Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52
  1. #1
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    John Forester on "Freeway history"

    Here is an article posted today by John Forester on the BTI-list (a VC advocacy forum) on the topic of the history of freeways and cyclist prohibition, and how that relates to cyclist prohibition on non-freeway roadways. The main point of the article, I think, is in the middle:


    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    "Freeways have the design characteristics required for
    continuous high-speed travel, which characteristics justify
    prohibiting slow traffic. No other roads have those characteristics.
    Therefore, there is no justification for prohibiting slow traffic,
    which includes bicycle traffic, on any roads but genuine freeways."
    If you ever run into a local movement to prohibit cyclists on some non-freeway roadway, remember this argument. It's powerful, and right on. No road that allows other slow vehicles, has driveways, allows parking, lacks a physical division between sides of the road, has at grade intersections, etc., can support the kind of high speed travel that would justify cyclists (as well as other drivers of slow vehicles).

    Anyway, to me, this article is quintessential bicycling advocacy, and exemplifies why I admire Forester's contributions to our cause.


    From: John Forester <forester@...>
    Date: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:47 pm
    Subject: Freeway history and characteristics

    Peter Rosenfeld is another of those who are concerned that if
    cyclists admit to the rationale for the prohibition of cyclists from
    urban freeways, they are opening themselves to being prohibited,
    according to the same argument, from normal roads and streets.

    Peter specifies his concern with the following question: "Are
    bicyclists banned from limited access freeways for safety reasons,
    motorist convenience or both? And why do these reasons not apply to
    surface roads? Is it a matter of quality ( the nature of the design)
    or quantity ( speed differentials crossing some threshold, perhaps)?"

    Nobody can answer the reason why cyclists are prohibited from
    freeways, which in this context are defined as divided highways
    without intersections at grade. Nobody can provide an answer because
    the reason was never properly given at the time of the enactment of
    the prohibition. However, the objective being sought was the design
    and construction of highways that permitted continuous travel at high
    speeds, and the prohibition of slow traffic was part of the concept.
    It just happens that bicycle traffic is part of the slow traffic that
    was, and still is, prohibited. The two highway design features that
    enable continuous travel at high speeds are physical separation of
    the opposite directions of travel and absence of traffic on
    conflicting paths, as at intersections at grade and at driveways.
    These considerations dictated the basic design: divided highway, with
    all intersections being grade separated, and without driveways.

    It was recognized at the time that construction of a new highway, and
    more particularly the conversion of an existing highway to a freeway,
    would destroy the value of the land that abutted to it, by denying
    the owners of that land highway access to the rest of the world.
    Therefore, one provision of the law was that a freeway could not be
    built unless the owners of the adjacent land had given up their right
    to enter the freeway through driveways. Basically, they gave up their
    right of direct access to the freeway in return for being given
    access to a local road that connected to the freeway at a
    grade-separated intersection. That law got turned around to say that
    slow traffic could be prohibited from a highway only when the owners
    of the adjacent land had no right of access to the highway. Whether
    that turn around of purpose was carelessness or nastiness is
    completely unknown.

    Anyway, whatever the past history, the kind of road design that
    evolved as providing service to only fast traffic (except for traffic
    congestion, snow storms, fog, and the like) does not permit the
    admixture of slow traffic to it. Slow traffic probably could have
    been accommodated by the provision of separate "fly-over" bridges for
    the slow traffic; this would have been a very large expense relative
    to the small volume of slow traffic to be expected on such trips,
    and, in any case, the pre-existing roads provided for that slow traffic.

    There is absolutely no doubt about the purpose of all of this. The
    purpose, clear, obvious, indubitable, frequently stated, etc., etc.,
    was to provide for safe travel at the completely unprecedented
    highway speeds that automobiles made possible. All the other
    characteristics are the result of this purpose, and have produced the
    high-linear-cost, widely-spaced system that we recognize.

