Advocacy & Safety - Bike lanes

Bad is one thing. Unncessary is another.

If unncessary BL's encourage people to get out and ride, isn't that a good thing?
Also amplification is needed for the term "unnecessary". "Unnecessary" as determined by whom?

I certainly don't want a handful of club cyclist roadie elitists in any position to implement their decisions about what is "necessary" in order to preserve their status quo from imaginary threats; especially decisions about cycling necessity that could negatively effect everybody else's cycling experience/environment.

Nor am I enthusiastic about cycling education program promoter/salesmen deciding what is necessary/unnecessary for all other cyclists.

Bad is one thing. Unncessary is another.

If unncessary BL's encourage people to get out and ride, isn't that a good thing?
No, its bad, very bad, because putting in an unncessary BL say on a 20mph street (Its done round here) diverts resource from putting in bike facilities that can make riding on 45mph multilane streets safer. And getting people to ride is not getting them on a 25mph streets that goes between two difficult to ride 45mph streets, it is giving them a false sense of security and bicycle mobility.

But of course its easier to put BLs on 25mph street, because they are wide and in residential areas so neighbors requiest them, and cities get to up the % of BL miles in the database for their city which helps with getting bicycle friendly awards, etc. Sure it may be cheaper to slap some paint down on a 25mph street and put up buttons on the sidewalk to activate traffic signal lights, but I'd rather have 1mi of badly needed road widening than 20mi of unncessary painted lines that connect the nearly unridable roads. Fix the ugly areas with plastic surgery instead of putting makeup on the already pretty parts.

Al

Also amplification is needed for the term "unnecessary". "Unnecessary" as determined by whom?

I certainly don't want a handful of club cyclist roadie elitists in any position to implement their decisions about what is "necessary" in order to preserve their status quo from imaginary threats; especially decisions about cycling necessity that could negatively effect everybody else's cycling experience/environment.

Nor am I enthusiastic about cycling education program promoter/salesmen deciding what is necessary/unnecessary for all other cyclists.
We we can work toward generalizing what is necessary vs. not (really a prioritization). Reasonable pro and anti-BL (really neither pro or anti) folks in this thread have given suggestions as to what is unneccesary. Gene has given much great input into where BLs are not needed as well as designs for good BLs when they are implemented. I'd probably agree with whatever he came up with, even though I'd say I'm more against BLs and in general he tends to be pro-BL. So there is some common ground.

Al

Gene, first you wrote (in reference to the right hook incident with the cyclist in the bike lane), "This can just as easily happen without a BL..."

Just as easily?

Then you wrote, "Surprised the heck out of me in both cases... ".

I think the fact that it surprised "the heck out of you" indicates that you realize it doesn't happen "just as easily", or at least not as often, without a BL (and, in particular, in a right turn lane).

I agree with Al: "A vehicular position does not eliminate bad driver behavior, but helps to reduce it." And, I would add, a bike lane at intersections (particularly one that is not to the left of a right only lane) inhibits cyclists from merging into a vehicular position at the intersection. Further, it mistrains cyclists about how to position themselves vehicularly (according to destination) at intersections in general, which most likely will encourage them to position themselves similarly (incorrectly) at intersections without bike lanes.


If [bike lanes] were _not_ there, fewer people would be out riding, right?
In the long run? I'm not sure. I think the thinking that facilities like bike lanes are needed to make cycling safe and/or tolerable contributes to why so many people never start riding. That's why I think that kind of thinking -- the thinking that forms the basis for bike lanes - is perhaps the biggest enemy of cycling getting more popular. Or maybe it's just a coincidence that the flattening out of the rise in popularity of cycling is coincident with the beginning of the bike lane movement in the U.S. (in the first half of the 1970s).


If unncessary BL's encourage people to get out and ride, isn't that a good thing?
If they really get them out there, and if they don't inhibit novices from learning safe cycling behavior in traffic, then yes. But I have no reason to believe either is true, and some reason to believe both are false.

BL striping absolutely must end before intersections.

I strongly disagree, as I stated before. Fortunately so does my municipality and my provincial gov't, so we normally don't see vanishing bike lanes. (Unfortunately they can't seem to decide if the stripe should stay solid or become dashed near the intersections, we seem to have both in about equal frequency).


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.

Again I disagree on both counts.

Gene, first you wrote (in reference to the right hook incident with the cyclist in the bike lane), "This can just as easily happen without a BL..."

Just as easily?

Then you wrote, "Surprised the heck out of me in both cases... ".

I think the fact that it surprised "the heck out of you" indicates that you realize it doesn't happen "just as easily", or at least not as often, without a BL (and, in particular, in a right turn lane).

I agree with Al: "A vehicular position does not eliminate bad driver behavior, but helps to reduce it." And, I would add, a bike lane at intersections (particularly one that is not to the left of a right only lane) inhibits cyclists from merging into a vehicular position at the intersection. Further, it mistrains cyclists about how to position themselves vehicularly (according to destination) at intersections in general, which most likely will encourage them to position themselves similarly (incorrectly) at intersections without bike lanes.

Well, I normally do leave the BL when coming to intersections... so that issue of "just as easily" for me is perhaps not true. But I do tend to think Serge is right on this... a cyclist staying to the far right at an intersection can MORE easily be subjected to a right hook. I'll conceed that.

But on the other hand, a WOL does nothing to encourage a cyclist to go wide at right turns to prevent right hooks... So neither "most BL" or a WOL would have made a difference. Now a BL with the signs earlier discussed, and dashed lines... might actually work better than a strict WOL for preventing right hooks.

As far as my shock ("surprised the heck out of me") that was because I was doing the absolute right thing, and these moron motorists did nearly everything wrong to try to void my very correct techniques... something I doubt they would have done if I were in a car. I doubt they would have even done that to a motorcycle. There was simply no justification for their movement. Hey, at least one guy had on his turn signal. :D

But why the "almost lane splitter" chose to try to go around me, rather then merge behind me, is beyond me. Remember there were no BL in any of these situations.

The guy leaving from the left only stoplight and going right in front of me was just an azzh***. They exist... some folks just have more horsepower then horsesense.

*********************************

But as far as how this relates to the BL design situation... it does point to the "solid line to the intersection BL" as part of the potential bad designs. If we agree that BL should help guide cyclists... then there should be something along the way that encourages proper lane merging... such as the signs mentioned much earlier... to guide both cyclists and motorists.

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?

Yes.

Albert and Slater streets, downtown Ottawa: in each case the rightmost lane is a bus-only lane, and right-turns are permitted at about 2/3 of the intersections (the other 1/2 are one-ways in the wrong direction).

Ditto both ends of McKenzie-King Bridge, also downtown Ottawa. (Although car traffic will be removed from this bridge between 2006 and 2009).

IIRC some sections of Baseline Rd, western Ottawa, have transit lanes on the curb lane and no right-turn lane or ramp outside that, but its been a while since I was out there. I'm sure there are other examples, but I'm not about to spend my time looking at a map to job my memory. I'll agree that its not common: where space exists a right-turn lane or ramp is placed to the right of the bus/HOV/Transit/whatever lane, but such space is not always available.

I strongly disagree, as I stated before. Fortunately so does my municipality and my provincial gov't, so we normally don't see vanishing bike lanes. (Unfortunately they can't seem to decide if the stripe should stay solid or become dashed near the intersections, we seem to have both in about equal frequency).

