CHARLES RIVER ROAD, WATERTOWN (http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/watertown/charrivrd.htm)
What John Allen calls the "boondoggle characteristics" of the road are pretty evident, and the sidepath is a disaster, but the bike lane is better than no bike lane.
We have some bike lanes around here like that, too. The major effect is to make a four lane road into a two lane road, and that's a good thing.
Removing all of these bike lanes would be a step backward for cyclists - cutting off your nose to spite your face. . . .
This is why bike lanes sometimes appear to help, even when they don't. When traffic engineers put in a bike lane, they changed the road from two lanes to one, which slowed traffic, which made the road more cyclist-friendly. Unless the road was 40-45+ mph road with few interections, it wasn't the bike lane stripe that made the difference.
JRA, bike lanes are "segregated" facilities, especially in places like Portland where we can be cited for leaving the lane. Saying that you don't like that word doesn't change that. I have frequently attacked other forum users who compare cyclist rights to the black civil rights movement, but a "segregated" lane is a "segregated" lane is a "segregated" lane.
"Segregated" is more accurate from "separated" because "separated" does not make it clear that the frequent result of the new lanes is that we cyclists are barred from the existing traffic lanes.
And if you don't like the word "segregation," maybe we should talk about facilities that meet the "special needs" of cyclists. ;)
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
This is why bike lanes sometimes appear to help, even when they don't. When traffic engineers put in a bike lane, they changed the road from two lanes to one, which slowed traffic, which made the road more cyclist-friendly. Unless the road was 40-45+ mph road with few interections, it wasn't the bike lane stripe that made the difference.
Once again I am reminded to keep local vs. global perspective when reading on-line forums and giving weight to any stated opinion.
I have *never* seen or heard of a local bike lane created by removing any other lanes. Bike lanes here are most commonly added by widening the roadway (usually as part of road Reconstruction), and sometimes by re-claiming the shoulder. Similarly we are never forced to use a bike lane, and we are used to having special-use lanes everywhere (all with solid lane stripes). So the segregation bit, along with being offencive is just grossly inaccurate here - as are all these "removing lanes" and "re-striping a wide lane into a narrow lane to make a bike-lane" stories I read on this site.
Typical new arterial here (Alta-Vista Transportation Corridor, Ottawa): 6 lanes - 2 general use, 2 HOV and transit only, two bike only; and pathway runingg parallel a short distance from the roadway.
I anyone is planing to cry "segregation" here its the car drivers!
genec
The motorist doesn't know what? That the cyclist has the right of way to continue going straight at the side of a lane wide enough for the motorist to safely pass the cyclist without merging into the adjacent lane? Let them notice. Let them take care. All that's good for the cyclist, better than being ignored while riding in the same spot except being "protected" by the stripe. Most importantly, how is the cyclist affected by something that may or may not be going on the in the mind of a motorist behind him? You still have not said what the cyclist needs to negotiate for.
The only areas where I know of "good" bike lanes are on roads where, without the bike lanes, there would be no access for cyclists. These are limited access roads where often even pedestrian traffic is prohibited. What's good about these bike lanes is that they give access that cyclists would otherwise not have. I don't know of any other "good" that could be derived from bike lanes by cyclists.
Why do cyclists need some kind of existential acknowledgment on the road that drivers of other vehicles do not? Where does this idea come from? Cyclists have the same rights to the same roads operating under the same rules as do other vehicle drivers. Same Roads. Same Rights. Same Rules.
What a bike lane does is opposite of what we need: a bike lane acknowledges that cyclists belong not on the road, but in the bike lane (otherwise, what would the bike lane be for?).
Here we show a consistent level of thinking that assumes that all motorists are aware of the fact that cyclists have legal rights on the road and in fact, belong there... Yet in various places on this Forum are quotes from both police officers, and citizens who have written in to public media complaining about cyclists being on "their" roads. This is a rather persistent opinion by the motoring public, which obviously does not believe in "Same Roads. Same Rights. Same Rules" unless we point it out to each and every one of them.
Bike lanes and signs acknowledge both our rights to the road, and our potential presence. Bike lanes announce that cyclists belong on the same road.
In this area in particular, there are no other signs or indications that cyclists share the road with motorists. The Bike Lane signs, and Bike Route signs are so small that motorists do not pay attention to them (they are smaller than Truck Entering signs) and the only place where a "Share the Road" even exists, is on a 65MPH road... it is no wonder that such an auto-centric mentality persists.
genec
This is why bike lanes sometimes appear to help, even when they don't. When traffic engineers put in a bike lane, they changed the road from two lanes to one, which slowed traffic, which made the road more cyclist-friendly. Unless the road was 40-45+ mph road with few interections, it wasn't the bike lane stripe that made the difference.
JRA, bike lanes are "segregated" facilities, especially in places like Portland where we can be cited for leaving the lane. Saying that you don't like that word doesn't change that. I have frequently attacked other forum users who compare cyclist rights to the black civil rights movement, but a "segregated" lane is a "segregated" lane is a "segregated" lane.
"Segregated" is more accurate from "separated" because "separated" does not make it clear that the frequent result of the new lanes is that we cyclists are barred from the existing traffic lanes.
And if you don't like the word "segregation," maybe we should talk about facilities that meet the "special needs" of cyclists. ;)
"Segregated" and "special needs" are in fact the truth... comparison to civil rights is hyperbole.
As long as bicycles have different operating characteristics from every other motorized vehicle on the road, we do in fact have "special needs; We climb hills slower, we are narrower, we have the ability to switch to pedestrian mode, we can easily thread between bumper to bumper traffic, and we can also mix with pedestrians (when so required). These are the special characteristics of a bicycle that makes us different from the oil drinking vehicles. To not acknowledge these special characteristics is turning a blind eye to the unique abilities of a bicycle.
Those special characteristics may also have special needs, such as a place on a steep hill to climb slowly, such as isolation from vehicles that move many 2X and 3X faster and have 10X more mass. Our narrow profile also means that we need less road than other vehicles, and because of that narrow profile, we are perhaps less visible.
Consideration of the uniqueness of a bicycle should not be denied, it is the unique charateristics of a bicycle that draws users to it.
Helmet Head
Here we show a consistent level of thinking that assumes that all motorists are aware of the fact that cyclists have legal rights on the road and in fact, belong there...
Bull feces. I assume no such thing, and nothing I have ever written is based on this easily proven to be false premise.
Whether motorists are "aware" of the fact that cyclists have the same legal rights should be irrelevant to the cyclist... it is to me. When I ride my Xootr scooter (http://www.xootr.com) down the road vehicularly, I am treated vehicularly despite the fact that scooter riders are legally pedestrians. The point you don't seem to understand is that you could slap red lights on the back of a cow, and a headlight on the front of one, and as long as it behaved vehicularly as it traveled down the road, motorists would know how to deal with it. It's the unpredictable behavior of cows and non-vehicular cyclists that causes problems and confusion in traffic. Vehicular cycling does not depend on motorists having awareness about the legal status of cyclists. If you eliminate from your mind the false and disabling notion that awareness of cyclist rights by motorists is required for vehicular cycling to work, your understanding of VC and how it works can only blossom. It is the assertion of our rights to the road that makes motorists aware of them. Do not put the cart before the horse. If you're suggesting we wait until most if not all motorists are aware of these rights before VC will work, we will wait for a very long time, the length of which can only be increased by bike lanes that enforce the cyclist inferiority notion that cyclists do not belong on the road, but off to the side, period.
You still have not said what the cyclist riding straight needs to negotiate for with motorists behind him, much less what is involved in this negotiation. I would appreciate it if you would finally clarify this point, or retract the original claim.
Helmet Head
Consideration of the uniqueness of a bicycle should not be denied, it is the unique charateristics of a bicycle that draws users to it.
