Reconsidering Electric Bikes

Over time, I’ve been somewhat ambivalent about electric bikes. Doing a search, I noted them here and here. While I’ve never gotten enthusiastic about buying one, neither have I condemned them as a new form of “Spawn of Satan.” Lately, however, my opinion has been getting more strongly formed. Now, I’m strongly in favor of electric bikes, unless I’m against them. Either way, I’m less neutral. You see, this summer, a company started renting electric bikes in Ocean Shores, Washington.

On busy weekends, these guys might have a dozen or so electric bikes rented out at one time. The bikes “look like beach cruiser” bikes. However, they go LOTS faster. What makes me less ambivalent is that I notice the tourists that rent these things seem FAR MORE likely to act like they are operating a vehicle than the tourists that rent human-only-powered bikes. Commonly, the electric bike tourists control their lane rather than hugging the RH extreme of the roadway. Yup, they seem to pretty much ride in a manner that approximates "the line of sweetness." It makes me wonder since these people have not been through any sort of bike ed classes. They just feel comfortable using their legal rights to a “narrow” lane instead of hugging the road edge. I also have not seem them riding (illegally) the city sidewalks, also like a lot of the human-powered bikes. All of this SHOULD be goodness for those of us (well, at least ONE of us) here in Ocean Shores that operate using sound traffic principles. If that proves to be the case, there’s an upside to electric bikes that might help all other cyclists, and particularly be helpful in conditioning motorists to expect safe bike operation. Hurrah for electric bikes!!!!!

OTOH, like a lot of other small towns, one should remember that the government people of Ocean Shores expect bikes to operate at the EXTREME RIGHT of any road, as documented here. It’s the typical “from behind a windshield” bias against non-motorized road users, codified in a "for now" fuzzy manner. Should they decide to make new draconian ordinances, that might hurt cyclists that prefer to ride in accord with generally accepted “best practices.”

What will transpire? That determines whether I’m STRONGLY in favor of, or opposed to, electric bikes. I suspect that any stupid laws that the city might consider will, as their current cycling laws are, be almost universally ignored, in which case, I repeat “Hurrah for electric bikes!!!” Who’d have thought electric bikes might be a force for equitable treatment of all cyclists?

Roundabout Tourists

Google Maps Shot Looking Down on the Ocean Shores Roundabout. North is at Top of the Photo

Previously, here, I wrote about the Ocean Shores Roundabout. I noted that the painted bike facilities, if followed, would put cyclists into crossing conflict with lawfully operating motorists and might even put cyclists in violation with the OS Municipal Code. Myself, I simply operate my bicycle pretty much as any locals would in their motor vehicles. Over time, anybody in Ocean Shores routinely learns the rules of the roundabout and knows where to watch in order to avoid conflicts. My speed through the roundabout is not much different than anybody else’s – there is a 15MPH posted speed limit and few motorists try to go faster.

On occasion, however, there is a problem with my strategy. Mostly, these problems pop up when there are LOTS of tourists in town. Tourists, you see, don’t understand the roundabout or its rules. When there are only a FEW tourists, they mostly just watch and see what everybody else does, and do the same. If they’re coming into town, they typically turn right in order to get to their hotel/motel. When there LOTS, however, they start trying to drive around town and I’ve experienced trouble from this, both when on my bike and when I motored through the roundabout.

The basic principle of the Ocean Shores Roundabout is that, entering the roundabout, you do so from the LEFT lane if you intend to turn left or make a U turn. That limits crossing conflict to the point of roundabout entry, when you are yielding to any traffic already in the roundabout. Three of the street exits from the roundabout are four-lane, median separated streets, and the fourth is a two-lane street. The last exit is where the problems mostly occur.

The problems occur in two ways. The first problem is that tourists entering from the north don’t realize that they are supposed to be in the left lane if they want to turn left. While in the roundabout, they suddenly make a lane shift to the left. As you can imagine, it can be a little disconcerting (whether on a bike or in a car), to suddenly see a motorist shifting into YOUR lane. To minimize this, on weekends with a lot of tourist traffic, I ride closer to the right side of the left lane, and faster than usual. I also watch the wheels of any nearby motor vehicles for the “oops, I’m in the wrong lane” reaction that roundabout novices often experience. That gives me time and space to move over if the adjacent motorist wheels start moving left. If the motorist indulges his/her “MUST PASS” impulse, I point at the exit, which seems to snap them out of their confusion. This is worst at the aforementioned exit because both roundabout exit lanes merge. At other exits, I can always stay in the left lane until the conflict evaporates. At worst, that’d involve a second trip around the roundabout.

