BobbyG

https://gazette.com/new-bike-lane-in-...rticle/1556167
Saw this in this morning's local news. Haven't ridden it yet. Has anybody else encountered the bike lane "question mark"? This is a heavily traveled, high congestion, major road with posted speeds of 40-45(?) with a steep grade. In theory this question mark sounds like a good way to help cyclists without mirrors to see and be seen, by traffic. But I've met Allen Beauchamp a few times and have followed his group in the news and I would tend to trust his opinion. BTW, With the input of his group, Colorado Springs has made some long-needed and very smart bicycle infrastructure growth that build upon and connect trails and bike lanes that were never finished from decades ago. So have you seen and/or encountered the cycle lane "question mark"? And what is your opinion?

genec

One has to wonder where they got the idea and where it has been tested.

I once had a "traffic engineer" tell me that the bike lane they installed to the right of a right turn only lane to a freeway on ramp was also "built according to plan." Was just plain dumb.

kickstart

Maybe odd, but I don't see how its a "death trap". I sometimes cross exit/ entrance ramps in that manner depending on conditions.

I-Like-To-Bike

Can't say about the specific bike lane in the article but I have seen/read identical and similar hyperbolic rhetoric describing almost every bike lane in existence or proposed from some rabid Vehicular Cycling ideologues and self appointed "Bicycling Traffic Engineers."

walrus1

Yeah... no. I'd keep going straight and take the lane rather than go around that thing. Since it causes you to have to merge with cars driving over it at a weird angle. I'm sure it made sense to someone when it was on paper. Also, why do cyclists shave to yield? Make the bike lane protected put it alongside the car lane and boom both groups can coexist. Stupidity at it's finest.

FBinNY 

If this were an auto lane, it would be called a jughandle which is very common for busy left turn in many states. In auto lanes it would be regulated with a light or stop sign where it crosses back.

Many cyclists already use a similar approach for things like exit ramps, especially on higher speed roads and/or if there are two lanes exiting. Some even make a similar maneuver (aka Copenhagen or Boy Scout turn) at regular corners if riding on multi lane roads or with heavy traffic.

The logic is straight forward, by turning 90° off to the right side of the road, the turning vehicle is now better positioned to see traffic coming from what would have been behind.

Of course, it means a longer process to make a left turn, but it can be much better all the way around. I'd say give it a chance, especially if they repainted a straight lane across the detour, and marked it with signage explaining how it worked ie. left tun from right lane.

randomgear

It would be nice to see it from the other direction than that shown in the article. It does look like a mini jug handle to me.

FBinNY 

Tea cup handle.

kickstart

Perhaps because, "This is a heavily traveled, high congestion, major road with posted speeds of 40-45(?) with a steep grade.". Examining the location on google earth, its basically a high speed interchange between two divided limited access highways. The question really should be why would a bike lane be given ROW in this location.

The community should be applauded for providing cycling facilities in such a location, the objections smack of anti infrastructure, VC propaganda.
https://www.google.com/maps/search/arligton+bluffs+prkway,+colorado+springs,+co/@38.8892088,-104.7851058,18z

FBinNY 

As it was (before), cyclists going straight have to move across a lane of traffic moving much faster than they are, similar to moving to make a left turn. Using a jughandle, has them looking left for a break in traffic where they can dart across, rather than over their shoulder.

Of course, if this isn't a "must use" state, cyclists can leave the bike lane and make the move to the left as they have done ball along.

Right of way has little to do with it since technically a cyclist leaving the bike lane to move left before the split, is making a lane change and wouldn't have the right of way over traffic approaching from behind.

IMO- a jughandle of this type offers those who want it a safer alternative, and those who don't feel it's necessary can do as they've always done. Sounds like a win/win to me.

walrus1

Yeah um you're way off base. REREAD my post including the part just after you highlighted talking about a protected bike lane. VC propaganda? Really?

kickstart

My comment about "propaganda" was meant to be directed at those calling it a "death trap" not your comments, my apologies.

Edit, not sure a protected bike lane could possibly be integrated into the interchange as it exists.

B. Carfree

What a charming way to keep people from cycling. Let's just create numerous unnecessary places where cyclists have to yield to cars overtaking them and turning across their path when the cyclists are merely attempting to proceed straight. Everyone loves to stop as frequently as possible when riding, so this should be great. It's right up there with other incarnations of bike lanes to the right of right turn lanes and bike lanes that direct cyclists onto sidewalks at roundabouts. One would almost suspect that the traffic engineers don't ride bikes.

kickstart

And short of an entirely segregated cycle track, what would better serve the 99% who aren't the cycling elite willing to play in highway traffic?

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8892.../data=!3m1!1e3

imi

Good grief, what is that thing! Never seen anything like it in all my years of touring.

A roundabout would make more sense and if you're not comfortable taking the lane, make a copenhagen turn as mentioned above

Ye gads, what will they come up with next!

FBinNY 

While it may be new in the world of bike lanes, it's not at all new otherwise. In any case, it's essentially a painted Copenhagen turn, with room added to move right and clear the intersection while waiting at 90° to the flow of traffic.

I suspect that if aerial view of the broader area were shown it would make more sense to those unfamiliar.

BTW- it's not new in the bike lane world either. If you search Bicycle lane jughandle or a similar phrase you'll find numerous examples including this one in Vancouver. Jughandles are just an alternate solution to the issue of crossing traffic where auto traffic is moving right and right lane cyclists moving left (or straight).

