budster

ILTB, kudos to you for riding on that road. And for being willing to be the only one riding to your work every day. Both show a fortitude shared by precious few.

I like your bike and style of riding, too. Both similar to mine. I don't try to convince anyone else to cycle either, except by example. I'm glad I don't have to ride on that road.

These mile-in-your-shoes insights make it easy to understand where you're coming from. If I commuted on that route, and the city/county built a bike path or MUP beside the highway, I'd use it. I wouldn't consider it unwelcome "segregation", but a very welcome escape. I might lobby to get such a path built.

I know where Steve Goodridge is coming from on the bike lanes in the NC Triangle area, too, and there (and in many similar places) I can see his point. There, most of the bike lanes were carved out of existing WOLs. I ride similar streets with WOLs here in Statesville, without the bike lanes, and I prefer the ones here. Hard to say where I prefer to ride overall, though. Lots more riders in the Triangle, which is a big plus. Less traffic here.

All of which I bring up only to note that different places are...different. With different advocacy needs and with different appropriate styles of riding. I do think almost all best practices for almost all places would fall under a big, loosely-defined "vehicular" umbrella.

But I agree with you that insisting upon one narrow, dogmatic interpretation of VC or one approach to "facilities", for everyone, everywhere at all time is a Bad Idea.

And I also agree with you that joining LAB could be a Good Idea, in addition to a primary focus on local advocacy, since there are some commonalities in cycling which are best served by a vigorous national organization.

BTW, thanks especially for stating a little of what you are for. I admit I get frustrated when people say only what they're against.

I-Like-To-Bike

Yes. and Yes they are bright.

I like to keep one light rather low (in the rear basket) otherwise motorists at a distance might misjudge the high mounted lights to be a vehicle much farther down the road. At 55mph+ those drivers are right behind me sooner, rather than later.

I-Like-To-Bike

I have no problems with anyone arguing the advantages of WOL vis-à-vis bike lanes carved out of those existing WOLs. I do have problems with anyone who seriously proposes non-credible solutions to existing bicycling-motorized vehicle interaction problems in the US; i.e. - that significant amount of retrofitting WOLs projects (with attendent ROW acquisition/road widening reconstruction) should be undertaken by communities for the benefit of bicyclists. If and when such road widening projects are decided/undertaken, the effect on bicyclists, positive or negative, will not be part of the equation.

I-Like-To-Bike

Is that right? Just to sharpen your pencil a little bit more - I haven't forgotten about my six years of daily bike commuting, as well as 25 years of recreational and utility cycling in Philadelphia.

sggoodri

Here in fast-growing Cary, NC, the population has doubled every ten years for the last 30 years. The population is now somewhere around 110,000 people. This increase includes both outward expansion of the town with new "sprawl" greenfield development as well as substantial infill. In the process, many, many new roads and road widenings are being constructed. I believe a reasonable estimate would be to say that proportional to the population increase, the road lane mileage has doubled every ten years for the last 30. As a member of our planning and zoning board, I know that developers have already put in annexation and rezoning requests for many thousands of new housing units that will continue this trend over the next several years.

All of the roads in Cary are built or widened according to standards set by the city and by the state. The city can specify a standard of wide outside through lanes, narrow outside through lanes, striped bike lanes, or whatever. For a long time, the standard design for the "medium" volume 25-35 mph two-lane collector streets involved 32' of pavement (16' per lane) while the high-volume 45 mph road standard included 11' or 12' outside lanes. Early attempts by the town to plan for bicycle travel consisted of designating sidewalks as bike paths, which was especially onerous since Cary's code of ordinances prohibited riding a bicycle on the roadway if a "usable" path existed nearby. The town continued to design the arterials for narrow outside lanes. That's when the local experienced road cyclists that ILTB derides became involved, and lobbied the city council and city staff to (1) repeal the mandatory sidepath use ordinance, and (2) change the arterial road standard to include wider (14' or more) outside lanes. We were successful on both counts.

Later, the city developed an official bicycle plan, which included mapping and education efforts. Surveys of the general population revealed that the experienced road cyclists preferred to ride on roadways without bike lane stripes, and rode a lot of miles on arterials, and wished that the arterials had wider outside lanes. The novice and non-cycling population expressed preference for striped bike lanes and avoided arterials. So the city decided to continue its new policy of providing wider outside through lanes on arterials, which the experienced cyclists like, and decided to add bike lane striping to all its existing 2-lane collector streets with 16' lanes. The new striped bike lanes quickly filled up with debris once the cars stopped using the full width of the pavement, and the city has never been able to keep that part of the roadway as clean as it was before the stripes went in. The experienced cyclists now complain about the debris accumulation, and suggest that the striping not be done on the collectors, while the novice cyclists complain that they feel frightened on the (mostly narrow lane) arterials, and demand bike lane striping on them instead of the wide outside lane standard that has just begun to make a difference. Complicating matters is that the arterials are maintained by the state, which will never sweep them, while the collectors are maintained by the city, which sweeps them quarterly but not enough to keep debris out of the new bike lanes.

