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.
I can just as easily say you are using an anti-anti-ideology ideology, but you can see where this is taking us. You missed my point. One simply has to be careful about the soundness of footing under their ideology.
And when we create an ideology from that systematic study, what's the difference?
This is a pretty nhilistic way of looking at things. Of course, while you may be satisfied with the level of information your personal observations have given you, I am not. Others' experience conflicts with my observations, yours in particular, and a controlled, scientific study is one tool we have for gaining unbiased information. This is why the field of science was developed. To provide a systematic way of gaining information about the world around us. Is it surprising that the group with the most rigid ideology of all, the religious, were the first to complain and try to stifle scientific progress?
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.
This, of course, is obvious, given the broadness in meaning of the word "ideology" we have allowed. It is all about how rigid we are in our ideologies. Some tend to change their ideology to conform to new information, others tend to block out new information in favor of keeping an ideology whole. I am suspicious about all group ideologies, since they tend to favor the latter when dealing with new information.
Brian Ratliff
06-14-05, 02:22 PM
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.
I agree. Bike lanes need to be designed into the traffic flow of the specific street they are on.
On the debate over bike lanes or no, nothing here has convinced me that anyone has enough information to form a firm conclusion as to the best road facility. We all have our opinions, born of our experiences and our friend's experiences, but we have no real, scientific or statistical data to determine which is the best road facility. We can argue this until he11 freezes over, but no answers will come until we have more information.
Helmet Head
06-14-05, 02:49 PM
Possible solution, add in arrows angling toward the left and perhaps some words like "Merge for intersection".
Keith, you're missing or ignoring a most critical aspect of the ideology upon which my position against bike lanes is based: that the appopriate lateral lane position for a cyclist is determined dynamically based on ever-changing factors and conditions. These factors and conditions include but are not limited to:
Cyclist's ability, skills, speed and destination.
Speed and volume of traffic.
Road surface conditions, obstacles, etc.
Weather.
Lighting conditions.
Etc., etc.
The dynamically changing requirements of traffic cycling simply cannot be met by definition by static cycling specific features like painted BL stripes and arrows. No static solution that uses paint to designate one specific area on the road for cycling can meet the dynamic challenges presented by traffic cycling. Using paint for stripes and arrows to designate the appropriate position for any vehicle driver who is headed for a particular destination at an upcoming intersection (say via a right-only lane) is one thing, but to designate a particular position for ALL cyclists (regardless of their destination and other factors and conditions) is something entirely different and even not possible except on roads where cyclists are prohibited from riding anywhere besides the designated area regardless of other factors and conditions. Any attempt to designate such an area statically is doomed to misguide and confuse cyclists as well as drivers alike (whether they realize it or not).
Al, in general I see no need or value to cyclists of bike lanes on bridges or tunnels, except on bridges or tunnels where bicycle access would not be permitted without the bike lanes.
Helmet Head
06-14-05, 03:06 PM
It is all about how rigid we are in our ideologies. Some tend to change their ideology to conform to new information, others tend to block out new information in favor of keeping an ideology whole. I am suspicious about all group ideologies, since they tend to favor the latter when dealing with new information.
Agreed. Considering how much ideological debate there is with Forester himself on VC forums that I participate on, it seems pretty clear to me that the VC ideology, such as it is, is of the latter type (conforming to new information).
Do not confuse the position against bike lanes - which is based on the ideology - with the ideology itself. The ideology is comprised of assertions like "determining a cyclist's appropriate lateral lane position (on unlimited access roadways) is a dynamic process based on ever-changing factors and conditions (see previous post)". The position against ALL bike lanes on unlimited access roadways falls out from that assertion coupled with the fact that bike lanes are inherently static, and is not part of the ideology per se.
Helmet Head
06-14-05, 03:15 PM
I can just as easily say you are using an anti-anti-ideology ideology, but you can see where this is taking us.
But since I'm not dismissing positions because they are based on ideology, the criticism does not apply to my logic.
You missed my point. One simply has to be careful about the soundness of footing under their ideology.
Indeed I did miss your point. I'm glad to learn we're on the same page about how ideology should be evaluated and used.
genec
06-14-05, 03:30 PM
Keith, you're missing or ignoring a most critical aspect of the ideology upon which my position against bike lanes is based: that the appopriate lateral lane position for a cyclist is determined dynamically based on ever-changing factors and conditions. These factors and conditions include but are not limited to:
Cyclist's ability, skills, speed and destination.
Speed and volume of traffic.
Road surface conditions, obstacles, etc.
Weather.
Lighting conditions.
Etc., etc.
The dynamically changing requirements of traffic cycling simply cannot be met by definition by static cycling specific features like painted BL stripes and arrows. No static solution that uses paint to designate one specific area on the road for cycling can meet the dynamic challenges presented by traffic cycling. Using paint for stripes and arrows to designate the appropriate position for any vehicle driver who is headed for a particular destination at an upcoming intersection (say via a right-only lane) is one thing, but to designate a particular position for ALL cyclists (regardless of their destination and other factors and conditions) is something entirely different and even not possible except on roads where cyclists are prohibited from riding anywhere besides the designated area regardless of other factors and conditions. Any attempt to designate such an area statically is doomed to misguide and confuse cyclists as well as drivers alike (whether they realize it or not).
Al, in general I see no need or value to cyclists of bike lanes on bridges or tunnels, except on bridges or tunnels where bicycle access would not be permitted without the bike lanes.
To just jump in here a second between some time sensitive tasks...
And yet an arrow or sign would not tell one exactly where to be on the road, just that the proper place is probably somewhere else. This does not distroy the dynamic nature the conditions at hand... any more than a merging lane on the freeway "demands" that a motorist merge at some "exact point."
Helmet Head
06-14-05, 03:57 PM
And yet an arrow or sign would not tell one exactly where to be on the road, just that the proper place is probably somewhere else. This does not distroy the dynamic nature the conditions at hand... any more than a merging lane on the freeway "demands" that a motorist merge at some "exact point."
Just to show I'm reasonable... off hand I don't see a problem with the following:
right-only arrows painted in a bike lane 100-200 feet prior to the intersection.
A "Left-turning cyclists: merge left" sign at the beginning of every block.
A "thru cyclists: merge left, away from edge" sign 100-200 feet prior to any place where a right turn is authorized.
