Advocacy & Safety - Bike lanes

If "pot holes and huge cracks ... exist in the tire tracks of the motor lanes", then riding in the middle of the lane, where there is no debris or potholes, is the best.

The right and left tire tracks are the worse, but the entire road surface is broken in these areas... The Bike Lane and or places where cars are parked is still in good shape.

Of course to be honest... in some areas the bike lanes are broken up because that is the are the local cable company or pipe company choses to trench in, and the later street repairs still leave terrible parallel ruts.

This of course is why I chose to use a fat tire bike vice my 700x23 bike for commuting.

Keith... you're only beginning to understand the problems that are inherent with the concept underlying all bike lanes. Keep observing and keep thinking. You'll figure it out soon enough. Food for thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate


I'm curious about your statement about rural roads. Where do you live? Are you telling me that same direction drifting car-bike collisions are fairly common out there, in daylight?

Serge

I live in the San Fernando Valley, actually part of Los Angeles. Also for background, I've been off the bike for about 4 years. New house and once it sat for a while ... Just getting back on now. When riding before I had worked up to a level where I did 4 double centurys, 2 of them back to back (Land Rush, San Francisco to L.A. in 2 days). Generally I did not ride bike lanes, and even less often did I look for them.

There are not a huge number of incidents, but the one death that got a lot of press that I remember was a rural (mountian) road. The roads I think of where there have been close calls are usually 2 lane, fairly wide gradually winding roads, here cars can drift. Also the speed would intimidate many new riders. Actually the road I have in mind would surely NOT be helped by a bike lane, there is a line for the shoulder and it serves has all the car restricting 'advantages' of a bike lane. Actually the line has a feature that might be interesting relative to bike lanes. It is a very strange paint, it looks flat provides good traction, but causes vibration almost as noticable os coing over lane dividing dots. (I really remember it because I first found out about it when riding on the line for a while and I thought it was a sign that something was going to freeze up on my bike.

Again I do not see bike lanes as a solution, but think that there are some places where they are better than anything else I have seen. I also think any real solution has to admit that there are novice riders, many of whom will not seek out any meaningful education (and for that matter similar drivers). (I also think there are places where bike lanes have been put in places where they are problems and very negative, including some negatives not mentioned in the link Helmet Head gave).

What can I say... A true classic. Obviously some traffic engineer or worker was just too busy to care. This exemplifies almost all the bad design of BL you can think of.

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200404.JPG

"Note all the design intelligence that went into this urban bike trail in Santa Monica, California. The striping delivers you to a bicycle death trap at the intersection with a three-way change in surface. Take your pick: cement, loose gravel in a ditch, or sewer grid. The time has really come to change our national motto from E Pluribus Unum to It's the Thought That Counts!"

This comes from this website (http://www.kunstler.com/index.html), under the heading "eyesore of the month."

Yeah, that's an old one.

Now read this article to see an example of the insidious effect of bike lanes on society and people's expectations about cyclists.

http://www.toi.org/Magazine%20Arts/readyforthedefenseMay2005.pdf

Are they morons, or perfectly rational given the bike laned world in which they live?

Read it carefully. If this article does not give you an idea of how bike lane segregation affects people's attitudes about cyclists rights to the road, I don't think anything will.

Serge

Those are lawyers and by definition not reasonable people. (Joke)

Honestly I think they are fools who are trying to make waves for the sake of making waves. If one accepts the idea that their attitude was caused by bike lanes then yes this is a big problem with bike lanes. If on the other hand one deciides their attitude comes from elsewhere then it is just more evidence of who some 'concerned citizens' are anything but, rather they are people seeking the limelight.

Serge,

Try going back to http://www.toi.org/Magazine%20Arts/...enseMarch2005.pdf

It is very revealing. Seems that in Illinois there are laws requiring townships to maintain roads. It also seems there was a road and bridge used only by cyclists and the township did not want to maintain it. They won in court because the court held that cyclists were not intended users. The law in question was to overturn that anti-cycling court decision. It would seem these laywers are also anti cycling and want to push any way they can to marginalize cycling.

I do not think this was caused by bike lanes. It is purely lawyers trying to twist things.

Keith

Yeah, that's an old one.

Now read this article to see an example of the insidious effect of bike lanes on society and people's expectations about cyclists.

http://www.toi.org/Magazine%20Arts/readyforthedefenseMay2005.pdf

Are they morons, or perfectly rational given the bike laned world in which they live?

Read it carefully. If this article does not give you an idea of how bike lane segregation affects people's attitudes about cyclists rights to the road, I don't think anything will.

Serge

I guess I just don't see the "segregation" issue... but I do see the concern addressed in the extremes presented... and frankly, there are some issues at stake... such as putting unlicensed drivers... which is essentually what a Vehicular Cyclist is, out on the roads with minimal knowledge of traffic skills and traffic patterns.

This 2390 law in Illinois is what you have been touting for some time... "No Bike Lanes and the entire road is a Bike Lane." But it now puts inexperienced riders out on the road with no training, or plan. And how will the motorists react? Or worse, what do they know?

