Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 125
  1. #76
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,045
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FanaticMN View Post
    I'll just leave this brand spanking new report of the 2013 count results in Minneapolis, with data on gender and winter and all sorts of things, showing a 78% increase since 2007, a 13% increase in the past year, a 9% mode share on bridges, and a significant decline in sidewalk riding when bicycle infrastructure is present, right here.

    http://www.bikewalktwincities.org/si...nal-lowres.pdf
    Oops, excuse me... someone seems to have dropped their little report here... uh, is this your's? Oh and is this something of a before and after set of results...

    Locations with new bikeway facilities showed higher increases in bicycling than locations without
    improvements. For example, two locations in north Minneapolis, 7th Street N. over I-94 and
    Lyndale Ave. N. south of Broadway, averaged nearly the same when neither had bike lanes. In 2009,
    the 7th Street location had 13 bicyclists in the two hour count period, while the Lyndale location
    had 12. After bike lanes were added in 2012, the 7th Street location doubled to 26 and was up to
    33 in 2013. Meanwhile the Lyndale location (still without bike lanes) recorded only 10 in 2012 and
    11 bicyclists in 2013.
    Sorry... I didn't mean to drop that...

  2. #77
    Senior Member dynodonn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6,881
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    It is a gradual thing... First the demand, then the response and improvement, then more demand, and so on, with each improvement enabling greater and greater numbers until ultimately the activity is seen as a routine thing.
    Yep, just look at portions of our highways and freeways near many urban areas, at first, two lanes in each direction was deemed sufficient, then expanded to three, four and eventually even more.

  3. #78
    Transportation Cyclist turbo1889's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana U.S.A.
    My Bikes
    Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
    Posts
    1,206
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @buzzman

    If you were riding on a good pavement condition, consistently 6' shoulder edge of a 45-mph speed limit roadway where cars routinely drove significantly faster then that and you were pulled over by a city cop flashing lights and sirens and all and given a ticket (and not just a warning one, one with $$$) for violating the local city ordinance that required mandatory use of bicycle infrastructure, namely in this case an MUP side-path with multiple unmarked crossings across 3 speedway type exit ramps in the space of four blocks that were very hazardous crossings on the path and it was safer in your opinion to ride on that wide shoulder edge and then in the extreme left hand part of each of those right hand turn lanes that were built like exit ramps with the exiting high speed vehicle traffic passing you on the right.

    And you then won in traffic court against the ticket on the basis of the state law superiority and consistency of traffic regulations clause that only allowed local jurisdictions to ban bicycles from certain sections of sidewalk and no other local regulation of bicycle traffic that conflicted state law was permitted by local jurisdictions. Along with pointing out the safety issues as well with the path in court.

    And as a result of winning that court case the local bicycle advocacy group in that town who were at least in part responsible for getting that path built responded by making an addition to their primary bylaws, by an easy 2/3 super majority required for such an action in their system, stating that their organization would support a mandatory use law at the state level and/or changing the state law superiority and consistency of traffic regulations clause to not cover bicycles and allow complete local regulation of bicycle traffic.

    Would you also say that "a considerable majority of them are anti- road rights for cyclists and believe cyclists do not belong on the roads and are willing to violate the rights of others to get them off the road" ??????

    I understand the story you have previously related about a group of militant VC cyclists who did almost everything they could to prevent a local path in your area from being built and actively sought to violate the rights of others to have a path and use it instead of the road if they so chose to do so. What I think you fail to understand is that works both ways and some (which in certain situations are the majority) of pro- bike side-path activists are also willing to actively seek to violate the rights of those who choose to ride on the road. Neither behavior of actively seeking to attack the rights of others is acceptable, its one thing to say bike lanes or bike paths need to be done in at least a half-way safe way, its an entirely different thing to actively seek to violate the rights of others to either use a path or to ride the road.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff View Post
    Sounds like something you are doing is royally pissing people off.
    Yes, I'm riding a bike, and I'm daring to actually ride it on the road which is sovereign car territory. That is my primary sin much less my desire that bicycle specific infrastructure actually be done in a half way decent manner and that its use always remain voluntary and road rights for cyclists continue to be preserved.

