Is "shoaling" cars permissible or rude?
There is the shoaling other cyclists thread, but what is the opinion of doing it to cars sitting in traffic?
I commute fairly often and the section of Milwaukee can back up well over a 1/2 mile, of which I have no interested in sitting huffing someone's tail pipe on my bike. The sidewalk is off limits because it is in Niles and I have been politely told that I shouldn't be on the sidewalk unless I am a kid or a little old lady.
I feel, not in an elitist way, that moving to the front of non-moving traffic is permissible as a cyclist. I will safely make my way up through traffic as it sits still, but should we be sitting in traffic and waiting with the cars because it could garner more respect?
Or, as quoted below (because I couldn't have said it better), shoal them cars?
EDIT - In cases where this is no bike lane, because when we have our lane it's different.
J.A.W. said:
We will shoal the f#ck out of that car if you know you can fit between cars to get to front of the line.
Views: 1307
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie on
-
Rude if you take up the lane to do so.
Permissible if the car is blocking a bike lane while waiting to turn a right.
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie Short 2.9 on
-
From the most recent Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Ordinance
"9-52-040 (d) - Any bicyclist upon a roadway is permitted to pass on the right side of a slower-moving or standing vehicle or bicycle, but must exercise due care when doing so. When approaching a vehicle which has discharged passengers from its right side a bicyclist must either yield to these pedestrians or pass on the left."
-
Permalink Reply by Chitown_Mike on
-
Why is it when I look that stuff up I never seem to find it?
Charlie Short 11.5 said:From the most recent Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Ordinance
"9-52-040 (d) - Any bicyclist upon a roadway is permitted to pass on the right side of a slower-moving or standing vehicle or bicycle, but must exercise due care when doing so. When approaching a vehicle which has discharged passengers from its right side a bicyclist must either yield to these pedestrians or pass on the left."
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah D. on
-
What if you're shoaling cars to protest the lack of bike boxes in our infrastructure and be sure to be safe and visible in an otherwise badly designed, bike lane/sharrow-disappearing intersection?
-
-
The part of Milwaukee I ride has no bike lane and the right lane is just big enough to fit a car and bike, however I sometimes end up weaving around drivers who literally ride on the apron of the curb. But I wish it had a lane, or the shared lane marker, or a bike box. Sadly enough the intersection I end up at is the entrance to the North Branch Trail and there is always plenty of riders forced to dangle out in traffic because there is no bike box.
Sarah D. 1-3.3 said:What if you're shoaling cars to protest the lack of bike boxes in our infrastructure and be sure to be safe and visible in an otherwise badly designed, bike lane/sharrow-disappearing intersection?
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on
-
Do you really ride the right lane of Milwaukee in Niles while sharing it with cars? I don't think a car and bike could safely in a Milwaukee Ave right lane anywhere in Niles.
Chitown_Mike said:The part of Milwaukee I ride has no bike lane and the right lane is just big enough to fit a car and bike
-
-
It's between Harts Rd and Devon. In Niles the lane is more than wide enough for me to stay right and have about a 3' space between the car and me. It is the section from the border where Chicago starts to a block from Devon that it is barely wide enough for a 18 wheeler to pass, or bus, let alone me on a bike and a car. I will stay right unless I can't, and then filter SLOWLY between the stopped cars until I can get free.
Tom Dworzanski said:Do you really ride the right lane of Milwaukee in Niles while sharing it with cars? I don't think a car and bike could safely in a Milwaukee Ave right lane anywhere in Niles.
Chitown_Mike said:The part of Milwaukee I ride has no bike lane and the right lane is just big enough to fit a car and bike
@Cameron, I will take the lane if I have to, but otherwise when I get to the front of the line of traffic then there is plenty of room for everyone to safely move along and not hinder anyone. There is enough angry people in traffic next to me last thing I want to do is have them behind me.
Cameron 7.5 mi said:My opinion on this is pretty much the same as shoaling other cyclists. If you're riding in a way that forces the person you shoaled to go slower until there is a safe place to pass, the it's rude. If you're going faster, i.e. the turn example Duppie brought up, or they will have no difficulty safely repassing you, then it's ok.
-
-
I guess I've only ever driven the stretch in a car, never on bike, so I haven't gotten a feel for it like you have. I would almost think of using the sidewalk next to the cemetery (illegal, I know) but if you've got the room, that's great. They should really put in a narrow bike lane there. The good thing is Niles cops patrol the area often and aren't afraid to pull speeders over so traffic stays at or below the speed limit.
The part in Chicago also brings the risk of getting doored if you stay too far right.
Chitown_Mike said:It's between Harts Rd and Devon. In Niles the lane is more than wide enough for me to stay right and have about a 3' space between the car and me. It is the section from the border where Chicago starts to a block from Devon that it is barely wide enough for a 18 wheeler to pass, or bus, let alone me on a bike and a car. I will stay right unless I can't, and then filter SLOWLY between the stopped cars until I can get free.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Fiasco on
-
I've got zero problem riding the sidewalk next to the cemetery. I hardly ever see people walking on that side of the street anyhow. The cemetery entrance is a famous cop stop, and I've never had one of them bother me about riding on the sidewalk.
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
Agreed, although I have no problem scooting past cars who are illegally trying to pass other cars on the right, as they are encroaching in our de facto 3 feet of clearance from the curb.
And IMO those "rush hour parking control" lanes are legally not lanes so they don't count.
Duppie 13.5185km said:Rude if you take up the lane to do so.
Permissible if the car is blocking a bike lane while waiting to turn a right.