    The concern that admitting the validity of the freeway system, with
    its prohibition of slow traffic, somehow weakens our ability to
    respond to prohibitions on other roads is not only unjustified, but
    in fact that admission protects our ability to respond to other
    prohibitions. Freeways have the design characteristics required for
    continuous high-speed travel, which characteristics justify
    prohibiting slow traffic. No other roads have those characteristics.
    Therefore, there is no justification for prohibiting slow traffic,
    which includes bicycle traffic, on any roads but genuine freeways. It
    is that simple, completely logical, legal, and in accordance with the
    engineering facts.

    Furthermore, there is one valid exception to the prohibition, based
    on engineering facts. The highway system can have developed so that a
    freeway is the only reasonable connection between points that are
    otherwise on the highway system. This occurs when there is no
    development of the adjacent land (or water), and therefore no local
    roads. In this case, bicycle traffic can use the shoulder of the
    freeway between adjacent intersections without crossing motor
    traffic, and should, under this particular circumstance, be allowed
    to do so, even if, say, horse-drawn wagons are not permitted because
    of their greater width and, shall we say, lack of demand by
    wagon-drivers for this service. If there are a few intersecting roads
    in this largely undeveloped area, they are very likely to carry only
    low volumes of traffic, and hence bicycle traffic may be allowed to
    cross the off-ramps and on-ramps with little concern. Otherwise, the
    bicycle traffic must cross the intersecting road at grade, which
    might involve installing a demand-controlled signal for this very low
    volume traffic.

    Contrariwise to this discussion is Ken's proposed policy that all
    freeways should be open to bicycle traffic for all movements. Ken's
    proposed policy is based on opposition to the ability of motor
    traffic to travel fast. No other conclusion is reasonable about his
    proposed policy. And I say that the consequences of such a policy
    will be to arouse all the opposition to bicycle traffic that it is
    possible for motorists to create, for no benefit to anyone. By
    admitting to the justice of the freeway system when properly
    administered, we are strengthening our principle that cyclists ought
    to act and be treated as drivers of vehicles on all the roads on
    which slow traffic is permitted. That is a great benefit to us.

    John Forester, MS, PE
    Bicycle Transportation Engineer
    7585 Church St.
    Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
    619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

  2. #2
    Senior Member LCI_Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    in the hills of Orange, CA
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    "Freeways have the design characteristics required for continuous high-speed travel, which characteristics justify prohibiting slow traffic. No other roads have those characteristics. Therefore, there is no justification for prohibiting slow traffic, which includes bicycle traffic, on any roads but genuine freeways."
    Be careful with this line of argument. Some newer roads in suburban areas, while not true freeways, are being designed with freeway-like characteristics, including free flowing right turn lanes, entrance and exit ramps, etc.
    -- I speak for myself only, not LAB or any other organization of which I am a member.

  3. #3
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
    Be careful with this line of argument. Some newer roads in suburban areas, while not true freeways, are being designed with freeway-like characteristics, including free flowing right turn lanes, entrance and exit ramps, etc.
    Actually, I've been thinking about that, and its ramifications, since I read the article. The example in San Diego is Kearny Villa Road.

    Of course, for the justification to apply, the road must have ALL the characteristics of a freeway, not just some of them, including no driveways, no at grade intersections, no signals, no parking, physical separation (not just a stripe) from oncoming traffic, long sight lines, etc. etc.

    Just one violation of any of the above characteristics, and the justification for a slow vehicle ban (including cyclist ban) disappears.

    However, this is why slow vehicle (and thus cyclist) bans are sometimes justifiable on bridges and tunnels.

  4. #4
    Gatoraid powered engine 2wheeledsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NW Houston, TX.
    My Bikes
    A mixed-breed beater util/commute rigid hybrid I frankensteined out of assorted resqued components, called "Streetdancer". Ugly as sin, yet beautiful in function.
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
    Be careful with this line of argument. Some newer roads in suburban areas, while not true freeways, are being designed with freeway-like characteristics, including free flowing right turn lanes, entrance and exit ramps, etc.
    There's a few of those here. Stubner-Airline and a couple of throughways downtown come to mind...
    I call them "streets of sudden death", and try to avoid them, or take a bus going along them. There's an uncomfortable number of major "sueside" intersections that are risky by bike, and you have to have a deathwish to cross them by foot.