No one is denying the rather obvious unique characteristics of the bicycle. If you think listing them makes some kind of point salient to our discussion, it went over my head.
The issue is whether the obvious unique characteristics of bicycles makes segregation of cyclists from vehicular traffic a net benefit for cyclists. I hope that we can agree that the question of segregation value to cyclists should be considered through the comparison of the advantages and drawbacks of such segregation. Unless you can finally clarify your claim that cyclists need to continually negotate to continue going straight in the absense of such segregation, the undisputed claimed advantages of segregation stand at nil, and the undisputed drawbacks remain overwhelming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate) in the comparison.
genec
No one is denying the rather obvious unique characteristics of the bicycle. If you think listing them makes some kind of point salient to our discussion, it went over my head.
The issue is whether the obvious unique characteristics of bicycles makes segregation of cyclists from vehicular traffic a net benefit for cyclists. I hope that we can agree that the question of segregation value to cyclists should be considered through the comparison of the advantages and drawbacks of such segregation. Unless you can finally explain your alleged need for negotation in the absense of such segregation, the undisputed claimed advantages of segregation stand at nil, and undisputed drawbacks are overwhelming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate).
RE the issues of the unique charateristics of bicycles... apparently it has gone way over your head, as those charateristics also mean that we do NOT work and blend into traffic that is 10X heavier and 3X faster, and recognizing that fact is what you and other anti-BL advocates continue to deny.
RE negotiation... you yourself brought up the "WTF responses of drivers" when dealing with cyclists in WOL; that response alone means that the driver slows, wonders what to do, hesitates making a decision, and then either wisely moves on, or requires some indication from a cyclist as to what to do... or worse, the motorist makes a rage or arrogant based decision that results in an ugly uncomfortable situation.
Helmet Head
RE the issues of the unique charateristics of bicycles... apparently it has gone way over your head, as those charateristics also mean that we do NOT work and blend into traffic that is 10X heavier and 3X faster, and recognizing that fact is what you and other anti-BL advocates continue to deny.
Is "blend into traffic" a technical term?
What vehicular cyclists deny is that in order to be part of vehicular traffic, a driver must operate his vehicle at the same speed of other traffic. When going slower than other traffic, you should keep to the side, true, but you're still part of traffic.
RE negotiation... you yourself brought up the "WTF responses of drivers" when dealing with cyclists in WOL; that response alone means that the driver slows, wonders what to do, hesitates making a decision, and then either wisely moves on, or requires some indication from a cyclist as to what to do... or worse, the motorist makes a rage or arrogant based decision that results in an ugly uncomfortable situation.
What may or may not be going in the motorists mind should be irrelevant to the cyclist... it is to me, if all he's doing is continuing to go straight. There is nothing to negotiate.
genec
Bull feces. I assume no such thing, and nothing I have ever written is based on this easily proven to be false premise.
Whether motorists are "aware" of the fact that cyclists have the same legal rights should be irrelevant to the cyclist... it is to me. When I ride my Xootr scooter (http://www.xootr.com) down the road vehicularly, I am treated vehicularly despite the fact that scooter riders are legally pedestrians. The point you don't seem to understand is that you could slap red lights on the back of a cow, and a headlight on the front of one, and as long as it behaved vehicularly as it traveled down the road, motorists would know how to deal with it. It's the unpredictable behavior of cows and non-vehicular cyclists that causes problems and confusion in traffic. Vehicular cycling does not depend on motorists having awareness about the legal status of cyclists. If you eliminate from your mind the false and disabling notion that awareness of cyclist rights by motorists is required for vehicular cycling to work, your understanding of VC and how it works can only blossom. It is the assertion of our rights to the road that makes motorists aware of them. Do not put the cart before the horse. If you're suggesting we wait until most if not all motorists are aware of these rights before VC will work, we will wait for a very long time, the length of which can only be increased by bike lanes that enforce the cyclist inferiority notion that cyclists do not belong on the road, but off to the side, period.
I love this... "as long as it behaved vehicularly as it traveled down the road, motorists would know how to deal with it." Right, I am sure they would... it is as difficult to reason with a 2000 pound cow as a cement truck. I am still only a 200 pound cyclist.
However, motorists feel they can influence cyclists, who after all are only human... Just as they feel they can influence other motorists. This situation results in the typical tailgating, horn honking, engine reving, yelling and other behaviours that can feel quite threatening when coming from a driver of a 2000-3000 pound car... especially if that driver doesn't believe you belong on the road... no matter how vehicularly you act. And when that thinking and attitude is also in the minds of the police... then you, the cyclist end up with no recourse.
But really this is neither here nor there in the whole bike lane discussion... You can ride as VC as you want, where you want... however riding VC does not make "special magic visibility" when you are traveling at well under the speed of other traffic, in poor sight line areas, and expect motorists to respond to your sudden appearance in front of them in said areas. This is why I have called for BL only where steep hills and/or high speed traffic exist... these areas call for fast reaction times by distracted motorists that suddenly find you, just as a cow... in the middle of the road... and said motorist cannot react fast enough and you will then become hamburger... just like the cow.
This also addresses the unique charateristics of bicycles... in that they do travel slower than motor traffic in some situations (such as up hills and where the sustained speeds generally exceed 45MPH).
jisho
What is "the idea of bike lanes" that you like? Seriously. Try to put it in words. if you manage to do so coherently, you'll be the first as far as I know.
Well, if you see that as your only two choices, I can understand why you feel the way you do. A few points of clarification...
There is no evidence that shows there are lower risks riding in bike lanes than riding vehicularly.
The fact that you put "vehicularly" in quotes makes me wonder what you mean by it. What riding a bike vehicularly means is, riding on roadways in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road. Those rules dicates that between intersections, drivers of slower vehicles should keep to the side, and, that when a lane is wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side, it can be.
Picture any road with a bike lane. Now imagine that same road with the bike lane stripe erased. That's what we're talking about... so you have just as much room with or without the stripe.
True enough.
What makes you think the bike lanes "provide cyclist a safer alternative than riding in the street itself"? Specifically, what type of collisions do you think are prevented?
Did you know that in CA motorists are legally required to merge into bike lanes before making right turns, and are allowed to do so up to two hundred feet prior to the turn? I suspect you didn't know that. As I said before, the rules for dealing with bike lanes are so complicated no one (except for a few geeks like me) really know and understand them. So, effectively, there are no rules, and that makes it very dangerous.
Anyway, I agree that a cyclist needlessly impeding the flow of traffic is not doing what he should be doing. In fact, such a cyclist would be violating the vehicular rules of the road, and, hence, would not be riding vehicularly (that's assuming the impeding of traffic is necessarily needless).
Serge
Here in San Francisco bike lanes seem to exist for the purpose of double parking. The PD, many of whom park in the bike lanes themselves, do little to enforce the parking laws or ensure the safety of those who bike. Added to this is the execrable condition of the lanes. Don't let me get started on the MUNI bus system!
H23
... Vehicular cycling does not depend on motorists having awareness about the legal status of cyclists. ...
To some extent, it does, and even more it depends on the practical status of cyclists on a particular road. If you are riding where you are not expected to be by motorists (legal or not), I guarantee you an unpleasant time if you impede traffic. You will be honked at, and you will stick out like a sore thumb. Yeah, I know, "its their [the motorists] problem" as you said many times. Some people don't mind this kind of stress, and perhaps actually enjoy the "assertiveness trip" that you are promoting, however, the majority of cyclists just want minimal interaction with cars and want to travel the roads in peace without being yelled at or buzzed.
Now, I think I finally figured out what exactly rubs me the wrong way in your rhetoric...