The reactions are due to folks that are not "cyclists" viewing the situation... Try to consider that in spite of their lack of cycling skills, they may indeed ride and now find this appalling.... just as a "beach goer" (not "ocean swimmer") thinks the sea is full of sharks.

I know all about the crazy decision that lead up to this law.

Of course bike lanes are not the solitary cause. But I do believe they are a factor. Consider, carefully, just this one statement: "In effect, Bike Bill 2390 renders Bike Lanes in Illinois obsolete and unnecessary because, if the Bike Bill also passes the Senate, the whole of any street or highway is a bike lane. "

Like there is anything wrong with that? More importantly, the underlying assumption is obvious: at least before this crazy laws passes, there are bike lanes, and the rest of the road is not for bikes. Most people would read that statement, swallow the underlying assumption, and not even notice, because it seems perfectly reasonable to them. Can you blame them? If that is not the purpose of bike lanes - to demarcate the part of the road for bikes from the part of the road that is not for bikes - then what is the point of bike lanes? Is it any wonder that people have the attitude they have about bikes not belonging on the roads with cars when we paint solid white 6 inch wide stripes to segregate bikes from vehicular traffic wherever we can?

I think you're going to far with your characterization of these lawyers as being "also anti cycling and want to push any way that can to marginalize cycling". It seems to me they're just like most other people (including surprisingly many cyclists): they really honestly believe it's a bad idea to allow cars and bikes to be on the same roads together. How can any bike lane advocate argue with these lawyers, when their underlying argument is basically identical as the basis for bike lanes?

Or are you saying that bike lane advocates are anti cycling? If so, you might be onto something.

Serge

Or are you saying that bike lane advocates are anti cycling? If so, you might be onto something.

Serge


Looking at the design of some bike lanes... yes, I could believe that. It is quite obvious to me that in the case of some bike lanes, no consideration was given as to their actual use.

Of course the same can be said for some road designs too. Such as locations where two lanes merge into one as they cross an intersection. Purely idiodic.

This 2390 law in Illinois is what you have been touting for some time... "No Bike Lanes and the entire road is a Bike Lane." But it now puts inexperienced riders out on the road with no training, or plan. And how will the motorists react? Or worse, what do they know?

Gene, you're scaring me! You're buying their argument! 2390 is not putting anyone anywhere! Whether cyclists should be trained prior to being allowed to ride on streets is a separate issue!

The point is, every lane IS a bike lane. And cyclists not skilled in riding in traffic are no safer in bike lanes than they are in any other lane of the road.

Either a cyclist knows how to ride safely in traffic, or he doesn't. A bike lane does not keep him out of traffic, or away from the dangers of the traffic. To the extent that it lulls him into thinking he is isolated from traffic, it puts him in even greater danger.

Bike lanes do not protect bicyclists. Bike lanes misguide cyclists into riding too far to the right. Bike lanes encourage inexperienced cyclists to pass slow and stopped vehicles on the right, too quickly, leaving them vulnerable to, among other things, oncoming motorists turning left in front of them, or into them, through gaps created by stopped traffic (this is exactly how the cyclist was killed in Oceanside a couple of years ago, and how a colleague of mine was seriously injured on Miramar Rd about 5 years ago). Bike lanes give cyclists unskilled in traffic cycling a false sense of security. Bike lines do not make cycling any safer. Allthey do is enable motorists to pass cyclists easier without slowing down.

I oppose bike lanes because I am an advocate for bicyclists.

They should require you to have a driver's license to bike vehicularly!

They should require you to have a driver's license to bike vehicularly!


Exactly. If you are going to act like a motorist and "fare best" acting like a motorist, then require the training of the motorist. Period!

Looking at the design of some bike lanes... yes, I could believe that. It is quite obvious to me that in the case of some bike lanes, no consideration was given as to their actual use.

Of course the same can be said for some road designs too. Such as locations where two lanes merge into one as they cross an intersection. Purely idiodic.
Except you know that's NOT what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that "some" bike lanes that are especially badly designed could make it look like bike lane supporters are anti cycling. That's your strawman. :rolleyes: :p

I'm saying that ALL bike lanes, good or bad, past, present or future, are based on the assumption that bikes should be segregated from cars. For the umpteenth time, if that is NOT the basis for bike lanes (including the good ones), then what is?

I contend that the notion that bikes should be segregated from cars is an inherently anti cycling idea. Further, it seems obvious to me, and no one has challenged me on this, that bike lanes, ALL bike lanes, past, present and future, including the "good" ones, are based on this notion, and, hence, anyone who supports bike lanes, whether they realize it or not (and in most cases I believe they do not realize it), despite all their best intentions, is anti cycling.

Exactly. If you are going to act like a motorist and "fare best" acting like a motorist, then require the training of the motorist. Period!

Do you think you should be allowed to ride in bike lanes without this "vehicular" bicycle driver's license?

