Bike lanes

[I-Like-To-Bike]

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.
Your explanation clarifies the phrase "we, cyclists" and excuse me for misinterpreting your intent by overlooking the comma. Your reasonable intent is now quite clear.

I understand your concern with being drafted by Serge into his posse.

Your second sentence about "great minds" shows that indeed you do have an idea (the same as mine) about Serge's stuff. He is looking for a quorum of ideologues to call his own for whom he can claim to be a spokesman; and will draft anyone, willing or not, into his ideology club, even if they only agree on some minor point.

[genec]

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)


I think you responded to my post... and I realized this had already been addressed. Been watching the conversation, when I can.

Actually I was thinking more of islands on the side with openings such that cyclists can merge with traffic... generally several openings such that even vehicle could park in some similar openings. As I see it now, there is no parking... so what do service folks do?

So I would have engineered this so there was an island right at the intersections, so they would channel the traffic, there would also be a curb to make the dreaded sidepath, and an area with a fat curb/sidewalk to allow parking and entering and exiting the vehicle without swinging the door into the sidepath. It would have been a combination of a Barcelona Bike Land and an AZ bike path with a merge back into the travel lane at intersections.

See this pic for the Barcelona Bike Lane... http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=32251

Now remove the trash can, and put in a merge into the travel lane. Remove the little curb things and put in a sidewalk. Keep the center lanes just as they are, but now you have added parking to the traffic calming... and a bike "path." Is it perfect... perhaps not... but all I put was 10 minutes into the thinking.

[Brian Ratliff]

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?

The argument to stay to the right in the case of an oncoming left hook is for visibility's sake. If a car is approaching to the rear, practicality demands that the right hook be defended against, because the left hook threat is moot if there is a car approaching from behind. (The left turning car has to yield at least to the car coming up from behind, and thus automatically yields to the cyclist.)

For me, I see no problem what-so-ever with bike lanes running up to intersections, as long as they continue on the far side. I am very much against ending a bike lane at an intersection. Bike lanes should be ended mid-block, with plenty of warning given.

[Brian Ratliff]

I think you responded to my post... and I realized this had already been addressed. Been watching the conversation, when I can.

Actually I was thinking more of islands on the side with openings such that cyclists can merge with traffic... generally several openings such that even vehicle could park in some similar openings. As I see it now, there is no parking... so what do service folks do?

So I would have engineered this so there was an island right at the intersections, so they would channel the traffic, there would also be a curb to make the dreaded sidepath, and an area with a fat curb/sidewalk to allow parking and entering and exiting the vehicle without swinging the door into the sidepath. It would have been a combination of a Barcelona Bike Land and an AZ bike path with a merge back into the travel lane at intersections.

See this pic for the Barcelona Bike Lane... http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=32251

Now remove the trash can, and put in a merge into the travel lane. Remove the little curb things and put in a sidewalk. Keep the center lanes just as they are, but now you have added parking to the traffic calming... and a bike "path." Is it perfect... perhaps not... but all I put was 10 minutes into the thinking.

I cannot quite visualize what you are refering too, but I agree with you in general, that there are better ways of designing traffic calming that can still take into account cyclists. Engineers need to be made more conscious of concerns and safety of cyclists. I wanted to make clear though that there are sometimes more prominent concerns than the free movement of cyclists which drive these designs, and sometimes those more prominent concerns (like traffic calming) are good for cyclists, but mutually exclusive to other concerns we are discussing on this thread.

[genec]

The argument to stay to the right in the case of an oncoming left hook is for visibility's sake. If a car is approaching to the rear, practicality demands that the right hook be defended against, because the left hook threat is moot if there is a car approaching from behind. (The left turning car has to yield at least to the car coming up from behind, and thus automatically yields to the cyclist.)

For me, I see no problem what-so-ever with bike lanes running up to intersections, as long as they continue on the far side. I am very much against ending a bike lane at an intersection. Bike lanes should be ended mid-block, with plenty of warning given.

Tend to agree here... actually prefer dashed lines for this reason... of course it is still a matter of driver education too. I was in the middle of a right only lane this AM (and moving on a green) and some guy was going to turn right from the next lane over, as he just did not want to merge behind me... must not have considered me "traffic." The next lane over was straight thru.

[sbhikes]

It seems to me this thread has reached a fever-pitch of absurdity. In all those photographs I cannot see anything wrong with what has been created. I can imagine myself riding along those streets without a problem. Perhaps the problem lies with you guys in that you can't figure out the system? Perhaps it lies with you guys in that you are suffering from drama-queen-itis? Really now, this isn't the shape of things to come, it's not a death trap, it's not even bad. If anything it really makes the neighborhood look like a nice place to be. I would choose these streets on my way to work over the previous versions of them any day.

Coming from a town that places an inordinate amount of effort on trying to make things a nice place to be, I can tell you that after a while, when you go to some of these other places, they have an intollerable, how on earth can anybody live here feel. Those photographs show they have really turned an armpit of ugliness into a place people will want to be.

Maybe that's the difference between me and some of you guys. I'm more tolerable of bike lanes because I live in a pleasant place. A place of beauty, not a stiking armpit of traffic hell (the freeway here is that, I will admit.) I live in a place that offers me a choice of places to ride. This town is also offering more choices. Some people will much prefer the relaxed route to the high-speed zoom zoom zoom that you guys do. There is nothing at all wrong with that. If you do not like this street, simply do not ride there.