The second problem is that many tourists don’t seem to understand that traffic already IN the roundabout has the right of way over traffic wanting to enter it. That is compounded for cyclists since we simply aren’t as obvious as an ambulance flashing its lights. In such cases, when I see vehicle wheels looking like they might sprint forward into the roundabout prematurely, I hold my right hand up, with the palm facing the prospective offender. It isn’t any sort of official or proper signal, but it seems to work and nobody has yet actually violated my right of way. If someone DID simply charge into the roundabout, I guess I’d have to decide whether to change lanes, brake, or accelerate. Sometimes cycling in traffic DOES benefit from some extra speed, though this is rather the exception than the rule.

Actually, roundabouts, even though they aren’t perfect, are fun and safe for cyclists that understand how to operate in accord with general traffic principles. Nobody’s going too fast and you’ve got a lot more lane room about you when you’re on a bike. Truck drivers are probably not so fond of the Ocean Shores Roundabout.

Southbound Tourists Apparently Don't Notice this Sign SAYING "Left Lane if You Want to Turn Left"

Progress Toward Bike League Policy

Bike League Progress

In my previous post on Bike League need to establish a formal and public policy towards the periodic and continuing persecution of cyclists and their encounters with the law, HERE, I noted that the League had been silent on the subject of Cherokee Schill in Kentucky. Well, that silence has changed, with a promise that there is more to come.

HERE, a League cyclist recounts his ride with Schill. For my loyal reader, be sure to read the many comments. There are some troll comments and some from people that look to see the worst in the law, or the league. After seeing this post, I knew it was time to update my own.

More recently, the League presented a post on its view of the legal situation, HERE. This newer post, made yesterday, also has a fair number of comments, and, what's more, there is less extremism in most of these. In this second post, there's a promise for "what's next." I haven't seen that one yet. I hope it includes some proper statement about League policy/procedure in addition to what the League intends to do in the Schill case. We shall see. At a minimum, this represents a qualitative improvement over its response in the Reed Bates case, recounted HERE. Perhaps we ARE moving forward.

For those particularly interested in the situation, there's an extensive analysis of Cherokee's dilemma, made by expert cyclists HERE. As might be expected, this last link also has a lot of interesting and mostly well-thought-out comments.

For the typical newspaper story, with typical newspaper story comments, go HERE.

Tale of Two Cities

In "Bicycle Friendly Washington State,
One can be Prosecuted Here for Not Riding at the "EXTREME RIGHT"

One might think that the laws that apply to bicyclists are pretty much the same from place to place. I used to think this as well. The laws certainly ARE effectively the same for people operating the general run-of-the-mill motor vehicle made by GM, Ford, or other major manufacturer. However, prompted by some events, I decided to do a comparison between Ocean Shores, WA and Colleyville, TX. Readers of my blog might rightly conclude these two locales weren't entirely chosen by random. For those not riding in these places, you MIGHT want to brush up on your own law so that an encounter with a policeman coming out from behind his or her windshield is less likely to become traumatic.
IN ALL CASES BELOW, BOLDING AND ITALICIZING IS MINE

STATE COMPARISON:
In Texas, there are two primary guidances on where an individual cyclist MUST ride on the road. The first, that applies ONLY to cyclists, is 551.103. It states:
"Sec. 551.103.  OPERATION ON ROADWAY.  (a)  Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:
(1)  the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
(2)  the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
(3)  a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway;  or
(4)  the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A)  less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane;  or
(B)  too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side."

In Washington, the equivalent law that applies ONLY to cyclists, is Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 46.61.770. It states:
"Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. 
(1) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe except as may be appropriate while preparing to make or while making turning movements, or while overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway or highway other than a limited-access highway, which roadway or highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near to the left side of the left through lane as is safe. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway may use the shoulder of the roadway or any specially designated bicycle lane if such exists.

In both States, there are also rules that govern "to the right" behavior of ALL vehicular road motion (including cyclists). These ALSO differ between the two states, though the differences are not significant if you're operating a vehicle that takes up most of a lane (motorcyclists take note!).

Things are not quite as dissimilar as might appear, given that the laws are organized differently, with Texas also allowing bicycles to use shoulders in 545.058, but Texas law seems more straightforward to me, given that it at LEAST has the 14 foot definition codified rather than leaving "safe" up to the discretion of the arresting officer, who may have no experience in safe cycling theory or operation. Oddly, Washington State governs its non-motorized bicycle operation under the section of code entitled "Motor Vehicles."