There are only two legitimate modes to travel: as a pedestrian, or as a vehicle driver. The problem with bike lanes is that they encourage some 3rd mode of travel that cannot be well defined, and is inherently dangerous because of it.

Gene, you're scaring me! You're buying their argument! 2390 is not putting anyone anywhere! Whether cyclists should be trained prior to being allowed to ride on streets is a separate issue!

The point is, every lane IS a bike lane. And cyclists not skilled in riding in traffic are no safer in bike lanes than they are in any other lane of the road.

Either a cyclist knows how to ride safely in traffic, or he doesn't. A bike lane does not keep him out of traffic, or away from the dangers of the traffic. To the extent that it lulls him into thinking he is isolated from traffic, it puts him in even greater danger.

Bike lanes do not protect bicyclists. Bike lanes misguide cyclists into riding too far to the right. Bike lanes encourage inexperienced cyclists to pass slow and stopped vehicles on the right, too quickly, leaving them vulnerable to, among other things, oncoming motorists turning left in front of them, or into them, through gaps created by stopped traffic (this is exactly how the cyclist was killed in Oceanside a couple of years ago, and how a colleague of mine was seriously injured on Miramar Rd about 5 years ago). Bike lanes give cyclists unskilled in traffic cycling a false sense of security. Bike lines do not make cycling any safer. Allthey do is enable motorists to pass cyclists easier without slowing down.

I oppose bike lanes because I am an advocate for bicyclists.


I don't want to go through the entire arguement all over again... but there are bicycle riders out there that get through the day NOT acting in a vehiclular manner... and never will. And you and all the members of any bike organization are not going to ever reach them. They will buy bikes you do not approve of and they will ride in some manner you do not approve of.

For their limited amount of riding, not on sidewalks, bike lanes serve them quite well. They don't have "attitudes," they don't have "special conditioning," they simply ride in limited amounts from point A to point B.

While bike lanes are not perfect, they can be made better to both assist these "bike riders" and the motorists on the road to guide both into sharing the road. But your appoach either eliminates these riders or puts them on sidewalks...

Your buddy should have known better if he was a "cyclist" and should have long ago learned how to use or not use a bike lane, as permitted by law in California.

The right and left tire tracks are the worse, but the entire road surface is broken in these areas... The Bike Lane and or places where cars are parked is still in good shape.

Of course to be honest... in some areas the bike lanes are broken up because that is the are the local cable company or pipe company choses to trench in, and the later street repairs still leave terrible parallel ruts.

This of course is why I chose to use a fat tire bike vice my 700x23 bike for commuting.


I didn't think I was going crazy... our roads in "Bicycle Paradise" (http://efgh.com/bike/) are terrible.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050527/news_2m27badroad.html



Rough rides

These are the 10 metropolitan areas that lead the nation in poor road conditions and the amount of pavement in each area deemed to be in "unacceptable" condition by The Road Information Program:

Kansas City, Mo.: 71%
San Jose: 67%
St. Louis: 66%
Los Angeles: 64%
San Francisco/Oakland: 60%
San Diego: 58%
New Orleans: 55%
Boston: 49%
Sacramento: 49%
Oklahoma City: 47%



San Diego's freeways, roads called nation's sixth worst

58 percent in poor condition, group says

By Jeff Ristine
STAFF WRITER

May 27, 2005

San Diego drivers are traveling on the sixth-worst highways and roads in the nation, according to a report released yesterday by an industry group that studies wear and tear on roads to lobby for increased funding.

The Road Information Program, known as TRIP, reported 58 percent of metropolitan San Diego's interstates, highways and other major roads for commuters and commerce have pavement in poor condition, based on data from 2003.

That was slightly better than the previous year's calculation of 60 percent, when San Diego ranked fourth worst among major urban populations.

National figures, however, have gotten progressively worse since 1998, with 26 percent of major metropolitan roads deemed substandard.

"The potholes are a symptom of a rotting disease," said Garry Bonelli, a spokesman for the San Diego Association of Governments.

The regional planning and transportation agency will distribute nearly $4.5 billion for local streets and roads under TransNet II, a 40-year sales tax renewal measure approved by voters in November.

"We are also counting on the state stepping up," Bonelli said. "We want the governor and Legislature to fully fund Proposition 42," a ballot measure approved in 2002.

The measure earmarks sales tax revenue from gasoline for road projects, but state officials used the funds in 2003 and 2004 to cover shortfalls in other parts of the budget.

Bonelli predicted San Diego's numbers will look worse in next year's report because of the damage to road foundations from moisture left by the heavy rainfalls this past winter.

TRIP is a Washington, D.C., nonprofit group backed by highway engineering and construction businesses, labor unions and other interests that favor increased road-building and repair. The group's report was based on an annual Federal Highway Administration survey of pavement conditions.

Kansas City, San Jose, St. Louis, Los Angeles and the San Francisco-Oakland area all fared worse than San Diego in this year's report. Sacramento also was in the top 10, and California ranked as the worst of the 50 states.

Besides the 58 percent of road surface in San Diego deemed to be in poor condition, the group said an additional 28 percent is "mediocre."

