Advocacy & Safety - Bike lanes

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.
...
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.
Oh no, I appologize - I wasn't accusing of bad faith, more curious as to perhaps why it wasn't more clear what Serge was getting at.

I've been wanting to say this: This lengthy disucssion for me is not about winning or loosing a debate, its about learning, understanding, getting different viewpoints about BL, WOL, etc. I would say since this has started I have learned a lot and have changed opinions and ideas about where and what factilities should be where. I have also enjoyed the variety of viewpoints and personalities and find that 95% of folks here come with good intention and desired to contributes.

Edit: I just also read more recent post and also found that the right most bus only lane does allow non-buses to merge into it if making a right turn. Makes sense.

Al

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).



I would make my agreement a bit qualified. I favor ending a bikelane that gives cyclists the impression they are protected that is to the right of a lane where cars can leagally turn right.

That for sure means ending any solid line bike lane or routing it so that it is now to the left of right turning cars.

I also have a question. Do any of you think something like "Beware of right turning cars" in the bike lane before an intersection would help. Perhaps the phrasing can be improved. The point is that a significant percentage of those who do get caught by a right hook are totally unaware that it can happen.

I'm more and more becoming convinced that bike lanes can be used to teach, at least a little bit.

I would make my agreement a bit qualified. I favor ending a bikelane that gives cyclists the impression they are protected that is to the right of a lane where cars can leagally turn right.

That for sure means ending any solid line bike lane or routing it so that it is now to the left of right turning cars.

I also have a question. Do any of you think something like "Beware of right turning cars" in the bike lane before an intersection would help. Perhaps the phrasing can be improved. The point is that a significant percentage of those who do get caught by a right hook are totally unaware that it can happen.

I'm more and more becoming convinced that bike lanes can be used to teach, at least a little bit.
I agree with the qualifications. But like I've said before a lane to the left of right turn lanes doesn't help, a WOTL is all that is needed.

I don't like the idea of sign that says 'beware of right turning cars'. I believe that no straight going cyclist should ever be to the right of right turning cars. It is bad positioning and should never be encouraged, warning signs or not. Problem is not matter how beware you are you can never tell what car is turning right and you can never tell if a driver sees you or not. The only thing you can do is be behind the car that might be turnign right and that means behind the line of all cars. (yes, some cyclists will ride down BL and get in front of first car, but many times this causes one to block the x-walk or stick into x-traffic - also in the process of getting there you never know in a right turn on red legal place if car may turn right). So if any 'teaching' should be going on it is getting cyclists out of the BL when it places them to the right of possiblily turning cars - this should be definitely done on busy multilane streets where right turns are common, but also on smaller residential streets like earlier pictured since the BL here teaches bad habits in a situation where it is easier (less and slower traffic) to learn to merge to center of lane to go straight.

Al

I'm more and more becoming convinced that bike lanes can be used to teach, at least a little bit.
The problem, again, is that bike lanes can only prescribe a particular static path for cyclists to follow which is teaching exactly the wrong thing about traffic cycling. Traffic cycling involves a lot of lateral lane movements, particularly at intersections. But where those movements must be made varies with the current factors and conditions, something a traffic engineer with a can of paint can never anticipate correctly.

A sign alerting cyclists of certain dangers might have some value, though limited in practice by how little cyclists obey the laws in general, much less bother to read signs.

By the way, I much prefer something like,

"Through cyclists: merge left", or
"Cyclists: use the full lane"

to: "Beware of right turning cars"

Will that cause cyclists to look back behind them, which is often what is required to see the right turning car before it's too late (if you're riding so far right as to be vulnerable to a right hook in the first place). I suggest a better approach is to encourage the cyclists to select a lane position that discourages (though can never eliminate) right hook behavior: merge left.

...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.
Not to worry, the ring master of this angel-dancing-circus will fill in your thoughts for you.

The reason a bike lane must end before an intersection is to give fair warning to all drivers of cyclists and motor vehicles that the two tupes of traffics MUST prepare to interact. Without the merge, we have th eawkward situation of cars turning right from the second to the right lane while crossing in front of a non-turning cyclist. Since the general rules of traffic do not permit a right turn from a left lane unless the lanes farther to the right are right turn only. the bike lane cannot continue.

This is one of the reasons why I argue that bike lanes generally don't belong on roads with lots of intersections.

For the most part, this is an interesting debate. I started out (a couple years ago) being pro-bike lane. After reading both sides, I became strongly anti-bike lane. Now, I'm closer to genec's position--bike lanes have a valid use on high speed/low intersection roads (again, genec, please correct me if I am wrong about your position). I thinkone of the most useful ways to debate the subject is to take a pictue of a particular stretch of road, then debate what would be appropriate there. It looks like y'all have been doing more of that recently.

On a final note, I can't participate in this debate with the frequency and intensity of many of you, so I apologize if I'm rehashing something from a few pages ago.

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.

Incidentally, there are other ways of ensuring that bikes don't miss a light cycle even if bike lanes are not present. Bike boxes, bike-priority traffic lights, and signage can all be used for that purpose.

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.

I think I mentioned before, but a problem in Ottawa is that bike lanes are inconsistent: some become dashed before the intersection, others do not regardless of the presence of a right-turn lane. I checked the draft Ottawa Cycling Plan, and it shows the lane being striped for 15m before the intersection if cars must turn right from a lane to the left of the bike lane.

In general I still don't see this as a problem (here) in practise. Based on observations:

1- In most cases of major road/major road intersections, right turn lanes or ramps exist to the outside of the bike lane, so there is no right turn across the bike lane.

2- If there is no space for a right-turn lane/ramp or traffic density didn't justify one, two options exist:


A- Allow cars to merge into the bike lane to turn. If you're on the road, bike lane or otherwise, you should be able to handle lane changes. This should not be a significant problem.


B- Cars turn right in front of the bike lane. There is a lot of room to do this. Say stop line + gap + crosswalk + space between crosswalk and physical intersection... that has to be at least 8-10 feet, perhaps much more.

