Advocacy & Safety - Bike lanes

Bad bike lane design is so rampant and creates such terrible and very often unsafe situations that I find this is one (but not the only) very good reason to oppose them. Also I don't think you comparision to a consumer product is correct: A backhoe has far more market forces that will drive it towards a good design, the customer will have choices between backhoe designs and this competetiveness will drive out the unusuable backhoes very quickly.

There is far more complexity in designing BLs over WOL, that requires nearly a yard by yard analysis of each and every implementation, with very likely conflicting inputs on how to best make the lane. A WOL is a design principle that my comparision is very easy to be followed.

This is a totally different tangent, but what can be done to prevent (and correct) bad bike lanes designs? I know Serge's answer is that all BLs are bad meaning this is a futile exercise, but going beyond this and for sake of discussion what can be done? I know that I am put in far more ambiguous and somtimes dangerous situations due to poor BL design than any arguably slight benefit I or other may get in the places the lane is 'tollerable'

Al

I am sure that the first backhoes were rejected by a good many people in favor of a gang of men with pickaxes on just the criteria you mentioned. If you don't like that analogy, how about bicycle gearing. Racers at first rejected multigeared bikes in favor of single speed fixed gears using the same arguments. Look how far the derailler has come given time, even to significant initial resistance by the main users.

Design is inherantly incremental. If you come to the Beaverton area in the west side of Portland, there are some very good bike lane designs and not that many bad ones. That the design of something has not matured is not a reason to reject it out of hand. You have to look at the possibilities of the future and be open to the possibility that many of the problems that now appear to be fundamental can be solved.

BR

And how do you do that without clarifying what that common ground is?

I believe I did. I am simply emphasising that there is no WE in a global sense. Just some people talking...

I am sure that the first backhoes were rejected by a good many people in favor of a gang of men with pickaxes on just the criteria you mentioned. If you don't like that analogy, how about bicycle gearing. Racers at first rejected multigeared bikes in favor of single speed fixed gears using the same arguments. Look how far the derailler has come given time, even to significant initial resistance by the main users.

Design is inherantly incremental. If you come to the Beaverton area in the west side of Portland, there are some very good bike lane designs and not that many bad ones. That the design of something has not matured is not a reason to reject it out of hand. You have to look at the possibilities of the future and be open to the possibility that many of the problems that now appear to be fundamental can be solved.

BR


Nope... we should have nipped this bad design stuff in the bud when it first appeared... When that first auto crash involved a cyclist, it was obvious then that autos did not belong on the road... We should have stopped those confounded contraptions back then... :rolleyes:

That's right up there with my boss telling me about one of the companies he worked for wanting to design a brand-spank'n-new product... with no prototypes.

Meanwhile... 40 prototypes later... ;)

If you come to the Beaverton area in the west side of Portland, there are some very good bike lane designs and not that many bad ones. ... Design is inherantly incremental.

A "good" bike lane design implies that bike lanes are good at least in concept.

Is there such a thing as a "good" fur sink design?
Or a "good" cement airplane design?
Or a "good" plastic magnet design?
Or a "good" gasoline fire extinguisher design?

You get the idea.

I agree that design is inherently incremental. But I'm not arguing that particular bike lanes are badly designed (I know we all agree on that). I'm arguing that NO bike lane provides any significant functional value to any cyclist.

By assuming there are "good" and "bad" bike lanes (on normal roads where bikes are not prohibited) you're ignoring the very issue we are debating. I believe that's the logical fallacy of putting the cart before the horse.

It seems to me that the first part of good design is deciding what you want to accomplish. This means there is not a universal set of guidelines for bike lanes. Examples:

The freeway, bridge and tunnel bikelanes that even Serge supports are useful in large part because they are part of a cyclists route. They allow a cyclist to use the roads that the bridge, tunnel or section of freeway link to other roads. The goal is to facilitate the use of surrounding roads in a VC manner. The evaluation is do they accomplish the goal? They need to start end end smoothly (eg not end at the back of a parked car). Also the feeder roads should be reasonable to cycle. It the roads leading to a tunnel or bridge are not suited for cycling then one has to question any bike lane on the tunnel or bridge.

At the far other extreem is the bikepath on Washington Blvd. It links two sections of Bike Path. It exists to facilitate the use of the Bike Path. It is primarily for riders who are not VC types and who probably would avoid the street. It in fact breaks a rule given above. It does take you to the sidewalk (well actually the bike path). In this case it is a good thing. It even has fair to good design when it comes to riders who will continue on Washington Blvd. in that where the lane ends does not suddenly squeeze out the riders.

One other use of bike lanes is to concentrate riders. This can be good or bad for cyclists. The main effect can be to get enough riders in one place that drivers expect bikes. This is good. The other side is it can be an attempt to limit bikes to that street. That is bad. San Vicente has a bike lane that is several miles long, going from just west of the San Diego Freeway to the beach. While there are some non-ideal features, especially near the east end, these are more than compensated for by the number of riders that use this route. Honestly I only go back about 15 years so I'm not sure which came first the riders or the lane. Very likely a bit of each. It may have started out as a prefered route and is now even more prefered.

One other thing that makes for a good bike system is including plans for review and upkeep. Serge has a point about cars sweeping a lane. Even playing the role (for a this sentence) of a bike lane advocate it seems to me that fewer bikes lanes that are well maintained serve those who 'need' bike lanes far better than more bike lanes so poorly maintained that they are difficult to ride in.

A "good" bike lane design implies that bike lanes are good at least in concept.

Is there such a thing as a "good" fur sink design?
Or a "good" cement airplane design?
Or a "good" plastic magnet design?
Or a "good" gasoline fire extinguisher design?

You get the idea.

I agree that design is inherently incremental. But I'm not arguing that particular bike lanes are badly designed (I know we all agree on that). I'm arguing that NO bike lane provides any significant functional value to any cyclist.

