Helmet-Head

When you're skiing, the person downhill has the right-of-way over anyone above him.

Similarly, when driving, the person ahead has the right-of-way over anyone behind him...
... Unless the person behind happens to be in a separate lane...

This is why the bike lane stripe can be so dangerous.
When there is no stripe, the cyclist up ahead has the right-of-way.
If there is an obstacle that causes the cyclist to suddenly swerve to avoid it, the motorist is clearly responsiible if he hits the cyclist.
So, a motorist coming from behind must slow down and make sure he passes that cyclist carefully and safely.
This is natural and intuitive, and explains why motorists do actually usually slow down and safely pass a cyclist who may be riding in the same lane.

Add a bike lane stripe and everything changes. All of a sudden the cyclist up ahead riding in the bike lane no longer has the right-of-way in the motorist's lane. The motorist legally, naturally and intuitively practically ignores the cyclist in the bike lane, just like he practically ignores any motor vehicles in an adjacent lane, and passes them as if they are not there. The motorist passing a cyclist in an adjacent bike lane typically does not slow down or adjust his lane position.

Couple this with the behavior of most cyclists in bike lanes to hug the left edge of the bike lane. If there is an obstacle that causes the cyclist to suddently swerve to avoid, the motorist's responsibility to avoid hitting the cyclist is much less clear.

Cyclists must swerve from time to time. Potholes, debris and obstacles happen. Bike lanes make that reality less safe.

I believe cyclists would be less likely to be injured or killed in motorist-passing-cyclist collisions if the bike lane stripes were eliminated. I realize there is no actual data supporting or refuting this hypothesis.

This argument applies assuming a bike lane is ANY lane designated exclusively or primarily for bicycle use, is adjacent to a vehicular lane, and is separated only by a painted stripe.

What do you think?

Dchiefransom

I understand your assumptions, Serge, but, unfortunately, I don't believe it would make cyclists safer. It might "possibly" give the police a reason to hold drivers more accountable for the same number of accidents, if the police would actually blame the drivers. They don't seem to want to blame the drivers now with those laws in place(without a bike lane), so I don't think it would change.
It seems the difference in our views is that my views of drivers and law enforcement are pretty "jaded".

Helmet-Head

Fair enough, but do you agree or disagree with my premise that motorists generally pass with greater care (slower, and with more passing distance) cyclists within their own lanes (who aren't hugging the right edge and hence yielding the right-of-way) than they pass cyclists riding in adjacent/separated bike lanes?

Dchiefransom

I don't agree with that premise, but when reflecting on it, it's only BECAUSE I feel my views of drivers and law enforcement are so jaded. I think a few of them "might", but those are the same ones that are more careful even if I'm in a bike lane. I realize it might be different in other areas, but I think the drivers are bad enough here that it's only luck. When I search my memory for incidents with motorized vehicles, I realize that most of the time I WAS riding in a vehicular manner, and it still didn't make a difference. Car driver education and punishment for screwing up would be the only things that would change things. I think my riding style isn't far from what a solid VC cyclist would ride, but I ride with the assumption that what I'm doing "might" increase my chances, but doesn't really have that much effect.

DieselDan

You are allowed to cross the dividing line if the lane is blocked, and a passing a slower cyclist is considered a block section of bike lane.

genec

I think motorist pass with greater care as they don't know what the heck you are doing in "their road."

https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=130

norton

Serge....I like it....but I don't expect it to convince pro-bike-lane people....

Treespeed

Serge,

I took great pains this morning to track how closely I was passed this morning on my commute in the bike lane and when riding between the center and right tire track of the far right lane of a three lane road with no shoulder and occasional parking. Not a single person drifted into the bike lane, which I think is what you attest to or at least that cars pass right up against the bike lane line. On the contrary, every car that passed me was centered in the lane.

Yet while I was riding vehicularly in far right lane I was usually passed much closer than the 3 feet you have claimed in past posts. And also many of those vehicles accelerated as they passed.