For many of us, cycling has nothing to do with being "assertive". Instead, we feel relaxed and willing to be considerate and mellow with other road users. I am happy to take a lane when I need to, and I do it without having any hard-nosed attitude. You may not realize it, but the "attitude" that you say is so important is interpreted by me and others as aggressive and uncool. It seems that a lot of self-identified VC-ers on the blog-i-sphere give off this impression. Some personality trait keeps you guys from seeing this as counterproductive to your goals.
Here in Baltimore, the city just recently completed a small network of bike lanes and MUTS. The lanes wind through parts of downtown. Not surprisingly, they cover many of the same relatively sedate roads that we have been using for years. Sometimes the lanes are unstriped, their only trace is a "share the road" sign and directions for scenic loops, sometimes the lanes go on wide streets with mild but fast traffic, sometimes they are segregated from both sidewalks and streets. I think that this is a particularly successful approach to bicycle advocacy and traffic design. These lanes and paths allow less experienced cyclists and those who are not familiar with the city to dabble in urban riding. It builds their confidence. It adds to the number of cyclists on the streets, and many of these cyclists will learn to work other non-BL roads after becoming confident on the BL's. What more could one want?
JRA
It seems some anti-bike lane extremists may have read their own propaganda so many times that they've actually begun to believe it.
The assertion that a line, solid or dashed, is discrimination against cyclists is absurd.
If there are laws against riding outside a bike lane, that's the discrimination, not the line.
I was undecided about bike lanes but the party-liners have swayed me. Some of their arguments are too silly, and repeating them doesn't make them less silly. There are defects in many current BLs but those are mostly design problems and there's no reason to conclude, as some have, that all bike lanes are bad. Some bike lanes serve a useful purpose.
Helmet Head
For many of us, cycling has nothing to do with being "assertive". Instead, we feel relaxed and willing to be considerate and mellow with other road users.
You say that as if there is something contradictory between being "assertive" regarding your right to travel on the roadway and feeling "relaxed and willing to be considerate and mellow with other road users". To me, feeling relaxed and willing to be considerate and mellow with other road users IS being assertive (as opposed to being aggressive).
You may not realize it, but the "attitude" that you say is so important is interpreted by me and others as aggressive and uncool.
Then I think I have been very ineffective at communicating what I mean by this attitude and the behavior that is based on it, for very few motorists act as if they have an issue with it, nor do family members, colleagues, riding buddies and friends who have seen the way I ride. This type of forum does have limits in terms of being able to communicate certain ideas and concepts effectively.
Serge
Helmet Head
However, motorists feel they can influence cyclists, who after all are only human... Just as they feel they can influence other motorists. This situation results in the typical tailgating, horn honking, engine reving, yelling and other behaviours that can feel quite threatening when coming from a driver of a 2000-3000 pound car... especially if that driver doesn't believe you belong on the road... no matter how vehicularly you act. And when that thinking and attitude is also in the minds of the police... then you, the cyclist end up with no recourse.
Gene, how is it that I regularly ride for weeks at a time, hundreds of miles, without encountering the "typical tailgating, horn honking, engine reving, yelling and other behaviours" of which you constantly hand wring about?
And even if 1 in a million motorists did start honking, engine reving, and yelling at a cyclist, even though he was riding off to the side in a lane wide enough to be safely shared (don't confuse the bike lane discussion with using the full lane in a narrow lane situation, or in a merging situation, which bike lanes do not address), you still have not explained how that would lead to your claim that the cyclist has to "negotiate" to continue going straight.
however riding VC does not make "special magic visibility" when you are traveling at well under the speed of other traffic, in poor sight line areas, and expect motorists to respond to your sudden appearance in front of them in said areas. This is why I have called for BL only where steep hills and/or high speed traffic exist... these areas call for fast reaction times by distracted motorists that suddenly find you ... in the middle of the road
Your imagination is running wild again, my friend.
You have no evidence, none, nada, zilch, that a distracted motorist has EVER hit a same-direction cyclist (in daylight or at night with proper lights/reflectors) from behind in a wide lane due to poor sight lines and the "sudden appearance" of the cyclist in front of him. The entire BL defense is based on these extraordinary examples of pure fantasy, and the fear that somehow somewhere they might happen, maybe, once. I say "don't forget" because your use of the phrase "in the middle of the road" indicates you have, when we're talking about a cyclist riding off to the side of a wide lane, right where he would be riding if that area were demarcated as a bike lane. That's what we're talking about since the central issue is about what effects, positive or negative, removing the BL stripe would have on cyclists.
So far all you have come up with is a claim that removing the stripe would require cyclists riding in that area to "negotiate" with passing motorists. And your latest attempt at explaining that alleged need to "negotiate" is based on some fantasy that cyclists riding off to the side in wide lanes are harrassed (honking, etc.) by motorists (but how that requires the cyclist to do anything besides continue to travel straight, and hence, no need to negotiate, is left unanswered). You also imply that cyclists are more likely to be hit from behind when riding off to the side in a wide lane in certain areas with poor sight lines and high speed differentiation than when they are "protected" by a BL stripe, without any substantiation of this claim. Did I miss anything?
noisebeam
To some extent, it does, and even more it depends on the practical status of cyclists on a particular road. If you are riding where you are not expected to be by motorists (legal or not), I guarantee you an unpleasant time if you impede traffic. You will be honked at, and you will stick out like a sore thumb. Yeah, I know, "its their [the motorists] problem" as you said many times. Some people don't mind this kind of stress, and perhaps actually enjoy the "assertiveness trip" that you are promoting, however, the majority of cyclists just want minimal interaction with cars and want to travel the roads in peace without being yelled at or buzzed.
Now, I think I finally figured out what exactly rubs me the wrong way in your rhetoric...
For many of us, cycling has nothing to do with being "assertive". Instead, we feel relaxed and willing to be considerate and mellow with other road users. I am happy to take a lane when I need to, and I do it without having any hard-nosed attitude. You may not realize it, but the "attitude" that you say is so important is interpreted by me and others as aggressive and uncool. It seems that a lot of self-identified VC-ers on the blog-i-sphere give off this impression. Some personality trait keeps you guys from seeing this as counterproductive to your goals.
Interestingly I find the most common time I get honked or yelled at to get in the BL is when there is a BL, but "I am riding where I am not expected to be by motorists" as I have chosen not to use it (most often because I am lining up behind traffic at a stop light or am merging for a turn). I have also been yelled at to get on the sidewalk (or off the road) when riding in the right third of a lane that is to narrow to be shared, but far less often than when there is a bike lane stripe present, but I am not to the right of it. But I have never once been honked or yelled at when riding on a road with a Wide Outside Lane. Of course all this is just one data point (me and my commute), but I find this to be the regular pattern of agression from drivers: About once a week yelling when 'taking' a NOL, about three times a week for not using the BL around an intersection.
I personally don't like the assertiveness that is required to ride in a narrow outside lane in dense rush hour traffic. I also don't like the assertiveness needed to use the primary lane (aka not bike lane) when there is a poorly designed bike lane (i.e. one that continues all the way to an intersection instead of ending 100yrds. before it). But both of these levels of assertiveness pale in comparision to the assertiveness needed to merge to make left turns during dense traffic - this last point is important as it is basically a skill and level of assertiveness that is needed to get around a city, but also one that is not at all bike lane related.
I actually wish I could be mellow on my commute, but traffic is too dense and too fast for any type of relaxed riding, although I do relax when riding in the BL or right side of a WOL in the long sections between any type (driveway, primary) of intersection, but these stretches never last more than 1/2mi. In any case the level of relaxation/assertiveness is the same or lower compared to driving the same streets - in other words driving in rush hour traffic also requires assertiveness and creates tension.
I too think there is some level of posturing done by anti-BL advocates as to how comfortable they are with their assertiveness and agree it can be a turn off. But I also find that a certain level of assertiveness is a requirement to ride a bicycle safely on all but the quietest of streets.
