BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Looks beautiful. Can't wait to ride it. Well done to all.

(Slightly OT: That picture also can be used as a handy illustration of the "Door Zone.")

Nice. They just use paint? I don't have a problem with that because the application of alternative pavement markings ain't working and winter maintenance is scraping them all up. Just asking, because I can't tell from the photo.

And the door zone is what it is. Theoretically, it's not as much an issue in residential areas as it would be in commercial areas or main street business districts - theoretically.

For those of you who have yet to ride your bike into an opening car door, here is what ALMKLM is talking about:

I rode up part of this & the fresh chunk of Reynolds last night. It was SO GREAT to not think about potholes for a stretch.

It's paint. I wonder if they will ever paint the sharrows on Liberty again.

dwillen: I think your illustration might undersize the door zone, but it's hard to eyeball from a mere photo. I'll have to rent a car sometime and park it there with an open door.

sloaps: the section of beechwood photographed does have a lot of turnover traffic on summer weekends, particularly Sundays.

My recommendation would be for a buffered lane on this side,as on Beacon and Wightman, and sharrows (or nothing - I've lived in this neighborhood for decades and never seen "road rights" issues in this stretch) on the other. A cyclist in the opposite bike lane, just before the intersection there, is asking to be right-hooked. It's only the very small amount of right-turning traffic which prevents that, and also obviates any need for the bike lane.

That would have been awesome. It's easy to coast the speed limit downhill from Wilkins and in my experience when you're not in the bike lane people give you attitude.

Yeah, same thing on the Wilkins lane, or Liberty for that matter. They got it right on Forbes.

Although, I think this lane is wide enough that it's not a huge issue... but it would be interesting to know the decision process between putting in a downhill lane vs sharrows. I suspect it was done that way on Forbes due to lack of room, and where there's space it will always be two lanes?

I wonder how large the set of people is who will ride in bike lanes but not on roads with sharrows... that's the real target audience, not us. It sucks that people are enticed by something that's actually more dangerous, but I can see it being easier to accommodate that rather than launch a re-education effort that's probably doomed to failure.

[oops, dp]

I'm curious about the placement of sharrows. Are they a measured distance from the yellow center line vs from the curb?

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in the case of Beechwood they would be measured from the curb, 14 feet, or out of the door zone.

I'm not sure how sharrow/bike lane painting goes, but none of the line painting I've ever seen has shown evidence of being measured, just eyeballed by the guys doing the work.

My favorite example is in Penn Hills, intersection of Verona and Sandy Creek, the Western side of the intersection on Verona rd inbound - the white line creates a lovely and increasingly wide shoulder and then just stops, mid-road. It may have been measured from the double yellow, which was beginning a turning lane from the other direction, but stopping it in the middle of the road...

Best part is cars follow it anyway, so for a few more feet until the road narrows back down, there's a ghost shoulder that cars mostly stay out of. It's also uphill there, so it's quite nice, just weird.

I just wouldn't be confident that any lines on pavement are measured at all, anywhere. That may be a gap between plan and implementation.

Having seen the lines being painted I'd almost guarantee there was measuring involved, and I think that's true in general when PennDOT or the city are involved. Township roads may be a bit more haphazard.

I've seen crews out with measuring tapes who find the center of the road and put down little yellow squares to act as guides for the big painting trucks that later come through.

If cars were to park between those white lines, that would increase ridership.

Not to be completely ungrateful, but to my mind "bike lanes" and "sharrows" cause more problems then they cure.

Let's get a picture of someone parked on this street with a humungo full-size two-door sedan like a 1976 Chevy Monte Carlo or an old Caddy Coupe deVille or some such. Then let's talk.

yeah, i'm sure cities like portland, san fransico and nyc would have way more cyclists if their cities just didn't put down any of those pesky bike lanes that go everywhere.

Sharrows are supposed to be 11' from the curb. the city is of the mindset that if they could put bike lanes in, they will. if there is only room for one lane, then the uphill gets it, downhill sharrows. sharrows are harder to maintain than bike lanes. they are designed to be in the travel lane thus car tires rip them up, whereas the bike lanes are designed to be not run over by cars. also, the city can only paint their markings in house. any other type of marking, like the thermoplastic that you see on highland, is done by a contractor. even after a winter, those still look brand new, while the city-done painted sharrows fade after a heavy rain.

as far as liberty - they are supposed to pave the whole thing to baum, and re-do the markings all at once. I definitely encourage people to push the issue of the missing sharrows by at minimum calling 311 about it. pretty please.

I really never understood full sized yet two door sedans. I even met a lady once (with two toddlers in car seats) who said she'd never own a 4-door. Just don't get it.

A hummer with an open door might yield similar difficulties.

re: measuring for lines... I think part of the problem in the boonies is ... measure from where? There are no curbs, the edges are wherever the asphalt landed and cooled and hasn't crumbled off the precipice yet.

I am encouraged to know that the city and PennDOT measure before they paint, a little cynicism happily relinquished, thank you!

Thanks for the info, Erok!

as far as sharrows go, sometimes i can't be certain that they measure for them. it looks like the contractors measure the front and the back of them so that they are straight, like on highland ave. but if you look at the ones on penn, they are all crooked and in different places so i'm not really sure.

btw, erok, do you know the measurements for the width of the old vs new lanes? is what i said about the travel lanes being narrowed true or does it just look that way?

i don't know the measurements of the old lanes. i could probably find out tho. i believe those are 6' bike lanes.

These are great. I rode up Beechwood just so I could ride back down. That's not something I do all that often, and it was fantastic.

We need to somehow put a stop to this 11' idea before this meme gets propogated further.

Erok, Scott, everybody. Sharrows are supposed to be a MINIMUM of 11 feet from the curb where on-street parking exists. That's not a recommendation, that's not a maximum, that's what the car-driving lobby and DOTs and San Francisco advocates compromised on.

11 feet is a BS number, compromised on because the motorist lobby wants bicycles "out of the way". It's still in the door zone. The idea was that 85% of the cars sold in America will have doors that extend right up to the edge of the 11 feet. But if you're riding next to a car with a door bigger than that, or if that 85% door startles you when it whizzes past your handlebar and you swerve left into a bus, tough luck.

Bicycle advocates should not recommend that 85% solution. That should be the minimum accepted, per the AASHTO guidelines, only after recommending 14 or 15 feet.