However, there's MORE in each state that allows local jurisdictions to enact more "draconian" rules that apply to cyclists. In Washingon, one such is RCW 46.08.020 which states:

RCW 46.08.020
Precedence over local vehicle and traffic regulations.
The provisions of this title relating to vehicles shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all incorporated cities and towns and all political subdivisions therein and no local authority shall enact or enforce any law, ordinance, rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this title except and unless expressly authorized by law to do so and any laws, ordinances, rules or regulations in conflict with the provisions of this title are hereby declared to be invalid and of no effect. Local authorities may, however, adopt additional vehicle and traffic regulations which are not in conflict with the provisions of this title.

That would be OK, but Washington goes FURTHER in the case of bicycles in RCW 35.75.010, which states:

Authority to regulate and license bicycles — Penalties.
Every city and town may by ordinance regulate and license the riding of bicycles and other similar vehicles upon or along the streets, alleys, highways, or other public grounds within its limits and may construct and maintain bicycle paths or roadways within or outside of and beyond its limits leading to or from the city or town. The city or town may provide by ordinance for reasonable fines and penalties for violation of the ordinance.

In Texas, on the other hand, localities are, in theory, given less discretion. The main authority in this case is 542.202, which states (items that apply particularly to bicycles included):

Sec. 542.202.  POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.  (a)  This subtitle does not prevent a local authority, with respect to a highway under its jurisdiction and in the reasonable exercise of the police power, from:
(1)  regulating traffic by police officers or traffic-control devices;
(3)  regulating or prohibiting a procession or assemblage on a highway;
(4)  regulating the operation and requiring registration and licensing of a bicycle or electric bicycle, including payment of a registration fee, except as provided by Section 551.106;
(6)  regulating the speed of a vehicle in a public park;
(9)  designating a highway as a through highway;
(13)  adopting other traffic rules specifically authorized by this subtitle.
(b)  In this section:
(2)  "Through highway" means a highway or a portion of a highway on which:
(A)  vehicular traffic is given preferential right-of-way;  and
(B)  vehicular traffic entering from an intersecting highway is required by law to yield right-of-way in compliance with an official traffic-control device.

Steve's note: 551.106 governs electric bikes, which effectively ties local authorities MORE in the case of electric bikes than on human-powered bikes, which I find interesting given some recent bike bans in Texas. I suspect you might be able to beat one of the benighted bike bans simply by pedaling along on an electric bike. OTOH, Texas police are not noted for such distinctions when it comes to bikes of any sort.

Whew!

I think I'm not going to be able to remember all THESE details or stick them onto a little wallet-sized card as some recommend. So HERE is MY interpretation:

In Texas, you can ride wherever you think it is safe in a lane less than 14 feet wide - unless the police think otherwise. In Washington, the rules are vaguer, but the "unless the police think otherwise" applies just the same. In other words, lots of verbiage but the cops decide both places.

Now on to LOCAL rules. In Texas, one would think 542.202 ties the hands of local authorities to enact benighted or otherwise "odd" rules that apply to cyclists riding in their localities and require them to post signs when they do odd stuff. On the other hand, Washington State RCW allow local municipalities to do pretty much anything they want to do. In practice, there's not nearly so much difference as it might first appear. In either place, it's not wise to argue with a cop that has stopped you unless your lawyer has been alerted in advance and is prepared to ACT.

In Colleyville, as noted HERE, I was ordered off the road onto a sidewalk by a police officer without benefit of ANY local law requiring same. At another time, I was told by a Fort Worth police officer earphones were illegal though there is no such ordinance. In Colleyville, there are NO local rules regarding bicycle operation, other than to prohibit motor scooter operation on bike paths, which really doesn't affect me. As noted in the series of posts, one runs a risk of a ticket for obstructing traffic if the officer so deems, though no laws touch on the matter (unlike in Washington that has a "must pull over if you're holding up five vehicles or more" law)

In Ocean Shores, on the other hand, there are LOTS of laws that affect cyclists. I'll just cite a few:

10.40.010  Definitions.
G. "Right of the roadway" means the extreme right portion of the roadway which is safe to ride upon."
and
10.40.040  Riding upon city streets.
H. "Bicycles shall not be ridden upon any sidewalk in the city limits."

Note that there isn't any definition for what "extreme right portion" means, nor is there any exception for small children in the sidewalk rule. In THEORY, your six-year old could be tasered for riding on one of the few sidewalks in Ocean Shores. In reality, I've never actually heard of 010 or 040 being enforced though one sees people cycling on sidewalks in front of the OSPD frequently, especially in the summer tourist season. On the other hand, Ocean Shores isn't entirely retrograde, since they also have a complete streets ordinance (a place with few sidewalks) that states:

12.02.060 Performance standards.
The city of Ocean Shores shall put into place performance standards with measurable benchmarks to continuously evaluate the complete streets ordinance for success and opportunities for improvement. Performance standards may include transportation and mode shift, miles of bicycle facilities or sidewalks, public participation, number of ADA accommodations built, and number of exemptions from this policy approved. (Ord. 916 § 1 (part), 2012).