  5. #5
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,042
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Glad you are thinking of that prime example, KV... now how about the flipside argument... that a road that is not a limited access freeway should be limited in speed to serve those vehicles not able to access high speed limited access freeways.

    A prime example is Miramar road with all the driveways and businesses that can cause motorists to slow while seeking addresses and said business driveways... such a road should have a limited speed due to it's multiple accesses.

    As a side note, have you seen what they have done to KV road lately? The speeds are still 65MPH, EXCEPT at the location where the two cyclist were killed. There it was lowered to 50MPH. The bike lanes have also been moved further to the right, toward the shoulder with a 4 foot width "buffer" added in most locations between the travel lanes and the bike lanes. There are still "pinch points" however where a prudent cyclist should "check their 6."

    There may have been a couple new "Share the Road" signs added too.

  6. #6
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Of course, for the justification to apply, the road must have ALL the characteristics of a freeway, not just some of them, including no driveways, no at grade intersections, no signals, no parking, physical separation (not just a stripe) from oncoming traffic, long sight lines, etc. etc.
    I wouldn't count on this either. For example, how much distance before you can say there are no driveways or intersections? Even the freeway has portions where it stops being a freeway.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  7. #7
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Glad you are thinking of that prime example, KV... now how about the flipside argument... that a road that is not a limited access freeway should be limited in speed to serve those vehicles not able to access high speed limited access freeways.

    A prime example is Miramar road with all the driveways and businesses that can cause motorists to slow while seeking addresses and said business driveways... such a road should have a limited speed due to it's multiple accesses.

    As a side note, have you seen what they have done to KV road lately? The speeds are still 65MPH, EXCEPT at the location where the two cyclist were killed. There it was lowered to 50MPH. The bike lanes have also been moved further to the right, toward the shoulder with a 4 foot width "buffer" added in most locations between the travel lanes and the bike lanes. There are still "pinch points" however where a prudent cyclist should "check their 6."

    There may have been a couple new "Share the Road" signs added too.
    You really need to get on the sdcbc list. First of all, the 50 mph speed limit sign on s/b KV Road is old. Not sure how long it's been there, but I know it was there shortly after (a week or two) the recent cyclist death. Lowering the speed limit to 50 was not part of the bl realignment plan that I fought since it was in the planning stages.

    Here is a recent post on the topic, and my response:

    Quote Originally Posted by Philip

    The bike lanes on Kearny Villa Road have been restriped. Today
    I took a ride up and down the road to take a look at the results.

    South of the interchange with Highway 163, and north of the FAA Tracon
    driveway, there have been no changes.

    Between the Harris Plant Road bridge and the FAA Tracon driveway,
    Kearny Villa Road has very broad shoulders. In this area, the
    old bike lanes have been turned into cross-hatched "no-drive" areas,
    and new bike lanes have been striped along side them, a little
    farther from the center of the road:

    http://www.efgh.com/temp/22882.jpg

    The new lanes begin at the ramp from Harris Plant Road to
    northbound Kearny Villa Road:

    http://www.efgh.com/temp/22878.jpg

    Northbound bicyclists do not have to exit and re-enter Kearny Villa Road
    at the Harris Plant Road interchange:

    http://www.efgh.com/temp/22876.jpg

    However, southbound bicyclists are supposed to exit at Harris Plant Road
    and re-enter:

    http://www.efgh.com/temp/22888.jpg

    Where bicyclists cross Harris Plant Road, the pavement has been swept
    clean:

    http://www.efgh.com/temp/22895.jpg

    (I wonder how long it will stay so clean, with all the sand and gravel
    trucks passing through.)