By assuming there are "good" and "bad" bike lanes (on normal roads where bikes are not prohibited) you're ignoring the very issue we are debating. I believe that's the logical fallacy of putting the cart before the horse.

And here's our fundamental, ideologically driven, disagreement.

"Good" and "bad" are relative terms. A "good" bike lane design is one which optimizes a bike lane to work the best it can. Your list of hypothetical products is very different; most of them will not work, period. But even with your examples are insightful. For instance, most refridgerator magnets are plastic or a polymer of some type. I'll bet that the first person who designed the man-made magnet would not have imagined a magnet made out of polymer and would have probably poo pooed the usefulness of any such thing. But yet we have gadds of them now. How about a self cleaning sink made from a fur-like substance? Who knows? Even cement can be a good structural material. I wouldn't rule it out categorically as a substance which will never be used in an airplane. Gasoline cannot be used directly to put out a flame, but it can be used in a heat exchanger to cool a substance which can.

Here is what we know. Bike lanes are possible to impliment (they are painted everywhere here in Portland), and they are possible to use (I make use of one every time I commute to work). So, while you can argue that bike lanes are fundamentally limited in potential, you cannot say they are fundamentally flawed in concept. In other words, they have already been demonstrated. If you are still maintaining that bike lanes are funamentally unworkable, you are like a person still doubting that a flying machine is physically possible, even after being shown a successful demonstration of the Wright Brother's aircraft.

So, I don't dodge any argument by assuming that a bike lane is a workable design since it is a demonstratable fact. The argument has to be about the degree of potential bike lanes hold. I feel compelled to make a distinction between "good" and "bad" bike lanes because you and others have put forward arguments attacking badly designed bike lanes as an argument against all bike lanes. This is as uncompelling as arguing that modern day trains are better than airplanes for cross country travel by comparing the modern trains to 1950 era airplanes.

If we can agree to drop "badly designed" bike lanes from the discussion, then I won't have to make the distinction to ensure we are all on the same page. I am seriously wondering if any of you in Southern Cal or Arizona have even seen a road with a well designed bike lane.

Are you with us, or not?
Whoaya! I'm not signing up to be in a club or anything. I take "we" to be the people taking part in this discussion and no one else. I don't claim to be making arguments on anyone else's behalf or any movement's behalf. I just wanted to find some common ground to keep the argument on track and focused.

Please, keep the signup sheets out!

Brian's use of the pronoun "We" is reasonable in the context he describes. This is in stark contrast to the presumptuous of Helmethead who apparently thinks his unique opinions and stream of consciousness ranting about cycling represent the consensus of a mystical unnamed/undefined population of cyclists (AKA "We/Us") known only to the residents of Planet Serge.

As best as I can tell, the "WE/US" of "Are you with us, or not?" consists of the 2 residents of Planet Serge (Serge and HelmetHead) and maybe a few EC zealots also obsessed with promoting as gospel the "wisdom" found in the John Forester chronicles. See Chainguard or BTI discussion groups if you wish to read similar rants from the members of the "we Club" who are "with us".

Of course none of this ridiculous speculation from Planet Serge makes the slightest difference unless any significant number of decision makers actually take his "stuff" seriously. I take that as even less likely than anyone taking seriously the worrywort fears of draconian enforcement of cycling laws known only to the VC-spouting legal beagles of the "Daily Commuter" breed.

I'm fine with bike lanes on freeways, bridges and in tunnels, where cyclists are not allowed to ride anywhere but the bike lane, and, if not for the bike lane, they would not be allowed to ride there at all...

If you think "the absolute opposition to bike lanes in the face of any argument is part of it", then I'm not very good at conveying my beliefs, or you're not reading very carefully, or both...

I'm arguing that NO bike lane provides any significant functional value to any cyclist...

I'm trying to read you carefully but I'm having to scrape my brains up off the wall since my head just exploded.

Come on, Diane. Must I specify every time I say "NO bike lane" I mean "NO bike lane on an a roadway where ordinary access is allowed for bicycles"?

Obviously on a roadway where the only access to cyclists allowed is in the bike lane, then it serves a purpose for cyclists (that service being access).

When you get your brain glued back together could you please reread those lines in this context and let me know if you still have a problem?

... the statement should really read: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of skinny, slow, vehicles"Sometimes human powered vehicles are faster than some motor vehicles, and some HPVs are wider than some MVs. A person fares better when they are treated according to their own individual performance, rather than on the basis of class or group membership.

As "drivers of vehicles" too many readers assume that one should act just like a driver of a motor vehicle.Note to those readers: While most of the Rules of the Road for movement in traffic apply to every vehicle driver (including 'cyclists), some of the Rules apply just to motorists because of the extraordinary danger such heavy equipment operation poses to others.

... cyclists have the ability to do things that only other two wheeled vehicles can do... such as motorcycles. John S. Allen once wrote (in the massbike list) The basic maneuvering characteristics of a bicycle are those of a vehicle...
Vehicles with at least one steered wheel at one end and at least one trailing wheel at the other all have a minimum turning radius, and do not maneuver in reverse effectively when compared to traveling forward. These common characteristics place bicycles, tricycles and quadcycles in the same general category of maneuverability.

In contrast, unicycles and Segways are in a higher category of maneuverability because their wheel(s) are all in the middle of the vehicle (rather than at the ends). This fundamental difference gives this latter set of vehicles the ability to pivot during normal operation (due to a wheelbase and minimum turning radius of zero), plus the ability to maneuver in reverse about as easily as when traveling forward. In other words, this latter set of vehicles can do things that the former set of vehicles cannot perform nearly as effectively (if at all).

I am seriously wondering if any of you in Southern Cal or Arizona have even seen a road with a well designed bike lane.