Again I disagree on both counts.
Interesting how we can so hard headedly disagree. I would be squished by right turning cars by now if I didn't always leave the BL at intersections and line up with straight/right turning cars. I can comforabtly ride vehiculary, merging, etc. and find that one of the most stressful merges I need to make every day is leaving the bike lane before an intersection to go straight. Drivers don't understand it. There have been a few times (mostly when I am tired, beat from work, don't want the hassle confusing cars by merging across solid white line) where I don't leave the lane and stay in the BL only to find myself in a totally vunerable situation, having to get some car to not turn right into me as I proceed across intersection. In places where the BL does end before an intersection there is a seamless, easy transition to be part of traffic flow, a gentle gradual merge that requires far less head turning and negotiation. In addtion right turning cars will use the right side of the lane as they get most close (last 10yrds) to intersection (instead of having fear of x-ing BL stripe). It just makes for an incredibly more smooth and less ambiguous bike/car traffic flow.

I honestly, sincerely, with good intentions, and no anti-BL stubbornness can not believe how anyone who has spent any time riding in traffic can find safety* benefit, let alone no disadvantage, to a BL that goes clear up to the stop line of an intersection.

*I do acknowledge the practial benefit of allowing one to not miss a light cycle in busy traffic by riding to right of stopped traffic, but for me safety comes before practicality.

Al

Interesting how we can so hard headedly disagree. I would be squished by right turning cars by now if I didn't always leave the BL at intersections and line up with straight/right turning cars. I can comforabtly ride vehiculary, merging, etc. and find that one of the most stressful merges I need to make every day is leaving the bike lane before an intersection to go straight. Drivers don't understand it. There have been a few times (mostly when I am tired, beat from work, don't want the hassle confusing cars by merging across solid white line) where I don't leave the lane and stay in the BL only to find myself in a totally vunerable situation, having to get some car to not turn right into me as I proceed across intersection. In places where the BL does end before an intersection there is a seamless, easy transition to be part of traffic flow, a gentle gradual merge that requires far less head turning and negotiation. In addtion right turning cars will use the right side of the lane as they get most close (last 10yrds) to intersection (instead of having fear of x-ing BL stripe). It just makes for an incredibly more smooth and less ambiguous bike/car traffic flow.

I honestly, sincerely, with good intentions, and no anti-BL stubbornness can not believe how anyone who has spent any time riding in traffic can find safety* benefit, let alone no disadvantage, to a BL that goes clear up to the stop line of an intersection.

*I do acknowledge the practial benefit of allowing one to not miss a light cycle in busy traffic by riding to right of stopped traffic, but for me safety comes before practicality.

Al


This may be a difference in the driving habits of the areas... such as a much earlier discussion that involved BL in Portland verses CA... in CA the (not often done properly) expectation is that motorists will merge into the BL behind cyclists before making a right. In Portland the expectation is that the motorist is supposed to stop, then "cross" the BL; perhaps this also is the view of our friend up north.

In all cases the motorist is expected to check and work with (yield to) cyclists... not just ignore them as if they are not there. In the CA case, the motorist uses the BL as any other, albeit narrow lane; in the Portland case, the motorist acts more like crossing a sidewalk.

This may be a difference in the driving habits of the areas... such as a much earlier discussion that involved BL in Portland verses CA... in CA the (not often done properly) expectation is that motorists will merge into the BL behind cyclists before making a right. In Portland the expectation is that the motorist is supposed to stop, then "cross" the BL; perhaps this also is the view of our friend up north.

In all cases the motorist is expected to check and work with (yield to) cyclists... not just ignore them as if they are not there. In the CA case, the motorist uses the BL as any other, albeit narrow lane; in the Portland case, the motorist acts more like crossing a sidewalk.
In AZ the expectation is that a motorist merge into BL for a right turn - on some of the smaller streets the BL stripe becomes dashed for the last 5yrds before a turn. But reality is that rarely does a driver ever cross the BL line near an intersection (pretty much only I do it to even see if it is even possible to execute a smooth turn with tires so close to curb) Different is if the BL is a go straight only bike lane to the left of a right turn lane where cars merge across two dashed BL stripes to get into right turn lane. I don't have a problem in this case with thru BLs going all the way to intersection stop lines, only when the right lane is a combined right/straight lane, should the BL end well before the intersection.

But it is not just right turning motorists that a cyclist must merge with, it is all of them whether going straight or right. You just get into line with all of them, just like if you are another car. So talking about if right turning motorists merge right into BL or not is not the issue, the issue is that a cyclist should be leaving the BL to line up with all cars, straight going or not.

I don't understand what happens in Portland if a driver comes to an intersection with a BL is to their right, are they supposed to on green light stop at the intersection stop line, look over their right shoulder behind them for an oncoming cyclist in lane then make the right turn across BL? That seems very awkward instead of merging into BL when they are at a low speed well before turn is executed.

Al

In AZ the expectation is that a motorist merge into BL for a right turn - on some of the smaller streets the BL stripe becomes dashed for the last 5yrds before a turn. But reality is that rarely does a driver ever cross the BL line near an intersection (pretty much only I do it to even see if it is even possible to execute a smooth turn with tires so close to curb) Different is if the BL is a go straight only bike lane to the left of a right turn lane where cars merge across two dashed BL stripes to get into right turn lane. I don't have a problem in this case with thru BLs going all the way to intersection stop lines, only when the right lane is a combined right/straight lane, should the BL end well before the intersection.

But it is not just right turning motorists that a cyclist must merge with, it is all of them whether going straight or right. You just get into line with all of them, just like if you are another car. So talking about if right turning motorists merge right into BL or not is not the issue, the issue is that a cyclist should be leaving the BL to line up with all cars, straight going or not.



Right... the issue is the righthooking motorists, so all the cyclists should be merging, but the motorists are not... often they turn wider for faster turns anyway.



I don't understand what happens in Portland if a driver comes to an intersection with a BL is to their right, are they supposed to on green light stop at the intersection stop line, look over their right shoulder behind them for an oncoming cyclist in lane then make the right turn across BL? That seems very awkward instead of merging into BL when they are at a low speed well before turn is executed.

Al

That was the way it was presented. That the BL represented a "barrier" that a motorist was supposed negotiate across... not so much a narrow lane to merge with.

In fact, that is quite a bit like the use of the blue lanes that Portland has...

I think this is from regional differences. Like I said before, here is Beaverton, we do not have a grid of arterials. You may not believe this, but it is becoming hard to find a major intersection in Beaverton where there is not a right turn only lane, or some other mechanism to make a right turning moterist go to the right of the bike lane. Almost all new roads have this mechanism, even at minor intersections with entrances into parking lots and minor roads. You can say that, in your case, the rightmost lane is a defacto right turn lane, and the bike lane crosses to the right of it. This is one of the bad designs we talked about and agreed on. On this type of intersection, there is a good argument to end the bike lane short of the intersection. Just so long as the cyclist is given ample warning of the end, and there is plently of space to merge. There is one of these types of intersections on my route, and the bike lane does end some 100 or 200 feet from the intersection. When there is a separated right turn lane, there is no reason to end the bike lane, as long as it continues on the far side. There is also no danger in not being in line with the cars, since the bike lane is a separate lane, and at least here, is treated that way by drivers. We also tend to have protected left turns, so the left hook threat at most major intersections is non-existant.

Since Pheonix is on an arterial grid, running a right turn only lane at every major intersection is probably not practical in the short term. This is making it clearer to me the conclusion that the particular bike facility choice needs to be made on a regional basis. Both bike lanes and WOL's have particular advantages and disadvantages, and different regions tend to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each differently.

The best advocacy then, is to work on a case by case basis or at least a region by region basis. Sometimes WOL's will be more practical than BL's, and sometimes the other way around. Maybe a mix of the two is some areas. I will not be so presumpuous to pre-determine the outcome while talking in such generalities.

