oboeguy

Yet again today on my own street, I was riding outside of the pathetic excuse for a bike lane and avoided a dooring. What's the point of a bike lane that isn't even as wide as the door zone, I ask? While on the topic of ranting about today's ride, did my butt look so good today that three different drivers had to tailgate me at high speeds during a three mile commute? What's up with that? (sorry no pics haha)

Helmet Head

The point of a door-zone bike lane is the same as the point for any bike lane: to get and keep bicyclists out of the way of same-direction traffic.

Whether bike lanes direct cyclists to ride somewhere dangerous or not is irrelevant to their purpose.
In fact, since whether a particular position on the roadway is safe or not depends on an ever-changing variety of factors and conditions, ALL bike lanes (which are inherently static) direct cyclists to ride somewhere dangerous at least some of the time. After all, even door zone bike lanes are safe to ride as long as no one is about to open a door.

Door zone bike lanes are not an exception. They are the norm.

derath

I don't even think that is quite true. I think in these cases the only point is:

"So politicians can take credit for adding X miles of bike lanes/alternative travel options"

I have seen more BL's being added on new roads lately in MD. For the most part they are completely idiotic.

There is one section of road, suburban/rural. The BL goes for about 1/2 mile (the new road construction) and ends at nothing, no shoulder. Then it widens to a shoulder. Then the shoulder ends and there is a bike path about 20feet from the road, although there is no connection. You would have to walk from the road over to the path. The path maybe goes about a mile, then ends. At this point the road has no shoulder...

I am convinced this is just a ploy so that come election time, BL construction can be a bullet point in a campaign platform.

-D

CommuterRun

There isn't any.

This is one of the inherent problems with bike lanes. When people who don't know what they're doing plan, approve and develop these things.

Helmet Head

I don't disagree. I'm just looking deeper into the issue.

Why do you think politicians get any credit for "adding X miles of bike lanes"?

Because, that's X more miles of cyclists clearly knowing their place: out of the way of same-direction traffic.

genec

Do you honestly think that either politicians or traffic planners look at BL this way... "cyclists now know their place."

sbhikes

Planned irrelevance.

It's a mistake in the implementation. Good bike lanes will be outside the door zone. Your advocacy organization should be putting pressure on the planners to do it properly.

noisebeam

There should be national level standards and driven by bike lane proponents, not by cycling advocates. Proponents of BL should present and agree upon clear, nationally agreed upon standard for bike lane stripes before continuing to push for more bike lanes that only meet standards that today allow for door zones.

Another problem is that on street parking may be added after a BL is put in place. This very situation has happened a few times, the curb and sidewalk were moved further out and parallel lots were added in front of apartment building along roads with BLs. Bike lane advocates are not involved (and can they reaonably be expected to) in these 'on the surface' minor alterations that occur between properly owner and city. But if guidelines were in place the city may be more likely to not allow these situations to happen.

Al

Helmet Head

Not necessarily. They just know they get credit for putting in the bike lanes. They don't care why they get the credit.

Besides, few people think in those terms literally. Most people just support bike lanes, they really don't think about why, much less realize it's because they believe deep down that cyclists should be segregated from motor traffic as much as possible. Since they never realize that, they can never begin to see the problems with believing it.

CommuterRun

This is true in that any movement in the direction of serviceable bike lanes should be advocated by bike lane proponents. Otherwise you might somebody that thinks like me up there. Multiple narrow lanes. If a car wants to pass, there's another lane right there. They can move over as passing any other slower vehicle.

Keith99

I actually can think of 2 places where what are technically 'door zone' bike lanes are pretty useful. Oops make that 3. If I keep thinking I can probably come up with an even dozen. These are all in areas where parking is legal, but uncommon. One is about 5 miles long and the last time I rode it I think there were 2 parked cars. Here the bike lane serves to keep the (rather wide) parking area from becoming a defacto extra lane for the impatient. Actually most of these are only borderline 'door zone' bike lanes as if you ride on the extreem left of the bike lane yuo are probably out of range of the door of a legally parked car.

These all also have lines on both the left and right edges of the bike lane so they also encourage cyclists to not be curb huggers.

BTW one of these is on a hill so steep that cyclists are rare (very rare it is the shortest route between my house and my folks only 3 miles away so I end up driving it reasonably oftenyet have seen less than a half dozen cyclists on it total). That bike lane is NOT there for cyclists. It is there because the road is wide enough for 2 lanes each way and home oners did not like the traffic so a bike lane was a good excuse to narrow the road to one lane each way.

genec

This is not to support the "segregation mentality," but to point out yet again, that due to the physical differences between the types of vehicles, separation, in some manner, makes sense. You deny this, but at the same time, while riding on a fast (say 50MPH WOL) you are indeed laterally separated. You are not in the main flow of motor traffic, you are beside it. You cannot deny that. That is perhaps where that "mentality of separation" comes in... not due to some "overwhelming conspiracy" to downplay all cyclists. Physics, plain and simple.

