BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I will dismount the bike at times and walk through the cross walk and reenter the road at a convenient location.

Since I don't really believe in absolute right or absolute wrong (entirely different philosophical discussion), on the scale of gray, you were pegged on the absolute "right", as a vehicle, waiting in line for your turn, and other guy was somewhere on the other side of center, toward the wrong end.

In a practical sense, doing it the way you did, the cars in front of you would accelerate away faster than you could, leaving you holding up cars behind you, and you would be completely within the letter of the law to hold them up. Major drawback - this could also cause an impatient turner from the right of the intersection to try to shoot the resulting opening.

But, personally, assuming the road has the width, I would filter up to the light (on the right) and wait for the vehicle signal, not go on the ped signal. That way I cross the intersection at about the same speed as the first car, and that car actually blocks left hookers for me.

You did the right thing legally and if you're comfortable with that, then keep on doing it. I actually use the sidewalk there (slowly) on my commute and turn right on to Braddock.

I go through this intersection often. The timing of the lights there is a little bit weird...the outbound Forbes traffic has a longer green light than the inbound, for one thing. Speeding on Braddock and "Pittsburgh Left" turns are very common.

During rush hour inbound, it is probably fastest to dismount and get through the intersection as a pedestrian if you plan on continuing inbound on Forbes. I try not to "filter forward" at the light during rush hour, but sometimes I do if I know I can catch the 4-way walk light.

People are in a hurry to get to work, so they will really push the limits of the inbound traffic signals in the morning: use extreme caution.

If I am turning right on Braddock, sometimes I do the same as @rsprake, but be very careful getting back on the road @ S Braddock. people do speed, especially to catch the last drops of the yellow light in the morning.

You were definitely obeying the laws, so no worries there. I don't like filtering, it feels wrong to me (not to mention dangerous, see the thread on the woman in Hempfield Twp), so if it really would be faster to walk, I'd dismount and pedestrian it through on the walk signal, then mount up on the other side once traffic is clear. Can be a nice break, catch some breath, enjoy the scenery.

Or you could solve the problem by going in for a coffee at that little cafe on the corner... if it's still there?

+1 what Edmonds said

^maybe

In my experience with this intersection, there is a high danger of left hooks from oncoming traffic (forbes outbound), and they get a jump on the green light.

Forbes [edit]inbound right here is two narrow lanes, and one often has parked cars in it in the morning. Not all the cars leave enough room to filter forward. It's a little pile up in the morning and I see people try to gun it through the light just to get through this frustrating section.

YMMV, but please proceed with extra caution. The nature of this intersection changes a lot throughout the day.

this is why i skipped forbes inbound in the mornings (time allowing) when i lived there. i went a few blocks further up east end. crossed braddock and took a little walking path behind a school to shimmy over to reynolds and went the semi-long way around to squill. don't remember the street names though. sorry.

Depending on where you're going in Sq Hill, are you sure going through Frick Park isn't easier? You'd probably want to walk up one section of trail, but otherwise you're out of the worst of the traffic and you get to see great scenery every day.

In high-congestion areas like that, and where traffic is advancing at a slow-rate "station-to-station," I make like a vehicle, take the lane, move up with traffic and wait my turn. After the light, if traffic is "free" to advance at greater speed, and there is room for them to safely pass me, they do so, and we all go on our way.

I'm always self-conscious about filtering up on the right because I know when I'm in a car in traffic like that and see a bike filtering up it peeves me a bit, so I try not to do it. But that's just me. (I don't fault the bike for doing it, It just makes me self-conscious.)

I'm feeling the need to clarify my earlier statement - Italianblend, I'd do exactly what you did, or become a pedestrian on the sidewalk, I think those are two legal, safe, and polite options and are both good enough options that I wouldn't want the third option that you saw the other guy doing (which, I wasn't there and don't know, may have been just fine, I just don't like filtering in general, specifics can be different). Chances are, my optimism about traffic lights and patience with traffic while on a bike would keep me in line like you were.

I think I wasn't so clear on that. Maybe all the confusion is mine. I'm having one of those days where I don't quite understand what I'm saying all the time. I should probably say less until the mental fog lifts.

To clarify:

The other bike did not "filter" at all. He simply passed all cars on the left hand side.