When I go back to Ocean Shores, I suspect I'll do some inquiries into these "continuous evaluations." Other than a little bit of paint, I can't see that the place has made significant progress in non-motorized transportation in the last 30 years. That isn't necessarily bad, since it hasn't backslid the way Colleyville did on MY NEMESIS ROAD.

OTOH, dorky local rules, made from behind a windshield aren't ALL bad. Unlike Colleyville, if I'm ordered onto a sidewalk by a local constable, I can at least say "Ocean Shores 10.40.040" makes that ILLEGAL!

One last thing, just in case there's a loyal reader out there whose eyes are not twirling in his or her sockets - one wonders how people riding through a locality are supposed to understand all these odd rules. Heck, one wonders how police that have at least some training in how the laws apply can remember all this odd stuff. I guess, thinking back on ChipSeal, mostly they don't. That, above all, should be remembered by a cyclist at any traffic stop...



Cyclists Have More Discretion in "Not Very Bicycle Friendly" Texas

 

MUTCD Muddle

Sign Seen in North Richland Hills, Texas. What Are We Being Advised About?

On occasion, you'll see bike blogs that pay more than a decent amount of attention to signs, and complain about the finer points of "Share the Road" or "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" items. Recently, there was a story in "Streetsblog" that expounded on an advocacy organization that fell into this trap. Khal's "LA Bikes" skated out on to that thin ice, though I don't think he actually fell in to the trap. IMO, his main error was in forgetting that the whole MUTCD thing is a result of mixing engineering and politics into an area where few people know or care about the finer points. In this post, I'll attempt to avoid falling through the ice that Khal so bravely stepped out onto. Gulp!

In the first place, and in reality, we should remember that all signs are basically intended to give us information we need to safely go down the road or to make our lives on same nicer and more pleasant. Way back when, someone came up with the notion that different sorts of signs ought to have different colors and ought to be the same from place to place. Hence, the "MUTCD" was born. And THAT was the start of much arguing about the best ways to do things, much as people used to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Basically, the idea behind sign coloring is a pretty good one, and the colors are supposed to align with the purpose of the sign. The BEST summary of this that I've seen is on Richard Moeur's pages, with the color guide here.

Speed Limit Lowered in Work Zone

 Red, white, and black are regulatory colors. Stop and yield signs are red and white, speed LIMIT signs are white and black. Seems pretty straightforward. Similarly, yellow signs are advisory/warning signs. If there's a slower speed needed for an exit, it'll be on a yellow sign. Part of the problem is that people also get creative with signs, such as with the "share the road" sign at the top of this post (what are they warning us about) and with the "duck crossing" sign. Signs mainly in blue are for useful things off the road that it's good for the traveller to know about. Ditto for brown signs. ORANGE signs are used around construction. I can't really say I've seen pink signs or any of those other colors, well, except for the green signs that are the general roadway information signs.


Advisories Suggest the Lane to Reach the Informational Destinations



This Sign Advises There's a Way to Avoid Death if Your Truck's Brakes Have Failed
It is Otherwise Illegal to Simply Park There!

 

Rest Stop Bathroom Signs are ALSO Blue

 

 

Both Signs in this Photo are "Regulatory"

 

Advisory Speed

Regulatory Speed Sign

These colors are both the strength and weakness of the system. People don't seem to like "advisory share the road" signs. "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" signs seem to be prefered by the "no share" crowd, but IMO, a "BMUFL" sign is somewhat akin to implying that using a full lane is not otherwise allowed. Some might feel, on the other hand, that a BMUFL sign is akin to the "runaway vehicle" sign in that runaway vehicles clearly ARE allowed to stop places other than the runaway vehicle trap. But bikes ARE different as any cyclist that has read newspaper comments on cycling stories will know.


Ducks May Not be MUTC "Orthodox," But it's Pretty Easy to See the Warning Intent

What's the RIGHT answer? Well, IMO, I don't think it really matters. Cyclist rights are independent of any oddball signage and most people really don't understand the finer points of same in any event. Note below many signs that really don't entirely fit with the rules.



Is This Sign Warning Us We'll Fall if We Have No Front Wheel?

Someone Invented This Sign and Zip Tied it to a Pole

Business Sign Attempts to "Look" Like a Recreation MUTCD Sign



I Guess RED Makes it LOOK More Official

Business Sign Using MUTCD Green

Regulatory Looking Sign Telling City Employees Not to Cut the Wildflowers

Note the Duck Sign, and the "Construction" Barricade, Along With the Political Sign



What Regulation Does the Contractor Fall Under?