Al
Brian Ratliff
This is why bike lanes sometimes appear to help, even when they don't. When traffic engineers put in a bike lane, they changed the road from two lanes to one, which slowed traffic, which made the road more cyclist-friendly. Unless the road was 40-45+ mph road with few interections, it wasn't the bike lane stripe that made the difference.
JRA, bike lanes are "segregated" facilities, especially in places like Portland where we can be cited for leaving the lane. Saying that you don't like that word doesn't change that. I have frequently attacked other forum users who compare cyclist rights to the black civil rights movement, but a "segregated" lane is a "segregated" lane is a "segregated" lane.
"Segregated" is more accurate from "separated" because "separated" does not make it clear that the frequent result of the new lanes is that we cyclists are barred from the existing traffic lanes.
And if you don't like the word "segregation," maybe we should talk about facilities that meet the "special needs" of cyclists. ;)
Are you still on the "getting cited for leaving the bike lane in Portland" wank? I thought all of us who actually live and ride in Portland have told you that this law is not enforced. Oh, but you know better from Ohio. Of course.
I guess the city busses in Portland are segregated against because they are given their own streets in downtown Portland. Similarly, we have signs on the freeway directing trucks to stay to the right lane. Guess that is segregation as well. We also have a law that slow moving vehicles have to stop when more than 10 or so cars are stacked up behind. More segregation. They even have to wear a silly sign on their rears to indicate that they are slow moving. We have gates across the road where the light rail transit crosses the street to stop cars from crossing the tracks, giving the right of way to the light rail. More segregation. We even have dedicated right turn lanes to give to only those people who are turning right. Even more segregation.
Better clear the streets of all lane markings. Let all drive where they want without pesky lanes to get in the way. In fact, even do away with the "drive to the right" law that we have here so left turns don't have to wait.
We can't have anyone segregated against!
genec
Gene, how is it that I regularly ride for weeks at a time, hundreds of miles, without encountering the "typical tailgating, horn honking, engine reving, yelling and other behaviours" of which you constantly hand wring about?
And even if 1 in a million motorists did start honking, engine reving, and yelling at a cyclist, even though he was riding off to the side in a lane wide enough to be safely shared (don't confuse the bike lane discussion with using the full lane in a narrow lane situation, or in a merging situation, which bike lanes do not address), you still have not explained how that would lead to your claim that the cyclist has to "negotiate" to continue going straight.
Your imagination is running wild again, my friend.
You have no evidence, none, nada, zilch, that a distracted motorist has EVER hit a same-direction cyclist (in daylight or at night with proper lights/reflectors) from behind in a wide lane due to poor sight lines and the "sudden appearance" of the cyclist in front of him. The entire BL defense is based on these extraordinary examples of pure fantasy, and the fear that somehow somewhere they might happen, maybe, once. I say "don't forget" because your use of the phrase "in the middle of the road" indicates you have, when we're talking about a cyclist riding off to the side of a wide lane, right where he would be riding if that area were demarcated as a bike lane. That's what we're talking about since the central issue is about what effects, positive or negative, removing the BL stripe would have on cyclists.
So far all you have come up with is a claim that removing the stripe would require cyclists riding in that area to "negotiate" with passing motorists. And your latest attempt at explaining that alleged need to "negotiate" is based on some fantasy that cyclists riding off to the side in wide lanes are harrassed (honking, etc.) by motorists (but how that requires the cyclist to do anything besides continue to travel straight, and hence, no need to negotiate, is left unanswered). You also imply that cyclists are more likely to be hit from behind when riding off to the side in a wide lane in certain areas with poor sight lines and high speed differentiation than when they are "protected" by a BL stripe, without any substantiation of this claim. Did I miss anything?
Not exactly sure where the "fantasy" comes in in your reply...
You have no evidence, none, nada, zilch, that a distracted motorist has NEVER hit a same-direction cyclist (in daylight or at night with proper lights/reflectors) from behind in a wide lane due to poor sight lines and the "sudden appearance" of the cyclist in front of him. The usual response is "I just did not see the cyclist." Yet the police typically (http://www.svbcbikes.org/news/drivers-at-fault.php) side with the driver, so how can I provide evidence?
Specifically I am addressing WOL roads with poor sight lines, and as an example, which you have rejected before (but then again you do not ride this area regularly, which eliminates you as an "expert witness") is Regents road, where a BL now exists which frankly does aid me in my ascent of this windy road. Prior to the BL installation, (just a few years ago) motorists would often go wide on this road in their effort to meet the 50MPH limit. I watched them while hiking along this road. Today they stay between the lines.
Now having traveled this road often, I can tell you that the sight lines are not good, and as one nears the peak, a cyclist not in a BL, might appear "in the middle of the road" (which was a bit of literal exaggeration on my part with reference to VC riding) and could suddenly be "come upon" in that road. Without the BL stripe, it would be quite common for a motorist to use the entire lane, thus tightly rounding the curves and potentially, coming up suddenly, to a slow cyclist ascending this steep hill even in a WOL.
With BL stripes, the motorists stay between the lines.... and thus leave me room to ride.
Now you will go on to report the 1976 findings of Forester, and others and I can only report the findings of
Cambridge (http://www.cambridgema.gov/~CDD/et/bike/bike_safety.html) and the findings of the London Bike lane study amoung others.
I don't know where it stops... this constant clashing of words...
Oh, regarding the weeks of "riding... etc... ," you deny that you are ever honked at? Are you going to make me do the searches to find your quotes of having been honked at?
BTW I did address the WOL situation...
RE negotiation... you yourself brought up the "WTF responses of drivers" when dealing with cyclists in WOL; that response alone means that the driver slows, wonders what to do, hesitates making a decision, and then either wisely moves on, or requires some indication from a cyclist as to what to do... or worse, the motorist makes a rage or arrogant based decision that results in an ugly uncomfortable situation.
Now you can again go on with the arguement that "it doesn't happen to Serge." But it does happen to others, and you in fact made the original "WTF" analogy of a motorist dealing with a cyclist in a WOL...
At this point we are getting nowhere... the arguement has been rehashed so many times with no party gaining ground...
Obviously some cyclists like BL, others want them all elminated, with no happy medium. And as long as both side clash with each other... nothing will be done well.
noisebeam
Obviously some cyclists like BL, others want them all elminated, with no happy medium. And as long as both side clash with each other... nothing will be done well.
Lets be clear for those who are new to this debate: Some cyclists want Bike Lanes marked with a separating line, while others also want the extra space the lane provides, but with no line marking separating the bike lane space from the primary lane.
We are arguing over the painted line, not over the extra pavement space the bike lane provides.
Al
Helmet Head
You have no evidence, none, nada, zilch, that a distracted motorist has NEVER hit a same-direction cyclist (in daylight or at night with proper lights/reflectors) from behind in a wide lane due to poor sight lines and the "sudden appearance" of the cyclist in front of him. The usual response is "I just did not see the cyclist." Yet the police typically side with the driver, so how can I provide evidence?
You have no evidence, none, nada, zilch, that a scenario where a motorist in a wide lane hit a same direction/going straight cyclist who was riding off to the side in the lane has ever occured, much less that the reason it occured was because of poort sight lines and "sudden appearance" of the cyclist. You are confusing what happens in collisions that involve intersections and turning with same direction collisions.
it would be quite common for a motorist to use the entire lane, thus tightly rounding the curves and potentially [in Gene's fantastic imagination], coming up suddenly, to a slow cyclist ascending this steep hill even in a WOL
Never happened (that a cyclist was hit here or in a similar situation).
At this point we are getting nowhere...
Indeed, primarily because you made the baseless and outrageous claim that cyclists riding off to the side in a wide lane have to "negotiate" with faster traffic from behind to keep riding straight ahead, and continually ignore my questions of what you think the cyclists have to negotiate for, and what action they have to take in the negotiation process.