So while I don't think its desirable or ideal to have cars turn right in front of a bike lane (or any other special use lane), I don't think it is particularly problematic given the space involved vs. the width of a bike lane, and the ability to merge into most special use lanes at intersections.

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

Speaking of regional differences, I don't think Ottawa has any 7-lane roads! Possible exceptions are some stretches of the Queensway, if you include lanes leading to on/off ramps... but since that's a 400-series highway (417, part of the Trans-Canada Highway) bikes are not allowed on it anyway.

I would agree that once you talk about freeways, roads with more than 2 or 3 lanes, etc. its a whole other kettle of fish. But those are not situations I am familiar with. To us its been a big deal to consider a new arterial with three lanes in each direction - one of them being a bike lane. As the 4th largest city in Canada our population is about 800,000 with a low population density.

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?

Allowed yes, required I'm not sure. I don't travel east-west through downtown very often, and when I do I seldom have any reason to use the busiest roads. My thoughts:

The Highway Traffic Act, IIRC, leaves special use lane regulations up to cities. A quick glance through city by-laws does not show a requirement to merge into a special-use lane, but it is allowed. At a quick read the by-laws state that (paraphrasing) you may merge or stop in a bus lane, HOV lane, or bike IF:

1- you are merging near the intersection to make a right turn, or a left turn on a one-way street
2- you are a cab stopping to pick up or drop off passengers (45 sec. limit)
3- you are picking up or dropping off people with mobility limitations
4- there is an emergency

Any signage at the intersection would obviously have priority over these general rules. Since the HTA states that right turns must be made from a right-turn lane if one exists and otherwise from the rightmost lane, I would read that to mean you must merge if merging is allowed at that specific intersection.

Oh no, I appologize - I wasn't accusing of bad faith, more curious as to perhaps why it wasn't more clear what Serge was getting at.

No appologies needed. As to reason, my brain just works that way. Typical conversation:

My life-partner, "Is there any sugar left for coffee?"
Me, "No." (without thought)
<pause>
LP, "Hey, there's a full bag of sugar in the pantry!"
Me, "Uhm yeah, I was thinking of the sugar bowl we use for coffee."
LP, :mad:


I've been wanting to say this: This lengthy disucssion for me is not about winning or loosing a debate, its about learning, understanding, getting different viewpoints about BL, WOL, etc.

I agree. I also don't think there is a "right" answer - what works in one area could be a deathtrap elsewhere. For that matter what may appear to be a bad design at a quick glance may be the best compromise among several bad options.

I am also amused to see the background assumptions here, including my own. 7-lane highways are out of my frame of reference is a cyclist... it never occurred to me to extend the bike lane at intersections discussion to more than 1x1, 2x2 or at worst 2x3 lane intersections.

I am not amused, however, by the amount of time I have just spent on this forum. I have better things to do than spend a Sunday morning on-line.

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:

What the heck, I might as well. Starting tomorrow, though, I really am backing off this thread. I'll be too busy to properly read and respond anyway. Brian's words in black, mine in blue:

BL characteristics:
1) Easy for beginners to use.
2) Keeps cyclists lane-separated from car traffic while still being integrated into traffic (as oppposed to pathways or sidewalks).
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.
7) Generally requires fewer lane mergers and similar interactions with cars.
8) Generally pavement in better condition.
9) Allows the cyclist to move at a speed independent of car traffic (sometimes faster).

I removed #3. I think a cyclist is pretty much as "directly" in line of sight in a bike lane as sharing the lane in a WOL given a similar position ahead/behind the car.

WOL characteristics:
1) Cyclists are not given direction - completely passive road facility.
1 a) Car drivers are not given direction WRT cyclists.
2) No shelter from same direction traffic.
3) Right side naturally cleared of debris.
4) No design for intersections necessary. But increased conflict with cyclist who share the lane.
5) Not attractive to beginners without training.
6) Cars naturally pass with less room.
7) ROW is not as clear.

I changed #6 to read "pass with less room" instead of more room, since that seems to be the case here more often that not.

Patc you mentioned an interesting situation... that of the non-occurrence of multi-laned high speed roads in your area. This is specifically the kind of road I want to address (Yes DC, this is exactly what I am addressing). I believe the lower speed roads pose little problem for cyclists... and those that are still learning can so on the 25MPH typical residential streets, before moving up to the 35/40MPH arterials.

But even Forester et. al. recognize that only the highest skill level cyclists can negotiate with high speed dense traffic... and it is in those areas, that I feel that bike lanes offer the same provisions as a mountain passing grade road to big trucks... their physical characteristics do not allow said trucks to merge and blend with the higher speed motor vehicle traffic on the mountain passes any more than bicycle characteristics allow cyclists to merge with traffic moving at near hiway speeds... roads of 45MPH and above that are becoming (sadly) common arterials in the US. (but not apparently in Ottawa, yet.) I also feel that the same applies to steep fast roads... and again use the mountain grade example (which aptly applies here).

By limiting BL to these roads, we can get access and planning to work on making these BL the best they can be, and they can also be properly marked and signed in the best manner possible. (rather then excess paint and signage going to waste and using tax dollars on 25MPH type BL). I also believe this is very consistent with the "Bike Friendly" designs and motivation.

BL everywhere just don't buy us anything but political glad-handing... BL properly designed and in use in critical areas offer us a means of use of otherwise difficult passages.

Sorry... been offline for a few days... workload has been especially high... Will try to keep up with the reading, and I believe that we do seem to be coming to common ground on several ideas. That is progress.

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

I have been spending much too much time on this, so I will fade to the background for the time being. However, I want to clear this up.

Regional differences:

1) Portland west side has no grid of arterials. We have 3 or 4 main roads (not including a couple of limited access freeways. The city itself is also smaller. We can afford to parcel out lanes to drivers going in each direction at almost all major intersections. Pheonix, with its arterial grid, cannot.

