BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
93

Ass Clown Driver (or Rider?) Your Opinions...

I know this thread will get some attention because I'm giving you guys the chance to sit in judgement! Be as harsh and opinionated, or as loving and tender as you want to be, here's the scenario: I'm zooming down Federal St., having descended from Riverview Park, and go straight across at the bottom of the hill toward the river. I'm making my way around the West Commons section where it crosses Ridge Avenue; as you all know, there are two Right Turn lanes that vector into that intersection. To go straight, you have to be basically in the center of the road. I of course always base my actions off of traffic but as a rule, do NOT favor riding in the center of the road. So I always stay in the right lane and after checking over my shoulder, will proceed straight through the intersection. I'd done my customary check and was almost in the intersection when a white SUV came tearing-ass by me and swung it Right -right in front of me- and hit the gas. I nailed the brake one-handed and did a really cool-looking power slide and managed to not go under his vehicle or lay it down. A Miracle. So now I'd love to hear, who's the Ass Clown? My instinctive answer is of course, the Driver. But I'd like to hear from anyone that negotiates that intersection on a regular basis, what your thoughts are. Rules are Rules but I feel like that intersection is a special hazard for Cyclists and as such, justifies adapting to the situation. Thank you.
val
2013-03-17 11:53:54
Having just read Forester's "Effective Cycling" but not being that familiar with the interesction in question, my thought is if you were in a right turn lane, there was no reason for the van to think you were going to do anything but turn right. If there is a lane for going straight, use it. However if the right turn lanes were marked for either turning or continuing straight, then the van was in the wrong. Take your lane if you need to.
helen-s
2013-03-17 12:22:43
Don't really care who's the asshole here, but I would take the center lane in that case. There's no reason not to, and you can easily keep up with traffic there. The driver may still not have seen you though, so it's good you can execute the impressive power slide.
jonawebb
2013-03-17 12:33:44
sounds like everyone was at least a little at fault. the driver for speeding (what a fucking shock in this city) the cyclist for not changing lanes until the last possible second when it would have been safe to do so earlier. since there are four lanes there (for those unfamiliar its two right hand only lanes and two straight lanes with two lanes merging from the right after the light. think giant traffic circle. here's a link) my approach is generally to move over to the second lane after i go around the corner by the school (from north commons) and then switch over to the third lane about halfway to the intersection. this gives me plenty of time to check for speeding jackasses coming from behind me, but still allow them to flow around me (since there is always a lane to the right or left of me). when i ride that area i also make sure i stay right in the middle of the lane, since its mine and the cars can use the other three to pass.
cburch
2013-03-17 14:43:08
I'd take the lane, but then with this ass-clown I'd probably be dead. What matters is that you lived to tell the tale.
headloss
2013-03-17 17:19:32
Well, when we ride as a ride we always take the whole lane, the one that is appropriate by driving code. I do the same when I ride alone.
mikhail
2013-03-17 17:24:01
I do come through there on a regular basis. If I had to lay blame, I would say 50% driver, 25% cyclist, 25% street design. As cburch pointed out, this is four lanes, one way, prior to the intersection, and the two right lanes both turn right, but the right-most lane *must* turn right. Being in that lane and intending to go straight, is asking for trouble. Hence that 25%. The driver is driving too fast as well as recklessly. Oh, did anyone point out that that is also a school zone, so not only is it 25 mph at best, but often 15? At any rate, he was also asking for far more trouble by driving like that. He gets no less than 50%. But I also fault street design. If you want people to speed and make an area hostile to anything but the car, make it wide. People speed where it's wide, even for a short stretch. The city needs to thin this down to two lanes, at most, maybe with a parking lane for school buses. That whole wide boulevard thing is a vestige of the stupidity of the 1960think that built that thing in the first place. Moral of the story: Get in one non-right-most lane, take the lane, and be visible. I never have a problem here.
stuinmccandless
2013-03-17 17:47:29
I ride through that intersection almost daily and it is your fault. You are the ass clown. Why would you stay in the right hand lane to go straight when it and the lane to the left are both right turn lanes? That is stupid.
stefb
2013-03-17 18:00:39
driver was probably being the typical speeding/entitled asshole driver but you should get into the straight lane before the intersection instead of trying to cut across (presumably a solid white line at that point).
salty
2013-03-17 18:04:25
Most people do speed there, as they do elsewhere in the city. But that is predictable. It is a cyclist's job to be predictable and follow road markings, especially because when it comes to a vehicle vs cyclist, the vehicle always wins.
stefb
2013-03-17 18:39:56
This is all great input, thanks. To answer as to why I ride right, instead of out in the middle, there; it's because if something goes wrong, I always have one safe bail direction. I'd seen this guy coming back at the school corner when I looked back but what I so obviously failed to accurately assess, was his sense of purpose. That guy turned that corner as I was looking back, and in literally a few seconds, had passed me. I know it's hard to recreate but in attempt to illustrate, he had to turn right pretty much as he passed me. It was that close and I credit a lucky reaction and new brake pads to the fact that I didn't get creamed. I will probably never ride in the middle of that thoroughfare for several reasons, some of which have already been mentioned in this thread. But my overwhelming reason is that when you're out in the middle of several lanes, the chance of being in someone's blind spot, rockets. And as you may well expect, there are also drivers who at the last second realize they need to jerk their wheel left, so as to avoid my 'mistake'. Any rider out in the middle when that starts happening is in a considerable amount of danger. For what it's worth, my take-away from this is to dedicate extra caution to situations where as Stu mentioned, traffic patterns collide with bad road design. I'll also pay extra attention to drivers closing from the rear when I conduct a check, too. Thanks again to all.
val
2013-03-17 19:06:46
I don't understand how this is poor design. If maybe there was a blind turn and you couldn't see traffic over your shoulder until the last second because of said blind turn it would be one thing. While i do Agree that multiple wide lanes encourage speeding, it is really failure of enforcement of speed limits in places Like this. but It is a traffic circle that has good sight lines. It even has traffic lights because people in Pittsburgh are too stupid to know how to yield and drive in a traffic circle without traffic lights.