In summary, experienced road cyclists have facilitated more pleasant on-roadway cycling for important long-distance corridors instead of the sidewalk cycling paradigm that had started as the city's defacto bicycle planning standard. Novice cyclists have obtained the addition of new stripes to wide, low-volume two-lane collector roads, creating additional maintenance burdens for the town with no real improvement in safety or convenience for anyone. As a member of the planning and zoning board, I have championed better street connectivity, particularly the connection of residential streets with commercial districts, allowing family cyclists to travel from homes to nearby shopping centers without having to use the high-speed high-volume collector streets for every such trip. I have also intervened on numerous projects early in the planning phase to improve the design of off-road greenways connecting residential neighborhoods and parks, so that these greeneways would perform better for cyclists in terms of convenience and safety. In any event, bicyclists' stated preferences have made a substantial impact on the design and construction of new and retrofit road projects here, and will have a major long-term impact on what the road system looks like, for better or worse.

In other communities, there may be much less road development happening. In such places, any increase in the public's comfort with cycling must come from increased confidence and skill at using the existing road infrastructure safely and efficiently, and improved education and enforcement of other road users to protect cyclists' right of way. These are the top priorities of so-called vehicular cycling advocates, particularly cycling instructors certified under the League of American Bicyclists LCI program.

LittleBigMan

ILTB, looks like we have quite a lot in common.

It's strange to get to know someone whom you've argued with, only to find they are not much different.

genec

I commend your work and the fact that you point out that "doing something" and moving forward on advocacy can indeed result in change, rather then simply complaining that advocacy equates to "proposing non-credible solutions to existing bicycling-motorized vehicle interaction problems in the US."

I also fully understand that not all solutions work everywhere.

Perhaps the biggest issue with your final comment is that the novice cyclists barely know where to find decent bikes... much less how to contact anyone about any form of training... Perhaps a better approach is for LAB/LCIs etc, to go to the public schools and offer bicycle rodeos for the young kids... so start training before bad habits develop.

I recall such training and bicycle rodeos in my youth... but they seem to have fallen by the wayside. One of the first things that happens at a bike Rodeo is an inspection of the bike... which might even find things like bad QR or other safety related issues.

Bruce Rosar

Bicycle rodeos seem to always "live and die" according to the level of support from local organization and volunteers. For example, I helped the Pilot Club (a local civic group) and the NC Bicycle Club (actually a Raleigh/Cary club) put on rodeos for seven years. Now the Town of Cary, the "Pilots" and the two largest road cycle clubs in the area jointly put on a rodeo every year during the Cary Cycling Celebration.

IIRC, few of the bikes brought to the rodeos had QRs. A loose headset was the most common safety related problem that I remember seeing at the inspection station.

I-Like-To-Bike

Not that strange at all.

sggoodri

Promoting public awareness of the advantages of vehicular cycling and encouraging people to take classes in bicycle driving is a big effort of LCIs. But some people like ILTB (Stanley) are opposed to such efforts. I have been unable to understand his disdain for LCIs or for bicycle driving education in general; his arguments against such have never made any logical sense to me, so I won't attempt to represent them. A big part of it seems to originate with personal dislike for John Forester, who is talented at offending people, but I don't understand why an intelligent person can't distinguish between respecting the value of vehicular cycling - the basis of lawful road cycling for 100 years - and liking John Forester. Lots of people who promote vehicular cycling have never even heard of John Forester.

I-Like-To-Bike

1. "Lawful Road Cycling™" (as vaguely defined by Vehicular Cyclists) practiced by Enthusiastic High Mileage Road Cyclists™ is presumably the basis for Vehicular Cycling™; nice meaningless gibberish, John would be so proud.

2. Really? Name the Vehicular Cycling education promoters who don't subscribe to and promote the Forester fare best mantra and/or make unsubstantiated claims (usually referencing Forester's fabricated claims) about the superior safety record of a chimerical population of Vehicular Cyclists practicing unmeasured, undocumented Vehicular Cycling techniques. Certainly you can't mean any of your colleagues in the LAB-Reform clique or their past candidates for LAB posts.

I imagine there are some serious advocates of teaching cycling safety and teaching safe cycling practices on the street who wish they had never heard of Forester and his gang of Vehicular Cycling™ obstructionist proselytizers.