Of course, the problem with the last two is that they would be so common they would cease to have meaning.
Helmet Head
06-14-05, 04:04 PM
You can say that if you wish, but I am only repeating what the State of California told me the other day.
Diane,
I would not confuse the personal opinion of a traffic school instructor with the official word of the State of California.
Even if he believes what he says is consistent with the law of the state, doesn't mean it is. You have to decide for yourself based on what he said and whether you can substantiate it independently or not.
Of course, you should treat what anyone says (or writes) with the same scrutiny, including me.
noisebeam
06-14-05, 04:07 PM
Just to show I'm reasonable... off hand I don't see a problem with the following:
right-only arrows painted in a bike lane 100-200 feet prior to the intersection.
A "Left-turning cyclists: merge left" sign at the beginning of every block.
A "thru cyclists: merge left, away from edge" sign 100-200 feet prior to any place where a right turn is authorized.
Of course, the problem with the last two is that they would be so common they would cease to have meaning.
Of course the first assumes that the bike lane doesn't go to the left of a right turn lane.
But the so called 'problem' you note about the last two are in my opinion a huge benefit. Nothing could be better than constantly reminding motorists with a big yellow sign that bikes will be merging left, etc.
LEFT TURNING CYCLISTS: MERGE LEFT
Al
genec
06-14-05, 04:16 PM
Just to show I'm reasonable... off hand I don't see a problem with the following:
right-only arrows painted in a bike lane 100-200 feet prior to the intersection.
A "Left-turning cyclists: merge left" sign at the beginning of every block.
A "thru cyclists: merge left, away from edge" sign 100-200 feet prior to any place where a right turn is authorized.
Of course, the problem with the last two is that they would be so common they would cease to have meaning.
Gee, just like the left only and right only arrows and signs and stop lights that now serve the motorist community... or the ubiquitous "to the right arrows" before center islands...
Keith99
06-14-05, 04:27 PM
I also would not put too much stock in one traffic school instructor. The last time I got caught and did the traffic school bit the instructor did not understand that in California there is only one situation where you have the right of way. Yes I am sure of this. The laws are written saying who is required to yield. But you only have the right of way when it is yielded to you. (Thsi means you can never be right in an accident because you had the right of way since the accident shows it was not yielded to you).
Honestly when it comes to bike lanes I mainly think of them as useful for less experienced and able riders, with some benefits for all riders in some cases. Serge, quite correctly, has pointed out that many (actually probably the vast majority) of bike lanes encourage riders, experienced or not, to stay to the right when nearing an intersection. My point with the arrows is that bike lanes can instead teach riders to merge, perhaps actually improving the technique (esp. from a V.C. viewpoint) of newer riders. Arrows pointing the same direction as normal traffic flow is a no brainer for bike lanes as I see it. On a combined rating of danger per time and frequency wrong way riders is right up there. Anything that helps with that problem is good.
One other thing bike lanes do that is usually good is to create a concentration of riders, thus making drivers much more aware of the individual cyclist in those areas. Sometimes (far to seldom) bike lanes also serve to help the cyclist find the most friendly (or least unfriendly) route. I will point out both of these benefits get lost if there are too many bikes lanes. Excluding areas that border on unrideable without a bike lane these two benefits may be the most important in my eyes.
Helmet Head
06-14-05, 04:32 PM
Okay, okay,
LEFT-TURNING
CYCLISTS:
MERGE LEFT
signs on every block might be fine.
Of course the first assumes that the bike lane doesn't go to the left of a right turn lane.
Of course. Not only that, but it assumes there is no right only lane, for there should be no bike lane in the right-only lane along the right edge of a right-only lane, even one marked for right turns only, because that's too far right, even for right turning cyclists, and not needed, since right-turning motorists are slowing down to cyclist speed anyway.
As far as BLs to the left of right only lanes, they tend to be especially bad at collecting debris (perhaps because it comes from two sides?), and I just don't think cyclists belong alongside cars at intersections... they should be in line with them.
sbhikes
06-14-05, 04:50 PM
Diane,
I would not confuse the personal opinion of a traffic school instructor with the official word of the State of California.
Even if he believes what he says is consistent with the law of the state, doesn't mean it is. You have to decide for yourself based on what he said and whether you can substantiate it independently or not.
Of course, you should treat what anyone says (or writes) with the same scrutiny, including me.
However, he had an official observer there and told us it is considered a felony if he strays from the DMV approved curriculum. Since he's got a felony charge hanging over his head and you do not, I'll take his word over your any day.
noisebeam
06-14-05, 05:01 PM
Okay, okay,
LEFT-TURNING
CYCLISTS:
MERGE LEFT
signs on every block might be fine.
.
Great - lets put them everywhere, BL, WOL or NOL. Hey if the city/state can put up speed limit signs that are typically ignored, why not these too. ;) Anyway, I'm smiling since I can see some disagreement when WOL/NOL lanes are involved as I can imagine that in your perspective a vehicular cyclist shouldn't need any special signage. But I just love the ideas of these signs, not for every road, but every one with a BL and every busy (espeically multilane) road where left merges are 'hard' for cyclists.
Al
Helmet Head
06-14-05, 05:09 PM
Even if he believes what he says is consistent with the law of the state, doesn't mean it is.
Since he's got a felony charge hanging over his head and you do not, I'll take his word over your any day.
What I'm saying is don't take anyone's word for anything, especially when it is a question of fact that can be verified. Verify it yourself. Know what YOU know, and know know what you don't know, and know the difference.
And, again, this guy might believe what he says is "official DMV curriculum", but he could easily misinterpret something, etc. As long as his error is innocent, it's probably not a felony.
Helmet Head
06-14-05, 05:14 PM
How about:
CYCLISTS TURNING LEFT:
MERGE & USE LEFT LANE
noisebeam
06-14-05, 05:16 PM
As long as his error is innocent, it's probably not a felony.
Kind of like how if a motorist plows into a cyclist when they were distracted by changing the station on their radio, they are innocent of murder because they 'didn't see the cyclist, who must have suddenly swerved in front of them'
Al
Helmet Head
06-14-05, 05:29 PM
Yes, our system of justice is based on the concept that intent or gross negligence must be proven in order for a crime to have occured.
When this cannot be proven against a motorist in a car-bike collision, then the motorist is not guilty.