^

^X

^X

^Xi

^X

I am very proud of this map. The up arrows was the bike passing everyone. Xs are cars, and I am the little i.

That is the advantage of a bike, it is still always multi-modal transportation.

I do what Cburch does when I need to go West from East End Ave.

I hate that Braddock/Forbes intersection no matter what my mode of travel is. I've been Pittsburgh lefted in my car, threatened by buses and almost hit while carrying my daughter across the street while the walk light was on.

When I do use that intersection I typically don't filter forward. If I'm 1 or 2 cars back and the walk light comes on I'll go forward. I've never had to wait several light cycles though. Must just be the time of day I'm there.

The big problem with that intersection, coming down the hill on Forbes, is the green arrow. I'm afraid that when I'm waiting there some car will think the green arrow means green straight ahead and I'll get nailed.

That's why If I'm already lined up at the front of the intersection and the walk light comes on I'll cross to minimize my exposure to traffic.

very nice map, Italianblend, very clear. I don't think I'd do what he did, either, but somehow it looks safer to me (drivers tend to be better at noticing things on their side of their cars) as long as he didn't cross the double yellow (if there was one). I may be totally wrong, and I wouldn't do it, but that's the impression I get.

I'd put myself in a lane like this, if I were the little i, and drivers are _X_:

_X_

_X_

i

_X_

_X_

that is, taking up the entire space a car would, leaving too little room for a car to pass at least on the Right, if not also on the Left (in the very least forcing them completely into the oncoming lane to pass me). That way their passing me is also tied to their own personal safety, not just mine, and I have more room to bail if they choose poorly.

That's why if it's a hill, or I'm holding up traffic because I'm slow, I'd hop off happily and act like a ped. But if traffic is so slow and it's flat enough that I can effectively be a car, I try to take the space a car would. Butler St in rush hour is the perfect example of when I take the lane like a vehicle would (before deeking off into the side streets, I'm not masochistic).

Downside to that is if I end up in front, and there's a sensor I'm not tripping, it sometimes takes a lot of sign language to coax the driver behind me to come up and trip the sensor for all of us. But I think that's more a suburban problem rather than a city problem - city lights tend to just be on rotation I think.

ib, like the graphic.

Based on that, I'd say the other cyclist was wrong-er on my scale than I first estimated. Aside from legality, he's exposed to left hooking from all 4 directions. Totally screwed.

Also, I think your placement is pretty ok. I would adjust your positioning just a little to be:

X

X

_i

X

X

adjacent to the gap between cars, far enough back so if the car in front decides to take a quick right (signal or no) they can't take out your front wheel, and far enough in front of the next car so you are solidly in their field of view.

Good advice all.

My first thought was that drivers see things like that and that's where they get the fuel to say that we don't obey traffic laws.

To be honest, the hill on forbes bothers me more than the traffic. Where could I enter and exit frick park to get up the hill? Would it be an easier climb than forbes?

If I'm going through the intersection behind a large car (van/bus or something that's hard to see around) I get as far left as I can so that anyone trying to make a left from the oncoming direction can see me.

I fear someone making a quick left into what they think is a hole in traffic and run me over in the process.

Edited to post a map.

I'm the "i"

"X" = big vehicle

"x" = little vehicle

x

X

X

i

x

x

Waiting through several light cycles to get to an intersection is something I would only do in an extreme situation. Why would I want to wait in a line 100 feet long just because half-a-dozen folks feel the need to each carry a ton of steel with them? (So as to better use up non-renewable resources.)

Also from your map, Italianblend, it looks like you are not taking the lane, so you are facing similar risks to someone filtering anyhow. Why spend your time doing that? Make car drivers feel better about wrecking the world?

Not sure if I would filter at that intersection or not. If I didn't filter, I'd walk (or possibly ride at pedestrian speed) up the sidewalk, then push the walk button, so I could have a few safe moments going up Forbes.

Good call roadkillen, it's all about visibility. I will occasionally do that if I feel like I have my sprinty legs on or it's not uphill and can get across the intersection quickly. Otherwise I will stay rightward in the lane and just be super watchful for hookers.

That block of Forbes has a left-turn-only lane westbound. If there were cars in it, and the cyclist was left of them and went straight, that's pretty clearly illegal. Likewise if the lane was empty and he used the left-hand-only lane to pass the cars going straight or right.