stefb
2013-03-17 19:26:12
Anywhere they plop down the equivalent of freeway on/off ramps in the middle of a city it is complete shit design.
salty
2013-03-17 19:44:03
@Stefb, you must be thinking of some other place because there is most definitely not a traffic circle there. It's a four-way cross-shape intersection. I think it's bad design because based on the flow of traffic in that area, posted limits, etc., they don't need two lanes turning right. And if they channeled everyone into the right lane for turning onto that other side street, you wouldn't have yahoos like Mr. SUV Stud railing through the middle, maybe turning and maybe not. Additionally, as I mentioned previously, people routinely do exactly what I did, which is to go straight even when they're in a Turn lane. Thirdly, I have also seen them jink left just before the light, to be in a 'correct' lane for turning. Those are three things I have observed, just as a result of poor design at this particular four-way intersection.
val
2013-03-17 19:46:09
And speaking strictly as an Outlander, I have never assessed that people in Pittsburgh are too stupid to follow any particular rule, they're just very free spirited. That attitude has its drawbacks such as lawlessness but overall, I tend to like it. Vive la 'Burgh.
val
2013-03-17 19:58:12
"But my overwhelming reason is that when you’re out in the middle of several lanes, the chance of being in someone’s blind spot, rockets" All other things being equal, when you're in the middle, you're maximizing your chances of being visible (well, actually aligned with the driver position in the middle lane, but close enough). That's just geometry. I'm not sure what factor you're thinking of as skewing this in this particular situation, but I urge you not to think so hard and just act like a car any time you can keep up. Makes cars have the feeling they know what you're doing and bonus for the fact that this lane positioning makes you painfully visible to the driver behind. Even a moronic speeder has plenty of time to react. Haven't even gotten into the bit about being in a turn lane trying to go straight. Man, that's just stupid. You mentioned other drivers doing that, they sound stupid to me too. Lane choice in intersection is your signal to others where you're going. Don't surprise anyone and you won't have to go power sliding to avoid becoming roadkill.
byogman
2013-03-17 19:58:28
No I am talking about the same Intersection. The entire thing is a traffic circle.. It circles around allegheny center and other buildings.
stefb
2013-03-17 20:04:50
Val wrote:But my overwhelming reason is that when you’re out in the middle of several lanes, the chance of being in someone’s blind spot, rockets.
Could you explain why you think it's going to rocket?
mikhail
2013-03-17 20:07:42
Val wrote:Additionally, as I mentioned previously, people routinely do exactly what I did, which is to go straight even when they’re in a Turn lane.
And drivers do routenly what this one did. I don't understan how in one case it's good and in other case is bad. I agree with Stef that traffic enforcement is a must, design is OK.
mikhail
2013-03-17 20:11:20
Mikhail, it's simple math. If you've got cars on both sides of you, that's double the number of drivers that have a chance to miss you in a blind spot. Make it two lanes on either side of you, essentially, and you get the picture. Surely you can appreciate that. And I am not trying to convince or persuade you that it's good or bad, feel free. From a basic Logic standpoint however, I do think a pretty good argument can be made for making only the far right lane a turn lane. It's all academic because it will stay like it is but if it was just one lane, it would/could be more easily controlled. I hear what you guys are saying about enforcement but aside from special situations, I don't ever see traffic enforcement as something that's going to happen like it should. I probably don't even want it that way, I break too many rules and would probably lose my license to ride... Rules of traffic are just guidelines for any cyclist, anyway. Sometimes following the rules only increases the danger.
val
2013-03-17 20:26:54
@stefb, I guess it depends on your definition of circle, and traffic circle. I've been in lots of countries with traffic circles but none of them were shaped like large rectangles, with cross streets coming through the middle of them...
val
2013-03-17 20:30:07
As others have stated, I think you need to be in the proper lane, and be in the middle of said lane. In other words act like the vehicle that you are! You are not a second-class vehicle; you are a vehicle with all the privileges and responsibilities of "regular" vehicles. And there is NO requirement to have to maintain their speed to be treated as such. Also, blind spots are when someone can’t see an object in their rear view or side mirrors and has nothing to do with where on the roadway you are, nor how big your vehicle is. Be seen, be predictable.
marko82
2013-03-17 20:37:48
Val wrote:Mikhail, it’s simple math.
This is not true. And you have to be very careful with probability. Simple addition (and multiplying like you did is a simple addition multiple time). Probabiliity cannot exceed 1. So if one driver will hit you with probability 0.6 it does not mean that two of them will hit you with probability 1.2. Moreover it would not be 1.0, it would be less than 1.
mikhail
2013-03-17 20:39:40
I was on McKnight Road on a bicycle today, both inbound and outbound. Inbound, fully three miles, I took an entire lane. I did not have a problem. This is on a road posted 40 where traffic speeds often exceed 50. Despite this, I do not think I was in danger. West Commons is posted 25, and every once in a while, you get some jerk doing 40+. That said, I contend that even in the 2nd-from-left, or even the very left, lane, you are not in danger along here. The only place you could be in any significant danger is to try to do exactly what you did do -- try to go straight from the one of four lanes where it is specifically disallowed.
stuinmccandless
2013-03-17 20:59:05
It's amazing that you can define 'blind spot' properly but argue that position doesn't affect it. Maybe you should ask a Driver's Ed. teacher about that. And Mikhail, if you don't think an increase in the number of vehicles increases your chances of getting hit, let me buy you lunch and then I'll drop you off out on I-79, on your bicycle. Let's be sure to do lunch beforehand, in case you don't survive the experiment, but I DO want to make a video of the whole thing. I bet you might see it my way, before the end. Likewise, if I have a pistol with twenty rounds versus a single shot, your probability of being ventilated just got multiplied by twenty. 1 x 20 = 20. And cars can be deadlier than bullets.