Perhaps the best use of this thread then, is to not try to come into agreement about general situations where BL's or WOL's are to be used, but to determine a set of characteristics for each of these bike facilities. Here is my suggestion:

BL characteristics:
1) Easy for beginners to use.
2) Keeps cyclists separate from traffic.
3) Moves cyclists out of direct line of sight.
4) Intersections must be designed with facility in mind.
5) ROW is clearly defined.
6) Clear symbol that cyclists have a place on the road.

WOL characteristics:
1) Cyclists are not given direction - completely passive road facility.
2) No shelter from same direction traffic.
3) Right side naturally cleared of debris.
4) No design for intersections necessary.
5) Not attractive to beginners without training.
6) Cars naturally pass with more room.
7) ROW is not as clear.

There are others, and some of these are contentious, but with a clear understanding of the characteristics of each bike facility, the best for a certain street or region can be chosen.

Right... the issue is the righthooking motorists, so all the cyclists should be merging, but the motorists are not... often they turn wider for faster turns anyway.



That was the way it was presented. That the BL represented a "barrier" that a motorist was supposed negotiate across... not so much a narrow lane to merge with.

In fact, that is quite a bit like the use of the blue lanes that Portland has...

Usually there is a right turn only lane, and when there is not, a dotted line is used to indicate that a moterist can merge to the right. There are exceptions, but this seems to be the trend on new roads.

The blue lanes were an experiment. There is not that many around now and they are not added to new designs.

An homage to a Real Class Act (his last dozen unedited posts in this thread):


Also amplification is needed for the term "unnecessary". "Unnecessary" as determined by whom?

I certainly don't want a handful of club cyclist roadie elitists in any position to implement their decisions about what is "necessary" in order to preserve their status quo from imaginary threats; especially decisions about cycling necessity that could negatively effect everybody else's cycling experience/environment.

Nor am I enthusiastic about cycling education program promoter/salesmen deciding what is necessary/unnecessary for all other cyclists.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.

I think this is from regional differences. .... becoming hard to find a major intersection in Beaverton where there is not a right turn only lane, or some other mechanism to make a right turning moterist go to the right of the bike lane. Almost all new roads have this mechanism, even at minor intersections with entrances into parking lots and minor roads. You can say that, in your case, the rightmost lane is a defacto right turn lane, and the bike lane crosses to the right of it. This is one of the bad designs we talked about and agreed on. On this type of intersection, there is a good argument to end the bike lane short of the intersection. the characteristics of each bike facility, the best for a certain street or region can be chosen.
Agreed its regional and case specific, but we were talking about a specific case where there is not a dedicated right turn lane.
Keep in mind my whole objection in this sub-thread to BLs ending well before intersection was specifically about on this 25mph roads without an dedicated right turn lane - I wrote in specific reference to the photograph of road we were talking about in post #953 earlier to start this sub-thread: "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."

All this later addition of situations with dedicated right turn lanes are a different case, where a BL going all the way to intesection is not a big deal for me.

Al

Albert and Slater streets, downtown Ottawa: in each case the rightmost lane is a bus-only lane, and right-turns are permitted at about 2/3 of the intersections (the other 1/2 are one-ways in the wrong direction).
In the 2/3 of intersections where vehicles in the lane adjacent to the bus-only lane are allowed to turn right, are busses allowed to go straight from the bus-only lane, or are they required to turn right?

http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/webspeed%20table%202.jpg


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?
This is what we were talking about, not roads with dedicated right turn lanes. I later added the concern about multilane roads with no dedicated right turn lanes as a similar example where BL should end well before intersection.

Do y'all read in threaded mode where you can follow what sub-thread (specifically this question Serge posted about this road) we are talking about

Al

Agreed its regional and case specific, but we were talking about a specific case where there is not a dedicated right turn lane.
Keep in mind my whole objection in this sub-thread to BLs ending well before intersection was specifically about on this 25mph roads without an dedicated right turn lane - I wrote in specific reference to the photograph of road we were talking about in post #953 earlier to start this sub-thread: "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."

All this later addition of situations with dedicated right turn lanes are a different case, where a BL going all the way to intesection is not a big deal for me.

Al

I think we understand each other. What you are talking about is, for all practical purposes, a BL which goes to the right of a right turn lane, which I don't support.

I think we understand each other. What you are talking about is, for all practical purposes, a BL which goes to the right of a right turn lane, which I don't support.
No I am talking about a BL that goes to the right of a go straight and a right turn lane. A typical 4 way intersection that has not been enhanced for heavier traffic flow with left and right turn lanes added. These type of intersection are found in all cities and pretty much the standard in all towns. Sure many cities are adding right turn lanes where they fit, but there will always be standard intersections in every town, just like the one in the photo we were talking about.

The case you are talking about a BL that goes to the right of a right turn lane, does happen on rare occasion, but is such an unsafe and stupid design that forturnately even modern day traffic engineers can figure out not to design such facilities.

Al

Okay, fine, a bike lane which goes to the right of a go straight/right turn lane. The fact is, we don't see much of that here. What we do see of this design is at minor intersections, and that is even disappearing in favor of right turn only lanes. My point is that simply because this one design is an issue does not warrent a categorical "all bike lanes must end before intersections" comment.

This further reinforces the effect of regional road design differences which are coming out of this debate. Some designs are better than others in different places, and on different roads. In any case, a categorical declaration is not warrented.

BL characteristics:
1) Easy for beginners to use.
2) Keeps cyclists separate from traffic.
3) Moves cyclists out of direct line of sight.
4) Intersections must be designed with facility in mind.
5) ROW is clearly defined.
6) Clear symbol that cyclists have a place on the road.

WOL characteristics:
1) Cyclists are not given direction - completely passive road facility.
2) No shelter from same direction traffic.
3) Right side naturally cleared of debris.
4) No design for intersections necessary.
5) Not attractive to beginners without training.
6) Cars naturally pass with more room.
7) ROW is not as clear.


Good list. My mods... (in italics)

BL characteristics:
1) Easy for beginners to use. (but can give false sense of security, and may inhibit beginners from learning proper dynamic lateral lane positioning)
2) Keeps cyclists separate from same-direction traffic (unless motorist drifts). Also makes motorists less aware, and/or care less about, the presence of a cyclist (since he's "separated").
3) Moves cyclists out of direct line of sight and inhibits cyclists from merging left out of BL to be in direct line of sight of potentially conflicting cross-traffic.
4) Intersections must be designed with facility in mind. (Easier said than done. Even if you can place a BL to the left of a right only lane, that only takes care of the through cyclists, and still requires them to cross the path of right turning traffic in a limited space -- between the end of the curb BL and the start of the of "out there" BL. Turning cyclists must exit the BL).
5) ROW with same-direction traffic is clearly defined and makes a sudden emergency swerve of even a few inches the cyclist's fault, if it puts him outside of the BL and in the path of a close passing car).
6) Clear symbol that cyclists have a place on the road (and a clear symbol to many that cyclists have no place elsewhere on the road).

WOL characteristics:
1) Cyclists are not given direction - completely passive road facility.
2) No "shelter" from same direction traffic which makes passing motorists more aware of cyclists up ahead in "their" lane, more likely to slow down and pass with care, less likely to inadverdently drift into cyclist.
3) Right side naturally cleared of debris.
4) No design for intersections necessary.
5) Not attractive to beginners without training, experience or education.
6) Cars naturally pass with more room.
7) ROW is not as clear, so motorists tend to pass with more care.


Don't forget my favorite facility...