The route through Frick that I know of is: head north on East End, west on Edgerton, south on Braddock, west on Kensington, then take the Hawthorne Trail to a street that goes to Reynolds.

It's OK, but Kensington's much steeper than Forbes. And turning left onto Braddock isn't great (though that part of Braddock is less busy than the part south of Forbes).

When I go west on that stretch of Forbes, I take the lane as ejwme posted, so drivers can't go around.

(Though that doesn't always work so well. I was headed in the opposite direction a year or so ago, eastbound on Forbes, where the parking lane starts just east of Braddock and traffic has to merge into one lane. The car behind me tried to pass on my left, moving part way into the opposing lane. My rubber handlebar made quite a loud squeal as it rubbed against the entire length of his car. I'd like to imagine it left a mark.)

I precisely agree with ejwme and RoadKillen and that's what I do. I think you're right ItalianBlend and filtering forward and particularly passing entire lanes out of the lane contributes a lot to drivers not feeling bikers don't respect the rules of the road (running stop signs and stop lights being the other major component). Ride predictably. Ride safe.

Here are a couple of alternatives:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215506014146647056827.0004a9c6dd8f1e301bb59&msa=0&ll=40.443208,-79.896591&spn=0.01246,0.026286

One shows the shortcut behind the school fence that Colin mentions. It's a dirt path where S. Richland ends. I usually have to lift my bike over some tree roots at the end, but I'd bet that's not a problem for Colin

The other shows how to get to Frick Park by way of Kensington. There is a painted crosswalk & Ped sign at Kensington.

Edgerton is steep belgian blocks flanked by so-so-sidewalks.

The sidewalks on S. Braddock are not too bad. I don't usually advocate riding on sidewalks, but S. Braddock is pretty unsafe and there are not a ton of Walkers on that stretch. So, you could take the sidewalk from Forbes to Kensington and have a decent crosswalk to use.

Once you're on Reynolds, there are a number of ways to various parts of Sq Hill.

how could i forget the name of ben hur st?!?!?!?!

Thanks guys, but that is a bit out of my way. I would be more interested in fining another route through frick that would exit me at the enviornmental center or even the Beechwood playground area.

Ideally, I would go up forward/commercial ave, but that is a hellishly steep road, not to mention very dangerous.

I might come home down that hill, but not up.

Pretend I work at say...the Carnegie Library of Sq. Hill.

its got a little bit of a climb, but this is the most direct path from the bottom of the climb up to regent square over to the environmental center. it's all fairly wide gravel paths, no mtb trails. you might want to walk your bike on the last climb from the nature center to beechwood, but the rest should be doable.

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Braddock+Trail&daddr=40.4346348,-79.9084637+to:Unknown+road&hl=en&sll=40.433507,-79.903929&sspn=0.007889,0.012789&geocode=FRPoaAIdZvE8-w%3BFcr7aAIdkbE8-ym9UajfB-40iDEiWx6mNE8B5A%3BFUEAaQIdoa48-w&mra=dpe&mrsp=1&sz=17&via=1&dirflg=b&t=h&z=17&lci=bike

What you want then is to start at Forbes and Braddock, but go to the sidewalk on the playground side. Ride over the bridge on the left sidewalk and turn left into the park at the end of the bridge. Go up either of the Clayton Trails, going straight or turning right. Either way takes you to the environmental center. Straight (South Clayton) is nicer IMO but right (North Clayton) is faster.

Is Clayton officially open to bikes? The sign at that trailhead is a bit ambiguous.

Uh-oh. Earlier, I was staying off of this thread because I knew I would say something that would get me in trouble. Now I've gone and done it.

I've been on the Clayton trails almost daily for the past 3 years and never run into a problem. Just watch for joggers and dog poop.

yuck - biking through dog poop on the way to work is just wrong

incidentally, contrary to the first few posts in this thread, it is legal to pass stopped cars on the right in pa. this doesn't really apply to the fella who passed everyone on the left, but it is true nonetheless.

from the penndot bike website:

Traffic jams don’t have to stop you -- that’s one of the biggest advantages of bicycling in the city. But in the tight quarters of a tie-up, take extra care.

...

...it’s usually legal for you, or any driver, to cautiously disobey normal traffic rules when the road is “obstructed.”

not that it's always the right thing to do. but i would probably do it if it meant not having to wait through multiple light cycles.