TRIP said San Diego's bumpy roads cost the average motorist $623 a year in higher operating costs, well above a $401 national average. The higher costs are related to faster vehicle deterioration, increased maintenance, tire wear and higher fuel consumption.

The group found only three urban areas with populations of 500,000 or more where at least 75 percent of the roads were in good condition: Atlanta, Orlando and the Phoenix-Mesa area.

William L. Wilkins, executive director of TRIP, said Congress should help state and local transportation officials by approving long-term highway funding bills.

Others quickly jumped on the report to argue for more spending on roads.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger mentioned the report at an appearance in San Jose, and in prepared statements repeated a pledge to fully restore Proposition 42 transportation funding in fiscal 2006. Funding would include $254 million statewide for deferred maintenance of local roads.

The San Diego chapter of Associated General Contractors of America said the report should be seen as "a wake-up call for elected officials."

"Another big hit on transportation funding in this budget year would be disastrous, resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs and the cancellation or delay of hundreds of highway and transit projects," Brad Barnum, the group's vice president for government relations, said in a statement.

Jeff Ristine: (619) 542-4580; jeff.ristine@uniontrib.com

Such as locations where two lanes merge into one as they cross an intersection. Purely idiodic.
I cycle thru two intersections daily like this. It is actually two narrow lanes merging into three even narrower lanes. It is the worst part of my commute as I am both getting up to speed across intersection all the while signalling for a left merge and fighting my way into all the other traffic that is jamming into the lanes at the saem time. No one want to slow a bit to let a cyclist in as they are already fighting for position with other cars.

Al

I don't want to go through the entire arguement all over again... but there are bicycle riders out there that get through the day NOT acting in a vehiclular manner... and never will. And you and all the members of any bike organization are not going to ever reach them. They will buy bikes you do not approve of and they will ride in some manner you do not approve of.
I don't deny that these people exists. But it's not a matter of whether I approve of the manner in which they ride. The issue is what factor that manner plays in contributing to cyclist injuries and deaths.


For their limited amount of riding, not on sidewalks, bike lanes serve them quite well.
I believe what you mean by "serve them quite well" is that these cyclists, who are not skilled to ride in traffic, and would normally ride on sidewalks (though probably not with the extra care required to ride sidewalks), are encouraged to ride on streets by bike lanes (sometimes the wrong direction for the side that they're on).

Please explain how these cyclists are "served quite well" by bike lanes. Define "served quite well".

I don't deny that these people exists. But it's not a matter of whether I approve of the manner in which they ride. The issue is what factor that manner plays in contributing to cyclist injuries and deaths.

I believe what you mean by "serve them quite well" is that these cyclists, who are not skilled to ride in traffic, and would normally ride on sidewalks (though probably not with the extra care required to ride sidewalks), are encouraged to ride on streets by bike lanes (sometimes the wrong direction for the side that they're on).

Please explain how these cyclists are "served quite well" by bike lanes. Define "served quite well".

They get to their desired destinations... thus they have successfully used a bicycle as transportation. One less car!

Sidewalks may not be available or illegal to use. Yes, these riders are threatened by such things as right hooks, and intersections... but their other choice is to drive. They know nothing of cycling advocacy, and if the Bike Lanes did not exist, they would cower in the drain pans at the side of the street or drive.

Regardless of your denial of this fact, bike lanes DO in fact encourage these folks to try to ride to their destinations. Now if the bike lanes cause them problems, perhaps a better design of the bike lane could help, but you (et. al.) are not willing to even consider that.

Regarding sidewalks: as an example, Forester's current town of residence has very few sidewalks (they also have really really poorly designed bike lanes, which were installed sometime in the last 5 years -- talk about irony.)

They get to their desired destinations... thus they have successfully used a bicycle as transportation. One less car!

Sidewalks may not be available or illegal to use. Yes, these riders are threatened by such things as right hooks, and intersections... but their other choice is to drive. They know nothing of cycling advocacy, and if the Bike Lanes did not exist, they would cower in the drain pans at the side of the street or drive.

Regardless of your denial of this fact, bike lanes DO in fact encourage these folks to try to ride to their destinations. Now if the bike lanes cause them problems, perhaps a better design of the bike lane could help, but you (et. al.) are not willing to even consider that.

Regarding sidewalks: as an example, Forester's current town of residence has very few sidewalks (they also have really really poorly designed bike lanes, which were installed sometime in the last 5 years -- talk about irony.)
Probably a good time to put up this picture again - keep in mind this is 45-50mph traffic, no gaps:
http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/i1/IMG_8531w.jpg

Guess where 95% of bicycle riders are? Do you blame them? Guess where 90% of bicycle riders who actually ride on the road are? Guess how many times per week I get yelled or honked at while riding in the position of the right tire of the SUV in front of the black sedan or more toward center of lane as shown in this picture? (I don't care, but it goes to show it is a tense driver/cyclist situation) How do you think I enjoy riding this road in the winter with this same rush hour traffic, but in the dark? Guess where I ride at during winter at this rush hour (dark) when I go get groceries with my wife?