2) Serge, somewhere here mentioned "it is not regional differences, it is differences in road design and traffic volume," or something to that affect. Since road design and traffic volume are all different on a regional level, this is simply saying the same thing. Yes, you can put a Pheonix style road and import Pheonix style drivers in Pheonix style numbers into the Beaverton area, but we don't. This is a regional difference.

3) Driving style changes from region to region. Face it, some drivers from some cities are more aggressive than drivers in different cities.

4) Terrain is different on a regional basis. Pheonix is perfectly flat. Portland has two rivers and many large hills. Seattle has very short steep hills and a bay. This affects how roads are built and arranged, and subsequently, how bicyclists should be taken into account.

5) City planning differs from city to city. If a city has many bike lanes, then bike lanes are most likely to be a better solution, if only for consistency's sake. Likewise, if there are many WOL's, then WOL's may get the nod.

6) Climate differs from region to region. If there is never fog or heavy rain, then absolute visibility is not much of an issue.

7) Straightness of roads differs in different cities. Some cities are built on a grid. Roads are ram rod straight. Beaverton and the greater Portland west side has an agricultural background. The roads wind and follow old agricultural land boundaries.

I could go on and on. Serge has not told us anything about where he is from so we can more fully assertain any regional distinctions which bias the arguments from him. I suggested that we explore this more fully, and instead get back a bunch of assertions instead of a reasoned response. This misunderstanding between patc and others about the non-existance of 7 lane roads in Ottowa is the perfect example of the regional differences I was refering to, and I believe for the debate to go forward and break new ground, these regional differences need to be addressed. Part of the logic behind defining the characteristics of each facility is to go further and define situations where each of the characteristics become helpful or harmful, and subsequently where one facility becomes better suited to the situation than the other.

I will end on one last thought. There is no "correct" solution to a philosophical problem. This debate is not to determine the "winning" solution, BL, WOL or NOL because the debate is based on people's opinions and on ideas which cannot be completely defined in the in practice. A philosophy professor once told my class that a philosophical argument is one in which there is no way to accertain the absolute truth. This is clearly a philosophical argument; both in the sense that we are going about this, not as a scientist, but as philosophers, and in the sense that it is really difficult, if not impossible, to take measure of the facts that we are basing our arguments on.

What this debate does is define a problem - in this case, the problem is of an average cyclist getting around on city streets. Either one of the proposed solutions (for instance, BL or WOL) is okay to implement, and both are definitely possible because both have been proven in practice. The choice of the solution is a political issue and will ultimately be made on a local basis with a show of hands, not on the basis of any grand logic. I've learned a lot here, and I, for one, plan in the near future to get more involved in the planning of roads. I hope the other participants do as well.

The problem, again, is that bike lanes can only prescribe a particular static path for cyclists to follow which is teaching exactly the wrong thing about traffic cycling. Traffic cycling involves a lot of lateral lane movements, particularly at intersections. But where those movements must be made varies with the current factors and conditions, something a traffic engineer with a can of paint can never anticipate correctly.

A sign alerting cyclists of certain dangers might have some value, though limited in practice by how little cyclists obey the laws in general, much less bother to read signs.

By the way, I much prefer something like,

"Through cyclists: merge left", or
"Cyclists: use the full lane"

to: "Beware of right turning cars"

Will that cause cyclists to look back behind them, which is often what is required to see the right turning car before it's too late (if you're riding so far right as to be vulnerable to a right hook in the first place). I suggest a better approach is to encourage the cyclists to select a lane position that discourages (though can never eliminate) right hook behavior: merge left.

I don't favor anything printed in the bike lane. Other than two large words, like "bike lane", or even "share the road", I think the message of more words will be lost to someone trying to be aware of their surroundings on the road. I would have to disagree with Serge on looking back to see if a car will be turning right. In my experience, about half of the vehicles actually use their turn signals, so all we'd be doing is checking for vehicles behind us. It would seem that position in the lane would be the best bet at intersections.

However, I want to clear this up.

Regional differences:

Of course there are regional differences, like you have outlined - I have often noted in this lengthy thread about them being a factor. But what I was refering to is that for this specific case, the photograph of a 4-way 2 lane intersection, we are not talking about regional differences - as every city I am aware of has these standard traditional 4-way intersection.

Al

I am also amused to see the background assumptions here, including my own. 7-lane highways are out of my frame of reference is a cyclist... it never occurred to me to extend the bike lane at intersections discussion to more than 1x1, 2x2 or at worst 2x3 lane intersections.

A 7-lane road for me means a road with 3 lanes that travel in each direction and a shared turn lane in the middle. Perhaps you refer to this as a 3 three lane road?

And of course we have 2 lane, 4 lane, etc. roads here as well. I find that BL in the vicinity of any type of intersection, high speed, rural, residential, urban, etc. is a bad idea (but don't have issue if the BL is designed such that it goes to the left of a right turn only lane.)

Al

1- In most cases of major road/major road intersections, right turn lanes or ramps exist to the outside of the bike lane, so there is no right turn across the bike lane.

2- If there is no space for a right-turn lane/ramp or traffic density didn't justify one, two options exist:


A- Allow cars to merge into the bike lane to turn. If you're on the road, bike lane or otherwise, you should be able to handle lane changes. This should not be a significant problem.


B- Cars turn right in front of the bike lane. There is a lot of room to do this. Say stop line + gap + crosswalk + space between crosswalk and physical intersection... that has to be at least 8-10 feet, perhaps much more.

So while I don't think its desirable or ideal to have cars turn right in front of a bike lane (or any other special use lane), I don't think it is particularly problematic given the space involved vs. the width of a bike lane, and the ability to merge into most special use lanes at intersections.

