Bike lanes

[sbhikes]

Diane said, she "stopped for the light right in front of her car."

To me, that implied the car was already there when she stopped in front of it.

What she meant was that she stopped at the light, then the car stopped behind her.

I'm still unclear as to what happened when the light turned green. If Diane was stopped in front of the car, how did she observe the driver make all the mistakes if they happened behind her? If the driver passed Diane, how did she do that without hitting her if she was oblivious to her. If Diane moved out of the way to the right to let her pass when the light turned green, that would explain much, because motorists often act as if cyclists are not there as soon as the cyclist defers to the motorist.
- I was stopped in front of her before she arrived.
- I have a rear view mirror and as soon as I sensed something was wrong, I looked behind me.
- I moved out of the way because I realized she was plowing into me and showing no sign that she saw me. Wouldn't you?
- The road is slightly curved at the light. To not miss the lane you have to aim slightly to the right. There is a very wide area between the right edge of the lane and the curb. The area is for cyclists and also there is a large parking area for busses. She aimed more toward the bus lane. I think she was confused.

[Keith99]

Where in the right hand lane were you riding? Was there a bike lane?

It was over 10 years ago, but I would have been in the center to left part of the lane. It was on Topanga Canyon just south of Ventura Blvd. I would have been the left part of the lane starting out from the light and had not cleared the intersection by much before I got rear ended.

This is an area where hugging the right is almost impossible unless someone is one of those fools that moves into where cars part and pops back out for each parked car.

Oh and no bike lane. For me in this one case a bike lane might have helped, but it would cost a full traffic lane and really piss off drivers (including me).

[Helmet Head]

I'm pleased to learn what the instructor is teaching, though I would ask him what his basis is for saying the law requires cyclists to leave the bike lane at intersections... what law is that?

Indeed, thanks to John Forester and company, the letter of the law governing cyclists in CA, including bike lanes, is fairly liberal. Never-the-less, the recommended/legal use of bike lanes is unnatural and contrary to the vehicular rules that apply to normal lanes. Most importantly, at intersection approaches interlane movement is normally discouraged (lane stripe goes from striped to sold), but with bike lanes it's the opposite: lane stripe goes from solid to stripe.

I could go on and on, as you know, so I won't.

[Brian Ratliff]

Not at intersections... for turns.

And for the bike lanes. Intersection approaches for cars are hundreds of feet in length. Approaches for bikes are tens of feet. Hence, the reason for allowing cyclists to change lanes so close to the intersection. Besides, as in every other limited access lanes, the solid lane marking indicates that vehicles restricted from the lane cannot cross and a stripped (or dotted, to differentiate from the normal stripped lane markings) is to indictate that restricted vehicles can cross the line. The lane markings do not restrict movement of the unrestricted vehicle to or from the lane. I thought this was pretty standard in the US.

[Helmet Head]

The lane markings do not restrict movement of the unrestricted vehicle to or from the lane. I thought this was pretty standard in the US.
What about truck lanes. Non-trucks are allowed to move in (or out).
But trucks must stay IN.

[Brian Ratliff]

Think about it...which is the restricted vehicle in this case and what lanes are they restricted from? There are two sides to every white line. My definition still holds.

Here, and evidently in CA, law states that bikes can transverse the road while cars cannot enter the bike lane. While it is possible for the law to state something else to make it look more like a truck lane, it does not. So the bikes have the privilege of going anywhere, but the cars have to stay out of the bike lane. Evidently, for a truck lane (which, by the way, we don't have here so correct me if I am mistaken) the truck is restricted from the rest of the road and the cars are unrestricted. I'll bet that they are, to, separated by a solid, white line. It is the text of the law that determines which side of the line you are on and what privileges one has.

[sbhikes]

I'm pleased to learn what the instructor is teaching, though I would ask him what his basis is for saying the law requires cyclists to leave the bike lane at intersections... what law is that?

Indeed, thanks to John Forester and company, the letter of the law governing cyclists in CA, including bike lanes, is fairly liberal. Never-the-less, the recommended/legal use of bike lanes is unnatural and contrary to the vehicular rules that apply to normal lanes. Most importantly, at intersection approaches interlane movement is normally discouraged (lane stripe goes from striped to sold), but with bike lanes it's the opposite: lane stripe goes from solid to stripe.

I could go on and on, as you know, so I won't.
The legal system in your state is teaching that cyclists are allowed full use of the lane regardless of the presence of a bike lane, and they are teaching this primarily to motorists. So what do you care about bike lanes? You are not required to use them. Make your lateral lane change whenever you want. Nothing is stopping you.

As for what law...You don't get it. The law is written so that you can get a ticket any time for any reason. What the instructor was mandated by law to provide us was 400 minutes of defensive driving instruction featuring a full 400 minutes of DMV-approved curriculum, which he told us at the beginning meant he would tell us sometimes to do things that were not legal but safe. And his reason for this was that the law is written so you can get a ticket at any time so you are better off driving safely than learning every letter of every law.

[Dchiefransom]

I want to tell you all that I attended Traffic School this weekend (yes, I got a ticket, but on my scooter.)

You'll be interested to hear what the instructor taught the class in the bicycle section.