-
-
I wrote this to Gabe Klein in December:
Dear Mr. Klein,
I continue to struggle as a cyclist and motorist with what the exact definition and rules are regarding usage of the "rush hour lanes," which is how many people understand they can use the street space vacated due to the No Parking 7 - 9 am and 4 - 6 pm sign restrictions.
It seems to me that legally, there needs to be lane striping for this to be a valid lane for a moving vehicle. Otherwise, which car is at fault if two vehicles moving in the same direction collide or otherwise get into an accident? Which vehicle must yield when you have the inevitable problem of a car which has not vacated the space, etc?
And for a cyclist, this is a nightmare. Using Belmont from Kimball to the lake as an example, this unwritten policy results not in traffic moving any quicker or smoother, but in fact rather the opposite - the actual speed of traffic is still determined by the pinch points/bottlenecks at intersections (bus stops, right turn only lanes).
So what happens is cars trying to use these rush hour lanes end up needing to merge into the normal lane on a regular basis, which leads to aggressive driving, as well as defensive driving from motorists who feel they are being illegally passed on the right, etc.
I would suggest that this vacated space simply be converted and communicated to the public as a bus and bike-only zone, but if the City does indeed want to have the flexibility of rush hour lanes, a more formal demarcation and policy is greatly needed. As it stands, I personally view these parking restrictions as just that and nothing more - they keep car owners from using arterial streets for long-term parking and give the buses a bit more breathing room, which is just.
I am a 41 year old life long resident of Chicago, and I have been biking on the street & following the rules of the road since I was 10 (which probably explains how I've lived this long). I do greatly appreciate everything you are doing to make Chicago a more civil and friendly place to get around.
Sincerely,
Carter O'BrienHe responded the same day:
Carter,
This is an interesting point that you bring up and something that we are looking at citywide; where rush hour zones are actually needed, and how they are utilized and by what modes. I also see a need in some areas for shared bus/bike lanes, and others where the lane is actually utilized appropriately by cars during peak periods. In terms of this particular location, I know the issue you are speaking of in general re: pinch points, but I am copying our traffic team to respond, and some others who have been thinking of this issue as an FYI. Thx for writing.
Gabe
... but then none of his staff (he cc'd four of them) responded. I waited a week, then followed up with:
Thanks for the response, Gabe, I'm glad to know this is on your radar.
Is there an official word regarding what the current status of these lanes are? I can appreciate the value of adding street capacity in peak periods, but surely some existing city or state laws, regulations, ordinances must apply here?Carter
...and I never heard back. I take from that silence there is no official word, and that these so-called lanes have zero legal status. I can't say that silence surprises me, as acknowledging the situation would imply the City ought to be doing something about it. And everybody here is well aware that the City's enforcement of the striped bike lanes is negligible.
But, it still grates on my last nerve that our "formal" policy seems to be akin to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.
-
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on
-
Thanks for doing this. I've written to Gabe on a number of occasions (as recently as ~ 3 weeks ago) and have never received any response at all, so you've done pretty good here.
Carter O'Brien said:I wrote this to Gabe Klein in December:
Dear Mr. Klein,
I continue to struggle as a cyclist and motorist with what the exact definition and rules are regarding usage of the "rush hour lanes," which is how many people understand they can use the street space vacated due to the No Parking 7 - 9 am and 4 - 6 pm sign restrictions.
It seems to me that legally, there needs to be lane striping for this to be a valid lane for a moving vehicle. Otherwise, which car is at fault if two vehicles moving in the same direction collide or otherwise get into an accident? Which vehicle must yield when you have the inevitable problem of a car which has not vacated the space, etc?
And for a cyclist, this is a nightmare. Using Belmont from Kimball to the lake as an example, this unwritten policy results not in traffic moving any quicker or smoother, but in fact rather the opposite - the actual speed of traffic is still determined by the pinch points/bottlenecks at intersections (bus stops, right turn only lanes).
So what happens is cars trying to use these rush hour lanes end up needing to merge into the normal lane on a regular basis, which leads to aggressive driving, as well as defensive driving from motorists who feel they are being illegally passed on the right, etc.
I would suggest that this vacated space simply be converted and communicated to the public as a bus and bike-only zone, but if the City does indeed want to have the flexibility of rush hour lanes, a more formal demarcation and policy is greatly needed. As it stands, I personally view these parking restrictions as just that and nothing more - they keep car owners from using arterial streets for long-term parking and give the buses a bit more breathing room, which is just.
I am a 41 year old life long resident of Chicago, and I have been biking on the street & following the rules of the road since I was 10 (which probably explains how I've lived this long). I do greatly appreciate everything you are doing to make Chicago a more civil and friendly place to get around.
Sincerely,
Carter O'BrienHe responded the same day:
Carter,
This is an interesting point that you bring up and something that we are looking at citywide; where rush hour zones are actually needed, and how they are utilized and by what modes. I also see a need in some areas for shared bus/bike lanes, and others where the lane is actually utilized appropriately by cars during peak periods. In terms of this particular location, I know the issue you are speaking of in general re: pinch points, but I am copying our traffic team to respond, and some others who have been thinking of this issue as an FYI. Thx for writing.
Gabe
... but then none of his staff (he cc'd four of them) responded. I waited a week, then followed up with:
Thanks for the response, Gabe, I'm glad to know this is on your radar.
Is there an official word regarding what the current status of these lanes are? I can appreciate the value of adding street capacity in peak periods, but surely some existing city or state laws, regulations, ordinances must apply here?Carter
...and I never heard back. I take from that silence there is no official word, and that these so-called lanes have zero legal status. I can't say that silence surprises me, as acknowledging the situation would imply the City ought to be doing something about it. And everybody here is well aware that the City's enforcement of the striped bike lanes is negligible.
But, it still grates on my last nerve that our "formal" policy seems to be akin to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