Motor traffic simply can move more people in less time by using higher speeds than bicycles can; which accounts for the desire for those motor vehicles to move fast. Fully integrated cycling occupying the exact same location of otherwise faster capable vehicles will slow down those otherwise faster capable vehicles, thus a form of separation allows the faster capable vehicles to move at rates suitable for their design.

To put this in simple terms. You have mentioned that many of the cyclists at the advocacy meetings drive to save time. If all vehicles were fully integrated on the roads and moved at cyclists' rate of speeds, then no time savings for using faster capable vehicles would result.... and thus there would be no reason for faster capable vehicles. (not that that is a bad thing).

Bike lanes are simply a formalized method of separation that allows for overall better traffic flow.

Properly designing these separated lanes is where advocacy should take the bull by the horns... instead of allowing "others" that have no experiece in cycling to create what we now have.

Helmet Head

And in the south they used to say (well, I'm sure some still do, and not just in the south), "this is not to support the 'racist mentality', but my daughter will marry that boy over my dead body."

Whether you realize it or not, saying "separation, in some manner, makes sense" DOES support the "segregation mentality".

But not because of PHYSICAL differences. Because of SPEED difference I'm further to the right (when faster same-direction traffic is present). That's just standard speed positioning. If that road happens to be a 15% downgrade, our physical differences are no different, but now I'm out there positioned just like the motorcyclists (e.g., El Camino Real going north out of Del Mar, despite the stupid and dangerous bike lane there that encourages 30-50+ mph cyclists to ride 2-3' from the curb!).


I just did.

No, traffic rules, plain and simple. Same traffic rules that apply to all drivers of the road equally.


There are all kinds of vehicles with varying degrees. Bicyclists just tend to be on the slow end of the spectrum much of the time (some more than others), but it's all a difference in degree along a continuum that warrants separation based on speed when applicable to drivers of all vehicles, not a difference in kind that warrants segregation by vehicle type (i.e., BIKE lanes) for bicyclists.

Well, it certainly allows for better traffic flow for motorists, there is no denying that. And for the cyclist who believes he is obligated to get and stay out of the way anyway, have a designated space to do that might feel comforting.

Can we agree that there is now way to design these "separated lanes" "properly" at least in urban and suburban areas with no long stretches of intersectionless (including no driveways) roadway?

sbhikes

Most of the bike lanes that I use are on streets with no parking allowed.

You have look at this more like this: take the free public storage of private motor vehicles out and fill that space with something else that encourages people to leave their cars at home, like how about a bike lane!

You can't have any change at all to our stupid car-centric lifestyle if you don't make some kind of change to the system. If it's just paint on the road without a concomittent inconvenience to cars, it's not doing anything. It has to be done in a manner that is a force for change. Change the culture of the streets.

SingingSabre 

What a strong conviction! Why not go a bit simpler and say (with fancy bold and italics to make it seem more valid) "simple oversight from the planning comitee?" I don't know...just a thought.

"They" aren't really out to get us. They are just trying to do their job and satisfy their constituents and, some, keep getting their corrupt kickbacks. That's all.

Let me restate what you just wrote: Whether bike lanes direct cyclists to ride somewhere dangerous or not is irrelevant to their purpose.

That's a very interesting claim. In order to substantiate that, one would have to figure out what purpose a bike lane serves. I'm 100% certain that the purpose of a bike lane is not a static thing, but rather changes not onle street-by-street and block-by-block, but even from minute-to-minute with traffic conditions. I'd go on and list what I feel these purposes are, but I need to get going soon to go to a family dinner (although with the inanity of my family, I'd rather debate inanities of bike lanes...how pathetic and sad...pathetisad).

Not in my city. Too general of a statement. Refuted by default.

Har har! Vive la revolucion!

Some bike lanes are created just so the politicians can get credit for putting in bike lanes. Some are created because cyclists want a safe place to cycle on a road and they get to be an integral part of the bike lane planning process.

Take Campbell Ave between Glenn and Speedway, in Tucson, AZ for instance. Two lanes in each direction, a middle turn lane, and no bike lanes. Fairly narrow and extremely dangerous to ride on. So dangerous that I avoid it, and I am quite comfortable riding in dangerous roads in Tucson.

Some planners are working on turning Campbell Ave into a shopping hub for Tucson and part of their plans are to get a bike lane (sans door zone, park in the lots, darnit!) installed for this section. It will make the traffic lanes narrower, but it will make cycling infinately safer there.

HH, you might want to try this road, but beware, during rush hour, I doubt even you would be comfortable on it. It's a hideous road. Bike lanes will make it wonderful!