I think your premise is slightly flawed as it is based on the presumption that the only option for obstacle avoidance for the bike lane travelling cyclist is to move laterally into the left hand vehicle lane. What about stopping, moving right, bunny hopping an obstacle? As a VC cyclist you would never just arbitrarily veer right, or would you I presume be travelling so fast that you wouldn't be anticipating upcoming obstacles. Most commuters know every pothole, slick manhole cover and dirty stretch of roadway on their commute by memory. With this knowledge any instance of having to, as you say negotiate into traffic would be anticipated. It is an assumption of ignorance of cyclists who use bike lanes to imagine that their first instinct is to veer into the lane of traffic at the sight of every obstacle.

It is also wrong of you to assume that every bike lane is debris strewn. The lane that runs on Venice from Crenshaw to the Beach a distance of well over ten miles is as debris free as any piece of roadway I've experienced. And further, the only pothole free section of my commute is the one mile of the Venice bike lane that I traverse because it is the only place not destroyed by busses and heavy trucks.

You are right, if a cyclist swerves into the lane of traffic then she is in the wrong, but this is the same if a vehicle did the same thing in a traffic lane. This is a common accident in Los Angeles as drivers swerve around busses and left-turners. You would not assume that the vehicle lane was at fault in this sort of accident, nor is this a problem with bike lanes. Your premise only holds if we assume that all bike lane users are bad cyclists, something you are fond of assuming, but have done little to prove.

Helmet-Head

I know, but I think the spell-out-the-laundry-list-of-problems with bike lanes was obviously not working, so I thought a thread that focused on one particular problem with bike lanes might be helpful. Maybe I'll start a new one every Monday...


That may very well be the reason for some of them. What's important to me is that they NOTICE the cyclist, are AWARE of his or her presence, and pass with care. The reason they do all that is much less important to me than that they at least do it. I will add that the more cyclists ride that way, the fewer motorists will be surprised by it.


Get a cyclist buddy to go out to some busy/fast roadway some time.
Pick one with a bike lane.
Situate yourself where you have a good observation point.
Now have your buddy repeatedly ride through this section (perhaps going around the block each time) while you observe the behavior of motorists and compare what they do when he is present, and when he is not. Have your buddy alternate between riding in the center of the bike lane, just inside the bike lane, and one foot to the LEFT of the stripe (outside of the bike lane). Make careful observations on how motorist behavior reacts to his presence, if it does at all, and whether his position plays a role in how they react.

Now do the same thing on another stretch of road with a wide outside lane. Each time around have your buddy alternate between riding vehicularly (about 3 feet to the right of moving traffic) and riding way to the right, hugging the right edge. Make similar notes.

Then come back and tell me how you feel about my assumption.

Dchiefransom

I've already told you how they react to ME, so I don't need to do it with someone else. Your point doesn't work in every single place in the world, so now you want me to keep checking it until it meets your "specs". Your "utopian" method of cycling does not work everywhere, at every time.
I don't always ride by myself, I ride with a club, and we get strung out, so I've had plenty of chances to observe how cars react to us.

patc

I will add that in my experience I always get more clearance from cars when riding in a bike lane, as opposed to a WOL. In fact, this is my single biggest issue with cycling in Ottawa: drivers give you little or no clearance when sharing the lane, no matter how wide it is.

In addition our bike lanes are 1.5m to 2m wide (5 to 6.5 feet), plenty of room to navigate around most obstacles.

galen_52657

In a perfect world, the right hand lane of major roadways in metropolitan areas would be 14 feet wide instead of the standard 12 feet, have plenty of signage noting bicycle use, have all storm inlets bike safe and a speed limit of 30 MPH - no stripe would be necessary.

Blackberry

As someone who has lived in a community that had no bikes lanes and then added bike lanes, I'll throw in my two cents. I think bike lanes in my town are generally a good thing, and here's why: They are marked with a wide white strip of paint and a white diamond at regular intervals. There are also, at regular intervals, yellow signs showing a bicycle rider. Hence, motorists are reminded in a consistent regular way that cyclists EXIST AT ALL and have at least some right to the road.

I guess we all bring our assumptions to this discussion and mine is that motorists generally don't mean cyclists harm but they also don't believe that bicycles belong on roadways. Roads are for cars. Hence, any official, visible recognition of bicyclists through signs, bike lanes, etc. is good.

My bottom line. I use bike lanes in town. I'm glad to have 'em.