Better yet, put the sharrows in the middle of the through lane, between the tire tracks, and they'll last much much longer.

you're right. i should have written: Sharrows are supposed to be at least 11' from the curb.

that's the center of the sharrow.

most of the ones on penn ave thru the strip are in the middle of the lane, but still wear down because paint isn't meant for much more than parking lots

Lyle - not to mention that is all assuming the cars parked within sight of the curb. Pretty big assumption in this town.

whatever, if you don't like the bike lanes you're not legally required to ride in them. if you think the only two options are "perfect" or "nothing" then i guess you're destined to live in a perpetual state of disappointment.

yes, i'm sure in portland all the cars park straight and probably don't even have doors to eliminate the possibility of obstructing a bike, but please, feel free to post in every thread about how biking sucks just because we're all dumb enough to live in pittsburgh.

I like the doorless car idea. Might slow everyone down or lessen those speedy turns through yellow lights.

While we are at it I think all cars should just be made of rubber.

I dunno, reminds me of bumper cars. For some reason I never did enjoy getting run into intentionally by a large group.

Inflatable cars. Spikes on every pedacycle and pedestrian.

you know where I want spikes? On 837 at the Rankin bridge where the traffic coming down the hill has to turn right, but occasionally decide "what the heck" and barrel straight through. In the car we've had 2 close calls with that. I've still not worked up the courage to do that route on bike yet, but that's part of the concern.

wasn't that car in Dukes of Hazard... didn't it not have doors that opened? Or did they just never use the doors?

salty - I didn't mean my comment to encourage a lack of lanes. I like bike lanes. It was more a comment on... the maddening difference between plan and practice when the group who plans does not encompass all the practicers. A problem that happens in all locations, independent of geography.

"yeah, i'm sure cities like portland, san fransico and nyc would have way more cyclists if their cities just didn't put down any of those pesky bike lanes that go everywhere." This "argument" is specious.

I suspect those cities, like Pgh, would have NO FEWER cyclists were those "pesky bike lanes" absent.

Those cities, like Amsterdam, Copenhagen and so on, would have MORE cyclists with "protected lanes" and speed bumps/rumble strips. (Penalosa's data suggest a quadrupling or even quintupling of ridership with "protected bike lanes" and speed control measures.)

The "powers that be" get awards for implementing half-"wayed" measures which have marginal impact at best? Woo.

Maybe you're right? Perhaps this is a good beginning? Maybe the "deciders" won't say "look what we have already done, and it hasn't increased ridership"? Perhaps automobile drivers won't begin to believe cyclists "belong in the bike lanes and bike lanes only"? Maybe lawmakers will not intone: "We have bike lanes and "sharrows", let's see how that works out for the next ten years before we try anything else"?

While acquiring lemongrass (4 for a buck), Rau Ram, and various other items at an Asian market in the Strip yesterday a young Chinese boy told me I was blinking. I thanked him and said I left it on because I always forget to turn it back on, and I use rechargeable batteries. His father told me he,his son, and his wife like to cycle, and want to ride more. He asked me how safe it was and if the faded bike lanes outside made much difference. I told him it is safer out there because more people are on the road on two wheels, but that I didn't see much difference in automobile driver behaviour or cyclist safety because of the bike lanes. I quoted the law and he was surprised to learn bikes had equal rights to the road with motorized vehicles (except for highways). Then, using Indian bitter melons for cars, and a lovely orange mango for a bike, I showed him how parking cars away from the curb could create protected bike lanes (and credited Penalosa). Their reaction was what you'd expect: excited and enthused.

Hey, maybe bike lanes and "sharrows" are the road to this better solution? They don't and haven't made an iota of difference to me and my sense of safety. If a car hits me in a bike lane they don't face any increase in penalty and I don't get any more reward. Bike lanes and "sharrows" seem to aggravate drivers. I don't see much data supporting a significant increase in ridership directly resulting from bike lanes and "sharrows".

What would make me feel safer is more cyclists on the road. I'd trade all the bike lanes and "sharrows" for a few miles of judiciously placed "protected" bike passages.

What do you call an argument without data?

I highly doubt that NYCPortland wouldn't have fewer cyclists if they didn't have ANY bicycle infrastructure

I don't often go by bike lane areas, but when I do happen to be on the ELBL or the one on Beacon, I do feel marginally safer and feel less need to be aggressively asserting my position on the road

If I had that feeling on even 50% of my commute, I would probably have a lot less wrinkles on my forehead

I don't see much data supporting a significant increase in ridership directly resulting from bike lanes and "sharrows".

Really? Look at every cycling city in the US if you need data. Talk to people who moved here from cycling cities and ask them why they don't ride as much anymore. Toronto increased bicycle numbers on Jarvis street by 40% after striping bike lanes.

Every city has their own story to tell, but one thing is clear in my mind. With bike lanes, racks and sharrows come the cyclists.

I'd trade all the bike lanes and "sharrows" for a few miles of judiciously placed "protected" bike passages.

The city of Pittsburgh won't do that until we have numbers.

remember - there is a difference between ACTUAL safety and PERCEIVED safety.

For people who already ride a lot on car-centric roads, think about mixed use roads and transportation issues, are aware of rights and laws and have the confidence to ride where they do not already see people riding constantly, bike lanes are pointless.

For people on the edge, who might wish they could, or who lack the confidence to take a lane, the bike lane could encourage that first jaunt on the dusty bike to the friend's house just over the way there. Which could lead to a quick trip to the drug store. Etc.

Yes, these people should for their own safety learn to take the lane, learn and assert their rights, ride where there are no sharrows or bike lanes... But if they never get the bike out of the basement and onto pavement...

Not saying penalosa's protected lanes aren't better. But what we have right now is some paint on a road - paint that is reliably on that road. Good first step.

Personally, when I can, I plan trips through parks and on roads with bike paint on them. Like Pierce, the difference in feeling, while potentially statistically inaccurate, is tangible and (so far)beneficial to me. No, lack of paint doesn't keep me off a bike. But I like the paint I travel on.

(That's an argument without data - also known as sharing an opinion, which everybody has their own so it's not really worth that much)

I know what I call your criticism, Pierce: a "Catch-22". You want me to supply data to support the argument that there is no data supporting an argument that bike lanes and "sharrows" increase ridership? Heller and Orwell would be ever so proud of you.

"I highly doubt that NYCPortland wouldn't have fewer cyclists if they didn't have ANY bicycle infrastructure". Uh, "What do you call an argument without data?"