    It's like dogs and cats with their primitive territorial instincts. Dog see cat on its territory, dog start barking snapping and growling and charge cat in an attack run to make cat get off dogs territory. That same base level instinct is what is at play. And, oh yah, it goes the other way too, God forbid a car preparing to make a right hand turn safely merge over to the right into the bike lane before doing so rather then risk making an abrupt right hook. Cat starts hissing and arching its back when that happen, dog in cat territory cat must get all upset. Or another more usual example for me, electric assist cargo bike in bike lane or on bike path (100% legal and 100% still a bicycle in my state so long as the electric motor is within certain size and speed limits and the pedals are still part of the equation) basically a cat of another color and the other cats start arching their back and hissing at me. Territorial aggression at a very primitive reptilian inner brain core level is a huge problem at least up here. If someone is different they must be attacked for daring to be different that is the social code, especially if they are on your territory. I mean seriously even though the law very clearly states that you can only shoot someone for trespassing if they are trespassing inside your house and under force-able entry situation and yet every once in a while there are still cases of people shooting other people just for trespassing on the outer fringes of their property up here and they think they are justified in doing so and it ends up in a court case and they usually get off fairly light for it compared to if they had shot someone that wasn't on their property. Bike on road which is sovereign car territory in many minds is a territorial aggression issue up here.
    Last edited by turbo1889; 12-15-13 at 01:18 PM.

  4. #79
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Perhaps you are just not looking... after all, it isn't as if people are commuting to work with parachutes...

    But apparently skydiving IS soaring in popularity...

    http://www.mpacorn.com/news/2008-02-22/sports/026.html
    five-year downward trend.
    You should read a little more carefully. So after a continuos five year drop of member signing up, USPA has a one year up-tick and that is declared “skydiving IS soaring in popularity”. So they are only talking rate increases and decreases.

    Maybe you do not know that once you are a licensed member, you remain a member for life. Pretty easy to increase your overall numbers when do drop anyone from your listing. Makes for great PR.
    Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.

  5. #80
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Yeah right... it was purely coincidence that the Sec Def at that time was the former CEO of GM... and that the mood in the country was "anything that is good for GM is good for the country."
    So, if you believe the government lied about the freeway system for ulterior purposes, why do you think they are telling the truth in the bike lane reports.
    Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.

  6. #81
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    20,569
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
    So, if you believe the government lied about the freeway system for ulterior purposes, why do you think they are telling the truth in the bike lane reports.
    Do you ever tire of conspiracy theories and mysterious bike lane plots? Are there any bicycle lanes near the Grassy Knoll?

  7. #82
    Transportation Cyclist turbo1889's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana U.S.A.
    My Bikes
    Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
    Posts
    1,206
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And to address the other end of the spectrum:


    @ CB HI and any others who at least appear to be of the "all bike lanes and side-paths are bad" bent


    Please explain to me why you would have a problem with bicycle specific infrastructure that was actually done at least half-way decent, specifically:
    ----- No DZBLs *
    ----- No TBLs-TRO-RTOLs *
    ----- No GBLs *
    ----- All Bike lanes at least half the width of the main travel lanes they are next too and no worse of pavement condition.
    ----- Bicycle road rights are preserved and it is clearly codified that use of bike specific infrastructure is voluntary and at the cyclists discretion.
    ----- Side-Paths have marked "cross-walk" type crossings with the same level of vulnerable user legal protection and ROW as pedestrian cross-walks traditionally enjoy with only at most a "Slow to about walking speed before entering crossing" signs (so cars have a chance to see you in time to yield to you, bikes can fly out into a cross-walk a lot faster then peds. do) giving bike path traffic ROW just like peds. in the cross-walk on all non-signal-light intersections and the same cross with the green light and/or walk sign ROW and legal protection as vulnerable users from turning heavy vehicle traffic that peds. traditionally enjoy at signal light intersections.