[Helmet Head]

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.

Maybe Hurst is correct.


The argument to stay to the right in the case of an oncoming left hook is for visibility's sake.
You should read Hurst (after you read Franklin).

The argument to stay to the right in the case of an oncoming left hook is to allegedly have more time to execute an avoidance maneuver in case you are not seen. Hurst's argument is that by staying right, you are increasing the distance between the turning car and yourself, hence increasing the amount of time it will take for them to hit you, and, thus, increasing the amount of time you have to avoid getting hit.

He's all about increasing "buffer space".

His argument about staying right has nothing to do with visibility.

The Forester/Franklin/Allen argument is that you should stay LEFT to increase visibility.

Visibility is more than theoretical sight lines. Yes, if the cyclist stays right there is a good sight line from the motorist to the cyclist, but it's only relevant if the motorist actually looks down that sight line. The F/F/A argument is that the focus and attention of the turning motorist is much more likely to be where they expect cars to be... in the vehicular lane, not off to the side.

By the way, I noticed Bluejay (bicyclesafe.com) doesn't actually recommend staying right (like Hurst does) to avoid left hooks (he calls them left crosses), but he does not recommend moving left either.

Motorcyclists are arguably just as likely to not be seen as are cyclists. Would you recommend motorcyclists keep right to be more visible too?

[Helmet Head]

Perhaps the problem lies with you guys in that you can't figure out the system?
Yeah, that's it, Diane. We can't figure out the system designed for children, and our opposition has nothing to do with the reasons we've expressed in dozens of posts.

Maybe it's you who can't understand what we're saying. If you can, your posts do not reflect any such understanding.

It's one thing to look at those pictures, decide they look fine to you, then read our objections, decide you disagree, and explain why.

But that's not what you did. You looked at the pictures, decided they looked fine to you, then apparently skimmed through our objections, enough to at least get the gist that we have problems with them, then, without addressing any of our objections, leapt to the baseless conclusion that we can't figure out "the system".

What exactly is "the system", Diane?
How in this system is a cyclist supposed to turn left?
How in this system is the cyclist supposed to be visible and predictable? How can a motorist know if a cyclist is going straight or turning right?

Do you even care about these questions? What kind of "system" is this?

Maybe you are right. Maybe I don't understand how this system is supposed to work. Maybe you can explain it to me...

[patc]

Of course, you can't tell whether he's going straight or turning right.

Its called "signalling". I have seldom seen car drivers significantly bias left or right to show their intention to turn, and usually only on very wide one-way streets. If everyone follows the law, you signal before turning as there is no ambiguity. (If the law is not followed, then all bets are off ).

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?

NO NO NO NO. Never. Bike lanes, or any other type of lane, special use or not, should never magically appear or disappear. Do you want to be travelling down a lane (bike lane or not) and then discover that it ends without warning, forcing you to lose ROW and merge into the remaining lane? Why would you advocate this, when no other lane ever just vanishes?

I am not convinced that bike lanes pose any inherent problem at intersections, and none of the VC rhetoric spouted thus far has established such a problem to exist.

[Brian Ratliff]

I have not read Hurst, so I don't know his arguments. I am arguing from what I know and observe. I am not arguing on the basis of "buffer space."

When I refer to "line of sight," I mean that the driver has to look down that line anyway to clear himself of cars, and so will see the cyclist in the process. I am not refering to "theoretical" sight lines where the driver never looks. So far, while you have addressed Hurst's and Bluejay's arguments, you have not addressed mine. Staying left does nothing to increase your visibility to cars from the front, for the reasons given in my last post.

Motercyclists are not as slow as bicyclists and their form is more compact, so picking them out of the background clutter is not as difficult. However, there is a reason that most of them run headlights pointed high (like a high beam, verses into the ground) at all times. It is for the very same visibility problems as I described earlier.

[Helmet Head]

It's called "signalling".
Okay, now tell me whether the cyclist in the photo is going straight or turning right. I guess you know he's going straight since he's not signalling right. Right. Maybe he signalled right a second ago when you weren't looking and now he wants both hands on the bars to get going. Relying on hand signals -- or particularly the absense of them -- to predict cyclist behavior is foolhardy.

The point is that when drivers follow the vehicular rules of the road, you can tell a lot about what they're doing by their lane position. Car drivers, motorcyclists and vehicular cyclists going straight tend to keep to the left; car drivers, motorcyclists and vehicular turning right, tend to keep to the right (and signal).


Why would you advocate this, when no other lane ever just vanishes?
One step at a time. The reason I advocate removing bike lane stripes at intersection approaches is because they inhibit normal vehicular destination positioning at intersections. They inhibit right turning motorists from merging right, and they inhibit through cyclists from merging left. thus setting up a conflict right at the intersection. Normally, destination positioning should be sorted out at the approach to the intersection, so that flow at the intersection is as smooth as it can be.

You may point out that removing BL stripes isn't going to cause novice cyclists to move left. True enough, but at least it won't be there to inhibit them from moving left. And it opens the gates for a "through cyclists - merge left" sign.

One of the reasons I advocate removal of bike lanes altogether is because once they're all chopped up to not cause confusing behavior at intersections, they are riddled with problems due to the chopping. Cyclists are better off if there is no bike lane, period.

[genec]

Its called "signalling". I have seldom seen car drivers significantly bias left or right to show their intention to turn, and usually only on very wide one-way streets. If everyone follows the law, you signal before turning as there is no ambiguity. (If the law is not followed, then all bets are off ).