He said first of all to everyone, before he said anything else, that bicyclists have every right to the full use of the lane any time they wish. He yelled it. He was clearly not a cyclist as he resembled Santa Claus (well, maybe he rides recumbent. Who knows?) Yet he stressed this point heavily.

He went on to say that cyclists are NOT REQUIRED (his emphasis) to use a bike lane even if one is there. (This is California law before you go ballistic.) They are REQUIRED (his emphasis) by law to leave to bike lane for turns. They are required to follow the same laws as car drivers. He also made a big point that drivers should not react poorly to cyclists because cyclists are reducing congestion. They should be encouraging cyclists by understanding their rights to the road.

And for all those who get all huffy that in your state cops will give you a ticket if you leave the bike lane, he made this point over and over again: You can get a ticket any time for almost anything any time a cop wants to give you one. So the only thing you can do is be safe and drive (ride) defensively.

If in California the legal system is teaching that cyclists are not required to use a bike lane even if one is present, why do you anti-bike lane people
a) keep saying the opposite
b) want to take away bike lanes for those who want to use them

And if the law is set up to give you tickets at any time for any reason, what difference does it make to you whether or not some cop can come and give you a ticket for not using a bike lane. He can give you a speeding ticket, too, if he thinks your speed is not safe, even if it's below the speed limit.

Anyway, thought you'd be interested.

The California Vehicle Code lists "exceptions" to the law requiring us to ride in the bike lane, but as your instructor said, it would be up to us to prove that we shouldn't have been there. The worst thing about bike lanes is they are painted on the roadways in many areas by people that obviously have no experience riding a bicycle at all.

[noisebeam]

A sidepath right up to an intersection! Death trap!!!


Wonder how a cyclist is supposed to turn left?

Anyway, I posted this stuff for calibration. I would never get upset over widening the road for 1.5M for a mile stretch of a windy hilly 50mph road that had NOL and no shoulder - even if a WOL would have been perferred for some cycling advocates, the BL can be used safely by all cyclists, those who don't feel its safe being it it can still ride in the primary lane - overall there is a relative improvement. I mean I wouldn't get upset when there are 3M projects that take away same grade BLs from 25mph streets and separate them into these BL sidepaths as pictured. Its crazy - especially when the primary commuting roads (45mph multilane arterials) that actually let commuting cyclist get anywhere around this city all have NOLs (remember the picture I posted in this thread a few weeks ago.) This is what bugs me 2M and 3M for messing up a 25mph street like this (still a bike lane on a 25mph street, but at least cyclist can merge freely between lanes http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Hardy%20Before.jpg) and turning it into the image Serge linked with nothing being done about roads that serve a practical commuting purpose. Now I acknowlege that the streets had a traffic management problem, but to solve it by getting bikes off the main lanes into separate paths? Absurd.

Al

[Daily Commute]

Can any of you pro-bike-laners defend this design?
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Hardy%20After.jpg

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Can any of you pro-bike-laners defend this design?
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Hardy%20After.jpg
It doesn't look like a bike lane to me. What's your definition of a bike lane vis-à-vis a side path?

What do YOU know about this design and the specific conditions it is meant to address other than Helmet Head's alarmist rhetoric about "DEATHTRAP!" Before asking your "question" of others, how 'bout providing details: location, traffic pattern, local driver/cyclists' preferences, etc.

Is it in Columbus Ohio, or do you know a thing about the purpose of this facility? Or is it like bicycles, baby strollers and concrete mixer trucks - they are all the same in the eyes of a zealous EC advocate?

[sbhikes]

That is a bike path, not a bike lane. Don't ride in it if you don't like it. It appears it was intended as a traffic calming/neighborhood beautification project more than anything. I'd probably be more willing to let my kid ride to school especially with crossing guards stationed at the corners. Perhaps that is what it's for.

[sbhikes]

I'd like to get back to this fear from the rear accusation. I thought about it and no, I don't think I exhibit classic "fear from the rear."

I don't have any fear of being hit from behind, unless someone is in the process of doing it. I had no fear of the beer truck until he actually went out of his way to indicate his road rage against me. I wasn't even taking up space that he needed. There was an empty lane to his left and he was turning left down the block anyway. Clearly it was an irrational situation and an irrational man.

Some of the other personal examples I've brought up were old people swerving into me. Not really coming from the rear, but from the side. They really were coming at me and they were old and seemed to indicate they had no awareness that there was a problem. Again, an irrational situation. An impaired driver. Maybe they have macular degeneration or are taking too many medications. I do fear those people.

Other than that, it's been curvy roads with no shoulder and hills. I fear the car passing me will do so unsafely and I'll become part of their head-on accident with someone else. I also have a couple spots where I make left turns and there's no visibility of me while I wait for an opening. I've had enough close encounters on bike and motorcycle to know it's not a situation to take a cavalier attitude toward. It is a little scary when I see someone coming around the bend in my rear view mirror. Will they be the impaired driver above? A road-rager? A construction vehicle too heavy to stop suddenly? But I ride these roads every day and happily.

What I consider classic fear from the rear is when someone says, you ride in traffic? Aren't you afraid of getting hit? Generalized fear with no specific source. My answer to that is no, I'm not afraid.