Having been out of the area and to places like Santa Barbarbra, and to (of all places) Portland (for an annual conferance held on Hayden Island) I can tell you I have seen Bike Lanes beyond those in Southern California. I have also seen rather extensive bike traffic in China and Hong Kong, and some interesting sidepaths in Barcelona.

Just to illustrate my point... attached are some pics from Barcelona. This is not to imply that these are well designed bike lanes, but simply that I have indeed seen other Bike Lanes in other areas.

Brian's use of the pronoun "We" is reasonable in the context he describes. This is in stark contrast to the presumptuous of Helmethead who apparently thinks his unique opinions and stream of consciousness ranting about cycling represent the consensus of a mystical unnamed/undefined population of cyclists (AKA "We/Us") known only to the residents of Planet Serge.

As best as I can tell, the "WE/US" of "Are you with us, or not?" consists of the 2 residents of Planet Serge (Serge and HelmetHead) and maybe a few EC zealots also obsessed with promoting as gospel the "wisdom" found in the John Forester chronicles. See Chainguard or BTI discussion groups if you wish to read similar rants from the members of the "we Club" who are "with us".

Of course none of this ridiculous speculation from Planet Serge makes the slightest difference unless any significant number of decision makers actually take his "stuff" seriously. I take that as even less likely than anyone taking seriously the worrywort fears of draconian enforcement of cycling laws known only to the VC-spouting legal beagles of the "Daily Commuter" breed.
You write this and then accuse others of "ranting" and being "presumptuous"?

I have a thoery: I-Like-To-Bike is really John Forester playing Devil's advocate. He can argue substance from the other side to provoke an argument, but he just can't stop using personal attacks. I guess we now know what Forester sounds like without an editor.

You write this and then accuse others of "ranting" and being "presumptuous"?

I have a thoery:
Indeed I do write this because it is clear to anyone not wired into the group speak clique of the zealous EC "We's"; and indeed Daily Commute's auto-response is to typically whine and offer loopy critiques about writing style rather than offer substance to his "thoery(ies)".

Sorry, but such responses don't add any substance or validation to your "thoery" about cycling conditions or "thoery" about relevant cyclist concerns in locations of which you are obviously ignorant except for unique interpretations and extreme worrywart legal predictions derived from cutting and pasting of Internet snippets.

Oooh, he zigs again, just when we thought he had zagged.

I suppose when I see words in all caps I interpret that as emphasis (an emphatic NO usually contains no qualifiers), but I suppose I've got it all wrong.

Your use of the word NO must really mean
no (and please scour the Internet for the qualifiers to my statement because I really don't mean it, at least not if you call me on it.)

Let me add your new twist to my list:

I'm fine with bike lanes on freeways, bridges and in tunnels, where cyclists are not allowed to ride anywhere but the bike lane, and, if not for the bike lane, they would not be allowed to ride there at all...



If you think "the absolute opposition to bike lanes in the face of any argument is part of it", then I'm not very good at conveying my beliefs, or you're not reading very carefully, or both...



I'm arguing that NO bike lane provides any significant functional value to any cyclist...


Must I specify every time I say "NO bike lane" I mean "NO bike lane on an a roadway where ordinary access is allowed for bicycles"?

Obviously on a roadway where the only access to cyclists allowed is in the bike lane, then it serves a purpose for cyclists (that service being access).

Having been out of the area and to places like Santa Barbarbra, and to (of all places) Portland (for an annual conferance held on Hayden Island) I can tell you I have seen Bike Lanes beyond those in Southern California. I have also seen rather extensive bike traffic in China and Hong Kong, and some interesting sidepaths in Barcelona.

Just to illustrate my point... attached are some pics from Barcelona. This is not to imply that these are well designed bike lanes, but simply that I have indeed seen other Bike Lanes in other areas.

They are certainly quite different than the ones we have here. As I understand, many European cities have much narrower roads than US cities. That's probably another factor when designing the road markings.

I am sure that the first backhoes were rejected by a good many people in favor of a gang of men with pickaxes on just the criteria you mentioned. If you don't like that analogy, how about bicycle gearing. Racers at first rejected multigeared bikes in favor of single speed fixed gears using the same arguments. Look how far the derailler has come given time, even to significant initial resistance by the main users.

Design is inherantly incremental. If you come to the Beaverton area in the west side of Portland, there are some very good bike lane designs and not that many bad ones. That the design of something has not matured is not a reason to reject it out of hand. You have to look at the possibilities of the future and be open to the possibility that many of the problems that now appear to be fundamental can be solved.

BR
I still think the comparision is not valid. You are comparing a high number of rapidly (new versions every 6-12mo.) reproducing items (bicycles, backhoes) to a monstrous beast that has its tentacles integrated into a relatively stable infrastructure, where only parts of this beast change every 5-10yrs. and evolve based on rules from a sluggish (and often confused) bureaucracy, not a demanding end customer.

I think the fundamental issue is that bike lanes have no place in the near vicinity of any intersection. There have been some ideas proposed on how to integrate multidirectional bike lanes into intersections (for example using bridges, extra signal lights, etc.) but none of these are practical (i.e can be simpy and affordably added to existing intersections). But this is a close minded view I acknowledge, I have suppported in the past on these forum in bike lane discussion generating creative ideas about integrating BLs into intersections, Gene has participated, some ideas have been proposed.