If this cannot be proven against Diane's instructor, then he has not committed a felony.
It's not perfect, but I can't think of an improvement.
Can you?
JRA
06-14-05, 08:45 PM
There actually is some common ground, however small. I was beginning to wonder if any would ever be found.
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?So far, I agree with Serge. :D
But sometimes well-intentioned but ignorant traffic engineers...Still agreeing with Serge.
.. does changing the island from "just paint" to "raised with curb" transform the bike lane into a side path?I don't know what others think but, as far as I'm concerned, when a curb is added, something entirely different and much more dangerous is created.
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 agree. A curb is more likely cause an accident than prevent one.
When it comes to sidepaths, significant evidence that they are dangerous actually does exist (this, BTW, is not true of two other facility types that VC-ists are so fond of bad-mouthing, namely bike lanes and sidewalks).
How about:
CYCLISTS TURNING LEFT:
MERGE & USE LEFT LANE
Fine. The other wordings were probably OK, too.
Again there actually seems to be some agreement that some kind of marking indicating that cyclists should merge is a good idea.
I'd suggest that cyclists should merge no matter what direction they're going, even if they're turning right. That's what I do. A sign that said simply, "CYCLISTS: MERGE" would be fine with me. If you want a sign for motorists, how about CYCLISTS WILL MERGE.
As far as BLs to the left of right only lanes, they tend to be especially bad at collecting debris (perhaps because it comes from two sides?), and I just don't think cyclists belong alongside cars at intersections... they should be in line with them.I actually like BLs to the left of right only lanes as long as the BL continues on the other side of the intersection. There's no conflict and no problem. Motorists have a place to go and cyclists have a place to go. As far as debris collection goes. If there are enough cyclists, they will clear debris themselves.
BTW, the debris-clearing power of cyclists is something that could be tested. I don't know that any such tests have been done but I wouldn't be too suprised if they showed that, pound for pound, bicycles have about the same debris clearing power as other vehicles (although bicycles might be better at clearing some types of debris than others). It's not scientific proof, but I have noticed some multi-use paths seem to clear about as fast after a storm as adjacent roads do.
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.Fair enough. The picture of the sidepath was used as a red herring and straw man by another poster, not by you. I have followed this thread from the beginning and have read the whole thing, although I do not remember every post. You seemed to be defending the way another poster used the picture of a sidepath. If you were not, then I apologize.
It the horrible evil offspring of the worst of each.From what little I can tell from the picture, I'd agree with that description of the side-path in question.
I also would not put too much stock in one traffic school instructor.Nor would I, but I wouldn't entirely dismiss what the instructor said, either.
My guess is that the instructor was engaging in some hyperbole. For all we know, hyperbole IS part of the DMV approved curriculum. While not strictly true, what the instructor said is true enough for government work. If the police really want to stop someone, they will find a reason, even if they have to make it up. It happens every day.
genec
06-14-05, 08:49 PM
$.02 on the cost of the bike lanes... What does it cost to put in the 4 way walk signs, switches and stripes per intersection? How often do folks actually walk?
Daily Commute
06-15-05, 03:07 AM
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?
You're right, I should have said "side path," not "bike lane." But, once again, you've proven your skill of avoiding personal attacks and focusing on the merits. You could have used all of the factors you listed (location, traffic pattern, local driver/cyclists' preferences, etc.) to defend the design. Instead, you launched a personal attack. Bravo. Good work. I really appreciate how hard you work to prove that I'm right about your ability to dispute a point without a personal attack. Thanks.
On the merits, one of the strongest criticisms of bike lanes/side paths is that they sound nice, but in practice they are designed dangerously. Also, we often have big disputes when talking about different things. It's helpful to debate specific designs. If we all agree this was a bad one, then we can apply what's bad about this one to other designs. Likewise, bike-lane-everywhere people should feel free to post their own pix of what they believe are well-designed bike lanes/side paths to show when and where bike lanes work.
I-Like-To-Bike
06-15-05, 03:25 AM
You're right, I should have said "side path," not "bike lane."
No, you should have said "I don't know nuthin' about this facility except what is shown in this picture; does anyone else know more?"
But that wouldn't be the red herring that was intended by the bike lane challenge.
Every time your "stuff" is shown as being in error or nothing more than rhetorical fluff, you whine on about personal attacks; grow up, or at least wise-up!
And nobody owes you any explainations, nor needs rise to your challenge/bait rhetoric, nor fill in your lack of specific knowledge of the details about the facility in question.
Daily Commute
06-15-05, 03:35 AM
No, you should have said "I don't know nuthin' about this facility except what is shown in this picture; does anyone else know more?"
But that wouldn't be the red herring that was intended by the bike lane challenge.
Every time your "stuff" is shown as being in error or nothing more than rhetorical fluff, you whine on about personal attacks; grow up, or at least wise-up!
And nobody owes you any explainations, nor needs rise to your challenge/bait rhetoric, nor fill in your lack of specific knowledge of the details about the facility in question.
The label was wrong, the substance is right. Apparently, everyone agrees that the design is a disservice to cyclists. They could have said, "this would work if. . . ." But they didn't. They could have said, "I've ridden it and it works because. . . ." But they didn't. They could have said, "We have something like that in our city, and it works because. . . ." But they didn't.
And please, please, please, keep up the personal attacks and keep avoiding the substance. I'm sure the pro-bike-laners are glad you're on their side.
I-Like-To-Bike
06-15-05, 08:48 AM
The label was wrong, the substance is right.
Substance? What substance can be found in troll bait questions such as yours? Lack of specific responses demanded by you to your straw man/red herring, over-the-top question adds credence to your "substance" in the same sense that inability to convince the ideologue that his unique "ideas" are not universal truths adds substance to his unconventional (if not outlandishly off-kilter) ideology.
The ideologue/zealot's belief in his own rap/rep adds no credence or substance to empty rhetoric, no matter how seriously held is the belief in the so-called substance of the rhetoric. Nor does the ideologue/zealot's seriousness require skeptics to roll over and respect dreck passed off as substance.
Keith99
06-15-05, 08:59 AM
The substance is that monstrosity exists. It cost money. Most Drivers will assume it is good for bikers. The odds are good at least someone involved in it's construction thought he was doing something good for bikers. (The alternatives on the last are worse).