So let's get this straight. When there is actually a car headed into me, I find that frightening. When there isn't, I think nothing of riding amongst them. Is there something wrong with that?

[JRA]

Can any of you pro-bike-laners defend this design?
That's not a bike lane.

It's a red herring. It also seems to be a straw man.

What the anti-bike lane crowd needs is a rational argument, not more red herrings and straw men.

[genec]

"Fear from the rear." I too have to question this accusation. I ride easily amoung traffic on 4 and 6 lane roads moving at about 35MPH. The roads have good sightlines, and some bizzare intersections which require a sharp eye. There are bike lanes... and I do not use them. I ride readily in the travel lanes and guide and control the motorists around me.

I also ride a stretch of 50+MPH windy steep hill side, I actually find it a nice alternative to the 45+ MPH nearly straight hillside that it parallels. Why... well it carries about 1/2 to 1/3 of the traffic... there are actually minutes when I can hear myself breath. Both roads are arterials off of a major freeway.

On these hilly roads I am typically doing about 8MPH, and am in the uninteruppted Bike Lane... which works perfectly as a mountain grade slow passing lane. This a perfect application of a Bike Lane.

If I were driving a very slow vehicle (such as loaded VW camper) on a mountain grade... there too I would expect to drive in the special segregated slow lane to the right... and I would have no qualms about it.

[genec]

Can any of you pro-bike-laners defend this design?
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Hardy%20After.jpg


Nope... It is a side path... It has no defense... worse, it appears to be in a residential neighborhood... although I do not know the speeds there... if they are anywhere near 25MPH, nothing should exist. I have no idea how one could make a left turn from that. Typical case of a traffic engineer that doesn't have a clue...

Too bad so many traffic engineers never use their own designs.

[noisebeam]

That's not a bike lane.

It's a red herring. It also seems to be a straw man.

What the anti-bike lane crowd needs is a rational argument, not more red herrings and straw men.
It is part of a bike lane. Please study this information in the link below about this project - look at all the before and after pictures. You will note that on some stretches of the street it is a traditional bike lane design, on other stretches it turns into what is being refered here as a bike path. Also on city maps this road is marked as having a bike lane, which is a separate designation from the bike paths shown on the map.
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/5thStreet.htm

Yes - These changes were part of a greater effort at beautification, pedestrian improvements, traffic calming, etc.

I actually did not post it as a red herring, a straw man. I posted it in response to Serge who was upset about 1.5M being spent on what sounded like a good project, adding BL to a narrow curvey road in California. I was trying to say 'pick your battles' Worry about this kind of stuff first. I also posted it because if anti and pro-BL people don't get into some kind of agreement*, then absurdities like this project will happen.

*Such as no BL on 25mph or less streets, WOL on less than 25mph streets, BL on uphill roads, WOL on downhill, no BLs within 100yrds of an intersection, BL in tunnels, on bridges, on freeways, etc. (not that this is totally agreeable, but I gather from this thread this wouldn't cause too much debate) Get on paper what everyone agrees to, then focus the debate on specific grey area conditions.

Al

[noisebeam]

Nope... It is a side path... It has no defense... worse, it appears to be in a residential neighborhood... although I do not know the speeds there... if they are anywhere near 25MPH, nothing should exist. I have no idea how one could make a left turn from that. Typical case of a traffic engineer that doesn't have a clue...

Too bad so many traffic engineers never use their own designs.
This is a 25mph road, was before the changes to. Here is the before picture:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Hardy%20Before.jpg
And after:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Hardy%20After.jpg

Note on same road a few hundred yards down that this bike path is a bike lane (this is an after picture):
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20McKemy%20After.jpg

It really bugs me money is spent on this (not the beautification part, that is fine) when there are so many nasty high speed NOL arterial roads that commuters must use if they want to get anywhere.

Al

[patc]

Can any of you pro-bike-laners defend this design?

Irrelevant question. That's not a bike lane. Bike lanes are part of the road.

[Brian Ratliff]

Can any of you pro-bike-laners defend this design?


No... But then again, it is a traffic calming measure more than a bike path or bike lane. Many residential streets are being modified like this to make the car lanes very narrow in an attempt to slow traffic to reasonable speeds. This looks like one of those attempts. If I were riding there, I would be in the main traffic lane.

As for using this to argue against all bike lanes on all roads, it is a red herring and doesn't wash. Cycling and driving in residential areas are very casual affairs. The residential roads don't pose a risk to cyclists in any way since everyone is going so slow, so any sort of bike lane/bike path design is pretty neutral.

[patc]

It is part of a bike lane. Please study this information in the link below about this project - look at all the before and after pictures. You will note that on some stretches of the street it is a traditional bike lane design, on other stretches it turns into what is being refered here as a bike path. l

I could call my cat a dog, but it won't start barking.

This is not a bike lane by any definition I am familiar with. Certainly in Ontario that could not be considered a bike lane under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, and I doubt any municipality here would get away with calling it such if challenged.

I would be curious to know if there is any authority that would consider this path a "bike lane". If so it would go a long way to explaining to me why so much of the anti bike-lane references I see posted here (most often from Americans, but not exclusively) see to be complete non sequiturs.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

That's not a bike lane.