NOL characteristics:
1) Cyclists use full lane - motorists must follow cyclists or pass in adjacent lane.
2) Lack of "shelter" from same direction traffic might intimidate inexperienced cyclists.
3) Naturally cleared of debris.
4) No design for intersections necessary.
5) Not attractive to beginners without training.
6) Cars naturally pass with more room.
7) ROW is very clear.

BL characteristics:
1) Easy for beginners to use. (but can give false sense of security, and may inhibit beginners from learning proper dynamic lateral lane positioning)
2) Keeps cyclists separate from same-direction traffic (unless motorist drifts). Also makes motorists less aware, and/or care less about, the presence of a cyclist (since he's "separated").
3) Moves cyclists out of direct line of sight and inhibits cyclists from merging left out of BL to be in direct line of sight of potentially conflicting cross-traffic.
4) Intersections must be designed with facility in mind. (Easier said than done. Even if you can place a BL to the left of a right only lane, that only takes care of the through cyclists, and still requires them to cross the path of right turning traffic in a limited space -- between the end of the curb BL and the start of the of "out there" BL. Turning cyclists must exit the BL).
5) ROW with same-direction traffic is clearly defined and makes a sudden emergency swerve of even a few inches the cyclist's fault, if it puts him outside of the BL and in the path of a close passing car).
6) Clear symbol that cyclists have a place on the road (and a clear symbol to many that cyclists have no place elsewhere on the road).


This is a list of characteristics, of which the importance or advantage/disadvantage status can be disputed, or even the idea that they are, in fact, characteristics, but this not a list of the implications of these characteristics. That is for us to debate because the implications of these characteristics are naturally in dispute. Since your edits only serve to put an implication onto each of the characteristics of bike lanes (noting that there are no such implication clarifications on the WOL list, which indicates an attempt at bias), can I assume that you agree that what I have listed are characteristics of bike lanes? If not, explain your disagreements or make a list of your own, don't just willy-nilly edit my list to twist it to your use.

As for the NOL,

NOL characteristics:
1) Cyclists use full lane - motorists must follow cyclists or pass in adjacent lane.
2) Lack of "shelter" from same direction traffic might intimidate inexperienced cyclists.
3) Naturally cleared of debris.
4) No design for intersections necessary.
5) Not attractive to beginners without training.
6) Cars naturally pass with more room.
7) ROW is very clear.

The 1st and 7th characteristic is disputable. I certainly cannot keep a full lane a force moterists to pass in the adjacent in the regions I cycle. Maybe you can.

ROW is clear only if the cyclist has full control of the lane. As I said before, this is not possible where I ride.

Some designs are better than others in different places, and on different roads. In any case, a categorical declaration is not warrented.
While some designs are better (worse) than others, I don't see the regional differences factor. Whether 2% or 98% of your intersections have room for right only lanes with BLs to the left of them, they're just as good/bad no matter where they are.

And I continue to reject the notion that there is a good 4-way constant-grade intersection design that uses bike lanes, no matter where you are. Yes, some are worse than others, but that doesn't mean the best with bike lanes is better for cyclists than the worst with no bike lanes. Consider:

1) I have never seen an intersection which accomodated cyclists with bike lanes in all directions (left, straight, right). That means that whatever goodness bike lanes may provide, it's simply not going to be there for cyclists going in at least one of the directions (usually two).

2) At any intersection without a right only lane, there is simply no good BL solution available, except ending the bike lane prior to the intersection (I know patc disagrees, and this is the point we're discussing regarding the analogous situation with bus-only lanes).

3) At intersections with right only lanes, there is usually not enough room to add a BL to the left of the right only lane. At such intersections it is best to end the BL well before the intersection.

4) Even at intersections with room for a BL to the left of the right only lane, left and right turning cyclists are left to manage without a BL. Why do the through cyclists need a BL and the left turners -- who you would think need the most help -- are left to handle it on their own? Can the help/goodness provided by the BL be all that significant when left turning cyclists do without? And the merge/cross problems (acknowledged by the blue BL experiments which were an attempt to solve them) caused by BLs to the left of right only lanes are not to be dismissed.

I just don't understand the point of extending bike lanes all the way to intersections.

If not, explain your disagreements or make a list of your own, don't just willy-nilly edit my list to twist it to your use.
Fair enough. Tomorrow...

Here we go, around again. If you cannot see the regional factor, then you havn't been paying attention. If you are in a position to "reject the notion" then you are beyond convincing; the only thing left is to agree to disagree.

You are attempting to raise bike lanes to a higher standard than your beloved NOL or WOL. A bike lane through an intersection at least tells a cyclist how to go straight. A WOL doesn't do that, and neither does a NOL. Nor do any of these facilities tell a cyclist how to turn in any direction. Training of some sort, even if it is just reading a book from Forester or from the state DMV, are the only ways you are going to get a cyclist to treat an intersection in accordance to VC techniques. Furthermore, the reason a straight going cyclist may want the bike lane to extend through the intersection is so the cyclist does not have to merge with the line of traffic.

That WOOSH sound is the sound of this thread headed back to the beginning.

Here we go, around again. If you cannot see the regional factor, then you havn't been paying attention. If you are in a position to "reject the notion" then you are beyond convincing; the only thing left is to agree to disagree.

You are attempting to raise bike lanes to a higher standard than your beloved NOL or WOL. A bike lane through an intersection at least tells a cyclist how to go straight. A WOL doesn't do that, and neither does a NOL. Nor do any of these facilities tell a cyclist how to turn in any direction. Training of some sort, even if it is just reading a book from Forester or from the state DMV, are the only ways you are going to get a cyclist to treat an intersection in accordance to VC techniques. Furthermore, the reason a straight going cyclist may want the bike lane to extend through the intersection is so the cyclist does not have to merge with the line of traffic.

That WOOSH sound is the sound of this thread headed back to the beginning.
As to regional differences...I don't get it. I see it as an intersection design difference. Every city I have been to in the US in all corners and centes of the US have intersections where two two lane roads cross. No right turn lanes, no left turn lanes. Simple straightforward traditional intersection. Probably the most common of all intersections. Sure some regions may be upgrading intersections to add right turn only lanes, but there will always be this standard intersection. (Which by the way I've driven thru many in Portland and the Portland area)
My favorite intersection is where the road has a WOL or BL, then a right turn only lane breaks away, but the WOL (or with marked BL) become a WOTL with no BL marking. It is very obvious where the cyclist who want to go straight should go, they stay exactly where they were before, or move toward the center of the lane if they want to be more vehicular and visible to opposing traffic, but that lateral change is not needed, its the cyclists personal choice. Any cyclist who doesn't know where to put themselves if going straight (what is the other choice, the right turn lane?) has no concept of traffic laws, conventions and should not be on the road. Maybe the point is that VC techniques are common sense to anyone who knows the rules of the road, not special training is required. And no merging is required, when the BL ends and turns into a WOL, straight going cars dont' suddenly merge right into where the BL used to be. Believe me I ride thru lots of intersections like this.

Anyway, be glad you don't have what is a common intersection around here. A two same direction lane road breaks into three lanes ~100yrd before intersection, the right most very narrow lane is a shared right/straight lane. Then those three lanes merge back into two in the course of 50yrds right after the intersection. These are miserable to deal with as you are forced to merge into dense fast accerlating traffic after x-ing the intersection, a task that is very hard even in a car, so most drivers avoid the right lane if going straight, except for very agressive ones who use it as a passing lane. Road rage in these intersections breaks out quite often, with cars in the middle lane racing cars in the far right lane who have chosen to use it as an overtaking lane. And there I am mixed up in it all on a bike.