val
2013-03-17 22:08:58
"If you’ve got cars on both sides of you, that’s double the number of drivers that have a chance to miss you in a blind spot." OK, so most of the road surface, most of the time is open space. That brings you right back to reducing angles to maximize visibility. Worrying about having a close following vehicle hiding you from the traffic in either adjacent lane is a little weird. Drivers don't ride up close behind bicyclists and stay in their lane for fun. In fact, overwhelmingly, they'll try to avoid being in your lane at all. They'll only slot in behind you if they don't care about how fast they're going (in which case they won't be following closely enough to hide you). It takes an unusual combination of an impatient driver and even more impatient drivers in the alternate lane not letting him merge in to get to a situation where an impatient driver (that might follow closely) is behind you at all. And they'll only be there as long as they have to. And it's only a problem if you're not going straight anyway (which you were doing then and would be most of the time). And finally, unlikely as it is, it's not an overwhelmingly bad problem because it's still possible to be visible and predictable, you just have to plan a bit more. Start your maneuvering first by adjusting your position in lane toward the lane you're going to, improving their view angles of you and yours of them. Then with that link established and signaling, make your merge from the correct lane, to the correct lane, just like a car would.
byogman
2013-03-17 22:14:04
Stu, I know from reading that you always try to contribute well thought-out, constructed and logical answers. I figured you'd have good input and I was right. I've heard about everything I expected to hear from various people but still not a strong enough reason to ride down the middle. Like I said, I'll be checking more thoroughly in the future, through there. I think it's easy to get lulled into complacency through there because it's relatively quiet compared to the surrounding area. And I can't think of any other place where I go through any intersections quite like that one... thanks again.
val
2013-03-17 22:16:45
@byogman, I don't understand the hypothetical you constructed. Who was discussing cars following them and hiding them from other cars? I would like to answer but I'm not even sure you were addressing anything I said...
val
2013-03-17 22:21:47
also, you can always make a right and then an almost immediate left there and cut over to the pedestrian bridge by the stadium and avoid the whole mess. or make the right onto north and go around the park and then a right under the railroad and over to the stadiums. but honestly, were you looking for validation or just to pass the time by arguing? it doesn't seem like you are actually as open to input as you claimed in the initial post, since you have basically said "well those are good points, but i don't really care."
cburch
2013-03-17 22:21:48
I like the suggestion about turning right, I try all the time to tweak my various little routes, to make them safer and more fun. I modify my route through Brighton occasionally and it gets better every time. I will check that out, for sure. And yes, I wanted input but as I stated in my msg to Stu, I just didn't find the overpowering rationale I was looking for, to convince me to change my technique. But I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. I'm pretty sure you don't just go taking every suggestion that's offered, do you? Lastly, I always appreciate input more, when it's valuable. I tend to sift through lots of input and discard most of it. This entire thread has now officially been worth it, because of this one suggestion that you just made. Next time I go through there, I'm turning Right and going to that bridge.
val
2013-03-17 22:30:18
In a way, it's like riding on the sidewalk. Some people may insist that it's safer since cars won't be driving there (just like Val is worried that cars might not see her and merge into her lane). But the real danger is from cars turning in front of you. When they're turning right, they don't expect anyone going straight to be to their right, whether the cyclist is in a right-turn lane like Val or on the sidewalk. Val, have you been in an actual collision or near-miss where you were in a car's blind spot? I ask because there's such variability in what cyclists think is the safest technique. I wonder how much of it is merely differing guesstimations of relative danger, and how much is people substituting personal experience for statistics. (I'm also thinking of the cyclists who run red lights because they see a greater danger in being rear-ended.)
steven
2013-03-17 23:47:23
@Steven, yeah, as a matter of fact, several. And probably more near misses than I'll ever be able to count. The most notable ones that come to mind occurred right outside The Strip in Las Vegas, in Miami, once in Puerto Rico and I could keep going. Those all three happened in broad daylight with no impairment to vision. I think the most common error is that drivers fail to realize how fast cyclists are sometimes traveling. The old Right Turn Cutoff is the one I dread the most! Incidentally, I don't hesitate to grab some sidewalk unless it's a crowded one, and am never hesitant to simply stop and take a short breather, if the concentration of cars and people get too thick. I'll sit and let it thin back out if need be. FYI, I base my riding on having ridden in a bunch of different places but the more places I go, the more drivers everywhere seem to be the same: oblivious to cyclists.
val
2013-03-18 01:12:48
There is almost no situation where you would be in a "blind spot" on that road. When school is in session, either drivers are going 15 or faster, and it is your job to go 15. It is easy to go 20+mph there. Most drivers are coming up behind you and passing. Not once have I gone to pass a car or even caught up to a car. As long as drivers are coming up behind you and you are in the correct lane, they know where you are going. You really don't want any advice. Not one person seems to have told you that you were right. Everyone has told you what the law says. This is one instance where breaking the law and trying to be "more visible" doesn't even make logical sense at all. Like I said, I ride this 3-4 days a week, and even when there are busses and cars parked near the school, this is one stretch that I have never had a problem with because I am not a moron.
stefb
2013-03-18 03:42:56
Val wrote:I’ll drop you off out on I-79
First of all, I've been on I-79 on my bicycle. Still alive. And I rode and bunch of other people rode 65 on multiple ocasions and not just on Sandays. And yet again you are proposing to something where drivers are not expect to see and is illegal in general. My expirience is to cross Ohio River to get to Neville Isaland and this is a very specific stretch of I-79 where bicyclist are allowed. Second, you switched statement from "skyrocketing and multiply" to "increase". Very significant difference. And what I am trying to that human inttuition does not work well when you are talking about probability. And probability in your case would decrease since you should act predictably and you did not.
mikhail
2013-03-18 06:44:27
Val, you should state what are good arguments for you. Without it the whole thread is pointless.
