentence mean that a stripe-ignoring cyclist who rides outside of a DZBL in an MBL state is probably going to be pulled over for erratic driving? If that's the "flaw" with ignoring the stripe, aren't you suggesting that the cyclist NOT do that; that is he should not ride outside of the DZBL? Since you said making that assumption was "twisting" what you said, I assume (now) not. Then what are you suggesting? If it's not a flaw to ride outside of the DZBL due to ignoring the stripe in an MBL state, what <i>is</i> the flaw to which you are referring?Principled Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821076135942791400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-9092842796158987282010-06-03T14:32:09.002-05:002010-06-03T14:32:09.002-05:00PP, in deliberately twisting my post, you have com...PP, in deliberately twisting my post, you have committed the straw man fallacy. <br /><br />What I said was "...Anyone else out there "ignoring the stripe", i.e., a motorist driving half in two lanes, etc, is probably going to be pulled over for erratic driving. Likewise for a cyclist riding outside a DZBL in a state with a MBL law....Don't put in lane markings that contradict what we would teach. That makes a cyclist's job a lot easier than having to explain to the cop or irate motorist why he is "ignoring the stripe"..."<br /><br />So I think it is clear I am not suggesting that someone ride in a door zone. What I also said was not to install dangerous bike lanes, because when we put in bike lanes, there is the public expectation we will use them. The public is not very keen on understanding the hazards of dangerous bike lanes and it should not fall onto the shoulders of the hapless cyclist to have to constantly defend himself/herself against criticism that should actually be leveled against the designers and municipalities.<br /><br />By training cyclists, they are able to both avoid the dangerous situations and defend themselves credibly when quizzed. But why have to go there?Khalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866897914538110672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-2576590236899352642010-06-03T12:42:43.869-05:002010-06-03T12:42:43.869-05:00Likewise for a cyclist riding outside a DZBL in a ...<i>Likewise for a cyclist riding outside a DZBL in a state with a MBL law.</i> -Khal<br /><br />So, you're suggesting the instruction should be to account for the stripe and to ride in door zone bike lanes in states with MBL laws? I disagree, the instruction should be <b>ignore the stripe</b>, and ride outside of the door zone just as you would if the stripe were not there. I don't know of any state with an MBL law which could not be argued to not apply when riding in a DZBL when parked cars that present a hazard are present.<br /><br />There should never be any reason to explain to anyone why one is "ignoring the [bike lane] stripe"; only the need to explain why one is riding where one is riding, reasons that should apply equally whether the stripe is there or not, and should never having anything to do with the stripe. Paying any attention to the bike lane stripe with regard to deciding where to ride can never be a good thing (well, except maybe in wet conditions due to the stripe being potentially slick paint - but that's just seeing it as a hazardous surface to avoid, not as a guidance facility, and so is still "ignoring the stripe" in the sense in which the instruction is intended).Principled Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821076135942791400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-40301265103118522342010-06-03T12:31:28.240-05:002010-06-03T12:31:28.240-05:00While my wheel track may be pretty much the same a...<i>While my wheel track may be pretty much the same as if I were ignoring the stripe, I clearly am not. If there were no stripe I would drift left as in the case of a transition from a wide to a narrower lane.</i><br /><br />Sorry, this doesn't fly either.<br /><br />You should always signal any significant change in lateral position - whether you're crossing a stripe or not is immaterial.<br /><br />If you always signal any change in lateral position (more than a few inches), then there is no difference in behavior whether the stripe is there or not. This applies equally without regard to the presence of a stripe whether the lateral move is to avoid debris or to adjust for destination positioning or whatever.<br /><br />If the move is insignificant, only a few inches, you should ignore the stripe. That is, if you're moving your wheel track from just to the right of the stripe to just to the left of the stripe, there is no more need to signal such a move than if the stripe were not there. It's the amount of lateral change that determines whether you need to signal the move, not whether you cross a stripe or not. Paying attention to the stripe and thinking it's a factor to be considered in deciding how you behave is nothing but a distraction.<br /><br />Again, once proper behavior is understood for roads without bike lanes, the only instruction needed for roads with bike lanes is, <b>ignore the stripe</b>. As far as I can tell, any instruction beyond that is totally unnecessary and useless complication which belies a lack of full understanding and appreciation for proper behavior on roads without bike lanes.Principled Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821076135942791400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-60645656397031030172010-06-03T08:14:24.355-05:002010-06-03T08:14:24.355-05:00"Ignore the stripe" may enable the cycli..."Ignore the stripe" may enable the cyclist to ride in an optimal position, but Steve and others point out the flaw with this thinking if put into practice. Anyone else out there "ignoring the stripe", i.e., a motorist driving half in two lanes, etc, is probably going to be pulled over for erratic driving. Likewise for a cyclist riding outside a DZBL in a state with a MBL law.<br /><br />Good luck on your practicum, Steve.And, don't feel like the Lone Ranger as far as that ABC. Its a little mortifying to do an ABC Quick check in front of students and have your brake cable slip.