You continue to try to kill Bike Lanes on the justification that cyclists are injured at intersections.
That's part of it, of course. But it's certainly not all of it. And you make it sound like I claim that cyclists are injured at intersections only because of bike lanes, which of course I would never say. But I do believe (and explain why below) that bike lanes make intersections significantly more dangerous for cyclists. That is, of all the cyclists injured at intersections, I believe at least some significant percentage would not be injuried if there were no bike lane stripes painted without 200 feet of any intersections (dashed or solid).
"Intersections are the problems."
The only problems? We agree intersections are problems.
"Take away Bike Lanes, and cyclists will still continue to be injured at intersections."
Agreed. We also probably agree that soap is useful for cleaning. What's your point?
Gene, please try to follow this.
Choosing lateral lane position based on destination helps cyclists reduce conflicts that can lead to injury and death at intersections.
Bike lanes at intersection approaches (not through intersections - no lanes are painted through intersections, that was yet another red herring you threw out there recently) inhibit (but do not prevent) novice (but also many experienced) cyclists from choosing lateral lane position based on destination at intersections. Many cyclists feel "correct" when in the bike lane stopped at an intersections, regardless of the appropriateness of their lateral lane position as dictated by the BL relative to their destination.
Because motorists are generally reluctant to drive in lanes into which they cannot fit their standard width vehicles, right-turning motorists are generally reluctant to drive in BLs at intersection approaches like they are supposed to, even when the BL is demarcated with a dashed stripe.
Because bike lanes inhibit (which does not mean prevent) cyclists from choosing lateral lane position based on destination at intersections, and mistrain them about appropriate positioning at intersections in general, and misguide right-turning motorists, bike lanes at intersections (meaning their approaches, duh) generally contribute to injuries at intersections. In other words, bike lanes make intersections, which are already relatively dangerous, even more dangerous. They certainly don't help.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
That's part of it, of course. But it's certainly not all of it.
"Intersections are the problems."
The only problems? We agree intersections are problems.
"Take away Bike Lanes, and cyclists will still continue to be injured at intersections."
Agreed. We also probably agree that soap is useful for cleaning. What's your point?
Gene, please try to follow this.
Choosing lateral lane position based on destination helps cyclists reduce conflicts that can lead to injury and death at intersections.
Bike lanes at intersection approaches (not through intersections - no lanes are painted through intersections, that was yet another red herring you threw out there recently) inhibit (but do not prevent) novice (but also many experienced) cyclists from choosing lateral lane position based on destination at intersections. Many cyclists feel "correct" when in the bike lane stopped at an intersections, regardless of the appropriateness of their lateral lane position as dictated by the BL relative to their destination.
Because motorists are generally reluctant to drive in lanes into which they cannot fit their standard width vehicles, right-turning motorists are generally reluctant to drive in BLs at intersection approaches like they are supposed to, even when the BL is demarcated with a dashed stripe.
Because bike lanes inhibit (which does not mean prevent) cyclists from choosing lateral lane position based on destination at intersections, and mistrain them about appropriate positioning at intersections in general, and misguide right-turning motorists, bike lanes at intersections (meaning their approaches, duh) generally contribute to injuries at intersections. In other words, bike lanes make intersections, which are already relatively dangerous, even more dangerous. They certainly don't help.
And what about NOT having Bike Lanes will improve this?
1 inexperienced cyclists will still not chose any other position.
2 inexperienced cyclists will still not chose any other position.
3 motorists will still right hook cyclists.
4 bike lanes can be improved (with signage) to tell both motorists and inexperienced cyclists what properly to do.
Removing bike lanes, period, offers no improvement; IMPROVING Bike lanes can aid 95% of the other cyclists out there, well beyond the 5% of cyclists that are identified as Class A "experienced adult cyclists" that know how to play the lateral dynamic lane game.
Your only solution is to remove Bike Lanes... thus supposedly getting rid of the "problem" when in fact the real problem of "inexperienced cyclists at intersections" still remains.
To you, a Bike Lane is still just a line of paint on the pavement.
To me, a Bike Lane is part of a traffic control system that includes pavement markings, arrows and signage that integrates the unique vehicle, the bicycle, into the dynamic traffic pattern consisting of all users of the roadway... automotive and pedestrian.
Helmet Head
And what about NOT having Bike Lanes will improve this?
1 inexperienced cyclists will still not chose any other position.
2 inexperienced cyclists will still not chose any other position.
3 motorists will still right hook cyclists.
4 bike lanes can be improved (with signage) to tell both motorists and inexperienced cyclists what properly to do.
Do I have to really spell it out?
Of course if the BL is removed, some, many or even most inexperienced cyclists will still not choose any other lane position. But at least they won't be inhibited by a bike lane from doing so. Some will inevitably learn they are better off in different positions. The problem with bike lanes is that they tend to cause even relatively experienced cyclists to position themselves incorrectly at intersections. Removing bike lanes can only make this situation better, and certainly can't make it worse.
Repeat of 1?
Yes, motorists will still right hook cyclists. But, because there will be no bike lane to inhibit motorists from driving "as close as practicable to the right" side of the road before they make their right turn, the removal of bike lanes will cause more motorists to execute their right turns correctly, behind or in front of cyclists, not to their left. Removing bike lanes can only improve this situation.
Maybe some. But not nearly as much as removing the bike lane and using good signage. At any rate, removing bike lanes at intersection approaches can't hurt, and can only help.
Removing bike lanes, period, offers no improvement;
No improvement? Please reconsider your assertion in light of the flawless logic presented above. :D
To me, a Bike Lane is part of a traffic control system that includes pavement markings, arrows and signage that integrates the unique vehicle, the bicycle, into the dynamic traffic pattern consisting of all users of the roadway... automotive and pedestrian.
And bike lanes at intersection approaches, unlike vehicular lanes at intersection approaches, put the paths of some in conflict with the paths of others at intersections. The only way to realistically fix this effect of bike lanes (especially at intersections where there is no right only lane, or no room to put a BL to the left of the right only lane) is to remove BLs from the intersection approaches.
Daily Commute
Oh, please. You don't even have to be a vehicular cyclist to understand the advantages of riding outside of door zones. Every recent book on the topic of traffic cycling, that I know of, VCist or not, recommends riding outside of door zones. Hurst, Forester, Franklin, Allen and other authors are not folks who have never tried riding on such streets.
I have to go back to my 1970s era books to find recommendations on how to ride in door zones, including looking for tell-tale smoke rings coming out of a driver's side window. Like Gene keeps reminding us, evolution happens, and cycling expertise is well beyond door zone riding these days.