It's a red herring. It also seems to be a straw man.

What the anti-bike lane crowd needs is a rational argument, not more red herrings and straw men.
Oh My. Daily Commuter and his anti-bike lane comrades take their red herrings, straw man arguments, and their other assorted rhetorial "stuff" very seriously. To raise any doubt about its connection to truth or reality can cause conniptions for Daily Commuter/HelmetHead who take such observations/statements as personal insults.

[Brian Ratliff]

It really bugs me money is spent on this (not the beautification part, that is fine) when there are so many nasty high speed NOL arterial roads that commuters must use if they want to get anywhere.

Al

To be honest, the city has a problem with road widening. On the road you show, the road is already pretty wide and from the looks of it, the city wants to make it narrower, or at least, appear that way to keep cars from speeding down it. But to widen a NOL road to a WOL or BL equiped road requires much more money. For instance, the city probably has to purchase land from the owners, or decrease the capacity of the road by decreasing the number of lanes.

Also, in all likelyhood in the pictures you showed, most of the money went to the beautification part of the project. Putting in stripes and curbs are relatively easy, but buying trees and hiring designers and landscapers is expensive.

[noisebeam]

To be honest, the city has a problem with road widening. On the road you show, the road is already pretty wide and from the looks of it, the city wants to make it narrower, or at least, appear that way to keep cars from speeding down it. But to widen a NOL road to a WOL or BL equiped road requires much more money. For instance, the city probably has to purchase land from the owners, or decrease the capacity of the road by decreasing the number of lanes.

Actually on most of the aterial roads with NOL there is a 20-30ft semi-landscaped buffer on each side of the road, then a concrete block wall behind which are houses. The city owns this land and per the 2030 long term plan will use it for adding addtional travel lanes, greenery and, yes, bike lanes. It is the timing and priority that concern me. Why all this fuss and millions of $ about 25mph streets now and only addressing the NOL on high speed roads in a 2030 long range plan? Oh, thats right, neighborhood activists who have a lot of influence and don't care about anything outside of their 1mi block.

Al

[noisebeam]

I could call my cat a dog, but it won't start barking.

This is not a bike lane by any definition I am familiar with. Certainly in Ontario that could not be considered a bike lane under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, and I doubt any municipality here would get away with calling it such if challenged.

I would be curious to know if there is any authority that would consider this path a "bike lane". If so it would go a long way to explaining to me why so much of the anti bike-lane references I see posted here (most often from Americans, but not exclusively) see to be complete non sequiturs.
I never once said it is a bike lane, I only said it is part of a bike lane. Meaning that on this road there is mostly a traditional bike lane, but in some short sections it turns into this 'bike path'. Also on the city provided bike map (see below) this road is marked as having a bike lane (maroon color) instead of a bike path (green color). So the city at least considers it a bike lane.

The road in question is 5th, the one in maroon color just above University:
http://www.tempe.gov/bikeprogram/map/master_2x1.jpg

Al

[JRA]

It is part of a bike lane.
Oh, poppycock! It's a side path. A bike lane may connect to it but it's still a side path.

Pro-bike-laners (of which I'm not even one) were challenged to defend it. Try to spin it if you want but it was obviously posted as a red herring.

So now we've got an argument about that stupid design which many of us will agree is lousy. (that's where the straw man comes in)


I was trying to say 'pick your battles'That's a valid point but, if that was the point of posting the picture, that point should have been made in the original post. It wasn't.

Besides, it's anti-bike folks that oppose all bike lanes on the basis of an ideology. They're the ones who can't seem to tell the difference between a side-path and a bike lane. Or between a good design and a bad one.

[sbhikes]

Aside from conspiracy theories, what was the stated goal of the bike lane/path project? Why did they implement it that way.

I really don't have a problem with it. If I didn't want to use it I wouldn't. But I would let my kid ride to school in it and feel a lot better than if it wasn't there. Is there a school nearby? Are there crossing guards posted at the corners during school hours?

You can't just throw up a picture and expect people to understand the full context.

[Helmet Head]

And his reason for this was that the law is written so you can get a ticket at any time so you are better off driving safely than learning every letter of every law.
This is absurd. It's not that hard to obey the law, and the idea that someone or someones had at some time a specific intent to construct the law such that everyone is technically breaking one law or another at any given time is totally without basis.

If a car driver obeys the speed limit, verifies his car's signals are functionally properly, and knows and obeys movement rules at intersections, a cop is going to have a hard time finding cause to pull him over.

Serge

[noisebeam]

Aside from conspiracy theories, what was the stated goal of the bike lane/path project? Why did they implement it that way.

I really don't have a problem with it. If I didn't want to use it I wouldn't. But I would let my kid ride to school in it and feel a lot better than if it wasn't there. Is there a school nearby? Are there crossing guards posted at the corners during school hours?

You can't just throw up a picture and expect people to understand the full context.
There are schools in the area. That is a reason for the improvemets.
I did not just throw up a picture. I gave a link that explains the whole purpose of the project, the process, and which included about a dozen photos.

Al

[genec]

If a car driver obeys the speed limit, verifies his car's signals are functionally properly, and knows and obeys movement rules at intersections, a cop is going to have a hard time finding cause to pull him over.