You keep bringing up the "WTF" analogy as if it's relevant to this discussion. It's not. The "WTF" thing goes to what's going on in the motorist's mind, and the actions they take in response to seeing a cyclist up ahead in their lane (moving left, slowing down). This has no relevance to the question of whether the cyclist has to negotiate for anything (he doesn't; regardless of what is going on in the motorist's mind, the cyclist just keeps riding straight).
Are you prepared to retract your claim about the need for negotiation by cyclists riding straight off to the side in a wide lane, or are you going to explain what you think the cyclists have to negotiate for, and what action they have to take in the negotiation process?
1) What cyclists going straight in a wide lane need to negotiate for is: _________________________________.
2) The actions cyclists going straight in a wide lane need to take in the process of negotiating with same-direction faster traffic approaching from behind are:________________________________________________________.
genec
Lets be clear for those who are new to this debate: Some cyclists want Bike Lanes marked with a separating line, while others also want the extra space the lane provides, but with no line marking separating the bike lane space from the primary lane.
We are arguing over the painted line, not over the extra pavement space the bike lane provides.
Al
Truly agreed... the extra space is a given... I obviously want it and I believe Serge also agrees on that.
My only provisio RE the painted stripe, is that it notifies motorists that you may be there, up ahead. Of course I also want signs too.
Serge's arguments against the use of paint are many and varied. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate)
The real issue of course is on the validity of the various items in the "great debate."
Helmet Head
We are arguing over the painted line, not over the extra pavement space the bike lane provides.
Not only that, but we've got it narrowed down to arguing over the alleged power of the painted line in alleviating the cyclist from having to engage in some kind of mystery negotation with faster traffic approaching from behind.
genec
You have no evidence, none, nada, zilch, that a scenario where a motorist in a wide lane hit a same direction/going straight cyclist who was riding off to the side in the lane has ever occured, much less that the reason it occured was because of poort sight lines and "sudden appearance" of the cyclist. You are confusing what happens in collisions that involve intersections and turning with same direction collisions.
Never happened (that a cyclist was hit here or in a similar situation).
Indeed, primarily because you made the baseless and outrageous claim that cyclists riding off to the side in a wide lane have to "negotiate" with faster traffic from behind to keep riding straight ahead, and continually ignore my questions of what you think the cyclists have to negotiate for, and what action they have to take in the negotiation process.
You keep bringing up the "WTF" analogy as if it's relevant to this discussion. It's not. The "WTF" thing goes to what's going on in the motorist's mind, and the actions they take in response to seeing a cyclist up ahead in their lane (moving left, slowing down). This has no relevance to the question of whether the cyclist has to negotiate for anything (he doesn't; regardless of what is going on in the motorist's mind, the cyclist just keeps riding straight).
Are you prepared to retract your claim about the need for negotiation by cyclists riding straight off to the side in a wide lane, or are you going to explain what you think the cyclists have to negotiate for, and what action they have to take in the negotiation process?
1) What cyclists going straight in a wide lane need to negotiate for is: _________________________________.
2) The actions cyclists going straight in a wide lane need to take in the process of negotiating with same-direction faster traffic approaching from behind are:________________________________________________________.
Oh jeeze... the dreaded Serge essay test.
1) What cyclists going straight in a wide lane need to negotiate for is: to continue on their current path without impeding traffic that wishes to pass them but is not sure of the protocal.
2) The actions cyclists going straight in a wide lane need to take in the process of negotiating with same-direction faster traffic approaching from behind are: anything from nothing, to simply signaling the motorist that it is OK to go on, to ignoring the annoying horn and reving engine of the power crazed idiot.
BTW the responses you are talking about do indeed slow traffic, and the bunching effect has the ability to cause accidents. (I know, I know... not in the world of Serge... ) which further raises the anxiety of the various users of the road...
noisebeam
So there is agreement* that the debate is only over the painted line.
There is also I believe a certain level of agreement* that that painted line only becomes a debate for certain roads depending on speed, gradient and perhaps some other factors. Perhaps something like roads with posted speeds over 35-45mph and steep roads with posted speeds over 25-35mph.
I think there is also general agreement* that the painted line should end some distance (100yrds ?) before an intersection unless the painted line directs the bike lane to the left of a right turn lane.
Maybe it would be helpful to include in the 'debate' documentation what is generally agreed upon.
Actually I am far less concerned (to the point of not caring one way or the other) with the painted line existing or not between intersections that I am with poorly implemented bike facilties that are integrated into intersections. This later problem presents a far greater hazard to cyclists than any bike lane line (or lack of) could ever create.
*not from everyone of course, just from some vocal advocates that have spoken out on each side of the debate ;)
Al
genec
Not only that, but we've got it narrowed down to arguing over the alleged power of the painted line in alleviating the cyclist from having to engage in some kind of mystery negotation with faster traffic approaching from behind.
Actually the whole issue of the "mystery negotation" is resolved by your consistent earlier statements that motorists "ignore" cyclists in BL.
If the motorists are not "ignoring" cyclists in WOL, then what indeed is going on? Are some motorists slowing down, and is it possible that there is then "negotiation" going on?
genec
So there is agreement* that the debate is only over the painted line.
There is also I believe a certain level of agreement* that that painted line only becomes a debate for certain roads depending on speed, gradient and perhaps some other factors. Perhaps something like roads with posted speeds over 35-45mph and steep roads with posted speeds over 25-35mph.
I think there is also general agreement* that the painted line should end some distance (100yrds ?) before an intersection unless the painted line directs the bike lane to the left of a right turn lane.
Maybe it would be helpful to include in the 'debate' documentation what is generally agreed upon.
Actually I am far less concerned (to the point of not caring one way or the other) with the painted line existing or not between intersections that I am with poorly implemented bike facilties that are integrated into intersections. This later problem presents a far greater hazard to cyclists than any bike lane line (or lack of) could ever create.
*not from everyone of course, just from some vocal advocates that have spoken out on each side of the debate ;)
Al
Thanks for following the issues, and for acting as historian at this point... Yeah, I think you summed it up rather well... Further I also agree that poorly designed BL facilities do cause problems... which is why I think if we can all get together on a minimum set of suggested requirements, for those instances where BL can help cyclists, we can all together advocate for the elmination of the bad BLs.
Brian Ratliff
Actually the whole issue of the "mystery negotation" is resolved by your consistent earlier statements that motorists "ignore" cyclists in BL.
If the motorists are not "ignoring" cyclists in WOL, then what indeed is going on? Are some motorists slowing down, and is it possible that there is then "negotiation" going on?
There's the key. This is what I was trying to get at with the one on one negotiation verses ROW systems. Serge talks about how cars pass with less room and faster when in a bike lane in one breath then says that there is absolutely no negotiation going on with a shared WOL in the next, though cars pass slower and with more space. This is inconsistant. When cars pass fast and close, it is not because they are all suicidal or homicidal (depending on who or what they are passing), it is because they are certain of the position and speed of the passed vehicle. Things are predictable.
With a shared lane, wide or not, cars tend to pass slower because drivers are less certain of the lane position and intent of the cyclist ahead. This uncertainty, and the resolution of this uncertainty is what is meant by the term "negotiation." This is why Serge's swerves and false brake signals work to slow traffic down (and why tapping the brakes sometimes gets ride of a tailgater in a car. Unfortunately, there is likely to be a human element, like when you (in a car now) slow down or hesitate to pass a driver with a turn signal on, only to find that they left it on by mistake. You feel jipped and a little irritated at the deception.
