Bike lanes - Page 16

Helmet Head

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.
Do you agree that a bike lane, regardless of how well or poorly it is designed, designates a place on the roadway where cyclists are supposed to ride, and other vehicle drivers are supposed to stay out of, or not?

Do you agree that on roadway sections with junctions that there is no way for cyclists to make left turns without leaving the bike lane they are supposed to ride in, regardless of how well it is designed (unless it is broken up which is inherently a bad design, and assuming realistically affordable designs that limit intersection designs to be at grade for at least most turns) and no way for others to make right turns without first entering or crossing the at grade bike lane which they're supposed to stay out of?

If you agree with both, do you see the inherent problem with ALL bike lanes on roads with junctions, regardless of the design, or not?

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.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

Helmet Head

comfortable with the use of offensive references to racial segregation when discussing bike lanes.
You're the only one who is comfortable with making such references that I know of.

noisebeam

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.
One of the problems with bike lanes is that they need to be very thoughtfully designed, and difficult because there are so many, even changing, inputs into the design.

I design electro-mechanical devices for a living. One design methodology is to make the design robust by being fault tollerant (i.e. instead of an adjustment screw, use self aligning components). Such designs can often be lower cost, simplier, easier to maintain, require less training, but they are often not 'sexy'. I think of WOLs similar to such a design. They are relatively easy to describe, difficult to implement poorly, and most importantly robust to environmental changes - i.e. a driveway can be added without going back to commitee to review the new bike lane design required. What I like about WOLs is that it is not just the end result that is robust, but the design process as well. One can describe how to design a good WOL in about one page, contrary to BL designs which require careful review for nearly every implementation. (As you have noticed from this lengthy discussion there are so many conditions, situations that may or may not be appropriate for a bike lane.)

Maybe I exaggerate a bit on the difficulty of BL design vs WOL, but the point is that good BL design requires extensive knowledge, expertise and very prone to error due to complexity, as a results we have seen bad results come out of good intentions and I expect will continue to see bad results.

Al

Brian Ratliff

Do you agree that a bike lane, regardless of how well or poorly it is designed, designates a place on the roadway where cyclists are supposed to ride, and other vehicle drivers are supposed to stay out of, or not?

Do you agree that on roadway sections with junctions that there is no way for cyclists to make left turns without leaving the bike lane, regardless of how well it is designed (unless it is broken up which is inherently a bad design, and assuming realistically affordable designs that limit intersection designs to be at grade for at least most turns) and no way for others to make right turns without first entering the bike lane?

If you agree with both, do you see the inherent problem with ALL bike lanes on roads with junctions, regardless of the design, or not?

I don't know, did you stop beating you wife yet? :rolleyes: What's up with the retorical tricks? Obviously we wouldn't be having this discussion if I agreed with your above statements.

I am not sure where you get the notion that one cannot leave a bike lane, especially at intersections. Experienced cyclists know this and don't have a problem with bike lanes. I don't know where you get the impression that, by eliminating all lane marking concerning cyclists, you can somehow guide beginner cyclists toward merging into traffic at an intersection.

The way I see it, your arguments are toward requiring a cycling license.

genec

One of the problems with bike lanes is that they need to be very thoughtfully designed, and difficult because there are so many, even changing, inputs into the design.

I design electro-mechanical devices for a living. One design methodology is to make the design robust by being fault tollerant (i.e. instead of an adjustment screw, use self aligning components). Such designs can often be lower cost, simplier, easier to maintain, require less training, but they are often not 'sexy'. I think of WOLs similar to such a design. They are relatively easy to describe, difficult to implement poorly, and most importantly robust to environmental changes - i.e. a driveway can be added without going back to commitee to review the new bike lane design required. What I like about WOLs is that it is not just the end result that is robust, but the design process as well. One can describe how to design a good WOL in about one page, contrary to BL designs which require careful review for nearly every implementation. (As you have noticed from this lengthy discussion there are so many conditions, situations that may or may not be appropriate for a bike lane.)

Maybe I exaggerate a bit on the difficulty of BL design vs WOL, but the point is that good BL design requires extensive knowledge, expertise and very prone to error due to complexity, as a results we have seen bad results come out of good intentions and I expect will continue to see bad results.

Al

I see your point.

I want to add though that WOLs do nothing for poor sightline areas where autos need to be guided. And I see traffic guidance needs as much in a BL design as I do in some areas of the street where wide lines are used to simply guide traffic. "Paint Islands" if you will. If these can be used to guide traffic, then BL can also be used to channel traffic.

WOLs work where long sight lines exist.

noisebeam

I am not sure where you get the notion that one cannot leave a bike lane, especially at intersections. Experienced cyclists know this and don't have a problem with bike lanes. I don't know where you get the impression that, by eliminating all lane marking concerning cyclists, you can somehow guide beginner cyclists toward merging into traffic at an intersection.

Many bike lanes designs do by simply existing send the wrong message to cyclists that is likely preferred to be in them. If a bike lanes ends before an intersection, it is obvious that the cyclist must choose where to position themself, which I think speeds up learning. I wonder how experienced cyclist learn to leave the BL at intersections?
We have many multilane roads (7, three in each direction, one center turn lane). At intersections the majority of cars who use the right lane are preparing for a right turn. But the bike lane goes all the way to the stop line of the intersection, it has to because it doesn't end 100yrd before the intersection. Where do you think the vast majority of beginner and even many experienced cyclists put themselves? Why do you think I get yelled by motorist when I leave the bike lane in this sitation, often needing to negotiate a merge out of the bike lane, to line up with the cars in the right lane? Do you think it is possible the presence of the bike lane is influencing cyclist what to do and influencing motorist where the cyclist should be?