Except, of course, for the City of Chicago. That city puts bike lanes in door zones and then puts up a web page (http://www.chicagocarto.com/bikemap/doorzone.html) telling cyclists who use bike lanes to:
Look inside each parked car before you pass it. If you can't see someone inside or you spot someone inside, move outside the "Door Zone," or slow down and pass carefully.
Watch behind you. Keep track of traffic behind you, so you'll know whether you have enough room if you must swerve suddenly out of the"Door Zone." A mirror helps you see traffic behind you as you pedal forward.
Helmet Head
Well, municipal bureaucrats that conjured up that nonsense probably did so after dusting off a 1970s book. Or maybe they just put on the web the same old now discredited nonsense they've been publishing in pamphlets for decades.
In any case, Chicago's web page hardly qualifies as an authoritative source for traffic cycling safety.
Check out Tom Revay's slide show (http://tomrevay.tripod.com/projects/MassBike/BikeLanes/slide1.htm).
This cyclist died in a door zone collision.
http://rwinters.com/images/CentSqDeath.jpg
Complete story:
http://rwinters.com/docs/DanaLaird.htm
genec
Perhaps we are talking apples and apples...
I don't intend for a BL to go all the way into the corners or the stop lines of the intersection... I expect at a minimum for BL to be dashed at that point... But regardless of dashed, missing or just WOL, nothing is going to get inexperienced cyclists into the proper positions to avoid right hooks and to merge into traffic the way a VC cyclist might... unless they are told to do so by a change in the BL.
Signage such as "Begin right turn lane, Yield to Bikes" will help both motorist and cyclist. Arrows showing movement to to other lanes (just like the ones they have for motorists at stoplights) can guide cyclists to change lanes. All this I envision as part of an improved Bike Lane system.
Simply removing or ending the BL on the approach offers no guidance what so ever.
Daily Commute
Well, municipal bureaucrats that conjured up that nonsense probably did so after dusting off a 1970s book. Or maybe they just put on the web the same old now discredited nonsense they've been publishing in pamphlets for decades.
In any case, Chicago's web page hardly qualifies as an authoritative source for traffic cycling safety.
Check out Tom Revay's slide show (http://tomrevay.tripod.com/projects/MassBike/BikeLanes/slide1.htm).
This cyclist died in a door zone collision.
http://rwinters.com/images/CentSqDeath.jpg
Complete story:
http://rwinters.com/docs/DanaLaird.htm
I was using the quote as example of the thought (or lack thereof) that often goes into bike lane design.
I-Like-To-Bike
Oh, please. You don't even have to be a vehicular cyclist to understand the advantages of riding outside of door zones. Every recent book on the topic of traffic cycling, that I know of, VCist or not, recommends riding outside of door zones.
It appears that only a VC ideologue would believe that cyclists make their personal cycling technique choices based on what some some self-proclaimed expert has written in a book even when the book recommendation is in conflict with the cyclist reader's own experiences and evaluation of cycling options
The Pittsburgh guidebook discusses the options and makes a reasonable attempt to come up with a workable solution to placement of bike lanes where parking exists on limited width streets.
VC pronouncements about how no bike lane should ever be within any area where a car door could possibly open onto it (no matter what the alternatives are) is just a backdoor obstructionist tactic to assure that no bike lanes are ever located on city streets with curbside parking.
That may suit the VC obstructionist/elitists just fine, especially since I suspect few regularly ride on busy narrow city streets with parking as found in East Coast cities. However, humoring such characters is not likely the goal of most municipal authorities.
Daily Commute
One interesting thing about the Pittsburg study (http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/cp/assets/05_bicycle_facilities_final_document.pdf) is that it says that bike lanes should not be put on roads with speeds greater than 35 mph (see page 6 of the text, page 9 of the pdf file). That's the speed where cities should start thinking about putting in bike lanes, not stop.
I-Like-To-Bike
One interesting thing about the Pittsburg study (http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/cp/assets/05_bicycle_facilities_final_document.pdf) is that it says that bike lanes should not be put on roads with speeds greater than 35 mph (see page 6 of the text, page 9 of the pdf file). That's the speed where cities should start thinking about putting in bike lanes, not stop.
Perhaps you should inform the cyclists and decision makers of Pittsburgh of what they should be thinking about, and why you think you know better then they about their requirements and objectives.
Or alternatively, inform this forum where you have gathered your information/theories about the needs of cyclists far removed from Columbus, OH.
genec
One interesting thing about the Pittsburg study (http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/cp/assets/05_bicycle_facilities_final_document.pdf) is that it says that bike lanes should not be put on roads with speeds greater than 35 mph (see page 6 of the text, page 9 of the pdf file). That's the speed where cities should start thinking about putting in bike lanes, not stop.
Sure would be hard to get around in this town if you couldn't use 35MPH roads. The only way to connect between neighborhoods is often a 35-45MPH arterial road.
noisebeam
One interesting thing about the Pittsburg study (http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/cp/assets/05_bicycle_facilities_final_document.pdf) is that it says that bike lanes should not be put on roads with speeds greater than 35 mph (see page 6 of the text, page 9 of the pdf file). That's the speed where cities should start thinking about putting in bike lanes, not stop.
This is wrong. The study first addressed roads below 35mph that work well with a WOL (Shared Usage Guidelines p. 5-8) and secondly roads over 35mph that need a BL (Bike Lane Guidance pp 8-18).
Al
noisebeam
Simply removing or ending the BL on the approach offers no guidance what so ever.
I disagree. If offers the implied guidance that the cyclist should position themselves where they need in the lane, not just off to the right side. Have you cycled in places where the BL ends before the intersection? Have you observed other cyclists? I haven't studied it or counted, but I do notice where it ends that cyclists (that look to be both hardcore and casual) are much more likely to not be on the far right side when the BL ends. Secondly a cyclist that isn't thinking of this can very easily just stay to the right as if they were in the BL position.
(just to be clear this is where there is no separate right turn only lane and that where the BL ends, the extra pavement continues and the lane line to the right of the primary lane stays straight)
Al
noisebeam
Sure would be hard to get around in this town if you couldn't use 35MPH roads. The only way to connect between neighborhoods is often a 35-45MPH arterial road.
But the document supports BLs on roads over 35mph. So it does address arterial roads and specifially connectivity, not just broken sections of roads with BLs.
Al
genec
I disagree. If offers the implied guidance that the cyclist should position themselves where they need in the lane, not just off to the right side. Have you cycled in places where the BL ends before the intersection? Have you observed other cyclists? I haven't studied it or counted, but I do notice where it ends that cyclists (that look to be both hardcore and casual) are much more likely to not be on the far right side when the BL ends. Secondly a cyclist that isn't thinking of this can very easily just stay to the right as if they were in the BL position.