Al

That WOOSH sound is the sound of this thread headed back to the beginning.

Do you think it ever got off the square one established by Serge?

Brian,

I have been paying attention. I'm sorry, but you have not convinced me that regional factors (particularly regions within the U.S.) play a significant role in determining whether a particular design is good or not.

And I will continue to reject the notion unless I am convinced otherwise. So far, I have not been. But that doesn't mean I'm beyond convincing.


A bike lane through an intersection at least tells a cyclist how to go straight. A WOL doesn't do that, and neither does a NOL.
I disagree. A BL provides no more useful go straight info than does a WOL or NOL. Going straight, is, well, going straight.


Furthermore, the reason a straight going cyclist may want the bike lane to extend through the intersection is so the cyclist does not have to merge with the line of traffic.
Here is where you apparently haven't been paying attention. The whole point is that the bike lane does NOT preclude the cyclist from having to merge with traffic. I'm not going to go into detail again... I just did a few posts back. If you disagree, please specify what exactly you think I missed or got wrong.

Interesting how we can so hard headedly disagree. I would be squished by right turning cars by now if I didn't always leave the BL at intersections and line up with straight/right turning cars.

Hey, I have no objection to disagreement, we both are arguing in good faith. As has been pointed out several times, location seems to make a huge difference in what works, or does not work.

I can comforabtly ride vehiculary, merging, etc. and find that one of the most stressful merges I need to make every day is leaving the bike lane before an intersection to go straight. Drivers don't understand it.

If I understand what you're saying, it would confuse drivers here too. It would be seen as you leaving one through lane (the bike lane) and pointlessly merging into another through lane.

There have been a few times (mostly when I am tired, beat from work, don't want the hassle confusing cars by merging across solid white line) where I don't leave the lane and stay in the BL only to find myself in a totally vunerable situation, having to get some car to not turn right into me as I proceed across intersection.

First, despite the examples I gave earlier, I will say that having a bike lane and NOT having a right turn lane/ramp outside the bike lane is unusual here, most of the time right-turning cars would not turn right in front of the bike lane. On smaller streets, or places without enough room for turn lanes, they will. It can involve a bit of negotiation, but I find it pretty easy.

First we allow right on reds, so in many cases a right-turning car has moved before the light turns green. If I approach the intersection when the light is already red and there are no cars in the general-use lane, I hold back a bit form the intersection (say one or two car lengths) to leave room for right-turning cars. If there are cars already stopped at the intersection they are prop ably not turning right and I pull up to the stop line or a bit ahead to make sure I am visible (if the car was turning right it would likely have merged into the bike lane, and would be signalling, and would not wait for the green).


I honestly, sincerely, with good intentions, and no anti-BL stubbornness can not believe how anyone who has spent any time riding in traffic can find safety* benefit, let alone no disadvantage, to a BL that goes clear up to the stop line of an intersection.

I believe you, and I might come to the same conclusion if I was riding in your city, and for that matter you might change your mind if you rode here. Location, location, location.

I have a question for you, then. Change context a bit: if ALL intersection had a right-turn lane(s) or ramps to the outside of the bike lane, such that no car should ever turn right in front of the bike lane at the intersection, would you still want bike lanes stopping well before the intersection? (I have just described the norm for Ottawa.)

In the 2/3 of intersections where vehicles in the lane adjacent to the bus-only lane are allowed to turn right, are busses allowed to go straight from the bus-only lane, or are they required to turn right?

There may be an exception or two, but most or all busses go straight on Albert and Slater. They form the main east-west transit corridor through the downtown core, so its bumper-to-bumper buses on the bus lanes. I couldn't tell you, from memory, if and how many intersections have a right-turn green arrow before the green light.

This is what we were talking about, not roads with dedicated right turn lanes. I later added the concern about multilane roads with no dedicated right turn lanes as a similar example where BL should end well before intersection.

Do y'all read in threaded mode where you can follow what sub-thread (specifically this question Serge posted about this road) we are talking about

Al

Other than the palm trees that looks like Alta Vista Drive here in Ottawa. I have no problems with it, and would not want the bike lanes ending before the intersections. I have no problem with right turning drivers: some safely merge into the bike lane to turn, others turn in front of it as if turning around an obstacle. It may seem problematic, but in practise is works just fine(here).

The only problem I have on a regular (daily) basis in Ottawa are drivers passing too close and too fast when I am sharing a lane, wide or otherwise. This problem virtually disappears if I take the lane or use a bike lane (essentially the same thing).

The most problematic situations I find (both on older roads not using current designs):

1- Bike lanes that end mid-street, either before an intersection or otherwise. Its is often hard to negotiate enough room to merge into the nearest car lane, and then it becomes the usually "struggle to have enough room to share the lane" issues. Some of our drivers seem to believe their right tire belongs on the right line, and the wider the lane the more room they leave to the left!

2- Bike lanes that end at an intersection, with the road continuing beyond without a bike lane and too narrow for me to go straight. (In other words no facility was put in to allow a smooth merger).

I have a question for you, then. Change context a bit: if ALL intersection had a right-turn lane(s) or ramps to the outside of the bike lane, such that no car should ever turn right in front of the bike lane at the intersection, would you still want bike lanes stopping well before the intersection? (I have just described the norm for Ottawa.)
I would much prefer a WOTL in this case, but if it was a BL it would not create a dangerous (for those who ride all the way to intersection). So I wouldn't complain about a BL. Of course the striping for the BL still implys for bikes to stay in lane and not merge far left for left turns or partly left for going straight. That is why I prefer the WOTL, but I won't go as far as arguing about WOTL vs. BL in this case - I am not subbornly against BLs ;)

But I really can't believe that all these cities have right turn only lanes at all intersections. Most new(since the early 90s) high volume intersections here have right turn only lanes, but all the intersections build before the 70s pretty much don't and there is not always room for the city to put them in, when there is, they often do, but the are often squeezed in, making the thru lane even narrower. But I can't believe all these cities others refering to have all this extra space (or funds) to put them in after the fact.

Another 'evolution' of the right turn only lane that is common around here I find annoying. This is the case where two multilane streets intersect (which is most intersections here), when the city adds a right turn only lane, the lane to its left then becomes both a straight and right turn lane, so there are dual right turn lanes - where one is then intended to right turn into the outside or middle lane of the x-street. So even when a right turn lane is added, it doesn't really help cyclists or accomidate a place for a BL. I deal with many intersections like this on my morning commute.

Al

Other than the palm trees that looks like Alta Vista Drive here in Ottawa. I have no problems with it, and would not want the bike lanes ending before the intersections. I have no problem with right turning drivers: some safely merge into the bike lane to turn, others turn in front of it as if turning around an obstacle. It may seem problematic, but in practise is works just fine(here).

The only problem I have on a regular (daily) basis in Ottawa are drivers passing too close and too fast when I am sharing a lane, wide or otherwise. This problem virtually disappears if I take the lane or use a bike lane (essentially the same thing).

The most problematic situations I find (both on older roads not using current designs):

1- Bike lanes that end mid-street, either before an intersection or otherwise. Its is often hard to negotiate enough room to merge into the nearest car lane, and then it becomes the usually "struggle to have enough room to share the lane" issues. Some of our drivers seem to believe their right tire belongs on the right line, and the wider the lane the more room they leave to the left!

2- Bike lanes that end at an intersection, with the road continuing beyond without a bike lane and too narrow for me to go straight. (In other words no facility was put in to allow a smooth merger).
It seems that in your concerns 1 and 2 (definitely 2) that when a BL end, the extra pavement room does. Keep in mind that what I mean by a BL ending is that only the stripe ends and the lane becomes a WOL. The extra pavement room remains. When this happens I find that cars do not suddenly merge right and take up that extra pavement room, espeically if there is already a bike in the lane. Never should the pavement narrow when a BL ends.