<br /><br />Don't put in lane markings that contradict what we would teach. That makes a cyclist's job a lot easier than having to explain to the cop or irate motorist why he is "ignoring the stripe". Keeping bike lanes out of door zones and putting in broken stripes at turning and crossing points are two things that would improve this situation. As I said, make the lane markings consistent with good practice.Khalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866897914538110672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-34572676621521953492010-06-03T06:48:02.875-05:002010-06-03T06:48:02.875-05:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFxKmMaM1DA<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFxKmMaM1DA" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFxKmMaM1DA</a>Hamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17182921009517833997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-52762443398109086052010-06-03T05:35:48.522-05:002010-06-03T05:35:48.522-05:00Y'all may find it highly amusing that my other...Y'all may find it highly amusing that my other module is ABC Quick Check in view of some of my confessed transgressions with same. Yes, I will tell my students why they should make sure their spare tube is compatible with the wheels on their bike and why it is not enough merely to spin their wheel to ensure proper brake operation but that they really ought to ACT on that info.Steve Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13650405341304401203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-11193082285644873142010-06-03T05:25:12.000-05:002010-06-03T05:25:12.000-05:00PP certainly makes some good points, one of which ...PP certainly makes some good points, one of which matches the bottom diagram, in which the cyclist moves left, out of the bike lane when approaching an intersection on a two-lane road. In such a case, I signal a left move before I move left from the bike lane and, after clearing the intersection, I signal the rightward move back into the BL. While my wheel track may be pretty much the same as if I were ignoring the stripe, I clearly am not. If there were no stripe I would drift left as in the case of a transition from a wide to a narrower lane.<br /><br />Similarly if I needed to move out of the BL to avoid debris, a signal would be in order to alert following motorists I was looking to make a leftward move. They probably won't understand why I need to leave that perfectly good bike lane, but the signal will be respected and the move will be supported.<br /><br />Chip is entirely right that the simplest solution is simply to choose an alternate route, but again that action takes those lines into consideration as part of the total road picture.<br /><br />Fortunately, one of the modules I have been assigned for my test lecture is "lane position" and I shall incorporate this excellent advice into that lecture. The tough element is how to break it down to a level that a nervous T101 student can easily grasp and accept.Steve Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13650405341304401203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-6812792044126197792010-06-03T02:42:17.331-05:002010-06-03T02:42:17.331-05:00One more point about "Fundamentally, a bike l...One more point about <i>"Fundamentally, a bike lane is another lane on the road, with some special rules and restrictions. "</i>.<br /><br />No, a "bike lane" is fundamentally different from another lane on the road in at least two significant ways:<br /><br />1) A bike lane is normally not wide enough for ordinary vehicular traffic, and so vehicular travel is not expected to be in that space, as it is in normal lanes.<br /><br />2) At intersections without dedicated right turn lanes (the vast majority of intersections), bike lanes that are supposed to accommodate through travel are to the right of normal lanes that accommodate right turning traffic. No normal lane ever does this.<br /><br />These two characteristics make bike lanes so <i>fundamentally</i> different from normal lanes that it behooves the cyclist to not think of them as lanes at all, to <b>ignore the stripe</b> altogether, and to position himself or herself as he or she would if the stripe were not there.Principled Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821076135942791400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-21193975884352381822010-06-03T02:33:04.480-05:002010-06-03T02:33:04.480-05:00Use the rightmost lane that serves your destinatio...<i>Use the rightmost lane that serves your destination is very similar to "ignore the stripe." In many cases it'll be identical. </i><br /><br />They're totally different. First, "Use the rightmost lane..." says nothing about where in the lane you should ride (there are <i>other instructions</i> for that).<br /><br />Second, when combined with "ignore the stripe", "Use the rightmost lane..." means ride anywhere in the space comprised by the rightmost lane and the bike lane (where to ride in that space is determined by the same <i>other instructions</i> - no different than when riding on a road with a very wide outside lane and no bike lane).<br /><br />Now, if you consider "Use the rightmost lane...", while you do not ignore the stripe and you do consider the bike lane demarcated by that stripe to be "another lane on the road" (as you state in your piece), then that translates to, <i>"ride in the bike lane."</i> Very different. <b><i>Very</i></b> different.Principled Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821076135942791400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-20474409941685111182010-06-03T02:22:36.763-05:002010-06-03T02:22:36.763-05:00I ride further left than I would if there were no ...<i> I ride further left than I would if there were no stripe because motorists do not clear the debris in the bike lane very well. </i><br /><br />When you <b>ignore the stripe</b>, you don't ignore the debris that's there, even though it's there because of the stripe. So you ride further left, just as you would if the debris was there but the stripe wasn't. So, by riding further left than you would if the stripe (and associated debris) were not there, you <i>are</i> behaving consistently with behavior that is based on ignoring the stripe. That is, you're not riding further left because of the stripe; you're riding further left because of the debris. So, as usual, ignoring the stripe and using the same factors to decide where to ride when there is no stripe, like surface condition, works.