mikhail
2013-03-18 06:45:18
"@byogman, I don’t understand the hypothetical you constructed. Who was discussing cars following them and hiding them from other cars? I would like to answer but I’m not even sure you were addressing anything I said…" I was doing my best to understand the blind spot problem. Normally when I think of a blind spot, it's between the field of view of the side mirror and center mirror caused primarily by a pillar. But 1: you don't typically stay in those on the road very long because of some relative velocity, 2: if you do find yourself in those for any extended period it's easy to get out of them by temporarily changing speed yourself. So I assumed you had to mean something that wasn't obviously and easily under your control since your whole justification for riding the way you do is for more perceived control. Since you are talking traditional blind spots, let me ask, how the hell are you better off doing surprise lane changes than occasionally temporarily having to modulate your speed slightly to make sure people see you? By your own statement, riding the way you do now, you've been nearly nailed countless times in broad daylight, dread the right hook, and attribute it largely to going faster than cars expect. All of these point to the same thing, you should be claiming the lane so cars see you and be in the correct lane so they know what to expect.
byogman
2013-03-18 07:30:41
I don't know this intersection and I didn't read the entire thread but this is exactly how just about every person on a bike, including myself, treats the intersection of Liberty @ 40th St and it is now marked and signed to reflect that behavior. Carry on.
rsprake
2013-03-18 07:32:45
Val, I’m not trying to argue with you. But the driver’s blind spot is a function of BOTH drivers’ positions & the spot changes as both vehicles move in relation to each other. So there is no way to ever eliminate the blind spot unless you have multiple mirrors arranged to give a wide field of view, and even this doesn’t always work (see video). If you want to be seen, I think it is best to position yourself on the roadway where cars expect to see other cars and obstacles, which is in the middle of the travel lane, not off to the side. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8
marko82
2013-03-18 07:36:43
@rsprake not really the same since there are 2 turning lanes. If we were talking about going straight from the next lane over it would be more similar but in this case you'd have to cut across the path of someone legally turning right to go straight. FWIW, every other intersection on Allegheny Commons has a concrete barrier preventing you from going straight from the turn lanes, not sure why this one doesn't. Almost getting hit by someone who was driving legally (perhaps aside from speeding) while you yourself were making an illegal maneuver is a pretty good argument against doing that. If you're determined to put yourself in that situation again despite what happened and the overwhelming chorus of people here advising you otherwise, then I'm not sure what exactly would convince you.
salty
2013-03-18 08:03:18
Marko82 wrote:Everyone please watch this whole 4 minute video. Then comment on why you would do it any differently.
I am not saying I would do it any differently but we don't all ride that fast. I've been almost hit and maliciously treated on Penn Circle near Target when controlling lanes in the same way so it's not as if taking the lane is a cure all.
rsprake
2013-03-18 08:57:06
that intersection is shit. You cant even turn right onto ridge from the two right turning lines with a garage on the left and one way forward. Its a dumb intersection. However, anytime you are going at a reasonable speed, dont put yourself in a situation to get right hooked.
steevo
2013-03-18 09:20:34
This all seems to boil down to a fear of being in mixed traffic. Not the slightest bit uncommon, especially for people who don't ride on the street that often. I figured Val to be an experienced cyclist, and so a little less likely to do something that sooner or later will put him in a dangerous situation. Like nuclear plant meltdowns, bad stuff does not happen in isolated situations; it takes a series of connected failures for bad stuff to happen. Yes, this intersection is a bad design, but we're not getting that fixed anytime soon. Probably looking at $50 million to redesign and rebuild that whole thing, if it ever happens. (Unless we guerilla-style take the damn thing over and force traffic into two lanes, and just make it a standard T intersection.) Do we need to get our hands on a timing device and gather some stats on how many people speed and what lane they're in? Roll some video for a couple of hours? Do we need to stomp into the P.D. with a petition? Or rather, do we merely need to educate people about how to ride in traffic? As most people here have stated, absent doing something stupid, you're pretty safe here. Just know how to do it properly, and do that, and there's far less concern all around, even if some jackass decides to fly through a school zone at 40 mph.
stuinmccandless
2013-03-18 09:36:41
Val, I think there's unanimous agreement about needing to be in the right lane of travel for the turn (or lack thereof) you're planning in the upcoming intersection. I strongly, strongly urge you to make that change to your riding at least. Nobody wants to see you flattened, and based on your description of this and incident and the commonality of near misses in your riding, esp right hooks, I'm worried that this may be in your future if you don't make a change. Be safe out there. I think there's more debate about and more room for the debate about riding toward the right vs. claiming the lane. I started with "if you can keep up", but that's just the starters really. I also claim the lane on most multi-lane roads most of the time (generally easy enough for them to pass in the next lane), when there isn't room to pass me in-lane (this is a large fraction of Pittsburgh roads, at least once you account for street parking and door zone. I don't tend to look for gaps in the street parking on the right except when I'm going pretty slow, and it takes a stern hill where I'm crawling along at < 6 mph for me to contemplate riding in the door zone), when I don't think it would be easy to merge back to appropriate lane position (or lane) by the next intersection, or when traffic is so thin there's nobody for me to hold up (I check my rear view periodically and move right to let them pass when they get closer). YMMV, but I think that's a pretty reasonable starter list. Will check the videos when I get home.