The argument shouldn't be whether we prefer a strip or not, it should be about whether we prefer a system where everything is certain and drivers pass fast, close, and safely; or whether we prefer a opaque system (the status quo, more or less) where drivers slow down due to uncertainty, but maybe makes the wrong decision (or the cyclist makes the wrong decision) when the moment arrives to resolve the uncertainty (i.e. the pass).
There are a lot of side issues, but this is the main issue. The question is which system we want, and what cycling facility (BL's or WOL's) best accomplishes this.
Helmet Head
Actually the whole issue of the "mystery negotation" is resolved by your consistent earlier statements that motorists "ignore" cyclists in BL.
I'm standing by my earlier statements, which resolve nothing regarding the "mystery negotation".
If the motorists are not "ignoring" cyclists in WOL, then what indeed is going on? Are some motorists slowing down, and is it possible that there is then "negotiation" going on?
What's going on is that motorists are slowing down, and moving left to pass the cyclists.
Negotiation is a 2-way give-and-take communication. In the case of riding in a WOL, the cyclist is neither giving nor taking... he just proceeds in a straight lane, no different when there is faster traffic approaching, than when there is. In fact, since most cyclists don't use mirrors, they are usually not even aware of the presence of faster traffic approaching from behind, and, hence, uusally don't even know there is someone approaching with whom to negotiate, if there was anything they wanted to negotiate for.
Contrast this cyclist with the one who intends on merging left. NOW there is something to negotiate: the right-of-way within the space to the left of the cyclist.
There is no negotation needed or even possible between the cyclist continuing to go straight and faster traffic approaching from behind.
1) What cyclists going straight in a wide lane need to negotiate for is: to continue on their current path without impeding traffic that wishes to pass them but is not sure of the protocal.
Whether he is impeding faster traffic is irrelevant to the question of whether he needs to negotiate for something. Say you have a big tree in your backyard, and someone builds a house behind yours. Now your tree is impeding their view. So what? The ring on your doorbell and ask you to prune your tree. Let them ask all you want, you have no obligation to negotate (give and take). Sure, if you want to look behind you and see confused motorists there (for the record, I'm just going with your fantasy here - I have NEVER heard of, much less encountered, a motorist who was puzzled with the presence of a bicyclist on the roadway at the side of a wide lane), you can wave them by or whatever. But that's your choice regardless of whether the stripe exists. You have no more need to negotate with fantasy confused motorists behind you than you do to prune your tree to improve your new neighbor's view.
2) The actions cyclists going straight in a wide lane need to take in the process of negotiating with same-direction faster traffic approaching from behind are: anything from nothing, to simply signaling the motorist that it is OK to go on, to ignoring the annoying horn and reving engine of the power crazed idiot.
"Doing nothing" and "ignoring" are by definition not negotiating.
Like I said above, signaling is certainly an option you may take, but does not come close to constituting a need to negotiate.
Serge
JRA
Not only that, but we've got it narrowed down to arguing over the alleged power of the painted line in alleviating the cyclist from having to engage in some kind of mystery negotation with faster traffic approaching from behind.No, we've narrowed it down to the assertion that the painted line is discrimination and that a painted line on the pavement makes it impossible for cyclists to assert their right to ride in traffic.
VC purists are fond of saying that other cyclists are suffering from a "bicycle inferiority complex". But there's another "complex" they don't mention, the "cyclists as victims complex".
It's vogue these days to play the victim. It can be quite satisfying to see yourself as a victim although it's usually self-defeating in the long term. Playing the victim is what bike lane opponents are doing when they continually whine about "segregation".
The "cyclists as victims complex" seems to be the only argument (if you can call playing the victim an argument) bike lane opponents have to support the view that all bike lanes are bad.
(BTW, the "Bike-Lane Debate" article on Wikipedia, which Serge wrote, is biased and is not a fair analysis of the arguments on both sides.)
Helmet Head
No, we've narrowed it down to the assertion that the painted line is discrimination and that a painted line on the pavement makes it impossible for cyclists to assert their right to ride in traffic.
Who has argued that?
Playing the victim is what bike lane opponents are doing when they continually whine about "segregation".
Just because playing the victim is vogue does not mean there is no such thing as actual victims.
The "cyclists as victims complex" seems to be the only argument (if you can call playing the victim an argument) bike lane opponents have to support the view that all bike lanes are bad.
That's an inaccurate representation of the anti-BL argument. While we do claim that bike lanes are unjustified segregation (there is no question that they are segregation), our main argument is whatever benefits even good bike lanes might bring to cycling (and we're still wondering what those might be), they are dwarfed by the drawbacks (which are many besides the unjustified segregation problem).
(BTW, the "Bike-Lane Debate" article on Wikipedia, which Serge wrote, is biased and is not a fair analysis of the arguments on both sides.)
I tried my best at presenting the arguments for a neutral point of view, but realize I probably failed. I invite and urge someone less biased than I, or at least biased in the opposite direction, to fix it.
genec
I have NEVER heard of, much less encountered, a motorist who was puzzled with the presence of a bicyclist on the roadway at the side of a wide lane), you can wave them by or whatever.
Serge
The problem with your response is that it may not reflect the realities of others... for example... and I am only giving an example... not necessarily with application to this particular problem of WOL.
When taking the Road 1 class as we crossed the 805 bridge using the obviously wide Clairemont Mesa Blvd, we found motorists would simply go around us... either to the right to access the freeway, or to the left of the shared lane, to continue on straight... but there was one exception... a lady that did not know what to do and in fact excerbated the situation by attempting to get onto the freeway, while staying parallel to two of us... effectively needing to merge through us. In the end, our "negotiations" were as simple as us cyclists simply slowing down faster than she could and getting behind her to allow her to merge right.
While a cyclist could simply ignore all other users of the roadway who may be having a difficult time "negotiating" with the cyclist and simply continue pedaling on their merry way... Indeed there are often times when the confusion of a motorist on your left "shoulder" (or perhaps right on your ass... as a better example) brings a certain amount of unresolved stress that can be relieved simply by the cyclist indicating their intent to the oblivious motorist. That is then a "negotiation."
Other motorists may simply "voice" their displeasure of having to "deal" with you simply by passing too close... that again is a "negotiation."
"Waving them by or whatever" is a "negotiation."
Helmet Head
With a shared lane, wide or not, cars tend to pass slower because drivers are less certain of the lane position and intent of the cyclist ahead. This uncertainty, and the resolution of this uncertainty is what is meant by the term "negotiation."
I'm sorry, but the motorist slowing down and moving left, while the cyclist simply proceeds going straight minding his own business as if the passing/slowing/moving motorist is not even there, does not constitute a "negotation", which must involve give and take between TWO parties.
If you CHOOSE to be bothered by motorists slowing down and moving left to pass you with a wider margin, and then speeding up, that's your choice. But don't call it negotiation.
If you CHOOSE to be bothered by the occasional motorist who might be confused about what to do, and maybe even honk, and that causing you to take some minor action to help them out, fine. But to avoid THAT, you want the painted line with all its drawbacks?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand.
I-Like-To-Bike
Are you still on the "getting cited for leaving the bike lane in Portland" wank? I thought all of us who actually live and ride in Portland have told you that this law is not enforced. Oh, but you know better from Ohio. Of course.
Of Course! Some of these characters (a handful of self appointed, irrationally exuberent legal beagle/bicycling "experts", know it all about the bicycling environment in Portland, and NYC, and Chicago, and rural areas, and Europe and every other dang place. They have gained their "special knowledge" about everyone else's circumstances (unknown by actual residents) from the cozy confines of their Internet experience and/or the amazing powers derived from close study and mind numbing repitition of the dogma found in the EffectiveCycling good book. They believe it so, of course it must be so.
Helmet Head
By the way, those of you who are all twisted about the use of "segregated" with respect to cycling facilities, you might want to check out the segregated cycle facilities article in Wikipedia:
"Segregated cycle facility" is the standard British term for bike lanes, paths, etc.