    Crossing two ramps, one an entrance ramp from Harris Plant Road, and
    the other an entrance ramp to Highway 163, has always been the biggest
    challenge to southbound bicyclists. Is it now easier or harder?
    Take a look:

    http://www.efgh.com/temp/22903.jpg

    IMHO, it's now easier. (Jim Baross is sure to disagree.) This photograph
    also shows why riding along the dashed line between the on/off ramp
    and the adjacent through lane is not a good idea.

    Southbound bicyclists can still pass under Harris Plant Road. There
    are no signs or markings forbidding this maneuver. However, the marked
    bike lane has been scraped away.

    Throughout this area, added signage and curb markings make it clearer
    than ever that bicyclists are sharing this road:

    http://www.efgh.com/temp/22886.jpg
    And my response:
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Great pictures, Philip. Thanks. This one in particular really tells the story:

    http://www.efgh.com/temp/22903.jpg

    Perhaps I can describe what I did on this road relative to this picture and the vehicles in it.

    First, I agree that the photo illustrates why riding the striped line between the rightmost lane (that soon splits into a 2-lane onramp to 163) and the rightmost through lane is not a good idea. But the day I observed on this road, that's where most of the cyclists were riding, or just to the left or right of this stripe, which is just as problematic. The "flow" of the traffic headed for 163 south goes right across this line of travel.

    However, I also think it shows the problem with crossing from the bike lane. If you leave the bike lane too early, see above. If you stay in the bike lane to the very end, and no one lets you merge left (which is quite likely in such a small window), you will quickly run out of pavement, and have to stop and wait for a gap to cross. That's far from ideal, especially at rush hour.

    What I don't like about the new striping is that it encourages the stay-in-the-bike-lane approach above, and discourages the approach I think works best. As references, I'll refer to the vehicles in your photo: a white pickup, followed by a sedan, and then by what looks like a maroon pickup. If you don't get off at Harris Plant Rd, and continue along KV Road under the HP Rd bridge, start looking back over your left shoulder before you get to where the maroon pickup is. The goal is to move into the LEFT portion of the rightmost through lane.

    Exactly where you merge depends on the level of traffic, the availability of gaps, and the need to "create" a gap. That's why you have to start looking back early. Looking back serves two purposes. In addition to letting you assess the situation behind you, it is a communication mechanism. Motorists approaching from behind a cyclist who see him looking back like this, know that he is at least contemplating moving left. It's issuing a turn signal without taking either arm off the handlebars. However, while looking back often is all it takes to get someone to let you in, sometimes you may actually have to signal a left turn signal with your arm. In any case, once you have a gap, or someone slows down from their 55ish mph (speed limit here is 50) to your 15-20, you can move into the lane and establish your position in the LEFT portion. Obviously, this is no time to be dilly-dallying.

    But once you're positioned in the left portion of the lane, through traffic can pass you on your left - they have a whole lane to do this, and 163-headed traffic can pass you on the right, your presence perhaps requiring them to start moving over right a bit earlier than they might if you weren't there. But note that the maroon pickup is alrady merging right anyway, so if they have to adjust to deal with your presence, it's not much. Anyway, riding near that left stripe you should have hardly any impact on the flow, if any. You do have to be okay with impeding traffic, because you might, and you have to be comfortable with being passed by 55 mph traffic on both sides, which could take getting used to. Issuing a slow/stop arm signal while you're "out there" is also remarkably helpful in terms of getting them to notice you and even slow down as they pass you. As soon as you've passed the point where the 163-headed traffic is merging off, about where the white pickup is in the picture, do another shoulder check, this time over your right shoulder, and move to the right side of the through lane when it is safe and clear to do so. Riding near that stripe this late in the game is fine, again for reasons made obvious by the picture.