<br /><br />Also, just because motorists and law enforcement don't ignore the stripe doesn't you mean you can't, or shouldn't. You can, and you should, <b>ignore the stripe.</b><br /><br />You should always have a good reason for riding where you ride, and that reason, if it's actually good, will never having anything to do with a bike lane stripe. <br /><br />If your choice of where to ride has something to do with a bike lane stripe, then it's not a good reason. <b>Ignore the stripe.</b><br /><br />A motorist or police officer might not see all the glass that's in the bike lane, and will expect you to ride in it, but that's no reason to ride in the glass. <b>Ignore the stripe</b>.<br /><br />A motorist or police officer might not immediately understand that you're moving left because you're approaching an intersection, and will expect you to stay in the bike lane, but that's no reason to position yourself to the right of right turning traffic. <b>Ignore the stripe</b>.<br /><br />Once you teach students how to position themselves on roads without bike lanes, the only instruction needed for roads with bike lanes is ... <b>ignore the stripe</b>.Principled Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821076135942791400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-75006113045365277732010-06-03T01:49:19.768-05:002010-06-03T01:49:19.768-05:00"That's why we need better engineering st...<i>"That's why we need better engineering standards and controls so we don't get shortchanged in the name of "bicycle-specific improvements". If you cannot do it right, please don't do it wrong in the name of politics."</i><br /><br />LAB is encouraging the construction of these dangerous ill-engineered bike lanes by giving special "bike friendly" awards to various municipalities such as Austin. LAB is at the for-front of promoting poorly designed bike lanes. LAB is shameless in this regard.<br /><br />They have fallen from a great height indeed.<br /><br />I, like Steve, feel the best way to deal with bike lanes is to find a different route. (Especially here in Texas where their use is mandatory- Just ask Sgt. Pillow!) LAB's policies are making alternate routes ever more difficult to find.ChipSealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095195723481694050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-43204908727445333282010-06-03T00:30:58.893-05:002010-06-03T00:30:58.893-05:00John Forester has noted that those lines affect mo...John Forester has noted that those lines affect motorist and even police driving. It seems idealistic to be the only one on the road to be ignoring those lines. I have followed that advice and invariably concluded it would be wiser to take an alternate route.<br /><br />In the one case where there is a bike lane on my commute route, I ride further left than I would if there were no stripe because motorists do not clear the debris in the bike lane very well. Lately, I just ride in the traffic lane because there's construction and nobody has begrudged the uppity cyclist so far.Steve Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13650405341304401203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-58098296425883455472010-06-03T00:11:36.320-05:002010-06-03T00:11:36.320-05:00Use the rightmost lane that serves your destinatio...Use the rightmost lane that serves your destination is very similar to "ignore the stripe." In many cases it'll be identical. The first rule may be found in many League Bike Ed pubs. One problem with ignoring the line is that other traffic is not ignoring the line. A second problem with ignoring the line is that it may subject the cyclist to prosecution. As we both know - even if no bike lane was intended.<br /><br />The line is a lane boundary, and other road users and law enforcement both treat it as such. It should be considered in that light but not revered as something sacred or magical. A T101 student should be able to understand that and also to understand that motorist can easily be confused by that simple line.Steve Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13650405341304401203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-23236187823234408202010-06-02T22:41:04.293-05:002010-06-02T22:41:04.293-05:00I still go by John Forester's advice, "Ig...I still go by John Forester's advice, <b>"Ignore the stripe."</b><br /><br />Some people think that means don't ride in bike lanes, but of course it doesn't. It simply means ride wherever you would if the stripe was not there. If the present conditions and your situation are such that you would ride to the right of the stripe (in the bike lane), so be it. Just don't be guided by the bike lane itself with respect to where to ride - that's what "ignore the stripe" means. Instead, you should be looking at other factors, like your speed, your destination, the speed and volume of other traffic, their destination, surface conditions, etc.<br /><br /><b>Ignore the stripe.</b>Principled Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821076135942791400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2523357558654725888.post-27988660320289702262010-06-02T20:13:15.177-05:002010-06-02T20:13:15.177-05:00The teaching is unambiguous and as I said, I have ...The teaching is unambiguous and as I said, I have no beef with that. But we are not reaching everyone on a bike. Meanwhile, the stripes speak for themselves, both to the unsophisticated cyclist and to the undereducated motorist or cop wondering why a cyclist is not in the bike lane. Not everyone reads the nuances of the MBL laws, including the cop who dressed me down last summer. <br /><br />My point is simple. Don't stripe where you don't want a cyclist to ride according to TS 101. The League should just say that. Such a statement is not anti-bike lane (and neither am I). It just makes our engineering standards consistent with our teaching standards. That should work for any PTOE or other traffic professional. You don't put in roadway markings that contradict what you expect the motorist to do, so neither should you do that for the cyclist. <br /><br />Sure, to some degree that is outside the realm of TS-101.Khalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866897914538110672noreply@blogger.com