(just to be clear this is where there is no separate right turn only lane and that where the BL ends, the extra pavement continues and the lane line to the right of the primary lane stays straight)
Al
The bike lanes here do typically end before the intersection... Of course I have long chosen where to position myself and whether I am in the BL or not... but the problem is that there really is no implication at all... I watch UCSD students do all the classic BL mistakes... staying far to the right at corners, making left turns from the BL and other issues that Serge moans about. See it nearly daily. (I ride through campus on my route) That tells me that while a BL does offer some advantages in allocating space and reducing negotiations and indicating that bikes will be on the road, they are far from perfect.
I agree that BL should end before the intersection, but I also feel that more information should be conveyed to inexperienced cyclists. This too is what I find annoying about Serge's "remove all BL agenda;" he offers no guidance what so ever to these cyclists... he just wants to "throw them into the deep end" and hope they survive. In that context, inexperienced cyclists will just cower along the curb.
While training is great... few will go for it... a nice "middle of the road" compromise is making BL more informative... just like the hiways are for motorists.
Helmet Head
The bike lanes here do typically end before the intersection...
They do? Where? Are you assuming that when a BL stripe goes from solid to striped the BL ends at the point where the stripe changes in style?
he offers no guidance what so ever to these cyclists...
What do you call my efforts here? Are you talking about guidance on the road? If so, you're assuming cyclists need more or specialized guidance (from traffic control devices and facilities, including paint and signs) than do other vehicle drivers. Why? Stop thinking that cyclists should be treated differently or separately. That kind of thinking is the underlying problem to how cyclists act and are treated in our culture.
Along those lines, I didn't get around to continuing our different in degree/kind discussion from yesterday. All vehicles differ by degree according to various measures, including: gross weight, width, power, power to weight ratio, height, length, etc. It's a compicated multi dimensional spectrum. The issue is whether bicycles fall within that spectrum (different in degree, like all vehicles are from each other), or are they not even part of it (different in kind, not even a vehicle - and I'm not using legal terminology right now). That's what I mean by cyclists being different in degree, not in kind, from other vehicle drivers. If they were different in kind, then they should not act or be treated like vehicle drivers.
As far as the "hybrid mode" of travel to which you referred (not obeying vehicular or pedestrian rules of the road, but something in between?), is that any different from "anything goes"? How?
Simply removing or ending the BL on the approach offers no guidance what so ever.
I know Al disagreed. But I agree with you, and I think that what Al is saying is that while there is no explicit guidance when the BL stripe is removed at intersection approaches, at least there is no misguidance (particularly for thru cyclists and right turning motorists both), which tends to help, and at least does not hurt.
What kind of guidance would you suggest? A "thru cyclists merge left" sign? A "right turners merge right" sign? Both? At some intersections (where appropriate)? All intersections? What about left turning cyclists - add a sign for them too? Where? Again, finding the appropriate place to put these signs is as impossible as is finding the appropriate place to paint a BL stripe: It's an attempt to solve a dynamic problem with a static solution. It's guaranteed to fail.
Helmet Head
Still waiting
Now the rant:
Many VC-ists are living in a dream world. Few cyclists, including many who claim to be VC, ride VC all the time. Many VC-ists ride in violation of vehicular principles when it fits their purposes. (If the posts on bikeforums are any indication, nobody rides VC all the time) I may be as close as anybody in riding style but I totally reject VC ideology - an ideology with a foundation built on quicksand (the VC riding style is great because it works most of the time - the VC ideology sucks big time because it doesn't work). It may be a little harsh, but I think of VC dogmatists as a cancer on cycling advocacy.
end of rant
JRA, I believe I've asked you this before, and don't remember getting an answer.
Whey you say "VC ideology" what do you mean? In particular, how is it different from advocating that "the VC riding style is great because it works most of the time"? In my mind, that is what the VC ideology is. What specifically about the "the VC ideology" makes you say it "doesn't work"?
I agree that many (I would say all) vehicular cyclists ride in violation of vehicular principles when it fits their purposes. In particular, they'll switch from riding in accordance to vehicular principles to riding in accordance to pedestrian rules of the road, when safe and reasonable to do so, when, like you say, it suits their purposes. If nothing else, for example, they might ride on a sidewalk to get to a place to park and lock their bike.
Of course, like other vehicular operators, they might also roll through a stop sign from time to time, or even a red light when there is no one else around (especially if it appears the bike is not triggering the signal to go green).
Do you feel the "VC ideology" denies such occasional violations?
Helmet Head
If any of you folks aren't on the bicyclingadvocacy list at Yahoo (started by the late Ken Kifer), you might want to join. It's not a VC list. The mix between VC advocates and facilities advocates is similar to this forum.
Here's the link. Anyone can join. I think you can even read the messages without joining. There have been some thoughful posts about bike lanes recently there.
I've stayed quiet on this topic, maybe not for the reason you expect
though. Call it a blessing or call it a curse, I sometimes have the
ability to see both sides of an issue clearly, understand both sides, and
even agree with both sides, even though the two side purport to be at
odds. I'm not sure how that works. But hey, my brain doesn't always make
sense, so what do you want? ;)
I started cycling in 2000 after not cycling for more than 20 years except
for a handful of times in the middle. So I really wasn't experienced. I
read everything I could get my hands on about bike commuting and riding in
traffic, because I really did want to know what I was doing, but a lot of
things simply come with experience. Experience takes time. I took a
class in basic bike maintenance so I'd know how to change a tire, but
that's the only class I found.
So for a long time I liked bike lanes. As far as debris, I found out who
to email to take care of it and whenever I went somewhere and there was
broken glass in the bike lane, I'd email that person and the next day the
broken glass was gone. Not bad, I thought. I had no qualms about riding
out of the bike lane to avoid debris. And that's one reason I had my
powerful headlight -- so I could SEE in the dark.
As time went on though, I found myself with better things to do than email
someone about debris in the bike lanes all the time.
People have sometimes complained about poorly designed bike lanes -- lanes
that were too narrow, for instance. I figured you can't dismiss all bike
lanes because some are poorly designed. Some roads are poorly designed
too. There are standards to follow. If someone decides not follow the
standards, that's the fault of the engineer who decided not to follow the
standards, not the fault of the bike lane. All the bike lanes I had seen
were wide enough. And then I started seeing ones that weren't. Newer
ones, some in Ann Arbor, some outside the city, that are definitely below
standard width. There's one in the township to the east of us that is
just the width that if I ride the distance I would normally ride from the
edge of the road, I'll be riding right on the stripe. Well, I'm not
riding closer to the edge, so I ride further out.