Example number 2 is a bad design. This for me is an excellent and common example of how BLs are added to streets with good intent, but the critical area of the design, the 'attachment' points or intersection points of the facilities are not well thought out, resulting in a bad and dangerous BL design. In this case never adding a BL is prefered as the cyclist then will merge toward center of lane before intersection instead of being stuck suddenly where a BL abruptly ends. Also this is an example of how it may seem BL encourage novice cyclists to ride on the streets without good vehicular behaviors, then suddenly they are in a situation where the BL ends and the must ride vehicularly.

Al

So I wouldn't complain about a BL. Of course the striping for the BL still implys for bikes to stay in lane and not merge far left for left turns or partly left for going straight.

That's another difference between us, to me the striping does not imply that at all. A solid line just means its not a "free for all" when it comes to lane changes. A better way of saying it is that a solid white line warns vehicle operators that they may or may not be allowed to cross. Its much like seeing a "no right turn" sign: it warns you that you can't freely turn right, but it may have a sign under it specifying days, time, or vehicle types allowed to turn.

I've always felt it clear that if a lane exists with a turn arrow then all vehicles must use that lane to turn. But hey, I'm weird: I actually read the Highway Traffic Act and the Ontario Driver's manual before I started cycling. I read owner's manuals for appliances too.


But I really can't believe that all these cities have right turn only lanes at all intersections.

There are a lot of factors at play. Ottawa is a young city - while celebrating its 150th anniversary this year, only a small part of the city is that old. Outside the downtown core much of the city is new and low density. The area I live is is considered an older development... and its only 30 years old. This is a government city and a tourism center, so ideals like "preserving views" and "user comfort" are quoted as high priorities along with budget concerns. Finally it was a very planned city, with stretches of land reserved for future transportation corridors. The new Ottawa 2020 plan incorporates spaces reserved from the 1970s planning, and in some cases the 1950s. Finally most of our bike lanes are put in during street re-construction, in fact they are seen as a way of adding road capacity. That means turn lanes would be added as a matter of course, even if a bike lane was not added.

That's another difference between us, to me the striping does not imply that at all. A solid line just means its not a "free for all" when it comes to lane changes. A better way of saying it is that a solid white line warns vehicle operators that they may or may not be allowed to cross. Its much like seeing a "no right turn" sign: it warns you that you can't freely turn right, but it may have a sign under it specifying days, time, or vehicle types allowed to turn.

I've always felt it clear that if a lane exists with a turn arrow then all vehicles must use that lane to turn. But hey, I'm weird: I actually read the Highway Traffic Act and the Ontario Driver's manual before I started cycling. I read owner's manuals for appliances too.

No we are not that different. I too know the law and the stripe does not tell me not to cross it on a bike - a solid white line is intended to discourage lane changes. But unfortunately we are different from the vast majority of drivers out there who think the BL means that bikes must stay in it. I've argued with otherwise well educated auto-centric co-workers about this - its gonna take a huge amount of public awareness work to change this.

Al

It seems that in your concerns 1 and 2 (definitely 2) that when a BL end, the extra pavement room does. Keep in mind that what I mean by a BL ending is that only the stripe ends and the lane becomes a WOL. The extra pavement room remains. When this happens I find that cars do not suddenly merge right and take up that extra pavement room, espeically if there is already a bike in the lane. Never should the pavement narrow when a BL ends.

While removing the pavement space is certainly a huge problem, I object to the BLs ending period. From what I have observed of local driver behaviour, psychologically the pavement is removed - they will squeeze me off the road if given a chance. They tend to position themselves between the magic lines in whatever way they prefer (right-biased, left-biased, or centred) and that's that, regardless of width of lane or the presence of cyclists. Alta Vista at Bank is a good example- about 100 feet or so from the intersection the bike lane stripe becomes dashed, and narrow towards the curb eliminating the bike lane over a space of 20 feet or so (from memory, haven't measured!). The pavement width stays the same, so effectively the general use lane becomes 3 feet wider. You can sit there on the sidewalk and watch the cars: they maintain the same distance from the curb as they had from the lane stripe. If that was six inches, its still six inches once the bike lane ends, cyclists be damned. Now the safe way to handle that is for the cyclist to merge into the general use lane well before the bike lane ends, and that's fine if you know what to expect. Since there are no "lane ends" signs or warnings, though, the effect on someone new to the intersection is "oh crap, the bike lane is vanishing!"

I don't want to overstate the problems here, Ottawa is a very safe city to cycle in and car-bike accidents are rare. However every other cyclist I speak to companies about the same problem- not enough passing clearance being given when sharing the lane, and far too many close calls. In contrast to that I find I get the most passing clearance on roads with NO lane stripes at all, like residential roads. It seems our drivers feel free to give you plenty of passing clearance as long as they don't have to cross any lines to do so.

In short, I see a bike lane as a traffic lane like any other. You don't abruptly stop a car lane, you normally post "lane ends" signs and logically merge it into the remaining lane(s). I likes the way an engineer at a recent open house for a major new corridor (car lanes + HOV/transit lanes + bike lanes + sidepaths) put it: "A lane is a lane, I draw them all the same. Some are wider or narrower, and paint jobs vary, but the planning is the same."

Alta Vista at Bank is a good example- about 100 feet or so from the intersection the bike lane stripe becomes dashed, and narrow towards the curb eliminating the bike lane over a space of 20 feet or so (from memory, haven't measured!). The pavement width stays the same, so effectively the general use lane becomes 3 feet wider. You can sit there on the sidewalk and watch the cars: they maintain the same distance from the curb as they had from the lane stripe.....

However every other cyclist I speak to companies about the same problem- not enough passing clearance being given when sharing the lane, and far too many close calls. In contrast to that I find I get the most passing clearance on roads with NO lane stripes at all, like residential roads. It seems our drivers feel free to give you plenty of passing clearance as long as they don't have to cross any lines to do so.

In short, I see a bike lane as a traffic lane like any other. You don't abruptly stop a car lane, you normally post "lane ends" signs and logically merge it into the remaining lane(s). ...

If the BL ends, the strip should end abrubtly, if it ends by being dashed and tapering toware the curb, I can see that guiding cars to merge right.

I find I get the most passing clearance when riding in WOLs on multilane roads, drivers track the dashed dividing line on their left between adjacent lanes. When there is a BL they tend to track the BL stripe, giving me less room.

Abruptly ending is not the right way to say it... As an example: If you have say two parallel direction car lanes 12ft wide separated by a line and the line ends, then you have 24ft wide pavement with no separating line. No merging negotiation is needed, no lane ends signs are needed.

Al

In the 2/3 of intersections where vehicles in the lane adjacent to the bus-only lane are allowed to turn right, are busses allowed to go straight from the bus-only lane, or are they required to turn right?
There may be an exception or two, but most or all busses go straight on Albert and Slater. They form the main east-west transit corridor through the downtown core, so its bumper-to-bumper buses on the bus lanes. I couldn't tell you, from memory, if and how many intersections have a right-turn green arrow before the green light.

OK, please confirm in the diagram below that if there is a car in position "A", a bus at position "B", and the light is red, that, after the car stops, it is allowed to turn right (on red) in front of the bus.

Then assume the light is green, but the bus is stopped for passengers at position "B". Is the car at "A" allowed to pass the bus and turn right in front of it? What happens if the the bus proceeds as the car starts passing it?