    To review, look at the picture and imagine cyclists riding to the left (east) of the white s/b pickup and the two cars behind it. That's what I'm talking about. This approach is completely discouraged by the new striping (and I realize many would say for good reason). YMMV. I'm not a lawyer, but legally speaking, I believe the 21202 "keep to the side" law does not apply here due to the exception that kicks in "whenever approaching a place where a right turn is authorized", which, arguably, is the situation here (with the right turn being the onramp to 163). The whole point of that exception, as I understand it, is to allow/encourage through cyclists to move LEFT when approaching such a place, to get out of the "conflict zone" with traffic that is turning right.

    My 2 cents,

  8. #8
    mac
    mac is offline
    They see me rollin' mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    My Bikes
    2005 Cannondale T2000
    Posts
    785
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Actually, I've been thinking about that, and its ramifications, since I read the article. The example in San Diego is Kearny Villa Road.
    Practically all of the new communities here in the Los Angeles suburbs are designed with a main "highway" interconnecting a lot of small, housing communities. Those communities are built behind sound walls so there are no driveways dumping into that main "highway." As I was driving in those areas visiting friends, I kept thinking how bicycle unfriendly those planned communities are. Of course, they say you should bicycle within the community since there's so much less traffic, but that's only a few miles in circumference. I guess city planners assume no one rides their bike over a few miles.

  9. #9
    jim anchower jamesdenver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    out west many freeways are the ONLY roads around, without even frontage roads

    l-70 in eastern Utah, I-15 in eastern california, I-76 in colorado some allow bikes and are marked, some don't

  10. #10
    Senior Member chicbicyclist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    My Bikes
    Batavus Old Dutch
    Posts
    605
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Those Kearny villa pictyures makes me appreciate I live in the downtown/uptown core. They just look so uninviting to cyclists. Not that urban areas are any better, but at least, you can expect cagers to be a little slower.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The city of Houston has many roads that are four to six lanes wide, with no parking allowed, and bumper to bumper traffic running at 40 mph to 50 mph. Trucks and buses are wider than the marked lanes, and so their right side tires run within a foot or two of the curbs. The curbs are stained black where vehicles have struck the curbs while trying to maintain a position in the too narrow lanes.

    There are no laws forbidding someone on a bike to ride on such roads, but I've never seen anyone insane enough to attempt it. Of course "sanity" has never meant much to folks who worship John Forester.

  12. #12
    Senior Member LCI_Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    in the hills of Orange, CA
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by alanbikehouston
    The city of Houston has many roads that are four to six lanes wide, with no parking allowed, and bumper to bumper traffic running at 40 mph to 50 mph. Trucks and buses are wider than the marked lanes, and so their right side tires run within a foot or two of the curbs. The curbs are stained black where vehicles have struck the curbs while trying to maintain a position in the too narrow lanes.

    There are no laws forbidding someone on a bike to ride on such roads, but I've never seen anyone insane enough to attempt it. Of course "sanity" has never meant much to folks who worship John Forester.
    Most of the 40 mph to 50 mph roads in my area are like that, but the lanes are 12 feet wide and a bike lane is provided. But there is a one mile section on my commute with three 12 foot lanes in each direction and no bike lanes. I can't honestly say it's the most pleasant part of my commute, but I've never had any major problems from motorists when "taking the lane".

    But I do think a key difference between these kinds of roads and true freeways is that motorists expect to have to slow down or stop on occasion for things such as traffic backed up at a light or a stopped bus - unlike a free flowing freeway where you don't have such things.
    -- I speak for myself only, not LAB or any other organization of which I am a member.

  13. #13
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
    Most of the 40 mph to 50 mph roads in my area are like that, but the lanes are 12 feet wide and a bike lane is provided. But there is a one mile section on my commute with three 12 foot lanes in each direction and no bike lanes. I can't honestly say it's the most pleasant part of my commute, but I've never had any major problems from motorists when "taking the lane".