For years I figured the only advantage bike lanes offered me was a way to
bypass all the cars when it was solid gridlock. But then if I needed to
make a left turn, I couldn't get through the gridlock. I mean, it would
take 20 minutes. I think Tom and Scott were onto something with levels of
service and driving conditions that are bad for cyclists being bad for
motorists also. Yeah, gridlock just sucks for everyone. I live in
another part of town now, and when I go home I can just GO, and it's so
much fun to just MOVE and not get stuck in traffic.
When I think about the cycling/driving/LOS thing, I'm comfortable cycling
most places, but the few places that feel unsafe to me felt unsafe when I
used to drive a car. For instance, there's one exit out of a particular
shopping center parking lot where I won't even try to make a left turn.
I go out the other side. But I never turned left out that one exit when I
used to drive either. I'd see people turning left there and think, "what
are you, stupid?" I saw so many accidents there. You can't see the
traffic coming from the left until it's right there because of the
terrain, and to the right it's really close to an intersection so traffic
is coming around the corner. If you do turn left, you have to cross over
the right turn lane, two lanes going to your right, a middle turn lane,
and then you can get into one of the two lanes going to your left. With
all the accidents there and the poor visibility, I've always been
surprised there isn't a "no left turn" sign. The way I do go out, I make
a left turn across two lanes of traffic into the left turn lane, then ride
down the left turn lane a few feet to the traffic light and turn left
there. So it's actually two left turns, but the visibility is much
better, and I'm not crossing as many lanes of traffic.
Now that I've been riding long enough to actually feel experienced, I know
I am more confident. I'm doing all the same things in traffic I've been
doing for years, because for years I knew they were the right things to
do, and I knew I had the right to do them (and if anyone ever tried to
tell me I didn't, they got an earful, believe me). It's sort of like
before my brain knew what I could do, and now my body knows too.
Experience take time. I think it really helped getting a bike that I can
move faster on too. But I think even if I had taken a class when I had
first started riding again, I probably would've gotten something out of
it, but it wouldn't have been a substitute for experience. But I realize
I'm not typical. Most people don't read Bicycling Street Smarts before
they even buy a bike.
Anyway the odd thing is two or three times in the last month someone has
mentioned bike lanes or paths to me, assuming that I must want them, and
I've found myself explaining that I actually didn't. Oh. Are these words
coming out of my mouth? Yes, they seem to be. Hmm...
I don't have a problem with paths as a recreational thing, but as
transportation, unless your destination is at one of the end points,
they're useless. If you are going from end to end, then hey, great. With
lanes, there's the debris, engineers apparently feel the standards are
merely origami paper, they're in the door zone so you have to leave the
bike lane there anyway...sigh. What's the point?
Hmm. Well, there is that bit about when I was first riding my bike. I
mean, I wasn't even used to shifting. You know, maybe what we need
instead of bike lanes is signs for beginning cyclists to wear that say
"STUDENT DRIVER" or something like that. Just some way of letting other
people know "I'm new at this, yeah, I might do something stupid. Don't
give me a hard time. I'm trying. Give me a break, ok?" I don't know if
anyone would wear one though.
The fact is beginners do have different needs than experienced cyclists.
Even if you take a class (which would be a great idea, I think), it still
simply takes time to become experienced. I'm not so sure bike lanes are
the answer, and if no one would wear the "STUDENT DRIVER" signs, well, how
else could we make beginning cyclists feel comfortable on the roads until
they have gained experience?
Riin Gill
Helmet Head
Here's an exchange between a guy named Matt and me. It's very similar to the discussion Gene and I are having here. I hope it clarifies my position for you folks.
In other words, any mission to instantly convert the populous to capable vehicular cyclists is doomed to failure.
I agree. That's why I support the gradual approach, which first involves removing traffic control features that inhibit (I did not say prevent) cyclists from becoming capable vehicular cyclists. Like bike lanes.
And I will continue to disagree with your assumption that any traffic feature possesses the ability to inhibit vehicular cycling. A cyclists should, like any vehicle pilot, be able to navigate a bicycle through any and all manner of features -- including the dreaded bike lane.
To be clear, I never said that bike lanes, or any other traffic feature, possesses the ability to inhibit vehicular cycling. They certainly don't inhibit me from cycling vehicularly, and I'm confident that they don't inhibit you. I certainly agree that a cyclist, like any driver, should be able to navigate a bicycle through any and all manner of features. So we actually agree on everything you said you disagreed with me on.
What I did say was that bike lanes inhibit (not prevent) novice cyclists from becoming capable vehicular cyclists. In particular becoming a capable VCist requires learning how to effect appropriate and often frequent lateral lane adjustments in response to dynamically changing factors and conditions, including:
cyclist speed and destination
traffic speed and volume
road conditions (obstacles, etc.)
weather conditions
etc., etc.
Bike lanes inhibit learning proper dynamic lateral lane adjustment because they prescribe one static lateral lane position on the roadway, implying (at least to non-VC cyclists, not to mention to motorists and law enforcement) that that is the one proper position on the road for cyclists. Worse, the lesson learned on bike laned roadways - that cyclists should ride in one static lateral position
off to the side - is likely to be applied by novices on roads without bike lanes.
I agree that removing bike lanes is not the ultimate solution. But I think it's a critical first step. I believe it is time bicycling advocacy stopped being distracted by useless (and arguably damaging) facilities (bike lanes) so we could focus our resources on effective advocacy initiatives that actually promote the activity of cycling and make it more safe, enjoyable, accepted, and popular.
Serge
genec
They do? Where? Are you assuming that when a BL stripe goes from solid to striped the BL ends at the point where the stripe changes in style?
That is one example, but I know of others where the BL simply ends before a right only turn lane... This area is full of quite a variaty of different new and old BL that reflect a wide variation of BL. Take a look at the BL in Lemon Grove to see some of the worst. In the areas around City Heights some BL simply end.
What do you call my efforts here? Are you talking about guidance on the road? If so, you're assuming cyclists need more or specialized guidance (from traffic control devices and facilities, including paint and signs) than do other vehicle drivers. Why? Stop thinking that cyclists should be treated differently or separately. That kind of thinking is the underlying problem to how cyclists act and are treated in our culture.
Your efforts here go to the tiny tiny bit of the cycling population who first are on the internet, and second care about any advocacy at all. The majority of those here are experienced cyclists who are probably at or near the "Class A" level... yet there are thousands more who actually ride and use bikes for both recreation and transportation. For them, yes, I think BL need at least to offer the same level of guidance that freeways offer to their users. (Keep Right, Merge Left, Trucks Crossing, Stop Ahead... etc. )
Why do I feel cyclists should be treated differently... quite simply because cyclists are using a unique vehicle that does not conform to the characteristics of any other vehicle on the road... it is the ONLY human powered vehicle that regularly reaches in excess of 20MPH, that via levers and gears multiplies the efforts of the user and allows the user via human power to reach destinations that would otherwise be out of reach in a reasonable period of time.... further the profile of the vehicle while akin to scooters and motorcycles is still different enough to make it fit and be difficult to see in traffic. No other such vehicle or manner of transportation exists. Human powered boats come closest... and based on the fact that we live on a water planet, it is no surprise.