The Road Work Sign on the Bike Path is OK, but Watching for Pedestrians is a "Regulation?"
Note that the "signless" pole USED to be a Stop Sign

And YES, the "Share the Road" placard under a bike picture might fit in this bunch of pictures as well since, while one might consider the bike graphic a "warning" of bikes ahead, the "share the road" really isn't simply advisory. OTOH, how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? Can you spell "POLITICS?"



This "Advisory" Sign Predates MUTCD!

Lane Position Depends

Not Long Ago, an Email Threatened Pedestrians With FELONY Charges For Crossing Against This Light
In Response to my Inquiry, the FELONY Would Have Been "Attempted Suicide." Sheesh! Well, This IS Texas...

Lately, partly based on prompts from the LCI List, sponsored by the Bike League, I've been considering my lane position in various situations. Today, I'll talk about why, sometimes I sit near the right side of a left turn lane, while other times I wait for the light to change at the LEFT side of a similar lane. Purely by coincidence, I also relate two similar, but different types of scofflawry that are prompted by a municipal bias in favor of "traffic flow."

STOP TO THE RIGHT
In the photo above, and immediately below, I almost invariably stop for a LONG red light at the right side of the left turn lane. Why might this be? Well, considering, there are two factors that cause me to do so. First, there is an induction sensor that gives me a choice between stopping at the left side of the lane in order to trigger the signal or at the right side of the lane. This is a LEFT TURN ONLY lane that turns onto a six lane highway. Since I'm going to the right lane of this highway in order to turn right into a parking lot before long, the "destination positioning" principle of where to choose lane position causes me to choose the right side at this particular intersection light. DESPITE my "right side" preference, following motorists HAVE tried to pass me ON THE RIGHT as we turn left, as documented HERE. Mostly, however, they simply bear left and we don't have a lot to talk about that's very interesting afterwards. More notable are the ones that pass me on the road leading up to this light that I catch back up to. I never SAID my motorists were rocket scientists. Actually, I prefer my commutes to be fairly boring. Safety pyramid and all...

INTERESTING DIVERSION
Also, in the photo above - and below, we see two different types of road user that simply ignore the traffic light on this highway and cross against the red light. Circled in the photo above is a pedestrian that just isn't willing to wait. IMO, he crossed entirely safely, if illegally against a light set to favor traffic speed and throughput over people waiting. I'm simply a bit more patient than this guy. He is, however, an exemplar of a threatening email we received against such behavior. The author of the email apparently didn't consider why a pedestrian might not really WANT to wait "halfway until forever" on a highway that's not occupied when he/she wants to cross.
Less excusable is the second photo. In THIS photo, a guy on a bike with no front light, but with a rear light, comes along the sidewalk from behind me, stops briefly, and then runs the red. He COULDA been Fred, except we're in Texas. I felt proud, however, realizing it wasn't a "teachable moment," I simply took the photo and waited my turn to cross legally. Even OLD dogs do sometimes learn new tricks.

I've Got a LOT LESS Sympathy for a "Guy on a Bike" Pulling the Same Stunt a Couple of Days Later

STOP TO THE LEFT
In the final photo, I stop at the far LEFT side of a lane that looks much like the one above. Why do I stop at the far LEFT side instead of the far RIGHT side? Well, it is pretty simple, actually. As in the photo above, there's an induction sensor that gives me a choice of stopping at one side of the lane or the other in order to do my part to trigger a light change. In THIS case, the lane offers a choice of a left turn or straight through. I pick the LEFT side to add emphasis that I intend to turn left rather than to go straight (this IS a left lane, but I like to keep things simple for my motorists). As traffic comes up behind, I'll periodically stick my left arm out straight to re-emphasize my intent. I like to think it helps keep traffic from stacking up behind me. The motorists that WANT to turn left simply choose the lane to my left (which is "left turn only"), while those that want to go straight split between my lane and the one to my right. Everyone gets where they're going and conflict is very rare at this signal. Like I can't think of any, ever. Which is about as rare as conflict gets.

CRIMENY - KILLER "B"
You'll note that in the photos above (and ESPECIALLY notable in the top one), a "Killer B" appears - the infamous "Bott's Dot." Those devils are always on the lookout for a cyclist to toss down on the pavement. But y'all have been warned!

To Explain My Lane Position, Look DOWN, and UP. The Black Stripe is an Induction Signal Sensor, and the Sign Says
You Turn Left from Either of the Two Left Lanes. The Guy Ahead of Me Went Straight. I Went Left

ACE

After more than two years of bike school and bike ed "how to teach" school, I heard the term "ACE" for the first time last summer. Specifically, on or about July 20th. I'll not make you, my loyal reader wait for so long.