Al

I am seriously wondering if any of you in Southern Cal or Arizona have even seen a road with a well designed bike lane.
I know here in AZ- espeically in the rapidly growing suburbs, we have what are considered state of the art bike lanes designs. Ones that follow the designs and rules that look like what Gene has posted in the past - sorry don't have the link to the visual. In my experience when implemented in many intersectioned areas these create a visual mess of solid and dashed lines that motorists basically ignore and sideline bicyclists into the visual clutter and give the visual clue that cyclists will not be constantsly merging out of bike lane to make left turn, etc. Also I find that there is no consistency, these 'good' bike lanes areas suddenly end, restart, then end again, when going under and over pre-existing bridges/tunnels. Also there is so much rebuilding as driveways for strip malls, etc are added every few months that they quickly become a mess.
I have also driven quite a bit around Portland area and have seen from my car many similar bad bike lane designs, even ones that direct cyclist off the road onto sidewalk for a stretch of 45mph multilane road, but do not get the cyclist back onto the road, but instead dump them at the x-walk.

Al

I still think the comparision is not valid. You are comparing a high number of rapidly (new versions every 6-12mo.) reproducing items (bicycles, backhoes) to a monstrous beast that has its tentacles integrated into a relatively stable infrastructure, where only parts of this beast change every 5-10yrs. and evolve based on rules from a sluggish (and often confused) bureaucracy, not a demanding end customer.
An interesting construct, especially about demanding customers. What percentage of cyclists do you think could be described as customers that have such problems with the current bike lane product that they would demand bike lanes without intersections. Conversly what percentage of cyclists do you estimate are "customers" who demand intersection free bike lanes (or "NO" bike lanes)?

My guess is that it is a very small percentage of club-cyclist "roadies" who have no interest in the concerns or needs of any cyclists but those who look like themselves and share their beliefs.

I have also driven quite a bit around Portland area and have seen from my car many similar bad bike lane designs, even ones that direct cyclist off the road onto sidewalk for a stretch of 45mph multilane road, but do not get the cyclist back onto the road, but instead dump them at the x-walk.

Al

In the last couple years, in the Beaverton area especially, there has been less of that. As roads are restripped and intersections redesigned, new, better designed bike lanes are incorportated. I'm not sure where you have driven, but there is one stretch in Beaverton on Murray Road where the bike lanes directs cyclists onto a foot path and dumps them into a crosswalk; terrible design. This, of course, is one of the examples of a "bad" bike lane (for Serge, who seems to need the distinction). Portland is not the be-all and end-all of bike lanes, but we are trying.

They are certainly quite different than the ones we have here. As I understand, many European cities have much narrower roads than US cities. That's probably another factor when designing the road markings.

Again I do not suggest the Barcelona BL here... But I did find their integration into the street and environment overall quite different from the patch work BL network in the US. That one street had parking on both sides, with a separate Bike Lane on just one side and even marking to keep cyclists out of the door zone. It was a one way street.

On the busier streets, they had a different arangement... on the arterial boulevards, they had the multilane auto traffic in the center of the street, and a green belt on either side, with a walkway and a cycle way in the greenbelt along with access to the subway stations. At major intersections, there was access into an inner slower traffic lane that had parking. The transition points at these intersections were probably dangerous areas for cyclists.... but these did not exist on every block... they occured only at major arterial intersections. If an auto driver needed to turn into a mid arterial block, they should have made the connection into the inner block earlier (better know your town).

The other interesting thing to note was the regular smaller block intersections... shown in the other pic... there were no hard 90 degree corners as we have. The intersections opened up to this very visible octagon that allowed longer sight lines at the intersections. Also note the long triangle with the striping and the red painted BL... no doubt to call close attention to the BL.

I never saw a racer type rider in Barcelona... most folks cycling were much like the Chinese... everyday clothes, comfort bikes and moving at perhaps a 12MPH pace. But there were more cyclists out on average than I tend to see here in sunny San Diego.

An interesting construct, especially about demanding customers. What percentage of cyclists do you think could be described as customers that have such problems with the current bike lane product that they would demand bike lanes without intersections. Conversly what percentage of cyclists do you estimate are "customers" who demand intersection free bike lanes (or "NO" bike lanes)?

My guess is that it is a very small percentage of club-cyclist "roadies" who have no interest in the concerns or needs of any cyclists but those who look like themselves and share their beliefs.
Honestly I am a bit puzzled by your language. What is are 'bike lanes without intersections'. What are 'intersection free bike lanes?' Are these the same as intersections without bike lanes in the near vicinity?

What do you mean by your second paragraph? That roadies don't care about BL?

As to end customer... keep in mind for bike lanes they are not just cycling advocates, but community activists, concerned parents of young kids and motorised vehicle drivers. Cycling advocates with the knowledge, experience, opinions of those like Diane, yourself, Brian, Gene, Serge often make up a very small percentage of those who work with their cities commitees on transportation. I've tried to attend my cities planning meetings and they are overwhelmed by folks who have no clue about bike riding, but instead want their community to fit some ideal of a pedestrian, bike friendly community where their kids can play in the neighborhood and not get hurt, but also where they can speed to work in their SUVs without getting impeded by bikes.

As to roadies, I don't play with them ;) I am primary a solo commuter. I have been on recreational group rides, where some of the front riders (who I ride with) fit the 'blinged' out image of a roadie. Irrelevant, really, but I have found that riding in large groups very much has nothing to do with bike lanes. First routes are picked for the pleasant road conditions, not to get from place to place to place. Second these groups generally ignore lanes or lack of and are such a mass as to dominate the road which completely changes the car/cyclist dynamic.

Al

I know here in AZ- espeically in the rapidly growing suburbs, we have what are considered state of the art bike lanes designs. Ones that follow the designs and rules that look like what Gene has posted in the past - sorry don't have the link to the visual. In my experience when implemented in many intersectioned areas these create a visual mess of solid and dashed lines that motorists basically ignore and sideline bicyclists into the visual clutter and give the visual clue that cyclists will not be constantsly merging out of bike lane to make left turn, etc. Also I find that there is no consistency, these 'good' bike lanes areas suddenly end, restart, then end again, when going under and over pre-existing bridges/tunnels. Also there is so much rebuilding as driveways for strip malls, etc are added every few months that they quickly become a mess.
I have also driven quite a bit around Portland area and have seen from my car many similar bad bike lane designs, even ones that direct cyclist off the road onto sidewalk for a stretch of 45mph multilane road, but do not get the cyclist back onto the road, but instead dump them at the x-walk.