    But I do think a key difference between these kinds of roads and true freeways is that motorists expect to have to slow down or stop on occasion for things such as traffic backed up at a light or a stopped bus - unlike a free flowing freeway where you don't have such things.
    Right. The problem on Kearny Villa Road south is that 90% of the traffic is headed for s/b I-15, and they \don't expect to have to stop or even slow down. They're in "freeway onramp" if not "freeway" mode already. It is traffic flow comprised of drivers with that mentality that cyclists have to cross. That's why I recommend getting to the LEFT of them as soon as possible... early.

  14. #14
    beginner budster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Somerset, NJ, USA
    My Bikes
    Trek 800, Gary Fisher Advance, Trek 2300 Pro
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    New Jersey is full of "semi-controlled-access" highways which don't expressly forbid bikes -- but on which I've never seen a bike (except occasionally on the shoulder, often against traffic) and on which I don't think I'll ever ride. North Carolina has some of these monstrosities (and many other states do too, I'm sure).

    Usually these roads have
    • High speed limits (50+)
    • Dividers (Jersey barriers, median)
    • Few (but some) signal-controlled intersections
    • Many ramped entrances/exits, often to actual freeways
    • Freeway style signage
    • No bike lanes, share-the-road signs or other reference to bicycles
    • Aggressive, impatient drivers in full freeway mode

    A classic example for New Jerseyans, would be US Hwy 1 between Newark and Trenton.

    I don't like driving on these things, and I will go miles out of my way to avoid them on a bicycle.

    I don't know the solution. Accept the situation, ambiguous as it is? Assert our rights to use these roads? (If so, after you, please. I insist. ) Modify these roads to facilitate safe cycling ( la KV)? Allow bicycles to be prohibited from such roads, as long as reasonable alternate routes exist?

    ???
    Last edited by budster; 01-11-06 at 01:31 AM.
    Path of Abundance: Be Kind, be Generous, be Content, be Honest and be Aware.

    The first great gift we can bestow on others is a good example. -Thomas Morell
    A thimble of patience is worth more than a bushel of brains. -Dutch Proverb
    Never pass up the chance to keep your mouth shut. -Anonymous Cowboy

  15. #15
    Gatoraid powered engine 2wheeledsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NW Houston, TX.
    My Bikes
    A mixed-breed beater util/commute rigid hybrid I frankensteined out of assorted resqued components, called "Streetdancer". Ugly as sin, yet beautiful in function.
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
    Most of the 40 mph to 50 mph roads in my area are like that, but the lanes are 12 feet wide and a bike lane is provided. But there is a one mile section on my commute with three 12 foot lanes in each direction and no bike lanes. I can't honestly say it's the most pleasant part of my commute, but I've never had any major problems from motorists when "taking the lane".

    But I do think a key difference between these kinds of roads and true freeways is that motorists expect to have to slow down or stop on occasion for things such as traffic backed up at a light or a stopped bus - unlike a free flowing freeway where you don't have such things.
    The boneheads here in Houston ram busses on a fairly regular basis. They ram the light rail trains even more.
    Slow down? Heh! It's some doing keeping them from racing down residential streets. Alan can back that up, I think.

  16. #16
    Sumanitu taka owaci LittleBigMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    8,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
    Be careful with this line of argument. Some newer roads in suburban areas, while not true freeways, are being designed with freeway-like characteristics, including free flowing right turn lanes, entrance and exit ramps, etc.
    I was thinking the same thing. My concern arises from the tendency to build roads in suburban areas that have freeway-like characteristics. In my neighborhood, even though the speed limit on one of these pseudo-freeways is 40 mph. and peppered with traffic lights and driveways (even homes,) it's common for the speed of general traffic to approach freeway speeds.

    This creates a bleed-over effect on older roads designed for even slower residential traffic. Drivers accustomed to flying along at up to 150% of the posted speed limit tend to do the same thing in residential areas where the posted limit is 25 to 35 mph.