I'd suggest the infrastructure was implemented to placate the political power of the increased ridership, not the other way round. The riders were there BEFORE the infrastructure.

Heck, your personal experience supports the argument. you'd be riding those areas with or without bike lanes and "sharrows" and only feel marginally safer. You're a "kamikaze" in Penalosa's parlance.

True, but I think if we had more bicycle infrastructure we could get more casual riders on the road, making errands, going to work.

I think that's why a lot of bicycle advocacy focuses on getting that infrastructure. I'd be surprised if erok doesn't have any studies for us

On another note, why doesn't the city just buy the damn thermoplastic machine and train a few guys? There has to be more uses in the City of Pittsburgh for durable road markings besides sharrows

"Toronto increased bicycle numbers on Jarvis street by 40% after striping bike lanes." Right, but did regular riders simply divert to Jarvis or were these "new" riders? Did the lanes increase overall ridership? I used to use Penn to get to The Plateau. Now I use Liberty. Woo.

I'd trade all the bike lanes and "sharrows" for a few miles of judiciously placed "protected" bike passages.

"The city of Pittsburgh won't do that until we have numbers." And as Pgh seems unimpressed with Penalosa's numbers from Bogota, Amsterdam, etc., we won't have indigenous numbers until we have "protected bike lanes" from which to derive numbers. And we can't have "protected bike lanes" until we have numbers. But we can't have numbers until we have "protected bike lanes" which we can't have until we have numbers... Catch-22.

Again: "I'd trade all the bike lanes and "sharrows" for a few miles of judiciously placed "protected" bike passages." Then we could have numbers?

I firmly believe cyclists beget more cyclists which in turn beget increased safety.

How an advocacy group, a city or a county increases cycling; coax people out from behind the wheel and atop two is entirely a shotgun approach. Somehow, anecdotal of course, I see more people biking in Pittsburgh - on the roads and on the trails - than when I came to Pittsburgh 13 years ago.

How did this happen - bike lanes, sharrows, Bike 101 Guide, Bike-PGH membership drives, bike police, politicians seen biking, Post-Gazette Traffic reporter reporting biking as a viable mode to commute, magnets? All are most likely true.

Luckily for us it isn't just those 2 factors. Lots of people want to see bike lanes, including protected ones and it's not just because of sufficient numbers of bikes on the road.

There are federal, state and local initiatives behind active transportation that are encouraging change. BikePGH has a substantial and growing member base (not all of whom are biking on city streets, you know) to help advocate. Then there is the "green" image that the region wants to keep cultivating and the Bronze bicycling city placement to keep us on track with making progress. Insurance companies are encouraging employers to be more bike friendly (among other things) to keep premiums from rising. More and more people can't afford driving as much or just recognize it as an expense and lifestyle that they don't want.

I'm just saying there are lots of reasons to start riding a bike and lots of reasons to improve infrastructure and to boil it down that we won't get protected lanes without enough bikers and that new bikers won't be created without protected lanes is overly simplistic.

"I see more people biking in Pittsburgh - on the roads and on the trails - than when I came to Pittsburgh 13 years ago...How did this happen..."?

Higher fuel prices and fewer reasonably priced mass transit options.

So overly simplistic. That's like saying that the reduction in smoking was simply due to higher prices (taxes) on tobacco.

@fungicyclist: http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/media/portlandbikestory.pdf

http://prc.tulane.edu/uploads/13_parker_JPAH_2010_0102-1294247947.pdf

I can post more, but everyone has access to Google.

I don't believe I "boil(ed) it down that we won't get protected lanes without enough bikers and that new bikers won't be created without protected lanes..." That's the inversion of my argument. Rather, I took the positive spin in saying if there are protected bike lanes ridership will increase dramatically. Penalosa's numbers support this. Rising fuel and parking and mass transit prices will force more people onto the road whether there are protected bike lanes or not. Perhaps the Fed, State and Local initiatives will encourage some folk to take to two wheels too?

But if one wants to profoundly change the cycling political base, show me some option which works as demonstrably as effectively as Penalosa's.

It's not an either-or situation except that we don't have Penolosa.

I'm saying that we can get to the place of having some excellent infrastructure and that when we do get it, it will be because of hard work by advocates and forces in many different corners. Starting with the best and most perfect infrastructure is unrealistic. I'm glad that BikePGH understands that and has secured the bike lanes that we are getting, not because they're the best thing ever, but because they are a step on the path to becoming an easier city to bike in.

@Scott: First link is a nice puff piece on how Pgh is like Portland in the 1980's? Heck, the article seems to support my argument in saying "As bicycle ridership rose in the 1980s, attention turned toward(s) developing more dedicated bicycle facilities and linking gaps in the bikeway network, especially in the city center." Seriously, though, I'm not disputing ridership, advocacy, infrastructure, etc., walk hand in hand. I'm simply saying to massively increase ridership and change the culture, "protected bike lanes" and speed control measures seem the way to go.

The second cite, a "study", is deeply flawed in design in that (among other things) it fails to control for those who used to utilize the side streets. I used to ride Penn, now I ride Liberty.

He says "more," you say "no fewer." That's a distinction without a difference.

Clearly our City's approach is to appease cyclists with what for them is simply plucking low fruit. I'm okay with that.

I'm not sure it is practical for anyone to expect a city to turn their "paved infrastructure" upside down to accommodate bicycles. These Penalosa ideas sound cool, and might even work, but to criticize an advocacy group for fighting battles it can win, for aspiring to incremental change - that sounds specious to me.

I'm not interested in counting horse teeth. I appreciate the lanes. They're new here, and people need time to get used to new things. They will, eventually. Until then, we all need to try and be careful, and to be patient.

@Tabby: As Lyle pointed out "We need to somehow put a stop to this 11' idea before this meme gets propagated further...That should be the minimum accepted, per the AASHTO guidelines, only after recommending 14 or 15 feet. Better yet, put the sharrows in the middle of the through lane, between the tire tracks, and they'll last much much longer." No one asks for what they really need in a budget request, else they be given too little to accomplish anything.

Insist on an optimal solution, or we will be stuck with minimal placation.

"Insist on an optimal solution, or we will be stuck with minimal placation."

Really? Insist? Why didn't Scott think of that before. Do you hear Fungi here, Scott. Just go down to Grant Street or over to Harrisburg and insist the city completely re-orient it's infrastructure to support safe cycling. Problem solved.