Al

noisebeam

I want to add though that WOLs do nothing for poor sightline areas where autos need to be guided. And I see traffic guidance needs as much in a BL design as I do in some areas of the street where wide lines are used to simply guide traffic. "Paint Islands" if you will. If these can be used to guide traffic, then BL can also be used to channel traffic.

WOLs work where long sight lines exist.
I see the point about hills and curves where sightlines are limited.

One thing I've been thinking about is WOL used on two lane undivided roads (one lane of same direction traffic separated by yellow line(s)) vs. multilane. I notice on WOL for multilane or divided single lane roads that cars tend to track the dashed line to their left - this makes sense as they want to keep away from the curb zone where unforseen things can come from, and they are comforable passing and getting passed by same direction cars to their left as they have very good knowledge as to passing distance and sight lines is good due to driver sitting on left side of car.
But on two lane undivided roads I can see more driver wanting to hug the right side of a lane (especially on corners) because the primary danger is comming from the left, from oncoming traffic, so their is a desire to bias away from on coming traffic. So I very much see how a WOL may not be sufficient on a two lane undivided road with poor sight lines.

Al

Helmet Head

RUBY SLIPPERS, KS— Results are in for America's most comprehensive survey of bicycle transportation. Almost nine of ten adult Americans say they definitely might occasionally be likely to bicycle to work once in a while given a government-provided bicycle and a commute less than 3 miles with no hills on sunny days between 64 and 71 degrees when they had no other errands to run if their employer provided monetary incentives with mileage reimbursement, shower facilities, indoor secured bicycle parking and free taxi rides home for emergencies if gasoline prices skyrocket except for Mondays and Fridays if a bicycle path was available. A spokesman for the Federal Highway Administration called the survey results exciting verification for FHWA's bicycle transportation program which helps local transportation agencies find a scenic creek bank where the bike path can be installed.

http://probicycle.com/

Brian Ratliff

One of the problems with bike lanes is that they need to be very thoughtfully designed, and difficult because there are so many, even changing, inputs into the design.

I design electro-mechanical devices for a living. One design methodology is to make the design robust by being fault tollerant (i.e. instead of an adjustment screw, use self aligning components). Such designs can often be lower cost, simplier, easier to maintain, require less training, but they are often not 'sexy'. I think of WOLs similar to such a design. They are relatively easy to describe, difficult to implement poorly, and most importantly robust to environmental changes - i.e. a driveway can be added without going back to commitee to review the new bike lane design required. What I like about WOLs is that it is not just the end result that is robust, but the design process as well. One can describe how to design a good WOL in about one page, contrary to BL designs which require careful review for nearly every implementation. (As you have noticed from this lengthy discussion there are so many conditions, situations that may or may not be appropriate for a bike lane.)

Maybe I exaggerate a bit on the difficulty of BL design vs WOL, but the point is that good BL design requires extensive knowledge, expertise and very prone to error due to complexity, as a results we have seen bad results come out of good intentions and I expect will continue to see bad results.

Al

Good point. You are referring to "design for assembly." My only thought is that the analogy is backward. Design for assemby places more burden on the creative process of the designer, and lessens the burden for the manufacturer. In the case of "design for assembly," the manufacturer is the customer you are designing for. For your analogy, the designer is the cycling advocates, and the customer is the city. The product is the design specifications, not the actual facility on the road.

I would use the same analogy, but the designer is the city, and the customer is the cyclist. The product is the cycling facility on the road. Bike lanes do place more burden on the city, but I don't think of this as a bad thing. Cities are known to screw things up, but this just means that we need to install more bike savvy traffic engineers into city planning.

Brian Ratliff

We have many multilane roads (7, three in each direction, one center turn lane). At intersections the majority of cars who use the right lane are preparing for a right turn. But the bike lane goes all the way to the stop line of the intersection, it has to because it doesn't end 100yrd before the intersection. Where do you think the vast majority of beginner and even many experienced cyclists put themselves? Why do you think I get yelled by motorist when I leave the bike lane in this sitation, often needing to negotiate a merge out of the bike lane, to line up with the cars in the right lane? Do you think it is possible the presence of the bike lane is influencing cyclist what to do and influencing motorist where the cyclist should be?

Al

One solution is to encourage right turning cars to merge into the bike lane. The curb can widen out with the bike lane line turning to dashed and staying straight. This not only prevents conflict between cyclists and right turning cars, it also prevents conflicts between right turning cars and cars staying straight.

Many bike lanes designs do by simply existing send the wrong message to cyclists that is likely preferred to be in them. If a bike lanes ends before an intersection, it is obvious that the cyclist must choose where to position themself, which I think speeds up learning. I wonder how experienced cyclist learn to leave the BL at intersections?

Education and observation is necessary for this, as is also the case with a WOL and a NOL. When all a beginning cyclist is taught is to "stay to the right," it is not "obvious that the cyclist must choose where to position themself."

Helmet Head

Obviously we wouldn't be having this discussion if I agreed with your above statements.
Well, it's not obvious to me, for various reasons. I'm just trying to figure out where our differences are. If you don't agree with those statements, I'd like to understand why. Stuff like this does not help:

I am not sure where you get the notion that one cannot leave a bike lane, especially at intersections.
If I ever expressed the notion that one cannot leave a bike lane, then I would not be so perplexed by this statement.