Serge

And yet so few do just that... and still don't get pulled over.

Excessive speeding and non-use of the turn signals are the norm around here... and you actually expect motorists to go the extra mile and "obey movement rules at intersections..." Ha!

It's more like "I am bigger, badder and faster... so tough."

[Helmet Head]

If I were driving a very slow vehicle (such as loaded VW camper) on a mountain grade...
LOL. You obviously haven't driven a VW Camper lately... (6 cyl, 201 HP)

[noisebeam]

Oh, poppycock! It's a side path. A bike lane may connect to it but it's still a side path.

Pro-bike-laners (of which I'm not even one) were challenged to defend it. Try to spin it if you want but it was obviously posted as a red herring.

So now we've got an argument about that stupid design which many of us will agree is lousy. (that's where the straw man comes in)

That's a valid point but, if that was the point of posting the picture, that point should have been made in the original post. It wasn't.

Besides, it's anti-bike folks that oppose all bike lanes on the basis of an ideology. They're the ones who can't seem to tell the difference between a side-path and a bike lane. Or between a good design and a bad one.

My original post was primarily to Serge, telling him to calm down about a 1.5M useful project and worry insead about things like this.
Sure that section is a path, no question. But these 'paths' only exist in the 50 yards or so before the intersections, 95% of the rest of the way is a traditional bike lane - and the city defines this whole stretch as a bike lane. Look at the link and all the pictures it includes. Call my post what you want, red herring, etc. I think there are many sub-threads and side tracks on this long thread, I posted this with good intentions, go back and read all 36 pages of this thread, we get off track, back on, folks pose specific situations, etc. Its all part of the greater discussion - and I have on more than one occasion tried to pull things together, draw general conclusions, agreements, etc, bring some cohesiveness to things, so I don't feel bad about also once in a while (somewhat accidentally, or at least not with bad intentions this time) mixing things up.

Also I never once was challenging pro-BL people to defend this. Other forum members did. I know general opinions of many on this discussion and know that folk who support BL (like Gene) would see the absurdity of it - its obvious.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Besides, it's anti-bike folks that oppose all bike lanes on the basis of an ideology.
You say that like having a position based on an ideology is a bad thing. Or did I misunderstand?

[patc]

I never once said it is a bike lane, I only said it is part of a bike lane. Meaning that on this road there is mostly a traditional bike lane, but in some short sections it turns into this 'bike path'.

To me you can't say that "its part of a bike lane" and also be saying "it is not a bike lane". It may be part of a bike route, and it would not be unusual for bike routes to use a variety of faccilities, but this section here is not a bike lane by any understanding of the term I am familiar with.

[Helmet Head]

Al - I understand that there are much worse projects than this particular $1.5M widening project (Gene, by the way, I'm talking about Via de la Valle between the east end of Flower Hill and El Camino Real). But in San Diego what is being done "for bikes" is thankfully limited, so, so is the potential damage.

This particular project, with it's big sign advertising the spending of $1.5M of taxpayer money for bicyclists is probably creating more animosity towards cycling and cyclists than good will (at least letters to the editor indicate as much).

The other project getting focus right now is a bike/ped bridge over Lake Hodges, that will run parallel to the I-15 freeway bridge. Once the bike/ped bridge is built, Caltrans will no longer allow cyclists to cross via the freeway. So we're battling access issues to the bridge (that require cyclists to act as pedestrians to get on the access paths to the bridge), and also plans to have the bridge closed at night (thus closing the cycling route across Lake Hodges at night).

[noisebeam]

To me you can't say that "its part of a bike lane" and also be saying "it is not a bike lane". It may be part of a bike route, and it would not be unusual for bike routes to use a variety of faccilities, but this section here is not a bike lane by any understanding of the term I am familiar with.
OK, I was not clear and specific in my language, however my intent was right. I should have originally said it is part of a bike lane system or even better as you say a bike route. For this section of 2mi road there is primarily a bike lane - only for a few 100 and 50 yard sections does it turn into pictured 'bike path' where a raised median separates the path from the primary travel lane - it is not a normal bike path by normal bike path implementations and, agreed, it is not a bike lane either. It the horrible evil offspring of the worst of each. ;)

Al

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Also I never once was challenging pro-BL people to defend this. Other forum members did.
Correct it was not Noisebeam who posted the off-kilter "challenge". It was another poster who has yet to reply any of the responses.

[Helmet Head]

On the bike lane/path issue in Al's photo.
There has been a lot of miscommunication because some folks are not paying attention to who is saying what in what context, and misinterpreting much of what has been said as a result.

Technically speaking, using the definitions all of us here understand, the picture in question shows a side path, not a bike lane per se. However, it brings up an issue I do not recall that we've discussed in the past... when exactly does a bike lane become a side path?

The classic "pure" bike lane is separated from vehicular travel lanes by only a stripe. But sometimes well-intentioned but ignorant traffic engineers separate expand the division from a stripe into two stripes that expand into a painted island. For Gene, I can think of two places in San Diego that they do this: On southbound PCH/101 at the north end of Solana Beach. Also on westbound Nobel Drive at Regents Road. One of the "before" pictures posted by Al also shows an example of a bike lane separated by a painted island merging back to the classic style where the separation is only a stripe:


http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Hardy%20Before.jpg

So how do we refer to such a beast? As a bike lane or a side path? Or ??? Is it still a bike lane because the separation from the vehicular lane is still only paint and at-grade pavement?