    Yes, I do understand that legal protection is not the same as physical protection and you can still get hurt but at least if you do its clearly the car who hit you in the cross-walks fault not yours and where physical protection can't be guaranteed then at least legal protection should be and the more such legal protection is strictly enforced the more actual physical protection you will have by drivers fearing the consequences of doing so.


    Under such conditions why on earth would you appose bicycle specific infrastructure? Under such conditions I would often gladly use it myself much less not be opposed to it.

    The really hard line VCer view points like that "Eli Damon" guy has who even opposes roads having wide shoulder edges and cyclist riding on them at their own discretion and rather preaches that cyclist should always taking the lane always on every road regardless because its never safe to edge ride and its always safe to take the lane truly puzzles me and although I'm closer to your end then the strict "bike path ONLY" crowd you smell a little like they do sometimes.




    * DZBL = Door Zone Bike Lane
    * TBL-TRO-RTOL = Through Bike Lane To Right Of Right Turn Only Lane
    * GBL = Gutter Bike Lane (very narrow, trashy, nasty bike lane)
    Last edited by turbo1889; 12-15-13 at 01:49 PM.

  8. #83
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
    @ CB HI and any others who at least appear to be of the "all bike lanes and side-paths are bad" bent
    That is the type of mind reading that buzzman has engaged in. This thread has had no discussion of good verses bad bike lanes. The discussion has centered on the attempts of correlation is causation attempts to promote bike lanes.

    A five to six foot bike lane on an uphill grade could be a useful think if it is constantly swept clean. But then again, a wide outside lane would work better and a shoulder would work just as well.

    Boulder, CO painted a bunch of funny little men in what before were break down lanes. Cyclists used the break down lanes just fine for years and the funny little man did not enhance that cycling. The funny little man only helped Boulder get some BS award from LAB.

    How many videos have you seen promoting bike lanes that show door zone bike lanes and Through Bike Lane To Right Of Right Turn Only Lanes have you seen.

    The so called evil VCers have long said they are willing to support cut through bike paths, bike paths along waterways or railways with few intersections (if the path was really for transportational purposes or was funded with recreational funds).

    As you have seen, way too many proponents of bike lanes and paths do not care about the bad designs as long as they get their paint that shows they are loved.
    Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.

  9. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    4,994
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff View Post
    You can do this for small things, and in fact Portland does exactly this with things like bike boxes and "blue lanes" where the jury is still out as to efficacy. But there are a lot of problems when it comes to ABAB test designs with really big things. Building a piece of road infrastructure of any type takes years of planning and development. And taking it away is the same as the process of building it. You don't just get to make modifications to a road willy nilly. So, it's not just politics: there are problems in the fundamental infrastructure building and approval process as well.

    And again, you can't make something like this double blind or even single blind. I don't think this kind of study would rise to CB HI's level of "hard evidence".
    The queen of infrastructure begs to differ: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/ny...agewanted=2&hp

    Quote Originally Posted by from link
    Ms. Sadik-Khan, the transportation commissioner, said that mayors are routinely startled to learn how little money and staffing are required to create the bike lanes, pedestrian plazas and slower-speed zones that have remade New York City’s streets under Mr. Bloomberg.

  10. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    4,994
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff View Post
    You make incorrect assumptions about the street layout and traffic control.
    I'll happily own my assumptions if you will kindly let me know what they are.

    I was just recounting my experience with the overselling that is typical of today's self-described advocates. I was coming into PDX from a direction that was new to me. To make matters worse, I was also exiting via an unusual direction. Foolishly, I put some trust into the bike maps published by the city and rode to/along the so-called bike boulevards. These weren't even up to the level of a bad joke. It looked like they were included in order to create the appearance of connectivity (yes, that's an assumption), not because they are legitimate routes. When I can only see far enough to be able to clear traffic traveling at 15-20 mph and the traffic is actually traveling at closer to 40 mph, that's not a situation that works for me. I "assume" that such a situation doesn't work well for many cyclists.