byogman
2013-03-18 10:31:56
Please do NOT be hurt or offended if I don't accept your particular input. I just wanted some opinions and I got plenty. Perhaps I should've stated beforehand: my own particular coping/riding mechanisms are NOT based solely on traffic laws but what my instincts tell me to do, and I have been riding on the open roads since The Year of Our Lord, nineteen and eighty-five and during that time, have truly no idea of how many times I've almost died. Not a Newbie, here, but still don't quite know it ALL, either. I have made it through enough situations that I've come to trust my Spidy Senses but also realize that sometimes it's good to step outside my personal bubble and get other input from the rest of the Superfriends. Those who usually ride alone will likely appreciate where I'm coming from. Likewise, I've learned to value Local Knowledge. But just because I state that I reject riding in the middle of a sporadically busy thoroughfare is no reason to be upset, offended or otherwise butt-hurt. It's really not a personal rejection of you, your experience, local knowledge or worth as a person. It's just Bicycle Talk. I was hoping against hope that someone might sprinkle some pixie dust on the situation and provide me with a plausible solution or possibility of one; cburch answered the call. As we've agreed, that intersection or others like it won't be changing any time soon , and I wanted a solid option. Now I have it. Thread Success. Can all Threads claim such? I want to add here that Stu, I will help you with some traffic project some time if you ever need the help, just because I admire your methodical approach and appreciate your ingenuity and concern. I promise I won't try to be your friend, I just like your style. As for EVERYONE else that took the time, I want to extend my sincere appreciation for YOUR time and effort expended on this thread. Stay Alert! Stay Alive! PS: Two things: there are some tongue-in-cheek comments embedded in almost everything I write or say, it's up to the reader to decipher them but I can assure you I'm not looking to knock the chip off of anyone's shoulder. So some of you may now relax, and take a deep breath. Secondly, I've been living vicariously through that entire Tag-o-rama thread and waiting for the right day to get in the game. I've been scouting some challenging tags, so get ready to work for it...
val
2013-03-18 10:54:09
I'm not calling anyone an ass-clown. I know the intersection a little, and I assume all drivers to be ass-clowns who WILL do what you think they won't--it's safer that way. My two suggestions: 1) Take the center of the right-most lane possible. In this case, I would have taken the third lane from the right--or the right-most lane designated for traveling in the direction I wanted to go. 2) Invest in a mirror. I have mirrors on every bike I own, and I am always aware of what's coming behind me. I commute on West Liberty Avenue both ways, from Mt Lebanon to the end by the Tubes. I take the center of the right lane the entire way. I've had some close calls, but my mirror has saved my ass a few times. But since I started taking the entire lane, the number of "buzz-bys" has dropped dramatically. Take the lane, you have every right to do so, and it is safer.
ajbooth
2013-03-18 10:56:02
"Anywhere they plop down the equivalent of freeway on/off ramps in the middle of a city it is complete shit design." I heartily second that. I ride through there very infrequently, but I completely get the point about limiting your exposure in terms of the direction from which threats can come, i.e. 180 dg as opposed to 360. Also, sometimes, I go 10 mph or less, 10 is a happy, happy speed for me. So I am sometimes hesitant to take a lane in the middle of a 4 lane configuration like this. Having said that, if I was toodling along, and staying to the right, I would be acutely aware that I would be crossing 2 lanes of traffic at effectively an acute angle, that it would be appropriate to stop if necessary and make sure nothing was coming behind. I would certainly not assume it is clear and be going fast enough to require a power slide to save my ass. If you're going traffic-fast, just take a lane.
edmonds59
2013-03-18 10:58:49
"Name That Ass-Clown": This should be a regular feature, with a different scenario each week.
atleastmykidsloveme
2013-03-18 11:04:28
@AJ, byogman and Edmonds, you guys have me playing air guitar. Right now I'm shredding Into The Lungs of Hell by Megadeth, and thinking about fucking that intersection up! Maybe all I needed was just a swift kick in the nuts, and someone to yell at me to stop sniveling like a rat shitting razor blades, and apply more aggressiveness to the entire situation. You guys just accomplished the virtual equivalent of a Group Ride. The first beer I drink tonight will be tipped in your general direction...
val
2013-03-18 11:04:42
AtLeastMyKidsLoveMe wrote:“Name That Ass-Clown”: This should be a regular feature, with a different scenario each week.
I like that but think we might should go with 'Who's The Clown', much in the spirit of the old 'You Make The Call' of NFL yore and lore. It is shorter and also catches the attention by posing a question. It puts vigilant readers on notice and piques their taste for blood in the water... I like it. I also thought about starting a I Saw You Thread, where folks could just slap a paragraph about another rider they saw that was kicking ass or being funny, whatever, it could be a pedestrian. I have a habit of people watching and there are some funny ones!
val
2013-03-18 11:10:08
Or a self-reporting thread (kind of like your OP): "If the Ass-Hat Fits, Wear It." Conversely: "If the Ass-Hat Does Not Fit, You Must Acquit!" (Let's see who all remembers who Johnny Cochran was...)
atleastmykidsloveme
2013-03-18 11:17:27
AtLeastMyKidsLoveMe wrote:Or a self-reporting thread (kind of like your OP): “If the Ass-Hat Fits, Wear It.” Conversely: “If the Ass-Hat Does Not Fit, You Must Acquit!” (Let’s see who all remembers who Johnny Cochran was…)
Well then, I might have to appeal this case. " The Truck (ball) was on the line! Let's see who can finger that reference!?
val
2013-03-18 11:19:47
"Are you kidding me?"
atleastmykidsloveme
2013-03-19 05:44:16
Threads like these are hard to reply to. The written word is full of vaguery. Two different situtations, one OK, one asshat, could be described with the same words. There could be two descriptionf of one situtaiton where one appears OK and oen asshat. That said, here's coupel comments. I dislike riding in the middle of the road, too. But sometimes it's the best choice. Also, "Is the driver an asshat?" Who knows? If you are on a bike, though, you have to assume any driver will be an intoxicated jerk with an attitude. You'll be wrong most of the time, of course, but that's OK. "Abuse of power is never a surprise." -Jenny Holzer. Don't let it surprise you.
mick
2013-03-19 10:27:18
Lots of information on why riding in the middle of the lane makes sense: http://cyclingsavvy.org/hows-my-driving/ "Driving in the middle of the lane actually protects cyclists against the most common motorist-caused crashes: sideswipes, right hooks, left crosses, and drive-outs. " Your scenario of getting hit on both sides just doesn't jive with reality. Cars will see you in the middle of the lane and will usually recognize they can't fit in half a lane so will move into the next full lane over. I've been riding on 885 for about five years and I see the results every morning. About 99.5% of cars move over the whole lane. If you stay on the side, they'll try and skim to the side putting both you and other cars in the adjacent lane at risk.