So yeah, bikes and cyclists are special and deserve to be treated differently from the pollution spewing wide, hot, heavy traffic that they share the road with.
Along those lines, I didn't get around to continuing our different in degree/kind discussion from yesterday. All vehicles differ by degree according to various measures, including: gross weight, width, power, power to weight ratio, height, length, etc. It's a compicated multi dimensional spectrum. The issue is whether bicycles fall within that spectrum (different in degree, like all vehicles are from each other), or are they not even part of it (different in kind, not even a vehicle - and I'm not using legal terminology right now). That's what I mean by cyclists being different in degree, not in kind, from other vehicle drivers. If they were different in kind, then they should not act or be treated like vehicle drivers.
As far as the "hybrid mode" of travel to which you referred (not obeying vehicular or pedestrian rules of the road, but something in between?), is that any different from "anything goes"? How?
See above for how unique bikes and cyclists are... the only other vehicle that has it's own unique place in transportation is a sail boat... it is the only practical vessel that is powered by the natural elements... period. While there have been some interesting experiments with solar power, the sailboat remains unique both in the history of transportation and the method. And oddly enough, special rules DO apply for sailboats when in collision situations with motor craft.
I know Al disagreed. But I agree with you, and I think that what Al is saying is that while there is no explicit guidance when the BL stripe is removed at intersection approaches, at least there is no misguidance (particularly for thru cyclists and right turning motorists both), which tends to help, and at least does not hurt.
What kind of guidance would you suggest? A "thru cyclists merge left" sign? A "right turners merge right" sign? Both? At some intersections (where appropriate)? All intersections? What about left turning cyclists - add a sign for them too? Where? Again, finding the appropriate place to put these signs is as impossible as is finding the appropriate place to paint a BL stripe: It's an attempt to solve a dynamic problem with a static solution. It's guaranteed to fail.
Well that merging sign I posted earlier would help both cyclists and motorist... arrows on the street would also help... the use of dashed lines too would help. I have noticed that somewhat recently in this area solid lane lines are guiding motorists across multilaned intersections... is it really so difficult for the motorists to figure out what lane to stay in? If so, perhaps cyclists deserve similar markings. These are just the beginning... I would also like to see large Bike Lane signs rather than the tiny "no parking bike lane" signs. Tell motorists that we are there, and to watch out for cyclists. Period.
Of course my application of BL is on faster streets and hilly and curved streets... therefore there would be limits to the number of signs to these streets, but due to this limited application, it should be easy to install them. Whereas Philadelphia limits their BL to roads under 35MPH; I see the need as just the opposite... especially as the fast wide roads are the only connecting arterials in this and many cities.
genec
I don't have a problem with paths as a recreational thing, but as
transportation, unless your destination is at one of the end points,
they're useless. If you are going from end to end, then hey, great. With lanes, there's the debris, engineers apparently feel the standards are merely origami paper, they're in the door zone so you have to leave the bike lane there anyway...sigh. What's the point?
And oddly enough the very things he is complaining about are the legacies of poor design.
I know of a path for instance that has on ramps and off ramps that serve other areas much like a limited access freeway... So paths do not have to be single ended... if they are designed as part of an entire transportation system.
The complaint also addresses poor Bike Lanes... and mentions standards... which oddly enough actually put Bike Lanes in locations such as next to parked cars. The MUTCD does exactly this, and this poor design is reflected in places like Chicago and Philadelphia where Bike Lanes are a poorly designed bandaid, not part of the overall transportation system.
Complain all you want about the current Bike Lanes... They do need redesign... but to eliminate the entire concept of what Bike Lanes can evolve into is as foolish as saying that the old two lane black top roads were fine for interstate freeways.
genec
I agree that removing bike lanes is not the ultimate solution. But I think it's a critical first step. I believe it is time bicycling advocacy stopped being distracted by useless (and arguably damaging) facilities (bike lanes) so we could focus our resources on effective advocacy initiatives that actually promote the activity of cycling and make it more safe, enjoyable, accepted, and popular.
And what would these "advocacy initiatives" be, and how would you reach the 90% of the cycling masses that do not actively persue any further knowledge about cycling?
Look at it another way... How many Bike Lane/Bike Route maps are given away each year in San Diego? How many Bikes are sold? Not just bike shop bikes, but also the Department store bikes?
Is there a large portion of the cycling population that simply gets out on the road with little guidance at all? According to the Pittsburgh initiatives most cyclists (approaching 90%) are "inexperienced" cyclists. So where do your "advocacy initiatives" adress this crowd?
Helmet Head
Determining what might actually be effective "advocacy initiatives" to pursue would be the first order of business, once bicycling advocacy gets it head out of the sand with regard to advocating bike lanes.
genec
Determining what might actually be effective "advocacy initiatives" to pursue would be the first order of business, once bicycling advocacy gets it head out of the sand with regard to advocating bike lanes.
To be honest with you (and as pointed out by others here) it ain't likely to happen. You will have a far greater chance of effecting the outcome of the design of Bike Lanes, than you will in trying to "move that mountain."
Inexperienced cyclists want them, and motorists want them... legislators can point to them as a photo-op "mission accomplished." Trying to turn around that beast is going to be very difficult.
Better to work within the system then buck it. BL are not perfect... you don't have to ask for them, nor like them, but as long as they exist, you might as well work to make them better.
Heck, your best chance of killing BL is to make them so "improved" as to be hideously expensive to put in... But if you demand either "all or none," in the long run, you may end up winning. ;)
Helmet Head
To be honest with you (and as pointed out by others here) it ain't likely to happen. You will have a far greater chance of effecting the outcome of the design of Bike Lanes, than you will in trying to "move that mountain."
Even if there was a greater chance of effecting the outcome of the design of BLs, what good would that do for bicyclists, bicycling, and its advocacy? Since I believe none, nada and zilch, what would be the point?
BL are not perfect... you don't have to ask for them, nor like them, but as long as they exist, you might as well work to make them better
Three is more than two, but is three times zero more than two times zero? No. Making something "better" that provides zero benefit to bicyclists, bicycling and its advocacy is pointless.
You keep talking about "better" and "improved" bike lanes as if there is or could be such a thing. You cannot make better or improve the fundamental problems with bike lanes:
They are static/fixed "solutions" to the dynamic/ever-changing problem of selecting the appropriate lateral lane position for a cyclist.
