Why bikes are so much better in traffic

[Scruit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h5OdYjA14k

No sound.

Gotta love the self-appointed traffic cops who intentionally block the lane.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Scruit

[JStump]

Why was no one in that lane? Was that truck stopped or something?

[Scruit]

Why was no one in that lane? Was that truck stopped or something?

The lane disappears at the end due to construction. People had all gone into the left lane leaving the right lane completely open for all that distance, nearly a mile. No reason to leave a mile of lane unused. You can merge closer.

The two trucks in the lane were keeping pace with the gaps in the left lane that they had come from, and they were stopping people using the right lane. Same with all the cars that were parked across the white line, trying to block the traffic in the right lane.

I know how annoying it is to wait in a long line of traffic while cars drive by in the lane that is about to go away - but you have to be reasonable about where you merge. If you merge a mail in advance then good for you. There's still a lot of empty lane that if people actually used then the backup would be shorter.

[JStump]

Wow, people are dicks! Had a friend on FB bitching about all the motorcycles going around her and passing on a solid line on Sunday so I asked why she was so mad at them for having fun? She said because cars can not do that so you shouldn't either! Who puts this logic in peoples heads? Why would me passing you have ANY effect on you unless I crashed into you or something? I then explained how a car takes probably 10 seconds to pass someone(not saying you can't do it a bit faster) and a bike can do it in 2 which makes it perfectly safe to pass on a yellow line if you can see whats ahead of you. I assume these are the same people who think all guns will be used to kill people(but lets not change the topic to this).

Edited May 24, 2012 by JStump

[Scruit]

It's jealousy for some people. For others it's just as you said; "If I can't you can't".

The bike gives me so much more freedom to move around - I love it. I don't lane split unless the alternative is more dangerous (I hate stop and go traffic - always worried I'll get rear-ended). I don't pass on double-yellows unless the vehicle is travelling at less than half the posted speed limit and I can see far enough ahead to get around safely (yep, law says you can do that).

I don't ride fast and i don't attack twisties so if I ever come to grief on the bike it will be with another vehicle. As such I go out of my way to get away from other vehicles. If I find myself in a cluster of cars I WILL get out and away from the group so I can ride with nothing but empty space around me.

[Gixxus Christ!]

Good way to cut half an hour of bullshit off your day.

[Helmutt]

Riding instead of driving would have given the wife and I over 4hrs of our life back sitting in traffic while coming home from TN weekend before last. There were a few fatalities on I-65 about an hour south of Louisville KY. We hit 3 jams in route back to Ohio, left 10am TN time and got home just before 9pm Ohio time HORRIBLE

I saw backroads in Kentucky that I never want to see again :start Deliverance soundtrack: and was some frightening thoughts rolling thru my head every mile of that, but at least I didnt see any crosseyed billhillys in Biboveralls carrying guitars and flintlock rifles

[izhe4rael]

The two trucks in the lane were keeping pace with the gaps in the left lane that they had come from, and they were stopping people using the right lane. Same with all the cars that were parked across the white line, trying to block the traffic in the right lane.

This drives me nuts!!

[Scruit]

This drives me nuts!!

I understand why they want to do it - but they don't realize that if there is a collision then THEY are the ones who are committing a Marked Lanes violation.

I won't go out of my way to allow someone to merge after they've skipped the backlog - but I certainly won't straddle lanes in order to stop them.

[magley64]

I know how annoying it is to wait in a long line of traffic while cars drive by in the lane that is about to go away - but you have to be reasonable about where you merge. If you merge a mail in advance then good for you. There's still a lot of empty lane that if people actually used then the backup would be shorter.

on a bike you can get away with it, and I frequently do...

When people do that in a car, it pisses me off...

"didn't you see the sign?"

I don't typically let those people in if I can help it.(yeah, I'm an asshole behind the wheel) The individual lines would be shorter lengthwise, but the wait is going to be the same (or somtimes longer depending on how efficient people are at merging) because you can only get a set number of cars through the single lane.

The most efficient way to do this would be to merge into a single lane as early as possible, and keep everyone moving at the maximum speed of the single lane.

Edited May 24, 2012 by magley64

[CoolWhip]

I do this when lanes merge down to one on my bike, but not in my car. I've actually used a left turn lane to bypass stopped traffic and then merged back into it. It's much easier to merge on a motorcycle and we don't take up as much space.

[Disclaimer]

I understand why they want to do it - but they don't realize that if there is a collision then THEY are the ones who are committing a Marked Lanes violation.