Do you see why I have a hard time believing that they allow cars to the left of the bus lane to turn right, when the buses in the bus lane are allowed to go straight?

Can you help me understand this? As soon as you do, I'll tie it back with the bike lane issue (hint: the conflict problem between right turning cars and buses headed straight illustrated by this diagram exists at all intersections with bike lanes where the bike lane proceeds to the intersection where the rightmost lane is straight-or-right).

Thanks,
Serge

Serge did you miss this. He said a bike lane tell a cyclist where to go. Isn't that your point. Bike lanes that continue to intersections more often than not tell a cyclist to go somewhere that is to the right of all the cars, some of which may in fact be turning right at the intersection.




Brian,

I have been paying attention. I'm sorry, but you have not convinced me that regional factors (particularly regions within the U.S.) play a significant role in determining whether a particular design is good or not.

And I will continue to reject the notion unless I am convinced otherwise. So far, I have not been. But that doesn't mean I'm beyond convincing.

Quote:A bike lane through an intersection at least tells a cyclist how to go straight. A WOL doesn't do that, and neither does a NOL.

I disagree. A BL provides no more useful go straight info than does a WOL or NOL. Going straight, is, well, going straight.

Quote:Furthermore, the reason a straight going cyclist may want the bike lane to extend through the intersection is so the cyclist does not have to merge with the line of traffic.

Here is where you apparently haven't been paying attention. The whole point is that the bike lane does NOT preclude the cyclist from having to merge with traffic. I'm not going to go into detail again... I just did a few posts back. If you disagree, please specify what exactly you think I missed or got wrong.

Serge did you miss this. He said a bike lane tell a cyclist where to go. Isn't that your point. Bike lanes that continue to intersections more often than not tell a cyclist to go somewhere that is to the right of all the cars, some of which may in fact be turning right at the intersection.
No, I didn't miss it. That's the point I was making when I said:



The whole point is that the bike lane does NOT preclude the cyclist from having to merge with traffic.

Yes, it tells him where to go... right where merging is required! So Brian's reason for a straight-going cyclist to want the bike lane -- so the cyclist does not have to merge with the line of traffic -- makes no sense to me.

Again, this applies in an intersection where the rightmost lane is straight-or-right (and the BL continues along the rightmost curb-edge) as well as in the so-called "good" design intersection where there is a right-only lane and the BL crosses from the right side, across the path of right-turners, into the BL to the left of the right only lane. In both types of intersections with bike lanes that extend through the intersection, the cyclist still must merge with/across right turning traffic. It's basic geometry: there is no way for two nonparallel lines in the same plane to not intersect.

The bike lane approach is to concentrate that intersection of the paths of the through cyclists with the right turning motorists at one point.

In the first case (BL to the right of right-or-straight lane), that point is at the main intersection. That generally works okay when the light is red and through cyclists have plenty of time to negotiate with right turning motorists. Where it gets dicey is when the light is green, and motorists pass the cyclist just before reaching the intersection, etc.: class setup for right hooks.

In the second case (BL to the left of right only lane), the path conflict is further back, concentrated at the point where the BL breaks temporarily as it guides cyclists from the edge of the road to the left of the right only lane. The obvious problem with this design is well known: the blue lane projects were experiments at trying to solve it, by making the conflict point more obvious (with blue paint).

What's missed by all these bike lane designs is that the ideal merge point changes dynamically from second to second depending on all kinds of factors and conditions, including traffic volume, speed and gaps, the cyclists's speed and abilities, etc. etc. You can't solve a dynamic problem with a static solution, and paint is a static solution..

In any case, a bike lane extending through the intersection does not alleviate the cyclist from having to merge with traffic. In fact, it makes it worse by guiding cyclists to merge at one particular point (be it at the intersection or at the BL break before it) which is very unlikely to be the optimal point at any given time.

Just to be clear on where we are, we're discussing the pros and cons of continuing bike lanes all the way to and across 4-way intersections (with no paint in the intersection itself, of course - at least I think no one is suggesting that).

I believe Al, Daily Commute, Gene and Keith agree with me that if you're going to have a bike lane, it's best to end it (in as sane a manner as possible) before you get to the 4-way intersection (though we may differ on whether simply changing the stripe from solid to striped, rather than just eliminating it, constitutes ending the BL, legally or practically).

Brian, Pat and Diane are arguing that running bike lanes to and across 4-way intersections can generally be good for cyclists.

Pardon me for omitting anyone else. It's not intentional (except for ILTB, whose position on anything except having strong negative emotions for John Forester remains a complete mystery to me).

With Pat I'm trying to figure out how the bus lanes in Ottawa are working in the hopes of illustrating the problem with bike lanes at intersections. That ball is back in Pat's court with my latest post that had a diagram of my understanding of they type of intersection he described attached to it.

With Brian I have two points of contention.
1) that regional factors matter in terms of determing whether a given intersection/BL design works or not (I say it's traffic volume and flow, independent of region).
2) Whether BLs that go through and across intersections alleviate cyclists from having to merge with traffic (I say they don't). See my latest post for this.

Actually, that 2nd point is ultimately the same issue I am discussing with Pat.

Al and Pat are having a related discussion about BL endings.

That's where I think this discussion is right now.
Additions/corrections are encouraged.

If the BL ends, the strip should end abrubtly, if it ends by being dashed and tapering toware the curb, I can see that guiding cars to merge right.

...
Abruptly ending is not the right way to say it... As an example: If you have say two parallel direction car lanes 12ft wide separated by a line and the line ends, then you have 24ft wide pavement with no separating line. No merging negotiation is needed, no lane ends signs are needed.

I probably did not pick a good example, but it was the only one that came to mind. By and large our bike lanes don't end before intersections, so I don't have a lot of example to pick from. We are clear on what we are discussing, though, we just differ on what is best and how that effects cycling. To me 2 lanes becoming one wider lane is at best pointless and most probably a big safety and ROW issue. I admit, thought that I have never liked the idea of sharing lanes; this is one behaviour that is very different between bikes and cars and the one I see as the most problematic. Thus I often avoid sharing the lane and I'll use a bike-lane or take the lane whenever practical.

Forget bike lanes for now, and imagine an intersection with two regular lanes, and the rightmost lane is straight or right. Adjacent lane is straight-only. No problem. Those that need to go right need to merge into the rightmost lane first. Those going straight can stay in the rightmost lane, or merge left. Either way works.

Now, change one thing: instead of straight-only, imagine the adjacent lane is changed to be straight-or-right, just like the rightmost lane. Now do you see the problem?

Now, change one more thing: convert the right most lane to be a bike-only lane (or a bus-only lane for that matter). Does that change the problem any? (I don't see how it does).

Serge

OK, please confirm in the diagram below that if there is a car in position "A", a bus at position "B", and the light is red, that, after the car stops, it is allowed to turn right (on red) in front of the bus.

I never said that it was allowed to run right on red. You did miss the bus lane being dashed near the intersection, and being solid before that.


Then assume the light is green, but the bus is stopped for passengers at position "B".

Bus stops are not situated at intersections.


Is the car at "A" allowed to pass the bus and turn right in front of it? What happens if the the bus proceeds as the car starts passing it? .... Do you see why I have a hard time believing that they allow cars to the left of the bus lane to turn right, when the buses in the bus lane are allowed to go straight?

You're assuming things outside of the context of your question. Your question was:

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?

I never said right turns were permitted from the second lane over, just that right turns are permitted at that intersections AND there is a bus lane as the right-most lane, as per your question. I also stated that I don't remember the specific signage and traffic light setup. I know we don't have transity-priority lights on those streets yet (vertical white bar above a green light); but some or all may have green right turn arrows before the green. I'll be downtown this weekend, if I have time I'll check the light setup.