Al


We have a similar problem in San Diego... RE the constant changes... some areas even have bike lanes that simply no longer exist due to the number of times the roadway has been patched, the signs are still there indicating no parking, but there is no obvious Bike Lane, and often because the BL does not appear to exist, motorists assume it is gone, and go ahead and park. These areas are especially dangerous as the pavement often has long "parallel to the curb" cuts and cracks... one becomes skilled at centering on the best patch of patches when riding down these roads. I think my entire route is "under construction."

Some of the pics I saw earlier in the thread of Eastern US cities looked like heaven by comparison... smooth stretches of even pavement with sadly unneeded BL on tree lined roads with long sightlines and 25-30 MPH speed limits. Straight out of Norman Rockwell paintings. ;)

I still think the comparision is not valid. You are comparing a high number of rapidly (new versions every 6-12mo.) reproducing items (bicycles, backhoes) to a monstrous beast that has its tentacles integrated into a relatively stable infrastructure, where only parts of this beast change every 5-10yrs. and evolve based on rules from a sluggish (and often confused) bureaucracy, not a demanding end customer.

So, the product cycle is different, measured in years rather than months. There is, definitely, a customer base. There are citizens who pay taxes and who show up at planning meetings. There is the city itself who may want to be the best cycling city in the US. Even citizens who drive cars are customers. You cannot deny that bike lanes have evolved in design, particularly near intersections, in the last 5 years.


I think the fundamental issue is that bike lanes have no place in the near vicinity of any intersection. There have been some ideas proposed on how to integrate multidirectional bike lanes into intersections(for example using bridges, extra signal lights, etc.) but none of these are practical (i.e can be simpy and affordably added to existing intersections). But this is a close minded view I acknowledge, I have suppported in the past on these forum in bike lane discussion generating creative ideas about integrating BLs into intersections, Gene has participated, some ideas have been proposed.

Al

This is a difference in opinion. There were people who thought that it was a physical impossiblity for man to engage in powered flight, but they were eventually proven wrong. I believe that most of our problems with bike lanes in intersections are now a matter of education. Simply adding a WOL will not help if the cyclist is only taught to stay as far to the right of the road as possible. They will still be trying to make left turns from the right side of the road. In fact, you can even make the argument that road design is the least of our issues. The much greater issue is in educating drivers how to behave around cyclists and educating cyclists to use the road properly.

As far as cycling advocacy goes, here is what I think the order of importance should be:

1) Educating moterists as to the rights and responsibilities of cyclists. This is easy. Change the drivers manual and make sure the test reflects the change.

2) Educate cyclists in how to ride vehicularly in traffic, and about their rights and responsibilities. This is harder because there is no infrastructure to reach the cycling population.

3) Advance the legal rights of cyclists; including clarifying existing laws, as well as introducing new legislation.

4) Advocate for better pavement accomodation.

My guess is that it is a very small percentage of club-cyclist "roadies" who have no interest in the concerns or needs of any cyclists but those who look like themselves and share their beliefs.
Your guess is wrong. Most club-cyclist "roadies" could care less about bike lanes, and use them when they're helpful, and ignore them when they're not. They know better.

People like myself who oppose bike lanes do not oppose them out of concern for our own needs, but out of concern for the subconscious unsafe training less experienced cyclists like you get from bike lanes, who don't know how to recognize situations where bike lanes are counter-productive, much less know to ignore them when they are.

This, of course, is one of the examples of a "bad" bike lane (for Serge, who seems to need the distinction).
Oh, I can distinguish the bad bike lanes... from the obviously bad ones, like the one you described.

I simply reject the idea that there is such a thing as a "good" bike lane. Even a bike lane on a limited access freeway that I would support if that's the only way cyclists are given access is "bad" because of the inevitable debris collection and the role it plays in enabling motorists to pass the cyclists as if they are not there (not slowing down, not moving aside).

All bike lanes are bad (though some of them need to be tolerated), or obviously bad.

So, the product cycle is different, measured in years rather than months. There is, definitely, a customer base. There are citizens who pay taxes and who show up at planning meetings. There is the city itself who may want to be the best cycling city in the US. Even citizens who drive cars are customers. You cannot deny that bike lanes have evolved in design, particularly near intersections, in the last 5 years.



This is a difference in opinion. There were people who thought that it was a physical impossiblity for man to engage in powered flight, but they were eventually proven wrong. I believe that most of our problems with bike lanes in intersections are now a matter of education. Simply adding a WOL will not help if the cyclist is only taught to stay as far to the right of the road as possible. They will still be trying to make left turns from the right side of the road. In fact, you can even make the argument that road design is the least of our issues. The much greater issue is in educating drivers how to behave around cyclists and educating cyclists to use the road properly.

As far as cycling advocacy goes, here is what I think the order of importance should be:

1) Educating moterists as to the rights and responsibilities of cyclists. This is easy. Change the drivers manual and make sure the test reflects the change.

2) Educate cyclists in how to ride vehicularly in traffic, and about their rights and responsibilities. This is harder because there is no infrastructure to reach the cycling population.

3) Advance the legal rights of cyclists; including clarifying existing laws, as well as introducing new legislation.

4) Advocate for better pavement accomodation.
I agree with you about product cycle time and customer base. But I think there is more to it. Users of backhoes and performance bicycles have specialized needs and well defined criteria that can be measured for improvement relative to bike facilities. (A side comment on citizens who pay taxes, I do and am concerned, but can't miss work to make the 3:30pm monthly meeting. I've even asked for it to be changed, but no way, but really how many commuters make up a commitee if it is scheduled at 3:30 on workdays?)
Bike lanes have evolved around intersections: Often they are dashed near intersections and the straight bike lane to the left of a right turn lane is common now.