They collect debris because they are adjacent to vehicular lanes out of which debris is swept by traffic, and motor traffic generally does not travel/sweep in bike lanes.
They reinforce the segregationist mentality that cyclists should be separated on the roadway from other vehicle drivers, and should not act or be treated as vehicle drivers.
They complicate standard vehicular right-of-way rules of the road.
They provide novices with a false sense of security, enticing them to ride on roads that they should probably avoid (due to high speeds and volumes).
They make it easier for passing motorists to not pay attention to the presence of cyclists on the roadway.
These problems are fundamental to bike lanes. They are inherent in the very concept upon which ALL bike lanes are based. You cannot address much less solve any of these fundamental problems by "improving" bike lanes.
1,000 times zero is still zero.
genec
1,000 times zero is still zero.
...and with your current direction, that is exactly what you will accomplish!
Zero, Zip, Nada.
Good luck.
Meanwhile, the other 95% of us cyclists will work to try to make things better.
Well I guess that about sums up your approach to cycling advocacy... you are going to do nothing. That about sums up our conversation too... And as you have added nothing to the thread but the same tired old diatribes, your addition there has also been Zero, Zip, Nada.
Goodby.
Helmet Head
Meanwhile, the other 95% of us cyclists will work to try to make things better.
Hey, don't count me out on making things better for cyclists, as long as those "things" aren't bike lanes.
Well I guess that about sums up your approach to cycling advocacy... you are going to do nothing.
Gene, I'm beginning to be concerned about your reading comprehension. Or are you equating bike lane advocacy with cycling advocacy?
That about sums up our conversation too... And as you have added nothing to the thread but the same tired old diatribes...
To which you have the same old response... zero, zip, nada, except the occasional misrepresentation (like confusing bike lane advocacy with cycling advocacy) or red herring, like claiming I do nothing regarding cycling advocacy, knowing that I sit on the board of the local coalition, work hard to protect our rights, while you sit on... what?.
Please.
Daily Commute
Perhaps you should inform the cyclists and decision makers of Pittsburgh of what they should be thinking about, and why you think you know better then they about their requirements and objectives.
Or alternatively, inform this forum where you have gathered your information/theories about the needs of cyclists far removed from Columbus, OH.
Yeah, because Burlington, Iowa is so much closer to Pittsburg than Columbus, Ohio. :rolleyes:
If people are going to bring up a city's bike plan as an example to discuss, it shouldn't be a surprise when we discuss it. So, why do you think it's a good idea to limit bike lanes to roads where cyclists can already integrate with traffic?
genec
Once more into the breech... sigh.
Gene, I'm beginning to be concerned about your reading comprehension. Or are you equating bike lane advocacy with cycling advocacy?
To quote you exactly:
Determining what might actually be effective "advocacy initiatives" to pursue would be the first order of business, once bicycling advocacy gets it head out of the sand with regard to advocating bike lanes.
Since Bike Lanes are not about to go away... you are therefore doing nothing...
Whose head is in the sand?
Helmet Head
Determining what might actually be effective "advocacy initiatives" to pursue would be the first order of business, once bicycling advocacy gets it head out of the sand with regard to advocating bike lanes.
Since Bike Lanes are not about to go away... you are therefore doing nothing...
Whose head is in the sand?
That would be yours, Gene. I am once against concerned about your reading comprehension.
Now you're equating ending advocacy for bike lanes by cycling advocates with making bike lanes go away. :rolleyes:
Maybe I'm being picky, but it would be really nice if you addressed something I actually said without first twisting it into something I clearly didn't say or mean. But that would require careful reading and thinking on your part, before you type and press "Post Quick Reply".
Bike lanes might not be going away any time soon, but the advocacy for bike lanes by cycling advocates could easily be going away much sooner. Already, no serious cycling advocates have advocated for bike lanes on the basis for safety in years. The facts are on the side of bike lane opponents. We only have to bring them to the attention of cycling advocates, have them really think about them, and wait. They are coming around, slowly but surely, one at a time. You'll see, once we have a critical mass of maybe 20 or 30%, the rest will make the inevitable realization practically over night. And then we will be able to finally focus on what might actually be effective advocacy initiatives. But by then, when the understanding of the harms of bike lanes has spread, we'll be most of the way there.
You'll see.
I-Like-To-Bike
Yeah, because Burlington, Iowa is so much closer to Pittsburg than Columbus, Ohio. :rolleyes:
If people are going to bring up a city's bike plan as an example to discuss, it shouldn't be a surprise when we discuss it.
Since you missed the point I will spell it out.
Declarations from self declared Bike Lane Experts (from wherever - to include San Diego, Columbus, or even Burlington) that ALL Bike Lanes everywhere/anywhere are this, that or something else, or that NO bike lanes anywhere should be this, that or something else, based on the poster's opinion/personal preference and with limited (or no) knowledge of the actual local issues involved, are exercises in pompous arrogance. This is due to the fact that such facilities ARE situationally dependent on locale, traffic patterns, community goals, intended users, etc. It is one thing to express your personal experience and/or preferences in such matters, another to imply that your opinions are anything other than just that - guesses and opinions about specific situations that you show little evidence of understanding may not match your preconceived notions.
1000 oaks
Since you missed the point I will spell it out.
Declarations from self declared Bike Lane Experts (from wherever - to include San Diego, Columbus, or even Burlington) that ALL Bike Lanes everywhere/anywhere are this, that or something else, or that NO bike lanes anywhere should be this, that or something else, based on the poster's opinion/personal preference and with limited (or no) knowledge of the actual local issues involved, are exercises in pompous arrogance. This is due to the fact that such facilities ARE situationally dependent on locale, traffic patterns, community goals, intended users, etc. It is one thing to express your personal experience and/or preferences in such matters, another to imply that your opinions are anything other than just that - guesses and opinions about specific situations that you show little evidence of understanding may not match your preconceived notions.
Heart attacks are bad!
Well, maybe I can't speak for everyone. Depends on your personal goals, local conditions, etc, etc. And certainly no one has acknowledged me to be an expert. I'm sure I couldn't possibly understand all the issues.
How pompous and arrogant of me.
I-Like-To-Bike
Heart attacks are bad!
Well, maybe I can't speak for everyone. Depends on your personal goals, local conditions, etc, etc. And certainly no one has acknowledged me to be an expert. I'm sure I couldn't possibly understand all the issues.
How pompous and arrogant of me.
Comparing bike lanes with heart attacks? Pompous and arrogant? - maybe; Ignorant? - definitely.
Bruce Rosar
Declarations from self declared Bike Lane Experts ... that ALL Bike Lanes everywhere/anywhere are this, that or something else, ...Yea, darn those Experts! What a mess they've created! Just look at some of their declarations about BLs:
From the MUTCD (Section 9A.03): "Bicycle Lane ... for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists."