All I said was that bike lanes designate where cyclists are supposed to ride. Since you did not explicitly disagree with it, but you implied you did with your broad statement, please explain the purpose of a bike lane if it is not to designate where cyclists are supposed to ride, and motorist are not supposed to drive.

I don't know where you get the impression that, by eliminating all lane marking concerning cyclists, you can somehow guide beginner cyclists toward merging into traffic at an intersection.
I don't know where you get the impression that I have the impression that, by eliminating all lane marking concerning cyclists, you can somehow guide beginner cycliststoward merging into traffic at an intersection. I never said, thought or implied that.

I hope you answer my first question in this post, asking you to please explain the purpose of a bike lane if it is not to designate where cyclists are supposed to ride, and motorist are not supposed to drive, so we can proceed from there.

Helmet Head

WOLs work where long sight lines exist.
Bike lanes fail where long sight lines do not exist, like going up Torrey Pines Road out of La Jolla, where on the right hand curve motorists often cut the corner into the bike lane, and, because of the short sight lines, the cyclist should leave the bike lane moving left to increase the sight lines from the 50 mph motorists coming from behind his 8mph *****.

noisebeam

Good point. You are referring to "design for assembly." My only thought is that the analogy is backward. Design for assemby places more burden on the creative process of the designer, and lessens the burden for the manufacturer. In the case of "design for assembly," the manufacturer is the customer you are designing for. For your analogy, the designer is the cycling advocates, and the customer is the city. The product is the design specifications, not the actual facility on the road.

I would use the same analogy, but the designer is the city, and the customer is the cyclist. The product is the cycling facility on the road. Bike lanes do place more burden on the city, but I don't think of this as a bad thing. Cities are known to screw things up, but this just means that we need to install more bike savvy traffic engineers into city planning.
I am very much not refering to 'design for assembly' at least in my references for creating robust and fault tollerant designs. I am refering to designs that in use are robust to user error, environmental changes, poor training, bad set up, don't drop product on vacuum failure, etc. Many such designs are in fact easy to design, simple.
But I agree that part of what I was getting as a benefit of WOL is similar to 'design for assembly' I was consiously mixing up the two as my paragraph went on. ;)

On a separate note, BLs on rural streets far from intersections are not a concern to me one way or the other. The only thing I really care about are the intersection zones. The most common place for vehicular accidents and the most common place for poor BL design. My rule of thumb is keep BLs 100yrs from intersections and off of 30mph or less roads. As to everything else, not a space I really want to or have the experience to argue about.

Al

noisebeam

One solution is to encourage right turning cars to merge into the bike lane. The curb can widen out with the bike lane line turning to dashed and staying straight. This not only prevents conflict between cyclists and right turning cars, it also prevents conflicts between right turning cars and cars staying straight.

Easy to say, but I'd wager impossible to change in reality. There are many hundreds of such intersections in phx-metro, no simple infrastructure change like removing the bike lane paint would be. Changing driver behavior for this would be harder than getting everyone to stop speeding as there are no laws and no enforcement possible. Not only that but the natural tendency is for cars to merge a bit left away from the curb before a right turn so as not to clip their tires on the curb. I see these every day.

Have you ever tried pulling close to a curb (in a car) before a right turn? Sure it can be done, but your passengers will be complaining about the jerkiness of the turn or you will have to severely slow down well below the speeds that currently 90% of drivers corner at around here.

Al

noisebeam

"obvious that the cyclist must choose where to position themself."
I meant that the cyclist is faced with a choice instead of being guided by markings on the road. I do not mean that is is obvious where to position oneself, only that it is obvious that a choice must be made.

Al

JRA

I hope you answer my first question in this post, asking you to please explain the purpose of a bike lane if it is not to designate where cyclists are supposed to ride, and motorist are not supposed to drive, so we can proceed from there.The purpose of a BL should be to designate an area where cyclists may ride and motorists shouldn't drive (except to merge into the BL in preparation for a turn).

genec

Bike lanes fail where long sight lines do not exist, like going up Torrey Pines Road out of La Jolla, where on the right hand curve motorists often cut the corner into the bike lane, and, because of the short sight lines, the cyclist should leave the bike lane moving left to increase the sight lines from the 50 mph motorists coming from behind his 8mph *****.

Odd, I see just the opposite situation on Regents Road going south from Hiway 52. Only a few years ago there was no BL on that road and motorists often "cut the corners." Now there is a BL and motorist stay nicely between the lines.

In fact I rarely see motorists "cut the corners" anywhere... they seem to work hard to "stay between the lines." Speeding on the other hand is a different story... I often see speeding. I believe that motorists believe that speeding is OK as long as they remain in control... and they see "staying between the lines" (a requirement for any multilane road) as an indication that they are "in control."

I believe your assesment of "cutting the corners" is incorrect as (using a favorite Serge technique) I have never seen it.

Brian Ratliff

Easy to say, but I'd wager impossible to change in reality. There are many hundreds of such intersections in phx-metro, no simple infrastructure change like removing the bike lane paint would be. Changing driver behavior for this would be harder than getting everyone to stop speeding as there are no laws and no enforcement possible. Not only that but the natural tendency is for cars to merge a bit left away from the curb before a right turn so as not to clip their tires on the curb. I see these every day.

This is one reason why I think road accomodation has to be taken on a regional basis. I've been to Phoenix exactly once, but did notice there were many, many major intersections. Maybe WOL's work best there.

Have you ever tried pulling close to a curb (in a car) before a right turn? Sure it can be done, but your passengers will be complaining about the jerkiness of the turn or you will have to severely slow down well below the speeds that currently 90% of drivers corner at around here.