    The end result is the intimidation of cyclists and potential cyclists through excessive speed.
    No worries

  17. #17
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,974
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here is a related link just for reference.
    http://list.massbike.org/archive/199709/0037.html
    Al

  18. #18
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,042
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chicbicyclist
    Those Kearny villa pictyures makes me appreciate I live in the downtown/uptown core. They just look so uninviting to cyclists. Not that urban areas are any better, but at least, you can expect cagers to be a little slower.
    It is a fast road, and on weekends and anytime off of the rush hour commute, it is a lightly traveled road (as it is paralleled in it's entire length by limited access freeways). From a cyclists perspective, it is a blast to ride... with the exception of the large (many trucks) fast (65MPH) close (much closer than if it were a limited access freeway) traffic. Remove that traffic (such as on a weekend) and it becomes a very fast nearly flat ride. I findmy self doing about 20+MPH on that route every time. It is a good spin for anyone that really spins.

    The real problem with it is in fact it's isolated nature and the speed... motorists look at that road as a shortcut and become complacent about their driving on it... and it is 65MPH for much of it's length. The road should really be "calmed" and given over to cyclists as primary users... there is little reason for the motoring public to use it at all... a nice wide freeway was built within a 1/2 mile to facilitate the needs of the motoring public... and initially the old road was marked at 45MPH... over time that creeped up to 65MPH.

    The really sad thing about the whole affair is that some 20 years ago that road was the hiway and cyclists took an isolated route that went onto a military air base... well separated from motor traffic. Of course with 9/11, that sort of thing is a bit harder to do today... but certainly the old road itself is no longer the freeway it once was and should therefore not be marked at freeway speeds.

  19. #19
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,042
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
    I was thinking the same thing. My concern arises from the tendency to build roads in suburban areas that have freeway-like characteristics. In my neighborhood, even though the speed limit on one of these pseudo-freeways is 40 mph. and peppered with traffic lights and driveways (even homes,) it's common for the speed of general traffic to approach freeway speeds.

    This creates a bleed-over effect on older roads designed for even slower residential traffic. Drivers accustomed to flying along at up to 150% of the posted speed limit tend to do the same thing in residential areas where the posted limit is 25 to 35 mph.

    The end result is the intimidation of cyclists and potential cyclists through excessive speed.

    +1

    The roads that HH and I both ride for our commutes are marked at 50MPH and traffic tends to be much faster. Sure, the roads are negotiable... by skilled experienced cyclists... but they don't make up the best part of my commute, that's for sure.

  20. #20
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
    This creates a bleed-over effect on older roads designed for even slower residential traffic. Drivers accustomed to flying along at up to 150% of the posted speed limit tend to do the same thing in residential areas where the posted limit is 25 to 35 mph.
    I call it "freeway mentality".

    As a pedestrian, try crossing any kind of "arterial" these days at a bonafide intersection without signals. Vehicle drivers are supposed to yield to pedestrians at all intersections, and they used to. But with the creep of freeway mentality to these roads, not so much anymore... Many drivers don't even seem to know that they're supposed to stop for any reason other than a red light or stop sign.

    Never-the-less, I find an assertive approach almost always works. I hope to include the following exercise in my book, as a way to build the "VC attitude"...

    Walk to an uncontrolled (no signal or stop sign) intersection on a busy arterial and stand at the corner waiting for someone to stop to let you cross. In all likelihood, no one will stop. Now put your right foot on the road pavement, face the oncoming traffic, leave the left foot on the sidewalk, raise your right arm straight up and a bit out, with open hand, palm facing the traffic. Someone will most likely stop almost right away. This is an example of "negotiating for the right of way". Once they stop, proceed to walk across the road, repeating the same technique at each lane, as required. Do this 5 or 6 times, preferably at different roads and intersections, until you feel comfortable asserting your right to cross a busy road at an uncontrolled intersection like this. If you can't get comfortable doing this, you'll never get comfortable negotiating with other traffic while cycling.

  21. #21
    Senior Member LCI_Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    in the hills of Orange, CA
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by budster
    New Jersey is full of "semi-controlled-access" highways which don't expressly forbid bikes -- but on which I've never seen a bike (except occasionally on the shoulder, often against traffic) and on which I don't think I'll ever ride. North Carolina has some of these monstrosities (and many other states do too, I'm sure).