How many of those 95% of sidewalk cyclists do you think would ride on the road if there was a WOL or BL on this road?

By the way as a separate tidbit, nothing to do with BLs, I was right hooked on this very road last week and nearly had a bad wreck, guess how it happened?

Al

Now if the bike lanes cause them problems, perhaps a better design of the bike lane could help, but you (et. al.) are not willing to even consider that.

Gene, do you recognize that implicit in your argument is the assumption that the problem with bike lanes is mostly poor design?

Our fundamental disagreement on bike lanes is whether all bike lanes are inherently flawed because of the problem in the concepts underlying all bike lanes. You cannot effectively argue your position on this point assuming the position you are arguing is true.

It is not the poor design of the bike lanes that cause the problems, it is the very concept underlying bike lanes that causes the problems.

Sure, they get to their desired destinations, most of the time. But if you believed as long as something not harming you most of the time constitutes serving you well, you would be playing Russian Roulette every night.

Just because they don't realize riding in bike lanes with a false sense of security is dangerous, doesn't mean they are served well by those bike lanes.

How many cyclists misguided by well-designed bike lanes have to die before you will concede that bike lanes don't serve cyclists well? How many?


1
2
5
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000


How many?

Gene, do you recognize that implicit in your argument is the assumption that the problem with bike lanes is mostly poor design?

Our fundamental disagreement on bike lanes is whether all bike lanes are inherently flawed because of the problem in the concepts underlying all bike lanes. You cannot effectively argue your position on this point assuming the position you are arguing is true.

It is not the poor design of the bike lanes that cause the problems, it is the very concept underlying bike lanes that causes the problems.

Sure, they get to their desired destinations, most of the time. But if you believed as long as something not harming you most of the time constitutes serving you well, you would be playing Russian Roulette every night.

Just because they don't realize riding in bike lanes with a false sense of security is dangerous, doesn't mean they are served well by those bike lanes.

How many cyclists misguided by well-designed bike lanes have to die before you will concede that bike lanes don't serve cyclists well? How many?


1
2
5
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000


How many?


How many motorist have to die before we realize that the whole traffic system is flawed? How many? Far more than 100,000. In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people died on the nation's highways, up from 42,116 in 2001.

Already more motorists have died than soldiers in all wars fought by the US. By your logic, we should trash the entire automobile and roadway system.

Can we look at the street in question for a second?

Before going on let me remind everyone (including myself) that the vast majority of voters are car drivers (most exclusively, excluding their time as pedestrians which many seem to try to minimize at all costs).

Lets also remember we have to consider a wide range of cyclists.

Let's look at 'solutions'.


Sidewalk. Sorry, that one breaks down into either a very slow or a very dangerous trip.

Riding with traffic and getting motorists angry. Perhaps Ok for a few, but many cyclissts can't handle that and if there were several, meaning motorists get held up regularly guess how long it would take to get a campain to ban cyclists from that road?

Bike Lane? Come on, look at the cost. Add enough for a WOL or a bike lane and you are at least 80% if the way to an additional car lane. And looking at that roads load most motorists would welcome an additional lane. And don't forget how motorists would feel during construction.

Some routes just suck and this one seems to be one of them. Are there any other choices?

Probably a good time to put up this picture again - keep in mind this is 45-50mph traffic, no gaps:
http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/i1/IMG_8531w.jpg

Guess where 95% of bicycle riders are? Do you blame them? Guess where 90% of bicycle riders who actually ride on the road are? Guess how many times per week I get yelled or honked at while riding in the position of the right tire of the SUV in front of the black sedan or more toward center of lane as shown in this picture? (I don't care, but it goes to show it is a tense driver/cyclist situation) How do you think I enjoy riding this road in the winter with this same rush hour traffic, but in the dark? Guess where I ride at during winter at this rush hour (dark) when I go get groceries with my wife?

How many of those 95% of sidewalk cyclists do you think would ride on the road if there was a WOL or BL on this road?

By the way as a separate tidbit, nothing to do with BLs, I was right hooked on this very road last week and nearly had a bad wreck, guess how it happened?

Al


Thanks noisebeam.

It is useful to think about this stuff with pictures and descriptions. Everyone of us has different situations, but we all know what that picture means. It is the picture of a place that is carrying far more traffic than it was intended to carry. Its an undivided residential road, so the speed limit should be 30 mph. Instead, it has become an ad-hoc arterial for stressed out commuters.

As a cyclist, I would avoid that road during rush hours. I would find a detour on alternative roads (even if that detour cost me an extra mile or two). I would be tempted to hit the sidewalk if I did not know an alternate route and I ended up in that place.

Sadly, that picture is the reality of the inner suburbs. Roads like that are becoming increasingly common. Anyone who advocates being an "assertive" cyclist in _that_ picture is asking for trouble.

As a cyclist, I would avoid that road during rush hours. I would find a detour on alternative roads (even if that detour cost me an extra mile or two).