(Toss a coin to choose between preferential or exclusive)
From the Nevada DOT: "Bike Lane ... for the exclusive use of bicycles."
(Exclusive side landed up)
From the NC DOT: "bicycle lane ... for the preferential and exclusive use of bicyclists"
(Both sides landed up)
... such facilities ARE situationally dependent ... On the other hand, the fundamental principles of Transportation Systems (of which the Highway System is one) include simplicity & clarity, uniformity, and user cooperation:
- Simplicity & clarity in traffic situations maximizes accuracy and minimizes confusion of users
- Uniformity means treating similar traffic situations in a standard manner, facilitating rapid and reliable situation recognition
- Cooperation among users minimizes conflicts and maximizes efficiency
patc
Determining what might actually be effective "advocacy initiatives" to pursue would be the first order of business, once bicycling advocacy gets it head out of the sand with regard to advocating bike lanes.
Bicycle advocacy won't move forward as long as egomaniacs think they are the only ones entitled to decide what the right answers are.
Daily Commute
Since you missed the point I will spell it out.
Declarations from self declared Bike Lane Experts (from wherever - to include San Diego, Columbus, or even Burlington) that ALL Bike Lanes everywhere/anywhere are this, that or something else, or that NO bike lanes anywhere should be this, that or something else, based on the poster's opinion/personal preference and with limited (or no) knowledge of the actual local issues involved, are exercises in pompous arrogance. This is due to the fact that such facilities ARE situationally dependent on locale, traffic patterns, community goals, intended users, etc. It is one thing to express your personal experience and/or preferences in such matters, another to imply that your opinions are anything other than just that - guesses and opinions about specific situations that you show little evidence of understanding may not match your preconceived notions.
So, it's all personal. There is no such thing as fact. Now I see why you are inacapable of a civil argument about facts. I also see why you instead concentrate on personally attacking anyone who criticizes any bike lane: You don't understand the concept of facts, or that adults can argue about facts. You only understand personal opinion.
Let me take a guess, you're sixteen years old. Many kids that age have a similar problem, but they, like you, will grow out of it.
Now, back to substance. Does it make sense to put bike lanes on slow-traffic streets but keep bike lanes off fast-traffic streets? I'd think it would make more sense the other way awound. When criticize the usefulness of some lanes, others on this forum scream that bike lanes are needed because cyclists can't integrate with traffic on high speed roads.
H23
... Already, no serious cycling advocates have advocated for bike lanes on the basis for safety in years. The facts are on the side of bike lane opponents. We only have to bring them to the attention of cycling advocates, have them really think about them, and wait. They are coming around, slowly but surely, one at a time. ...
I don't know about San Diego, but it seems to me that the opposite is true. If anything, the bike lane concept is increasing in popularity more than linearly.
I suppose we could try to come up with a precise definition of advocacy, but even if we don't, I am sure we would all agree that a major component of advocacy is simply getting people on the road-- bike lane or not. Novices feel more comfortable in areas with a bike lanes and other facilities. In fact, they specifically ask for maps of bike lanes, MUPS, and friendly areas. It makes sense for any bicycle advisory group to recommend a basic network of facilities that includes signage, MUPS, and BL's. Not surprisingly, this has become the case in every major metropolitan area.
Are BL's so dangerous that they should be banned? Obviously not. Accidents will happen no matter what, some things are statistically more risky than others. In the case of BL versus no-BL's we are talking about small and smaller, at best. Most people don't make personal safety decisions based on faint statistical differences, they make personal safety decisions based on their own preception of risk of the situation they are in. In other words, a novice "class B" cyclist going on a BL will not care that their chance of a fatal accident by riding in the bike lane is perhaps tripled or quadrupled (if they even know the stats). 4X an infintesimal small number is still an infinitesimal small number.
I-Like-To-Bike
Most people don't make personal safety decisions based on faint statistical differences, they make personal safety decisions based on their own preception of risk of the situation they are in. In other words, a novice "class B" cyclist going on a BL will not care that their chance of a fatal accident by riding in the bike lane is perhaps tripled or quadrupled (if they even know the stats). 4X an infintesimal small number is still an infinitesimal small number.
And you can be sure most people aren't keeping notes in their dog eared copy of the Forester Good Book to help them remember how to "fare best."
I think I will join Genec, Patc, Brian R.and others who have decided to let the good idea club pontificate amongst themselves about the cycling facilities spawned by Satan, with no unpleasant interruptions, "misunderstandings" or "personal insults". Let Mr. HelmetHead ("cyclists fare best when they do what I say"), Mr. Daily Commuter ("It's not about debating bicycle issues, its personal") and Judge Rosar ("I make the law, west AND east of the Pecos") dream up a plan and find their cycling minyan for a consensus.
noisebeam
Now, back to substance. Does it make sense to put bike lanes on slow-traffic streets but keep bike lanes off fast-traffic streets? I'd think it would make more sense the other way awound. When criticize the usefulness of some lanes, others on this forum scream that bike lanes are needed because cyclists can't integrate with traffic on high speed roads.
It doesn't make sense at all, you are right, but I've never heard anyone promote such an idea.
Al
genec
Now, back to substance. Does it make sense to put bike lanes on slow-traffic streets but keep bike lanes off fast-traffic streets? I'd think it would make more sense the other way awound. When criticize the usefulness of some lanes, others on this forum scream that bike lanes are needed because cyclists can't integrate with traffic on high speed roads.
If I understand your Porky Pig imitation ("awound") correctly... ;)
Heck no... slow streets need nothing... fast streets need help.
As road engineers are determined to raise speeds (maintaining the 85 percentile rule) road speeds will continue to climb... and the difficulty of "integrating" with faster motor vehicle traffic will also increase.
Now in your area, you may have a wonderful network of 35 and 25MPH roads... Great. No Bike Lanes needed.
In my area, the only way to get from point A to B is by arterial roads with speeds of 45, 50 and even 65MPH. These need help... especially those same roads that also climb steep hills.
Interesting picture here... the one 65MPH road I am aware of is fairly flat... so I cruise it at about 20MPH... there is therefore a speed delta of about 45MPH. The 50MPH road is a steep climb, I grind it at about 8MPH, so the speed delta is about 42 MPH. Hey a pattern... a speed delta above 35MPH starts to feel a bit dangerous. Forester also identified a similar issue (I do not recall his speed delta number). So this is not just in the mind of some oddball bike lane addicts.
Helmet Head
Forester also identified a similar issue (I do not recall his speed delta number)
A similar issue? Reading comprehension problems again?