sgtjonson
2013-03-19 16:20:22
Taking a page from Stu's book, I sent a screen grab of that intersection yesterday, from Maps. I snapped some photos today to email. He's an Engineer and at present, completing his degree in VA. His group is studying intersections, highways and driverless systems for future implementation. I'm trying to talk him into using this intersection as a group project and do a complete target folder on it. That way, (Stu) someone actually could go the City with a product and of course, justification. Right now I'm thinking that any modification of that segment of road would be more likely to happen if it was argued from the School Zone standpoint. The posted limit is 25 mph through there but the school empties right out on the street. It seems like bracketing the school with speed tables would be optimal for slowing traffic. Then you could pour one of those low, curving barrier/islands to help channelize drivers turning Right. Placement of the downstream speed table could be finalized with an eye on the desired effect you're looking for, for the Ridge Ave. intersection. Thoughts, anyone? Stu?
val
2013-03-19 19:17:14
Pierce, that's a good presentation but doesn't really jive with the template for the scenario. Thanks!
val
2013-03-19 19:24:14
I'd like to say I really know what I'm talking about, but I am not trained in traffic engineering, but given that the trainERS of traffic engineers have been thinking carscarscarscars for umpteen years, I'm not sure that's necessarily any seal of approval. Four lanes along there, any side of that monstrosity called Allegheny Center, are unnecessary. Two I can see. Maybe some space for parked school buses. But a road diet, à la East Liberty Blvd, is called for, plus a dedicated bike lane. The peel-off onto Ridge -- along with the other three analogous turns -- need a total re-do. Sure, grab a couple screen shots. Do the same for Federal (north), East Ohio, and Federal (south) as well. As a cyclist, bus rider, motorcyclist, pedestrian, and car driver through here, all on a fairly regular basis, I think I can offer some intelligent input. The one thing I cannot offer is the point of view of someone who parks, works, or lives in Allegheny Center.
stuinmccandless
2013-03-19 23:01:08
@ Marko82: Everyone please watch this whole 4 minute video. Then comment on why you would do it any differently. There is a lot that I would do differently. Partly due to my infamously slow speed. At 1:54, I might have stopped at the curb and let the car pass and go behind it. 3:10, I might have let the white truck pull in front of me (a car in front of you is your friend. A car behind you is trying to kill you.) In the multi-lane left hand turns, I might have stayed to the right, passed the cross street, then waited by the curb for the light in the direction of the cross street. (I just changed a whole lot of "would's" to "might's" because it's hard to really estimate distance and speeds on a video. I'm not sure of the traffic patterns in that town. )
mick
2013-03-19 23:57:02
@mick, thanks for your comments. I understand how riding slow makes taking the lane seem like a really bad thing and maybe it is, I don’t do it that way very often, but when I have taken the lane while riding slow I have not had any issues. I think what you describe works for you because you are very willing to come to a complete stop or alter your traffic pattern to become a pedestrian, and you do so frequently (I know this because I’ve ridden with you). But keep in mind that the bicyclists speed is rather irrelevant to most motorists. I say this because to them there is no difference if you are going 20mph or 12mph – you’re going slower than they are and they want to get past you. Also, I have had lots of people pass me when I’m doing 5mph over the speed limit (downhill), so there is that whole must-pass-the-bike thing too. Aggressive drivers are going to be dicks no matter how you ride your bike, and they will still be dicks even if you are driving in another car - so what you want to do is maximize the interactions you have with the good drivers. Be seen, be predictable.
marko82
2013-03-20 07:55:41
@Marko, I finally sat down and watched the video. The first thing that caught my eye (especially for a cyclist training video) is that the rider demonstrates a lane change almost as he's about to proceed through an intersection. I can't speak for PA but strictly by the book, changing lanes is illegal within 100 yards of an intersection when traveling by motor vehicle. Of course this only matters if any cyclist is attempting to follow the rules of the road. Secondly, as mentioned previously, traveling speed may render this video useless for some. I ride different bikes sometimes and on my road bike, I am faster and act more like a car. But oftentimes I'm on my cross rig and can't go as fast, and end up interacting more than I'd like to with autos. That said, I did take cburch's suggestion and turned Right yesterday, then hooked a left on Merchant, I think. I'll continue to tweak and improve my route but I can already say I enjoyed the alternate one. It gave me a little perspective and I learned a little bit.
val
2013-03-20 08:16:49
Remember Lolly Walsh? Worked at Bike-Pgh for a while? Slow cycling is what she's blogged about several times. I believe she's in D.C. now, though we stay in touch.
stuinmccandless
2013-03-20 08:24:10
Val wrote:changing lanes is illegal within 100 yards of an intersection when traveling by motor vehicle
This is not a law AFAIK. You are not allowed to change lanes across a solid white line (although that is almost never enforced). I don't see anything about distance, and 100yd would be pretty unreasonable IMO, that's a pretty long distance.
salty
2013-03-20 08:40:31
@ marko82 - I often take the lane, even at my speed, but I'm leery about changing lanes in front of a moving car. True even if I'm going downhill at roughly MV traffic speed. (That is, 5 mph over the speed limit.) Now, I do it as many days as not - making a left off of Fifth onto Gist St, but I wouldn't recommend it. Also, my impression is that Pittsburgh drivers in those traffic conditions would be going 10 to 25 mph faster than the cars in that video. (and Pittsburgh isn't really fast for a city.)
mick
2013-03-20 08:55:10
Val wrote:I can’t speak for PA but strictly by the book, changing lanes is illegal within 100 yards of an intersection when traveling by motor vehicle.