Unfortunately there is no other way to my house - it is the only choice for 2 miles - no detours possible (note this road parallels a freeway so it gets the overflow during rush hour)

Al

Some routes just suck and this one seems to be one of them. Are there any other choices?
There are many routes like this in phx-metro - if you don't ride on roads like this, then you pretty much don't ride to get anywhere - fortunately some have a bike lane, some a WOL, and when it is not rush hour the traffic is not as dense. (for example this road is a pleasure to ride on sunday morning at 6am ;) ) Point it it is mainly a commuting issue, not a recreational issue - because recreationally one doesn't have to go from point a to b and doesn't have to do it during busy hours.

The problem is that these arterial roads are designed on a 1mi grid, with residential, commercial within the 1mi block. The road systems within these 1mi blocks has been designed intentionally so that they do not support thru traffic to prevent these residential areas from getting communting vs. local traffic. Of course that often prevents bikes from riding on the more quiet streets if you want to go anywhere more than a mile, if you do get from one side to the other with a convoluted path, then you are dumped on an artery and to get to the next block is not straight accross road, but requires you to use a bit of the artery. very inefficient and adds 5x the number of road crossings, often without a signal.

Al

How many motorist have to die before we realize that the whole traffic system is flawed? How many? Far more than 100,000. In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people died on the nation's highways, up from 42,116 in 2001.

Already more motorists have died than soldiers in all wars fought by the US. By your logic, we should trash the entire automobile and roadway system.

I asked you first.

Even one for both questions! Scrap the whole road system!

Of course once that happens someone will ask how many have to die because they can't get emergency services in time.

But of course I'm safe cuz my suggestion will never happen.

Unfortunately there is no other way to my house - it is the only choice for 2 miles - no detours possible (note this road parallels a freeway so it gets the overflow during rush hour)

Al

While the roads are not as crowded in San Diego... we too have roads that are the only way through some areas... due to our canyon geography.

There are not any roads I won't take, but some sure make me uncomfortable.

Ok, I want to vent a bit about the BL debate. Overall I am generally opposed to BLs, but that is because the vast majority of them are either completely unneccesary or so poorly implemented. I've often written to this forum in the past that is why I think WOL are a good compromise, it is much harder to implement them badly, in addtion to the other (agreed debatable) benefits they provide over BL.

But taking an pure anti BL or anti-WOL stance I find troubling as well. There are clearly some roads that would be safer even for experienced VC cyclist to use if they had a WOL, where a BL would provide the same benefit as a WOL. But frankly I am really at the point where I don't care if it is a BL.

My venting has to do with nuance. I get so frustrated that those in the anti-BL camp will in their efforts to be crisp and to the point don't address the nuance that there are places were a WOL or even a BL may be better than the current state of the road. But of course they don't want to open this avenue as it leads to a less solid position or whatever.

Anyway - it think some clarifying conditional statements are really needed in some of the discussion. It gets boring/repetetive to always say: no BL on 25-30mph streets, etc.
Just some rambling.
Al

I asked you first.

Problem is that society does not seem to have a limit... so many have already died on the existing roadways.

But there is a prime example of a "system that does not work" as exemplified by the deaths, yet we continue to use it and work to improve it...

But by your logic, we should just scrap it and forget it.

You're dodging the question, Gene. How many?
I asked you first.

Ok, I want to vent a bit about the BL debate. Overall I am generally opposed to BLs, but that is because the vast majority of them are either completely unneccesary or so poorly implemented. I've often written to this forum in the past that is why I think WOL are a good compromise, it is much harder to implement them badly, in addtion to the other (agreed debatable) benefits they provide over BL.

But taking an pure anti BL or anti-WOL stance I find troubling as well. There are clearly some roads that would be safer even for experienced VC cyclist to use if they had a WOL, where a BL would provide the same benefit as a WOL. But frankly I am really at the point where I don't care if it is a BL.

My venting has to do with nuance. I get so frustrated that those in the anti-BL camp will in their efforts to be crisp and to the point don't address the nuance that there are places were a WOL or even a BL may be better than the current state of the road. But of course they don't want to open this avenue as it leads to a less solid position or whatever.

Anyway - it think some clarifying conditional statements are really needed in some of the discussion. It gets boring/repetetive to always say: no BL on 25-30mph streets, etc.
Just some rambling.
Al


I agree! Now if we can get some anti-BL advocates to agree that there may be some limited case for BL, then some progress can be made.

You're dodging the question, Gene. How many?
I asked you first.

I am not dodging the question... if it were up to me it would be none, and no one would drive over 25MPH either... And as we have discussed it is not the Bike Lanes, but the intersections that are the real problem.

But it is not up to me... nor you for that matter... so rather than being bull headed about "no bike lanes now and forever..." consider what may done to improve them.

What can be done to passively guide the non-joiners, the folks that are not going to EVER take a Road 1 class, the folks that ride to the local grocery or school or work that are the vast silent majority of riders out there? Provide something better for them, or require everyone that ever buys a bicycle to take a class and become licensed for full use of the roadways. Those are the only reasonable alternatives. The legislation in Illinois is pushing in that latter direction. I have yet to hear any other viable alternatives.