Oh and Serge is right that thing is a death trap, or at least an accident waiting to happen.
noisebeam
06-15-05, 09:13 AM
The substance is that monstrosity exists. It cost money. Most Drivers will assume it is good for bikers. The odds are good at least someone involved in it's construction thought he was doing something good for bikers. (The alternatives on the last are worse).
This is very true, not only that, but it is considered a great success, a model for future projects, hence all the web space about it. The city has received awards from LAB for being Silver Level Bicycle Friendly (http://www.tempe.gov/bikeprogram/Bike%20Friendly%20Award.5.15.03.pdf), etc.
Click on 'Bicycle Program" on this link below and see this particular 'deathtrap sidepath' project as first in list as an improvement for cyclists:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/Overviewofprogram.htm
Again it goes back to what I've said before - One bad bike factility design creates far more potential for harm than any many miles of good bike lanes (vs. WOL) improve a road. The weakest link is what defines how good facilities are, hence they need to be well thought out in how they fully integrate into existing infrastructure and systems need to be established that prevent the worst of ideas from getting thru.
Al
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 10:01 AM
This is very true, not only that, but it is considered a great success, a model for future projects, hence all the web space about it. The city has received awards from LAB for being Silver Level Bicycle Friendly (http://www.tempe.gov/bikeprogram/Bike%20Friendly%20Award.5.15.03.pdf), etc.
Click on 'Bicycle Program" on this link below and see this particular 'deathtrap sidepath' project as first in list as an improvement for cyclists:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/Overviewofprogram.htm
Again it goes back to what I've said before - One bad bike factility design creates far more potential for harm than any many miles of good bike lanes (vs. WOL) improve a road. The weakest link is what defines how good facilities are, hence they need to be well thought out in how they fully integrate into existing infrastructure and systems need to be established that prevent the worst of ideas from getting thru.
Al
First of all, I assume you've put in your 2 cents on the planning board for this project and were overruled? We cannot educate road engineers if we are not at these meetings to give our opinion and the reasoning for our opinion.
Second of all, the hyperbole about this intersection being a death trap and such is astounding. Some people make it sound as though the intersection is going to rise up and grab an unsuspecting cyclist and crush him. So, yea, the curb should not be there to be most effective for cyclists, but I seriously doubt that there will be any serious accidents on that given intersection, given that the road is 25 mph. Serious cyclists will use the street at that intersection, simply to avoid slowing down, and non-serious cyclists, who are already cautious, will wait until any right turning car is cleared of the intersection, and even if they don't, cars are slow enough that the drivers will see the cyclist before hitting him.
This is not like it is a 45-55 mph arterial with heavy traffic and multiple lanes, filled with hundreds of harried drivers rushing off to work. At worse, the road design is a waste of money, but benign. At best, maybe the traffic engineers know what they are doing and have successfully designed the road to slow down cars.
The before picture looks like the road is a main arterial, not a 25 mph residential road. The after picture shows the road being much narrower and having a much more residential feel. You would be surprised at the psycological difference it makes to a driver just by putting a raised curb at the edge of the lane instead of just leaving the space (as in a WOL) or by putting in a line (as in a BL). Think of it this way: when you are driving on the freeway in a construction zone, do you feel more hemmed in when the barriers are set only 2 or 3 feet from the edge of the lane, verses the 15 or 20 feet they normally are? It is fairly widely accepted that narrowing a lane will cause drivers to slow down.
noisebeam
06-15-05, 10:38 AM
First of all, I assume you've put in your 2 cents on the planning board for this project and were overruled? We cannot educate road engineers if we are not at these meetings to give our opinion and the reasoning for our opinion.
No I didn't and that is my problem. I've however been to several tranport planning meetings as an observer (but I am not a particpant, only a selected few are) and have been to Bicycle Advisory meeting, but where totally un-interesting stuff was covered like route of multiuse path along a lake. I only have limited time and meetings are all during work hours 7:30 am and 3:30pm - it is a pain to go to some meeting (an hour bike ride each way from work), miss work and find that the agenda doesn't cover anything relevant to useful/practical bike facility design. To be involved in far more of a commitment that I can not balance with work as well - so yes it is about my priorities unfortunately. Also for the specific project here in question, neighbors around the road were the primary advisors, not all city residents. Yes, I am whining after the fact. But hundreds of projects like this get done around the country. It is unfortunate that some basic common bike advocacy ground can't be in place to prevent stupid things like these bike paths.
Second of all, the hyperbole about this intersection being a death trap and such is astounding. Some people make it sound as though the intersection is going to rise up and grab an unsuspecting cyclist and crush him. So, yea, the curb should not be there to be most effective for cyclists, but I seriously doubt that there will be any serious accidents on that given intersection, given that the road is 25 mph.
If the road is so pleasant and quiet with low speed traffic, then why does it need a BL or BP at all? Sure there were traffic management issue, but completely separating bikes is not the right approach. If anything keeping them on the road to act as human speed bumps (thanks Serge for the concept, Gene for the sarchastic term ;) ) would be better. Then adding some diverters than make it inconvienient as a short cut. Plus heavy enforcement of the 25mph speed limit that existed before and after the changes. So with these changes traffic flow went from 10k to 6k cars - does this somewhat lower level then make it safer to left turn from a parallel bike path instead of flowing with traffic?
Serious cyclists will use the street at that intersection, simply to avoid slowing down, and non-serious cyclists, who are already cautious, will wait until any right turning car is cleared of the intersection, and even if they don't, cars are slow enough that the drivers will see the cyclist before hitting him.
Serious cyclists avoid this stretch alltogether and use the parallel University drive, too many stop signs and wrong way cyclists and cyclists who don't even stop at these signs.
But what kind of cycling behavior is being 'taught' by these side paths. Even BL supporters should acknowledge that it teaches very bad habits to likely cyclists who are learning to ride on roads.
At best, maybe the traffic engineers know what they are doing and have successfully designed the road to slow down cars.
...
The goal was not to slow traffic, it was to reduce traffic volume, which it did by 40%. Enforcement of speed limits, additional speed limit signage, automatic speed readback signs, mixed cyclist/car traffic flow, same grade BLs with freshly painted dividing lines, 'no thru traffic' signs would all do better to slow traffic in my opinion.
Al
Helmet Head
06-15-05, 10:51 AM
First of all, I assume you've put in your 2 cents on the planning board for this project and were overruled? We cannot educate road engineers if we are not at these meetings to give our opinion and the reasoning for our opinion.