ACE stands for "Abilities, Conditions, Equipment." Unlike the image from Wikipedia at the left, it does not imply a "death card" or "the top ranking card."

Instead, it is a recognition that sometimes situations differ, not only from cyclist to cyclist, but sometimes even for the SAME cyclist. Let me present a few examples:

For the first example, I'll relay the example that led me to hear this acronym for the first time. It was prompted by a Bike League LCI discussion that innocently started as "Under what conditions, if any, do you tell students that it is unsafe to control the lane?"

Among other responses, my own was "I'd say blind corners near a bar at closing time qualify as pretty dicey places to control a lane." Actually, I was criticized for this, with an inquiry about whether I thought the cyclist would be any safer hugging the curb. Actually, in such situations, I'd probably simply find a way to get around the corner completely OFF the road. While I have a lot of faith in my motorists, it isn't BLIND faith. Just sayin'

After a whole lot of other discussion, Preston Tyree, until recently the Bike League Director of Education, dropped the "ACE" bomb. Wow, why didn't he mention this in our LCI Seminar?

Let's go through ACE

Ability - Anyone that is able to ride any kind of bike, whether with two wheels or four, has SOME level of ability. Some of us have been riding for many years, in various conditions. Some of us have less extensive variety in their experience base. ABSOLUTELY, ability should present one variable that each cyclist should consider in his/her riding, whether in traffic, or in some sort of "cycling facility." While I STRONGLY believe that we should all be looking for ways to improve our abilities, we will always represent a spectrum of cycling, from complete beginner, ranging up to "the best transportation cyclist in the entire world," whoever that might be. While I might claim to be in "the 1%" in this regard, that certainly leaves a lot of room for me to learn new tricks. It's part of why I write this blog. To share.

Conditions - I ride differently on different days. One positive aspect of watching weather and traffic reports before I leave home is to help me realize just how much more dangerous things are out there on the road when visibility drops and traction goes to heck. Even in such conditions, cycling remains safe compared to, say, motorcycling or regular motoring, but I'm a pretty risk averse guy. While I'm perfectly willing to ride in the dark wearing basic black, I'm really NOT inclined to ride my bike down the Alliance Gateway Freeway in the dark and fog. No, I don't have any data to show I'm at any real risk, but we all "draw the line" somewhere. In the fog, I take an alternate route. In the rain, I take an alternate route. I'm willing to pay the two minute penalty in the time it takes me to get to work. Peace of mind is worth two minutes to me. YOUR mileage might vary.

Equipment - This is one I have a the most difficulty with. Certainly, I have experienced situations where failed equipment has caused me to behave differently. When I broke my bike chain with no tools to fix it, I coasted along on the sidewalk "a la scooter" to get home. Ditto for when my headlight pooped out and I had no spare batteries. I admit it, I'm too "chicken" to ride on the road in the dark without lights. I'll leave that to people more daring than myself. People I sometimes refer to as "ninja." On some occasions, a sidewalk really IS the best way to go. But such occasions are, for me at least, pretty rare. IMO, there's a definite interplay here with the "Ability" and "Conditions" elements. Also, what sort of acronym would "AC" represent? We're not here to pitch defunct British car manufacturers! I'm doubly troubled by this one, because Preston cited a bike with a trailer as a situation in which one might not want to control a lane. I wondered, and inquired, how a trailer affected the safety of lane control. Never got an answer. All I can say is that I cannot see any way in which the presence or absence of a trailer should affect one's decision to control a lane. It is either safe, depending on ACE, or not. If not, and there's no alternative, one might be dragging that trailer through a drainage ditch. Certainly, there are improvements that can be made to our road system. No further comment...

It Depends

Some of us have been blessed with a surplus of education in our lives. MOST of us that are so blessed, have learned the principle that True/False questions that include "Always" or "Never" are USUALLY "False."

And so it is with cycling. Many are fond of  quoting John Forester as saying "cyclists fare best when they..." and endorse the principle of "always VC." Others take the opposite track and whine for ever more elaborate facilities. Well, as with a lot of things, either can be true sometimes, but not always. Forester, for example, notes that cyclists are welcome to cycle through parks whilst even militant motorists would not endorse the destruction that motoring through same would entail. In his book, he recalls situations in which cyclists are at a distinct disadvantage relative to motorists. In short, the man says, "it depends."

Actually, it depends on ACE. And ACE will be a future post. ACE stands for "Ability, Conditions, Equipment." Strangely, I was never taught about ACE in bicycle school or even in bicycle instructor training.