Case 1: No problem with the BL, not needed, but at least it does not create a hazard to the cyclist.
Case 2A: Sure in theory, the car should merge, but then at minimum the BL stripe should be dashed (often is as you point out) but I find the dashing starts way to late. It is far safer for straight going cyclsits to get into the center of the lane, which means to the left of the dashed line. Otherwise they will get squeezed right by the next driver than comes.
Case 2B: This is fine if the light is red and there is one car that comes and pulls in front of cyclist, then turns. But as soon as the situation becomes dynamic, say the light suddenly turns green, there is a very confusing situation that results and driver/cyclist are not sure who should go first. I've first hand watched car and bike hit each other from this.

I really don't like the suggestion that is OK to have straight going cyclist to right of car - the suggetion that its a situation that can be negotiated by both parties - yes if both parties are paying attention it can work. Unfortuntunately it is not always clear who has right of way, and if both parties are aware of situation. Instead have the cyclist behind or to the left of right going cars, its works so smoothly than no special considerations are needed.

Al

A 7-lane road for me means a road with 3 lanes that travel in each direction and a shared turn lane in the middle. Perhaps you refer to this as a 3 three lane road?Al

Speaking of regional differences, here we go again.

In everyday conversations, I have heard both "6 lane highway" and "3 lane highway" used to refer to a road with three lanes in each direction. On all the recent city documents I have read, this is referred to as a 3 lane highway, with turn lanes etc. not counted. Regardless, an arterial has to be very important in Ottawa to become a 3 lane road for any significant length. On the other hand we seem fond of 2 and 3 lane one-ways.

Whats more amusing is the n+x designation I have seen a few times now, all the more so because it seems to be inconsistent. For example the new Alta Vista corridor has been referred to as 2-lane, 3-lane, 1+1, and 1+2! All these to refer to a road with one general lane, one mixed HOV and bus lane, and a bike lane (in each direction). Apparently they can't decide if the bike lane counts or not!

Case 2A: Sure in theory, the car should merge, but then at minimum the BL stripe should be dashed (often is as you point out) but I find the dashing starts way to late.

I think I mentioned this before, but the new standard is dashing for 15m before the intersections. I don't really have an opinion on 15m vs. another length, but at least new bike lanes will be consistent.



I really don't like the suggestion that is OK to have straight going cyclist to right of car - the suggetion that its a situation that can be negotiated by both parties - yes if both parties are paying attention it can work.

I understand your objection in principal, and I agree that the ideal is to move the cyclist left of right-turners by some method. In practise, however, we don't seem to have a significant problem with cars hitting cyclists on right turns. This could be a function of the location of this type of intersection: either on low-traffic roads, or busy downtown roads with slow moving traffic.

From a personal standpoint I stick to the bike lane (assuming I chose to use it) and just deal with right-turning cars to my left. From the safety standpoint, I have not had any close-calls in this situation. From the convenience standpoint merging left on a busy road means time and hassle with drivers who seem very unwilling to let anyone merge. I really don't find it practical to merge left at intersections, and think the required wait, negotiation, and merge is far less safe than just staying in the bike lane and watching for right-turners. Safety being roughly equal I'll pick the more pleasant ride any day.

Just FYI I would say I use a bike-lane, when available, about 75% of the time. I find the ride more pleasant, and usually can maintain a higher speed with fewer total negotiations. The other 25% of the time I avoid the bike lane either because its unsafe for one reason or another or it would complicate my trip (e.g. why get into it if a block later I need to turn left, it would just add an extra lane change).

Speaking of regional differences, here we go again.

In everyday conversations, I have heard both "6 lane highway" and "3 lane highway" used to refer to a road with three lanes in each direction. On all the recent city documents I have read, this is referred to as a 3 lane highway, with turn lanes etc. not counted. Regardless, an arterial has to be very important in Ottawa to become a 3 lane road for any significant length. On the other hand we seem fond of 2 and 3 lane one-ways.

Whats more amusing is the n+x designation I have seen a few times now, all the more so because it seems to be inconsistent. For example the new Alta Vista corridor has been referred to as 2-lane, 3-lane, 1+1, and 1+2! All these to refer to a road with one general lane, one mixed HOV and bus lane, and a bike lane (in each direction). Apparently they can't decide if the bike lane counts or not!
This confusion is abound on these forums as well. I used to write a '3-lane in each direction' or a '3-same way lane' road, etc. but found it more convienient to write '7 lane road' since the road has 7 lanes and it i jn calling it a 7 lane road, it doesn't matter if one goes in one direction and 6 in the other, its still a 7 lane road. I've never included the BL as a lane.


Al

Al

I think I mentioned this before, but the new standard is dashing for 15m before the intersections. I don't really have an opinion on 15m vs. another length, but at least new bike lanes will be consistent.

I understand your objection in principal, and I agree that the ideal is to move the cyclist left of right-turners by some method. In practise, however, we don't seem to have a significant problem with cars hitting cyclists on right turns. This could be a function of the location of this type of intersection: either on low-traffic roads, or busy downtown roads with slow moving traffic.

From a personal standpoint I stick to the bike lane (assuming I chose to use it) and just deal with right-turning cars to my left. From the safety standpoint, I have not had any close-calls in this situation. From the convenience standpoint merging left on a busy road means time and hassle with drivers who seem very unwilling to let anyone merge. I really don't find it practical to merge left at intersections, and think the required wait, negotiation, and merge is far less safe than just staying in the bike lane and watching for right-turners. Safety being roughly equal I'll pick the more pleasant ride any day.

Just FYI I would say I use a bike-lane, when available, about 75% of the time. I find the ride more pleasant, and usually can maintain a higher speed with fewer total negotiations. The other 25% of the time I avoid the bike lane either because its unsafe for one reason or another or it would complicate my trip (e.g. why get into it if a block later I need to turn left, it would just add an extra lane change).
15m is way too short, I often merge right 100m before the intersection if there is a gap in traffic, but sometime 10m, sometimes 50m. Its dynamic and depends on traffic flow and where the gaps are.