Excellent point.
I hope everyone keeping up with this thread spends at least some significant fraction of the time we spend on this forum being involved with local bicycling issues, particularly educating whoever needs it on what types of facilities are especially dangerous to cyclists, something we all seem to agree on.
Second of all, the hyperbole about this intersection being a death trap and such is astounding.
Astounding? You should know such hyperbole is par for the course around here. :)
Serious cyclists will use the street at that intersection, simply to avoid slowing down, and non-serious cyclists, who are already cautious, will wait until any right turning car is cleared of the intersection, and even if they don't, cars are slow enough that the drivers will see the cyclist before hitting him.
The potential right hook is not the only problem, and probably not the greatest threat. Say a cyclist gets to the intersection while a car from the right is still approaching. Getting there first, the cyclist proceeds; meanwhile, the motorist from the right, looking for vehicular traffic sees none and proceeds, rolling through his stop, perhaps into or moving right in front of the cyclist... a right cross (see attached image). The cyclist in this bike lane is also particularly vulnerable to the left cross here.
But the left hook is the most common type of car-bike collision, and probably poses the biggest risk.
In broader terms, the mistraining effect, though probably impossible to measure, should not be ignored. This type of facility hammers into both motorists and cyclists that the "proper" location for cyclists at intersections is off to the side... where others tend not to be looking.
This is the point JRA seemed to miss or ignore regarding my displeasure with bike lanes that are to the left of right only lanes. He says he's fine with them as long as there is a bike lane across the intersection. But the mistraining effect is still there: that cyclists should travel and stop alongside cars at intersections, not in line with them. While the dangers of doing so might be mostly mitigated at a "fully protected" intersection, where signals are set such that the only cross/hook potential is from "right on red" turners to the right (which is still a real potential threat), the training effect has broader implications at all intersections.
I believe cyclists who develop the habit of stopping in line with cars at intersections are significantly safer than cyclists who stop alongside cars. Facilities like the one in AZ we're talking about, or any bike lane to the left of a right only lane, makes it more difficult for cyclists to develop such a habit. These facilities encourage behavior that is generally (though perhaps not specifically at that intersection) more dangerous than cyclists using regular vehicular lanes at intersections like motorcyclists do.
Serge
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 11:02 AM
If the road is so pleasant and quiet with low speed traffic, then why does it need a BL or BP at all? Sure there were traffic management issue, but completely separating bikes is not the right approach. If anything keeping them on the road to act as human speed bumps (thanks Serge for the concept, Gene for the sarchastic term ;) ) would be better. Then adding some diverters than make it inconvienient as a short cut. Plus heavy enforcement of the 25mph speed limit that existed before and after the changes. So with these changes traffic flow went from 10k to 6k cars - does this somewhat lower level then make it safer to left turn from a parallel bike path instead of flowing with traffic?
You are right, it does not. But some parents won't let their kids out on the road unless there is a bike lane. This is just reality. It does teach bad habits, to a certain extent, and there are better ways of designing this bike path/lane system, but I think narrowing the road, lowering traffic volume and speed, and the perspective of the people living there probably took priority in this project.
Serious cyclists avoid this stretch alltogether and use the parallel University drive, too many stop signs and wrong way cyclists and cyclists who don't even stop at these signs.
But what kind of cycling behavior is being 'taught' by these side paths. Even BL supporters should acknowledge that it teaches very bad habits to likely cyclists who are learning to ride on roads.
I have driven in the area once (on a business trip), and I agree that most serious cyclists will take University drive. Again, I think the facility is for cyclists who are too young to know the road system well. Before one earns a drivers license, it is hard to figure out all the rules of the road. The DMV can be used to "unlearn" those bad habits. I think there are better ways of designing roads, but again, reality says that not all the variables which are important to us get as much weight in the general community. Hard advocacy against this sort of thing is probably harmful as well as it will probably set parents against cyclists in a situation where the parents will always win. Better to quietly teach and inform the public through the DMV and through the planning meetings and public outreach.
The goal was not to slow traffic, it was to reduce traffic volume, which it did by 40%. Enforcement of speed limits, additional speed limit signage, automatic speed readback signs, mixed cyclist/car traffic flow, same grade BLs with freshly painted dividing lines, 'no thru traffic' signs would all do better to slow traffic in my opinion.
Al
40% is actually a big number. Since the number of lanes stayed the same, this means that the route is now slower and drivers avoid it because it does not save them time. I think you do not give the traffic engineers the credit they deserve, bad bike route notwithstanding.
Helmet Head
06-15-05, 11:04 AM
But what kind of cycling behavior is being 'taught' by these side paths[?]
But the mistraining effect is still there: that cyclists should travel and stop alongside cars at intersections, not in line with them.
It does teach bad habits, ...
Great minds...
noisebeam
06-15-05, 11:09 AM
You are right, it does not. But some parents won't let their kids out on the road unless there is a bike lane. This is just reality. It does teach bad habits, to a certain extent, and there are better ways of designing this bike path/lane system, but I think narrowing the road, lowering traffic volume and speed, and the perspective of the people living there probably took priority in this project.
Ummm.. Bike lanes existed on this road before the improvements were put in place and 90% of the road still has bike lanes after the improvements were done. These bike paths as pictured only exist on some shorter sections of the road. So I can't see how parents would find the later more preferable as there were always bike lanes and kids still need to use bike lanes (not just bike path) on same road. Again, look at the link with the dozen or so photographs.
Al
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 11:17 AM
The potential right hook is not the only problem, and probably not the greatest threat. Say a cyclist gets to the intersection while a car from the right is still approaching. Getting there first, the cyclist proceeds; meanwhile, the motorist from the right, looking for vehicular traffic sees none and proceeds, rolling through his stop, perhaps into or moving right in front of the cyclist... a right cross (see attached image). The cyclist in this bike lane is also particularly vulnerable to the left cross here.
But the left hook is the most common type of car-bike collision, and probably poses the biggest risk.
In broader terms, the mistraining effect, though probably impossible to measure, should not be ignored. This type of facility hammers into both motorists and cyclists that the "proper" location for cyclists at intersections is off to the side... where others tend not to be looking.