  11. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    4,994
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    These correlation equals causation for the true believers threads always make me regret the fact that we weren't doing bike counts back in Davis in the '70s, '80s and '90s. Although it is only personal observation, it was so painfully clear that we had bike modal shares in the 70-90% range in the '70s and early '80s that plummeted to nearly single digits in the '90s (some recovery in the past few years). I went from having to ride along at 8 mph most of the time in town due to bike congestion to being able to ride whatever speed I wanted as the bikes disappeared. My family was unhappily labeled as "The Bike Family" as the last family rolling. Meanwhile, massive amounts of bike infrastructure was added in the late '80s, '90s and on into the naughties.

    We had the case of the more infrastructure got built, the fewer people rode their bikes. Now, it would be silly to blame the infrastructure, some of which is adequate, for the disappearance of the cyclists. But it is often just as silly to give it credit for increases in the number of cyclists.

    I think almost all of us can agree on a few things:
    1. Mandatory use laws should be resisted.
    2. Quality bike infrastructure, as laid out by Turbo, is a good thing.

    I guess we will continue to disagree on whether we should sell out on the first in order to achieve the second. We will also disagree on whether lousy infrastructure should be shoe-horned in (DZBL, side-paths that are really sidewalks, etc) and on the relationship between correlation and causation and who is faith driven.

    At least it is entertaining. Meanwhile, hopefully more people will just get on their bikes and make these arguments moot.

  12. #87
    Senior Member dynodonn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6,881
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
    The queen of infrastructure begs to differ: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/ny...agewanted=2&hp
    Originally Posted by from link.......... Ms. Sadik-Khan, the transportation commissioner, said that mayors are routinely startled to learn how little money and staffing are required to create the bike lanes, pedestrian plazas and slower-speed zones that have remade New York City’s streets under Mr. Bloomberg.


    http://gothamist.com/2011/02/17/extr...ts_more_th.php

    "The cost of the four months of extra work is expected to be in the neighborhood of $2 million. That's more than the DOT has spent out of its budget for its entire bike program since 2007, from design to outreach to construction. (The bulk of the $8.8 million bicycling infrastructure was paid for by the federal government.) "

  13. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    3,304
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    Though I see this argument posed a little bit less now than when I first joined BF's 8 years ago, there are still some who will argue that this is correlation but not necessarily causation for the increase in ridership.

    There will also be those who would argue that an increase in ridership is not the goal of bike advocacy.

    And there are those who will dispute that more riders makes it safer for all riders.

    As for me, I am encouraged by news like this. Thanks for posting it.
    i'm excited too. it's also just awesome that most of the new infrastructure in SF is composed of paint, lines, and signs, not world-class copenhagenize.com "protected bike lanes".
    This is why motorists hate us, and why I've given up riding on the road...You should be ashamed yourself, and you should be reviled by cyclists everywhere.

  14. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    3,304
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff View Post
    You can do this for small things, and in fact Portland does exactly this with things like bike boxes and "blue lanes" where the jury is still out as to efficacy. But there are a lot of problems when it comes to ABAB test designs with really big things. Building a piece of road infrastructure of any type takes years of planning and development. And taking it away is the same as the process of building it. You don't just get to make modifications to a road willy nilly. So, it's not just politics: there are problems in the fundamental infrastructure building and approval process as well.

    And again, you can't make something like this double blind or even single blind. I don't think this kind of study would rise to CB HI's level of "hard evidence".
    PDX has not had "blue lanes" for many years. And PBOT's head engineer had to write an embarrassing letter to the Feds admitting that many bike boxes actually were correlated with an increase in serious cycling collisions. Sadly, I think correlation is smiling an evil blood spilling, bone braking, and life taking smile.
    This is why motorists hate us, and why I've given up riding on the road...You should be ashamed yourself, and you should be reviled by cyclists everywhere.