Now what happens when they convert the painted island to a raised island with a curb? If it was a bike lane prior to this change, does changing the island from "just paint" to "raised with curb" transform the bike lane into a side path?

More to the point, is it a blatant error to still refer to it as a bike lane?

Bottom line: let's not get too hung up on terminology, especially in gray areas. I think most of us can agree that no matter what you call that space intended for cyclists that is physically separated from the vehicular lanes by a raised curb island, it sucks.

[Brian Ratliff]

You say that like having a position based on an ideology is a bad thing. Or did I misunderstand?

As long as you understand that your position stems from an ideology...not necessarily based in reality.

[genec]

Bottom line: let's not get too hung up on terminology, especially in gray areas. I think most of us can agree that no matter what you call that space intended for cyclists that is physically separated from the vehicular lanes by a raised curb island, it sucks.

I think we are all in agreement there... especially considering the fact that there is no way to merge into traffic to make a proper left turn. Add to that, the strange manner one is coming up to and "addressing" the Stop Sign.

Now as far as the double wide painted BL... certainly it does not belong on a 25MPH road... at all; but such a thing might be very applicable on a isolated chunk of a 65MPH road... Such as the local Kearny Villa road. Oddly enough, there is so much width on KV road that they use paint islands on both the left (middle of the road) side and the right side. In fact, the double width lines with the easy to dodge street bumpers (in the pic) would work quite well on interstate hiways too. Currently the interstates east of Southern California are legal to ride and the shoulders have not only a line, but also those noise making ridges (can't remember the proper name) that alerts motorists when they are moving off the road... unfortunately the ridges sometimes extend into the only bike usable pavement.

[noisebeam]

OK, I feel a bit bad for starting this side track (which at least opened the interesting question of the grey area between a BL and bike path) So I'd like to help bring things together.

What do we agree on, what are the specific disagreements?

The main debate seems to be where there should and where there should not be a solid painted line to create a bike lane? This is not an easy question as every specific situation requires careful review. But there are possibly some generalizations that can be made based on speed limits, road width, number of lanes, grade, sightlines/curves, bridges, tunnels, etc.

This goes back to post #625:
Originally Posted by noisebeam: "So there is agreement* that the debate is only over the painted line.

There is also I believe a certain level of agreement* that that painted line only becomes a debate for certain roads depending on speed, gradient and perhaps some other factors. Perhaps something like roads with posted speeds over 35-45mph and steep roads with posted speeds over 25-35mph.

I think there is also general agreement* that the painted line should end some distance (100yrds ?) before an intersection unless the painted line directs the bike lane to the left of a right turn lane.

Maybe it would be helpful to include in the 'debate' documentation what is generally agreed upon.

Actually I am far less concerned (to the point of not caring one way or the other) with the painted line existing or not between intersections that I am with poorly implemented bike facilties that are integrated into intersections. This later problem presents a far greater hazard to cyclists than any bike lane line (or lack of) could ever create.

*not from everyone of course, just from some vocal advocates that have spoken out on each side of the debate

Al "
And Gene kindly responded:
"Thanks for following the issues, and for acting as historian at this point... Yeah, I think you summed it up rather well... Further I also agree that poorly designed BL facilities do cause problems... which is why I think if we can all get together on a minimum set of suggested requirements, for those instances where BL can help cyclists, we can all together advocate for the elmination of the bad BLs."

So some can continue to argue against all bike lanes (even Serge doesn't fit this category as he has acknowledged there are conditions where they are accepable) or we can document what we agree on and then from where there is a debate, make it clear what the specific question for each of these cases (i.e. it is not are BL good or bad) and then try to work thru those cases.

All I am trying to say is that broadly saying "BL are bad" does not contribute and neither does saying "BLs are needed" - That is no one here is purely anti-BL and no one here is purely pro-BL.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Besides, it's anti-bike folks that oppose all bike lanes on the basis of an ideology.

You say that like having a position based on an ideology is a bad thing. Or did I misunderstand?

As long as you understand that your position stems from an ideology...not necessarily based in reality.
While ideology is not necessarily based in reality (religious ideologies come to mind), that characteristic does not apply to all ideologies, and I think it's wrong to dismiss a position just because it is based on an ideology on the assumption that the ideology is not based in reality.

I do not deny that my position on bike lanes is based on ideology. But I will defend that ideology's basis in reality unless someone can convince me otherwise.



m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ideology&x=0&y=0)

Main Entry: ide·ol·o·gy
...
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture


A systematic body of concepts... indeed, that is the basis for my position against bike lanes (and all my other positions on traffic cycling and related matters).

What is the basis for your positions on traffic cycling and related matters, if it is not a systematic body of concepts (i.e., an ideology)?

[Helmet Head]

Al, your post #891 is a valiant effort to try to formulate an ideology (a systematic body of concepts) we can all agree on, at least with respect to bike lanes. But let's recognize it's just a start. Let's also recognize that one of many conclusions of such an effort might be something like "all bike lanes on roads under 25 mph are not needed, or are even detrimental for cyclists (bad)".