Where intersections are like this here in Beaverton, the corner is rounded more to allow a turn from closer to the curb.

sbhikes

Drivers always cut the corners if they can get away from it, bike lane or no bike lane.

From what I've observed on my two-lane, undivided, double-yellow-lined commuter streets are that most drivers hug the double-yellow line. Many will cross it to hug the turns as if they have a death wish. They avoid the shoulder, but will drive almost into the dirt of the shoulder in their efforts to play race car driver as they hug the turns.

Elderly drivers appear to be deathly afraid of head-on collisions and thus hug the side of the road. They tend to nearly mow me down when there's no stripe on the right side of the road. With a lane line they at least know their boundary on the right and as long as their car isn't too big and they can see over the dash, they seem to stay within the boundaries.

Personally, I prefer to ride on roads with clear boundaries, with a clear space that I can claim. The clearer the better. Paint is pretty clear. Don't forget that a sizable amount of drivers are impaired by old age, infirmities, or distractions. A white line can be followed subliminally, while figuring out what to do when I suddenly appear in view requires thought. People these days seem to have a deficit of thinking ability.

Helmet Head

The purpose of a BL should be to designate an area where cyclists may ride and motorists shouldn't drive (except to merge into the BL in preparation for a turn).
Maybe that's what you think it "should" be, but you're in the minority.

Most people, including most cyclists and law enforcement officers, think that a bike lane, regardless of how "good" or "bad" the design is, designates explicitly the space legally known as "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway", which is where cyclists are supposed to ride.

Brian Ratliff

If I ever expressed the notion that one cannot leave a bike lane, then I would not be so perplexed by this statement.

All I said was that bike lanes designate where cyclists are supposed to ride. Since you did not explicitly disagree with it, but you implied you did with your broad statement, please explain the purpose of a bike lane if it is not to designate where cyclists are supposed to ride, and motorist are not supposed to drive.

Bike lanes designate a relatively sheltered area to ride where cars cannot. By no means does this have to be coupled with a law requiring cyclists to ride there, particularly at intersections. Education is the only way to get cyclists to treat an intersection correctly, regardless of lane markings.

I don't know where you get the impression that I have the impression that, by eliminating all lane marking concerning cyclists, you can somehow guide beginner cycliststoward merging into traffic at an intersection. I never said, thought or implied that.

You do a good job at implying this when you make the argument that WOL's are better than BL's at intersections for begining cyclists.

Daily Commute

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.
Ooooooh. You discovered a type-o. Congratulations. You are a class act, almost as classy as Forester. But, alas, he still he manages to be a little more polite and respectful in the way he argues.

As to substance, I've had plenty of substantive discussions/arguments with Genec and others in this thread. They make points that merit responses. We often end up mostly agreeing. Some comments are not worthy of substantive responses, so I don't bother.

noisebeam

This is one reason why I think road accomodation has to be taken on a regional basis. I've been to Phoenix exactly once, but did notice there were many, many major intersections. Maybe WOL's work best there.

Where intersections are like this here in Beaverton, the corner is rounded more to allow a turn from closer to the curb.
There are many turns here, especially driveways (really entrances to strip malls) where the curb is blackened from all the tires that ride over it, most people don't ride over it, but choose to make a wide turn instead. The strip mall (grocery store) nearest my house requires that your tire ride up on the curb edge if there is a car exiting the same driveway creating a very narrow entrance, that is unless you start the turn with you car many feet from the curb, which you can't because it is a 45mph multilane road with a very NOL. Everyonce in a while someone (city, strip mall owner ?) dumps some asphault on the sharp curb to make it rounded, but this gets worn away after a few months.

Al

JRA

Maybe that's what you think it "should" be, but you're in the minority.Me being in the minority doesn't mean I'm wrong.

One problem is that there's no uniform law - 50 different states have 50 different sets of rules, not to mention the fact that many municpalities have their own rules. That's a problem with all rules regarding bicycles, not just rules regarding bike lanes.

Most people, including most cyclists and law enforcement officers, think that a bike lane, regardless of how "good" or "bad" the design is, designates explicitly the space legally known as "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway", which is where cyclists are supposed to ride.Cyclists traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic are supposed to ride to the right if practicable whether there is a BL or not. You blaming this on BLs is just another one of your anti-BL red herrings.

genec

Daily Commute

Good point. You are referring to "design for assembly." My only thought is that the analogy is backward. Design for assemby places more burden on the creative process of the designer, and lessens the burden for the manufacturer. In the case of "design for assembly," the manufacturer is the customer you are designing for. For your analogy, the designer is the cycling advocates, and the customer is the city. The product is the design specifications, not the actual facility on the road.

I would use the same analogy, but the designer is the city, and the customer is the cyclist. The product is the cycling facility on the road. Bike lanes do place more burden on the city, but I don't think of this as a bad thing. Cities are known to screw things up, but this just means that we need to install more bike savvy traffic engineers into city planning.
Part of the problem is that, thanks to the Planet-Bike-funded Thunderhead Alliance, most self-appoint bike advocates demand that cities commit to bike lanes first, then design them later. As a result, bike lanes end up on streets that don't need the lanes, and the city forces a bike lane stipe to fit anyway it can.

Instead, the cities need to look at a given stretch of road and say, "how can cyclists best traverse this." In a few places, bike lanes will be the answer, but not on most urban streets, and almost never on 25-30 mph downtown roads.

noisebeam

....most self-appoint bike advocates demand that cities commit to bike lanes first, then design them later. As a result, bike lanes end up on streets that don't need the lanes, and the city forces a bike lane stipe to fit anyway it can.

