BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

This is the same in oakland on bayard st / bigelow blvd during evening rush hour.

Happens at N Negley near Black too. Lack of parking enforcement in this city outside of Downtown is amazing lax.

^Ah, yes, that's right! Particularly in the morning. So I guess the problem is better stated as: "Parked cars on Negley Ave. between Baum Blvd. & Black St." It didn't occur to me that this problem probably affects lots of riders on other streets too... particularly tuned in to what's going on on my commute route.

Is it not also the case that the speed limit on this street is 25 mph? How much faster than 25 is traffic moving? Or, would move if one of those pesky cyclists going only a couple of ticks below the posted limit were not there? Granted, the illegally parked cars are a problem, but the traffic should not be. Operative word, "should".

Penn is border between N and S Negley N Negley for sure has these signs. I do not believe that these signs exist between Friendship and Baum. It is R3 there and tons of multi units. I think it is standard parking there with a permit and street sweeping days off or whatever. My opinion is riding Negley south of Friendship sucks. 2 terrible intersections right in a row. Aiken, Highland, Whole foods bridge are more effective ways over the tracks. yeah.

The signs *do* exist between Friendship and Baum (as evidenced by Google Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.459914,-79.9328557,3a,75y,206.38h,75.04t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spPOXqwyGPBE_Is5DEJXcIA!2e0 )

That being said, an alternative route would be nice, it's just that they're all longer. :-/

What is the city's goal of not having parking during this time?

Well, from Black St. to Penn, Negley has 2 lanes going each way and speeds are pretty high. It's pretty clear that during rush hours the illegally parked cars increase traffic congestion and risky lane changes, regardless of a cyclists getting in the way. Shortly after Penn and all the way to Baum the road is a bit narrower and loses the divided lanes, and the congestion gets worse (and speeds get lower). If parked cars aren't in the way traffic can squeeze around turning cars and stopped busses and cyclists can stay out of the fray.

So, stupid question. If a cyclist got right out there in the center of the only real lane that's going to be free of cars, and just stayed there, and rolled merrily along at 17 mph, what would happen?

Well if they stayed in the middle of traffic, they would not be making nice with the cars and as a result would make people angry to see people riding bikes and when those who actually stop at signs and do not run red lights and do not try to be cute by riding in the middle of the lanes are seen, they would be targeted as those who just do not care and do dumb things.... andddddd you just make someone else's day bad. Just because you can does not mean it is a good idea dont be "cute" and ride in the middle of the lane. If a car passes you when riding a bike, people complain that is was too fast, or aggressive, but If you pass a slow car, it is then okay? No it isn't. can't we all just get along?

Hmm I don't think bicyclists are being "cute" by riding in a way that keeps them safe. If there's really only one lane that doesn't have cars parked in it it seems like that's the place to ride. And to take the lane if it's not wide enough for cars to pass safely while staying in the lane. If the other lane with cars parked in it had wide gaps I would move to it just to let people pass. But that depends on how wide the gaps are etc. Sometimes in Squirrel Hill mornings Murray has few cars in the parking lanes and I go there to let folks pass (not that it gives them any advantage since I catch them at the lights -- it just makes people feel I'm being polite, which I am). But if there are a significant number of cars in the parking lane I'll take the driving lane. It's just the safest way to ride. Don't encourage motorists to buzz you. That's also the law in PA, BTW.

Here you go hikeabike; http://cyclingsavvy.org/ten-tips-for-successful-cycling/

Do we really need yet another discussion about the merits of taking the lane vs. not? The situation on this stretch of road is that usually the parked cars are scattered widely, so most of the time you have tons of space to your self out of the way of the normal flow of traffic but then a parked car gets in the way and you have to temporarily shift over, getting in the way of much faster moving traffic. I find this more uncomfortable than a stretch of road completely full of parked cars--in that case then, yeah, duh, take the lane if you feel like you have to.

"Do we really need yet another discussion about the merits of taking the lane vs. not?... " It seems perhaps so.

I am not saying do not take the lane up, but from how it sounded above with "rolled merrily along at 17 mph" sounds like you are just being a jag. Also a tip to prevent buzzing by cars... wave them on and give a wave of thanks when they are passing.

^I'm not clear on how that is supposed to work to alter the behavior of drivers who are not passing safely or legally. I just stumbled across this as well, like it a lot: "What struck me about Heath, though, is a common thread that runs through cycling in which cyclists themselves are extremely critical of other cyclists when it comes to obeying traffic laws. It’s a hall monitor complex, and it’s bizarre. I don’t condone scofflawing most of the time, but unless it’s egregious and puts someone else’s life at risk, I don’t much care about it, either. Cars break the laws all the time too, and when I’m motoring along and someone changes lanes without using a turn indicator (that actually happens), I don’t honk, or scream, or post a rant about it." Full post: http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/the-anti-cyclist-cyclist/

"If a cyclist got right out there in the center of the only real lane that’s going to be free of cars, and just stayed there, and rolled merrily along at 17 mph, what would happen?" If the speed limit on that stretch of road is 25 mph, I see nothing wrong with this. The posted speed limit (according to every driving handbook ever) after all, is the maximum permissible speed when conditions are perfect. A road full of parked cars sounds like less than perfect conditions, and since people may be entering or exiting those cars, there's a good reason to travel at reduced speeds (i.e. less than the speed limit). Maybe this should be a candidate for a Flock ride?

9 you're fine, 10 you're mine in reverse? I've actually thought this in a bemused way before. Of course "you're mine" doesn't sound too good here.

Some of us veteran road riders can hammer along at 20+, but I'd venture that the typical cyclist is going 17, jag or not. I would further venture that the real jag is the car driver trying to go 30+ in that 25 zone, and getting pissed at the cyclist going 17. I am not going to hug cars. It's not safe. Like Jon says, if there is a long stretch of parking spaces where I can let someone by, I might get over to let someone past. In my experience, it has to be a very long stretch -- 10 to 15 empty spaces -- to allow that safely and maintain speed, or else I find myself running up into the back of that car. I do not have to "get out of the way" of someone trying to go faster. That's their problem, not mine. And if that makes me a jag, then fine, jag I am, and proud of it. But dammit, I have no less right to use the road than someone with a 280 hp engine. If they want to pass me, fine, pass me. Otherwise, get in line.

I'm so happy that I have an all purpose comment template: 1) More Sharrows, so that biking is properly legitimated. 2) Enforce Speed Limit so that... well, does that need explanation? 3) Lower non-arterial speed limits to 20mph; all other roads through inhabited areas to 25mph. On a side note, the claim that state-maintained road speeds are controlled by the state doesn't seem entirely accurate. In the past couple of days I traveled through parts of rural Pennsylvania. When the {state,us} road went through small villages, and even larger towns, the speed limit was signed as "25mph limit ahead". [Yes, I realize this doesn't actually mean the same thing. Especially since an actual speed limit was not later posted.] But why is it that Penn and Baum have to be posted with suburban speed limits in the first place? Can't we just replace them with these "ahead" things? It's obviously legal. And (enough) drivers might actually comply. Ok, how about "suggested" or "advised" or "safe"?

From Penn to Baum it is Sharrowed and traffic is pretty easily manageable just taking the lane especially at rush hour where traffic is pretty much locked up here. There is nowhere else to go. I just merge in by signalling once I get past Penn and the right lane merges into one. Why the hell would one hug a door zone here? A car would have to be within inches to allow them to pass. Shit, I have a son I need to get home to see.