Val, where did you get this info? Every state has its own Code? Are you speaking about US? North America? World? As Salty mentioned above PA does not have anything about 100 yards. I think OH does not have it either (it was long time ago I've read OH code).
mikhail
2013-03-20 08:56:20
While investigating I ran across the following from PA Vehicle law Chapter 33 A § 3301: "Pedalcycles.-- (1) Upon all roadways, any pedalcycle operating in accordance with Chapter 35, proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. (2) This subsection does not apply to: (i) A pedalcycle using any portion of an available roadway due to unsafe surface conditions. (ii) A pedalcycle using a roadway that has a width of not more than one lane of traffic in each direction." It seems to me this prohibits taking the lane. Is there a loophole I'm not seeing here?
jonawebb
2013-03-20 08:59:13
jonawebb wrote:as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway
Already discussed and even before it became a part of the Code. And specifically for this phrase. Conclusion was that "as practicable" could mean "in the middle of the lane"
mikhail
2013-03-20 09:24:38
K, I guess I remember that...
jonawebb
2013-03-20 09:32:39
Looks to me like (2)(i) specifically allows for taking the lane. The law could be clearer. And we need more dedicated bike lanes.
stuinmccandless
2013-03-20 09:37:05
"or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection " "Preparing" = gray area, open for interpretation.
atleastmykidsloveme
2013-03-20 10:49:48
Lolly was cool.
edmonds59
2013-03-20 14:38:28
I meant to say 100 feet.
val
2013-03-20 19:08:10
Whether 100 feet or 100 yards, there's still no such rule in PA, as far as I can see. You can change lanes as close to an intersection as you like, as long as it's not prohibited by traffic control devices (like white lines) (section 3309(4)) and it can be done safely (3309(1)). You can search the vehicle code yourself here. The problem with Title 75 section 3301(c) that Jonawebb quoted is not in positioning within the lane. It pretty clearly allows you to ride anywhere in the rightmost lane when there are multiple lanes ("in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or "), and doesn't apply at all when there's one lane (3301(c)2 ii). The problem is it forces you into the right lane inappropriately, for instance when the right lane is right-turn-only and you're going straight. The previous version of the law had some text about how you don't have to stay in the right hand lane if it's not going the way you want, but it was deleted when they added the 4-foot rule and replaced by wording that enumerates all the reasons it's OK to leave the right-most lane and leaves some out. As far as I can tell, cyclists on a road with a right-turn-only lane are technically not permitted to go straight, at least until Harrisburg fixes their little blunder.
steven
2013-03-21 04:22:28
This would be more of an issue where the road starts to get wider ahead of a white-line lane split for a right-turn lane. Outbound Babcock Blvd from Millvale to Three Degree Road has six of these. I've learned to guess which is the better approach, at any given time -- either to stay to the right until forced to get left, or just get waaay the hell left, four feet off the yellow line, and force people to slow to my speed. As you might expect, this is chancy, and the law is not on cyclists' side. If traffic on Babcock was any heavier, this would make that road much more difficult, and I think is a better example of what Val's OP was really about. Babcock at Thompson Run Road is probably the worst of these. It's posted 35 (and most people drive at that speed).
stuinmccandless
2013-03-21 07:03:55
@Steven, thanks for explaining that. I guess according to that understanding, the answer to the question that started this thread is clear -- @Val should have stayed in the rightmost lane the whole time, and turned right at the intersection. He should never have attempted to go straight.
jonawebb
2013-03-21 08:21:18
Steven: I believe you are correct, I forgot about that, but now I remember objecting to that change before the law passed. It's really unfortunate that change was allowed to happen, it clearly makes no sense and I would have expected some lawyer who looked at the thing to object.
salty
2013-03-21 08:38:19
Man, you guys are thorough. I really appreciate the effort and time to pare this down. You know how it can be with old dogs and new tricks, but I am looking at my routing through there and will eventually dial it in to where it's as fun and conflict-free as I can make it. It took a good long while to get the Brighton area and some of the North Hills down, Downtown will take longer... I am STILL looking for my 'best' way to get from north of the Mon, to the Furnace Trail for my usual trip to Oakland and around. The other day when I took Cburch's navigation advice, I was going across the high ground through Forbes/5th area, to get to Oakland that way. I am looking to find an optimal route through that high ground to Oakland, preferably something North of Forbes by a few blocks. Thanks again, I will gladly spring for a couple of beers if and when I ever run into you guys (if you drink beer)...
val
2013-03-21 08:55:21
Mick wrote:@ marko82 – I often take the lane, even at my speed, but I’m leery about changing lanes in front of a moving car. True even if I’m going downhill at roughly MV traffic speed. (That is, 5 mph over the speed limit.) Now, I do it as many days as not – making a left off of Fifth onto Gist St, but I wouldn’t recommend it. Also, my impression is that Pittsburgh drivers in those traffic conditions would be going 10 to 25 mph faster than the cars in that video. (and Pittsburgh isn’t really fast for a city.)
@Mick, there is Iron and Fire in your words...
val
2013-03-21 09:00:12
@jonawebb: I think you are forgetting the often-touted "same rights and responsibilities" clause at the beginning of the PA code concerning pedalcycles. That clause is the one that requires us to obey all traffic controls including (but not limited to): stop signs, traffic lights, lane markings, speed limits, and so on. That clause arguably trumps the "always be against the curb" idea and requires Val to be in one of the other lanes if not turning right. @Val: If you're going straight through that intersection, have you considered staying all the way to the left in the leftmost lane? That's legal on a one-way street. You might have to merge back over to proceed to downtown, but maybe it's an improvement over possible right-hooks? Also: "I am looking to find an optimal route through that high ground to Oakland, preferably something North of Forbes by a few blocks." Have you considered Centre Ave? I took that way back to Oakland after a hockey game last month and it was kind of nice. The elevation gain is gradual enough that you should be able to find a comfortable gear (assuming your bike has more than one) and spin steadily.
jaysherman5000
2013-03-21 10:10:56
@JaySherman, many thanks for your constructive and helpful input. I will do a map recon and try that on my next jaunt...
val
2013-03-21 10:27:43
@JaySherman, maybe. In any case I wasn't actually proposing that @Val not proceed straight. I was just saying that that is what the law seems to be saying he should do. The only exceptions listed are for turning left, not for going straight. I guess a lawyer might argue that explicitly listing the exceptions, and leaving out going straight, means that it is something you're not supposed to do. But I don't think anyone is actually going to argue that and I would take the middle lane in that case.