Bekologist

There's a Seattle 'vehicular cyclist' and self proclaimed 'educator' who recently posted on the Cascade Bicycle Club's bulletin board, endorsing riding in the trafffic lanes across a bridge that's a half-mile long, 55 mph traffic, six lane, undivided, narrow outside lane, no shoulder and a 12 inch curb with no bailouts, instead of the 5' wide walkway on both sides, to 'condition the drivers to bikes in traffic.' and he was endorsing it for a beginning cyclist as a prefered route....


complete and utter lunacy. VC is surreal sometimes.

sggoodri

See what I mean? Say anything at all positive about bicycle driving skills education and Stanley goes bonkers.

sggoodri

Like a lot of local cyclists here in NC, I ride narrow-lane roads posted 55 mph all the time. Most of them are two-lane rural roads with no shoulders or sidewalks for that matter. Sometimes these roads are pleasant for cycling, sometimes not. I don't think it's constructive to call cyclists lunatics for riding on roadways regardless of the presence of a sidewalk.

I-Like-To-Bike

No see Steve write vague generalities about undefined "Lawful Road Cycling" over the past 100 Years or the special rights of an unspecified mysterious elite population of "Experienced High Mileage Road Cyclists" whose weekend mileage logs allegedly entitle this elite to extra credit when dealing with community bicycling issues.

genec

Well how about the American Wheelmen that promoted the building of roads and road cycling back at the turn of the century, long before Forester was even born... I guess they are the "unspecified mysterious elite population" from well over a 100 years ago.

Now that is not all that vague is it?

That is the same group that sadly morphed into the LAB, and their current form of disjointed advocacy.

Bekologist

sggoodri, did you read my description of the roadway? and who this was endorsed for?

COMPLETE LUNACY!

NOT a two lane, rural road with no shoulder- the road in question in Seattle is a six lane,undivided, no center lane, no shoulder, highway speed, 1/2 mile long bridge with 12 inch curbs.

and if you would endorse riding in the road (for beginning cyclists) as opposed to a five foot wide sidewalk accomodation on this stretch, you're loony too! No offense intended.

VC puzzler #8 coming up with pictures as soon as I get back to seattle..

I-Like-To-Bike

And this little snippet of ancient history is as relevant to today's cycling environment, cyclists, and road network as what - zero, nothing, or the width of car seats in 1905? Road cycling in 1905 is relevant to what? Prewar cycling in the country side of England perhaps? Relevance to anything related to current issues? Get Real!

The unspecified mysterious elite population is the unidentified population of cyclists Forester, Steve, et al. refer to when they discuss the incredible safety record of vehicular cyclists or the special favors owed to a cycling clique known by Steve as the Experienced High Mileage Road Cyclists.

sggoodri

I suggest that beginning cyclists stick to corridors with which they feel comfortable cycling as vehicle drivers according to the rules of the road. If they insist on riding on sidewalks, that's up to them, but I don't endorse that either.

Last time I was in Seattle I was driven around by a friend, and I saw an unpleasant looking bridge with six narrow lanes plus sidewalks. I remember at the time thinking that it was unfortunate that the design did not include wide outside lanes or shoulders, and that as built it was a good example of why lots of cyclists feel uncomfortable on such roads. But, I didn't think at the time that I would have used the sidewalk instead of the roadway if I had to cross the bridge by bike. If an experienced cyclist like David Smith were to be seen cycling on that bridge, I would consider that quite ordinary. I wish I could tell you where it was, but I cannot remember which trip or route we were taking.

I've seen a number of cyclists on busy 55 mph state highways here in NC, including commuters on some important commuting routes that have narrow lanes, and some bridges near the coast. These routes can be quite unpleasant, and are probably not as safe as quiet neighborhood streets, but not so dangerous that I would discourage people from using them if they meet their travel needs. I think that multi-lane roads are generally safer for cyclists than narrow-lane two-lane roads, at the same traffic volume per lane, because the multiple same-direction lanes allow drivers to change lanes to pass more easily.

-Steve Goodridge

Bruce Rosar

BTW, some of our two lane rural roads with no shoulders are quite busy with 55 mph traffic, and often have travel lanes marked that are too narrow to share with wide traffic.

As has been pointed out, overtaking traffic usually doesn't have to wait as long before they can pass when multiple same direction lanes are marked. Everything else being equal, six lanes means the "rabbits" will be able to pass the "tortoises" more easily.

When compared to that path along the side, the marked travel lane may have

• twice the width
• fewer surface defects
• no opposite direction traffic (peds, bikers, etc.)
• no sign posts or other obstructions
• no lower maximum speed limit (side paths here are usually restricted to no more than 12 mph)

No problemo. I find "loony too" much less offensive than "loony toon".

BTW, here's what I endorse for beginners (and everyone else): when you're traveling on a facility that has the word "walk" in the name, do that.

Bekologist

VC puzzler #8, with pictures, when I get back to Seattle.

one of the problems with a six lane, undivided, highway speed bridge with narrow lanes and 12 inch curbs like the Aurora Bridge, is an action by any car in any lane can snowball into a very dicey situation with a bicyclist having no viable exit strategy.