Seperating lanes does not support any segregation mentality. Crimony! It keeps things moving smoothly so that people don't get held up by self-righteous cyclists slowing down traffic. Keep cyclists to the side and they won't be in as much danger. If the cyclist needs to take the lane for whatever reason, he can safely exit the bike lane by checking he has ample cushion and signal his change. Just like any other car.

Slower traffic keeps right. It works simply swell on the Autobahn, why shouldn't it work with cyclists and motorists? The effective motorists who know their stuff know to look out for cyclists (and peds, motorcyclists, and various unexpected hazards/traffic considerations). It's the bad apples that spoil the barrel. One bad apple may not spoil the barrel, but it makes them all stink.

It's not about the lanes, it's the bad drivers!

I half expect a brand new thread to debate this point coming up tomorrow.

joejack951

Any pictures of this road? What makes it extremely dangerous to ride on? The narrowness? The speed of traffic? The density of traffic? Just because you avoid it doesn't mean *****.

Assuming it's the narrowness of the road in part, when they add bike lanes, are they going to add width to the road as well? Or are they just restriping things?

No one here has a problem with slower traffic (for there to be slow traffic, there must be faster traffic though) keeping right. The question is "how far right?" At intersections where there might be turning traffic, even slower traffic shouldn't be too far right otherwise they are unnecessarily blocking right turning traffic and at the same time putting themselves in a dangerous situation because of their unpredictability. With no same direction, who is being held up when slower traffic rides further to the right than they would be if there was faster same direction traffic?

galen_52657

This is a fallacy. Single occupancy vehicles can move one person faster than one person on a bike, but considering you could fit 6 bikes in the area taken up by the average car, and maybe 10 bikes in the area allotted to each car in the roadway, you can move more people a little slower by bicycle. Throw in a congested urban area and then more people faster by bicycle.

Helmet Head

Hence the reason mesengers don't use Suburbans...

serpico7

To teach motorists yet another way they can take out a cyclist.

When motorists tell me I should be in the bike lane, I tell them to come take a ride with me and see how many doors in the face they'll take before they change their point of view.

genec

And yet even bike advocates chose motor vehicles for expediancy.

Of course if folks car pooled... then vans could carry as many as 8.

Oh, there's that "if" statement eh... but then your arguement about bikes "moving more people" involves the "if" of getting people to ride.

SingingSabre 

They aren't going to add any width to the road, just take away from traffic lanes, as was stated in my post.

Pictures I do not have. What makes it extremely dangerous to ride on is the fact that people like to drive faster than the size and conditions allow. Throw in the fact that there are almost always 2-3 people lined up in the turning lane during rush hour and you have plenty of hazards and distractions for cyclists.

The fact that I avoid this road does mean, as you so eloquently put it, *****. I take the lane when needed and when called for. Taking the lane here will get you almost run over. I know this because I have done it a number of times. There's a much slower, nicer road with huge bike lanes and signs saying "no motorized vehicles in bike lane" just West of it, but it's not always logical to take.

Bike lanes will, from my experience, focus traffic to a slower pace (there are studies which show that when people feel closed in, they slow down significantly) and if not slow traffic down, at least keep people in their lines for this stretch of road.

How far right? How about in the middle of the rightmost lane. You know, the same way cars are supposed to drive in their lanes?

As to blocking right turning traffic, that is a negligible consequence of bike lanes. Attentive motorists will not have any issues with cyclists in a right lane. Again, you're arguing that something is ineffective when it's really the motorists' who cause the problems fault.

Debating the usefulness of general bike lanes defeats the purpose of the OP of this thread.

Finally, speaking of vehicular unpredictability...nevermind. I won't go there in this post.

LittleBigMan

It's a Commie plot.

I-Like-To-Bike

Waaaay off. It's a conspiracy of environmentalists and motorists' advocacy organizations. Source? The Best - John Forester Internet Discussion List Rants.

Bekologist

i imagine the point of a door zone bike lane is to give a city a substandard facility they can upgrade with parking side buffers, or removing parking altogther or batch it using traffic calming parking inserts.

all roads with well accomodated lane striping should have cars yeild to bikes signage, etc.

bike lanes are to provide preferential space and allocate roadway space for bikes. Almost 40 percent of the population doesn't drive; the new trend in street design is the notion of "Complete streets"- reclaiming the public roadways for ALL users.

We are going to see more facilities and accomomodations in the coming years in america. they aren't going away, and there will continue to be good and bad lane striping patterns that can continually be improved upon.

learing how to recognize a good facility will benefit any vehicular bicyclist.

a vehicular bicyclist will default to a clean and well provided bike lane that is safe to ride in.

I-Like-To-Bike

Wonderful. Helmet Head knows what everyone else believes deep down without ever realizing it. Amazing the powers of clairvoyance! Or is it the power of an ideologue to believe in his own power of mind reading?

Actually HH can't claim this brilliant wizard like insight for himself. He is just channeling the mantra of the Grand Wizard of Bike Hysterics.