You'll have to explain this one further...

[izhe4rael]

From an article I was reading about merging...

"Looking at the science of what works best, traffic studies by the Texas Transportation Institute and the Federal Highway Administration have shown that late merging promotes the full utilization of highway space and actually maximizes the flow of traffic. Michael J. O'Brien, presiding judge of Tigard Municipal Court, tends to agree with the studies' findings and wrote to support my late merging - in theory. "Sadly," he said in the e-mail, "late merging seems to cause the most problems due to the perceived injustice wrought by less patient drivers."

In other words, late mergers, early mergers and lane hogs who won't budge for mergers are equally to blame for a traffic jam." http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/02/early_merger_to_late_merger_i.html

[Scruit]

You'll have to explain this one further...

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33

(A)(1) A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic and shall not be moved from such lane or line until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.

If you are in backup in the left lane, and you see a vehicle driving down the empty right lane, and you cross half into the right lane to stop them, then there are a few problems with that. One is 4511.33 (A)(1) above.

- If the 'traffic cop' claims they were in a single lane as required but then moved out of that lane as the other car tried to drive past and caused a collision then they are in violation for moving out of their lane when it was not safe to do so.

- If they claim they were straddling both lanes for some time and that the car behind should have seen them an not hit them, then they are also admitting to a violation of not driving within a single lane.

- Either way, the passing car only needs to say the car changes lanes at the last second and the evidence at the scene will show the "traffic cop's" car half out of his lane.

There's also http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.22

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

By straddling the lanes and thereby stopping or driving at an unreasonably slow speed (for the open lane) then they are in violation.

Think about it this way... As I passed all those cars there were about a dozen driveways and a couple roads on the right. Any one of those 'traffic cops' who were denying that 3/4mile (measured it) of lane were also blocking people who wanted to turn right before the merge point. There's a clear violation there. Even a$$holes like me who are passing the traffic to get ahead of the backup can do so while remaining in full compliance with the law. All the law states is that I have to change lanes safely when it comes time to merge. There no law that I know of the defines how early or late you can or must merge out of a lane that is closed ahead.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Scruit

[Scruit]

From an article I was reading about merging...

"Looking at the science of what works best, traffic studies by the Texas Transportation Institute and the Federal Highway Administration have shown that late merging promotes the full utilization of highway space and actually maximizes the flow of traffic. Michael J. O'Brien, presiding judge of Tigard Municipal Court, tends to agree with the studies' findings and wrote to support my late merging - in theory. "Sadly," he said in the e-mail, "late merging seems to cause the most problems due to the perceived injustice wrought by less patient drivers."

In other words, late mergers, early mergers and lane hogs who won't budge for mergers are equally to blame for a traffic jam." http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/02/early_merger_to_late_merger_i.html

By merging too early the single lane backup is twice and long as it needs to be. This creates additional disruption for people who want to join the backup form a sidestreet (if the backup is in the closest lane then you can't even get out onto the main road - if the backup is in the furthest lane then you get "stranded" in the open lane and anyone ahead of you sees you as impatient and won't let you in). The backup also impedes and creates danger for other drivers who aren't part of the backup - i.e cars going the other direction and want to turn left through the tailback into a sidestreet. There's many reasons not to merge a mile in advance. Not many arguments in favor of leaving a mile of unused lane.

[Disclaimer]

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33

If you are in backup in the left lane, and you see a vehicle driving down the empty right lane, and you cross half into the right lane to stop them, then there are a few problems with that.

I get that one, pretty cut-and-dry, you can't merge or change lanes into someone.

Your second part however, is a little more subjective.

There's also http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.22

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

Given the "normal and reasonable movement of traffic" at that particular moment in time is slow/standstill, one could argue that they were in compliance, especially if they had signaled to merge back into the left lane.

Secondly, "stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law", one could argue they felt their recourse for safe operation was to come to a complete stop in order to safely merge in the left lane.

I don't know offhand what laws are applicable to construction zone signage and what legal weight a "Right lane closed, merge left" orange sign has, but if I were to feel like I wanted to play 'traffic cop du jour', I should have legal merit to sit in the right lane with the intent to merge left (ie. sit there in the right lane with my left turn signal on) in order to comply with the signage. No?

Whether I actual merge or not is my choice, but in the eyes of the law, safety and complicity are the key words and I could debate I was acting in accordance with both. Especially the safety verbiage. Unless there's some case law to refute the subjectivity of safe operation of a motor vehicle?