All the speculation, and comparing this to a narrow, 2 lane, highway speed roadway, is inapropriate. There's a big, wide, walkway, segregated from the traffic. I've ridden it countless times on my bike. I've never seen a bike in the traffic lanes. it would be complete and utter lunacy to do so. I'm not deluding myself or any beginning bicyclist with a "take the lane because you can as a bicycle 'driver'" mantra, and I am a pretty coolheaded roadway bicyclist.

Did anyone look at the VC puzzler #6 about the Hood Canal Bridge? The Hood Canal Bridge is a SAFER bridge for bicyclists than riding in the roadway on Aurora. But one ride over it by a self proclaimed 'cyclist educator' and he's reccing to ride in traffic to show those cars just what bikes are capable of.....

THAT'S a bad reason to bike unsafely in my book.


I'd hate to see bicycling in America become denigrated to such loonatic lane grabbing positioning, because the LAB's VC programs encourages such a blind eye to realistic bike positioning....

linux_author

- there's no life guard in the gene pool...

- down here there are some very busy, very fast roads, two lanes each way, no bike lanes, but sidewalks on both sides... i have seen bicyclists in the road, and in general, drivers are courteous... but personally i would hesistate to use roadways of this type unless absolutely necessary, and prefer side streets and alternative routes with marked bike lanes (a program that needs to be expanded county wide, IMO)...

- for trips to the grocery, bank, or pharmacy from the house, i generally use the sidewalk on the main route because it's free of debris, such as glass, and rarely used by pedestrians... also, drivers generally do 65 mph (or more) on the marked 45 mph road - very dangerous!

Roody

Why is it that you must resort to name-calling in post after post? I often miss your point because I stop reading when you start going on and on about "loonatics" and what have you. Others, including myself, at least TRY to maintain a spirited debate without flaming. I don't always succeed but I do apologize when someone is offended or upset by one of my posts, or when I belatedly realize that I have gone over the line of decency.

You drive me away, literally. I recently spent two week away from this subforum because the posts by you and one other person were upsetting to me. I am seriously considering putting you on my Ignore list, as I did that other flamer. The only reason I have not done so is because many of your posts on other subforums are interesting, informative and well reasoned. What is it about Advocacy & Safety that brings out your rudeness?

Bekologist

should I redact my post to remove loonatic, roody? make you feel better about my strong aversion to LCI's reccomending that beginners ride a six lane, highway speed bridge with a 12 inch high curb? Using my reference to idiotic lane positioning suggestions by a misguided LCI instructor lets you disregard all the rest of my post, Roody? Sorry to hear your reading comprehension doesn't allow you to look at language as imprecise communication, at best. How do you read the editorial pages if there's a slant that's offensive to you, Roody?

I'm NOT suggesting bicyclists ride on every sidewalk they see because its out of the trafic lanes; no, just on this dangerous bridge as a particular...all of a sudden, i find my response grouped into a take the sidewalk all the time, anti whatever the rest of the dedicated bicyclists think is the correct positioning on this bridge you've never seen or ridden across.

I know when to take the lane, and when to shoulder it, and when to find another route. I ride highway speed 2 lane roads with no shoulder quite often, just like the rest of you, and know where I'll position myself. This Seattle LCI distinctly DOES NOT.

Roody

Aside to BEKOLOGIST: It's not offensive to me Bek, just annoying; it's offensive to those you flame. You are telling others how to ride, then criticizing them personally when they have the gall to disagree with you. You do detract from your own argument when you resort to flaming, and you greatly detract from my enjoyment of the forum.



Sorry all, back on topic:

I have a feeling that I would ride on the sidewalk in the setting Bek described, just as he would. That is, if the pavement is decent, and if there isn't a lot of ped traffic in the way. However, as others pointed out, this bridge is really no different than a narrow outer lane on a busy highway. I feel pretty comfortable riding in NOLs, more comfortable than in narrow single lanes, where it's harder for cagers to pass. But if there is a comfortable and safe shoulder available, I will take advantage of it in some circumstances. I'm not waffling, but this would depend on road and traffic conditions, and even on what mood I'm in at the time. One thing I'm grateful for is that I've finally learned how to ride in many circumstances, so I get to choose! That's probably something I could have learned more easilt from a LAB LCI, but unfortunately that wasn't available to me.

So I guess, when I react to the substance rather than the rhetoric, I end up agreeing with Bek. Which is fine by me, since he seems to be a fantastic rider and he's a Michigander, finest kind.

I don't know how to respond to a "Seattle LCI instructor" when he isn't even present to describe the setting from his viewpoint. He should probably point out that taking the lane is his personal preference, just as taking the sidewalk is mine. Neither one of us can be deemed a lunatic based on only one circumstance.