Helmet-Head

Not at all. Note the bold statement in my opening post of this thread: The motorist passing a cyclist in an adjacent bike lane typically does not slow down or adjust his lane position. I am not contending that motorists drift into bike lanes (if they did, we would have fewer debris problems in bike lanes!). While I think some times motorists do drive right up against the bike lane stripe, that's not key to my point at all. My point is that cyclists typically ride near the bike lane stripe, such that their shoulder and hips are often encroaching as much as a foot into the adjacent vehicular lane. If that lane is 10 feet wide, and the 6 foot wide vehicle is centered (2 feet on each side) - that puts the right edge of the car one foot from the cyclist. Even if the adjacent lane is 12 feet wide (very rare next to a 4-5 foot wide bike lane) the centered 6 foot wide car is still only 2 feet from the stripe-following cyclist. Of course, many modern vehicles are much wider than 6 feet, and can be as wide as 9.5 feet.


Exactly my point (particularly if they did not slow down as they passed you). In general, I find that motorists passing cyclists in adjacent bike lanes behave as if the cyclist is not there. That is, they drive at the same speed and lane position whether there is a cyclist in the adjacent bike lane or not. Diane says I shouldn't ask if you agree, but I want to establish whether we have agreement on this point. Whether it's a good thing or not, and whether it's any different when motorists pass cyclists sharing a WOL, we can discuss later. But, for now, can we agree that at least when motorists pass cyclists riding in bike lanes, the effect of the cyclist's presence on the motorist's behavior (in terms of speed and lateral positioning) is generally negligible?


First, the fact that you noticed them accelerate as they passed is evidence of something very revealing: they slowed first (which is why they needed to accelerate after they passed). This is markedly different from typical passing of a cyclist in a bike lane and again makes my point: motorists pass cyclists riding in bike lanes as if they are not there. Of course they don't accelerate when you're in a bike lane because they never slowed down. I don't know about you, but I want them to slow down before they pass me. Hearing them accelerate after they pass is a good thing.

As far as being passed closer than the 3 feet while you're in the right lane, this needs further analysis. First of all, how wide is the lane? In particular, is it "wide" (wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side by car and bike - including a 3 feet space, or not?). The minimum "wide" lane is 14 feet. This allows for a 6 foot wide car on the left edge, a 3 foot gap, a 2 foot wide cyclist, and 3 more feet to the right edge (6+3+2+3=14).

I also don't know what you mean in terms of lane position when you say "I was riding vehicularly in far right lane". I have found that subtle adjustment to my lane position causes motorists to pass me with very different passing distances. The other thing that's interesting is how consistent they are: in any given position almost all of them pass me in the same manner. So if moving left a foot will cause one motorist to pass me with greater care and space, it will will probably cause others to do the same.

One factor is they seem to want to preserve symmetry. If I leave X feet of space on my right to the edge of the road, they tend to not encroach on the X feet of space on my left. One notable exception is in a narrow (10-13.5 feet) lane when encroaching on that X feet to my left allows them to squeeze in - even though the lane is technically too narrow. The solution then is to move even further left, making it clear that they cannot squeeze in beside me. There's a magic point where that happens. Once they are resigned to the fact that they cannot squeeze in to pass, and must visit the adjacent lane to their left to pass, they almost always pass with plenty of extra space.


I think you mean my argument is flawed because it is based on the premise that the only option... My premise is that sometimes, however rarely, yes, the only option a cyclist may have in some situations is to swerve left laterally. At other times the only option may be to swerve right. Still other times he may be able to choose, or bunny hop. But, yes, some times, when all the right (wrong) merde happens at once, the cyclist's only option is to swerve left. My argument is based on that premise.


Some cyclists are not commuters and don't know every obstacle on their route. Besides, even on regular routes, often obstacles appear. They fall off trucks or whatever. Bottles break. You can even read the pot hole thread for testimony about pot holes appearing over night. Sooner or later a cyclist encounters an obstacle which requires him to swerve left to avoid it. This also happens to motorcyclists.