I watch many cyclists stay to the right in the BL when there is mixed straight/right traffic. Sure it works most of the time, but from what I've observed is often too close for comfort, cars hesitating, cyclists hesitating, unsure of who goes first, sudden braking, etc. Even on low volume 25mph roads. In fact this past weekend I was on a group ride of three, leading, we were in a BL on a 30mph road, approaching an intersection with red light, three cars waiting, two with right turn signals on, I merged into primary lane well before to line up behind the three cars. One of the two cyclists behind me continued in the BL (which was dashed for last 5m), just as they came slowing to the stop line the light turned green. First car went straight, second started turn, saw cyclist, hesitated, cyclists hesitated, yelled, braked hard, car stopped, cyclist went on way to right of car. Sure it all worked fine in the end, but from what I observed from my position safely in line of traffic was that it created a situation with a much higher risk of an accident and caused unneccesary stress for both cyclist and motorist. Why this type of negotiation is a better solution for any type of road (fast, slow, dense, light) than simply ending the BL before the intersection I just can't understand. Sure the same situation could and does happen without a BL, but without the line (which is done here sometimes), right turning cars will tend to merge further to the right, not being afraid to cross dashed or solid line, and cyclists will not be enouraged to pass on right in what is perceived as a 'safely separated' area.

Al

Patc, noisebeam and others... It is with interest that I note that many of us leave bikelanes that either don't work for us, or that we find poorly designed.

I have a feeling that ole Helmet Head would respond to this as pointing to the exact situations that new cyclists do not respond well to... the new cyclists might probably stay right in those BL and thus be put right into bad situations (such as drain grates, right hooks, and dangerous intersections).

This may be the reason that many anti-BL advocates jump on the bandwagon about BL in the first place.

I think these particular areas need special treatment... obviously we do not want BL going into drain grates, but other issues might require special signage... such as telling a cyclist to move into a different or particular lane. Patc doesn't have right hook problems, but mentions that there are some odd intersections... these need signage just like hiways have reduced speed signs and trucks merging signs and even lane narrowing arrows. If we think of the city streets (especially arterials) as cyclist "hiways" then the bike lanes should be as marked as motor vehicle hiways.

Skilled cyclists will have few problems on typical city streets, but newer cyclists need more guidance... and in fact, are probabaly not skilled drivers with traffic experience either.

I watch many cyclists stay to the right in the BL when there is mixed straight/right traffic. Sure it works most of the time, but from what I've observed is often too close for comfort, cars hesitating, cyclists hesitating, unsure of who goes first, sudden braking, etc.

Interesting, I've not observed that here.


In fact this past weekend I was on a group ride of three, leading, we were in a BL on a 30mph road, approaching an intersection with red light, three cars waiting, two with right turn signals on, I merged into primary lane well before to line up behind the three cars. One of the two cyclists behind me continued in the BL (which was dashed for last 5m), just as they came slowing to the stop line the light turned green. First car went straight, second started turn, saw cyclist, hesitated, cyclists hesitated, yelled, braked hard, car stopped, cyclist went on way to right of car.

Hmm, to me this seems so clear, I wonder why there was a conflict. Straight traffic has ROW, the car driver should not have started turn and the cyclist should not have hesitated to continue (I admit that in practise when a car comes toward you its not time to debate ROW!). The car driver should also have been on the lookout for pedestrian traffic at the intersection before beginning the turn. If I understood you correctly, I see the problem here not being the position of the cyclist on the bike lane but the driver being inattentive to his/her duties.

Of course the argument can be made that we have to deal with the reality of traffic, not just the theory (eg. the inability of Ottawa drivers to share the lane safely). In general, though, I prefer to deal with the root cause of a problem and not the symptom. IMO the above case calls for education for both cyclist and driver. While the bike lane position may be undesirable the ROW is not ambiguous and anyone confused by it is at fault.

(I am assuming here similar ROW rules to ours, and no special signage at that intersection).

Interesting, I've not observed that here.

Hmm, to me this seems so clear, I wonder why there was a conflict. Straight traffic has ROW, the car driver should not have started turn and the cyclist should not have hesitated to continue (I admit that in practise when a car comes toward you its not time to debate ROW!). The car driver should also have been on the lookout for pedestrian traffic at the intersection before beginning the turn. If I understood you correctly, I see the problem here not being the position of the cyclist on the bike lane but the driver being inattentive to his/her duties.

I find is surprising you dont' have the issue with the right hook as I described. I understand its one of the most common cyclist/car issues - I read about right hooks all the time on these forums. But they are also one of the easiest situations to avoid: Don't ride to the right of cars that are potentially turning right.

As to the clarity of the situation... How could the driver see the cyclist if the cyclist is 2-5m back behind car moving forward as light turns green? This means the car would be (and was) in cyclist path when in process of turning and cyclist would have hit them. Are car drivers now supposed to look behind them to their right before turning, if so how far behind them, far enough to notice a cyclist going 5mph, 15mph, 30mph? I think the car driver was peforming all duties and being careful, no one was in direct path, no one driectly to their right (next to passenger window), they turn, wham, they hit a cyclist who was just behind them in BL. Of course cyclist yelped and everyone hit brakes just in time and cyclist proceeded to drivers right, squeezing by in area between curb and car as car was already angled part way into turn.

Al

I have a feeling that ole Helmet Head would respond to this as pointing to the exact situations that new cyclists do not respond well to... the new cyclists might probably stay right in those BL and thus be put right into bad situations (such as drain grates, right hooks, and dangerous intersections).

A new cyclist - and I was one not long ago, and am still relatively new - is much like a new car driver. He/she will make many mistakes. We can't focus road design only on the new cyclist any more than we can focus only on the young able-bodied "I can handle any traffic" types. Roads must meet the needs of as many users as possible as conveniently and safely as possible. In fact this is one of the most fundamental flaws in the arguments used by the bike-lane hating crowd: the lack a comprehensive approach to road design.