But in this case the bicyclist wants to go in the same direction as the "obstructing" cars. Passing on the right and then trying to reintegrate back into the left-turn lane to make the left would have been both difficult and dangerous. In grade school we all complained loudly and vociferously about "cutting" and it's just as popular on the road as it was back then. Being on a bike instead of driving a car doesn't suddenly make it OK or fair.

FWIW, I don't think any of the first few posts stated that passing on the right was either legal or illegal. They were merely confirming that was Italianblend did (stay in the lane with traffic) was legal.

Waiting behind a bunch of cars and trucks that have the road clogged up with one person in them isn't fair either.

While I agree with you at a higher philosophical level, in the moment, on the road is not the time to claim a moral superiority that implies bicyclists are not subject to same laws or shouldn't obey the same conventions of courtesy. The goal of getting more people to ride bikes goes hand in hand with making the streets safer to ride on. Making the streets safer invokes creating better and positive relationships with drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. "I'm better than you because I ride a bike" is not the right starting point on which to build

better relationships. "We're all in this together in this multiple-modal world." is a far better starting point. From there you can move to things like "Hey, doesn't that person on a bike look fit and like they're having fun; maybe I could try that."

As I have stated eleswhere, if there were 50 bicycles lined up single file all the way over on the right at a light or stop sign and a car came up the street, I am not sure there would be any motorized vehicle driver who would not think they could safely (and without hesitation or recourse) go all the way to the front of that line unless their vehicle was too wide to do so without interfering with oncoming traffic.

Maybe the next flock or critical mass could try this?

Let me ask this: If there were 50 bikes lined up as stated above, how many of you would join the line at tthe back either on your bike or in a car?

re: the line jumping analogy; in grade school, if someone jumps the line, it causes everyone behind to be one person farther back. On a bike, if I filter forward even with the first car, I am not slowing down the progress of any of the other cars. I am one additional vehicle getting through the light faster, speeding up the overall process.

Americans need to get over this irrational neurosis about someone possibly getting ahead of them in life. Like a-holes not letting people alternately merge in traffic at merge points, that's just dick.

Oh, also, helen, I would get in the back of the line of 50 bikes, but not cars, or pedestrians. I would not expect a pedestrian to get in line at the back of a line of 50 bikes.

The context of the original poster's question is turning left with a line of cars wanting to do the same. There's one lane going straight (or right) and one left that's a dedicated left turn lane.

The case of everyone going straight is different. When we're going straight, treating things like we have 1.5 lanes works out and indeed it does not slow the cars down. I agree with this behavior if there's room (but please watch out for getting right hooked).

This model does not work when we're turning left. You cannot safely create 1.5 lanes of traffic turning left out of one car lane. Thus to do this safely, you have to cut back in the line. This delays everyone by one, just as it does in grade school.

I often defer to people when merging in lines or when it's ambiguous who got there first. But if you cut in front of a line of 5 people because you think that you're more deserving or subject to different rules, everyone will think you're a jerk. If you visibly appear to be from some particular "different" group you will be seen as representative of that group.

I'm probably opening a can of worms here, but whatever happened to the path of least resistance? If I see a line of anything, I'm in another line (or definitely the fastest moving one). I would have done the same thing, and honestly, I think a lot of people would. Just maybe not those commenting on this thread perhaps?

I just try to pass on the left, and if cross traffic is stopped or has a red, I'm probably going to go for it. I figure drivers are usually happy that I got out of "their way" and I can focus on getting up to a decent travel speed and find a comfortable position in the lane for both myself and them.

That's not to say I always do this. Sometimes I trackstand in traffic because I'm thirsty or just want to catch my breath after an ascent or something. And I definitely don't do this when there's ANY cross traffic.

And I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't feel "wrong" to me either.

I thought we were talking about going straight the whole time.

^ I kinda thought this was about going straight too, then I realized, I'd probably do it on a left turn too.

Edited for grammar.

It wasn't me though. That's not my route.

incidentally, contrary to the first few posts in this thread, it is legal to pass stopped cars on the right in pa.

The PA website you cite says it's legal to pass stopped cars in a "traffic jam" or "tie-up", because the road is "obstructed". Not in general.