But main reason I responded: I totally agree with your 1-4 prioritization. However I would put #4 higher on the list if it included quickly adding WOL to certain currenlty unridable streets, even if as a stopgap.

Al

In the last couple years, in the Beaverton area especially, there has been less of that. As roads are restripped and intersections redesigned, new, better designed bike lanes are incorportated. I'm not sure where you have driven, but there is one stretch in Beaverton on Murray Road where the bike lanes directs cyclists onto a foot path and dumps them into a crosswalk; terrible design. This, of course, is one of the examples of a "bad" bike lane (for Serge, who seems to need the distinction). Portland is not the be-all and end-all of bike lanes, but we are trying.
I saw this example on Shute road, which I believe is quite close to Beaverton.
Al

As far as cycling advocacy goes, here is what I think the order of importance should be:

1) Educating moterists as to the rights and responsibilities of cyclists. This is easy. Change the drivers manual and make sure the test reflects the change.

2) Educate cyclists in how to ride vehicularly in traffic, and about their rights and responsibilities. This is harder because there is no infrastructure to reach the cycling population.

3) Advance the legal rights of cyclists; including clarifying existing laws, as well as introducing new legislation.

4) Advocate for better pavement accomodation.

Good list... only one problem... there is no requirement for cyclists to ever receive training (you mentioned lack of infrastructure... exactly!). The motorist will get some training due to license requirements, but nothing exists to "control" the cyclists. New cyclists are trained by moms and dads... get them as licensed drivers to better understand the use of the road by all users and some headway can be made. (this is also perhaps why wrong way riders exist... old lessons about walking/riding into traffic being passed on.)

This is one reason that passive training via road markings could be a viable alternative...

1) it could help guide cyclists in proper use of the roads...

2) it could help guide motorists in their interaction with other users of the road.

Of course a better solution would be some form of licensing/training with each bike purchase.

I am seriously wondering if any of you in Southern Cal or Arizona have even seen a road with a well designed bike lane.
I would be very happy to speak of only those bike lanes that are allegedly "well designed".

Please describe the characteristics of such a beast, and explain why a particular roadway with such a thing is better for cycling than the exact same roadway, but without the stripe that explicitly delineates the bike lane.

I saw this example on Shute road, which I believe is quite close to Beaverton.
Al

Actually in Hillsboro I believe, but very close, yes. I don't think I have been there recently. Anyway, of course, bad design.

Your guess is wrong. Most club-cyclist "roadies" could care less about bike lanes, and use them when they're helpful, and ignore them when they're not. They know better.

As I wrote in my other post about this I agree, but I think the reasons are different. I think it is because club cyclists generally ride as a mass and the dynamics between a mass of cyclists and cars is very different than between a solo cyclist and cars - in group rides there is very much the attidue and behavior that the cyclist 'own' the road and with their size have the ability to force negotations with motorists. Other factors are at play such as route selection for a club ride vs. a commute and time of day (satuday morning vs. weekday rush hour)

Al

Your guess is wrong. Most club-cyclist "roadies" could care less about bike lanes, and use them when they're helpful, and ignore them when they're not. They know better.

People like myself who oppose bike lanes do not oppose them out of concern for our own needs, but out of concern for the subconscious unsafe training less experienced cyclists like you get from bike lanes, who don't know how to recognize situations where bike lanes are counter-productive, much less know to ignore them when they are.
That explains it in a nutshell: The incessant anti-bike facilities hysteria is out of "concern" for all of the "other cyclists" - The "lawless incompetents"who are not pompous donkeys and egotists with an exaggerated opinion of the positive effect a "superior" attitude, steely gaze and alpha dog personality has on both motorists and the cycling experience.

Must I specify every time I say "NO bike lane" I mean "NO bike lane on an a roadway where ordinary access is allowed for bicycles"?

I suppose when I see words in all caps I interpret that as emphasis (an emphatic NO usually contains no qualifiers), but I suppose I've got it all wrong.

Sigh. I'll take that as a yes. I'll try to remember.

People like myself who oppose bike lanes do not oppose them out of concern for our own needs, but out of concern for the subconscious unsafe training less experienced cyclists like you get from bike lanes, who don't know how to recognize situations where bike lanes are counter-productive, much less know to ignore them when they are.

Yet, there is no other method of "training less experienced cyclists... " nothing.

Rather than simply obolish bike lanes, use them as a training guide and work to improve them to aid less experienced cyclists... Add signs, modify markings... examine critical points and mark them as such.

Otherwise you offer nothing to the casual commuter... they will never look into a class, they probably only visit bike shops when they have flats, and they would never call themselves "cyclists." Yet this is the group from where "cyclists" grow... improve their experiences on the road and perhaps they won't grow up to crave SUVs.

I don't need BL and you don't want BL, but there are folks out there that have just left the sidewalks, that need something... and you are not willing to offer them anything but "good luck--hope you find a class... " this is where your anti-bike lane advocacy falls flat on its face.

Oh, I can distinguish the bad bike lanes... from the obviously bad ones, like the one you described.

I simply reject the idea that there is such a thing as a "good" bike lane. Even a bike lane on a limited access freeway that I would support if that's the only way cyclists are given access is "bad" because of the inevitable debris collection and the role it plays in enabling motorists to pass the cyclists as if they are not there (not slowing down, not moving aside).

All bike lanes are bad (though some of them need to be tolerated), or obviously bad.

The "good" and "bad" are my definitions and you will have to live with how I defined them. I wouldn't expect such and ardent anti-bike lane person to ever admit to a "good" bike lane.

