These cyclists are crossing the Houston Street Viaduct from downtown Dallas to north Oak Cliff during the early rush hours of a Friday afternoon.
The cyclists are traveling about 15 mph (not fast). Notice how the overtaking vehicles pull out to pass well in advance of overtaking them. That’s because the cyclists are “controlling” their lane. Works that way all the time, even if it's just one cyclist... as long as they control their lane.
If the cyclists had been riding to the far right of the lane (as many people mistakenly believe they should), the motorists would have attempted to pass them without changing lanes, creating a dangerous situation.
Had there been a bike-lane present (which the cyclists would have been required to use), the motorists would have passed the cyclists closer, and at a higher rate of speed.
Is that really what people want? Sadly, it seems many do. Especially the ones who don't ride bicycles.
This was videoed by Brian DeSousa of Dual-Chase Productions, Long Beach, California.
15 comments:
Thanks for posting this. I wholeheartedly agree with your stance on the implementation of bike lanes in our city. It would be a mistake. A huge waste of money. I only wish there were a way to encourage more people to ride, which sadly, in an illusory incentive bike lanes offer.
More vehicular cyclists = increased awareness from motorists & safer riding conditions for all.
I believe you are sadly mistaken. Most drivers on high traffic roads (try Ross Ave instead of the Houston St viaduct) not only dislike cyclists "controlling the lane", but often act aggressively towards cyclists who try to do so.
It is so easy to take an example like the Houston Street viaduct where there is plenty of room for motorists to pass. I'd like to see your case study of everyday commuters on Ross Avenue at morning rush hour?
I find you extremely condescending to those of us who would like bike lanes. After living in Europe for five years, I believe the benefits outweigh the detriments.
Interesting video. I'd feel more confident "controlling my lane" if I were following a large slow moving vehicle with someone shooting video. My experience out there alone doesn't really look like that.
Christopher, you are mistaken. The video was shot from a helmet cam on a cyclist.
Your experience, I'll wager, is based on riding next to the road edge, which invites vehicles to pass too closely. Go to the CyclistView.com website, and watch the videos shot around the country this way. After you've watched the videos, try out the techniques (better yet, watch the videos and take the LAW's Road 1 course BikeDFW offers).
To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, "Vehicular cycling techniques have not been tried and found difficult, they have been thought difficult and not tried."
WOW!
This is like Lazarus; it is almost enough to give me religion. Er, not really. No way in hell!
Welcome back, PM; now down to business.
@Christopher
I take exception to your innuendo. There was no "large[,] slow[-]moving vehicle" plowing its way through the scary motor vehicles for our benefit. As PM explained, it was simply another cyclist.
@Ashbloem
"[S]adly mistaken"? In what way?
You cite "most drivers" as being aggressive toward cyclists who control their lane. Is this from personal experience or a projection of a generally held Cyclist-Inferiority Complex?
During this video shoot (on the afternoon of 20 February, BTW), we spent a little over two hours driving all over the CBD - including the West End and Deep Ellum. Admittedly, most of our route was spent on what I would define as calm, secondary roads. However, we intentionally deviated from what was suggested and traversed varying lengths of Harry Hines and Fitzhugh during the early parts of Rush Hour, again, on a Friday. At no time did we encounter harassment from other vehicle operators.
The clip associated with this post is somewhat misleading. Arguments have been advanced that the reason few attempts were made to intimidate us is due to our having ridden two-abreast. This was only a relatively small portion of the day's activity. For the most part, we were riding single file; three cyclists operating in a vehicular manner.
During my daily commute from North Garland to the Medical District, I travel roads, during actual Rush Hour, with much more congestion that the Houston St Viaduct - even at the peak of commutes. Beltline, Greenville, Northwest Highway... While I would not recommend some of these to novice cyclists, it does not take someone who is super human. It only takes experience and the confidence to "take the lane" and assert one's legal right to the road.
Bike lanes do not instill confidence and they do not build experience. By channelizing the cyclist to a narrow space, near the curb, facilities like this provide a false sense of security and lead only to building numbers of sheepish, perpetually unskilled bicycle operators.
There are no benefits - to the vehicular cyclist, at least - of bike lanes. I challenge you to enumerate any you believe to exist. More than likely, they can, in turn, be dissected and proven untenable. They simply will not stand scrutiny.
I apologize for my mistaken assumption about following an auto. That does make the video more impressive. That said, I have properly done the "control lane" thing and have been the victim of aggressive treatment from auto drivers (honks, moving into my lane, yelling, throwing things, moving in front of me and slowing down, etc.). Maybe there are some regional differences???
Please understand that I am not advocating one position or another in this debate. I will continue, at times, to use the "control my lane" approach. But, much of my personal experience doesn't look like the video.
I have properly done the "control lane" thing and have been the victim of aggressive treatment from auto drivers (honks, moving into my lane, yelling, throwing things, moving in front of me and slowing down, etc.). Maybe there are some regional differences???
Christopher,
I am in Orlando, a similar Sunbelt Sprawl town. I have noticed differences in tolerance within my own metro area. There are parts of town where I am almost never harassed and parts where I'm happy if I get through without at least some kind of "commentary" about my presence on the road (and it doesn't seem to matter where on the road I am). Nonetheless, if I tally all the motorists who pass me courteously vs those who make a fuss, it's probably hundreds:one, and those who actually do something physically aggressive are thousands:one.
Balance that against the regular close passing, right hooks and other violations of my right-of-way that occurred when I rode hugging the edge of the road and it's a no-brainer. Claiming the lane is safer, easier and way less stressful than riding the edge.