I think signaling is illegal in Southern California... I seldom see cars do it at all... especially the newer cars with all the fancy lights... maybe it makes the DVD player act funny. :rolleyes:

[Keith99]

Going back to the project with the bike side path. Take a look at it.

Also remember that by and large I do not agree with Serge or the V.C. crowd. I choose what is safe for me. Sometimes it is V.C. sometimes not.

What would it mean if there were something like that but it was a road split? Something not too common but far from rare. It would mean that the stop sign applied only to the left (car) lane. This encourages cyclists to not stop.

I also have to wonder about the wide line about three quarters of the way to the left of the bike path. What is it for? To keep cyclists to the right more? To provide a section for wrong way cyclists? To make sure the path has slick parts (or, perhaps not fair, how often does it rain in Arizona).

Put kids on that path and they will blow right past the stop sign. The only thing that is a saving feature is that the road looks like it has very little traffic. But that is simply saying it is a place where you can get away with anything.

When I spent a lot of time in the westside (Beach area in Los Angeles). I often took a bike path near a busy road. Used safely it was the best route. Especially for me since I would otherwise have been on that road for less than a mile until I turned left down a side street to a real bike trail (Balgona Creek). But almost every time I took it I would see younger riders enter the street from the path without looking at speed. Same will happen on that kind of path. But the odds for cyclists are really pretty good. Who cares if things are several times more dangerous? It still isn't all that likely for any single cyclist.

[Helmet Head]

Who cares if things are several times more dangerous? It still isn't all that likely for any single cyclist.
Good point. Indeed while wrong way cycling is considered extremely dangerous by some, in fact you can probably get away with it quite a bit.

[Daily Commute]

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.
I asked if anyone could justify a given bike facility design. That seems like a perfectly reasonable question. Then you filled two paragraphs with personal attack after personal attack while managing to avoid making a single substantive point. Thank you for working so hard to show that I am right about your ability to discuss substance. Bravo! Well done!

[JRA]

I asked if anyone could justify a given bike facility design. That seems like a perfectly reasonable question. Then you filled two paragraphs with personal attack after personal attack while managing to avoid making a single substantive point. Thank you for working so hard to show that I am right about your ability to discuss substance. Bravo! Well done!:rolleyes:

[JRA]

Brian, you are using an anti-ideology ideology...That's funny - and there's some truth. I have used an anti-ideology ideology to some extent, too.


One simply has to be careful about the soundness of footing under their ideology.
I'm glad to learn we're on the same page about how ideology should be evaluated and used.And I agree with both of you on how ideology should be evaluated.

A conflict between ideologies is one reason it's so difficult to come to agreement on BLs. I simply do not accept many of the doctrines of the VC ideology. Others not only accept those doctrines but their opposition to BLs is based on them. The degree to which we can agree is limited.

I agree with one major premise of VC (perhaps the most basic of all) - that cyclists should have all the rights and responsibilities of drivers of other vehicles.

Beyond that, I have some major disagreements. For example, I reject the psychological and behavioral theories like the ones which lead VC-ists to believe that anyone who disagrees with them suffers from "complexes" and "syndromes".

But, as I said, we're a little off-topic.

[JRA]

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...I agree.

In a certain sense, it's the worst designs which define bike lanes. And it's the worst designs that BL opponents throw in the faces of BL proponents.

So we have a major dispute among cyclists when, in fact, with regard to the worst designs, we mostly agree. Such seems to be the state of cycling advocacy. It's called shooting oneself in the foot - if there's such a thing as an anti-cycling advocate, it's their dream come true - anti-cycling advocates don't have to "divide and conquer" cyclists - cyclists divide themselves (and they do it over relatively minor issues, like BLs).

The preceeding paragraph is a bit cynical, perhaps, but I suspect there's more truth in it than many cyclists would care to admit.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I agree.

In a certain sense, it's the worst designs which define bike lanes. And it's the worst designs that BL opponents throw in the faces of BL proponents.

So we have a major dispute among cyclists when, in fact, with regard to the worst designs, we mostly agree. Such seems to be the state of cycling advocacy. It's called shooting oneself in the foot - if there's such a thing as an anti-cycling advocate, it's their dream come true - anti-cycling advocates don't have to "divide and conquer" cyclists - cyclists divide themselves (and they do it over relatively minor issues, like BLs).

The preceeding paragraph is a bit cynical, perhaps, but I suspect there's more truth in it than many cyclists would care to admit.
Not only is it cynical (and accurate), but the ideologues who believe everything they say, dream or ask is "reasonable" and above reproach, may cry "wolf,wolf, wolf!" (AKA "personal attack, personal attack, personal attack!") at any suggestion that their "reasonable" rhetoric is counterproductive to other cyclists' interests as well as being full of stuff.

[JRA]

In broader terms, the mistraining effect, though probably impossible to measure, should not be ignored.Yes, the mistraining effect is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure.

And yet, BL opponents often talk of it as if it were fact. A supposed mistraining effect is one of the arguments against BLs and there's no basis for it. It's bull! So is the nonsense that cyclists can't learn to ride in traffic if BLs exist.


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.If we're voting on whether I missed or ignored your point, then I vote for "missed". It's so in conflict with my experience that I never thought of it.


I believe cyclists who develop the habit of stopping in line with cars at intersections are significantly safer than cyclists who stop alongside cars.That is total bull.