  15. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    3,304
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff View Post
    Different people have different thresholds of risk, for cycling or for cross country traveling. Let's call them "risk bins". The first bin are the (in the cycling world) hardcore cyclists who will ride regardless of road conditions. These people ride with no infrastructure. People from the second bin see the first bin people riding and take up riding themselves. They learn vehicular cycling methods but don't see them as a be-all and end-all of cycling. They advocate for infrastructure accommodation. The city gives them a little, and the third bin people are willing to come out. These people, along with the second bin people advocate for more infrastructure, allowing people in the fourth risk bin to venture out. And so on.

    This is how you solve the problem of which came first: the riders or the bike lanes. The answer is it is more complex. Not all cyclists have the same risk thresholds, and their are pioneers and then there are the people who follow the pioneers. In the cross-country travel analogy, Lewis and Clark were pioneers for a route to the west coast from the east. They cut their own trails. Then came the traders who were willing to take risks who expanded the trails, then the traders who were less willing to take risks who turned these trails to roads. Only then did we get the first "civilian" travelers. Just a trickle at first. Then as roads got better, more people follow. Fast forward a couple hundred years and we now have interstates and literally anyone can travel from one side of the country to the other with minimal risk.
    The fact that Geller's "interested but concerned" guesstimate has dominated bike policy in PDX is annoying. When Jennifer Dill conducted surveys to test Geller's "interested but concerned" hypothesis the numbers did not work out as planned. In fact, most respondents stated that they were comfortable riding in old-fashioned door zone bike lanes. I would hope that everyone posting on this thread views DZBLs as deeply flawed infrastructure.

    In Portland and surrounding areas, for your typical 5-10 mile commute, you can usually string together a route using bike lanes, paths and/or quiet streets. The ease of this varies in specific locations (some areas, to do this is still fairly convoluted or impossible), but this has only been possible in the last five years.


    1. Portland's mode share has been static over the past 5 years.
    2. Most of the bike lanes and bike boulevards/green ways in place in PDX today were present 10 years ago.

    I'm not arguing that infrastructure is not important. In fact, I think PDX's existing infrastructure facilitated the spike in mode share to ~6% in '07/08 (great recession/gas prices).

    A great discussion on this very topic here:
    http://bikeportland.org/2013/07/02/w...ing-boom-89491

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling...gon#Statistics
    Last edited by spare_wheel; 12-15-13 at 06:43 PM.
    This is why motorists hate us, and why I've given up riding on the road...You should be ashamed yourself, and you should be reviled by cyclists everywhere.

  16. #91
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,552
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    i'm excited too. it's also just awesome that most of the new infrastructure in SF is composed of paint, lines, and signs, not world-class copenhagenize.com "protected bike lanes".

    Oh, no!!!! Two posts in two separate threads and we agree!!

    Must be the holidays.

    Yep, "protected bike lanes" work where they are needed. If they are not needed somewhere- why use them?

  17. #92
    Transportation Cyclist turbo1889's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana U.S.A.
    My Bikes
    Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
    Posts
    1,206
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @ CB HI

    I did say "at least appear to be", which was my way of acknowledging I can't read your mind.


    As to the "swept clean issue" I personally have come up with (although I find it hard to believe no one else has though of it before me) the "half lanes" idea of promoting cycling on low speed roads and providing for a bicycle lane on higher speed roads as well and also keeping it swept clean by heavy vehicle traffic and not have the trash and debris collection issue that bike lanes normally have.


    Namely the idea being that:
    ----- On all low speed roads (like 25-mph in-town roads, etc . . .) that have marked travel lanes you just put another dashed white line right down the middle of all the existing travel lanes.
    ----- On higher speed roads with only one existing lane in each direction or lower speed roads where the ability of cars and bikes to pass each other without going into the oncoming lane is desired you add some width to provide three half lanes in each direction (or even on only one side like the uphill side of hill).
    ----- On higher speed roads with two or more existing lanes each direction you take the right most travel lane and split it down the center with a dashed white line to make two half lanes. If so desired you can also add some width and add an odd half-lane to make three of them to the right of all the full width lanes.
    ----- Bikes may use any half lane they desire as a bike lane (and when necessary still retain the right to use other lanes) and cars may also travel in the half lanes by straddling any two of them they wish.