Instead, the cities need to look at a given stretch of road and say, "how can cyclists best traverse this." In a few places, bike lanes will be the answer, but not on most urban streets, and almost never on 25-30 mph downtown roads.
Excellent points. Kind of like:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/COMPREHENSIVEPLANBOARDS.htm

Look at the title of this one:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/page_52.jpg

Al

genec

Part of the problem is that, thanks to the Planet-Bike-funded Thunderhead Alliance, most self-appoint bike advocates demand that cities commit to bike lanes first, then design them later. As a result, bike lanes end up on streets that don't need the lanes, and the city forces a bike lane stipe to fit anyway it can.

Is that a Thunderhead Alliance issue or a government funding issue??? Is there anything I can read about TA and their motives other than their web site... what is the flip side of their coin?

Instead, the cities need to look at a given stretch of road and say, "how can cyclists best traverse this." In a few places, bike lanes will be the answer, but not on most urban streets, and almost never on 25-30 mph downtown roads.

Good appoach!

Daily Commute

Is that a Thunderhead Alliance issue or a government funding issue??? Is there anything I can read about TA and their motives other than their web site... what is the flip side of their coin?

I haven't found it. I have two local sources, one very pro-Thunderhead, one very strongly against it. Both told me exactly the same thing. I'd love for someone from Thunderhead itself to respond.

sbhikes

Bit of a contradiction there... If motorists are "hugging the shoulder," are they crossing the paint lines at the shoulders?
Yes, they are.

But if there were a bike lane there'd be TWO lines on the edge, possibly 3. It would be my hope that I'd stand a better chance at still claiming some part of the road if some of it were allotted to me.

Also, frequenly there are no lines at all.

genec

Yes, they are.

But if there were a bike lane there'd be TWO lines on the edge, possibly 3. It would be my hope that I'd stand a better chance at still claiming some part of the road if some of it were allotted to me.

Also, frequenly there are no lines at all.

Well, you just confirmed Serge's claim. So much for "staying between the lines."

Helmet Head

sbhikes

While riding left I've been nearly hit by old people and beer trucks.

With a bike lane people aim not for the shoulder as their right-most boundary, but the line. As long as I'm not on the line or outside it, I'm pretty safe. Safer than when there is no space allotted for me to use.

These roads where they are crossing the line they are more careful about that when they see a bicycle ahead. I see them hugging the turns and falling off the road on the other side. On my side it's more often a freaked out screetching halt or an unsafe lane change rather than simply running me down and off the road. The except being the elderly who I have to assume by their expressionless behavior didn't see me at all.

I think that increasing the amount of space between the line and the edge of the road can only benefit me as a rider.

genec

The point is, that regardless of the presence of any lines, on a short sight lined right hand curve you want the faster traffic to see you sooner rather than later, so they have as much time as possible to slow down or accomodate for your presense as possible, which means riding further LEFT to increase sight lines from them to you.

The bike lane, being the place most cyclists think they are supposed to be riding, hinders them from moving left. Now, if you remove the bike lane, are they sure to move left? Of course not, but at least there isn't a facility in place effectively telling them they are riding where they should be, when they aren't.

The bike lane is supposed to keep the autos to the left... the last thing I want to depend on while riding in the "middle" (to the left of the BL) of the road with a short sight line is some driver coming around a corner and THEN realizing they are going too fast.

I made this point earlier, and mentioned mountain roads... which tend to be narrow and thus do not have this problem as much as wide fast urban roads that are curvy. On the mountain roads, due to the fact that they are narrow, drivers slow down... that is not true on wide urban roads.

I face nearly this same effect at the hilly off ramp of 5 south and Genesee. I am to the right and on the shoulder until such time as I can transition to the travel lane to make my left turn at the top. I start my head turns well in advance, and signal... it is rare for the first motorist to slow down for me... even though I am on the edge of the line and have my arm out. Someone always does eventually slow and at that time, I do move into the travel lane and continue on. Now that situation has one point where I need to move and be recognized and negotiate.

Take a similar speed and put it on a multilaned hilly urban road that winds both left and right, and how many times... and where, do I need to negotiate? With a BL, the motorist is already to the left of me. Slow the motorist down, and the sightline requirement becomes short enough for the speed they are traveling and I can easily ride in the travel lane (just like on the mountain road). But at 50+MPH... no way. BTW I have driven this road and others and have seen the sightlines from behind the wheel... at 50+MPH... it is not good.

Regents Road south of 52 (traveling south) is one example, and Camino Ruiz south of Mira Mesa (traveling north) is another example. Both roads are also unbroken (no intersections) thus do not fall prey to any BL/intersection issues.

I-Like-To-Bike

You are a class act, almost as classy as Forester. But, alas, he still he manages to be a little more polite and respectful in the way he argues.

As to substance, I've had plenty of substantive discussions/arguments with Genec and others in this thread. They make points that merit responses. We often end up mostly agreeing. Some comments are not worthy of substantive responses, so I don't bother.
Sure, anyone who agrees with your opinions, or at least takes seriously your groundless fears of police crackdowns on vehicular cyclists, is making a substantive point. Otherwise its time to wail and moan about the meanies who don't take loopy ideas as gospel. When a skeptic points out that your fears are groundless you just repeat them over and over; or better yet offer the ultimate insult - an unfavorable comparison with Forester, the High Priest of Unsubstantiated Claims and Wacky Theories of Conspiracies to Eliminate Vehicular Cyclists from the Road.