Now imagine a more ambitious goal - to develop an ideology that addresses traffic cycling in general, not only the limited area of bike lanes. Consider what might be some of the many conclusions of such an effort.

Now consider that exactly such an effort has already been made, more than once. Three unrelated efforts are of course those undertaken by John Forester, documented in his book Effective Cycling, another by John Franklin, documented in his book, Cyclecraft, and yet another by Robert Hurst in Urban Cycling. Each has formulated ideologies about traffic cycling, and anyone who has read all three knows that they have much more in common than they differ. Two more examples are the pamphlet Streetsmarts by John S. Allen and the ideology formulated by Michael Bluejay over at bicyclesafe.com.

It seems reasonable to me that anyone else who undertakes a serious effort to formulate a traffic cycling ideology based on reality and the same studies to which we all have access will end up with something that has much more in common with these five efforts than it differs.

That's not to say that all five efforts are identical in every aspect. Of course not. And they do have substantial differences. And we can argue about who's right and who's wrong on particular points, at length, I'm sure. My favorite example is how Hurst and Bluejay conclude that cyclists should keep to the right at intersections where they are going straight when there is an oncoming left-turner approaching at the same time, while Forester/Franklin/Allen recommend keeping in the "primary riding position" (Franklin's terminology)... further to the left (to be more visible and predictable).

Where am I going with all this? I just wanted to put your following assertion in context:


All I am trying to say is that broadly saying "BL are bad" does not contribute and neither does saying "BLs are needed" - That is no one here is purely anti-BL and no one here is purely pro-BL.
My point is that the assertion that "ALL BL's are bad for cyclists (except on limited access roadways where cyclists would not be allowed access without BLs)" is not a premise made out of hand, but is rather a logical outcome of a traffic cycling ideology based on reality, or at least on a best effort understanding of the aspects of reality that apply to traffic cycling.

Rejecting the assertion out of hand would be as unhelpful as holding it out of hand. If you have an issue with it, then at least make the effort to understand the overall traffic cycling ideology it is based on, and how its proponents conclude it follows from that ideology. Then question the ideology and/or the logical reasoning that leads to it, if there is something you don't understand. But simply saying you disagree that "ALL BL's are bad for cyclists (except on limited access roadways where cyclists would not be allowed access without BLs)" is missing the point.

The formulation of the bike lane ideology you started might very well end up concluding that "all bike lanes on 25 mph and slower roads are bad". Just like someone criticizing that assertion out of hand as "not contributing" would be ignoring the reality-based ideology it is based on, so is someone who criticizes my assertion that "ALL BL's are bad for cyclists (except on limited access roadways where cyclists would not be allowed access without BLs)" as "not contributing" is ignoring the reality-based ideology it is based on.

Serge

[patc]

OK, I was not clear and specific in my language, however my intent was right.

Gotcha.


it is not a normal bike path by normal bike path implementations and, agreed, it is not a bike lane either. It the horrible evil offspring of the worst of each. ;)Al

I sorta expect it to break out in a evil laugh.

[Brian Ratliff]

My point is that the assertion that "ALL BL's are bad for cyclists (except on limited access roadways where cyclists would not be allowed access without BLs)" is not a premise made out of hand, but is rather a logical outcome of a traffic cycling ideology based on reality, or at least on a best effort understanding of the aspects of reality that apply to traffic cycling.


Here is the danger of any ideology. Any "systematic body of concepts" can be created to logically justify any premise while conforming to a limited knowledge of reality. In other words, any premise can be made into a logical conclusion in a systematic body of concepts, as long as there are gaps in actual knowledge.

In the end, this is not an ideological issue, it is a technical issue. The body of knowledge about how cars and bike interact on a general (as opposed to individual) basis is relatively small. Perhaps we can advocate a systematic study of how cyclists and drivers interact, instead of relying on some agreed ideology.

[sbhikes]

This is absurd. It's not that hard to obey the law, and the idea that someone or someones had at some time a specific intent to construct the law such that everyone is technically breaking one law or another at any given time is totally without basis.

If a car driver obeys the speed limit, verifies his car's signals are functionally properly, and knows and obeys movement rules at intersections, a cop is going to have a hard time finding cause to pull him over.

Serge
You can say that if you wish, but I am only repeating what the State of California told me the other day.

And yes, you can get a ticket even if you are obeying the speed limit, have functioning signals and know and obey movement rules at intersections.

For example: You can get a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic if you are going 65 on a road with a 65mph speed limit and everybody else is doing 80. You can also get a ticket for speeding if you are going 80 and everybody else is going 80. You can get a DUI even if you pass the field sobriety test and pass the breathelyzer test. You can get a ticket (or worse) for hitting a pedestrian even if the pedestrian darted in front of your car from between two parked cars and there was no time for you to see him and react.

[Helmet Head]

Here is the danger of any ideology. Any "systematic body of concepts" can be created to logically justify any premise while conforming to a limited knowledge of reality. In other words, any premise can be made into a logical conclusion in a systematic body of concepts, as long as there are gaps in actual knowledge.