This is the point JRA seemed to miss or ignore regarding my displeasure with bike lanes that are to the left of right only lanes. He says he's fine with them as long as there is a bike lane across the intersection. But the mistraining effect is still there: that cyclists should travel and stop alongside cars at intersections, not in line with them. While the dangers of doing so might be mostly mitigated at a "fully protected" intersection, where signals are set such that the only cross/hook potential is from "right on red" turners to the right (which is still a real potential threat), the training effect has broader implications at all intersections.
I believe cyclists who develop the habit of stopping in line with cars at intersections are significantly safer than cyclists who stop alongside cars. Facilities like the one in AZ we're talking about, or any bike lane to the left of a right only lane, makes it more difficult for cyclists to develop such a habit. These facilities encourage behavior that is generally (though perhaps not specifically at that intersection) more dangerous than cyclists using regular vehicular lanes at intersections like motorcyclists do.
Serge
Yes, it has all these problems. But as I said above, other variables which we overlook or ignore took presidence on this design. Traffic calming was an obvious goal.
As to bike lanes to the left of right turn lanes which continue through an intersection, it is simply another lane in traffic. The right hook is taken out of the picture. The left hook is not any more an issue than with other lane designs. There is the crossover point where the right turners cross over the bike lane, but this is proving in practice to not be such a big deal (we have this all over here in Beaverton). There is debris sometimes, but it does not pose a problem in practice.
One of the advantages of being on a bike is not having to wait in line with a 3 mile long line of cars. This is part of how cycling on a bike is justified time wise. For instance, because of congestion, my 20 mile commute to work only takes about 20 to 30 minutes longer by bike than by car. If a separate lane is provided and continues through an intersection, then I don't see how using it will make my commute more dangerous to use that lane.
Now, with a WOL, this is different. You are sharing a lane and it is significantly more dangerous to travel up to the intersection to the right of cars. I understand that you do not do this, but others do, and the extra pavement is a temptation in any case.
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 11:21 AM
Ummm.. Bike lanes existed on this road before the improvements were put in place and 90% of the road still has bike lanes after the improvements were done. These bike paths as pictured only exist on some shorter sections of the road. So I can't see how parents would find the later more preferable as there were always bike lanes and kids still need to use bike lanes (not just bike path) on same road. Again, look at the link with the dozen or so photographs.
Al
The curb at the intersection narrows the lane and creates a choke point, slowing and calming traffic. The psycological effect of the choke point is the effect that the engineers were after. Other than funneling the bike lane into the traffic lane (ending the bike lane), how else would a bike lane continue through?
I-Like-To-Bike
06-15-05, 11:24 AM
The substance is that monstrosity exists. It cost money. Most Drivers will assume it is good for bikers. The odds are good at least someone involved in it's construction thought he was doing something good for bikers. (The alternatives on the last are worse).
Oh and Serge is right that thing is a death trap, or at least an accident waiting to happen.
If inflated rhetoric, consisting of guesswork and conjuring, made without any knowledge of the specific requirements or objectives of the project WERE substance, such statements would be right on target.
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 11:24 AM
Another way they could have narrowed the intersection is to put an island round in the center. This is common in Seattle. It allows bikes to travel more smoothly, bike lane or not, but many drivers do not know how to use them, especially how they are supposed to go around the round to turn left, instead of simply turning left in front of the round.
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 11:27 AM
Great minds...
Are you labeling yourself a great mind? :D
noisebeam
06-15-05, 11:29 AM
The curb at the intersection narrows the lane and creates a choke point, slowing and calming traffic. The psycological effect of the choke point is the effect that the engineers were after. Other than funneling the bike lane into the traffic lane (ending the bike lane), how else would a bike lane continue through?
But these 'bike paths' are not just at intersections. And not all intersections on the improved road have this choke point. Maybe just a single fat flexible post to choke intersection would work? I don't have the answers, but a median separated path creates just as many (different) problems as it is intended to solve.
Al
noisebeam
06-15-05, 11:36 AM
Another way they could have narrowed the intersection is to put an island round in the center. This is common in Seattle. It allows bikes to travel more smoothly, bike lane or not, but many drivers do not know how to use them, especially how they are supposed to go around the round to turn left, instead of simply turning left in front of the round.
OK, same short stretch of road, some pictures:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/webTrafficChoker.jpg
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/webspeed%20table%202.jpg
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20McKemy%20After.jpg
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Roosevelt%20After.jpg
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/webMedianChicane.jpg
But I think we've discuss this enough, lets move on to more general discussion
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 11:39 AM
I have not studied traffic engineering formally and so do not have the answers either. I am simply pointing out that there are other variables which go into traffic design which we do not consider important, but traffic engineers do.
My point is that it is a minor design issue on a road where, if traffic levels and speeds can be kept slow, is a very unlikely place for a bike-car accident in the first place. Children do not know all the rules of the road, and they are already prone to being unpredicatable. Therefore, the first and formost issue would be traffic calming.
As for the location of the choke points, they do not need to only be at intersections, and not all intersections may be suitable for this. I can see why putting a big, fat post would generate problems for cars. All traffic calming devices should be streamlined so as to not create accidents. A flexible post would probably be seen as impermanent.
What the design does is create many minor problems for cyclists, while helping to solve the one major problem of high traffic flow and speeds. By your account of traffic volume decreasing by 40%, the design, coupled with the rest of the road, worked. So, yes, it is a tradeoff, but driven by different goals than what we, cyclists, have in mind.
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 11:43 AM
OK, same short stretch of road, some pictures:
But I think we've discuss this enough, lets move on to more general discussion
Wow, they have thrown every traffic calming engineering trick in the book at this road. But as to the general discussion, engineering compromises and specific road designs is definitely part of that discussion. By the number of responses to your pictures, I think this topic is starved for some specifics. I will try to post some pictures of different road designs from Beaverton in the next couple days.
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 12:02 PM
I think, from the pictures, central islands are being done as well. Curbs right at the lane edge have the advantage of eliminating space on both sides of the lane instead of simply altering direction. Islands narrow the lane on one side, but leaves the right side space open. Narrowing the right side as well leaves one with the same bike lane issues we are talking about. In fact, this one sided narrowing may be viewed badly by traffic engineers who are trying to accomodate cyclists because one sided narrowing will cause cars to bias their lane position closer to the bike lane.