The idea that a cyclist in a line of cars is highly visible to motorists is nonsense. A cyclist following a car through an intersection is often virtually invisible to motorists coming the other way. This is one reason the left hook is so common. Left turning traffic will see the car but often not see what's behind it, whether what's behind it is a cyclist or a trailer.

The mistraining effect of this situation is nonsense, too. It assumes (a VC-ists so often do) that everyone (except a card-carrying VC-ist) is an idiot. Believe it or not, most people are able to tell the difference between an intersection where the BL extends beyond the intersection and an intersection where the BL is a dead end.

(Contrary to what the VC ideology teaches (thanks to John Forester), not everyone who is not a card-carrying VC-ist is an idiot.)

[Daily Commute]

. . . 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.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out areas of agreement. Genec and I generally agree about bike lanes on 25 mph roads (almost always a bad idea) and on long stretches of 45-55 mph without intersections (bike lanes can work done right). But we sometimes disagree about the stuff in the middle. Pointing out areas of agreement helps move the conversation along. (I'm sure genec will tell me if I am misquoting him.)

[Daily Commute]

Yes, the mistraining effect is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure.

And yet, BL opponents often talk of it as if it were fact. A supposed mistraining effect is one of the arguments against BLs and there's no basis for it. It's bull! So is the nonsense that cyclists can't learn to ride in traffic if BLs exist.


If we're voting on whether I missed or ignored your point, then I vote for "missed". It's so in conflict with my experience that I never thought of it.


That is total bull.

The idea that a cyclist in a line of cars is highly visible to motorists is nonsense. A cyclist following a car through an intersection is often virtually invisible to motorists coming the other way. This is one reason the left hook is so common. Left turning traffic will see the car but often not see what's behind it, whether what's behind it is a cyclist or a trailer.

The mistraining effect of this situation is nonsense, too. It assumes (a VC-ists so often do) that everyone (except a card-carrying VC-ist) is an idiot. Believe it or not, most people are able to tell the difference between an intersection where the BL extends beyond the intersection and an intersection where the BL is a dead end.

(Contrary to what the VC ideology teaches (thanks to John Forester), not everyone who is not a card-carrying VC-ist is an idiot.)
You are right that cyclists have to watch for oncoming cars, but moving farther to the right won't help anything. Cars are even less likely to look for vehicles in the gutter than in the middle of the street.

And unlike a couple of the pro-bike-laners in this thread, I don't assume that every one who disagrees with me is a dishonest idiot.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You are right that cyclists have to watch for oncoming cars, but moving farther to the right won't help anything.
I don't believe ANYONE made the claim that cyclist positioning to the right improves the visability/conspicuousness of the cyclist; it is Serge's contention that visability is reduced by such positioning. Repeating Serge's "idea" in mirror image about cyclist visability vis-à-vis positioning adds no more credence to this idea/bull stuff.

[patc]

Okay, now tell me whether the cyclist in the photo is going straight or turning right. I guess you know he's going straight since he's not signalling right. Right. Maybe he signalled right a second ago

You mean a photo only shows a moment in time, and not what may have happened before? :eek: You mean, maybe, just maybe, all intersections should be approached with care? :eek:


-- or particularly the absense of them -- to predict cyclist behavior is foolhardy.

The point is that when drivers follow the vehicular rules of the road, you can tell a lot about what they're doing by their lane position. Car drivers, motorcyclists and vehicular cyclists going straight tend to keep to the left; car drivers, motorcyclists and vehicular turning right, tend to keep to the right

I'm not sure where you data comes from with your "tend tos", and I can tell you that is not "the vehicular rules of the road" here, nor it it common practise. (Although you can imply recognition of this behaviour in one section of the OHTA).


One step at a time. The reason I advocate removing bike lane stripes at intersection approaches is because they inhibit normal vehicular destination positioning at intersections. They inhibit right turning motorists from merging right, and they inhibit through cyclists from merging left.

More VC dogma nonsense. Bike lanes no more inhibit lane choice than any other special use lanes. Driver can (and certainly do here) deal with the presence of one or more special use lanes on various roads and intersections. HOV lanes, transit lanes, bike lanes, taxi lanes, etc. they all exist, sometimes together at the same intersection, and people manage just fine.

[patc]

I think signaling is illegal in Southern California... I seldom see cars do it at all... especially the newer cars with all the fancy lights... maybe it makes the DVD player act funny. :rolleyes:

You're just not looking at the right time... signalling is done AFTER you are well into the turn :rolleyes: Speaking of newer cars, is it just me or are turn signals on some SUVs really hard to see in the daytime?

I think its blinking. Yeah, its blinking. Uh, now I don't see a blink...

[patc]

What would it mean if there were something like that but it was a road split? Something not too common but far from rare. It would mean that the stop sign applied only to the left (car) lane. This encourages cyclists to not stop.

I would certainly interpret the stop sign as not applying to the bike path, from its position.

I had another look at the photo, thinking of road splits, and I get the feeling that may be what was intended: split the lanes apart and then re-merge them at the intersection. Look at how the median narrows near the stop sign, and the lane + bike lane width matches the total width up ahead. It gives the impression that they were going for a "split then re-merge at the intersection" design but didn't re-merge fully.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I don't assume that every one who disagrees with me is a dishonest idiot.
Good point. Some idiots are honest; while some some dishonest (or deceptive) guys may be smart.