Daily Commute

It's funny, I take their ideas seriously. They take my ideas seriously. We don't trade personal attacks. And we have a serious conversation. What a concept.

sbhikes

The bike lane is supposed to keep the autos to the left... the last thing I want to depend on while riding in the "middle" (to the left of the BL) of the road with a short sight line is some driver coming around a corner and THEN realizing they are going too fast.

I made this point earlier, and mentioned mountain roads... which tend to be narrow and thus do not have this problem as much as wide fast urban roads that are curvy. On the mountain roads, due to the fact that they are narrow, drivers slow down... that is not true on wide urban roads.

This is an example of how things are different in different places.

Where I ride the roads are narrow and curvy and not appropriate for fast "urban" driving, but that's exactly what is there. The reason is that Santa Barbara is too expensive for most people who work here to live here. So they commute in from Ventura. The freeway from Ventura is 3 lanes until just south of Santa Barbara where it narrows to 2 lanes, creating a horrible bottleneck. Everybody is extremely frustrated. There are letters to the editor almost every day about how the freeway should be widened. Meanwhile, to try to beat the traffic they get off the freeway and travel on adjacent, narrow, curvy two-lane roads with no shoulder. These are the same roads I ride on to get to work.

Coming around the corner too fast and then suddenly realizing a cyclist is there is my daily experience. If I ride to the left it is sometimes worse (not always, but sometimes) than if I try to stay as far to the right as humanly possible. Sometimes while riding to the left I encounter near head-on collisions with drivers cutting the corners and crossing the double-yellow line. In fact, these near head-on collisions are the primary reason I stopped driving. At least with a bicycle or motorcycle I have more room on the street in total because my vehicle is narrow.

A bike lane isn't going to remove the danger entirely. But it will give me a bigger buffer zone while also providing a visible reminder that cyclists will be present. Those little share the road street signs are nice, but they are present only in one place. A bike lane is present the entire road.

Unfortunately there isn't any room for a bike lane. Even the white line on the shoulder, if there is one, is right on the very edge of the asphalt most of the time.

I practice no-bike lane VC every single day on essentially country roads, not urban corridors, and find it to be the most dangerous and stressful part of the ride. (Paradoxically, it's the most beautiful and my favorite part of the ride.) As soon as I hit the part of my ride with the bike path (and the no-parking) I feel a sigh of relief, and now the only thing I have to worry about are right hooks, and I feel pretty capable of preventing those.

Helmet Head

So, once again, Forester is right. Ultimately, bike lane advocacy stems from the fear from the rear...

While riding left I've been nearly hit by old people and beer trucks.

With a bike lane people aim not for the shoulder as their right-most boundary, but the line. As long as I'm not on the line or outside it, I'm pretty safe. Safer than when there is no space allotted for me to use.
"As long as I'm not on the line or outside it, I'm pretty safe." In other words, "as long as I'm in the bike lane, I'm pretty safe". How safe? "Safer than when there is no space allotted for me to use." In other words, "safer than when there is no bike lane", or, "the bike lanes make cycling safer". I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Serious bike lane advocates have stopped claiming that at least 15 years ago. Not only is it not true, but it sets a dangerous precedent for cyclist rights, opening the door for arguments that without bike lanes, certain roadways are unsafe for cycling, and, if the bike lanes cannot be installed, cycling should be prohibited (in the name of safety).

I understand why you might feel safer riding in a bike lane, Diane, but please understand, what you feel safer from is being hit from the rear, which, during the day, has probably never happened in Santa Barbara. What's far more likely, by several orders of magnitute, is getting hit at an intersection, particularly in a left hook type of collision.

I know you think you were almost hit by old people and beer trucks. I really wonder how close to "almost" that was, or what makes you think you were almost hit, and how those situations came to be. Given the statistics, and my own experience of never being almost hit from the rear in over 30 years of cycling, it's hard for me to accept at face value. But I do believe you believe you were almost hit.

the last thing I want to depend on while riding in the "middle" (to the left of the BL) of the road with a short sight line is some driver coming around a corner and THEN realizing they are going too fast.
It's not about going too fast, it's about increasing the amount of distance (and hence time) they have to realize you are on the roadway and that they should adjust accordingly, whether that means slowing down, changing their line, or both.

I drove today. Sure enough, on the big right-hand curve on Torrey Pines road, a pickup truck in front of the car in front of me was pulling some kind of trailer full of junk, that wasn't tracking great. Like most motor vehicle drivers on right hand curves, the pickup driver took the inside. His pickup stayed just to the left of stripe, but the trailer was at least a foot into the bike lane. But it is also very common for drivers, including myself, to take their vehicles well inside of this curve, inside the bike lane. Some people would say this is a driver education problem. I don't buy it. People who are driving like that are focused on what they are doing, and, in particular, are looking ahead. If there is a cyclist, they will move left. If they didn't, cyclists getting hit from behind during the day might be a type of collision that made it on the radar.

Helmet Head

MODERATORS

Sure, anyone who agrees with your [Daily Commute's] opinions, or at least takes seriously your groundless fears of police crackdowns on vehicular cyclists, is making a substantive point. Otherwise its time to wail and moan about the meanies who don't take loopy ideas as gospel. When a skeptic points out that your fears are groundless you just repeat them over and over; or better yet offer the ultimate insult - an unfavorable comparison with Forester, the High Priest of Unsubstantiated Claims and Wacky Theories of Conspiracies to Eliminate Vehicular Cyclists from the Road.

I believe this post consists of uncalled for personal attacks. "your groundless fears". "wail and moan". "loopy ideas". "the High Priest of Unsubstantiated Claims and Wacky Theories of Conspiracies to Eliminate Vehicular Cyclists from the Road".

genec

So, once again, Forester is right. Ultimately, bike lane advocacy stems from the fear from the rear...