Forester was referring to the increased difficulty in merging left on a road with high speed deltas, a difficulty for which bike lanes do nothing (just like bike lanes do nothing for all difficulties cyclists encounter, except perhaps make some of them worse, particularly the most deadly ones).
You're talking about something completely different - an alleged difficulty to continue moving ahead when the speed delta is high, for which you claim "help is needed" (implying undefined "improved" BLs), the basis for which you can only explain in irrational terms that ignore reality.
Helmet Head
This is what you were thinking of, Gene:
When the traffic is moving more than 15 mph faster than you, negotiation [to merge left] is impossible, though your position on the road relative to the lane lines is a pretty clear signal. You have to play the road sneak and move left only if there is a gap in traffic long enough that you won't affect any vehicles John Forester, Effective Cycling, 6th ed, p 311
By the way, as I've stated before, I and other vehicular cyclists disagree with Forester on this point. I've used negotiation to merge left with deltas of 30 mph and higher. It involves slowing down up to two lanes at a time to your speed.
Anyway, all this is beside the point, because while speed deltas are relevant to merging left, they are totally irrelevant to moving ahead.
You can moan all you want about insufficient sight lines, but the fact is that a car driver, who sits on the left side of his car, jamming around a blind right hand curve has much better sight lines than does a cyclist riding in the gutter, even if the right side of his car is tracking the gutter too. What that means is that he will have plenty of time to make the slight adjustment in course required to avoid hitting a cyclist up ahead in his path. Just because it feels scary does not mean it actually is dangerous. Take heart in the fact that the relatively short sight lines work in your favor: because of them, motorists naturally stay focused looking ahead as they negotiate the "blind" curve. Get over it already.
patc
What would be great here would be a discussion on bike lane design without the involvement of those who'se only contribution is "all bike lanes are the spawn of Satan."
Oh yeah :eek: I started a thread like that a while ago, and it was invaded by the bike-lane haters anyway :mad:
Helmet Head
Pat, amuse me. Please specify what service or utility bike lanes provide, other than making cyclists "feel" safe or uncomfortable for unknown reasons, and for making passing of cyclists easier for motorists by making them not responsible for any car-bike collision that occurs as long as the motorist does not drive into the bike lane.
Thanks.
patc
Pat, amuse me. Please specify what service or utility bike lanes provide, other than making cyclists "feel" safe or uncomfortable for unknown reasons, and for making passing of cyclists easier for motorists by making them not responsible for any car-bike collision that occurs as long as the motorist does not drive into the bike lane.
I'm not here for your amusement, and I have indulged you enough. I have responded to similar questions from you several times, including when you hassled me by private message on my first day with BikeForums.net, and each reply was dealt with in your typical bad faith: either ignored, twisted, or de-valued. Consider this a personal attack if you wish, I no longer care. You are a detriment to this forum and disrupt all conversations you join. This place would be better if you left.
genec
A similar issue? Reading comprehension problems again?
Forester was referring to the increased difficulty in merging left on a road with high speed deltas, a difficulty for which bike lanes do nothing (just like bike lanes do nothing for all difficulties cyclists encounter, except perhaps make some of them worse, particularly the most deadly ones).
You're talking about something completely different - an alleged difficulty to continue moving ahead when the speed delta is high, for which you claim "help is needed" (implying undefined "improved" BLs), the basis for which you can only explain in irrational terms that ignore reality.
Well Mr HH, if not for the BL then I would have to negotiate with each and every motorist that came up behind me and wasn't sure if I was going straight or moving over or what... and that stupid little drill does take place in spite of you believing it is not happening in your world... although it is exactly why each car slows down and does the WTF dance on a WOL... of course they then usually follow that with the cloud of smoke and dirt when they finally figure out that you are just riding straight.
noisebeam
although it is exactly why each car slows down and does the WTF dance on a WOL... of course they then usually follow that with the cloud of smoke and dirt when they finally figure out that you are just riding straight.
On straight mulitlane high speed roads that have a WOL I find that if I ride in the exact same position I would if riding between center and painted line of a BL that cars do not have to nor slow down. Most cars just proceed straight and still give me >3ft clearance, some have to slightly and gradually merge leftward a bit to give that clearance. Like I said before on these types of roads (its probably regional) WOL always on average get me more passing clearance than the exact same time of road, but with a painted BL.
Al
genec
You can moan all you want about insufficient sight lines, but the fact is that a car driver, who sits on the left side of his car, jamming around a blind right hand curve has much better sight lines than does a cyclist riding in the gutter, even if the right side of his car is tracking the gutter too. What that means is that he will have plenty of time to make the slight adjustment in course required to avoid hitting a cyclist up ahead in his path. Just because it feels scary does not mean it actually is dangerous. Take heart in the fact that the relatively short sight lines work in your favor: because of them, motorists naturally stay focused looking ahead as they negotiate the "blind" curve. Get over it already.
Gee, I drive on occasion too... and when driving, if I cannot see either the city buses or the traffic signals that I know are there, then I know that motorists sure as heck cannot see me when I cycle in that same area. Now the traffic signal has a nice sign on the road that warns the motorists that the is about to show up... but me... I have no such sign... so motorists just don't know I am there. Except there is in fact, a BL.
On another similar street, Genesee, they have actually put a special traffic light way out on the curve so approaching autos can see it and be ready to react. Now why would the city go through all that effort, if the sight lines are so good around curves and up and down hills?
genec
On straight mulitlane high speed roads that have a WOL I find that if I ride in the exact same position I would if riding between center and painted line of a BL that cars do not have to nor slow down. Most cars just proceed straight and still give me >3ft clearance, some have to slightly and gradually merge leftward a bit to give that clearance. Like I said before on these types of roads (its probably regional) WOL always on average get me more passing clearance than the exact same time of road, but with a painted BL.
Al
Sure, makes sense... that have had time to see you and plan for their actions and see what you are doing... but as you said these are "straight mulitlane high speed roads."
genec
Pat, amuse me. Please specify what service or utility bike lanes provide, other than making cyclists "feel" safe or uncomfortable for unknown reasons, and for making passing of cyclists easier for motorists by making them not responsible for any car-bike collision that occurs as long as the motorist does not drive into the bike lane.
Thanks.
I'll amuse you... You have often stated that cyclists fare best... etc. Those assumptions are based on logical rules and that motorists are predictable and will logically adhere to those rules.
But sometimes (damn often actually) humans make decisions based on emotional judgements. Strictly out of the blue decisions based on how they feel.
Bike Lanes help most motorists and cyclists feel better about sharing the road, motorist do not like to "share" and make irrational decisions about "teaching lessons" or making other illogical decisions such as the wide swoop right turns I mentioned about a week ago. No logic in those, yet they were done.
BL offer, if nothing else, a feel good situation for both the motorists and cyclists.