I've had an occasional correspondence with someone that has formed the impression of "VC GOOD," "Non VC Not so Good." THIS post's purpose is to dispell that notion. Because, regardless of what we might wish, the real answer is "It Depends." While I did not set out to do so, on my ride home from work today, I operated mostly in a totally vehicular fashion, according to vehicular rules. However, I also operated according to pedestrian rules, and even when operating to vehicular rules, I did so differently in different situations.

You might wonder why. Well, it's pretty simple. Circumstances vary. Those of you that also motor understand this very well. Put simply, when driving a Toyota Prius, you don't drive the same way on a quiet street as you do when merging onto a freeway filled with 18 wheelers. And you don't merge the same way onto a freeway filled with Alfa Romeo or Jaguar race cars. I operated to pedestrian rules today simply because it allowed me to get where I wanted to go quicker than waiting in with a bunch of motorists and it didn't cause conflicts to do so. Sometimes that happens. Get over it if you want to be militant - or I'll post a series of photos that'll cause you to say, "well duh!" Heck, I've even been known to ride on sidewalks myself - like that time my chain broke and I had four miles to get home. Sidewalks and "scooters" go together sometimes.

Various circumstances follow - all are from past posts on this blog:

I'll Look at the Detectors and Ride Where I Think is Best
It Depends!

Long Sight Lines and Fast Speeds - I Ride to Be Best Seen
I Don't Ride Here in the Fog - Because It Depends on Me AND My Motorists

Sometimes It Depends on Things Getting Complicated

Sometimes We Get the Luxury of a Boulevard. It All Depends

Sometimes We Have to Make Maneuvers our Motoring Partners Won't Understand

Sometimes, Riding Shoulders is Simply RIGHT - No Conflicts Here
Forester's Book Shows Photos of Cyclists on Shoulders. In Texas, I Routinely See Pickup Trucks on Shoulders

Sometimes, Unlike our Motoring Relatives, We Simply GET OFF THE ROAD!

So, What's the Cycling Rule Here?

As In a Lot of Things, It Depends!

Nemesis Road Again

Nemesis Road; Colleyville, Texas

In my post here, I wrote about the possibly brain-damaged road designers that were responsible for the loss of function in Colleyville of Glade Road in favor of non-functional "pretty median" design.

On Friday, I learned that the loss in functionality affects people other than cyclists. A fire truck on an emergency call was westbound on Glade. You can imagine that passing was pretty stressful for that fire truck with that "pretty" median. I hope the people at the truck's destination didn't suffer (or worse) due to the poor road design. On my way home, I saw a guy on a bike trying to "be nice and ride far right" while riding down Glade. That is shown in the photo below. I followed discretely behind (I was going to turn left at the next street in any event), you can imagine this guy might have a lot of "close pass" stories. I was taught, as a cyclist, one should NEVER compromise one's safety simply to hug the curb. Perhaps this photo should be kept for any police officer not liking a cyclist controlling the lane on this street. Maybe this guy will someday decide to enable a "teachable moment." Maybe he'll simply wonder why motorists treat him poorly. Regardless, nobody honked at him and I don't think anyone would have really begrudged the 15 or 20 second delay that passing him safely might have entailed.

You Tell Me, How Would One Pass This Cyclist Safely? Several Motorists Passed Him Anyway After I Made My Left Turn
There IS a "Safe Routes to Shcool MUP to His Right, But it Ends in About 50 Feet and is Pretty Dangerous Even Before Then.

Today, I decided that riding is not all about saving a buck. Instead of getting my hair cut at my usual place, along Glade, in Colleyville, I got it cut at a shop in Bedford. The bike had its own place of honor while I got my ears lowered. Looking at the photo below, I'm thinking I may need to look into getting a rubber foot for my kickstand. One would NOT want to be ungracious!

Good Connectivity and Lots of Competition Mean that in North Texas, 
One Doesn't Have to Patronize Establishments Penalized by Brain Damaged Road Designers
These Guys Had No Bike Rack Out Front, but I'd Say They are "Bike Friendly" Anyway.
I Got My Hot Coffee Two Doors Down Afterwards. Advantage to Bedford over Colleyville

Motorist Sneaking Up on My Right From Behind

For the last few weeks, I've been getting acutely aware of an everyday situation where motorists come creeping up on me from my right, hoping to sneak past, or perhaps to discreetly tuck in behind the cyclist in hopes of avoiding problems. Perhaps you run into similar situations.


Headed East on Harwood, Moving into the Left Turn Lane. Good Thing I'm Not Going to Get Stuck Behind all Those Cars!

In the first and second photos, I'm moving from the left hand lane of eastbound Harwood Road in Bedford, right before it crosses across Texas Highway 121. I'm planning on heading north, because there's a lot of construction going on a block west of here on my preferred last leg home from the evening coffee stop. As you can see, the left turn lane is completely empty.