In the end, this is not an ideological issue, it is a technical issue. The body of knowledge about how cars and bike interact on a general (as opposed to individual) basis is relatively small. Perhaps we can advocate a systematic study of how cyclists and drivers interact, instead of relying on some agreed ideology.
Brian, you are using an anti-ideology ideology -- any "systematic body of concepts" can be created to logically justify any premise while conforming to a limited knowledge of reality -- to dismiss any position based upon any ideology. By your own reasoning, your own assertion is invalid.

Such a dismissal is only valid if you can show that the ideology forming the basis for the position in question does not apply due to a specific misrepresentation or ignoring of some relevant aspect of reality.


Perhaps we can advocate a systematic study of how cyclists and drivers interact, instead of relying on some agreed ideology.
And when we create an ideology from that systematic study, what's the difference?

In the end, all we can do is form ideologies based on our limited knowledge. Whether the ideology is a good one or not can only be ascertained by the application of that ideology. In reality, the best we can do is compare and test one ideology against another, and find which one works best. The alternative to choosing or forming the best ideology is to not choose any ideology - meaning having NO systematic body of concepts upon which to base your position, but, rather, to base it on "a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew." That is the alternative to formulating and using an ideology.


You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational conviction--or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.

But the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation--or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

Ayn Rand, Philosophy, Who needs it? (http://www.tracyfineart.com/usmc/philosophy_who_needs_it.htm)

[Keith99]

The idea of finding what we agree on is good, but I'm not sure it is well suited for conclusions or specifications. I'm inclined to think that almost everyone here would agree that before a bike lane or path is put in someone should put some serious thought into the matter. (For my money if they have a Serge avialable they should give him the chance to talk them out of it. He may be able to, but if he is not then he will have pointed out 99% of the problems and a wise man could use this to at least mitigate them). Now Serge (I think) would want most of the thought to focus on if it is a good idea at all. Any reasonable bike path advocate should want thought put in so it is a wise use of money and delivers something good for cyclists (or at least good in their view, perhaps not good in Serge's view or even mine). I think it is also good to identify problems (the first step in finding solutions).

For Example:

Problem: Bike lanes often encourage cyclists to stey to the right at intersections. Possible solution, add in arrows angling toward the left and perhaps some words like "Merge for intersection".

I'm very wary of hard and fast conclusions, in any direction. No bike lanes where the speed limit is 25 or under seemed good to ne at first and still seems a good general rule. But I can think of two possible classes of exceptions. First what about retirement communities? After hearing about sbhikes problems with older drivers I have to wonder if in communities with a large number of such drivers that it might be useful to have the lines. The second is schools. I do not think bike lanes are a good idea at all schools, but for some they may be useful. Especially those where the bike lane can be used to guide young riders toward streets with less traffic.

In general I am against hard fast rules for bike lanes, but even here I find one exception. I think a good bike lane is more than a line on the pavement. Arrows showing the correct direction of travel are quite useful. They will not stop all fools, but at least it destroys their excuse and might keep them from converting the ignorant.

[noisebeam]

My point is that the assertion that "ALL BL's are bad for cyclists (except on limited access roadways where cyclists would not be allowed access without BLs)" is not a premise made out of hand, but is rather a logical outcome of a traffic cycling ideology based on reality, or at least on a best effort understanding of the aspects of reality that apply to traffic cycling.
Serge
What about bridges, what about tunnels? I recall there are more places where you have agreed bike lanes are beneficial than you paranthetically allow in the above statement.

Al

[noisebeam]

The idea of finding what we agree on is good, but I'm not sure it is well suited for conclusions or specifications.
.....

For Example:

Problem: Bike lanes often encourage cyclists to stey to the right at intersections. Possible solution, add in arrows angling toward the left and perhaps some words like "Merge for intersection".

I'm very wary of hard and fast conclusions, in any direction. No bike lanes where the speed limit is 25 or under seemed good to ne at first and still seems a good general rule. But I can think of two possible classes of exceptions. First what about retirement communities? After hearing about sbhikes problems with older drivers I have to wonder if in communities with a large number of such drivers that it might be useful to have the lines. The second is schools. I do not think bike lanes are a good idea at all schools, but for some they may be useful. Especially those where the bike lane can be used to guide young riders toward streets with less traffic.

In general I am against hard fast rules for bike lanes, but even here I find one exception. I think a good bike lane is more than a line on the pavement. Arrows showing the correct direction of travel are quite useful. They will not stop all fools, but at least it destroys their excuse and might keep them from converting the ignorant.

I didn't expect nor ask for concrete conclusions and certainly not specifications.

But perhaps we can document what we 'tend' to agree on, and what is contentious - to help keep focus.

Perhaps we can document some of the bike faciltiy ideas, such as arrows for merge. Over the 37 pages (and dozens of other pages before this sticky thread) there have been ideas, some good, some not so, but they get lost in the debate.

(I don't know about BLs needed for areas with elderly or not. Where I live is noted for having winter residents which tend to be more elderly. I don't notice any worse driving compared to average drivers. I can continue the sterotype and say that younger drivers tend to be far more agressive toward cyclists and often quite distracted with phones, stereos and friends)

Al