When people believe they don't have a right to be in the road and believe they will be punished for it, it seems like that belief gets confirmed for them. I don't know whether that's because they place great emphasis on the few jerks they encounter or because they've sent out some homing signal for idiots.
All I can say is, those of us who are confident in controlling the lane, do not experience constant harassment.
The technique works in every town and with few exceptions motorists behave the same in every town.
Brian has shot video with me in Orlando, too. You can see them here.
I can't wait to see more of the Dallas videos!
I agree that without a bike lane, claiming the full lane confidently is safe for the seasoned cyclist, not only regarding drivers but also because the edges of roads are often damaged or have lots of trash.
I don't see that this necessarily then means that there should be no bike lanes ever. As geobrybody says, more cyclists=more safety, and if bike lanes encourage cyclists, drivers will become increasingly aware of cyclists and adjust their driving. You can't just convince every budding or potential cyclist to claim the lane if they are not comfortable with that, and then be disappointed if cycling numbers don't increase. If you really want to encourage cyclists, you have to think of planning techniques that will encourage the most people, right?
As well as things like group rides which help build confidence, and education about proper technique. A cycle advocate opposing bike lanes? Seems like misplaced energy.
For the record, I have a trio of friends in bike planning who all bike commute daily through different parts of LA, and all three are advocates for bike paths.
I'm not sure it would have made a lot of difference if they were traveling 10mph or less but if you think 15mph is not fast, I think that you just don't get it.
Here's the same effect - motorists changing lanes well before overtaking a cyclist - and it's from a stationary camera alongside the road. Please note that the telephoto lens shortens perspective, but by watching the vehicle's shadows, you can see that the lane change occurs long before meeting the cyclist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1J1EfHWwk
...and yes, that's my pudgy self.
Uh, I just got back from that road, and Jefferson, returning in Saturday traffic, and had zero, repeat, zero problems. The West End was actually pretty busy, as was Victory, and not once did I get blasted, harrassed, or even a mean look. I even helped one guy who ended up going the wrong way on Houston.
Bike bliss in Big D. Come out and play some with me, Ash, I'll embolden you, solo or otherwise, and you'll be a happier cyclist because of it.
Sure, bike lanes are fine where appropriate, but I think the larger question is becoming, "What's appropriate?"
stu42j said "I'm not sure it would have made a lot of difference if they were traveling 10mph or less but if you think 15mph is not fast, I think that you just don't get it."
The fish-eye effect of the camera makes the cyclists appear to be going faster than they were (combined with a good spin). That's what I was pointing out.
15 mph is the average speed of recreational cyclists on multi-use paths. And no, the cyclists' speed, whether 8mph or 20mph, has no impact on the dynamics demonstrated.
A cycle advocate opposing bike lanes? Seems like misplaced energy.
It's not misplaced energy for an advocate for cyclists. Bike lanes don't benefit cyclists. they cater to a culture of car/speed dominance. They shove cyclists out of the way onto the worst part of the road—where the debris collects, they are passed without regard, and they are removed from the sight lines of crossing and turning motorists.
There are plenty of advocates out there for: selling more bikes, saving the earth, fighting obesity, etc., who think convincing more people to ride through an illusory and detrimental method is just fine, because the end justifies the means. Those are not cyclist advocates.
Anyone can be taught to control their environment on a bike. The skills are simple and require no athletic prowess. It's just damned patronizing of bike advocates to want to coddle people.
Believe in people and empower them. If they don't want to be empowered, let the find another mode of transportation. Trying to enable people who have no initiative to learn a few simple skills leads nowhere good.
Bicyclists will never be a majority and we will never be a significant enough minority to avoid the backlash and legal marginalization that a bike lanes culture heralds.
Ed W said...
"Here's the same effect - motorists changing lanes well before overtaking a cyclist - and it's from a stationary camera alongside the road.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1J1EfHWwk "
Great video Ed. Thanks for sharing that!
News Flash, boys and girls:
It is not, necessarily, about getting more people to ride their bikes! The goal is to ensure that we, as transportation cyclists, are able to preserve our rights, as recognized vehicles, to operate where we see fit within the scope of the law. If others choose to follow suit, so much the better.
@tigrejones
"A cycle advocate opposing bike lanes? Seems like misplaced energy."
I am not presuming to speak for anyone else here, but I am not a "cycle advocate", I am a vehicular cycling advocate.
Motorcyclists do not defend their right to the roadway by trying to achieve as many "butts on bikes" as possible. They seek to ensure that those who do choose to operate a motor bike are competent, law abiding and safe. Furthermore, they expect to be treated fairly, without being segregated. There is no demand for motorcycles to be provided special, segregates lanes. Why do cyclists demand these facilities?
The desire of motorists to free "their space" of slower vehicles aside, IMO, the greatest demand for bike lanes and other protectionist facilities comes from people who are inexperienced and/or timid. They lack the confidence to share the roadway (NOTE: I did not say share the lane!) with motorized vehicles based upon the unsubstantiated phobia that death lurks within every overtaking car, truck or bus.
"You can't just convince every budding or potential cyclist to claim the lane if they are not comfortable with that, and then be disappointed if cycling numbers don't increase."
No, but one can make every effort possible to ensure that these would-be transportation cyclists are afforded every opportunity to obtain the training necessary to achieve the confidence needed to operate in a vehicular manner. Special facilities are not the answer. Education and training are the answers - of both motorists and cyclists.
Post a Comment