Bogus Poll Alert

The Sentinel is asking the general public (i.e. motorists) whether or not cyclists should be required to use bike lanes. Gee, what do you think the results will be?

As of this writing there are 39 responses, 66% say yes, we should be required to ride in bike lanes.

I bet we have more than 26 readers who disagree. Go change the balance. HERE

Here’s some more inspiration…

23 replies
  1. Euronymous
    Euronymous says:

    Just voted, we are nearing the turning point, its at 51:49 right now, come on guys!

  2. Jayeson
    Jayeson says:

    I guess I need a front facing video camera also. My group ride down the bike lane through Eatonville got right hooked this morning. I had not seen a completed right hook in person before but I am usually on the lookout. The driver swung hard right without any warning that I noticed. The car crossed several feet in front of the driver and in a flash it was over.

    100′ later someone coming out of a side street would have driven right into me had I not anticipated his failure to yield. I get seen a heck of a lot better when riding away from the curb in the proper traffic lane.

    • Keri
      Keri says:

      I find I have to be on high-alert when riding in a bike lane. It’s much more relaxing to claim my general travel lane and let the overtaking cars changes lanes to go around. This morning our bike bus group rode up the right lane on Rosalind, 2-abreast, avoiding the bike lane. I saw 2 potential drive-outs where the motorist bolted out of a parking lot and stopped to look for cross traffic part way into the bike lane.

      A friend of mine told me she watched a drive-out motorist hit a cyclist in that same area. The cyclist was knocked down, but got up, yelled at the driver and rode away. There are thousands of close calls and minor crashes like that for every one that gets reported.

  3. fred_dot_u
    fred_dot_u says:

    43 yes, 57 no as of my vote, so the “tide has been turned” and I’m passing the link onto others, but only those with sense enough to understand the question properly.

  4. fred_dot_u
    fred_dot_u says:

    Due to operator error, my dual cams are out of operation until the digital recorders return from repair. The devices cease to function when partially submerged. My still image camera also ceased to function, but I have a “backup” which will be returned to its mount.

    If the ridiculous law is passed, I’ll have to be sure to document conditions existing when or if I’m stopped and cited. It should not be necessary for cyclists to carry such resources in order to ensure justice, while operating in a safe manner.

    A local rider often bemoans the conditions in which he rides, but one can easily detect that submissive cycling practices are the reason he’s experiencing these incidents.

    My area has very few legitimate cycle lanes, but I’m sure that won’t affect the interpretation of the law changes by law enforcement and other road users.

    What’s with the FDOT engineers using the expression, “undesignated bike lane”? That can’t make things better for us if the law goes through. If it’s “undesignated”, it’s not anything, right? If it’s not anything, it’s of no concern to road users either. Sheesh.

  5. John Allen
    John Allen says:

    To me, a strong argument that can be made to the Governor to veto the bill is that a icyclist who is injured, or the survivors of one who was killed, can be held at fault and denied compensation merely because the icyclist was “in the wrong place,” even though the crash was caused by the negligence of another person or the cyclist was necessarily and unavoidably there.This could happen to anyone’s child, including the Governor’s.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Here is a good question:
      If the law requires a cyclist to be in the bike lane, and the cyclist is injured at least in part because of being in that lane, does this not open the local government, if not the State, to liability?

  6. Steve A
    Steve A says:

    For almost (but not quite) the first time, I’m ashamed to be a Republican, since that is the affiliation of the dweeb that sponsored government restriction of peoples’ freedom to exercise their common sense and judgment without punishment by the State.

    Of course, I added my out-of-State no vote.

  7. fred_dot_u
    fred_dot_u says:

    Now that this paper has placed an editorial, they’ve also added a poll for approval or disapproval of the editorial:,0,6897124.story

    I’ve placed my thumbs down, of course.

    I can see how such information can be misleading. The primary point that jumps out at me is that it interprets the law as allowing for exceptions. Yes, just as it always has, but adds the restriction of mandatory bike lane use.