If any identifiable segment of the population can not use a transportation facility from any given points A to B, then the facility is less than ideal and we should strive to find a better design.



This may be the reason that many anti-BL advocates jump on the bandwagon about BL in the first place.

I'm more jaded. I think people jump on bandwagons because they can't be bothered to form their own reasoned opinions and/or they get an ego-trip out of arguing a dogmatic view.


Patc doesn't have right hook problems, but mentions that there are some odd intersections... these need signage just like hiways have reduced speed signs and trucks merging signs and even lane narrowing arrows. If we think of the city streets (especially arterials) as cyclist "hiways" then the bike lanes should be as marked as motor vehicle hiways.

That comment really stands out to me, due to local planning. The proposed municipal plan is a "spine" system of "cycling freeways" linking neighbourhoods, business areas, malls, etc. In this context bike lanes and other cycling facilities are not being presented as tools for new cyclists or as ways to get us "off the road". Rather they are proposed as ways to enable us to travel faster, on roadways maintained to a higher standard, and with the occasional extra help a cyclist may need. In some cases, for example, problematic intersections may include bike boxes with advanced turn signals for cyclists. In other cases merely signage to remind drivers to watch for cyclists.

I've mentioned that Alta Vista corridor a few times, mostly since its a hot news item locally and, being an entirely new proposal, represents what the city wants in roadways (as opposed to old designs or compromises made due to lack of space). First the HOV/bus lane and bike lane were required in the design to meet the goal of 30% of commuters travelling by means other than a personal car by the year 2020. Secondly the bike lane was required because it was acknowledged that a significant number of cyclists would not feel comfortable using a high-speed corridor without one. Finally it was decided that the intersections had to be particularly cyclist-friendly because they would all be complex intersection with bus pull-over areas, etc. Could this road be designed with NO cycling facilities at all? Sure, but I doubt many cyclists would use it. As the design stands, some cyclist are predicting fender-to-fender traffic. (Assuming the thing ever gets built, but that's another story. :rolleyes: )

A new cyclist - and I was one not long ago, and am still relatively new - is much like a new car driver. He/she will make many mistakes. We can't focus road design only on the new cyclist any more than we can focus only on the young able-bodied "I can handle any traffic" types. Roads must meet the needs of as many users as possible as conveniently and safely as possible. In fact this is one of the most fundamental flaws in the arguments used by the bike-lane hating crowd: the lack a comprehensive approach to road design.



The big difference between the new cyclist and the new auto driver is that the new cyclist is NOT required to get some basic traing first... hence my arguments quite some time ago that perhaps a bike license IS needed.

But if we insist on allowing untrained users of the traffic system go out and merge with many ton autos, then I believe we should take special consideration of this type of (and frankly in the majority) user and provide guidance on the proper use of BL and the use of other areas of the roadway. "Passive training" if you will.

You are espousing a proposal I have been promoting for almost twenty years. I honestly believe that if cyclists required training and a license and, yes, even insurance, greater equality would exist between cyclists and motorists, respect might be attained. As it stands, many motorists resent the frequent reckless brazenness of those cyclists who cruise through stop-signs and red-lights, drive on the wrong side of the road and on sidewalks, make illegal and dangerous turns and operate without proper lighting. I can't say I blame them. When I drove a car, cyclists like that frustrated and angered me too. Even as a cyclist, those people disappoint me. They make all of us look bad. Perhaps more cyclists would operate their vehicles safer and more responsibly if there was the risk of losing their PRIVELEGE. Perhaps more motorists would be inclinded to recognize the bicycle and its rights IF they shared the road as equals. I know this post will be greeted with some criticism, but I've heard it all before and nothing yet has dissuaded me from my opinion that when there is the danger of losing something you value, you tend to protect it.

You are espousing a proposal I have been promoting for almost twenty years. I honestly believe that if cyclists required training and a license and, yes, even insurance, greater equality would exist between cyclists and motorists, respect might be attained. As it stands, many motorists resent the frequent reckless brazenness of those cyclists who cruise through stop-signs and red-lights, drive on the wrong side of the road and on sidewalks, make illegal and dangerous turns and operate without proper lighting. I can't say I blame them. When I drove a car, cyclists like that frustrated and angered me too. Even as a cyclist, those people disappoint me. They make all of us look bad. Perhaps more cyclists would operate their vehicles safer and more responsibly if there was the risk of losing their PRIVELEGE. Perhaps more motorists would be inclinded to recognize the bicycle and its rights IF they shared the road as equals. I know this post will be greeted with some criticism, but I've heard it all before and nothing yet has dissuaded me from my opinion that when there is the danger of losing something you value, you tend to protect it.


I have been around and around with others regarding this... and basically I believe that if Bike Lanes are fully removed as some advocates tout, and cyclists are expected to have training to use the roads, then the training should be a requirement. This was met with scads of negative commentary in the past, so I suggested that BL should be used as guidance for new users of the road... with particular attention to BL being put on higher speed roads and steep and winding roads. I am not an advocate of BL on every road... and in particular I think BL on lower speed roads discourage cyclists from being proper users of the roadway and waste funds that should be allocated to more dangerous roads/intersections.

Based on the lack of license/training issue, I believe that BL should provide far more guidance to users of these facilities... and funding should be directed to increase signage, and road markings with these users in mind.

More skilled cyclists can then either chose to not use the BL (as many now do) or can simply take advantage of the potential thru-way access BL may offer.

In any case, the current Bike Lanes incorporated in many areas are poorly designed, often as a simple band-aid, with little thought to the integration of the cyclist as "traffic" and a proper road user.

Regardless of the merits of the idea, at least in the USA, I believe it would be very difficult Constitutionally to require licensing of cyclists before they are allowed on public roadways. The basic underlying issue will be tested if any municipality uses a law passed recently in CA to prohibit cycling on so-called "expressways". For this to go to court, a municipality would have to actually prohibit cycling on some expressway, and some cyclist would have to violate the prohibition, and be cited for it, and he could then challenge the constitutionality. Until all that happens, we won't know if it's constitutional or not. If it is, then, presumably, the same authority could allow cyclists who are licensed to ride on the expressway, and, perhaps, extend that limitation to other roadways.