    Thus all the bike lanes are kept swept clean by car traffic as well but its very clear that bikes have full access to all those half lanes and are even the dominant user in them since cars have to straddle two of them. Especially the case where you have a roadway where each direction (or even one in some cases) is made up of three half lanes. Much better then one regular lane with a half lane width bike lane to its right because it makes it clear that bikes aren't regulated to just the right most position and when there isn't a bike enough cars will choose to straddle the two right most half lanes of the three to keep the right most half lane swept clean by auto traffic as well.


    It could also solve some "right hook" issues as well especially in the odd number of half lanes configuration and also if all right hand turn only lanes were eliminated in the process and rather cars would merge into at least a pair of half lanes to the right of any full size car lanes to make right hand turns.


    Above all especially on low speed streets where every lane was divided into half lanes it would send a clear message that bikes belonged on the road and that cars were the impostors not the other way around.


    On another thread some time back I modified the near view of the right most main travel lane (of two each direction) and the bike lane (right of the main traffic lanes and in the right hook zone on approach to this intersection) in another guys road view photo he posted on this forum to provide a potential example of what this could look like:





    I am in no way suggesting that this would be the best solution in all areas. Point is though that it’s worth considering especially in locations where the available space is already all used up and normally you would have to remove main travel lanes in order to add bike lanes. Just put another dashed line down the middle of the existing lanes at least the right most one and you turn them into dual purpose two bike lanes and one car lane all in one. Some cyclists would prefer to ride in the right tire track one and others in the left tire track, take your pick your choice as a cyclist. And then I think in many cases I think converting a one lane in the direction of travel situation to three half-lanes is better then just adding a bike lane and making a clear segregation car-lane vs. bike-lane.


    A lot of people will not like this idea for a variety of reasons but its something to at least look at the possibilities.

  18. #93
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
    @ CB HI


    As to the "swept clean issue" I personally have come up with (although I find it hard to believe no one else has though of it before me) the "half lanes" idea of promoting cycling on low speed roads and providing for a bicycle lane on higher speed roads as well and also keeping it swept clean by heavy vehicle traffic and not have the trash and debris collection issue that bike lanes normally have.
    Most motorist and even some cyclists are confused enough with just sharrows. The confusion of that design is likely to increase the danger to cyclists. You have 3 mini-lanes painted in the road. Your sign can easily be understood for cars to use 2 plus 1/2 of the third mini-lane. Such an understanding leaves no lane for cyclist. Since motorist and some cyclist do not understand simple sharrows, how do you expect them to understand your far more complicated sign? Especially when you have 1/3 lanes but you call them 1/2 lanes.

    Wide outside lanes have worked well without the need for paint and they keep pretty clean. I have seen a couple of wide outside lanes destroyed with bike lane paint.
    Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.

  19. #94
    Transportation Cyclist turbo1889's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana U.S.A.
    My Bikes
    Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
    Posts
    1,206
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree it would require some education. And you are right that I should have spelled out "Two" instead of using the number "2" on the sign. Good catch.

    And that isn't the best example. Would have to find another photo to modify but if you can close your eyes and think of a road that has two narrower width lanes each direction and no shoulder edges and thus cyclists (at least ones like you and I) must "take the lane" in the right most lane of the two in their direction of travel, a road situation I run into especially in some of the larger towns up here and I'm sure you have dealt with as well and you heard they were going to re-design the road to include bike lane(s) and they were going to do it without adding any width to the road surface wouldn't your preference be that they just took the right lane and put a dashed line down its middle and declared it now a dual use two bike-lanes and one car lane in one? Wouldn't that be better then segregation type design especially a bad bike lane that would probably end up being a GBL or worse.
    Last edited by turbo1889; 12-15-13 at 10:01 PM.