When does a delay at a traffic light turn into a traffic jam? Consider that cars are free to disregard normal traffic laws under the same circumstances as bikes. If you think this "obstruction" principle gives you the right to pass cars whenever there's a line of 10 cars waiting at a light (declaring that 10 cars constitutes a traffic jam), then a car is allowed to drive in a bike lane or on the shoulder to get around those same 10 cars waiting at a light (say, to make a right).

It's in our interest to interpret "obstruction" narrowly. Let cars take a bike lane if the truck ahead has broken down, or there's a gaping pit where the usual traffic lane used to be. But not just because traffic's slow. I think that's what the law intends, both for cars and for bikes.

So I think the text you quoted gives permission for cyclists to filter forward only under very limited circumstances. Maybe some other law permits it in the more general case.

I'm pretty sure filtering and lane splitting is entirely legal for bikes and motorbikes. It just needs to be done sensibly. I think the issue is whether or not crossing the intersection as a pedestrian was acceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting#Legal_status

Since I may have been under the misapprehension that we were describing going straight on Forbes across Braddock, let me think about going left on Braddock onto Forbes.

At THAT intersection, at rush hour, with stacked car traffic, I would probably stay in the straightward lane, go to the opposite corner (gas station), stop, turn 90 deg, and wait for the green light going straight on Forbes. That would be the safest way to do it, IMO. That's a move that's physically impossible for a car. So I am not going to adhere to a law that is designed around the physical characteristics of a 4,000 lb 4 wheeled vehicle if it is not the safest way for me on a bike to operate. The law allows for vehicle operators to disregard traffic signals and other mechanisms when they are broken or inoperable. When a motorist gets a slap on the wrist and a $500 fine for killing another human being who was also following all the laws, I consider the whole system a broken mechanism.

BTW, I also think it's ridiculous that motorcycles and scooters have to wait in line in jammed traffic just because automobiles clog up the roads. The law should be based on physical realities, not some "fairness" issue.

I dunno, I'm agreeing with Astrobiker on this one. Not that the "we can pass 'cause it's legal and if we're carefull" argument doesn't also hold water but... I guess I've never been in that much of a hurry on a bicycle or felt that my safety required me to NOT take the space of a car. Yes, I started off filtering early on, much like Ieverheart (see thread on filtering et al), but never enough to be a habit that wasn't easily cured by an early forgettable but uncomfortable experience.

I passed a lot (like a LOT) of cyclists in my car on Sunday morning, enough to reach a decision on a personal rule of thumb - never pass a cyclist while driving unless I can take the whole lane to the left. Just makes me feel better, like I'm definitely not being rude or unpredictable or causing unsafe conditions behind me or anything - just give them the whole darn lane or wait patiently (but not violate any lanes farther left, they don't need more than one). So yes, I would sit in traffic behind a row of 50 cyclists, and especially at a light.

Whether cyclists or cars, when stopped in traffic we're all traveling the same speed. Only the pedestrians truly win without engendering any jealousy or rage.

Uggh, emotions. Emotions have no place in the operation of vehicles. That should be lesson 1 in all drivers ed classes.

aggh, time expired to edit previous post, meant to say "...TRAFFIC laws should be based on physical realities..."

"So yes, I would sit in traffic behind a row of 50 cyclists, and especially at a light."

The good news is this line should only run 25 deep, since two-wheelers can ride two abreast.

"Uggh, emotions. Emotions have no place in the operation of vehicles. That should be lesson 1 in all drivers ed classes."

^ That.

but we can no better remove emotions from drivers' decisions than we can remove emotions from any decisions the public makes.

But perhaps we can encourage better emotional decisions? For instance, discourage decisions based on rage, encourage decisions based on empathy for all road users (and thus increase likelihood that decisions will take into account the well being of all road users and not just the ones in cars)?

People use all kinds of metrics to reach conclusions and make decisions. The trick is not necessarily convincing them to use yours, but getting them to use ones whose results closely approximate yours.

The context of the original poster's question is turning left with a line of cars wanting to do the same. There's one lane going straight (or right) and one left that's a dedicated left turn lane.

i think you misinterpreted the original post. the left turn was onto forbes from a side street, before the intersection in question. so, as others have concluded, the circumstances involve going straight through the light at braddock, inbound on forbes. that's the way it reads to me, anyway.