"As long as I'm not on the line or outside it, I'm pretty safe." In other words, "as long as I'm in the bike lane, I'm pretty safe". How safe? "Safer than when there is no space allotted for me to use." In other words, "safer than when there is no bike lane", or, "the bike lanes make cycling safer". I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Serious bike lane advocates have stopped claiming that at least 15 years ago. Not only is it not true, but it sets a dangerous precedent for cyclist rights, opening the door for arguments that without bike lanes, certain roadways are unsafe for cycling, and, if the bike lanes cannot be installed, cycling should be prohibited (in the name of safety).

I understand why you might feel safer riding in a bike lane, Diane, but please understand, what you feel safer from is being hit from the rear, which, during the day, has probably never happened in Santa Barbara. What's far more likely, by several orders of magnitute, is getting hit at an intersection, particularly in a left hook type of collision.

I know you think you were almost hit by old people and beer trucks. I really wonder how close to "almost" that was, or what makes you think you were almost hit, and how those situations came to be. Given the statistics, and my own experience of never being almost hit from the rear in over 30 years of cycling, it's hard for me to accept at face value. But I do believe you believe you were almost hit.

It's not about going too fast, it's about increasing the amount of distance (and hence time) they have to realize you are on the roadway and that they should adjust accordingly, whether that means slowing down, changing their line, or both.

I drove today. Sure enough, on the big right-hand curve on Torrey Pines road, a pickup truck in front of the car in front of me was pulling some kind of trailer full of junk, that wasn't tracking great. Like most motor vehicle drivers on right hand curves, the pickup driver took the inside. His pickup stayed just to the left of stripe, but the trailer was at least a foot into the bike lane. But it is also very common for drivers, including myself, to take their vehicles well inside of this curve, inside the bike lane. Some people would say this is a driver education problem. I don't buy it. People who are driving like that are focused on what they are doing, and, in particular, are looking ahead. If there is a cyclist, they will move left. If they didn't, cyclists getting hit from behind during the day might be a type of collision that made it on the radar.

Three problems with your argument... these roads we are discussing don't have intersections... therefore do not fall into the Forester trap of "intersections make bike lanes dangerous."

Second... cyclists have been hit from the rear, but Forester et. al. deny this as too small a statistic "negligible" is the word used. I don't care to become "negligible." They focus on accidents at intersections... which oddly enough, WOL will not prevent either.

Third due to a lawsuit some years ago, speed limits have been steadily increasing, and the performace of autos also has gone up quite a bit since the 70's... heck motorcycles are now water cooled... so vehicles are faster and motorists are pushing them harder, where they can... thus sightlines are shorter. Brakes are better... true, but distractions have also increased and reaction times have not changed.

Helmet Head

Three problems with your argument... these roads we are discussing don't have intersections... therefore do not fall into the Forester trap of "intersections make bike lanes dangerous."
Since that wasn't a part of my argument, it's not a problem with my argument.

cyclists have been hit from the rear, but Forester et. al. deny this as too small a statistic "negligible" is the word used. I don't care to become "negligible." They focus on accidents at intersections... which oddly enough, WOL will not prevent either.
The issue isn't whether hit from the rear ever happens... everyone acknowledges it does (so there is no point in pointing out that it does). The issue is whether bike lanes help prevent you from becoming a "negligible" statistic. There is no evidence that they do. Pointing out that cyclists are, however rarely, hit from the rear does not identify a problem in my argument.

speed limits have been steadily increasing
Again, this identifies a problem in my argument only if you could show that bike lanes help prevent hits from the rear due steadily increasing speed limits. You can't, so it doesn't.

Three problems with my argument? You've identified none.

I-Like-To-Bike

MODERATORS

I believe this post consists of uncalled for personal attacks. "your groundless fears". "wail and moan". "loopy ideas". "the High Priest of Unsubstantiated Claims and Wacky Theories of Conspiracies to Eliminate Vehicular Cyclists from the Road".

Whine and cry"wolf"; what a dang joke. Waa, Waa, Waa.

Helmet/Serge Head has been carrying on for months with his stream-of-consciousness "stuff" about bike lane terror and unique (to say the least) powers to control traffic around him. Making up polls for information and arguing with everyone who doesn't answer "correctly" or believe his line of "stuff"; can't understand the difference between a cement truck and a bicycle, and of course endless sales pitches for his hero's tomes. DC constantly dreams up threats to imaginary cyclists in locales of which he has no knowledge and doesn't understand the difference between a bicycle and a baby carriage.

Are the zealous VC proseltyizers so afraid of the light of reason shining on their dogma and fantasies? I find it hard to believe anyone takes such characters seriously.

I-Like-To-Bike

It's funny, I take their ideas seriously. They take my ideas seriously. We don't trade personal attacks. And we have a serious conversation. What a concept.
I'm sure when the members of the Flat Earth Society get together they ALL take each other seriously.

While a handful of zealous VC types seriously debate about how VC angels should dance around a paint stripe, excuse me while I take such "stuff" less than seriously and try to control my laughter. Please don't be surprised that no one but the debaters gives a dang about conclusions derived from such "serious" debate.

Don't be so touchy about your precious fantasies. Just keep on preaching and remember what Phineas Barnum said. You may find another convert yet.

Brian Ratliff

I understand why you might feel safer riding in a bike lane, Diane, but please understand, what you feel safer from is being hit from the rear, which, during the day, has probably never happened in Santa Barbara. What's far more likely, by several orders of magnitute, is getting hit at an intersection, particularly in a left hook type of collision.