More to the point:
Some honest smart guys make foolish, if not idiotic, claims and statements and expect others to take such claims seriously due to Mr. Honest Guy's "seriousness."

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You're just not looking at the right time... signalling is done AFTER you are well into the turn :rolleyes:[/I]

Maybe such motorists believe that turn signals turn on the power steering boost.

I quite often see blue haired motorists in their Buicks swinging wide left to make a right turn; presumably because they forget that they are no longer pulling the hay wagon. Turn signal indication is anybody's guess.

[noisebeam]

It seems to me this thread has reached a fever-pitch of absurdity. In all those photographs I cannot see anything wrong with what has been created.
I agree. There is really nothing wrong from a serious safety point of view with what was created, given the type of street it is, a 25mph residential street. Anyone can figure out how to use in the riding style they want it and be just as safe on it as any other street.
But my problem is that this street never needed a bike lane. Sure it needed traffic calming and methods so it would not be used as a bypass thru street (which by the way pretty much ended when the construction that narrowed parallel University drive was done.) The resources should have been spent just on beautification and some traffic calming, but all the bike lane resource (monetary and thought) should have been put toward roads that really need it. Actually its not just the resource, but the precident as well, why put BLs on 25mph roads that really only get you around inside neighborhoods, when there are no good bike facilities that get you between neighborhoods, which is needed if you want to commute to work, go grocery shopping, go to the Dr., ride to the city swimming pool, etc.

Al

[noisebeam]

NO NO NO NO. Never. Bike lanes, or any other type of lane, special use or not, should never magically appear or disappear. Do you want to be travelling down a lane (bike lane or not) and then discover that it ends without warning, forcing you to lose ROW and merge into the remaining lane? Why would you advocate this, when no other lane ever just vanishes?

I am not convinced that bike lanes pose any inherent problem at intersections, and none of the VC rhetoric spouted thus far has established such a problem to exist.
BL striping absolutely must end before intersections. Keep in mind it is just the stripe that goes away, the extra pavement remain. There is no need to merge (if you don't want to) if you are going straight. No ROW is lost.
But using this 25mph residential street as an example really is not right -since just about anyone can ride this road safely bad facilities or not. I mainly think of where there are BLs on 7 lane high speed roads. In these cases it is very dangerous have the BL stripe contine to the stop line of the intersection. 80% of cars in the right lane will turn right. It is a must to merge into the line of traffic in the right lane on roads like this, and when there is a BL that is discouraged and motorists get confused when you leave the BL.

Al

[noisebeam]

What would it mean if there were something like that but it was a road split? Something not too common but far from rare. It would mean that the stop sign applied only to the left (car) lane. This encourages cyclists to not stop.

I also have to wonder about the wide line about three quarters of the way to the left of the bike path. What is it for? To keep cyclists to the right more? To provide a section for wrong way cyclists? To make sure the path has slick parts (or, perhaps not fair, how often does it rain in Arizona).

Put kids on that path and they will blow right past the stop sign. The only thing that is a saving feature is that the road looks like it has very little traffic. But that is simply saying it is a place where you can get away with anything.

When I spent a lot of time in the westside (Beach area in Los Angeles). I often took a bike path near a busy road. Used safely it was the best route. Especially for me since I would otherwise have been on that road for less than a mile until I turned left down a side street to a real bike trail (Balgona Creek). But almost every time I took it I would see younger riders enter the street from the path without looking at speed. Same will happen on that kind of path. But the odds for cyclists are really pretty good. Who cares if things are several times more dangerous? It still isn't all that likely for any single cyclist.
This road after the traffic calming gets 6000 cars per day.
This is a neighborhood that is adjacent to the ASU campus. When I ride around here I find the vast majority of the people on bikes are students, not kids. I also find that the incident of stop sign running and wrong way riding go up dramatically the closer one is to campus. There are some bike lanes in the area on 25mph roads that are basically two way free for all - you spend all you attention on other bikers, not cars. My closest near bike-bike accidents have been in this area, from others blowing stop signs or whipping around a turn the wrong way directly into my path. I was a student once and hopefully my generalization will not be taken the wrong way, but as a student I was more concerned with myself, my studies, getting around freely, having fun, etc. so I understand why there are so many every-which-way cyclists and I know some enjoy that 'chaos of living' it creates.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Students on bikes are very similar to children riding for fun in the street. I have to admit that my cycling style changed when I was at college, simply because time was more important than following the rules to a T. This probably explains the antics of bike messengers as well.

After all, why restrict yourself to a one way grid, when all you have to do is jump on the sidewalk and ride the wrong way up a street for half a block?

Not saying it is right or trying to justify it. Just making the observation.

[noisebeam]

Students on bikes are very similar to children riding for fun in the street. I have to admit that my cycling style changed when I was at college, simply because time was more important than following the rules to a T. This probably explains the antics of bike messengers as well.

After all, why restrict yourself to a one way grid, when all you have to do is jump on the sidewalk and ride the wrong way up a street for half a block?

Not saying it is right or trying to justify it. Just making the observation.
Thats what I was saying - I understand why student ride like this. I think the other factor is distance traveled and environment, if you are going 1-2mi around your stomping grounds, then wrong way riding, short cuts, etc. somehow seem more appropriate. If traveling 10mi, you benefit to ride on the streets and therefore being vehicular is far more important for safety.
I do not think that student riders like this are like children. In my personal experience students on bikes are aware of what they are doing, enjoy the slight edginess/bad behavior of it, some even get a superiority/invincibility feeling towards cars. Children on the other hand are ignorant of traffic laws and conventions and tend to be more fearful of cars.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

I used to do this, like I said. Some of this behavior probably contributed to my one and only intimate encounter with a car. I wasn't hurt, but I had to replace the frame of my bike.