This is all immaterial to how I, or any one here I would suspect, would ride this road. I stay in the traffic lane if the bike route veers or transforms into a bike path. Inexperienced cyclists, or mothers with children may see the road design from a different perspective. It goes without saying that mothers with children will win every time in the planning meetings.
(I think the post I was replying to was deleted)
Helmet Head
06-15-05, 12:05 PM
BLs to the left of right only lanes
As to bike lanes to the left of right turn lanes which continue through an intersection, it is simply another lane in traffic.
In theory, you are correct. And that's the appeal. In practice, however, this is not the case, because other drivers generally pay attention to "another lane in traffic". Drivers tend to look where they expect to see vehicles - in the vehicular lanes. If you're lucky, they'll also remember to look for pedestrians. Expecting them to also remember to look for cyclists off to the side of the vehicular lanes is wishful thinking at best.
The left hook is not any more an issue than with other lane designs.
Disagree. In other lane designs, where the rightmost thru lane is so narrow cyclists are forced to use the full lane, cyclists are forced to ride where potential left hookers are looking, instead of off to the side of where they are looking. Does this guarantee the cyclists will be seen? Of course not - sometimes left-turners don't see motorcyclists and cars who are of course properly positioned. But it's a matter of probability. If you ride where others are looking, it's only logical that you are more likely to be seen (and hence, not left-hooked) than if you are riding off to the side of where others are looking, which is where a BL to the left of a right only lane encourages cyclists to ride.
And, again, even if riding alongside traffic is safe at some particular intersection because of how the signals "protect", a bike lane that encourages doing this enforces the generally bad habit of stopping alongside traffic at intersections, instead of being integrated and stopping in line.
One of the advantages of being on a bike is not having to wait in line with a 3 mile long line of cars. This is part of how cycling on a bike is justified time wise. For instance, because of congestion, my 20 mile commute to work only takes about 20 to 30 minutes longer by bike than by car. If a separate lane is provided and continues through an intersection, then I don't see how using it will make my commute more dangerous to use that lane.
Passing stopped cars is no more or less dangerous with or without a bike lane. And stopping in line, rather than alongside traffic at an intersection, does not preclude the cyclist from passing 3 miles of stopped cars before finding a spot near the front where to pull in in line with the cars, with a friendly thank you nod/wave/smile to the motorist you are cutting in front of. I do this all the time, but, for various reasons, never go past the rear of the first car in line.
Now, with a WOL, this is different.
What? Why?
You are sharing a lane and it is significantly more dangerous to travel up to the intersection to the right of cars. I understand that you do not do this, but others do, and the extra pavement is a temptation in any case.
I do do this (when the line is so long that it looks like I might not make it through on the next green phase). I don't understand how a stripe makes it significantly less dangerous to travel to the right of stopped cars. However dangerous or safe it is, the danger or safety is the same with or without the stripe. Arguably, a cyclist is more likely to pass on the left, splitting lanes like a motorcyclist, where it is safer than to the right, when there is no BL to the right.
I-Like-To-Bike
06-15-05, 12:05 PM
So, yes, it is a tradeoff, but driven by different goals than what we, cyclists, have in mind
I agree with you that the objectives and goals of a project need to be known before determining if the project is successful or not. I've been pointing this obvious fact out since Daily Commuter threw down his red herring challenge.
Do you think that "We cyclists" should include more those willing to be associated with HelmetHead ideology or the few willing to be assigned by him to his "great minds" posse? Don't you think that there are large numbers of cyclists who do not share the goals of the "we cyclists"/ "great minds" clique?
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 12:30 PM
Do you think that "We cyclists" should include more those willing to be associated with HelmetHead ideology or the few willing to be assigned by him to his "great minds" posse? Don't you think that there are large numbers of cyclists who do not share the goals of the "we cyclists"/ "great minds" clique?
So, yes, it is a tradeoff, but driven by different goals than what we, cyclists, have in mind
It is not "...we cyclists...", but "...we, cyclists, ...". I think it is proper to call all people who ride bicycles "cyclists," though maybe some would disagree. I was just trying to differentiate "people who ride bicycles" from "people who drive cars." Is this clear enough?
I have no idea about what the "great minds" stuff was from Serge. He only says those things about people who happen to agree with him on something. We have similarities, we have differences (Serge and I = we); but don't accuse me of being part of a clique with him.
Helmet Head
06-15-05, 12:30 PM
Minor intersection approaches
This picture linked by Al illustrates what I think is one of the most insidious problems with bike lanes that we've talked about a lot, but we know what a picture is worth in words... As you look at this photo, think about whether the cyclist is going straight or turning right...
Of course, you can't tell whether he's going straight or turning right. In other words, he very well might be going straight, so let's assume he is. Assuming he is going straight, would you not agree that most people, even most experienced cyclists, would say he is "correctly" positioned? After all, he's on a bike, and he's in the bike lane.
Assuming he is going straight, do you agree with me that he is not correctly positioned? If not, assume the black GMC pickup is about 100 feet back, just approaching the intersection, and that the pickup driver is planning on turning left. Now do you see the problem with his position? By the way, Hurst/Bluejay argue that for that situation he is in the correct position, while Forester/Franklin/Allen would say he should be further left, outside of the bike lane. Let's say you're still with Hurst and Bluejay. Okay, now assume there is also a minivan approaching from behind the cyclist. If you remove the pickup truck, even Hurst and Bluejay recommend the cyclist move left in this case. Put the pickup truck back in (not in the pictured position, but in the hypothetical intersection approaching position I've been talking about) and we've encountered the conflict in the Hurst/Bluejay approach: because of the approaching oncoming pickup (and potential left hook), they want the cyclist to stay right; because of the approaching minivan from the rear (and potential right hook), they want the cyclist to merge left. What to do?
In any case, do you agree or disagree with the idea that bike lane stripes at intersections like this should disappear at least 100 feet prior to the intersection?
Helmet Head
06-15-05, 12:36 PM
but don't accuse me of being part of a clique with him.
Come on, Brian, give I-Like-To-Bike a break. All he has to offer to any discussion are personal generalizations, personal attacks, and clique designation and assigning.
By the way, my "great minds" comment was a light-hearted reference to the oft-repeated phrase, "great minds think alike" when two or more folks come up with the same idea, or say basically the same thing. Any attempt to read anything into it beyond that should be left to ILTB and his fantasies.