Chris516

This is another reason I don't utilize bike lanes.

imi

Maybe the perspective is a bit off, but that one in Vancouver hardly looks wide enough for a bike to fit in 90 degrees to traffic without the wheel sticking out. Probably is though...

Even so, to get into position it looks as if it would be awkward to turn in...
... what's the bike following you who wants to turn meant to do? Stop in the bike lane, blocking for all bikes who want to go straight?

I'd like to try it, it might be better IRL, but at the moment I'm a tad sceptical.

For the most part you'd be starting across the lane from a standstill. Seeing the problems many have with this (wrong gear, wobbling, etc) it may take longer than they estimate... which isn't a good thing with speeding traffic coming :/

FBinNY 

You have it backward. The purpose of jughandles is precisely to get left turning vehicles (both cars and/or bikes) out of the way of through traffic while they wait for an opening to make a left turn.

To answer the question, take another look, the bike lane going straight is well to the left of the jughandle, which in this case (the Vancouver example pictured) I suspect is to provide a sheltered out of the way nook where a cyclist can wait for the light to change before making a (Copenhagen) left turn.

Rant----

As I read some of the posts on various A&S threads I wonder if people are being chased by a big Dogma. This thread is an example. It's about an attempt to solve a crossing traffic problem, which is real no matter how one handles it. For some cyclists who ride slower or are less trusting of high speed traffic, highway interchange exit lane turns are much more nerveracking than simple rights because they're designed for cars to move right without slowing.

Of course one can take the lane, and move left to the right of the through lane, or one can decide not to ever use bike lanes at all, but some situations don't fit well into various dogmatic approaches. This jughandle is a legitimate attempt to address and mitigate a problem, and while it may not be perfect, it creates an added option for those who have problems with exit lane traffic.

Let's have less dogma, and be receptive to creative, though imperfect solutions. If they improve things, so much the better. If they don't, we can try another approach. But nothing will ever get better if we reject every approach out of hand because it doesn't conform to our preconceived "standards".

imi

I'd like to see a schematic of the principle. I think the two linked pictures posted here don't illustrate the design sufficiently for those (like myself) who haven't encountered them.

edit: am googling

edit again: ah ok, there are multiple solutions called jughandles, some not so uncommon ime, particularly those combined with traffic lights.

FBinNY 

In case you can't find a schematic, let me paint a word picture and you can sketch it yourself.

Imagine a multi-lane artery with a bike lane (or cycletrack) to it's right. Now add a high speed right exit lane to that road.

The problem, the cycle track will need to cross that exit lane at some point to stay on the main road.

There are two choices (not counting an under or over pass), either continue the lane on a long line to the far side of the exit, where it will be a long near parallel crossing of the exit. Or continue the bike lane up to the point where the lanes actually diverge, then take a tight turn across the exit back to the main road.

The jughandle here is a modification of that second approach, which improves it by moving the bikes further to the right then back at 90° to the road, letting them now cross while looking to their left, rather than over their shoulder. Overall it's a decent solution and my only improvement, would be to lengthen the jughandle so it can be taken more easily at speed when traffic warrants.

kickstart

I think people aren't actually looking at the highway interchange in question, and are instead assuming its just a intersection leading them to make inaccurate conclusions.

I question the judgment and veracity of anyone claiming they would just "take the lane" in this specific location.

CliffordK

That is ODD!!!!

I can imagine what the traffic engineers are trying to do. Get the bikes crossing the lane at 90°. However, it would make the bikes less visible to traffic and while it may be a bit easier to look to the left than look behind oneself, the curve makes even looking back more complex.

The only way such a detour would make sense is with a lighted crosswalk (flashing lights), and even so, it should be optional. We have a roundabout that tries to force bikes onto the sidewalk. And, it was one of the places I've flipped my bike trailer (loaded) because if one doesn't go onto the sidewalk, the design leads to a sharp 90° corner (or S-curve) with curbs to negotiate at high speeds.

See blue on sidewalk, vs red on road. Blue arrow marks the corner where I flipped my trailer.



I highly prefer being in traffic where I'm VERY OBSERVANT in these types of situations vs being on the sidewalks. Still, the really tight corners can be hard to negotiate.

There was an post a while ago with bikes riding on a divided highway taking the middle of the road to avoid an exit, then getting hit by a truck trying to sneak past on their right.

https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycli...3624-ouch.html

My conclusion was they should have essentially stayed right until they could just do the "question mark turn" as the design above is trying to encourage.

For exit lanes, I think I'd prefer the much more common (around here) green painted lines.



And, then encourage bikes to look back before crossing.

FBinNY 

I pass a similar situation every day (and sometimes twice a day) and am very used to it (no bike lane involved). I look for an opening somewhere before or as it's begining to splt, move to the left of the splitting lane and as the surface widens, make room to be passed on both sides as I head to the point and continue to the right of the thru lanes. It's relatively easy where I am, because drivers can see my intent (the exit is to a highway on ramp, so they know I'm not going there), and the time involved is short enough, that exiting traffic drops to my speed if necessary for the 50 yards involved.

But, I can see less experienced cyclists getting trapped to the right, and unwilling to move left until the very last moment, and this is where the jughandle comes to their rescue.

kickstart

The more I look at it, and read the objections, the more it makes sense to me. Here in the west, we can cycle on limited access freeways and interstates outside of urban areas which pose the same challenge.