jonawebb
2013-03-21 10:57:37
Why wouldn't someone argue it? If you're not riding in the right lane and some driver runs you over, you can bet their lawyer will try to exploit this technicality to show the cyclist was partially or fully at fault. That's what makes it so maddening that this was allowed to happen in the first place. Prior to the 4 foot law there was no question you were allowed to be in the "straight" lane (since the clause above that permitted it *did* apply to cyclists) but they changed the language and screwed it up. What JaySherman said about obeying traffic control devices gives me some hope, since that clearly conflicts with the "right lane" law and hopefully a cyclist's lawyer would be able to use that. But it would still be way better if the law weren't broken to begin with.
salty
2013-03-21 11:16:07
That clause arguably trumps the “always be against the curb” idea Maybe a judge would see it that way to avoid the absurdity of a cyclists-must-turn rule. But I think it's a stretch. After all, a driver can't ignore signs that prohibit a left turn, say, simply because he wants to go that way. He can only go the way the rules permit; they override what direction he might prefer to go in. So if the must-use-right-lane and right-lane-must-turn rules combine to prohibit going straight, it trumps the cyclist's desire to go straight. You can't combine one of the rules with the cyclist's desire, and say that it trumps the other rule, since there's a way to follow all the rules. It would be terrible if the sloppy law provided a loophole for some lawyer. I think Scott (?) mentioned at the time somebody was working on a technical correction to the law (before passage maybe?). Don't know what happened after that.
steven
2013-03-21 16:01:05
I'm thinking it might be possible to set up a bike trap by creating right turn-only lanes at the four corners of a block, with the cross streets being one-way to prevent the left turn option. Cyclists, once entering the trap, would be doomed to forever circle the block. Opportunistic gangs could wait until the cyclists fell over from exhaustion, then steal their fancy bicycles. Or tourists could be entertained by the spectacle of cyclists circling round and round. Maybe there are natural bike traps already out there.
jonawebb
2013-03-22 09:05:26
I often ride through that poorly laid out part of the northside and do as the OP does: staying right, checking for cars, moving over. I have found that i get less outbursts from drivers by staying to one side or the other and I, too, like to have the option of hopping up on the curb if i need to bail. ive been boxed in here before by taking the center lane and had drivers get aggressive, even though i have the legal right to be there. i found it easier to modify my riding in this area and maybe go a bit slower as sometimes i stop pedaling to wait and switch lanes. anyway...there are a ton of asshole drivers in the allegheny commons area so situations like this are bound to arise no matter what precautions you take.
floggingdavy
2013-03-22 10:43:20
Really, I don't see where there's that much of a problem at that spot. There are four lanes. A little farther back, that fourth lane often has a school bus or six in it. Then it becomes the right-only lane. The second lane from the right (third from left) has the option of going straight or right. I'm usually in that one. Never had a problem. Even if someone wanted to go 40 through there and make a right onto Ridge, they can easily get around me on the right, as the line of buses never stretches that far down. Granted the design is wanting, but I still don't see what the problem is with toodling along in that 3rd lane, even at well under traffic speeds. Just take the lane, be visible, be predictable.
stuinmccandless
2013-03-22 11:34:30
im not sure what the issue there is either. i know what i 'should' do in that situation, but that has left me with more beeps and aggressive buzzings than the stay to one side and then switch lanes approach. it could be bad luck.
floggingdavy
2013-03-22 12:03:51
@Steven: I think this whole thing went awry when we started reading individual sections of the law by themselves and not taking them in context. For starters, the section of roadway in question is one-way. It is legal for a cyclist to be all the way to the left on a one-way street. So, to avoid the right turn, a pedalcyclist could ride through that intersection in the leftmost lane. Second, it is absolutely unsafe to be in a lane marked as turn only and then not make a turn. So, if you intend to go straight through that intersection "as far right as safely practicable" becomes one of the lanes not marked as turn-only. It's not reasonable to expect cyclists to turn right everytime a right-turn only lane opens up, nor is it safe to expect cyclists to open themselves up to right-hooks. The only safe option is then to move as far left as need be to follow the road on which you are traveling. And that is made legal by the "as far right as safe" language. Of course, that logic is untested in court, but that's my armchair-lawyering for the day. A shady lawyer would certainly argue that according to the letter of the law, every cyclist should be making a right turn whenever there is right turn only lane on the road. Hopefully, reason, logic, and safety will win out over that kind of absurd, pants-on-head, illogical argument.
jaysherman5000
2013-03-22 12:18:03
In a similar enough situation, this may or may not be helpful. On my commute I encounter several situations where I cross ramps that transition from surface streets to limited access highways. These approaches are somewhat long, perhaps 100 yards of rather vague lane designation, with drivers coming up all ready to punch it into warp. I stay right-ward even onto the first part of the approach to the ramp until the way is clear, I signal, and I cross at an angle (30 - 45 deg) to the approaching traffic, to the straight-ward lane. This minimizes the amount of time I am exposed to traffic approaching from the rear (X), the slight turn allows me a much better view of approaching traffic, and gives me a larger profile to the approaching traffic. I don't know if this fits anyone's "best practices" guidelines or not, but this is how I've done it forever, and it works.
edmonds59
2013-03-22 13:10:43
Yeah, that's what I would do, and good luck to you -- it's a scary maneuver. I remember when I was riding on 22 in eastern PA and doing this every several minutes. It was terrifying as hell but a very fast way to get closer to Philly (the wind from the passing cars pulled me along). BTW, I don't think it's prohibited by the law -- the right lane is not right-turn only, so you can proceed straight, as you're more or less doing.
jonawebb
2013-03-22 13:40:41
@JaySherman, thanks again for the tip on Centre Avenue. It turned out to start right about where I dropped off the high ground, the other day. I rode it all the way to Oakland today and I think after I get the route down, it's going to be even more fun. It was an awesome Spring day, today, with all the blowing flurries.
val
2013-03-22 21:18:08