Bruce Rosar
... in the other thread we were treated to a comparison of a bike lane supporter to a supporter of segregated drinking fountains, so it was quite clear what was meant That support for the
separation of a class or group in the use of a public facility on a basis other than individual merit
is comparable in principle to support for the
separation of a class or group in the use of a public facility on a basis other than individual merit?
* Segregation - the separation or isolation of a class or group by discriminatory means.
* Discriminate - to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.
<discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>
Bruce Rosar
... the occasional motorist who might be confused about what to do, and maybe even honk ...And remember; if they honk at you, that means that they see you! :)
Brian Ratliff
I'm sorry, but the motorist slowing down and moving left, while the cyclist simply proceeds going straight minding his own business as if the passing/slowing/moving motorist is not even there, does not constitute a "negotation", which must involve give and take between TWO parties.
If you CHOOSE to be bothered by motorists slowing down and moving left to pass you with a wider margin, and then speeding up, that's your choice. But don't call it negotiation.
If you CHOOSE to be bothered by the occasional motorist who might be confused about what to do, and maybe even honk, and that causing you to take some minor action to help them out, fine. But to avoid THAT, you want the painted line with all its drawbacks?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand.
Perhaps you are objecting to the semantics? Let's call it "car-driver interaction" instead. Whether the cyclist reacts or not is up to the cyclist, but the cyclist does have a stake in the matter, and the car reacted in any case. The point is not what you call the "interaction." The point is that it is very real and a relevent topic of discussion. By objecting to the semantics so forcefully you are dodging the question.
And though it is retorical, you always have to be prepared for an answer to the question you ask since, though the question may seem retorical to you, it may still be a point for valid discussion. Yes, I would take the painted line, with all of the disadvantages you percieve attached to it, over any situation on the road which has to potential to cause confusion on anyones part. After all, cyclist and driver alike can learn any set of rules attached to a certain lane marking, but the most dangerous situation on our roads is ambiguity. Like it or not, our ROW system expects everyone to be in a lane on the road and for ROW to be clear at all times. Cyclists today get away with sharing lanes because we are few in number and any one car does not interact with very many cyclists. WOL's get cyclists out of the way of cars, but without extra rules tacked on to the basic ROW rules of the road and driver education to go along with it, ambiguity with the shared lane still exists if the cyclist is anywhere but over to the right. And if the cyclist is expected to be over to the right most of the time, then maybe formalizing the ROW and adding a stripe to designate a bike lane is not such a bad idea.
BR
Brian Ratliff
By the way, those of you who are all twisted about the use of "segregated" with respect to cycling facilities, you might want to check out the segregated cycle facilities article in Wikipedia:
"Segregated cycle facility" is the standard British term for bike lanes, paths, etc.
Just out of curiosity, who is in charge of editing this entry? I noticed the big sign on top that said the neutrality of the page was in question.
By the way, technically, the word "segregated" is correct to apply to bike lanes. We can say we segregate men from women when we designate separate restrooms in public places. But we don't. Here, in the US, the word "segregation" is a loaded term and is almost always used to mean a separation of a group on an unmeritable basis, but giving one of the groups, who is not in power, inferior facilities.
Now, we can argue if bike lanes are, in fact, "inferior facilities," but we cannot argue that we are "segregated" based on the dictionary definition as a supporting argument to the claim that we are "segregated" in the way the loaded definition implies. This switching of definitions mid-stream makes for a dishonest argument.
BR
michaelnel
I have very mixed feelings about bike lanes.
In San Francisco, we have lots of them. Problem is, many people in cars / trucks / buses use them for double parking.
The bike lanes tend to be littered with crap that is brushed aside by the cars. Lots of broken glass and sharp metal things.
They frequently are pot-holed something fierce, and the people who fix things like that tend to fix 'em if they are in the car roadway, but not when they are in bike lanes.
Bike lanes seem to always be in the portion of the road that is popular for installing manhole covers. The covers were there before the bike lanes, but still, you have to contend with them.
The bike lanes put you too close to the idiots who open their doors without looking.
My preference is to ride in the traffic lanes and deal with the cars.
JRA
Just because playing the victim is vogue does not mean there is no such thing as actual victims.Are you claiming that cyclists are victims?
I don't doubt that there are cyclists who believe that. But if cyclists are such victims, how is it that you and I have each ridden successfully for decades?
And how is it that I find cycling so enjoyable?
And how is a victim complex less self-defeating than an inferiority complex?
While we do claim that bike lanes are unjustified segregation (there is no question that they are segregation)... I question that "segregation" is a more technically correct term than "separation". In fact, I dispute it.
I tried my best at presenting the arguments for a neutral point of view, but realize I probably failed. I invite and urge someone less biased than I, or at least biased in the opposite direction, to fix it.I don't doubt that you tried but it's pretty difficult to present a neutral POV. As you probably know Wikipedia works best when there are several people editing an article. The fact that no one else has contributed is not your fault. I've done some editing (none recently) but I have no plans to edit that article. I've already spent more time on this thread than my interest in BLs warrants.
Just out of curiosity, who is in charge of editing this entry?Anybody can edit Wikipedia.
Bruce Rosar
... the most dangerous situation on our roads is ambiguity. Greater ambiguity (doubtfulness or uncertainty) about whether or not a road user who is being overtaken will behave predictability (will indicate their maneuvers in advance) during the pass can cause the overtaking user to approach with greater caution. In other words, feelings of uncertainty (i.e., ambiguity) can actually decrease real danger.
... our ROW system expects everyone to be in a lane on the road ...There are many roads where I live that don't have any marked lanes.
... and for ROW to be clear at all times.From the NOLO legal encyclopedia (http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/262D0D22-2CB9-4DF2-AFAF3F7CA3DFE1D8/104/199/255/ART/)... figuring out who is at fault in a traffic accident is a matter of deciding who was careless -- or "negligent." In many cases, your instincts will tell you that a driver, cyclist or pedestrian acted carelessly, but ...
If someone hits you from behind, it is virtually never your fault, regardless of why you stopped. A basic rule of the road* requires a vehicle to be able to stop safely if traffic is stopped ahead of it.
And then there's Basic Law Enforcement Training (BLET) lesson 17A (http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/mvlaw.pdf)The general speed law* is that no vehicle may be operated at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent for the conditions then existing. The fact that a speed limit sign indicates a faster speed does not relieve the driver from this requirement.
* Basic speed rule UVC 11-801 (http://www.ohiobike.org/NCUTLO/uvc11pt2.htm)No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when ... special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic ...
sbhikes
And meanwhile, while Serge is arguing about how awful bike lanes are, I'm enjoying my commute, nearly getting run over only on the streets without bike lanes, blissfully riding as fast as I can--without interference from cars--on roads that have bike lanes and no intersections, and enjoying slower-paced cruises along the bike path. It's pretty stress-free overall.
Those who argued about the annoying attitude that these overly assertive VC'ers seem to exude have certainly got it right. What those attitude junkies fail to comprehend is that cycling should be a pleasure, and more than just the pleasure (rush?) Serge says he gets from heavy traffic. It should also include the pleasure of no smog or the pleasure of quietude and nature that you get on a separated bike path, or the pleasure of simply enjoying powering down the road as fast as you can that you get on a road with a big wide bike lane and no intersections, or the pleasure of knowing that the cars around you aren't confused by you because there is a bike lane, or the pleasure of knowing that the ignorant cyclist in front of you at the very least knows to stay in the bike lane so you can pass him comfortably.
Also the ignorance of other places issue is really relevant. I sometimes ride in Oxnard. It's probably a lot more like most suburban sprawl places out there. It's not at all like here where I live. Not even close. I can see how the anti-bike lane attitude could arrise if that's what you live with. But I don't live with that, so the anti-bike lane attitude makes absolutly no sense to me.