Three problems with your argument... these roads we are discussing don't have intersections... therefore do not fall into the Forester trap of "intersections make bike lanes dangerous."

Since that wasn't a part of my argument, it's not a problem with my argument.

You need to get your thoughts more in order before typing. I understand there are many lines of arguments here, with people switching between each of them relatively quickly, but you should check what you type before making a claim like this.

In any case, there must be a reason for the "feeling of safety" in a bike lane... What do you think it is? Could it stem from the same reason that bike lanes sometime collect debris?

I agree with you that one should move further from the edge of the road to increase sight lines from cars ahead, but this is not necessarily a reason to do away with the bike lane on curves. Sweeping, blind, curves are hard in any case. Best to narrow the lane using either NOL or a bike lane and teach the cyclist not to let anyone pass. A sweeping, blind curve up hill is probably best treated with a bike lane because drivers tend to stay within the lines, and encountering a cyclist going 5-10mph in the car's path will cause the driver to brake and/or swerve, both of which can lead to loss of control of the car in a tight turn. Obviously, drivers should not go this fast around curves, but of course, they do.

genec

You need to get your thoughts more in order before typing. I understand there are many lines of arguments here, with people switching between each of them relatively quickly, but you should check what you type before making a claim like this.

In any case, there must be a reason for the "feeling of safety" in a bike lane... What do you think it is? Could it stem from the same reason that bike lanes sometime collect debris?

I agree with you that one should move further from the edge of the road to increase sight lines from cars ahead, but this is not necessarily a reason to do away with the bike lane on curves. Sweeping, blind, curves are hard in any case. Best to narrow the lane using either NOL or a bike lane and teach the cyclist not to let anyone pass. A sweeping, blind curve up hill is probably best treated with a bike lane because drivers tend to stay within the lines, and encountering a cyclist going 5-10mph in the car's path will cause the driver to brake and/or swerve, both of which can lead to loss of control of the car in a tight turn. Obviously, drivers should not go this fast around curves, but of course, they do.

I tend to agree... if a BL is collecting debris, then obviously motorists are not driving in it. You want to reduce the amount of the debris, get more people to cycle... I have seen debris swept away by bicycles, just like cars.

"A sweeping, blind curve up hill is probably best treated with a bike lane... "

Oddly enough, that discribes exactly the road situations I described in Post 784. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1244736&postcount=784)

One has a bike lane and the other does not. The one without the BL has a history of at least one experienced cyclist having been killed on it... the motorist was "distracted." Could it be that the motorist did not see the "experienced cyclist," in time to react, due to the shortened sightline? I don't know for sure, and the local online newspaper archives do not date back far enough to search for such data. Perhaps there is some other database available. I do remember the situation as I discussed it at length with other cyclists on a work based message board.

patc

Second... cyclists have been hit from the rear, but Forester et. al. deny this as too small a statistic "negligible" is the word used. I don't care to become "negligible." They focus on accidents at intersections... which oddly enough, WOL will not prevent either.

The city of Toronto commissioned a coroner's report a few years ago on cycling fatalities. The third most common type of accident (resulting in cyclist death) was caused by the cyclist being rear-ended. Many "stats" on cycling accidents dilute figures with minor injuries. I'll heal from bumps and bruises, I'm rather more concerned with fatal injuries. But hey, that's just me. IIRC the first or second leading accident type was getting side-swiped, and getting hit by a turning car was lower down on the list.

sbhikes

I used to see a guy around town who had been hit from the rear while riding his bike on highway 101 (which is legal.) He had a prosthetic leg. He was hit from behind.

What about all the posts in the commuting and this forum about people brushing by too closely, or wanting to put those flags on the side of their bikes to make cars give them some space? Are they imagining the lack of sufficient space?

What about you, Serge? You do not like it when cars pass by you too quickly. What are you afraid of if you honestly believe they will never hit you?

Sometimes you cannot pull out far enough to the left to make yourself visible from behind with a far enough sight line. Sometimes the only way to get far enough out is to put yourself in danger of on-coming head-ons. This is MY experience on the roads I use every day in Montecito. In fact, there was even an article in today's News-Press from an experienced bike commuter in Carpinteria who believes it's suicide to ride a bike on narrow, curvy, shoulderless Foothill Road.

Even though multitudes of cyclists use these roads every day it doesn't mean they are safe or that cyclists are happy with them the way they are. I'll bet you most cyclists would love to see a bike lane added to these roads. I know I would.

Brian Ratliff

I tend to agree... if a BL is collecting debris, then obviously motorists are not driving in it. You want to reduce the amount of the debris, get more people to cycle... I have seen debris swept away by bicycles, just like cars.

"A sweeping, blind curve up hill is probably best treated with a bike lane... "

Oddly enough, that discribes exactly the road situations I described in Post 784. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1244736&postcount=784)

One has a bike lane and the other does not. The one without the BL has a history of at least one experienced cyclist having been killed on it... the motorist was "distracted." Could it be that the motorist did not see the "experienced cyclist," in time to react, due to the shortened sightline? I don't know for sure, and the local online newspaper archives do not date back far enough to search for such data. Perhaps there is some other database available. I do remember the situation as I discussed it at length with other cyclists on a work based message board.

How's this for a hybrid road facility: On an uphill road, put a bike lane on the uphill side, and a WOL on the down-hill side. It would give a refuge for slow traveling cyclists on the uphill side, and on the down hill side, it would give everyone room to manuver and encourage cars to start curves wide and not encroach on the median.