@steven - the way i read that passage, and the way i think most people do, is as a suggestion that "filtering forward" (as we call it) is legal, but must be done safely. i agree that it's generally not the wisest thing to do, but the law seems to permit it. your analogy of a car using the bike line is not appropriate, because the car is forbidden from traveling in the bike lane, whereas bikes are permitted to ride on the shoulder. the difference, as edmonds notes, is physical. automobiles simply haven't the room to squeeze by in tight situations, and i read that passage as suggesting that part of the joy of biking is the ability to take advantage of your small size.

the question then turns to: in what circumstances is it appropriate to filter forward? and i believe that is a more interesting question than a mere point of law.

To be clear on terms, I define filtering as moving forward when the automobile traffic is at a complete stop.

Being between lanes of moving automobiles I would call lane splitting, off the top of my head I can't think of a situation where that was ever advisable on a bike. Maybe in a straightward lane where there is a right turning lane, but then you really need to be taking the straightward lane.

your analogy of a car using the bike line is not appropriate, because the car is forbidden from traveling in the bike lane, whereas bikes are permitted to ride on the shoulder.

I believe this is incorrect. Cars are permitted to use a bike lane when the road is "obstructed". The very site you linked to say as much:

These traffic-jam tactics are reasonably safe, but in some cities it may not be legal for a bicyclist to pass on the right or ride between lanes of traffic. On the other hand, it’s usually legal for you, or any driver, to cautiously disobey normal traffic rules when the road is “obstructed.”

If the road is obstructed, bikes can filter forward, even if PA law otherwise prohibits it. Likewise, if the road is obstructed, cars can use the bike lane to get around the obstruction, even though PA law otherwise prohibits this.

Fortunately, PA law seems to permit bikes to filter forward, even when there's no obstruction:

3304. The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under one of the following conditions:

(1) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn, except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the berm or shoulder of the highway.

(2) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaken vehicle, except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway.

So I agree that bikes can generally filter forward under PA law. But I disagree that the reason is that it’s usually legal for you, or any driver, to cautiously disobey normal traffic rules when the road is “obstructed.” As I tried to argue before, that line of reasoning, broadly interpreted, ends up very bad for the cyclist, because it's not specific to bikes.

the question then turns to: in what circumstances is it appropriate to filter forward? and i believe that is a more interesting question than a mere point of law.

One governs what people should do on the road, the other what argument to make if you get caught doing it. It's useful to know about both.

"One governs what people should do on the road, the other what argument to make if you get caught doing it. It's useful to know about both."

Word.

@steven - i agree. i wasn't providing a legal citation (there's no law on the page), but more of an illustration of what penndot suggests is ok (and thus, likely legal). they seemed to indicate that filtering forward wasn't so bad if you could do it safely, which gives a strong hint as to what the law likely says.

my point about the law vs. how people should behave is that the law is often much easier to settle. it is quite difficult for me to enumerate all the circumstances that must be in place for me to filter forward, or which ones might exist to cause me to stay in traffic.

Today I was driving on Beechwood Blvd in Squirrel Hill. I crossed over Forbes and if you're familiar, it goes down a little hill and there's a stop sign at Beacon Street. I observed two bikers ignore the stop sign and just continue through.

The reason I'm asking these questions is that I'm trying to ascertain what you're supposed to do. I thought the whole point of having "vehicle rights" on the road is to obey traffic laws. Granted, there were no cars coming, and the bikers would've lost momentum to stop.

I've always made sure I at the very least slow down and intentionally look both ways before speeding up again. I admit that I don't always come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

But, I ask again, what is the right thing to do?

(btw - this is a very dagnerous intersection (in addition to Dallas/Beechwood) in rush hour - I drive past here to work and it's still a difficult intersection for me because opposing traffic does not stop, etc. )

Bikes are supposed to stop at stop signs, there is no debate there. Whether it's best to come to a complete stop, no forward momentum, and put your foot down, or do a rolling stop at a reasonable slow speed (2 mph? 5 mph?) can be debated. To completely ignore stop signs and blow through is jackassery. That seems to be one of the things that has the worst perception by drivers, regardless of whether or not it has actual negative effect on others. From a practical point of view, once someone gets in the habit of blowing stop signs, what happens that one time when you think you looked and it looked clear, but it wasn't. Bad. So at least slowing to a reasonable speed, with your hands ready over the brake hoods, and looking both ways, is just a life saving habit.