The assumption of ignorance (about all obstacles) is not limited to cyclist who use bike lanes. Nor do I imagine their first instinct is to veer left at the sight of every obstacle. I am saying it happens, and it happens to everyone, sooner or later. Hopefully, it never happens right as you're being passed on the left too closely. But, sadly, that does happen too, and I think bike lanes encourage motorist behavior (passing without adjusting lane position or speed) that increases the possibility of this happening.


I agree. Which is why I don't assume that every bike lane is debris strewn.
But it's also wrong to assume that no bike lane has debris in it.
The point is some bike lanes have some debris in them, and many have enough to encourage cyclist to ride near the stripe, thus putting their handlebars and bodies at least partially into the adjacent travel lane (this is probably more common with roadies on thin tires than for folks on wide tires who are less sensitive to avoiding debris).


You're not understanding my argument if you think that's my premise. I'm actually thinking of myself in this example, and I don't see myself as a bad cyclist. When I ride in bike lanes, I am often riding near the stripe - partially encroaching into the adjacent lane. I am susceptible to swerving left suddenly just like any other cyclist, because of factors and conditions that may occur outside of my control, and for which my only evasive option may be to swerve left. If at that moment I am being passed too closely by a motorist, I'm dead (perhaps not literally, but maybe).

I find that I am passed too closely, and thus vulnerable to this type of collision, much more often when I am in a bike lane than when I'm not. I believe this is because I know how to adjust my position in a regular lane so as to discourage close passing by motorists who are sharing that lane with me. Since I'm ahead of them in the same lane, I have the right-of-way, and I can use that to control their behavior. But when I'm in the bike lane with no right-of-way in the motorists' adjacent lane, I have no control over their behavior, and they pass me as if I'm not even there.

noisebeam

And I consistenly get more clearance when riding in a WOL compared to BL on exact same roads (i.e I am not comparing a residential WOL to BL on mulitlane road). I note this difference every day.
So obviously something is different, be it regional differences in WOL/BL design, traffic customs, etc.

Al

noisebeam

I am curious. Were these BL added by adding addtional pavement to the road or were they created by painting a line on roads that already had WOLs?

In regard to your second paragraph "...they also don't believe that bicycles belong on roadways." Do you think at all that a separate BL re-enforces the idea that cyclists don't belong on the 'real road'?

Al

Blackberry

Additional pavement was not added. The bike lanes seem to have been added on a "what works with the situation we have" basis. I don't know if it reinforces the idea that cyclists don't belong on real roads. It might. It may also be worth considering that I live in a college town with, likely, more bikes per capita than most small cities. I don't have any particular axe to grind and I'm not familiar, even, with some of the terms being thrown around on this board, but from my perspective, bike lanes in this particular community make me feel that I am at least somewhat of a factor on the road.

For what it's worth, I've always taken somewhat of a Taoist approach to cylcing. I try to flow with serenity and awareness (Sometimes I'm better at this than others). However, in 30 years of riding, I have yet to have a serious encounter with another vehicle--bike lanes or not. Of course, this could all change tomorrow. Clearly, from this and other threads, my approach would not be everybody's cup of tea.

Helmet-Head

That sounds like vehicular cycling to me.

I find that bike lanes interrupt the flow with serenity.

noisebeam

A bit of a stretch? Maybe, maybe not. I do find BLs add to visual clutter. I do find I think about them and what traffic thinks about where I am when they are around, especially when I am out of one when present. When not around I tend to just think about enjoying the ride and being safe and predictable. For me there is a pleasure of safety sharing a lane instead of the constant awareness of which side of BL stripe I am on and what that means.

(All this above should not be construed as pro- or anti-BL reasoning, just my ramblings. )

Al

Paul L.

I am curious. Is there any hard data that shows Drivers percieve bike lanes as meaning "bikes keep off the road"? Carpool lanes seem to not have any influence over opinions of carpoolers.

It seems to me that the average driver would have a tendency to think bikes should not be allowed at all, but if we have a bike lane then we have at least chipped away at that mentality a little. Has anyone done any actual surveys or statistics on this (on how drivers opinions are affected by bike lanes) or are we all just philosophizing here? Personally as long as the road is wide enough I don't care about bike lanes. I do tend to not check behind me as much if there is a lane as I know most drivers will stay between the lines. It is not the careful drivers (who do slow down) I fear but the innatentive ones who are talking on a cell phone or whose attentiveness is otherwise compromised. If the city does not intend to build a bike lane it seems to me with budgets being what they are, the width is not there when the road is built though. I definitely like bike lanes better than narrow lanes.