A "good" bike lane will get you where you need to go without throwing up extra obstacles, such as needless deviations onto MUP's, sewer grates, curbs, car doors, etc. They lead to the left of right turn lanes. They continue through intersections (as opposed to leading up to the intersection, but not through it). Of course, a "bad" bike lane is none of this.

These are my definitions to use when I refer to bike lanes when I write. Call them what you will, but I will use my terminology when I post. I expect you to recognize my terminology when you read my posts and respect my definitions. This is basic communication. I already do the same for your posts.

BR

Actually in Hillsboro I believe, but very close, yes. I don't think I have been there recently. Anyway, of course, bad design.
These roads look like they have been built in the last 5 years. Why then after such improvement/evolution in bike lane design are such roads/bike infractrure still being built? That is my concern - that even with good up to date knowledge such atrocities are still being built even in the vicinity of enlightened towns (i.e. Portland). The same thing is happening here. Better design rules exisit, but somehow bad designs escape in implementation.

Why am I focusing on these bad designs? Because I find that one bad design totally negates the (yes Serge, debatable) 'benefit' of all the neutral to good designs. What I mean is that the effectiveness of the system is only as good as its weakest link. People don't get into accidents uniformly over a road system, they get into them at the 'danger' spots.

Al

Most club-cyclist "roadies" could care less about bike lanes, and use them when they're helpful, and ignore them when they're not. They know better.

As I wrote in my other post about this I agree, but I think the reasons are different. I think it is because club cyclists generally ride as a mass...

I disagree that club cyclists generally ride as a mass. Sure, they do so on particular group training rides, or group recreational rides, but I think it's safe to say that most club cyclists do much more solo cycling miles than group cycling miles.

In my original statement, by "club cyclist" I mean a cyclist who rides enough to join a club and learn the skills to ride in groups. From the miles required and training one receives just by riding with others, the "club cyclist" is inherently a relatively experienced cyclist.

It is the experience that makes them not care about bike lanes and know when to ignore them, which applies just as much when they're riding solo on their commute as when they're in a group on Saturday morning.

Serge

That explains it in a nutshell: The incessant anti-bike facilities hysteria is out of "concern" for all of the "other cyclists" - The "lawless incompetents"who are not pompous donkeys and egotists with an exaggerated opinion of the positive effect a "superior" attitude, steely gaze and alpha dog personality has on both motorists and the cycling experience.

That may just be Serge. For me it is also about me, bad designs cause ambiguity on my daily commute and therefore make it more hazardous. For me a big factor is if you can't do it right consistenly, then don't do it. and fix the existing 'terrible' designs before building more half baked ones. It needs to be proven that bike lanes can be consistenly implemented so as to not create cyclist/driver ambiguouity for vehicular cylists and so as not to create bad habits for cyclists learning to ride on the roads.

Al

I disagree that club cyclists generally ride as a mass. Sure, they do so on particular group training rides, or group recreational rides, but I think it's safe to say that most club cyclists do much more solo cycling miles than group cycling miles.

In my original statement, by "club cyclist" I mean a cyclist who rides enough to join a club and learn the skills to ride in groups. From the miles required and training one receives just by riding with others, the "club cyclist" is inherently a relatively experienced cyclist.

It is the experience that makes them not care about bike lanes and know when to ignore them, which applies just as much when they're riding solo on their commute as when they're in a group on Saturday morning.

Serge
Well I disagree. I find and have observed one learns bad habits riding with a group, such as stop sign/red light running and agressive negotiation with cars. I have observed several times cyclists who are experinced enough to ride in front of group rides, taking the lane, agressively merge in traffic, etc., who ride on the side walk and gutter when riding to and from the start of same group ride. There is a reason people get together in groups of 10-100 on weekend to ride and it is not just the social or the learning to draft, etc. It is the feeling of safety they get from the group. Why is is that I notice at least 80% of riders drive to the start of a group ride, I know that most of this 80% live no more than 10 miles away.

Al[/QUOTE]

These roads look like they have been built in the last 5 years. Why then after such improvement/evolution in bike lane design are such roads/bike infractrure still being built? That is my concern - that even with good up to date knowledge such atrocities are still being built even in the vicinity of enlightened towns (i.e. Portland). The same thing is happening here. Better design rules exisit, but somehow bad designs escape in implementation.

Why am I focusing on these bad designs? Because I find that one bad design totally negates the (yes Serge, debatable) 'benefit' of all the neutral to good designs. What I mean is that the effectiveness of the system is only as good as its weakest link. People don't get into accidents uniformly over a road system, they get into them at the 'danger' spots.

Al

Some of the cities around Portland are better than others. Hillsboro is a smaller city and further behind. The one in Beaverton is a legacy design. We went through a phase where we thought that it was better to do this than to simply end the bike lane bluntly, which it probably is. I think we are past that.

RE: your bad designs; so when we step into a planning meeting to fix the bad designs, do we advocate stripping them out entirely or improving the design? Everyone knows there are bad designs out there, but even fixing bad designs requires a choice. We certainly wouldn't advocate "fixing" a bad design with another bad design.

This is what we are arguing. We are not arguing the past of broken traffic designs, we are arguing the best line of advocacy for new traffic designs. This is why I argue from the perspective of the best in bike lane design. It is as easy to be against current bike lanes, as they are now installed, as it is to be against current day use of 1950's era airliners for public transportation.

I would be very happy to speak of only those bike lanes that are allegedly "well designed".

Please describe the characteristics of such a beast, and explain why a particular roadway with such a thing is better for cycling than the exact same roadway, but without the stripe that explicitly delineates the bike lane.

Because a properly designed "bike way" (may be more than a stripe... or the dreaded current bike lane) will integrate and guide all users of the road into a well co-ordinated, well meshing traffic flow, that emphasizes the physical advantages of each vehicle on that roadway.