  20. #95
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
    I agree it would require some education. And you are right that I should have spelled out "Two" instead of using the number "2" on the sign. Good catch.
    I think you would need to use 1/3 vice 1/2 as well.
    Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.

  21. #96
    Transportation Cyclist turbo1889's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana U.S.A.
    My Bikes
    Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
    Posts
    1,206
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is a better example:

    http://goo.gl/maps/vIb6u

    Take the right lane there as a cyclists and your going to get "Get on the sidewalk !!!" yelled at you and people tailgating you as close as they can and honking and reeving their engines and such.

    So where you going to add a bike lane to that road? Especially if your not going to tear up the side-walk and set it back further to make more road surface width and just have the existing width to work with. Shrink the car lanes down to just one? How that going to go over? Shrink those already narrow lanes down even further to squeeze in a GBL right were you get those storm drain grates along the right gutter?

    How about just put another dashed line down the middle of at least the right lane (preferably both lanes in my opinion) to make a dual use situation where the lane(s) do double duty as two bike lanes and one car lane. And the psychological impact on motorists should be sufficient to at least cut down on the existing territorial aggression problem where motorists think that its their road and they want bikes OFF !!! Especially if you split both lanes not just the right one.
    Last edited by turbo1889; 12-15-13 at 10:33 PM.

  22. #97
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    3,304
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    Oh, no!!!! Two posts in two separate threads and we agree!!

    Must be the holidays.

    Yep, "protected bike lanes" work where they are needed. If they are not needed somewhere- why use them?
    way to harsh my contrarian mellow, buzzman.
    This is why motorists hate us, and why I've given up riding on the road...You should be ashamed yourself, and you should be reviled by cyclists everywhere.

  23. #98
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,552
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    way to harsh my contrarian mellow, buzzman.

    And I was hoping to mellow your contrarian harsh.

    Oh, well.

    Two out of three ain't bad.

  24. #99
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
    This is a better example:

    http://goo.gl/maps/vIb6u

    Take the right lane there as a cyclists and your going to get "Get on the sidewalk !!!" yelled at you and people tailgating you as close as they can and honking and reeving their engines and such.

    So where you going to add a bike lane to that road? Especially if your not going to tear up the side-walk and set it back further to make more road surface width and just have the existing width to work with. Shrink the car lanes down to just one? How that going to go over? Shrink those already narrow lanes down even further to squeeze in a GBL right were you get those storm drain grates along the right gutter?

    How about just put another dashed line down the middle of at least the right lane (preferably both lanes in my opinion) to make a dual use situation where the lane(s) do double duty as two bike lanes and one car lane. And the psychological impact on motorists should be sufficient to at least cut down on the existing territorial aggression problem where motorists think that its their road and they want bikes OFF !!! Especially if you split both lanes not just the right one.
    I am not even sure you are responding to me, but if you are, it further demonstrates the confusion your lane split and sign will cause.

    What I see in your picture is that you took one lane, the right lane, and split it into thirds. Thus when you tell someone they should take 1/2 the lane or to take two 1/2s of the lane, it makes no sense for a lane divided into thirds.
    Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.

  25. #100
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,045
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
    So, if you believe the government lied about the freeway system for ulterior purposes, why do you think they are telling the truth in the bike lane reports.
    Different branches and areas of the government and for different reasons. GM wanted to sell more cars... The American people wanted to drive more, the guilt free excuse is to use "defense" as a funding reason... even the most hardened conservative could get behind that plan.

    Apparently the current conspiracy is that America is fat and lazy so cities like San Francisco (not the fed) and New York (also not the fed) have to drum up fake cycling statistics to make cycling look cool and encourage people to ride bikes...

    There, all wrapped up in the perfect conspiracy nutshell for you.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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
  •