That's what I thought, Edmond.

I don't know why things like that bother me. Even when I drive, I tend to be conservative. At two lane intersections, I'll stay in the Straight/Left lane and wait till cars turn left in front of me before I go straight, and I admittedly get a little miffed at the drivers who use the right turning lane to pass us up.

I guess I'm looking for more people to be black/white on the issues and I'm getting lots of undefinable grey.

@Italianblend: The best thing I can suggest is not to worry about others' shades of grey. You'll get everything from "I put my foot down at a Kansas stop sign at 3 AM with nothing moving for miles, because that's the law" to "I blow through every red light at speed because I'm safer if I'm moving."

Want a starting point? A good first approximation is "ride the way you wish others would use the road."

[edited to add:] Nice pic, Nate!

@HV. You're right. I did misunderstand the original post. Thank you.

I'm now a little unclear whether the question was about (1) turning left from East End Ave onto Forbes or whether it's about (2) waiting in line to go straight on Forbes when traffic is backed-up at Forbes crossing Bradock. (1) is most relevant for my earlier comments about turning left, but less likely to have been the question given relative traffic densities at the respective intersections. So (2) about just going straight: for me it really comes down to a reading of the road and intersection and traffic. One loose rule of thumb is whether or not there's clearly room for a hypothetical separate wide bike lane on the road I'm traveling on. But the likelihood of a car turning right at an intersection also increases my tendency to take the lane. Getting right-hooked from Forbes inbound crossing Braddock intersection is a real danger.

At most of the intersections I take the lane at the intersections when coming up to a red light and then drift back over to the right if I'm not going to be keeping up with traffic. I deliberately look back often to reassure the cars behind that I know that they're there. But it depends on the road and lane width and the density of traffic. This only works if traffic is somewhat light to moderate. If it's heavy and slow I just always take the lane and ride at the same pace as the cars. If it's heavy and fast I do my best not to ride that road at that time.

Italianblend - since you drive, it might also be worth considering what kind of cyclist you'd want to drive around, and try and be that guy. If you'd be ok with a "Pittsburgh Pause" at stop signs, and you consider it safe and acceptable, you have your answer. If you'd rather the cyclists you drive around are more conservative, do that.

I think it's interesting - you're looking at the cyclists you see around you and trying to figure out how you yourself should ride. There have to be others doing the same - there may even be some watching you ride and trying to figure out if they should be like you as you're trying to figure out if you should be like them. Even though you may not consider yourself to be so, you are an example. Just something else to consider.

ejwme, that's a good perspective. I'm going to do what I think is right.

Italianblend - If I understand your diagram, you were between cars with drivers in them and parked cars the whole time.

When the cars moved, you moved, but stayed between the moving cars and the parked cars. When when the cars were stopped, you stopped. Is that correct?

Am I missing something?

There were no parked cars. I was to the right (putting my foot on the curb) of stopped cars waiting for the light to turn green like me.

You should have been in traffic, not to the side of it where you can get squeezed into the curb.

yup. even if you aren't filtering, the curb is a dangerous place to be.

If I were to the side of the traffic, I'd want to move when it's safe- that is when the traffic is stopped. There's a chance taht I would even stop when they started moving and put my foot on the curb to wait for them to stop again.

It seems to me silly to stop just because the traffic next to you is stopped.

You waited through two light cycles?

Was the cyclist who passed on the left stuck behind you before he did that?

***

Something I've seen waiting for a bus on 5th at Atwood, a couple of times.

Some young, energetic person looks down the road and sees that he has 20 seconds or so before a bolus of cars will come. He darts across the street -against the light - in maybe 8 or 9 seconds.

Some large, slow person sees this. They start out 2 or 3 seconds after the first guy finished, crossing at a much slower speed. They get about 3/4 of the way across before the cars have to brake for him. Then more cars have to brake for the first cars.

Someone honks. The slow guy makes a gesture in the direction the first guy disappeared some time ago and yells "If he's allowed to do it, why can't I!?"

The question "Is it OK to jaywalk" is largely dependent on time, place, and circumstance. I think the question "Is it OK to filter?" is the same.

I waited through two lights because the cars waited also. It was a quick light.