Bruce Rosar
Obviously some cyclists like BL, others want them all elminated, with no happy medium. And as long as both side clash with each other... nothing will be done well.Here's a medium that I'd be happy with:
Convert BLs to narrow traffic lanes by changing the solid lines to broken and removing the special signs/markings.
Helmet Head
Brian, I'm not objecting to the semantics. I'm trying to understand the burden, if you will, that a cyclist has to take on in the absence of a bike lane stripe that he does not have to take on if the stripe is there. You and Gene have described this burden as a need to "negotiate". That's puzzling to me, because when I'm riding along to the right of a WOL I pay no more or less attention to traffic coming from behind than if I'm riding in a bike lane. Whatever it is that you want to call it -- negotiation -- I contend that a cyclist should do no more nor less of it when proceeding straight in a WOL than when proceeding straight in a bike lane. The burden on the passing motorist, however, I think we all agree is greater in the absence of the stripe. That I contend is good (for the cyclist), for reasons that Bruce most recently pointed out.
To me, this gets back to the false sense of security issue with bike lanes. I contend that if you believe the bike lane alleviates the cyclist from any burden that he has while riding off to the side in a WOL, then you have succumbed to the false sense of security effect of bike lanes. If you have fallen prey to the false sense of security, then it is understandable why you might favor bike lanes over WOL riding. It would also explain why no one can explain what exactly the cyclist does not have to do in a bike lane that he does have to do in a WOL, since it's about how uncomfortable the cyclist feels in the WOL, and how much more comfortable he feels in the bike lane.
Like it or not, our ROW system expects everyone to be in a lane on the road and for ROW to be clear at all times.
In general, in traffic, clarity is better than ambiguity in terms of determining ROW. However, there are exceptions. For example, there have been recent studies that show in places with standard traffic controls removed, drivers tend to drive slower and more carefully. When it comes to motorists passing cyclists, to the extent that the ambiguity slows down passing motorists and causes them to be more careful as they pass, the increase in ambiguity is a good thing. Whether the clarity in ROW provided by the BL stripe in the rare situations of long sections of roadway without intersections is a net good or drawback for cyclists is arguable at best, and is not very significant compared to all the drawbacks of bike lanes, including the drawbacks of bike lanes that apply even to "good" ones on long road sections without intersections.
Serge
Daily Commute
Once again I am reminded to keep local vs. global perspective when reading on-line forums and giving weight to any stated opinion.
I have *never* seen or heard of a local bike lane created by removing any other lanes. Bike lanes here are most commonly added by widening the roadway (usually as part of road Reconstruction), and sometimes by re-claiming the shoulder. Similarly we are never forced to use a bike lane, and we are used to having special-use lanes everywhere (all with solid lane stripes). So the segregation bit, along with being offencive is just grossly inaccurate here - as are all these "removing lanes" and "re-striping a wide lane into a narrow lane to make a bike-lane" stories I read on this site.
Typical new arterial here (Alta-Vista Transportation Corridor, Ottawa): 6 lanes - 2 general use, 2 HOV and transit only, two bike only; and pathway runingg parallel a short distance from the roadway.
I anyone is planing to cry "segregation" here its the car drivers!
I was responding to someone who said one of their local bike lanes was created by removing a traffic lane. As to never being forced to use a bike lane, cyclists can frequently be cited for using the road once a bike lane has been created.
And I stand by the word "segregated." It basically means forced separation. As Genec points out, sometimes segregated facilties are needed (freeway like conditions, for example). But they should be the exception, not the rule, especially in congested downtown areas.
I-Like-To-Bike
I was responding to someone who said one of their local bike lanes was created by removing a traffic lane. As to never being forced to use a bike lane, cyclists can frequently be cited for using the road once a bike lane has been created.
"Frequently"? Is that another tidbit that you read on the Internet? A few "Someones" said something? What the heck is your definition of "frequently"?
"Frequently"? Are you confusing "could be" with actual events/citations? Presumably cyclists "could be" hit by falling flower pots or meteorities,or lightning, etc.; but does it happen -frequently? Would/Should any rational cyclists alter behavior based on the conjured once-in-a-blue-moon "could be's" of a worrywort? Not likely in my opinion.
Daily Commute
I'm sorry I have not done a survey of the law in every city and state in the country. But I have seen "many" cities and states with laws prohibiting the use of the road and requiring use of bike lanes once a bike lane is striped. Portland is one example. For those of us who care about following traffic rules, this is important.
If you think that cyclists don't have to use striped lanes, where's your evidence?
patc
I was responding to someone who said one of their local bike lanes was created by removing a traffic lane.
Ok, sorry, I did not see it in that light.
As to never being forced to use a bike lane, cyclists can frequently be cited for using the road once a bike lane has been created.
Only in places that have such laws. To enforce mandatory use of bike lanes does not go hand-in-hand with the very existence of bike lanes. Its just a red herring thrown in by bike-lane haters as a "threat" of bike lanes.
And I stand by the word "segregated." It basically means forced separation. As Genec points out, sometimes segregated facilties are needed (freeway like conditions, for example). But they should be the exception, not the rule, especially in congested downtown areas.
And I stand by my strong objection to it. Its a deliberate use of an emotionally loaded word, and IMO used as a dishonest attempt by bike-lane haters to score points.
Brian Ratliff
I'm sorry I have not done a survey of the law in every city and state in the country. But I have seen "many" cities and states with laws prohibiting the use of the road and requiring use of bike lanes once a bike lane is striped. Portland is one example. For those of us who care about following traffic rules, this is important.
If you think that cyclists don't have to use striped lanes, where's your evidence?
My evidence is in riding in said city (Portland) for several years and the fact that this law is never even mentioned in the drivers manual or any other documentation distributed by the DMV. In fact, until you did your little internet search, I did not even know it existed myself. It is a legacy law and nobody who has not read the actual text of the law would even know it existed.
I only ask that you, who live in Ohio according to your profile, stop using Portland, one of the finest cities for cycling, as one of your examples of a bike oppressive city. I seriously doubt that you have even been here before.
BR
Keith99
Location: Los Angeles. I've never heard of someone being cited here for not using the bike lane. I have never heard of any law that would allow that. However I can see a policeman deciding to cite for obstructing traffic and if I were a cop I would feel more inclined to do so if it was someone taking the lane while riding slowly where there was a bike
lane.
On the issue of restriping a road to provide a bike lane, there is a section of road here where that was done. Oxnard between Winnetka and Desoto went from 2 lanes each way to 1 lane. My opinion was this was done NOT for cyclists but because local residents wanted less traffic. Now if one were to see a layout on paper this is one of the nicest bike lanes out there. Wide, well marked, long dashed areas as part of well handled intersections.
BUT there is one huge problem. This is all on a fairly lasty section of hills that can be avoided. I drive it often as it is the shortest route to my folks place. Just last week was the first time I've seen cyclists on it in months. Well sort of. I saw an older couple on the sidewalk walking their bikes up a hill. (Going the easy direction).
So when commuters are inconvienced by this guess who gets the blame? Yup the cyclists when it was not done for our benefit at all.
Helmet Head
Location: Los Angeles. I've never heard of someone being cited here for not using the bike lane. I have never heard of any law that would allow that.
This is the law that governs cyclist behavior and use of bike lanes in California:
21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm
I have never heard of any law that would allow that.
Now you have.
Granted, there are plenty of exceptions that a vehicular cyclist can cite as reasons to ride outside the bike lane, but the law puts the onus on the cyclist to show that the exceptions apply in a given case. All the police officer has to do is say you were riding outside of the bike lane, and unless you can prove one of the exceptions applied in your circumstances, you're guilty.