[genec]

I agree. There is really nothing wrong from a serious safety point of view with what was created, given the type of street it is, a 25mph residential street. Anyone can figure out how to use in the riding style they want it and be just as safe on it as any other street.
But my problem is that this street never needed a bike lane. Sure it needed traffic calming and methods so it would not be used as a bypass thru street (which by the way pretty much ended when the construction that narrowed parallel University drive was done.) The resources should have been spent just on beautification and some traffic calming, but all the bike lane resource (monetary and thought) should have been put toward roads that really need it. Actually its not just the resource, but the precident as well, why put BLs on 25mph roads that really only get you around inside neighborhoods, when there are no good bike facilities that get you between neighborhoods, which is needed if you want to commute to work, go grocery shopping, go to the Dr., ride to the city swimming pool, etc.

Al


OK fully agreed here... and that really is the bottom line. It was the calming that lead to the bike path that confused the cyclists and motorists that lead to the discusson of what a BL is that... and so on.

Calming was the goal and that was all that was needed.

[Helmet Head]

The argument to stay to the right in the case of an oncoming left hook is for visibility's sake. If a car is approaching to the rear, practicality demands that the right hook be defended against, because the left hook threat is moot if there is a car approaching from behind. (The left turning car has to yield at least to the car coming up from behind, and thus automatically yields to the cyclist.) #953 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1262940&postcount=953)



You are right that cyclists have to watch for oncoming cars, but moving farther to the right won't help anything.
I don't believe ANYONE made the claim that cyclist positioning to the right improves the visability/conspicuousness of the cyclist; it is Serge's contention that visability is reduced by such positioning. Repeating Serge's "idea" in mirror Apparently, Brian doesn't count as "ANYONE" to ILTB...
I'm beginning to think the gap between ILTB and others might mostly be due to an attention, "visability" (sic), or reading comprehension problem on his part. You might want to have it checked out...

[Helmet Head]

More VC dogma nonsense. Bike lanes no more inhibit lane choice than any other special use lanes. Driver can (and certainly do here) deal with the presence of one or more special use lanes on various roads and intersections. HOV lanes, transit lanes, bike lanes, taxi lanes, etc. they all exist, sometimes together at the same intersection, and people manage just fine.

Seriously. Do you (or anyone else) know of an intersection where regular vehicular right turns are permitted and the rightmost lane is an HOV, transit (bus), truck, or taxi lane?

[Helmet Head]

I am not convinced that bike lanes pose any inherent problem at intersections, and none of the VC rhetoric spouted thus far has established such a problem to exist.
Here is a good real world very recent example (thanks to Al for bringing it to my attention) of what happens because of behavior encouraged by bike lanes at intersections:



Street looks like this: Driving lane, bike lane, parked cars. This street generally has minimal vehicular traffic and tons of bike traffic on the bike lane, so I felt somewhat safe there, with no incidents in the past.

I was travelling at 20-25mph in the bike lane, in bright red jersey and shorts. At the intersection, at which I had the right-of-way, I was overtaken and right-hooked by a minivan. The van drove off without stopping. Several witnesses were on hand, several on bike, and one in a car. The one in the car drove around the neighborhood until the van was found. Looks like a juvenile and claims that she didn't know she hit me, and didn't see me. Both are driver neglect. Plus, WTF was she doing turning without stopping to look for bike traffic, considering the density of cyclist in the area. Hell, she lived only a few blocks from the bike lane.

She hit me with her right rear quarter panel. Per eyewitness accounts, I endoed and hit my left shoulder/head on the pavement. My boss picked up my bike and thankfully all that is damaged is a small tear in the bar tape.
...

(From the opening post of the Got hit yesterday (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=114452) thread in Road Cycling)

This cyclist has no clue what factor his too-far-to-the-right position played in causing this collision and probably feels there was nothing wrong with where he was riding since he was in the bike lane. He's also probably oblivious of the factor the bike lane played in keeping the right-turning motorist from properly merging "as far right as practicable" before turning right.

The sad thing is that this happens all the time, and is so preventable by a slight adjustment in cyclist behavior at intersections.

My reply, by the way:



Most cyclists and traffic engineers don't realize that cyclists should leave the right side of the road and merge into the regular flow of through traffic as they approach any intersection where they are not turning right.

Bike lanes that continue up to intersections encourage cyclists to incorrectly stay to the right, and inhibit them from correctling merging left. Sometimes they change the striping of the BL stripe from solid to striped at intersections approaches - to indicate right-turning motorists may (must in many states, including CA) merge into the bike lane, and that through cyclists may merge left of it. However, even when the striping changes to dashed, it's usually too close to the intersection, and most drivers and cyclists ignore it anyway, treating it the same as a solid stripe.

Instead, bike lanes at intersections should be treated like right-turn-only lanes. If you're turning right, get in it (regardless of whether you're on a bike or driving a car). If you're going straight, avoid it like the plague (regardless of whether you're on a bike or driving a car).

The reason cyclists going straight at intersections should merge left is to avoid being right hooked like this. I used to have close calls all too frequently. Once I changed my behavior, I stopped having the close calls entirely.