Probably a good time to put up this picture again - keep in mind this is 45-50mph traffic, no gaps:
http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/i1/IMG_8531w.jpg

Guess where 95% of bicycle riders are? Do you blame them? Guess where 90% of bicycle riders who actually ride on the road are? Guess how many times per week I get yelled or honked at while riding in the position of the right tire of the SUV in front of the black sedan or more toward center of lane as shown in this picture? (I don't care, but it goes to show it is a tense driver/cyclist situation) How do you think I enjoy riding this road in the winter with this same rush hour traffic, but in the dark? Guess where I ride at during winter at this rush hour (dark) when I go get groceries with my wife?

How many of those 95% of sidewalk cyclists do you think would ride on the road if there was a WOL or BL on this road?

By the way as a separate tidbit, nothing to do with BLs, I was right hooked on this very road last week and nearly had a bad wreck, guess how it happened?

Al

Yes, that is the exact situation I have, except imagine that traffic on an uphill. Yikes. I have tried the assertive VC thing for 2 years. And it just doesn't work. Yesterday, I took the sidewalk, and it felt really good. At the top of the hill, traffic was backed up just to about the crest so I simply waited for a gap and merged back into the lane. No problem.

Yes, that is the exact situation I have, except imagine that traffic on an uphill. Yikes. I have tried the assertive VC thing for 2 years. And it just doesn't work. Yesterday, I took the sidewalk, and it felt really good. At the top of the hill, traffic was backed up just to about the crest so I simply waited for a gap and merged back into the lane. No problem.

I have a section of roadway here that is like that... I ride at about 8-9 MPH going up that road... the speed limit is 45MPH. I have a bike lane. Works great!

Anyway - it think some clarifying conditional statements are really needed in some of the discussion. It gets boring/repetetive to always say: no BL on 25-30mph streets, etc.
Just some rambling.
Al

I haven't heard the speed differential argument, but sounds like it has been well discussed. What is the logic? BL are not needed on slow speed limit streets, eg 25-30mph, because cyclists can keep up with traffic? Seems like width of the lane would also be a factor. Can someone point me to a thread or summarize the argument please? Thank you.

Gene, I contend that bike lanes are inherently bad for cyclists, like alcohol is inherently bad for alcoholics.

You and Al are taking me to task for my inflexible position. Fine, guys. Then stop contending that ALL alcohol is bad for aloholics, and consider what needs to be done to improve alcohol.

I know, like it's not the bike lanes but the intersections that are the real problem, it's not the alcohol but the alcoholism that's the real problem. Fine.

The fact is, that as long as intersections and alcoholism exist, we're going to have inherent problems with bike lanes and alcohol. Just like ALL alcohol is harmful to alcoholics, ALL bike lanes are harmful to cyclists.

Until then... I will continue advocating for the elimination of any and all bike lane stripes, and will continue contending that there is not one road, anywhere (that's not a limited access road with no intersections like a freeway, bridge or tunnel), with a bike lane, that would not be improved for cyclists if the bike lane stripe was removed.

Consider the gauntlet to have been thrown down.

Serge

Provide something better for them, or require everyone that ever buys a bicycle to take a class and become licensed for full use of the roadways. Those are the only reasonable alternatives. The legislation in Illinois is pushing in that latter direction. I have yet to hear any other viable alternatives.
Legislation in Illinois is pushing in the direction of everyone buying a bicycle must take a class and become licensed for full use of the roadways?

????

Legislation in Illinois is pushing in the direction of everyone buying a bicycle must take a class and become licensed for full use of the roadways?

????

Legislation in Illinois is calling for no further support of any kind for bikelanes or road improvement for cyclists, and that all lanes are bike lanes. So how much longer before some lawyer realizes that all these unlicensed users of the roadway are slowing him down on the way to work and "something should be done?"

Gene, I contend that bike lanes are inherently bad for cyclists, like alcohol is inherently bad for alcoholics.

You and Al are taking me to task for my inflexible position. Fine, guys. Then stop contending that ALL alcohol is bad for aloholics, and consider what needs to be done to improve alcohol.

I know, like it's not the bike lanes but the intersections that are the real problem, it's not the alcohol but the alcoholism that's the real problem. Fine.

The fact is, that as long as intersections and alcoholism exist, we're going to have inherent problems with bike lanes and alcohol. Just like ALL alcohol is harmful to alcoholics, ALL bike lanes are harmful to cyclists.

Until then... I will continue advocating for the elimination of any and all bike lane stripes, and will continue contending that there is not one road, anywhere (that's not a limited access road with no intersections like a freeway, bridge or tunnel), with a bike lane, that would not be improved for cyclists if the bike lane stripe was removed.

Consider the gauntlet to have been thrown down.

Serge


Using your metaphor... but alcohol is not bad for everyone, just certain individuals. In fact, the AMA suggests that a moderate amount of red wine is good for your heart.

Opps, I guess that is a somewhat flexible position.