Incidentally (in reference to an earlier post), an accelerating car has nothing to do with slowing down for me necessarily. I don't know about you but many people (mostly morons) accelerate past me because that is how they can rev their engine and show me how mad and stupid they are.

patc

If nothing else, I think it had become clear in these discussions that regional differences are very significant indeed. (Not that I offer my experience as a full survey of my region).

Treespeed

Serge,

I see what you are saying, yes eventually every motorist cyclists will have veering left as their only escape route. But this is not a valid argument against bike lanes. In every vehicle lane it is the responsibility of the user to avoid obstacles by either braking or going around them. If a motor vehicle veers out of their lane to avoid an obstacle and hits something they are liable. We both of course agree with that point.

But then you make the point that cyclists hug the stripe of the bike lane and it is only with this assumption that you can start doing figures of passing clearance. It is my experience that most cyclists position themselves in the middle of the bike lane, not at the left edge. Further the law already states that you need to stay in whatever lane you are in unless you can safely signal and move whether you are a car or bike in a car or bike lane. Yes, potholes and beer bottles appear out of nowhere, but that is no excuse to sideswipe someone. Sometimes you have to just slam on the brakes and hope for the best car or bike. I don't know anyone who would blindly veer out of their lane and to do so would be negligent. So your criticism in this instance is based on the assumption of cyclists being negligent, which whether it happens or not is not a valid criticism of bike lanes. Cyclists can ride negligently in a WOL too, it doesn't reflect a fault with that design either.

If a BL is clean, which in rainy Seattle they were, and a cyclist keeps to the center except when properly signalling her need to leave the lane, then this criticism disappears.

As far as the passing clearance of overtaking motorists again no matter my position in the lane motorists in South Central pass as close as they possibly can. Though hugging the right curb is always a recipe for disaster as this is merely an excuse to push you completely off the road. Yet on the Venice BL where I ride centered in the lane I easily have 3 feet on either side of my bike from the curb or line. Then from the line most motorists are at least a foot as they are centered in the roadway. With 4 feet I don't care if they are doing 50mph, which they usually are. Yet when I am riding in a narrow lane with 50mph traffic speeds, no shoulder and passing clearances of only a foot or two I do not enjoy myself as much. You are mistaken about cars slowing before they pass, maybe to 40-45mph, but not slowing to anything considered safe. The line of cars behind me is backed up, but every car that passes is accelerating around me to make a point of their displeasure at me claiming my space of the road. I do this all the time, have been doing it for years, and will continue to do it. But to claim that this bull**** is safer than a well maintained bike lane is wrong and I've had years of experience with both to know the difference. There is no phobia here, no beliefs based on emotion, just real riding in multiple cities with a variety of facilities to know firsthand what works best. I don't see any contradiction between being a skilled cyclist and using facilities.

noisebeam

This link (probably already posted at one point) has some good points about WOL vs BL. While it is obviously in favor of WOLs it does also note some of the downsides.

https://www.bicyclinglife.com/Effecti...cy/blvswol.htm

Al

sbhikes

I agree.

And if you claim to be a vehicular cyclist, and you say that being "vehicular" means you adhere to the laws regarding vehicle traffic, then you too are (or should be) using bike facilities when they are there because that is the law.

I really wish we could disengage the anti-bike lane debate from the vehicular cycling debate since they are not the same thing. You can be a skilled, experienced cyclist and use the facilities--even enjoy the facilities. It's not mutually exclusive.

noisebeam

It is not the law in all regions that one must use the facilities. That I am thankful for.
I am far from 'experienced' (I save that for folks who have many decades of cycling and throughout regions of a country), but have lots of good experience and of course I often use the facilities (bike lanes) but also know when not to use them. Just because a BL is there doesn't mean I don't ride in it because I am making a point, but I do leave the BL when traffic speed equals my speed, well before intersections when making left turns and other destination positioning (straight, right turns) as the situation requires.
Al