The problem with your "stripe" notion is that it is nothing but paint. A proper "bike way" includes proper sight lines, signs, signal coordination, and even barriers... it should accomodate most classes of transportational cyclists. Advanced bike ways should also exist for more skilled riders much as hiways exist for more skilled drivers. In all cases, integration into the motor traffic flow is a key requirement.

Such a "bike way" may consist of, but not be limited to a simple stripe on a designated road.

Now I am not going to write an entire standard document here as frankly I do not know all the variables... but better bike lanes can be built... just as better freeways were eventually built and better housing was eventually built... etc.

Why is is that I notice at least 80% of riders drive to the start of a group ride, I know that most of this 80% live no more than 10 miles away.
One answer... it's 8:15 in the driveway. Ride leaves at 8:30. It's a 10 minute drive, or a 22 minute bike ride to the ride start...

At least that's why I drive to the ride start on the days that I drive...

We went through a phase where we thought that it was better to do this than to simply end the bike lane bluntly, which it probably is. I think we are past that.

Your past it, OK, but it is a great example to show that a bike lane is not just adding a lane to parts of a road, to be effective it must fully and smoothly integrate into existing infrastruture. The most important part of BL design are those connection points, where they start and end and intersections. Better than ending the lane bluntly would be to not put the lane in in the first place.

RE: your bad designs; so when we step into a planning meeting to fix the bad designs, do we advocate stripping them out entirely or improving the design? Everyone knows there are bad designs out there, but even fixing bad designs requires a choice. We certainly wouldn't advocate "fixing" a bad design with another bad design.

This is what we are arguing. We are not arguing the past of broken traffic designs, we are arguing the best line of advocacy for new traffic designs. This is why I argue from the perspective of the best in bike lane design. It is as easy to be against current bike lanes, as they are now installed, as it is to be against current day use of 1950's era airliners for public transportation.
I am not arguing about the past poor designs. I am simply noting that they are in place and cyclist must deal with them daily. That to me is a far bigger hazard than not having stripes on new roads. But instead my city is adding BLs to 25mph streets due to advocacy from students/neighbors, but ignoring serious BL issues elsewhere because no one wants to address or ackknowledge past mistakes.

Al

Same here. Drive or get up earlier to make the start. I'm just restarting riding. Back when I rode more and I was more active in the club, so I knew routes in advance I would often ride to the start of rides and then drop out an go straight home when the ride passed near home.

At least with my local club rides start on time and while social do not have anyone in charge of catching straglers on most rides. I once got my bike back from the shop the day before, got to the ride just before the start and got on just as the ride started... Only to find they had adjusted my seat to clamp the bike to their stand and had not reset it. I had to readjust the seat and then chase for over 10 miles to catch up. I only bring this up because that is also the situation one would be in if the ride to the start and are 1 minute late.

Al ... do you ride with a club?


but ignoring serious BL issues elsewhere because no one wants to address or acknowledge past mistakes.
I think you're confusing "serious BL issues" and "past mistakes" with roadways where there is simply no way to design a bike lane "well", and where "the best we can do" is taken as "good enough" (rather than simply not putting in a BL in the first place). I contend that this applies to any roadway on which turns can be made or prepared for, which probably comprises the vast majority (97+%) of 200 foot stretches of urban and suburban roadway.

I think you're confusing "serious BL issues" and "past mistakes" with roadways where there is simply no way to design a bike lane "well", and where "the best we can do" is taken as "good enough" (rather than simply not putting in a BL in the first place). I contend that this applies to any roadway on which turns can be made or prepared for, which probably comprises the vast majority (97+%) of 200 foot stretches of urban and suburban roadway.

This is all your opinion. Just because, in your opinion, there is no way to design a bike lane well does not make it so. Perhaps this indicates that you could not design a bike lane well for a road, but it does not mean that it is not possible. I do suppose there are other people who can design bike lanes better than an anti-bike lane VC'ist.

Your past it, OK, but it is a great example to show that a bike lane is not just adding a lane to parts of a road, to be effective it must fully and smoothly integrate into existing infrastruture. The most important part of BL design are those connection points, where they start and end and intersections. Better than ending the lane bluntly would be to not put the lane in in the first place.

I am not arguing about the past poor designs. I am simply noting that they are in place and cyclist must deal with them daily. That to me is a far bigger hazard than not having stripes on new roads. But instead my city is adding BLs to 25mph streets due to advocacy from students/neighbors, but ignoring serious BL issues elsewhere because no one wants to address or ackknowledge past mistakes.

Al

Agreed. This is part of the point I am trying to make. A bike lane needs to be designed! From our discussion so far, this is it's biggest problem. However, all road markings need to be designed, and to require a traffic engineer to actively design around cyclists, to me, is a good thing.

And for my part, putting bike lanes on 25 mph residential streets does not make a lot of sense. Some parents may want it though (however wrong-minded), simply so they can tell their kids to "stay within the lines" when they ride their bike.

Al ... do you ride with a club?

About 10% (450) of my miles from last year were as part of a club ride.

Why?

Al

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike:
That explains it in a nutshell: The incessant anti-bike facilities hysteria is out of "concern" for all of the "other cyclists" - The "lawless incompetents"who are not pompous donkeys and egotists with an exaggerated opinion of the positive effect a "superior" attitude, steely gaze and alpha dog personality has on both motorists and the cycling experience.
That may just be Serge.

Could be. Still wondering who exactly Serge thinks is in his corner when he refers to "we" and "us" in his postings about his theories on bike lanes and altering motorist behavior through assertive attitudes and cryptic body language. I suspect nobody but those comfortable with stilted terminology like "bicycle drivers", comfortable with references to most cyclists as "incompetents" suffering from mental problems, and comfortable with the use of offensive references to racial segregation when discussing bike lanes.