In order to be treated like a vehicle driver, you must first act like one.
If you don't act like a vehicle driver, don't be surprised when you're not treated like one.

Serge

[genec]

Here is a good example of what happens because of behavior encouraged by bike lanes at intersections:



Street looks like this: Driving lane, bike lane, parked cars. This street generally has minimal vehicular traffic and tons of bike traffic on the bike lane, so I felt somewhat safe there, with no incidents in the past.

I was travelling at 20-25mph in the bike lane, in bright red jersey and shorts. At the intersection, at which I had the right-of-way, I was overtaken and right-hooked by a minivan. The van drove off without stopping. Several witnesses were on hand, several on bike, and one in a car. The one in the car drove around the neighborhood until the van was found. Looks like a juvenile and claims that she didn't know she hit me, and didn't see me. Both are driver neglect. Plus, WTF was she doing turning without stopping to look for bike traffic, considering the density of cyclist in the area. Hell, she lived only a few blocks from the bike lane.

She hit me with her right rear quarter panel. Per eyewitness accounts, I endoed and hit my left shoulder/head on the pavement. My boss picked up my bike and thankfully all that is damaged is a small tear in the bar tape.



This can just as easily happen without a BL... Twice yesterday as I was in the middle of right only turn lanes; different drivers in different locations were determined to cut me off to make their right turns. There were no BL involved... the motorists just did not see me as "traffic" that they had to work with and merge with. In one case, a dirty look and an outstretched hand stopped the motorist that was right turning from the left straight through lane and trying to cut me off. (although he "blasted" around me moments later) The second driver did cut me off and I simply stopped. In both cases, I was in the middle (actually slightly to the left of the grease) of the right turn lane and making a right turn.

This same action of right hook can also easily happen in a WOL... blaming a BL for bad motorist behavior is like blaming a scalpel for the poor work of a surgeon.

[Helmet Head]

Right hooked in a right turn only lane??? Honestly, Gene, I don't understand how it is that you have incidents like this so often (twice in one day!), and I almost never do (can't remember a single time of being right hooked in a right turn only lane in 5 years/25,000 miles). Maybe you should stop wearing that "Treat Me Like Schmuck" jersey. :)

[noisebeam]

This can just as easily happen without a BL... Twice yesterday as I was in the middle of right only turn lanes; different drivers in different locations were determined to cut me off to make their right turns. There were no BL involved... the motorists just did not see me as "traffic" that they had to work with and merge with. In one case, a dirty look and an outstretched hand stopped the motorist that was right turning from the left straight through lane and trying to cut me off. (although he "blasted" around me moments later) The second driver did cut me off and I simply stopped. In both cases, I was in the middle (actually slightly to the left of the grease) of the right turn lane and making a right turn.

This same action of right hook can also easily happen in a WOL... blaming a BL for bad motorist behavior is like blaming a scalpel for the poor work of a surgeon.
That first example happens to me even when slowing from the speed limit in my car, I enter right turn lane and impatient car behind me overtakes and swerves into lane or makes a wide right turn in front of me. I also note this happen when I am right turning from center of right turn lane, but find it much worse and much more likely happen if I am to right of right turn lane. A vehicular position does not eliminate bad driver behavior, but helps to reduce it.

In this case I do not blame the BL for bad motorist behavior. I blame the BL for suggesting bad road positioning for the cyclist and the likely solid white BL stripe (yes, it may have been dashed) for discouraging the motorist from using appropriate driving rule of merging into BL for a right turn. But the in this case blame is 100% toward the motorist who was not appropriately aware of cyclist off to side in BL. The cyclist did nothing legally wrong and in this case share zero blame, but thru different positioning/behavior could have helped reduced (not eliminate) the chance of such an incident from occuring.

Al

[noisebeam]

Right hooked in a right turn only lane??? Honestly, Gene, I don't understand how it is that you have incidents like this so often (twice in one day!), and I almost never do (can't remember a single time of being right hooked in a right turn only lane in 5 years/25,000 miles). Maybe you should stop wearing that "Treat Me Like Schmuck" jersey. :)
Serge, it happens to me almost every day on my way to work. I ride down a 5 lane 45mph road, a right turn lane breaks away, I signal right, turn/merge into right turn lane, ride in dead center of it. Many other cars are making this same right turn to also get to work. Many swoop in around me at the last minute, not quite a right hook, but they often come close and as they often suddenly break hard after the swoop so they can turn then I too have to slow much harder than I otherwise would have. Sometimes its not so good as they swoop in and turn right next to me with inches to spare as they seem to expect that I will be turning from center of right turn lane into the BL that the side street has (the main street I turn from does not) In many cases if I had turned from center of right turn lane into center of side street lane I would have been squished.

Edit for clarity: This 'swoop' I decribe involes starting the turn from the left of the right turn lane, often cutting the left edge corner of the right turn lane - basically a wide right turn starting from the straight lane.

Al

[genec]

Right hooked in a right turn only lane??? Honestly, Gene, I don't understand how it is that you have incidents like this so often (twice in one day!), and I almost never do (can't remember a single time of being right hooked in a right turn only lane in 5 years/25,000 miles). Maybe you should stop wearing that "Treat Me Like Schmuck" jersey. :)

Surprised the heck out of me in both cases... In the first case, the driver was in a straight thru lane and just started to edge into the right only turn lane just to my left and behind me... it was quite evident that he intended to turn right from that split lane postion. (was some kinda renta-cop at UCSD... just caught a glance at the uniform)

The other one was where I was in a right /straight lane and this clown was in a left only lane... we waited through the light (I was positioned well to the left in the lane as I was going straight) and when it turned green, he gunned it and turned right in front of me. (as I was starting from a stop, it was easy to just stop).