No one has addressed my observation about the role of bike lanes in conveying the belief that the correct/appropriate default/primary riding position for cyclists is off to the side.

The big difference between the new cyclist and the new auto driver is that the new cyclist is NOT required to get some basic traing first... hence my arguments quite some time ago that perhaps a bike license IS needed.

But if we insist on allowing untrained users of the traffic system go out and merge with many ton autos, then I believe we should take special consideration of this type of (and frankly in the majority) user and provide guidance on the proper use of BL and the use of other areas of the roadway. "Passive training" if you will.
There is a huge assumption here that any real or useful training is requried to obtain a car drivers license. It depends on what state you live it, but I know that some don't require any training at all, just the ability to pass an often very simple and short driving test and a multiple choice written one.

For example my friend from NY who had never driven a car in his life except around an auto repair parking lot to move cars for a job got his first drivers liscense in TX after casually studing the TX law guidebook and taking an absurdly easy driving test.

Some states let one get a drivers liscence at an earlier age if one takes more actual hands on training.

Compare what is minimally required in the US for driving training to the rigourous hands on testing and many hours of supervised training/driving required in many European countries to get a liscense at ages 18-21.

Al

I don't know what they're teaching in the European driving schools, but if it's defensive driving, it's not very effective...

I don't know what they're teaching in the European driving schools, but if it's defensive driving, it's not very effective...
Of course the hours spent in training don't mean anything, it is the content and skill of instruction. I was not saying that European drivers are safer or better, only that the amount of training is (or was, my experience is from 15yrs ago) generally much higher.

Al

No one has addressed my observation about the role of bike lanes in conveying the belief that the correct/appropriate default/primary riding position for cyclists is off to the side.

I guess I missed it... but to address it now... "off to the side" is the "correct/appropriate default/primary position" for any slower vehicle... which is why mountain pass slow lanes are also "off to the side."

There is a huge assumption here that any real or useful training is requried to obtain a car drivers license. It depends on what state you live it, but I know that some don't require any training at all, just the ability to pass an often very simple and short driving test and a multiple choice written one.

For example my friend from NY who had never driven a car in his life except around an auto repair parking lot to move cars for a job got his first drivers liscense in TX after casually studing the TX law guidebook and taking an absurdly easy driving test.

Some states let one get a drivers liscence at an earlier age if one takes more actual hands on training.

Compare what is minimally required in the US for driving training to the rigourous hands on testing and many hours of supervised training/driving required in many European countries to get a liscense at ages 18-21.

Al


How long ago did this happen?

I know in CA they just increased the difficulty of the test, and if you are less than 18, you must take drivers ed, AND be under supervision for the first 6 months.

Also in every state I am aware of, you must also pass a hands-on driving test.

Any and all of this is still more than a cyclist must go through to be on the same streets...

How long ago did this happen?

I know in CA they just increased the difficulty of the test, and if you are less than 18, you must take drivers ed, AND be under supervision for the first 6 months.

Also in every state I am aware of, you must also pass a hands-on driving test.

Any and all of this is still more than a cyclist must go through to be on the same streets...
The NY friend example was 15yr ago, yes a long time ago. When I took driving test in MA ~20yr ago I remember driving around the rural block, full stopping at each stop sign, looking in correct direction and demoing a parallel park. No freeway driving, no light controlled signals (didn't have 'em)

About CA is that only if you are 18 do you need to take drivers ed. In MA 20yr ago it was something like at 16 you could get liscence with dr. ed. at 17 just a test.

So tests have probably increased in rigor in more recent years, but the point I was making is that testing is not the same as training and experience. Not saying this to argue against cycling liscense (not sure really about my thoughts on this), but more to point out that some drivers out there often have very little experience.

Al

"off to the side" is the "correct/appropriate default/primary position" for any slower vehicle...
Under ANY circumstances?

If not, then under what circumstances, and not under what circumstances?
In particular, when no faster traffic that needs to pass is present, is the "correct/appropriate default/primary position" for any slower vehicle still off to the side?

And I'm not talking about a long stretch with no intersections. We're talking at least some occasional driveways.

Under those circumstances, with no faster traffic present, is the "correct/appropriate default/primary position" for any slower vehicle still off to the side?

Under ANY circumstances?

If not, then under what circumstances, and not under what circumstances?
In particular, when no faster traffic that needs to pass is present, is the "correct/appropriate default/primary position" for any slower vehicle still off to the side?

And I'm not talking about a long stretch with no intersections. We're talking at least some occasional driveways.

Under those circumstances, with no faster traffic present, is the "correct/appropriate default/primary position" for any slower vehicle still off to the side?


With no faster traffic present... which could easily mean that you are not the "slower" vehicle, then your exception is built in... since you are not the slower vehicle, you can be anywhere on the road you want.

Go one further... if you are the slower vehicle must you give way immediately to any faster traffic that is closing quickly behind you? No, if for some reason it is not safe to do so. Otherwise you should give way to that approaching traffic as soon as possible. Not sure if it is a law... but it is commonly taught that if you have 5 vehicles behind you, you must give way at the first available opportunity...

Now obviously if you are on a narrow mountain road, and there is no way to give way until you reach the top... then you cannot give way...

Question for you: if you are a very slow vehicle and are traveling on a high speed roadway... with blind corners... and or blind rises, (I.E. short sight lines) is it safe to be in the middle of a normal travel lane? Is it legal? Do rear end collisions ever occur in the US and with what frequency compared to other types of accidents?

if you are the slower vehicle must you give way immediately to any faster traffic that is closing quickly behind you? Let's have a look at the rules of the road about passing (I'll begin with my own state's statutes for a change):
NCGS § 20-149. Overtaking a vehicle.
(a) The driver of any such vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at least two feet to the left thereof, and shall not again drive to the right side of the highway until safely clear of such overtaken vehicle.
Notice that the "onus" in this rule is on the driver of the overtaking vehicle.