Edited May 24, 2012 by JRMMiii

[izhe4rael]

Given the "normal and reasonable movement of traffic" at that particular moment in time is slow/standstill, one could argue that they were in compliance, especially if they had signaled to merge back into the left lane.

I don't think anybody would stop you for it but in the situation you describe the right hand lane would only be slow or at standstill because you were blocking. Other wise the lane is completely open and available for normal usage.

[Disclaimer]

So your contention is that the "flow of traffic" is only applicable to the lane you're driving in? Disregarding the opposite and parallel flows on multi-lane thoroughfares?

Edited May 24, 2012 by JRMMiii

[rubbersidedown]

Wow, people are dicks! Had a friend on FB bitching about all the motorcycles going around her and passing on a solid line on Sunday so I asked why she was so mad at them for having fun? She said because cars can not do that so you shouldn't either! Who puts this logic in peoples heads? Why would me passing you have ANY effect on you unless I crashed into you or something? I then explained how a car takes probably 10 seconds to pass someone(not saying you can't do it a bit faster) and a bike can do it in 2 which makes it perfectly safe to pass on a yellow line if you can see whats ahead of you. I assume these are the same people who think all guns will be used to kill people(but lets not change the topic to this).

Maybe her response should have been, "because it is illegal."

I wounder how that 2 second vesus 10 second logic would work for you with Johnny Law.

[izhe4rael]

I'm not suggesting you blaze through. You never know when someone in the left hand lane might decide to merge right to move forward and you, or I, would need to be able to adjust to the situation. However the right hand land is still open and available for reasonable use until otherwise noted.

[Josh1234]

The reason all that traffic was moving so slowly was because everyone had to wait for the merge to happen... if everyone changes lanes early, you can just drive full speed... it's the merging that slows down the traffic. I hate when people use the empty lane to cruise past and then merge... Wait in line like everyone else... otherwise you're coming from behind me, merging in front of me, and causing EVERYONE to have to slow down & brake because YOU dart in at the last second (I don't care what kind of vehicle you're on).

No matter where you merge, it's the same amount of traffic in front of the choke-point. The only difference is that you're impatient and want to shoot past everyone instead of waiting your turn like a good little driver/rider.

[magley64]

The reason all that traffic was moving so slowly was because everyone had to wait for the merge to happen... if everyone changes lanes early, you can just drive full speed... it's the merging that slows down the traffic.

not necessarily, the merge COULD extend the delay, but it might not. You can't just cruise full speed through a construction zone usually. They do have reduced speed limits for the safety of the construction crew.

[Scruit]

Whether I actual merge or not is my choice, but in the eyes of the law, safety and complicity are the key words and I could debate I was acting in accordance with both.

If you sit there with your turn signal on and it';s safe for you to change lanes but your don't change lanes, then I'd make the argument case that you were stopped or moving unreasonably slowly. The law doesn't make any distinction between movement within a lane or movement between lanes. Any time you fail to proceed even though it is safe, you are impeding traffic.

[Scruit]

The reason all that traffic was moving so slowly was because everyone had to wait for the merge to happen... if everyone changes lanes early, you can just drive full speed... it's the merging that slows down the traffic. I hate when people use the empty lane to cruise past and then merge... Wait in line like everyone else... otherwise you're coming from behind me, merging in front of me, and causing EVERYONE to have to slow down & brake because YOU dart in at the last second (I don't care what kind of vehicle you're on).

No matter where you merge, it's the same amount of traffic in front of the choke-point. The only difference is that you're impatient and want to shoot past everyone instead of waiting your turn like a good little driver/rider.

The slowdown is a red light beyond the choke point. The choke is not the bottleneck in this case. Beyond the choke point cars slow down even more.

[Disclaimer]

If you sit there with your turn signal on and it';s safe for you to change lanes but your don't change lanes, then I'd make the argument case that you were stopped or moving unreasonably slowly. The law doesn't make any distinction between movement within a lane or movement between lanes. Any time you fail to proceed even though it is safe, you are impeding traffic.

Who determines what is safe?

Me, as the operator of my motor vehicle?

You, as an observer of the operation of my motor vehicle?

The law, as judged by someone appointed with said authority?

Or an objective definition as written into law?

(ie. "It is considered safe when... you are moving at less than 5mph relative to those vehicles with which you are merging and have enough distance between your vehicle and the opposite vehicles so as to have 20ft in the front and rear of your vehicle once merging has commenced")