And I certainly don't have problems using bike lanes when and where I want... neither do MOST riders of bikes that do use bike lanes.

I will continue advocating for the elimination of any and all bike lane stripes, and will continue contending that there is not one road, anywhere (that's not a limited access road with no intersections like a freeway, bridge or tunnel), with a bike lane, that would not be improved for cyclists if the bike lane stripe was removed.

Consider the gauntlet to have been thrown down.

Serge
Great, I also support elimination of the BL stripe, but of course not the extra lane width.

Serge - would you both support elimination of the painted stripe, but at the same time also advocate for widening outside lanes on specific roads (typically higher density, higher speed roads)?

The whole vision must be presented as a whole, not just bits of it. Otherwise pro-BL people think you are all for keeping roads like I pictured above as they are forever, and the anti-BL statements also get confusing as it can sounds like there is a desire to eliminate the pavement space itself, not just the painted stripe (although you were clear above).

Al

I haven't heard the speed differential argument, but sounds like it has been well discussed. What is the logic? BL are not needed on slow speed limit streets, eg 25-30mph, because cyclists can keep up with traffic? Seems like width of the lane would also be a factor. Can someone point me to a thread or summarize the argument please? Thank you.
I don't know if we have hashed this one out in detail, but for me it is based on experience that it is relatively easy to negotiate with drivers when the speed differential is less than 5-20mph and also traffic tends to be lighter on lower speed roads. I'll admit for me it is more based on gut feel/experience than a specfic logic - and more based looking at it the other way that roads with dense traffic traveling faster than 40mph tend to be difficult to negotiate. There is obviously a grey areas as to speeds and lane widths. I'll think about it more.

The other factor is to prioritize resources, improve the roads where improvements are badly needed first, instead of wasting resource on easy roads to implement BLs on, quiet residential streets tend to already be wide, so slapping down the BL paint is easy and a feel good measure. For example many residential streets mid-block get BL added to them around here, which is a joke considering that to get out of that 1 mile block one needs to travel on roads that have fast high density traffic and no bike lanes.

Al

Legislation in Illinois is calling for no further support of any kind for bikelanes or road improvement for cyclists, and that all lanes are bike lanes. So how much longer before some lawyer realizes that all these unlicensed users of the roadway are slowing him down on the way to work and "something should be done?"

That's not what the legislation says. That's what the anti cycling lawyers claim it does.

That's not what the legislation says. That's what the anti cycling lawyers claim it does.


The wording of HB 2390, as passed by the House:

(3) Except as expressly provided by law, this
subsection (b) shall not impose an obligation to
upgrade, widen, or reengineer existing highways
for use by bicyclists, or to install or upgrade lighting
or signage or pavement markings, and does not
impose an obligation to maintain streets and highways
to a higher standard for bicyclists.


Of course I am not a lawyer... but that sure reads to me like: "no further support of any kind for bikelanes or road improvement for cyclists."

Using your metaphor... but alcohol is not bad for everyone, just certain individuals. In fact, the AMA suggests that a moderate amount of red wine is good for your heart.

Opps, I guess that is a somewhat flexible position.

And I certainly don't have problems using bike lanes when and where I want... neither do MOST riders of bikes that do use bike lanes.

Sure, and bike lanes are not bad for everyone either, just certain individuals (more specifically, those that cycle). They're great for motorists. In fact, the AAA suggests moderate bike lanes (preferably 3', but up to 5' is tolerable to them) on every road possible, to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists on their roads.

And, according to them, most alcoholics who use alcohol don't have problem using alcohol when and where they want.

Asking bike riders that use bike lanes whether they like using bike lanes makes about as much sense as asking alcoholics that use alcohol whether they like using alcohol, or asking Krispy Kreme customers if they like donuts. And such questions have nothing to with whether KK customers are served well by KK donuts, alcoholics are served well by alcohol, or bike lane cyclists are served well by bike lanes.

Serge - would you both support elimination of the painted stripe, but at the same time also advocate for widening outside lanes on specific roads (typically higher density, higher speed roads)?
Yes. Absolutely.


The whole vision must be presented as a whole, not just bits of it. Otherwise pro-BL people think you are all for keeping roads like I pictured above as they are forever, and the anti-BL statements also get confusing as it can sounds like there is a desire to eliminate the pavement space itself, not just the painted stripe (although you were clear above).

Al

My order of preference:

1) quiet road with WOL (not BL striped)
2) quiet road with NOL
3) busy road with WOL (not BL striped)
4) busy road with NOL
5) quiet road with WOL (BL striped)
6) busy road with WOL (BL striped)

What's yours?

Gene, that law simply means that road management is not liable for road conditions (like pot holes, cracks, sign placement, poor lighting, narrowness) that can arguably contribute to bike crashes.

It has nothing to do with bike lanes.

And to the extent that it explicitly says no road improvements (including widening and bike lanes) are ever to be mandated for cyclists, that's no different from any other state (including CA). So I don't see how any of this points to a movement towards cyclist licensing.