    I’ve already had to deal with these exceptions, via four citations in two years. The uninformed uniformed law enforcement officers couldn’t understand the law before, what makes the Sentinel think they will understand it now?

  8. Carlos
    Carlos says:

    72% with my vote.

    Yesterday I had a minor incident on Lake Baldwin Ln and Jake St. I was in the bike lane approaching a stop sign. There was a line of cars along side me. I noticed one of the cars about 3 cars back from the stop sign had their right turn signal on but turned it off. I happened to stop at the sign next to this car. I somewhat assumed they were going to go straight and as we were both about to go next, they made a right turn instead. I was beside them, but not enough that I was able to avoid getting side swiped. I would usually put myself ahead of the car in this situation, but not seeing their signal anymore, I mistakenly assumed they were going straight too.

    Maybe I can be re-educated as to what I should have done in this situation….first thing probably not assume they are going straight?

    • fred_dot_u
      fred_dot_u says:

      Carlos, you’ve provided a perfect example of why mandatory bike lanes are wrong. I would expect the best way to avoid such conflicts is to exit the bike lane prior to the intersection, and take your place in the lane. It removes all question of vehicle conflict, except for who goes first at a four way stop!

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Just like you, I had to learn this lesson the hard way. I used to give right turning cars a break, by stopping at the light resting my foot on the curb and I did it for years and years with no trouble.

      Then one day, not long ago, I was at an intersection that didn’t have a right turn lane, resting my foot while examining the car carefully for a turn signal and observing that the car had every opportunity to turn right and red, yet declined to do so.

      All indications showed that the car intended to drive straight through the intersection, but of course there would be no story if the driver had.

      NO MORE BREAKS! Just like I can’t trust drivers of SUVs not to try and squeeze past me, I can’t trust them to turn properly.

    • Keri
      Keri says:


      I also had to learn this lesson the hard way. This link has a description for how drivers should deal with bike lanes at intersections.

      There are a couple ways to handle this.

      At a stop sign, I would ALWAYS get in the queue behind the last car. Keep toward the left side of the lane so you are highly visible as you approach your turn at the stop.

      At a red light, if the queue is short and you won’t miss the green, it’s best to get behind the last car (left side of the lane is critical to be visible to oncoming left-turners). If the queue is long at a red light, pass CAREFULLY and do one of 2 things: 1) if it is a small car in front, stop forward of its position where the driver can clearly see you (be courteous of pedestrians and don’t block the crosswalk); 2) position yourself between the first and second car where the driver of the second car can clearly see you and the first will not hit you if it turns. These techniques apply to wide lanes and bike lanes. It’s bad manners to pass a queue in a narrow lane and then make them pass you again after the intersection.

      I hope this helps. You know I am available and happy to ride with you any time (our mentor program is free) and you are right here in my neighborhood. So if you have questions or concerns about particular intersections or things you encounter, let me know.

      BTW, those 4-way stops in Baldwin Park are very confusing. I’ve had some close calls there even with making myself highly visible. They should have designed roundabouts for that kind of traffic volume.

      • Carlos
        Carlos says:

        Thanks for all the great feedback. I might take you up on the mentor program one of these days. I’ve been watching most of the videos on the site the past few months too.

  9. danc
    danc says:

    Thanks Keri for the “Understand the limitations of a bike lane” unfortunately bicycle friendly planner don’t include that in the sales package. We just want more cyclists!

  10. Brrr
    Brrr says:


    If I’m reading it correctly, it appears that you pulled up next to the car that was already at the stop sign. If that’s the case, that would be the source of the problem you encountered. 8-way stops are confusing for most motorists at the best of times, but that’s really the only way to approach a bike lane at a stop sign. The car may be in the left lane, but if they were there first they still have the right to go. Turn signal or not, you still should have waited long enough to observe what they were doing before proceeding.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] to parked vehicles, which is what the current plan is for eastbound cyclists on W Broad. There are several pics of disastrous bike lanes which are popping up in Orlando and sadly this is not unique to just one city. Is this really what […]

Comments are closed.