Cool, a Clear Left Turn Lane! Cyclists Rule!

Waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, there're a lot of oncoming cars, but what is nastier is that the Hwy 121 Service road is backing up with motorists waiting to turn onto Harwood behind them. Depending on their individual merging skill and aggressiveness, openings for me to turn left may or may not appear. I remain alert and watchful. Eventually, my day will come.

In a Situation Like This, the Only Thing to do is Keep Looking for a Break in Traffic

THE SITUATION arises when motorists start to stack up behind me, also in the left-hand turn lane. The lady in this fourth photo has kind of started sneaking up on me from my starboard stern quarter. This lady seems pretty polite. SOME of her bretheren wind up acting like they're actually going to pass me on my right. I wonder how they think THEY can get through the oncoming traffic any better than I can? The answer is - they can't. As a matter of fact, they can't get through traffic NEARLY as well, which they invariably discover.

Unlike this Lady, SOME Motorists Get Very Aggressive About Sneaking Up From My Right Rear Quarter. I Confess I Sometimes Edge Forward to Keep My Place in Line

The LAST photo shows the real situation. I completed my left turn without any drama at all. What's more,  at least two motorists made a right turn from Harwood to tuck in behind me - and the lady waiting behind me in the fourth photo was still waiting. This is typical. I don't know if she managed to make the left immediately after this photo or had to wait several minutes. I wasn't inclined to see just how long it would take. It takes a much bigger gap for a motorist to complete a safe left than a cyclist when there is oncoming traffic. To turn a phrase: "in a contest between a 4000 pound, sixteen foot car and a 200 pound, five foot bicycle, the bicycle will ALWAYS have an easier time making the safe left turn." Bicycles ARE different!

Regardless of the Motorist Waiting Position, the Cyclist Has a MUCH Easier Time with the Turn

Middle of the Traffic Lanes



Boulevards - I Don't Ride "Center Here"
or Do I?

 From Facebook came an inquiry from an individual that knows more about the whys and wherefors than most. He asked: "While bicycling in traffic, when do you ride in the middle of the traffic lane?"

Short Answer

Lane Splitting

Well, the short answer, one that is oversimplified is "I always ride in the middle of the traffic lane in traffic, unless the lane is so wide as to safely allow lane splitting with my motorists. Texas has conveniently defined that boundary as fourteen feet width." Mostly, situations where I allow my motorists to lane split can be considered as boulevards. It is ironic that the situation in which I do NOT ride in the middle of the lane is the one situation in which I'm technically breaking the "far to the right" laws.

Splitting Hairs


You'll Note That "The Center" is not Quite So Simple

 As for the more in-depth answer, I rarely actually ride in the middle of the traffic lane. Normally, I'll ride in "the line of sweetness," which is the smooth pavement that lies most directly in front of the eye line of a distracted motorist whose peripheral vision has gotten impaired. THAT tends to be (most often) the right hand edge of the left hand tire track. Those tire tracks are rarely centered on the marked lane.

What's more, when I come up on intersections, I'll move either left or right from my "in between" intersection lane position. I do this so I can CLEARLY indicate to overtaking traffic which way I intend to go. If I plan to turn left, I'll move even further left in the lane. If I plan to turn right, I may drift right. Whatever I do, the intention is to make it obvious to "the village idiot" where I'm going to be in the future so that same "idiot" can arrange to be at some other point.

Honest Truth


Here, I Actually Technically
was "Wrong Way" for a Moment

 Despite my own riding choices, I have to say that lane position is really NOT all that cycling advocates claim. In reality, there's not a lot of solid research besides individual opinion to support anything other than that you don't want to ride out of the motorist's zone of attention. Mostly, that means anywhere between the right tire track and the lane markers on the left hand side of the lane. The only real disadvantage to riding the right tire track is that minor swerves can send an unintended message to a following motorist that it's OK to pass without a lane change, and the dumber ones may not realize they have to actually make a lane chance to pass until they are closer than you'd want. Riding in "the line of sweetness" simply keeps thing simpler for everyone.

So, other than by sheer happenstance, do I EVER ride in the middle of a lane?

You'll Note that Tire Tracks are Not Centered in the Lane. I USUALLY Ride Relative to the Tire Tracks.
Most Often, That Means the RH Side of the LH Tire Track. That Puts Me Squarely
in the Center of Attention of any Following Motorist. Even a Distracted Motorist
IMO, it is Not Enough to Ride for the MOST Motorists. I Ride for the Extremes.Not Everyone LIKES That, But it is MY Life that is Most at Risk