... you should give way to that approaching traffic as soon as possible.
NCGS § 20-149. Overtaking a vehicle.
(b) ... the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle while being lawfully overtaken on audible signal ...
Notice that this rule applies only on audible signal.


... if you are a very slow vehicle ...From the NOLO legal encyclopedia
If someone hits you from behind, it is virtually never your fault, regardless of why you stopped. A basic rule of the road* requires a vehicle to be able to stop safely if traffic is stopped ahead of it.
http://www.planetout.com/money/article.html?sernum=776


... and are traveling on a high speed roadway ... with blind corners ... and or blind rises ...
Slower drivers have no responsibility to decrease the risk of a collision with overtaking traffic by traveling faster. That's why there's no Rule Of The Road that imposes a dynamic lower speed limit everywhere for all drivers.

Faster drivers do have a responsiblity to decrease the risk of a collision with overtaken traffic by traveling slower. That's why there's a Basic Speed ROTR* that imposes a dynamic upper speed limit everywhere for all drivers.

* Basic Speed Rule Of The Road (UVC 11-801)
No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when ... special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic ...
Bruce "overtaking & passing is a privilege" Rosar

Further, nothing in the law says that cyclists have to leave the roadway or to move farther to the right than "practicable" to permit cars to overtake. On multilane roads, isn't simply being in the right lane "giving way to the right"? Passing cars can use the left lane(s).



. . . If any identifiable segment of the population can not use a transportation facility from any given points A to B, then the facility is less than ideal and we should strive to find a better design.. . .
I don't quite agree with this. If five-year-old cyclists can't use a road, then we have to make it safe for five year olds? There will always be certain roads that take more skill than others.

Bike lanes are another feature of American instant gratification. People should start cycling in parking lots, work their way to slow, residential streets, then to residential arterials, downtown riding, etc. Just show a little patience and learn. Riding in traffic ain't rocket science. It's not an "elite" activity. You don't need an LAB-approved course to learn. You just need to work a bit and to show patience.

Slower drivers have no responsibility to decrease the risk of a collision with overtaking traffic by traveling faster. That's why there's no Rule Of The Road that imposes a dynamic lower speed limit everywhere for all drivers.

Faster drivers do have a responsiblity to decrease the risk of a collision with overtaken traffic by traveling slower. That's why there's a Basic Speed ROTR* that imposes a dynamic upper speed limit everywhere for all drivers.

* Basic Speed Rule Of The Road (UVC 11-801)
Bruce "overtaking & passing is a privilege" Rosar

You are absolutely right... Now go out there and ride around blind corners in the middle of the road at whatever speed you want and don't worry at all, because that idiot racing around the corner has all the responsiblities....

Even Serge has been known to drive at 90MPH...

BTW no mention at all was made of having to change speed for the slower driver... just position on the road.

I don't quite agree with this. If five-year-old cyclists can't use a road, then we have to make it safe for five year olds? There will always be certain roads that take more skill than others.

If 5yos can be identified as a group using the road as a transportation facility, then yes we would have to make that road safe for 5yos. However I find it very unlikely that 5yo would be using any road as a transportation facility, much less unaccompanied.


Bike lanes are another feature of American instant gratification.

They're hardly unique to the US.



People should start cycling in parking lots, work their way to slow, residential streets, then to residential arterials, downtown riding, etc. Just show a little patience and learn. Riding in traffic ain't rocket science. It's not an "elite" activity. You don't need an LAB-approved course to learn. You just need to work a bit and to show patience.

You're making the assumption that bike lanes only serve new cyclists, which is demonstrably untrue.

Even Serge has been known to drive at 90MPH...
I never go above 65 around a blind curve...

I never go above 65 around a blind curve...

Good.

And at 65MPH, your braking distance is what?

Gene, I was joking.

Gene, I was joking.

I know... but unfortunatly... there are idiots that do just that. I was brushed by a motorcycle the other day that was trying to reach warp speed.

There are no solutions to those kinds of drivers... that simply have no respect for anyone else on the road.

I used to have a co-worker that had this habit of trying to get his Vette up to the highest speed possible going down that north bound Genesee to 5 ramp. I ride that ramp with that in mind. (I "hold" the on ramp until right at the curve... yes, acting like a "human speed bump")

The pavement on that ramp off to the right sucks anyway...

Some guys on the Saturday SDBC ride are continuing to eschew the bike lane and continue in the right lane of the freeway until the SV Rd offramp. FWIW, I take the bike lane... (shh!)

The pavement on that ramp off to the right sucks anyway...

Some guys on the Saturday SDBC ride are continuing to eschew the bike lane and continue in the right lane of the freeway until the SV Rd offramp. FWIW, I take the bike lane... (shh!)

The fact that the pavement sucks is the excuse I will give to any PD that ever takes offense... Actually, I have seen PD clearing the BL on Genesee leading to that BL... on some crowded mornings some drivers have tried to use the BL as a 3rd lane and have been caught.

Speaking of "clearing" BL... Saw a street sweeper on the Path under the 5/52 merge last week... awesome.

Speaking of "clearing" BL... Saw a street sweeper on the Path under the 5/52 merge last week... awesome.
You can thank the sdcbc for that one.

If 5yos can be identified as a group using the road as a transportation facility, then yes we would have to make that road safe for 5yos. However I find it very unlikely that 5yo would be using any road as a transportation facility, much less unaccompanied.

OK, ten years old. The point is, less experienced, less competent, and less confident cyclists can become more experienced, more competent, and more confident with practice. Bike lanes may exist elsewhere, but in the US, they are touted most for their benefit to less experienced, less competent, and less confident cyclists. Instant gratification instead of a little work.