Army-Navy Drive losing a bit of the bike lane?

[DismalScientist]

Shoaling a car: Pulling ahead of stopped cars into the intersection, creating a shoal.

Not to difficult.

[AFHokie]

@dasgeh 166311 wrote:

Shoaling: Pulling ahead of stopped bikes into the crosswalk/intersection, creating a shoal.

I.e. you can’t shoal a car.

As much as people gripe on here about peds & joggers shoaling them at stops, I disagree.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930AZ using Tapatalk

[Judd]

@Steve O 166307 wrote:

[/LIST]

That said, for the years I PM commuted westbound on Eye St NW in DC from 14th to 19th, I was a total urban-guerilla cyclist, lane splitting and filtering at every opportunity to gain every inch of advantage.

You shouldn’t do that, Jeanne.

[bobco85]

@DismalScientist 166313 wrote:

Shoaling a car: Pulling ahead of stopped cars into the intersection, creating a shoal.

Not to difficult.

But what do we do about bike boxes? They basically promote “shoaling” of vehicles by cyclists by allowing cyclists to get in front of drivers (where they can be better seen and to avoid right hooks from turning drivers).

Should we rename them bike shoals?

[lordofthemark]

@bobco85 166323 wrote:

But what do we do about bike boxes? They basically promote “shoaling” of vehicles by cyclists by allowing cyclists to get in front of drivers (where they can be better seen and to avoid right hooks from turning drivers).

Should we rename them bike shoals?

The only one I use regularly is the one at the intersection of 4th and Eye, SW, heading SB on 4th (I have been using it a lot lately, because of the chaos on Maine Avenue, when I use the route Case>9th>GStreet>4thStreet>EyeStreet for my commute to Capitol Riverfront. I do get to the left side of the bike box, in front of the cars. At that location I am making a left turn, into the Eye Street eastbound bike lane, so I don’t consider it shoaling, because any cars making that left can easily pass me on eastbound Eye Street.

(also I don’t have to filter to get to it – traffic SB on 4th always seems to be fairly light at AM rush, so I can merge from the SB bike lane to the SB general travel lane, and then to the left turn lane, very easily and completely vehicularly – well except I guess using the SB bike lane is not particularly VC)

Here is the location. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8795351,-77.0175526,3a,75y,190.35h,74.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOiP8nmZu6Uw11slltmpPZw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

In general I think I see bike boxes in places where there are bike lanes, so they generally don’t present shoaling issues so much, I think. If they are found in other places (?) not sure I would filter around to get to the bike box, but again, I guess if you are fast enough to not be immediately passed after going through the light, or you value clearing the intersection more than issues with passing on the straight, I guess it could make sense. I dunno.

[Judd]

@bobco85 166323 wrote:

But what do we do about bike boxes? They basically promote “shoaling” of vehicles by cyclists by allowing cyclists to get in front of drivers (where they can be better seen and to avoid right hooks from turning drivers).

Should we rename them bike shoals?

Here’s NACTO’s site on bike boxes: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/intersection-treatments/bike-boxes/

My view of bike boxes has been more that they function to better facilitate left hand turns where they would otherwise be difficult rather than being more visible for right turning drivers. Off the top of my head I can only think of the location of two, both on Commonwealth Ave. The one at the intersection of Mt. Vernon and Commonwealth is useful since it’s an intersection where some cars are going left and some cars are going straight, but some cars might also go right at the intersection. I can only recall using it once though, as I just tuck in behind the last car in the queue.

[Judd]

@bobco85 166323 wrote:

Should we rename them bike shoals?

Yes. And paint palm trees and little fish around them. And all cyclists using them should be required to wear some sort of appropriate island beachware.

[Steve O]

@dasgeh 166311 wrote:

Lane-splitting: riding in a lane with a car that is also moving

I presume by “with” you mean side-by-side, not behind or in front of.

You may be right, in which case one can be filtering and then suddenly lane splitting without actually doing anything differently. That makes it pretty tricky if one is legal and one is not, when the legality is determined by the behavior of someone else. For example, if I am filtering and one of the cars decides to edge forward to get closer to the car ahead of it, am I suddenly lane splitting? And then filtering again once they stop?

[Judd]

@Steve O 166329 wrote:

For example, if I am filtering and one of the cars decides to edge forward to get closer to the car ahead of it, am I suddenly lane splitting? And then filtering again once they stop?

Sounds like the best thing to do is not filter, Jeanne.

[dasgeh]

@Steve O 166329 wrote:

I presume by “with” you mean side-by-side, not behind or in front of.

You may be right, in which case one can be filtering and then suddenly lane splitting without actually doing anything differently. That makes it pretty tricky if one is legal and one is not, when the legality is determined by the behavior of someone else. For example, if I am filtering and one of the cars decides to edge forward to get closer to the car ahead of it, am I suddenly lane splitting? And then filtering again once they stop?

Yes. And yes. Though with three foot passing rules, I think it would be the car that would be in the wrong in that isutation.

But really, I was just referring to the nomenclature.

[ginacico]

To bring this hopelessly hijacked thread to some kind of conclusion, crews repainted the bike lanes on Army Navy Drive as of this morning. The northbound lane is buffered/protected as was planned.

[Author]

Posts