If that doesn't work, hold your breath until you turn blue.

@ALMKLM: An argument can be specious: not so much a criticism. And yes, I suppose in my writing there is an implied criticism. In BikePgh's advocacy there is an implied criticism of the extant infrastructure. What's good for the goose..?

I practice what I preach. I found another little car, (a toy Smart car if anyone lost one), on the street in the East End yesterday so my little demo may not have to involve exotic fruits and vegetables. I'm content with spreading Penalosa's simple notions, and other actions... (So I'll shut it now and get back to those.) Perhaps it will filter up? You keep pushing for painted bike lanes. Maybe someday people will park between them by accident, or because they've heard and like Penalosa's plans, and we'll have "protected bike lanes"? Heck, I don't personally care; I'll ride anyway. Unless it becomes the law to do so, I might not even use "protected bike lanes"; they'll likely be too crowded for my tastes.

@ALMKLM: Perhaps "Aspire" rather then "Insist"? Maybe "Strive for"?

Then again, as you are so content with the low hanging fruit, "Insist On Mediocrity" does have a nice ring to it?

Fungi: You have ceased to be relevant.

Enjoy playing with your new toy car and barking at the moon.

I just get out and ride, and take the lane at every opportunity, and never let an opportunity pass to discuss why I take the lane. One. Person. At. A. Time. On my terms. Bank tellers, baristas, people in the grocery store (because I forgot to take my helmet off when walking around in Shop & Save). Remember, Perry Highway looks and rides a lot like Liberty through the Strip, only with hills, curves, and some on-street parking.

Her: You have a helmet on while picking out carrots?

Me: Oh, right. Forgot to take it off.

Her: You biked here? To a grocery store? How are you going to get it home?

Me: I bike a lot of places. I live only 3/4 mile from here. I'll just strap it to my rack with a couple of bungee cords.

Her: Aren't you afraid of getting hit?

Me: I know how to sense when someone's there. I make myself visible and predictable.

Her: I can see cyclists well enough, I guess, but shouldn't they be off to the side?

Me: The law is subjective. It says "as far to the right as practicable", but there's loose gravel, dead animals, broken glass, branches, over to the right, so "practicable" means right HERE [taking a step to the left]. Say there's a car parked in the right edge of the lane. I have to get left to get around it, far enough to avoid the door that might open. I make sure that if you're behind me, you see me doing that.

Her: I guess I don't understand.

Me: A bicycle is a vehicle. I am entitled to use the full lane, if necessary. And I decide when it's necessary. That's the "visible and predictable" part. I signal that I'm getting left. If I can't safely get in front of you, I stop. But if I can get left, I will, and you will get in line behind me, same as if I was a bulldozer or something. When I can get right, I will.

Her: Well, that makes sense, I guess.

There. One more person instructed. Over carrots.

Over and over and over and over and over...

@Stu: Despite my irrelevance, please take heed the Law has NO language to it which says or implies "as far to the right as practicable." You or I or an Amish buggy driver can take the full lane whenever we want, if we do so in a lawful manner (ie. not endangering others or posing a "hazard" or weaving drunkenly or whatever). We have Driving Licenses which permit us to operate a vehicle on PA roads.

Again, PA does NOT have "far right" provisions.

Otherwise, good on you mate for spreading the word. I wear a helmet in the grocery and have yet to be beaned by a can of beans. My pack blinky has no doubt kept many a reckless operator of a grocery cart from running me down. Dorks Unite!

@fungi - I don't really know what you're trying to point out to me regarding Lyle's comment. He's a very experienced rider who knows his stuff about lane position and safety. I don't disagree with him and I value his input. However, I believe that BikePGH et al are making progress in their advocacy and don't really need all this rain on the parade.

Next, I'm confused again with your last post where you say that PA law has no far right provisions and then link to text that does state "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".

So, with that I'm going to bow out of this thread and hopefully we'll meet in another that we see eye to eye on.

@Tabby: You did not quote the entire passage, which includes the crucial word "or". A vehicle can take the right hand lane OR travel as close as practicable to the curb. Important wording, that, eh?

"Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than 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..."

so....? Yes, you can take the lane, I think we are all aware of that. The point still is that slower traffic stays to the right and that is clearly stated in PA's traffic laws. Sure, take the lane as Stu explains that he does, but no need to hang out there if there's a clear and safe area further right. Just like any vehicle...

Ok, really throwing in the towel now. Good night!

Fungi, with all due respect, I don't believe that your interpreation of that statute is correct. I am very confident that the first part of the sentence applies where there are two or more parallel lanes of traffic in the same directon, while the second half applies where there is one lane. Your interpretation is not one that I would feel comfortable arguing in a court of law. I base this opinion on my relevant experiences: 3 years of law school, a PA law license, 2 years clerking for a federal judge, and five years practicing mostly complex civil litigation at one of the city's largest law firms. I am sure that your reading comprehension is quite good, and I agree with some of your other points expressed here, but your interpretation of this statute is mistaken and I feel compelled to offer my own view, particularly where it bears upon other cyclists' safety and understanding of the law.

For reference, Title 75, Chapter 33 (specifically 3301(b)), contains language not specific to bicycles about keeping right. Chapter 35 has bicycle-specific language. Fungicyclist is correct that there is no bike-specific wording about keeping right, but I contend it applies to cyclists equally with other modes.

Um. My comment about the 11' was in no way intended to start a flame war. I know very well that E&S favor the same kind of placement that I do; we've discussed it many times. I was just calling out the ease with which someone can slip into a persistent mistaken meme and they become damned hard to stop. How many times have you heard someone say that bikes have to keep as far to the right as possible? One little word makes a hill of difference.

Fungi is right, we do not have discriminatory bicycle-specific FTR laws any more, thanks to the hard work of bicycle advocates, not least Joe Stafford and the Bicycle Access Council. We do have the same slow-moving vehicle law that is roundly ignored by motorists -- so many times a day I am stuck behind some slow motorist who isn't as far to the right as practicable. All that "filtering forward on the right" only happens because all those motorists are arguably breaking the SMV law...

I think fungi's reading of the statute is interesting, and he's not the only one who reads it that way. I suspect that dates back to a time when most roads in PA were not striped at all (actually, I'd wager that's still true). The problem is, even if that reading is "correct", as soon as one court upholds that reading, the legislature will rewrite the statute to mean what Jacob thinks anyway. So it's really not a terribly practical argument. Unless there's case law already supporting that reading? I suspect if there was I'd have heard about it but I don't have access to Westlaw to look.