Also had a guy go left around me into a left only lane north on Regents road by crossing the double yellow... I'm doing about 20MPH or so near La Jolla Country Day, headed to the UCSD campus... and in the right lane mixed in with the rest of the vehicles (riding very vehicularly). I glance and signal and pull into the left lane... Now we are all moving about the same speed here... Then this clown from behind me simply whips around me crossing the double yellow, so he/she can make the left first... I was right there with that motorist to the next two stop signs. It was just amazing. Had I wanted, I could have easily sprinted and cut 'em off... but there wasn't any point. Now mind you yes there was room... about two car lengths between me and the motorist in front of me... but we were doing about 20MPH... and this clown just had to fill that spot.

Predictable motorists... HA!

Now on the flip side, this is probably the first time these particular actions... just like that, have EVER happened to me... I was quite surprised, as I was following not only all the proper vehicular rules, but in fact, the ONLY actions for those locations.

It must have been the Road Runner Jersey... every PITA motorist wanted to be the "Coyote" yesterday. :D

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I'm beginning to think...
Actually I am waiting to see evidence of ideas that are the product of serious "thinking", rather than a stream-of-conciousness output of conjured scenarios from Serge and whomever else he thinks are the "others" that buy into his package of dreamy ideology and wishful thinking about bicyclist/motorist interactions.

I have no problem with Serge, Daily Commuter, Bruce Rosar et al. babbling on about their theories of cyclist behavior and law interpretations. I see them as nothing but ineffective obstructionist pedants. I certainly don't take their "stuff" seriously. I must say I question why any intelligent person would think that their doomsday, sky-is-falling (Lordy, Lordy this Bike lane is a DEATHTRAP!) messages have any positive influence on bicycling advocacy.

[Helmet Head]

I certainly don't take their "stuff" seriously.
I take your posts seriously. To take something seriously, you don't have to agree with it. But you do have to read it, and try to understand it, and then perhaps explain what you do and/or don't agree with, and why. So, yes, it's clear you don't take our "stuff" seriously. Your loss, as far as I am concerned. Why you would participate in a forum where you don't take others' contributions seriously is beyond me, but that seems to be your general approach.

By the way, I think you'd win the "ineffective obstructionist pedant" competition around here, hands down.

[H23]

I think its time to end the fruitless debate about whether or not bike lanes _should_ exist. The fact is, they do exist, there are increasing numbers of them, and despite the best efforts of a microscopic minority of VC activitists will continue to blossom.

The general public, correct or not, believes that bike lanes are the best way to deal with bicycle+car traffic in urban situations.

Instead of fighting the impossible, why not deal with reality and accept bike lanes? Accept them. And if you are in an advocacy or planning position, work to make them as good as they can be.

The fact is, bike lanes DO encourage people to get out and bicycle in the city. Most people specifically look for bikes lanes when planning out routes for recreation or commuting. If they were _not_ there, fewer people would be out riding, right?

[noisebeam]

work to make them as good as they can be.

I tend to agree, but there is more. One of the most important things to do is to help make sure the truely bad designs do not get implemented. By truely bad I mean designs that even pro-BLers see as hazardous (BL to right of right turn lane, bike lanes turning into paths at intersections, etc.)

But I also think that pro/anti-BL adocates can agree that many BL as implemented, while not blantently dangerous, are useless, such as BLs on less than 25mph streets.

I've been occasionally commenting on this common ground, wanting to get it better defined. I think that having this common ground of where there should never be a BL (pro-BL will have to conceede a bit) and if a BL is designed, some basic guidelines (anti-BL will have to conceede a bit), will at least do good to stop the worst offenders of both bad and unneceessary bike lanes.

Al

[H23]

Bad is one thing. Unncessary is another.

If unncessary BL's encourage people to get out and ride, isn't that a good thing?

[genec]

Both of you offer good points and essentially this is also my feeling... I think that poor BL can do more to harm the cycling community than good BL can help.

I also feel that a total negative attitude about BL will simply continue to foster a "don't care" attitude among those that want to "do something" at a civic level, but do not really have a clue.

I also would like to get to the heart of the matter by ensuring that documents like the MUTCD reflect a "do no harm" approach... which clearly does not exist now (they actually suggest BL alongside parked cars. ) This will take mutual effort by major advocacy organizations. As long as we are divided voices... then the status quo remains.

Trying to establish this criteria should give us a minimum of some sort of design, and a "do not do" list to prevent bad BL.

There will probably never be perfect BL, just as the only "perfect" traffic exists in Disneyland...

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I think its time to end the fruitless debate about whether or not bike lanes _should_ exist. The fact is, they do exist, there are increasing numbers of them, and despite the best efforts of a microscopic minority of VC activitists will continue to blossom.

The general public, correct or not, believes that bike lanes are the best way to deal with bicycle+car traffic in urban situations.

Instead of fighting the impossible, why not deal with reality and accept bike lanes?

Why not indeed. The problem is that is would require the ideologues to grasp the concept that their fantasies/dreamy ideas do not/will not become real by constant repitition or endless windmill tilting.