Except that in urban settings, they appear to have the same risk of getting hit from the rear by overtaking motorists as do cyclists on non-bike lane streets, and if they have to swerve out to avoid an obstruction, they have an increased likelihood of being struck by an overtaking vehicle.

Thinking you are safe doesn’t make you safe, and even most big-time bike lane proponents will admit that what they are pushing is the illusion of safety to get more cyclists on the roads.

I agree that removing that “as far right as practicable” is of great benefit. Sometimes I get concerned about the reference to “safely” in 316.2065, since I’m the one who should be determining if a motor vehicle can safely pass me, not an observer/leo. At least they put the sub-standard width reference in the statutes, even though the validation to that figure is in FL DOT specs and not in the statutes.

I can do that in a wide curb lane, too.

This post is specifically about the argument against converting a wide curb lane to a bike lane. The pavement width gives you all the advantages already. The stripe only creates disadvantages. And as I said, if I am in dense traffic, I share the wide lane.

I won’t argue that a narrow 2-lane road in heavy traffic is problematic. I ride on a few of them. I have found ways to mitigate the issues. One way is using traffic light sequences to get the road to myself. There are some 2-lane roads I can avoid at heavy traffic times by using low-volume residential work-arounds. There are some roads I can’t avoid, but sometimes it turns out that the traffic is so dense my presence makes no difference. It merely delays the motorists behind me from reconnecting to the back of the traffic jam 20 seconds sooner. The fact that some can’t recognize the big picture in that case is a cultural problem we need to fix, not coddle.

Motorists delay me in narrow lanes a whole lot more than I delay them!

It seems like an easy pick to use video with long periods of no traffic, but that IS how many of our roads are, most of the time. Even at rush hour. I want people to realize that. Look at the opposing traffic lanes in the video. They have gaps too.

If you want to see more video with high-speed and dense traffic, look at the other CyclistView videos. Orlando traffic is more docile than LA traffic.

http://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax

I think you picked “low hanging fruit” in this video sequence. A low speed, 4 lane road offers easy opportunity for cars to pass and traffic “flow”. Consider filming on a 2 lane road, with a higher speed limit and a double-yellow center line. I think you’ll see more congestion, more backup (less flow) and perhaps even some honks …

Also, I think the very act of filming helps “tame” the surroundings. Certainly if I was in a car behind a cyclist that was being filmed, I would be extra-careful of my actions ….

Finally, I think bike speed is an issue when talking about bike lanes. Putting aside the safety arguement for a moment, give someone a bike lane, and they can putter along at whatever speed they want with no concern for traffic behind them. Putter along when taking the lane and I’ll guarantee some hostile glances and possible bad actions from motorists …

OK, no longer devil’s advocate …..

But our ability to use the word “practicable” properly doesn’t much matter when law enforcement has a different idea of what it means. Legal ambiguity rarely results in an interpretation in the favor of a minority.

Law enforcement doesn’t care for ambiguity either. It would be helpful to all concerned to eliminate a law that is so ridiculous it requires a long list of exceptions just to provide for the safety and self-determination it takes away.

Yesterday, a LEO from a slightly more educated city asked me why I was riding in the middle of the road. He told me that Florida law says I have to use the sidewalk. I know better and gave him the statute number, but “his computer was down” and he’d give me the benefit of the doubt.

I’m not sure what FTR stands for, but figure it means stripe-riding or gutter-bunnying. Even if the law were removed, there would be too many people ignorant of the change, I believe.

Your efforts and results in the bus banners for the three-foot passing law probably informed more people than any other affordable method available today.

Since I’m inside my human powered vehicle, I don’t have back-space on which to hang banners, but I’d love to have the billboard space to put those signs that read “Bicycles may use full lane” for the following traffic to read. The only problem with that is that there are too few cyclists in the right position to display them.

I’m surprised to read that the lane in which you are riding is standard width or greater. It appears much smaller on the video, but I understand that the wide-angle lens tends to distort reality.

As I watched the video, I thought about the distinction between sub-standard width lanes and standard width lanes and the allowance in FL 316.2065 that says a cyclist may use the entire lane when it is sub-standard width.

Since the lane in which you were riding for the video was standard width or greater, you should have stayed as far to the right as practicable. You did. It was not practicable to cross the tracks in a dangerous manner and it’s not practicable to ride in standing water. Your management of the lane enabled you to ride safely and as noted, caused no problems with other vehicles.

These clips and your narrative go a long way to support safe cycling practices.

I also enjoyed the comparative shots of roadways of the same width, with and without bike lane stripes. Clear passing differences are seen and the un-striped road is safer for riders, for all the reasons you’ve listed. Would those “Bicyclists may use full lane” signs be more practical (not practicable) and less expensive than paint stripes? The signs aren’t likely to collect debris either!