Mr. McCrea: It's not "my interpretation", it's the Commonwealth's as represented in their Bicycle Driver's Manual, in Chapter 2, entitled "Where to Ride on the Road". Here are some pertinent quotes:

"With very few exceptions, the safest way to ride is as part of the traffic, going with the flow of the normal traffic pattern."

"On a narrow two-lane, two-way road stay alert to strings of cars from the front, in case one pulls into your lane to pass. You CAN ride near the edge of this type of road if cars are coming from only one direction at a time. Then cars from the rear can pass you without having to move as far into the other lane.But if cars are coming from both directions, you have to take control of the situation. You can't take chances that the drivers behind you will try to pass you in oncoming traffic.

Glance behind you, and if there's traffic there too, take the first opportunity to merge safely to the middle of the right lane. Also merge to the middle of the right lane at a blind curve where there might be oncoming traffic. On a right curve in a narrow lane, this technique makes you visible earlier to the drivers behind you.

The driver behind you will have to slow and follow you. It helps to make a "slow" signal (left arm extended downward) to indicate that you're aware of the car behind you and that it's unsafe to pass. Don't let an impatient driver cause a crash.

Understand that the law is on your side. The law gives you the right to use the road, the same as a motorist, and to make other traffic slow down for you sometimes. Since you don't have eyes in the back of your head, you can't be expected to keep track of the traffic behind you at all times. The driver approaching from the rear is always required to slow and follow if it's not possible to pass safely.

It may seem dangerous to make a motorist slow for you, but it's not. The usual reason that bicyclists feel unsafe on narrow roads is that they do not take control of the situation. Remember, the drivers behind you don't have room to pass you safely anyway. If you ride all the way over at the right, you're inviting them to pass you where the road is too narrow and, too often, you will get squeezed off the road. If you show clearly that it's not safe for drivers to pass you, they're unlikely to try.

In any case, narrow roads aren't usually places where motorists drive very fast. It's dangerous to drive fast on narrow roads because there's so little room for error. Motorists expect to have to slow down for all sorts of reasons.

But be courteous. When it becomes safe for the car behind you to pass you, give the driver a wave-by signal. If you block traffic for more than a short time, the law requires you to pull to the side and let the traffic by."(Capitalization of "CAN" and spelling corrections by my hand.)

I would feel very comfortable arguing "my interpretation" in Court with this manual in hand. Perhaps you are privy to case law of which I'm unaware that renders this manual moot? Perhaps my reading comprehension is wanting? There are illustrations too!

With all due respect to your credentials, I'll mind the Commonwealth's manual, sir, rather then your unreferenced opinion.

The conventional interpretation of the law is: when it's not "practicable" to ride to the right, you can ride farther left. (this is what the bicycle driving manual says) But if it comes down to a ticket for impeding traffic you'll have to argue the practicability point in court. However, if the road is striped for two or more lanes in one direction, you can ride anywhere in the right lane and you don't have to argue practicability, you can just point at the code.

The somewhat more radical interpretation is, if there is a stripe in the middle of the road, you can ride anywhere to the right of that center line, and the practicability issue is only relevant on unstriped rural roads. This isn't what the BDM is saying.

I believe that Jacob was taking the former position and that he believed (as do I) that you were taking the latter. No?

I love the latter interpretation and held it for a few days once, but the closer I looked it I had to give it up.

(ps: bear in mind that the manual does not have the force of law.)

(pps: I tire of religious arguments about theoretical points of law. The facts are that the traffic laws are so capriciously enforced they might almost just as well not exist. Except for the law about DUI.)

Fungicycle, the Commonwealth's manual that you cite is from the publication "Street Smarts", by the publisher of Bicycling Magazine. It's possible that the Commonwealth's lawyers weren't asked to rewrite what's basically a safety guide to be 100% precise about PA laws, especially with regard to vague words like "can".

Fungicycle, are you arguing that in the law

"Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than 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..."

the italic section is essentially irrelevant, because if you're in the right hand lane, then you're complying with the law, no matter where in the lane you are?

I'm no lawyer, but I think there's a principle in law that if there are two possible interpretations, you never pick the one that makes some of the text pointless.

Maybe you can explain, under your interpretation, how the rules would be different if the legislature had omitted the italicized part. If there's no difference, that might be another indication that you're not interpreting the law as a judge would.

Indeed I do adhere to the latter, "more radical" interpretation. And I think the BDM supports that in suggesting in an active bidirectional narrow two lane situation the pedalcyclist take the lane and "...pull to the side and let the traffic by" "(if I) block traffic for more than a short time..."

The BDM is quite clear in suggesting the nominal position of the cyclist should be in the middle of the lane: "With very few exceptions, the safest way to ride is as part of the traffic, going with the flow of the normal traffic pattern."

I realize it doesn't have the force of law, but I do assume the BDM was vetted by DOT's lawyers before publication. Who knows, maybe it was written by an intern without supervision or editing?

Indeed I too grow weary of "...religious arguments about theoretical points of law" and it's true "...that the traffic laws are so capriciously enforced they might almost just as well not exist." Which actually proves my point. PA does not have a hard and fast "far right rule".

Sure, Steven, the BDM gives the situation where the cyclist is impeding the flow of traffic for more then some undefined "short" period of time, at which point the cyclist is to pull over and let traffic pass.

I realize it doesn't have the force of law, but I do assume the BDM was vetted by DOT's lawyers before publication. Who knows, maybe it was written by an intern without supervision or editing?

It was written by John S. Allen in 1998. Then in 2000, PA funded its own custom version of the book, with its local laws inserted into the Foreword. Later, several other states did the same.

Now, I don't know for certain how much of the book was adapted for PA specifically. But I have compared the versions produced for Arizona, Florida, and Ohio, which are all available linked from the author's site. Chapter 2, on road position, is word-for-word identical for all three states, with one exception. (The Florida version, produced 5 years after the others, says the door zone is 4 feet wide; the earlier versions say 3 feet.)

The PA version is based on an earlier edition of the book, and has many minor changes. But all three other versions contain basically the same claim as the PA text you quoted. All three say "On a narrow two-lane, two-way rural road, stay alert to strings of oncoming cars in the opposite lane, in case one pulls into your lane to pass. You can ride nearer the edge of this type of road if cars are coming from only one direction at a time. Then cars from the rear can pass you without having to move as far into the other lane."

Yet the keep-right laws in Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and PA seem pretty different.

Arizona's says "On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle 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 a private road or driveway."

Florida's says "Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic ... shall ride in the lane marked for bicycle use or, if no lane is marked for bicycle use, as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

[passing, turning]

3.?When reasonably necessary to avoid any condition, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or substandard-width lane, that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For the purposes of this subsection, a “substandard-width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

Ohio's says slow vehicles must "be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, and far enough to the right to allow passing by faster vehicles if such passing is safe and reasonable, except under any of the following circumstances:" (which include safety considerations).

So despite the laws being different, the states' versions of Mr. Allen's book don't change in the way they describe road position. That suggests the text wasn't customized for any of the states.

More evidence of that is the many references in the book to "some states", "most states", and "several states", but only one single reference (after the Foreword) to Pennsylvania. And the way the book encourages the reader to put pressure on your local and state governments -- not something you often see in government publications -- is another hint that PA barely touched the text.

So that means quoting the PA version of Mr. Allen's book as any kind of guide to the interpretation of PA law is unwise. It seems highly likely the passages you're quoting were written two years before PA got involved, and without reference to our specific laws at all. They are generic descriptions of good safety practices, not attempts to communicate any particular state's laws.

I tire of religious arguments about theoretical points of law.

What are message boards for, if not arguing about obscure points of law?

I'm all for physically separated lanes (in most cases and when they can be diligently maintained). This takes significant planning which the city has not done to date. There should be real possibilities to do this within MOVEPGH.

A city doesn't go from seeing a lecturer like Penalosa, and two weeks later have its first physically separated lane (well, without a directive from the mayor's office and someone who can actually implement such a thing).

We're trying to figure this stuff out, believe me, but just know that physical separation is VERY new in the states. Chicago just got their first track this month after a decade or more of putting in bike lanes. The cities doing this stuff have strong leadership on bikes, something we're still trying to build, and many staff level engineers.

[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.

Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than 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

I do understand that Lyle, McCrea etc. interpret the first part of the statute, (before the "or"), as applying to two lanes going one direction and the second bit to two lanes in opposite directions.

"My interpretation", and what I read as the BDM's as well, is that the first part applies when a slow moving vehicle is not impeding the normal flow of traffic, and the second when the slow moving vehicle is impeding the normal flow of traffic.

If I'm tooling down River Blvd, as I often am, I'm a slow moving vehicle; speed limit has to be 55 mph, or at least that's the normal speed of traffic. It's one lane each way. I ride down the middle of the right hand lane. Occasionally a car will zoom by, moving into the opposing lane to pass me. I'm not impeding their travel. If there's a lot of traffic coming in both directions, I move as far as practicable to the right, and again, I'm not impeding traffic. By Lyle et al's interpretation I should always be as close to the curb as possible, whether there are any other vehicles or not. That's silly.

Or examine an example of an Amish buggy, perhaps the reason for the wording of this statute. Tooling down the road, be it one, two or four lanes the same direction, the Amish buggy is always a slow moving vehicle. If the Amish buggy is not impeding traffic, it takes the right lane. When the Amish buggy is impeding traffic, regardless of how many lanes of traffic there are, the Amish buggy moves as far right as practicable.

I've no case law at hand to support this nor have I ever looked to see if there might be such. This read has always made sense to me, so I acknowledge it's probably legally dead wrong.

@scott: Davis, where I learned to ride in the 60's, implemented separated bike lanes in 1986 with the Greenway, so it's not that new to the States, is it?

Regardless, I'm of the mindset of Davis; not one to be content. After all, "Davis bicycle historian Ted Buehler reported in 2007 that by the 1990's, the city's growth and longer riding distances, prioritizing of motor vehicles, and a sense that all necessary bicycling innovations were complete, resulted in a halt to innovation, and bicycling as a commute mode began to decline." Quote from streetswiki, paraphrasing Ted Buehler's 50 Years of Bicycling in Davis, California

I want the last 20 minutes of my life back.

All the back and forth, all the repetition. And it all boils down to basically one person admitting "this is how I read it, I don't actually know what I'm talking about, but I can sound like I do, and since I don't have any real research to support my position, I'm probably legally dead wrong?"

I'm going back to the HELP MY BUTT HURTS thread.

Steven: I appreciate the ubiquity of the BDM, but does that mitigate the fact it's the only Commonwealth document we have to reference? If there's case law to clarify the statute in question I'll happily read it. Sure it's a gross assumption, but isn't it reasonable to assume that DOT lawyers vetted the document to make sure it didn't contradict standing law? Maybe counsel glanced at it over a beer and said "Sure, whatever. It's about bikes. Nobody reads the automobile Driver's Manual. Who cares?" but again, not only is much of our legislation born that way, what else have we to consult?

ALMKLM: Be careful back there, I posted the Butt Cam on that thread...

By Lyle et al's interpretation I should always be as close to the curb as possible,

Nonononooooo! see, that's what I meant about one little word. The word is "practicable" as you write about the buggy, and it doesn't mean "possible", or the authors would have written "possible", but the hoi polloi think it's "possible" and that we should be riding scant inches off the curb.

The question of "what is the law" is a simple question with a complicated answer. There's the letter, the text, of the law as it is written, but the real law is "how is a court going to interpret this". Any time someone asks "what is the law", the answer is always a conjecture. Some laws have lots and lots of case law and it can be highly certain how a hypothetical court would rule based on that alone. Other laws have so little case law that the only conjecture we can make is based on the broader culture, the occasional ruling on vaguely similar cases in other states with vaguely similar rules, or what we imagine a judge would believe based on what he sees going on around him every day.

That's why I think that the referenced statute means multiple lanes moving in the same direction, because (a) that's what most people think it means and afaik there's no case law or other legislation that indicates the contrary and (b) because if it doesn't then 3301a is redundant.

We can change (a) by establishing an example and operating as fungicyclist and the BDM recommend, and operating completely lawfully otherwise.

Anyway, this is silly. We all agree on how to operate, we're just arguing about why. I'm going to join ALMKLM on the buttcam thread.

Chicago just got their first track this month after a decade or more of putting in bike lanes. The cities doing this stuff have strong leadership on bikes, something we're still trying to build, and many staff level engineers.

I love what Rahm Emanuel is doing there. He came into office and said he's going to install 100 miles of protected bike lanes and a couple months into his term it's getting done. Rad.

Seville:

KM BICYCLE LANES

2006 - 12 KM - 6000 BICYCLE USERS

2010 - 120 KM - 60,000 BICYCLE USERS

Minneapolis built bicycle infrastructure including off street loops around the city that are plowed in the winter.

Do you get numbers like this when it's below zero by not painting bike lanes?

All this talk of interptretation of laws!

Blvd of the Allies, 5:45pm Thursday June 30 a car buzzed by at leat 15 mph faster than I was going no more than 8 inches to my left. I yelled "HEY" and sped up, seeing they would stop at the red light at Grant.

I tapped on her window, she lowered it and I said "That was mighty close when you passed me back there."

Her reply- "I know all of the laws and if you ride on the street you have to go the same speed as the traffic!"

My reply "Well, that is not going to be happening, but do you know the legal distance for passing another vehicle? It's three feet (holding up 3 fingers)!"

Light turns green, she says "Bye now." as she rolls up the window.

I would really like a further conversation with this person to learn more about her own traffic laws and how she rationalizes them.

There is no legal passing distance in PA yet.

Also, all of this talk about bike lanes and sharrows not being safe, I am not disagreeing, but in Pittsburgh to the best of my knowledge, no one has been seriously injured or killed on a street with marked bike infrastructure.

We have Driving Licenses which permit us to operate a vehicle on PA roads.

No! Some (but not all) of us may have licenses which permit us to operate motorized vehicles on roads nationwide (full faith and credit!). Nobody needs a license to operate a pedalcycle on Pennsylvania roads.

but in Pittsburgh to the best of my knowledge, no one has been seriously injured or killed on a street with marked bike infrastructure.

The rate of serious injury and fatality is (thankfully) so low as to make an observation this narrow fairly meaningless -- pro or con.

Nobody needs a license to operate a pedalcycle on Pennsylvania roads.

... or to walk, or to ride a horse. It's the PUBLIC way. If we needed licenses to move, we'd be under house arrest.

Okay, the buttcam thread isn't doing it for me, I'm going to retape my handlebars now.

Re: Amish buggies, near Intercourse PA, on Route 340, PennDOT has dedicated buggy infrastructure. [StreetView] This includes special soft asphalt to accommodate horses' needs.

@helen - Yep, we need driver retraining.

I have mixed feelings about bike lanes.

I see a lot put in that are no help to me at all. On occasion, they interfere with my bike travel.

I think they are put there because the priorities are "miles of bike lanes" and "Where they won't interfere with car traffic." Neither is any priority of mine.

On the other hand, putting them in could have some value. Once a series of investments is made and we have a "bicycle infrastructure," then maybe we can start addressing the fact that it mainly sucks. It's also possible they might encourage non-riders to ride, I guess. Any evidence either way?

I think I'm with Fungicycle on the idea that I would trade many miles of bike lanes and sharrows for a few yards of useful bike trails.

But then, I don't believe it is an either/or situation.

Don't we have more than a few miles of useful bike trails?

It's also possible they might encourage non-riders to ride.

I'm absolutely positive that they do. I'm sure there are also other ways to encourage non-riders to ride, or, part-time riders to ride more, and we do many of them. I'm sure there are more possibilities as yet unexplored.

There should be some way to determine which methods of encouragement are the most effective with the least harm, but I'm equally sure I never see those conversations being seriously held.

Isn't there a Godwin's law corollary that says "any discussion of bicycles on the internets will always decay into a flame war over helmets or bike lanes or both?"

Davis, where I learned to ride in the 60's, implemented separated bike lanes in 1986 with the Greenway, so it's not that new to the States, is it?

Davis has Greenways, yes. Just like we have miles of river trails. They're not physically separated bike lanes that parallel roads. They're trails for walking, biking, taking your dog for a shit, etc. All the roads in Davis also have painted bike lanes, almost all of them in the door zone just like ours. A few roads have "bike paths" next to them, like Russell and parts of 5th, but they aren't physically separated bike lanes either, they're fancy sidewalks. You are allowed to walk, dance, push a stroller, etc in this area. Nowhere is there a separate bike lane, and also an additional place for people to walk.

Note I wrote "separated" and not "protected", dwillen. And at one time in Davis bicycles had right of way over even pedestrians. Davis has a perhaps unique culture and topography, I'll grant that. My point was only these "new" concepts like "protected" and "separated" bike lanes, speed control measures are not so new to these shores. Stu pointed out Amish buggys have their own roadways in Intercourse, so the notion's not even so virgin to this Commonwealth, and there are DOT engineers with experience in Intercourse I assume?

"We have Driving Licenses which permit us to operate a vehicle on PA roads.

No!..."

@ieverhart: When I wrote "We" I did not mean the bicycle community in general. My comment was directed "@Stu". From Stu's posts about the cars in his household I assumed, (perhaps erroneously), he has a license, as do I, to operate a motor vehicle granted by the Commonwealth or some other authority.

No license is required of course for pedalcycle operation on PA roadways, but the BDM points out: "If after reading this manual, you wish to apply the instruction but are under age 16 or do not possess a valid Pennsylvania Driver's License, it is recommended that you commence cycling in traffic only if you are in the company of someone who does possess a license and/or understands the principles of safe street bicycling taught in this manual."

I've no question that as the number of bicyclists in Pgh grows, calls for licensing and mandatory insurance by cranky, "inconvenienced" drivers will as well, and if implemented will no doubt be as stunningly ineffective as the licensing of motorized vehicle drivers has proven to be.

Separated bike lanes are not recreation paths. We already have miles of trails in our parks and along the rivers. These are no different, in concept, than the Davis Greenways. What Penalosa described is a separate space for cars, bikes and pedestrians. That is a relatively new concept in the States. Nowhere in Davis did they have parked cars or barriers on the road to separate bikes from automobiles.

Sorry, I'm going to make a late u-turn to the original post. I was commuting home Tuesday and was really shocked to see that the bike lanes were aready in and that they looked fantastic. It took a whole year to paint the lanes in front of the Frick nature center. As mentioned, the new designated bike only lane goes from 5th to Aylesboro. So I'm on the section from Aylesboro to Forbes (non bike only section but still a shared bike lane/door zone) when a passenger in a passing car sticks his head out the window and yells "get in the bike lane". I'm thinking WTF, I'm in the bike lane. So I pedaled my ass off to get to the light at Forbes so that I could share my knowledge. When I get there I start yelling at the car, only to realize that it's the wrong car. So, I kinda did a half wave and said "have a nice day" and slunk off. There are probably a couple of life lessons in there somewhere but unfortunately lost on me.

dwillen, look at the lower picture on this page and please reconsider your assertion that "Nowhere in Davis did they have parked cars or barriers on the road to separate bikes from automobiles."

I was in attendance at Penalosa's talk.

(OT - I'll have to check with my uncle/godfather and my Dad, but that may be me in that photo, and our VW Van in the upper one. My uncle/godfather's kind of an important figure in Davis, as are his daughters.)

Yes, the photo with the caption suggesting the idea failed. That particular infrastructure no longer exists in Davis.

I guess I should have been more specific regarding the timeline. I lived there 2003-2008. I went back in 2010. No bike lanes have barriers like that anymore.

Failed or not, "physically separated" and "protected" designated bike lanes existed in this country over 40 years ago, and your statement that "Nowhere in Davis did they have parked cars or barriers on the road to separate bikes from automobiles" does seem to be factually incorrect, eh?

The idea and implementation is not so new to these shores.

I never claimed to be an expert on the entire history of Davis. I was speaking in the past tense in relation to my time there, as I clarified. I did not say "Nowhere in Davis did they ever have parked cars or barriers on the road to separate bikes from automobiles", which would be a factually incorrect statement. I stand by what I said. It is factually correct.

Arguing semantics with me here probably isn't going to elevate your point too much. Pointing out some lousy infrastructure that failed 40 years ago probably isn't going to help your argument either. Going to meetings and talking with the people that make decisions probably will. I went to a CMU meeting last year where they proposed physically separated bike lanes along Forbes. I and others here had concerns about their ability to keep them clear of debris, especially on the downhill side. They can't even keep unseparated bike lanes reasonably clear of debris.

Furthermore, bashing any efforts people do make because they aren't what you have in your head seems a bit rude. Painted bike lanes do not exclude the future implementation of separated bike lanes. We can't simply cash in a bunch of painted lanes for one stretch of separated lane. From what I understand, things don't really work that way in city government.

Enjoy your equivocation.

If I remember correctly, and it was a long time ago, and I am speaking only from personal experience, those barriers did not so much "fail" as were deemed unnecessary and hazardous. It was a different time with fewer cars, peopled by folk with open minds who could admit they were wrong and were willing to experiment. I recall taking a spill hitting one of those things. Heck, I might have been part of the cause for their characterization as a "failure"? A borrowed oversize bike and the distraction of my "cousins" (by marriage only) were contributing factors, if I remember correctly.

Physical separation would prevent debris from being swept into and accumulating in "protected" bike lanes. Look at the ad hoc bike lane leading up to the 40th St. bridge from the north side trail. It stays tidy, to some extent because of my modest efforts, and I know from the more extensive work of others. Painted bike lanes impart no sense of ownership, while this little stretch has inspired it. Unprotected bike lanes will suffer from street sweepers and snowplows, while the physical separation will preclude same. The City already has small plows with which, much to my chagrin, they plow the north side trail in the winter.

You go to your meetings, I'll stick with my grassroots efforts. Whatever works? It's all good.

Scrutinize my posts. I do not believe I've "bashed" others efforts. I did seek to initiate a discussion on whether bike lanes might be irrelevant, if not counterproductive, to dramatically increasing ridership in this City. Apparently that raised some rather defensive hackles. So be it; stirred the pot.

I had hoped to generate reasoned dialogue and intelligent discourse rather then field unsupported assertions and opinions like "From what I understand, things don't really work that way in city government" but I guess Lyle's right: inevitable "flame war". Too bad.

Point stands: Physically separated bike lanes are not so new to us in the US.

"Nonononooooo! see, that's what I meant about one little word. The word is "practicable" as you write about the buggy, and it doesn't mean "possible", or the authors would have written "possible", but the hoi polloi think it's "possible" and that we should be riding scant inches off the curb."

Lyle, etc.: I apologize for "possible" slipping in when "practicable" was proper, (though auto-correct spellcheck, no "preview before posting" and these silly little boxes that make review and editing difficult deserve some credit too.) I don't want to propagate no meme.

In fact, I think we can be rid of it. Your patronizing and incomplete piece on squeezing meaning from legislation, and McCrea's civil law cv supporting the "popular opinion" irritated me just enough to make me do some actual "work", something I've diligently avoided since my time on the Hill. (And thank you for that, I'd forgotten how much fun it is to solve a puzzle like this.) LA's would do the case law research, but I had to check their work and do a bit of nitty gritty I like too. I've more to do, but will initiate a thread before I'm through to begin "peer review", but suffice it to say as a teaser, I'm nearly certain 3301(b) does not apply to pedalcycles, that your "popular thinking" on 3301(b) is wrong, and so's the interpretation I advanced. In a week or so I'll get a friend on the force to write me a ticket, and then the games can begin.

I'm well aware of the capricious nature of this Commonwealth's criminal justice system. As the "Trier of Fact" a Judge can say the sky's red, or that a man is guilty of murder when his alleged victim sits in the courtroom drawing breath, and innocence is not grounds for Appeal. But those Appellate Judges do love a good and true bit of sound legislative fine tuning, and I think it's time "practicable" left the building, and the lexicon of cyclists. Don't you?

As an asside, couldn't you find a "fairer sexed" four minutes of buttcam to share?

anyway, i rode these today and they were great. most of the houses along here have driveways, so there were very few actual cars parked on the road.

@fungi - I'm sorry you felt patronized, that was never my intention. But forum posts like these reach a larger audience than just you, so sometimes I target the less-sophisticated silent listeners. I'm all for setting up a test case, but before you do that, I hope you're familiar with similar cases in other states. I'm thinking of Selz v Trotwood, the whole Reed Bates saga, and Eli Damon's experiences in Hadley, Fred Oswald in Florida... I'm sure there are more, those are just the cases I can think of.

@Lyle: No worries. I realize you don't know me, and didn't intend it personally. Took it as a challenge and hope the fruits of my work helps "our cause". I'm not so pompous or arrogant as to believe I've found the Grail or anything. I most certainly could be wrong.

Been out of the loop for a while so will scrutinize those cases you mention with which I'm not already familiar for applicability before rushing in. I've a very narrow focus in mind for the test case.

Once I post the thread I do hope you'll tear me a new one best you can, but hope the butt cam will be more beguiling and less expansive.