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 12:52 PM
In theory, you are correct. And that's the appeal. In practice, however, this is not the case, because other drivers generally pay attention to "another lane in traffic". Drivers tend to look where they expect to see vehicles - in the vehicular lanes. If you're lucky, they'll also remember to look for pedestrians. Expecting them to also remember to look for cyclists off to the side of the vehicular lanes is wishful thinking at best.
As I said, in practice, this works. Part of our problem with understanding each other is that I view bike lanes as a lane, albeit, one where cars are excluded. (as we have discussed before, it is not uncommon for lanes to exclude a certain type of vehicle) You seem to view bike lanes as a line of paint where it is up to driver to respect the bike lane as a lane or not. This is why you cannot differentiate between passing a column of cars in a bike lane as opposed to a WOL.
Disagree. In other lane designs, where the rightmost thru lane is so narrow cyclists are forced to use the full lane, cyclists are forced to ride where potential left hookers are looking, instead of off to the side of where they are looking. Does this guarantee the cyclists will be seen? Of course not - sometimes left-turners don't see motorcyclists and cars who are of course properly positioned. But it's a matter of probability. If you ride where others are looking, it's only logical that you are more likely to be seen (and hence, not left-hooked) than if you are riding off to the side of where others are looking, which is where a BL to the left of a right only lane encourages cyclists to ride.
As opposed to a right hooking moterist, a cyclist never leaves the field of view of a left turning moterist. Lack of visibility is due to a cyclist not having a clear outline breaking them out of the visual clutter. If the cyclists is in a bike lane traveling to the left of a right turn lane, then they are already out in the middle of the pavement, so this is doubly true. Bike lanes make little difference in this case. I have been nearly hit by a person coming from my left where the sightline comment is even more valid, while I was centered in the left most traffic lane. The person did not see me. So I am convinced that the left hook accident is caused more because of inherent visibility problems unique to cyclists.
And, again, even if riding alongside traffic is safe at some particular intersection because of how the signals "protect", a bike lane that encourages doing this enforces the generally bad habit of stopping alongside traffic at intersections, instead of being integrated and stopping in line.
This can only be fixed with cyclist education, regardless of lane markings or lack there-of. Even with normally spaced lanes (NOL), it is not obvious to a non-educated cyclist that they should merge with traffic and stop in line with the cars.
Passing stopped cars is no more or less dangerous with or without a bike lane. And stopping in line, rather than alongside traffic at an intersection, does not preclude the cyclist from passing 3 miles of stopped cars before finding a spot near the front where to pull in in line with the cars, with a friendly thank you nod/wave/smile to the motorist you are cutting in front of. I do this all the time, but, for various reasons, never go past the rear of the first car in line.
What? Why?
I do do this (when the line is so long that it looks like I might not make it through on the next green phase). I don't understand how a stripe makes it significantly less dangerous to travel to the right of stopped cars. However dangerous or safe it is, the danger or safety is the same with or without the stripe. Arguably, a cyclist is more likely to pass on the left, splitting lanes like a motorcyclist, where it is safer than to the right, when there is no BL to the right.
When cars are backed up, they tend, in my experience, to use all the road, in an attempt to see what is ahead. With a bike lane, there is no need to dodge around cars. It becomes a regular traffic lane to cyclists which is free of obstacles. It makes moving up to the head of the line easier, regardless if the cyclist stays in the bike lane, or stays a couple cars back and integrates with the line of cars.
Obviously it is easier to pass on the right using a bike lane than it is to split the lane like a motercyclist due to the extra space provided by the bike lane.
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 01:04 PM
Minor intersection approaches
This picture linked by Al illustrates what I think is one of the most insidious problems with bike lanes that we've talked about a lot, but we know what a picture is worth in words... As you look at this photo, think about whether the cyclist is going straight or turning right...
Of course, you can't tell whether he's going straight or turning right. In other words, he very well might be going straight, so let's assume he is. Assuming he is going straight, would you not agree that most people, even most experienced cyclists, would say he is "correctly" positioned? After all, he's on a bike, and he's in the bike lane.
Assuming he is going straight, do you agree with me that he is not correctly positioned? If not, assume the black GMC pickup is about 100 feet back, just approaching the intersection, and that the pickup driver is planning on turning left. Now do you see the problem with his position? By the way, Hurst/Bluejay argue that for that situation he is in the correct position, while Forester/Franklin/Allen would say he should be further left, outside of the bike lane. Let's say you're still with Hurst and Bluejay. Okay, now assume there is also a minivan approaching from behind the cyclist. If you remove the pickup truck, even Hurst and Bluejay recommend the cyclist move left in this case. Put the pickup truck back in (not in the pictured position, but in the hypothetical intersection approaching position I've been talking about) and we've encountered the conflict in the Hurst/Bluejay approach: because of the approaching oncoming pickup (and potential left hook), they want the cyclist to stay right; because of the approaching minivan from the rear (and potential right hook), they want the cyclist to merge left. What to do?
In any case, do you agree or disagree with the idea that bike lane stripes at intersections like this should disappear at least 100 feet prior to the intersection?
Of course, it does not matter where the cyclist is to the oncoming truck. There is no line-of-sight issue because a cyclist anywhere on the road is within the line of sight of a left turning, oncoming vehicle. If the cyclist is entering the intersection and the truck is out to make a left turn, then the cyclist has the right of way in any case, whether going straight or turning. To pull one one of your tricks, it is up to the truck to yield to everything for the left turn.
As to lane position, moving out, away from the bike lane, does not do anything for oncoming cars. It does not change sight lines, and there is no need to communicate intent. Lane positioning is for communicating intent for the benefit of cars coming up from behind and for visibility to cars on the side street to the right. So I would conclude that the cyclist is about a two or three feet too far to the right (should be just outside the bike lane by about a foot), but not for the benefit of oncoming, left turning truck, but for cars potentially coming up from the rear, and cars pulling out from the street to the right.
Brian Ratliff
06-15-05, 01:11 PM
I was just thinking about this. It may actually be detrimental to be in the center of the lane in the situation of a left hook, because it would be harder for the oncoming, left turning car to break out the outline of the cyclist from the background due to the lack of relative motion between the cyclist and the surroundings. The outline of the cyclist is also physically smaller due to the more head-on profile, making the cyclist harder to see as well.