As soon as you do, I'll tie it back with the bike lane issue (hint: the conflict problem between right turning cars and buses headed straight illustrated by this diagram exists at all intersections with bike lanes where the bike lane proceeds to the intersection where the rightmost lane is straight-or-right).

Thanks for your "hint", Serge, I never would have figured that out all by my lonesome. :rolleyes:

You're assuming things outside of the context of your question. Your question was:

I never said right turns were permitted from the second lane over, just that right turns are permitted at that intersections AND there is a bus lane as the right-most lane, as per your question. I also stated that I don't remember the specific signage and traffic light setup. I know we don't have transity-priority lights on those streets yet (vertical white bar above a green light); but some or all may have green right turn arrows before the green. I'll be downtown this weekend, if I have time I'll check the light setup.
:
Oh come on Pat, you know exactly what Serge was getting at and left specifics out to confuse the context.

All Serge wants to know is where are there any other type of vehicle/vehicle intersections where the inner lane allows go straight and the lane to its left allows go right and there is not some additional light controlled signaling to indicate who has the right of way.

Al

With Pat I'm trying to figure out how the bus lanes in Ottawa are working in the hopes of illustrating the problem with bike lanes at intersections. That ball is back in Pat's court with my latest post that had a diagram of my understanding of they type of intersection he described attached to it.

There is no ball, this is neither a game nor a competition (well, maybe it is in your mind). You asked for a specific example of something, and I gave it to you. I did not describe "bus lanes in Ottawa", I described specific bus lanes on specific streets. You also replied with assumptions of your own. I'm not playing your games, Serge, I've been down that road with you before. You asked for an example, I gave it to you, and provided additional info. That's as far as I am going with you.

Oh come on Pat, you know exactly what Serge was getting at and left specifics out to confuse the context.

No, I did not. I replied to the question as I understood it, in good faith. I am generally a very literal person, and respond to things as asked.

All Serge wants to know is where are there any other type of vehicle/vehicle intersections where the inner lane allows go straight and the lane to its left allows go right and there is not some additional light controlled signaling to indicate who has the right of way.

If that was what Serge wanted to know, he should have been more explicit.

Mind you, there is no issue of ROW in my specific example. All vehicles must yield to busses at all times, under city by-law. Under Ontario law through traffic has ROW over turning traffic unless otherwise signed. If that bus wants to go it has priority over the car, and the car driver should have no question about that.

I have enjoyed comparing notes with you, and I was planning to ask you about a specific alternative (in short bike lanes continue to the intersecton but the stop line in the bike lane occurs before the stop line for cars.... a reverse bike-box, I guess). I think, however, that if I gave the impression of a bad faith post and if Serge is about to twist that to have his way, it is time to admit my error in joining this thread and I should move on.

There is a good reason that car drivers right hooking other car drivers is a relatively rare type of collision. Why? Because intersections are designed to preclude this type of collision. How? By never allowing right turns from the lane adjacent to the rightmost lane, unless the rightmost lane is right-only. This principle precludes right turning car drivers from turning right into, or in front of, car drivers going straight. Now, of course, a driver may still illegally turn right from the adjacent lane, but this can only happen with a blatant disregard for the law.

There is a good reason that car drivers right hooking bicyclists is a relatively common type of collision. Why? Because most intersections are not designed to preclude this type of collision (the ones that are have a right only lane, and a BL to the left of the right only lane).

Most intersections have a rightmost vehicular lane that is straight-or-right (or left-straight-or-right -- the most common type on most two-lane roads), or right only with no BL to the left of it. In these intersections if a bike lane goes all the way to the intersection it runs alongside the right edge or curb of the rightmost lane. If there is no explicit bike lane, there is an area along the right edge where most cyclists ride (along the right edge), regardless of whether they are going straight or turning right. Although many cyclists have the sense to get out of the right only lane if they are going straight even when there is no BL to the left of the right only lane, all too many cyclists continue in the right only lane and go straight from it. And even if they get out of the right only lane, if the adjacent lane is straight or right, if they ride along the right edge of that lane, or on the stripe between the two lanes, they are still vulnerable to being right hooked by a motorist to the left of them who turns right from the adjacent lane.

Everyone with me so far? I don't think I said anything controversial up to this point.

So, the principle used in intersection design that practically eliminates the possibility of vehicle drivers right hooking other vehicle drivers does not apply in these types of intersections to bicyclists who are not acting as vehicle drivers (vehicular cyclists are protected the same as other vehicle drivers - from all but those who drive with blatant disregard for the law), including cyclists riding in bike lanes.

Does ending the bike lane prior to the intersection eliminate the possibility of cyclists being right hooked? Of course not. First of all, cyclists typically continue riding along the right edge, thus putting them to the right of right turners - which is the condition that underlies the cause of such collisions. But at least the bike lane misguiding cyclists to keep to the right (and to the right of right turners) would not be there. A sign instructing through bike lane cyclists to merge left out of the "right turn zone" would probably be very helpful.

But I don't see how any design at such an intersection (assume BL to the left of the right only lane is not an option) is better for cyclists with a bike lane than without.

Can anyone describe a bike lane design at such an intersection which does not have the problem of guiding cyclists to ride to the right of right turners and thus leaving them vulnerable to right hooks?


In short, I see a bike lane as a traffic lane like any other.
But a bike lane (at intersections) is not a traffic lane like any other, and cannot be. It cannot be because it has to do one of two things that a normal vehicular traffic lane would never do:

Put through travelers (cyclists) to the right of right turners (motorists who are reluctant to merge into the BL because of its relative narrowness and shoulder-like appearance), OR
Cross the path of another lane (in the case of a BL that goes from the side of the road to a space to the left of the right only lane)


Because a bike lane cannot be a regular traffic lane at intersections, all you can do is end it prior to the intersection by merging it with the adjacent lane. This is treating a bike lane like any other in the sense that normal lanes do this whenever the number of lanes is reduced.

Serge

I never said that it was allowed to run right on red. You did miss the bus lane being dashed near the intersection, and being solid before that.


I never said right turns were permitted from the second lane over, just that right turns are permitted at that intersections AND there is a bus lane as the right-most lane, as per your question.
OK, that makes more sense.

So, at intersections, right turning cars are allowed (required?) to merge into the bus lane, yielding to any buses in the bus lane, prior to turning right?


You're assuming things outside of the context of your question. Your question was:



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?

Mea Culpa. Now I see the problem with how I worded my original question and why we had a disconnect for so many posts. I'm so sorry! My unstated assumption was that the specialized rightmost lane did not allow non-specialized vehicles in it.

In California, when the rightmost lane is specialized (bus lane, bike lane, etc.), other vehicles are not only allowed, but are required to merge into it prior to turning right. Sounds like Ottawa is the same. Makes sense.

The problem is that in practice this concept does not work nearly as well for bike lanes as it does for full width specialized lanes. Why? Because while car drivers are comfortable merging into a full width lane to make the turn (and, in fact are understandably uncomfortable with turning right without merging into the lane first), they are reluctant to merge into the bike lane (which narrowness makes it easy to treat like a shoulder), even when the stripes are dashed, especially (ironically) when cyclists are present, thus leaving right turning motorists at intersections to the left of going-straight cyclists in the bike lane... the perfect recipe for right hooks.

The only solution I can think of to the problem of motorists treating the bike lane stripe as an edge stripe (that they won't cross) is by eliminating the stripe (and bike lane) altogether.