    A classic example for New Jerseyans, would be US Hwy 1 between Newark and Trenton.

    I don't like driving on these things, and I will go miles out of my way to avoid them on a bicycle.
    I've been on US 1 in that area, and I can think of a couple of similar examples of where I grew up in the Boston area - US 1 in Saugus and Route 9 in Framingham. These two examples also have multiple driveways. But on the east coast there seem to be enough alternate routes, unless you're commuting to a business on one of these roads.
    -- I speak for myself only, not LAB or any other organization of which I am a member.

  22. #22
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,974
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Never-the-less, I find an assertive approach almost always works. I hope to include the following exercise in my book, as a way to build the "VC attitude"...

    Walk to an uncontrolled (no signal or stop sign) intersection on a busy arterial and stand at the corner waiting for someone to stop to let you cross. In all likelihood, no one will stop. Now put your right foot on the road pavement, face the oncoming traffic, leave the left foot on the sidewalk, raise your right arm straight up and a bit out, with open hand, palm facing the traffic. Someone will most likely stop almost right away. This is an example of "negotiating for the right of way". Once they stop, proceed to walk across the road, repeating the same technique at each lane, as required. Do this 5 or 6 times, preferably at different roads and intersections, until you feel comfortable asserting your right to cross a busy road at an uncontrolled intersection like this. If you can't get comfortable doing this, you'll never get comfortable negotiating with other traffic while cycling.
    Surely you jest. Well, I know you well enough to know you are not.
    There is no freaking way that one could ever get arterial (7-lane 45mph) traffic to stop at an unmarked x-walk even with all those antics, even one lane at a time. No way.

    Al

  23. #23
    Alien lifeform
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Houston, TX
    My Bikes
    2002 Specialized Expedition Elite, 2005 Jamis Aurora
    Posts
    263
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 2wheeledsoul
    There's a few of those here. Stubner-Airline and a couple of throughways downtown come to mind...
    I call them "streets of sudden death", and try to avoid them, or take a bus going along them. There's an uncomfortable number of major "sueside" intersections that are risky by bike, and you have to have a deathwish to cross them by foot.
    I live in a subdivison right off of Stuebner-Airline, and have no other way in or out of the subdivision. Stuebner-Airline is not that bad, except for rush-hour. I ride parts of it every day (north-side of Louetta). There are other roads around here that are far worse (Spring-Cypress comes to mind).

  24. #24
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by noisebeam
    Surely you jest. Well, I know you well enough to know you are not.
    There is no freaking way that one could ever get arterial (7-lane 45mph) traffic to stop at an unmarked x-walk even with all those antics, even one lane at a time. No way.

    Al
    Two words: try it.

    You'll be amazed.

    Assumptions: there are sidewalks, and you're at a corner of a 4-way intersection. Vehicles do slow down and turn into and out of the side road of the intersection, at least once in a while.

  25. #25
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,974
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Two words: try it.

    You'll be amazed.

    Assumptions: there are sidewalks, and you're at a corner of a 4-way intersection. Vehicles do slow down and turn into and out of the side road of the intersection, at least once in a while.
    I have. There is a pizza shop across the street from my neighborhood and where a side street crosses I've tried to cross by foot. With assertive hand waving it took me 8min to cross once. Usually I do the extra 1mi walk (1/2mi up and down street) to get to a controled signal.
    This resonates with me as my wife and I sometime wish the pizza shop, convinence store was a 1/4mi walk from home instead of a 1-1/4mi or a 1/4mi with running across 7 lanes of traffic after unsuccessfully trying to get drivers to stop.
    I will make a video and show you. As soon as one car stops blocking a lane all the others rapidly merge left to go around it. Its one thing to ride down the street with a speed differential of 20-25mph, but with a differential of 50mph drivers don't have time to react to some guy waving his arm on the sidewalk.
    Al

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •