Advocacy & Safety - Bike lanes

I mean after all the two biggest issues surrounding BL are: do they really invite cyclists to use the roads, and do they provide any sort of safety what so ever?

Unfortunately true, which is very frustrating to those of us who want bike lanes for other reasons.

I feel that BL are just another lane to handle another form of traffic, much like moutain passing grade lanes are also used to increase the free flow of traffic on the roads where they are installed.


:eek: Isn't that heresy on this forum?

I see bike lanes as functionally similarly to bus lanes, HOV lanes, etc. Same issues at intersections, same types of road markings, same types of usage restrictions... Good or bad may be debatable based on location, implementation, and personal observations but overall I think bike lanes are neither as complex nor as simple as the two extreme camps would like us to believe.

Yes, I do tend to agree, and I also feel that BL do not belong on every road. I am a proponent for BL on higher speed roads and roads that have high speed differentials. Put BL on the roads where the different speeds of the road users can indeed cause conflict between those various road users.

But roads with speed limits of less then 25MPH (typically residential areas) should probably never have BL, and both motorists and cyclists should be encouraged to use those roads as simple mixed traffic.

Further, the "proper design" of bike lanes should allow for left turns, conflicts at intersections and the merging of vehicles, where required. It is a much more complex task then simply removing parking and slapping down a line.

I am also not a proponent of the lousy design work present in the MUTCD which makes little consideration for the "door zone" along parked cars in it's handling of bike lanes. It is this "secondary treatment" about which I feel some advocates do have validity in their hue and cry regarding the separatist nature of BL.

There is a time and place for BL and this means neither a full inclusion or exclusion on all streets...
You and I agree on this. My guess is we differ on 30-35 mph roads. I have to bottom lines:
No stripe is better than a poorly-designed or pooly-maintained stripe;
Bike lane use should only be mandatory if cyclists would otherwise be banned from the roadway.

Unfortunately true, which is very frustrating to those of us who want bike lanes for other reasons.
I'm sorry if you've explained this before, but what are those "other reasons"?

I'm sorry if you've explained this before, but what are those "other reasons"?

In general, on a moderately or very busy road, I feel bike lanes offer a more comfortable, easier, and often faster trip for a cyclist - particularly when travelling a long distance on the same road. Obviously there are a lot of variables here, and specific bike lanes may or may not provide the above.

I give statements from him no credibility at all. He'd make a good politician, though.
Hardly. His ability to baffle and confuse people is limited to a relatively tiny slice of the bicyling related constituency who are baffled/fooled by his outlandish claims, fabricated data, and sophmoric analysis of mix- and-match studies by others. Few politicians advance with such a pronounced preference for antagonizing/insulting all whom disagree. Such methods have made him a cartoonish caricature of a "cycling advocate leader."

That is not to say however that a properly designed street with BL couldn't be safer for cyclists than the same street without bike lanes. And until such a double blind study is actually made and peer reviewed, we cyclists will never know the truth.
Such a study would be easy to do. Look at crash data for a street that currently has bike lanes. Then take the same street, remove the stripe, then look at crash data. Or take a street with wide outside lanes and stripe a bike lane and compare before and after.

So in the history of bike lanes over the past 30 years, why hasn't anyone done such a study?

So in the history of bike lanes over the past 30 years, why hasn't anyone done such a study?Perhaps such studies have been done, but just not distributed to the general public? For example:California contracted with Ken Cross to make a statistical study of car-bike collisions, in the expectation that this study would demonstrate the truth of the superstition that the greatest hazard to cyclists came from same-direction motor traffic. Ken's study was presented to the California Statewide Bicycle Committee at a meeting room in the Sacramento Airport. After the presentation, I rather naively pointed out that the Cross study (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm) [...] disproved the supposed basis for California's policy. As a result of what I said, the study was suppressed, so that the only copies available were those that had been already handed out to those present.

Are there any other "experts" in this field other than Forester?
How dangerous are different bicycle facilities? (http://home.swbell.net/mpion/BIKEfacts&figs.html#FIG3)This is an important issue, in view of the push for both off-road mixed use trails and on-road bike lanes, and the widespread perception that the existing road system is unsafe for bicyclists.

Prof. William Moritz, a long-time member of LAB and emeritus professor at the University of Washington in Seattle, did a detailed survey of LAB members and published his results in 1996. This confirmed earlier surveys of LAB cyclists showing that roads were generally considerably safer than off-road facilities and that sidewalks were generally the most dangerous facility of all.

In fact, in relation to a major road with no special facilities for bicyclists, the sidewalk is typically almost 25 times more hazardous for cyclists, unpaved off-road trails nearly 7 times more hazardous, and mixed-use recreational trails twice as hazardous.

One conclusion of interest is that just signing a road as a bike route lowers the risk by 23% compared to the standard risk on a major road. This raises an intriguing question: Why would such a minor difference make such a significant improvement? One suggestion is that signage may alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists, leading to more cooperative behavior. Another is that such signage is only applied on roads already fairly safe.

Another conclusion fueling the debate over bike lanes is that providing a bike lane was observed to lower the risk compared to a major road by 38%. Proponents of bike lanes take this as support for providing such facilities. Opponents counter that bike lane striping is rarely applied in isolation of other road improvements, so that the effect of the bike lane is obscured. In addition, they are unlikely to be applied on an inherently dangerous road. And missing from the survey was any reference to wide curb lanes, which are preferred to bike lanes by some cycling advocates.

The data has been plotted as both a pie chart and bar graph. Click on Figure 3a (http://home.swbell.net/mpion/imagesbike/facilityvsrisk3a.jpg) or Figure 3b (http://home.swbell.net/mpion/imagesbike/facilityvsrisk3b.jpg) to view as pie chart or bar graph

But Moritz didn't control for the fact that bike lanes are generally striped on streets that were safer to begin with. We need a few good apples-to-apples tests about bike lanes performed by people without a financial stake in the outcome.

But Moritz didn't control for the fact that bike lanes are generally striped on streets that were safer to begin with. We need a few good apples-to-apples tests about bike lanes performed by people without a financial stake in the outcome.

1. Any evidence to support your contention that "bike lanes are generally striped on streets that were safer to begin with"? Safer than what?

2. Any evidence to support your implication that Moritz (or other unnamed "people") had "a financial stake in the outcome" of this report?

Perhaps such studies have been done, but just not distributed to the general public? For example:

I have seen a couple such studies done on bike lanes. Government studies are generally published, though they can be tough to get ahold of, since nobody bothers to catalogue them.

But Moritz didn't control for the fact that bike lanes are generally striped on streets that were safer to begin with. We need a few good apples-to-apples tests about bike lanes performed by people without a financial stake in the outcome.

This is my point, regarding the Forester critique. One can assert that "fact" that "bike lanes are generally stripped on streets that were safer to begin with," but nobody has even pretended to have shown any evidence of that bias. Is it really general procedure that only "good" streets were bike laned? What if it were the case that bike lanes were used only on horrible cycling roads to make these roads better for cyclists? Usually it is problem intersections that get the latest and greatest in traffic control, why is it not the same for roads and bike lanes?

As for the apples-to-apples experiments, a couple of them have been done, we just need to scare them out. Financial stake shouldn't matter. In fact, a large amount of research in this country is funded by people with a financial stake. Without a financial stake in the outcome, why would someone take the time and the resources to scare up the money? What matters is the validity of the study methods, in absence of the funding source.

As a side note, that there are few studies into the matter of bike lanes seems to indicate that there are very few people with financial stakes in the matter; that there is no "vast bike lane conspiracy" that some would like to think.

. . . Is it really general procedure that only "good" streets were bike laned? What if it were the case that bike lanes were used only on horrible cycling roads to make these roads better for cyclists? Usually it is problem intersections that get the latest and greatest in traffic control, why is it not the same for roads and bike lanes?
Interesting point. Do you have any evidence that bike lanes are primarily put on unsafe roads? I think the burden should be on those who want to change the rules of traffic to prove the changes safe.

There are enough bike lanes now that we can do some reasonable research. Traffic engineers should be able to say what kind of lanes are helpful, what kinds are dangerous, and what kinds have no effect.

P.S. Another problem with Moritz is that it's a survey of member's recollections, and therefore it reflects the members' biases.

Interesting point. Do you have any evidence that bike lanes are primarily put on unsafe roads? I think the burden should be on those who want to change the rules of traffic to prove the changes safe.

There are enough bike lanes now that we can do some reasonable research. Traffic engineers should be able to say what kind of lanes are helpful, what kinds are dangerous, and what kinds have no effect.

P.S. Another problem with Moritz is that it's a survey of member's recollections, and therefore it reflects the members' biases.

I was simply responding with a hypothetical; showing how the "critique" of the study hinges on a single, unsupported assertion, though around here, bike lanes are generally used to solve problems, not as some political stunt. I have no idea what roads the bike lanes were on for the Moritz study, whether they are safer than average or not. My point is that nobody else seems to have any idea (which can be supported) of what roads the bike lanes were on either. If anything, Forester's critique simply shows that the study seems not to take into account the initial safety of the road; however, it shows nothing more than this. It does not, by itself, invalidate the results of the study.

I think you are not giving traffic engineers enough credit. Judging from what I see around the west side Portland (OR) area, much learning about bike lanes has taken place. I think that sometimes people here on these forums forget that we are all on the same side. The traffic engineers designing the bike lanes are trying to make cycling safe in the ways that they know how. They are sticking to what they know, such as the idea that only one vehicle should occupy the same lateral space in a lane. Bike lanes are a natural extension to the laned traffic system we have now for cars. Their lane markings are similar to other special purpose lanes, and their placement is consistent with the "slower to the right" principle of road traffic. To a traffic engineer, widening a road for the purpose of sharing is a very foreign concept. In the normal scheme of things, the only time two vehicles share a lateral position in the lane is at intersections. I think the engineers can be forgiven for looking at wide outside lanes with some amount of discomfort.

Now, crossing the bike lane is of concern to traffic engineers as well. The infamous "right and straight" lane is the cause for most of this concern, and the traffic engineers here have devised various ways around it. One way is to eliminate the combination "left turn only" plus "right and straight" lanes in favor of a "left and straight" plus "right turn only" lane combination. This enables the bike lane to be routed to the left of the right turn only lane and only requires some lane restripping and a reprogramming of the traffic light.

Other solutions include widening the curb while keeping the bike lane line going straight to enable cars to merge into the bike lane for a right turn. Bike lanes positioned across "merging" type intersections can be painted a different color to highlight the fact that cyclists might be on the road. Road signs are sometimes also used to denote where the bicyclists and moterists are supposed to watch out for each other. Many times now, even very minor intersections at the driveways to malls and small side streets have the curb cut away for a "right turn only" lane, enabling the bike lane to be routed to the left of right turning cars.

I think we are all a product of our personal experiences. Logical analysis can always be bent to conform to our experiences in an appeal to make our ideas universal. Some of us on this forum have seen bike lanes work well, being fully integrated into the traffic system of the road, and so include them in the bag of tools for making cycling safer. Others have probably never seen a bike lane which was integrated fully into the traffic system; the only bike lanes they have seen have been hastily added in response to political motives. These people mistrust the people making the decisions, and so mistrust the usefulness of bike lanes as a whole; they want all bike lanes gone as they were better off before the bike lanes were put in. (I hasten to add that these people tend to live in areas where they are unlikely to see fully integrated bike lanes, due to the political climate of their region.) To each his own, I suppose.

Regardless of Forester's opinion as to which roads tend to get bike lane stripes, the fact remains that the Moritz study didn't control for which kinds of roads had bike lanes versus the roads without bike lanes. Therefore, the Moritz study is useless for drawing any conclusions as to whether the same road with a bike lane stripe would be safer or more dangerous than the same road without a bike lane stripe.

Regardless of Forester's opinion as to which roads tend to get bike lane stripes, the fact remains that the Moritz study didn't control for which kinds of roads had bike lanes versus the roads without bike lanes. Therefore, the Moritz study is useless for drawing any conclusions as to whether the same road with a bike lane stripe would be safer or more dangerous than the same road without a bike lane stripe.

Good point. I don't think the results are useless, but they are certainly not as useful as they could be. Any time a study is extrapolated to draw conclusions about a system not directly studied, the way is frought with peril. The best that the Moritz's study can do is say that the roads the he did study were more safe than the average road. A follow up analysis would be needed to extrapolate these results to other roads in other places.

Thinking about it though, this is a drawback of all statistical studies. A followup study is always needed to apply statistics to a system which was not studied. So while Forester's critique is correct in saying that the results cannot be blindly applied to any road in any location, his critique is wrong is suggesting that the results are useless. The fact that Forester did not include the results of the Moritz study in his offence against bike lanes stems, not from the fact that the study is fundamentally flawed, but from simple laziness and the unwillingness to include statistics which could be construed as contrary to his preferred analysis. Evidence of this is his willingness to use statistical studies which seem to support his conclusions without any of the followup analysis necessary to show that those studies have universal applicability. In reading his rant about the peer review process which he failed (on his website), his misuse of statistical studies probably contributed to the negative reviews.

. . . I think you are not giving traffic engineers enough credit. Judging from what I see around the west side Portland (OR) area, much learning about bike lanes has taken place. . . .
The problem is that they're making decisions based on intuition and anecdote, not the kind of data engineers generally use.

The problem is that they're making decisions based on intuition and anecdote, not the kind of data engineers generally use.

First off, you wouldn't believe how much engineers rely on intuition and anecdote in their work. Rarely is there full information on a design. For instance, airplanes flew long before we knew the physics of flight. In fact, the cutting edge physics at the time told us that airplanes fundamentally could not fly, even though there were actual airplanes for sale. Engineers fill in the gap using experience and product evolution; which is to say, intuition and anecdote.

You're right though. As everyone acknowledges, there is a lacking of data in this area. Throw into that the fact that traffic engineering has more in common with sociology than it has to physics and you get the picture of how tough this subject is. In a way it is a chicken and egg problem. We need bike lanes to create studies of how bike lanes (or any other traffic structure, for that matter) work, and we need the research to design bike lanes. Imagine the first implementation of the stop light. They didn't add the yellow until it was clear from experience that a transition period between red and green was needed. Stoplights also share the same regional differences (not in the US, but between the US and other countries). Stoplights in Hong Kong (last I was there, about 10 years ago) have a yellow light in between the transition from red to green, where it is okay to go as long as you yield.

However, there are many chicken and egg problems in this world. The concept of the bike lane should not be ditched simply because the design process is evolutionary.

The concept of the bike lane should not be ditched simply because the design process is evolutionary.Right. On the other hand, we should be open to better ideas as they are developed, such as Shared Lane Markings (http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=22747). From the San Francisco Bicycle Program's FAQ for Sharrows (http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=28372):Q. I’ve seen these new markings of a bike with two chevrons/arrows above it on the streets. What do they mean?

A. These are “Shared Lane Markings” which are intended to show where cyclists can ride on the street without being hit by a suddenly opened car door. Although it is the motorist’s responsibility to check before opening their door, riding too close to parked cars (in the door zone) is still a common mistake that can lead to serious injury. These markings will also be used in situations where it may not be obvious where cyclists should be riding, such as at intersections with multiple turn lanes.

First off, you wouldn't believe how much engineers rely on intuition and anecdote in their work. Rarely is there full information on a design. For instance, airplanes flew long before we knew the physics of flight. In fact, the cutting edge physics at the time told us that airplanes fundamentally could not fly, even though there were actual airplanes for sale. Engineers fill in the gap using experience and product evolution; which is to say, intuition and anecdote.
+1 to that. Heck, you'd even think something as simple as estimating pressure loss of fluid flowing in a pipe wouldn't need intuition and anecdote. Just solve Bernoulli's equation and you're done with it. But in the real world, there's uncertaintly because you don't know the exact smoothness of the pipe when it leaves the shop, the number of welds, etc. So we end up putting margin on our calculated number in order to fill in the gap.

So what did that have to do with bike lanes? :D

Oh yeah, the traffic engineers in my area have no problem with designing the bike lanes that are on the 45-55 mph arterials with no onstreet parking and few driveways. The harder part is what to do at complex intersections, such as freeway interchanges. The design standards can't cover every possible configuration, so the traffic engineers are often left on their own. Since the traffic engineers are often not cyclists themselves, the bike lanes often get a routing that would be more appropriate for a pedestrian to travel.

First off, you wouldn't believe how much engineers rely on intuition and anecdote in their work. Rarely is there full information on a design. For instance, airplanes flew long before we knew the physics of flight. In fact, the cutting edge physics at the time told us that airplanes fundamentally could not fly, even though there were actual airplanes for sale. Engineers fill in the gap using experience and product evolution; which is to say, intuition and anecdote.

You're right though. As everyone acknowledges, there is a lacking of data in this area. Throw into that the fact that traffic engineering has more in common with sociology than it has to physics and you get the picture of how tough this subject is. In a way it is a chicken and egg problem. We need bike lanes to create studies of how bike lanes (or any other traffic structure, for that matter) work, and we need the research to design bike lanes. Imagine the first implementation of the stop light. They didn't add the yellow until it was clear from experience that a transition period between red and green was needed. Stoplights also share the same regional differences (not in the US, but between the US and other countries). Stoplights in Hong Kong (last I was there, about 10 years ago) have a yellow light in between the transition from red to green, where it is okay to go as long as you yield.

However, there are many chicken and egg problems in this world. The concept of the bike lane should not be ditched simply because the design process is evolutionary.
I agree with the engineering part. I just wish that they would go back and redo the stuff that obviously doesn't work. They'll come up with new things too, 'sharrows' are a good example, but if the goal is to attract new cyclists - get people out of their cars - I predict that more bike lanes will continue to be built. The VCers that are willing to ride in any traffic on any road, no 'facilities' required, are one percenters, and that's not the crowd the transportation planners are trying to reach.

+1 to that. Heck, you'd even think something as simple as estimating pressure loss of fluid flowing in a pipe wouldn't need intuition and anecdote. Just solve Bernoulli's equation and you're done with it. But in the real world, there's uncertaintly because you don't know the exact smoothness of the pipe when it leaves the shop, the number of welds, etc. So we end up putting margin on our calculated number in order to fill in the gap.

So what did that have to do with bike lanes? :D

Oh yeah, the traffic engineers in my area have no problem with designing the bike lanes that are on the 45-55 mph arterials with no onstreet parking and few driveways. The harder part is what to do at complex intersections, such as freeway interchanges. The design standards can't cover every possible configuration, so the traffic engineers are often left on their own. Since the traffic engineers are often not cyclists themselves, the bike lanes often get a routing that would be more appropriate for a pedestrian to travel.
Fluid flow and traffic flow are not quite the same, and I agree that even fluid flow has its flaws. All the engineers' traffic flow 'models' I've seen are woefully inadequate, they don't even attempt to put bikes in the traffic flow to see what the effect would be, and their first priority is usually to design the roads to accomodate the morning and evening rush-hour 'peaks' - for motor vehicles - and perhaps provide for MV parking in the ROW, depending. In this case, the bike facilities will always be an afterthought.

Fluid flow and traffic flow are not quite the same, and I agree that even fluid flow has its flaws. All the engineers' traffic flow 'models' I've seen are woefully inadequate, they don't even attempt to put bikes in the traffic flow to see what the effect would be, and their first priority is usually to design the roads to accomodate the morning and evening rush-hour 'peaks' - for motor vehicles - and perhaps provide for MV parking in the ROW, depending. In this case, the bike facilities will always be an afterthought.
Oops, I was just trying use fluid flow as an example of uncertainty in engineering, not trying to make the leap towards looking at traffic flow.

Your example illustrates why the traffic engineers in my area don't put bike lane stripes on some of the seemingly available wide outside lane spaces on major roads. That's because their model says that in, say, ten years that another lane for auto traffic would be needed. So they don't want to stripe a bike lane and then have to remove the bike lane ten years later. So they end up looking for other places, such as residential collectors, to propose striping bike lanes. Less than half of these are actually implemented, because in many cases residents oppose the removal of onstreet parking needed to make room for the bike lane.

+1 to that. Heck, you'd even think something as simple as estimating pressure loss of fluid flowing in a pipe wouldn't need intuition and anecdote. Just solve Bernoulli's equation and you're done with it. But in the real world, there's uncertaintly because you don't know the exact smoothness of the pipe when it leaves the shop, the number of welds, etc. So we end up putting margin on our calculated number in order to fill in the gap.

So what did that have to do with bike lanes? :D

Oh yeah, the traffic engineers in my area have no problem with designing the bike lanes that are on the 45-55 mph arterials with no onstreet parking and few driveways. The harder part is what to do at complex intersections, such as freeway interchanges. The design standards can't cover every possible configuration, so the traffic engineers are often left on their own. Since the traffic engineers are often not cyclists themselves, the bike lanes often get a routing that would be more appropriate for a pedestrian to travel.

Now that is probably the heart of the problem... treating cyclists as pedestrians... or putting us in a pedestrian mode when there may be other better ways.

This is why I would love to see those traffic engineers be forced to ride their bike lanes on low powered scooters so they can experience what the situation is like that they have planned for us. It would give them some perspective.

LCI Brian... I understood your example... In the field in which I work, there are also these idealized formulas... yet the real world is full of variables that are hard to quantify... and usually managers are not patient enough to wait for full on scientific studies for you to find the missing variables.

Or to put it another way... we can solve to the 6th decimal place... but it is a +/- 10% world... give it the best shot you can.

. . . Oh yeah, the traffic engineers in my area have no problem with designing the bike lanes that are on the 45-55 mph arterials with no onstreet parking and few driveways. The harder part is what to do at complex intersections, such as freeway interchanges. The design standards can't cover every possible configuration, so the traffic engineers are often left on their own. Since the traffic engineers are often not cyclists themselves, the bike lanes often get a routing that would be more appropriate for a pedestrian to travel.
Which explains why it's critically important to have laws that let us ignore the bike lanes. Courts will defer to the engineers, even when they're designing bike lanes that work for pedestrian instead of vehicular traffic.

Oregon law now says bicyclists are only required to use the bike lane if a public hearing has been held to determine that the bike lane is in fact safe. In an appellate court ruling (the Potter case http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115242.htm ), the judge essentially declared that 'if it was designed and built by engineers, it is inherently safe and no public hearing is required, bicyclists must use the bike lane if one is present'. As of Jan 1, 2006, a new law takes effect, SB 938 http://www.bta4bikes.org/info/legis/sb0938.en.pdf , which provides for exceptions to the bike lane requirement.

Oregon law now says bicyclists are only required to use the bike lane if a public hearing has been held to determine that the bike lane is in fact safe. In an appellate court ruling (the Potter case http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115242.htm ), the judge essentially declared that 'if it was designed and built by engineers, it is inherently safe and no public hearing is required, bicyclists must use the bike lane if one is present'. As of Jan 1, 2006, a new law takes effect, SB 938 http://www.bta4bikes.org/info/legis/sb0938.en.pdf , which provides for exceptions to the bike lane requirement.


LOL "'if it was designed and built by engineers, it is inherently safe and no public hearing is required..."

Hey judge, wanna take a ride on the shuttle?

LOL "'if it was designed and built by engineers, it is inherently safe and no public hearing is required..."

Hey judge, wanna take a ride on the shuttle?
It might be safer than some bike lanes. ;)

Which explains why it's critically important to have laws that let us ignore the bike lanes. Rather than complicating the rules of the road even further, how about having the government replace Designated Bicycle Lane striping/signing with Shared Lane Markings (http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=22747)?

I'm for shared lane markings.

I'm for shared lane markings.
I am too.
I am aware some VC types don't like 'em as 'the whole road' is appropriate for bicycles (i.e. crossing lanes for turns, etc.) and that this means every road should be marked. But I think these shared lane markings would be very beneficial for specific areas with narrow lanes where traffic is quite dense.

Al

I am too.
I am aware some VC types don't like 'em as 'the whole road' is appropriate for bicycles (i.e. crossing lanes for turns, etc.) and that this means every road should be marked. But I think these shared lane markings would be very beneficial for specific areas with narrow lanes where traffic is quite dense.

Al

Tend to agree... anything that tells motorists that cyclists are supposed to be on the road with them, is a good thing in my book. Too many motorists have the idea that bicycles just don't belong on the road, and that they the motorist "own the road."

Rather than complicating the rules of the road even further, how about having the government replace Designated Bicycle Lane striping/signing with Shared Lane Markings (http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=22747)?
I agree that shared lane markings are generally better then bike lanes. As Noisebeam and genec have said, the markings tell both cagers and cyclists that cyclists belong on the road.

I am not a traffic lawyer and would like to know if the 'bike lane' is part of the 'road' or part of the shoulder of the road. In California, as I understand it, the road ends at the left edge of the bike lane. So when we are required to ride as far to the right as practicable the law means we can stay in the road, not the bike lane. Has there ever been a case of an officer ticketing a cyclist for being out of a bike lane"? And how did it turn out? Long ago and far away (Irvine, CA in the "90's") my wife was riding along a road with signs saying Bike Lane Closed. A city officer stopped her and said she could not ride there. She pointed out that a bike counts as a vehicle in Califoirnia and she had a Right to The Road like any other vehicle. That if the bike lane is closed, she has a right to use the regular roadway. He let her proceed.

That it was full night and she was using a set of my home-brew 30 watt lights had nothing to do with it.

I like the poster who wrote a respectful letter to his (Oregon) Highway Patrol about a bike law matter and got a polite and thorough answer. Lets try that a little more often.

I am not a traffic lawyer and would like to know if the 'bike lane' is part of the 'road' or part of the shoulder of the road. In California, as I understand it, the road ends at the left edge of the bike lane.

I don't know about California, but in Ontario (and I believe all Canadian provinces and territories) a bike lane is defined as a traffic lane and part of the roadway. Like bus lanes and other restricted lanes it has restrictions as to its use, but it is very much part of the road.

I am not a traffic lawyer and would like to know if the 'bike lane' is part of the 'road' or part of the shoulder of the road. In California, as I understand it, the road ends at the left edge of the bike lane. So when we are required to ride as far to the right as practicable the law means we can stay in the road, not the bike lane. Has there ever been a case of an officer ticketing a cyclist for being out of a bike lane"? And how did it turn out? Long ago and far away (Irvine, CA in the "90's") my wife was riding along a road with signs saying Bike Lane Closed. A city officer stopped her and said she could not ride there. She pointed out that a bike counts as a vehicle in Califoirnia and she had a Right to The Road like any other vehicle. That if the bike lane is closed, she has a right to use the regular roadway. He let her proceed.
In California, the bike lane is part of the roadway: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm


21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations: (snip)
Interesting anecdote about Irvine, as I ride there all the time. They use the "Bike Lane Closed" signs when there's construction. So when the bike lane is closed (or if there is no bike lane, of course), then the "far right as practicable applies": http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm


21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations: (snip)
Now in Irvine when they have the "Bike Lane Closed" signs, they have another sign about 50 feet ahead of it telling motorists "Watch for Bicyclists".

This is an informative article about bicycling law in California: http://www.vcbike.org/bikelaw/bikelaw.htm

In California, the bike lane is part of the roadwayA bike lane is, however, not part of the traveled way. Since you and I (and about 290,000,000 folks) live in the USA, let's review some definitions from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/html-index.htm) (MUTCD): Bicycle—a pedal-powered vehicle ...
Traffic—... vehicles, ... and other conveyances ... while using any highway for purposes of travel.
Roadway—that portion of a highway ... used for vehicular travel and parking lanes, ...
Traveled Way—the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of the ... parking lanes.
Edge Line Markings—... lines that delineate the ... edge(s) of a traveled way.
Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway ... for ... use by bicyclists

The traveled way is where vehicular traffic is supposed to be when traveling from one destination to another. Travel lanes are lanes marked within the traveled way, but there are other lanes (such as parking lanes) which are outside. Notice that a Bicycle Lane is not defined as a lane (as one might expect, given the naming) but rather as another roadway portion.

The MUTCD goes on to state in Chapter 3 that:Edge line markings may be excluded ... if the traveled way edges are delineated by curbs, parking, bicycle lanes ...In order for bicycle lanes to mark the edge of the traveled way like curbs and parking, they must lie side by side. In other words, a bicycle lane is no more part of the traveled way than is a curb or parking (or a shoulder, for that matter).

Sometimes bicycle lanes in the USA are now positioned to the left of right turn lanes, but only because the following patch was later applied to the MUTCD:A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane.
To summarize: the roadway can have multiple portions the traveled way is the portion for travel by vehicular traffic bicycles are vehicular traffic Travel Lanes lie within the traveled way bicycle lanes, by definition, lie outside of the traveled way (but do lie within the Clear Zone)
What's the Clear Zone? Here's the definition (from the MUTCD, of course :) ) :Clear Zone—the total roadside border area, starting at the edge of the traveled way, that is available for an errant driver to stop or regain control of a vehicle.

The Clear Zone sure sounds like a Danger Zone to me...

A bike lane is, however, not part of the traveled way. Since you and I (and about 290,000,000 folks) live in the USA, let's review some definitions from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/html-index.htm) (MUTCD): Bicycle—a pedal-powered vehicle ...
Traffic—... vehicles, ... and other conveyances ... while using any highway for purposes of travel.
Roadway—that portion of a highway ... used for vehicular travel and parking lanes, ...
Traveled Way—the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of the ... parking lanes.
Edge Line Markings—... lines that delineate the ... edge(s) of a traveled way.
Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway ... for ... use by bicyclists

The traveled way is where vehicular traffic is supposed to be when traveling from one destination to another. Travel lanes are lanes marked within the traveled way, but there are other lanes (such as parking lanes) which are outside. Notice that a Bicycle Lane is not defined as a lane (as one might expect, given the naming) but rather as another roadway portion.

The MUTCD goes on to state in Chapter 3 that:In order for bicycle lanes to mark the edge of the traveled way like curbs and parking, they must lie side by side. In other words, a bicycle lane is no more part of the traveled way than is a curb or parking (or a shoulder, for that matter).

Sometimes bicycle lanes in the USA are now positioned to the left of right turn lanes, but only because the following patch was later applied to the MUTCD:
To summarize: the roadway can have multiple portions the traveled way is the portion for travel by vehicular traffic bicycles are vehicular traffic Travel Lanes lie within the traveled way bicycle lanes, by definition, lie outside of the traveled way (but do lie within the Clear Zone)
What's the Clear Zone? Here's the definition (from the MUTCD, of course :) ) :


Of course the biggest issue regarding all this fancy language and these definitions is that drivers never read the MUTCD, so they don't give a rat's butt about the definitions there...

Further, the MUTCD is not the all encompassing document it should be, citing such idocy within as bike lanes right next to parked cars, AND the states don't even follow it. To wit: California's recognition of bicycles not as "vehicles" but as human powered "devices."


Bicycle

231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.

Amended Ch. 1013, Stats. 1985. Effective January 1, 1986.

A bike lane is, however, not part of the traveled way. Since you and I (and about 290,000,000 folks) live in the USA, let's review some definitions from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/html-index.htm) (MUTCD): Bicycle—a pedal-powered vehicle ...
Traffic—... vehicles, ... and other conveyances ... while using any highway for purposes of travel.
Roadway—that portion of a highway ... used for vehicular travel and parking lanes, ...
Traveled Way—the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of the ... parking lanes.
Edge Line Markings—... lines that delineate the ... edge(s) of a traveled way.
Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway ... for ... use by bicyclists

The traveled way is where vehicular traffic is supposed to be when traveling from one destination to another. Travel lanes are lanes marked within the traveled way, but there are other lanes (such as parking lanes) which are outside. Notice that a Bicycle Lane is not defined as a lane (as one might expect, given the naming) but rather as another roadway portion.

The MUTCD goes on to state in Chapter 3 that:In order for bicycle lanes to mark the edge of the traveled way like curbs and parking, they must lie side by side. In other words, a bicycle lane is no more part of the traveled way than is a curb or parking (or a shoulder, for that matter).

Sometimes bicycle lanes in the USA are now positioned to the left of right turn lanes, but only because the following patch was later applied to the MUTCD:
To summarize: the roadway can have multiple portions the traveled way is the portion for travel by vehicular traffic bicycles are vehicular traffic Travel Lanes lie within the traveled way bicycle lanes, by definition, lie outside of the traveled way (but do lie within the Clear Zone)
What's the Clear Zone? Here's the definition (from the MUTCD, of course :) ) :


The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or MUTCD defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all streets and highways. The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655, Subpart F.

I am puzzled by your reliance on this document. It seems, for all the technical highlights in your above quote, that your argument is simply an objection to the wording in an obscure document used only by those engineers who design roads. By the above quote off the summary of the MUTCD, this document is simply an engineering document, used by engineers to design roads. This is not a law, and it is not a legally binding document; it is simply a standards document.

I am also very suspicious when people use quotes with lots of ellipses:


Bicycle—a pedal-powered vehicle ...
Traffic—... vehicles, ... and other conveyances ... while using any highway for purposes of travel.
Roadway—that portion of a highway ... used for vehicular travel and parking lanes, ...
Traveled Way—the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of the ... parking lanes.
Edge Line Markings—... lines that delineate the ... edge(s) of a traveled way.
Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway ... for ... use by bicyclists

What details lie within those ellipses? One wonders. It seems to me that when one's argument is based on such trivialities as a minor problem with the wording of an engineering document, that one must be more careful when he presents his argument that he doesn't seem to be cherry picking his objectionable language. Those details left out may be important to the definition to any of those terms.

Here is the link to the entire MUTCD chapter on bicycles: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003/Ch9.pdf

Here are the important definitions:


Standard:
None of the bikeway designations in this Manual shall be construed to preclude permitted bicycle
travel on roadways or portions of roadways that do not have bikeway designations.

Section 9A.03 Definitions Relating to Bicycles
Standard:
The following terms shall be defined as follows when used in Part 9:

1. Bicycle Facilities—a general term denoting improvements and provisions that accommodate or
encourage bicycling, including parking and storage facilities, and shared roadways not specifically
defined for bicycle use.

2. Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs and pavement markings
for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.

3. Bikeway—a generic term for any road, street, path, or way that in some manner is specifically
designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive
use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes.

4. Designated Bicycle Route—a system of bikeways designated by the jurisdiction having authority
with appropriate directional and informational route signs, with or without specific bicycle route
numbers. Bicycle routes, which might be a combination of various types of bikeways, should
establish a continuous routing.

5. Shared-Use Path—a bikeway outside the traveled way and physically separated from motorized
vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within
an independent alignment. Shared-use paths are also used by pedestrians (including skaters,
users of manual and motorized wheelchairs, and joggers) and other authorized motorized and
non-motorized users.

Note that the bike lane definition says specifically that bike lanes are part of the roadway, implying that "bike lane" and "traveled way" are simply engineering terms denoting different parts of the roadway.

I should add, since I am one of them, that because we are working with engineers and engineering terms, we can safely assume there is no sociological undercurrent of significance built into the different labels denoting portions of the roadway.

One more nit; what was left out of the ellipses:

Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.

So a bike lane is:
1) a portion of the roadway
2) designated by signs and pavement markings
3) for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists

Given these three conditions, as well as having a completely separate term to denote the two, it is unlikely that the writers of this engineering standard intended that "bike lane" be synonomous with "clear zone." Simply put, a bike lane is something more than a simple road shoulder. It must be clearly marked, and intended for cyclists.

Now, it is up for individual state and local law to determine how these road facilities get put to use.

edit: I should add that whether or not the "clear zone" resembles a "bike lane" or vice verse depends on the environment and the individual state and local policies regarding road maintainance.

The worst irony about Bruce Rosar citing the MUTCD is that the document supports exactly what Rosar's avatar shows... bike lanes right next to parked cars.


Sorry Bruce, I have little faith in that document, that was written for engineers, to design roads... for motorists.

The worst irony about Bruce Rosar citing the MUTCD is that the document supports exactly what Rosar's avatar shows... bike lanes right next to parked cars.


Sorry Bruce, I have little faith in that document, that was written for engineers, to design roads... for motorists.
Gene's right. There's no mention of the SF sign I have in my avatar. There's no mention of making loop sensors detect bicycles. This is a get-bicycles-out-of-the-way-of-motorists policy.

The worst irony about Bruce Rosar citing the MUTCD is that the document supports exactly what Rosar's avatar shows... bike lanes right next to parked cars.

Sorry Bruce, I have little faith in that document, that was written for engineers, to design roads... for motorists.
But that supports the notion that non-cycling traffic engineers may read the document and design bike lanes more like "clear space" for motorists rather than designing them with bicycle travel in mind.

Case in point - a cyclist I know got involved in a minor collision when riding over a freeway interchange. A long right turn only lane goes up over the bridge, followed by a tight radius turn onto the freeeway. The bike lane up ahead was striped to the right of the right turn only lane, so he was in the right-most straight through travel lane. The officer found him at fault for the collision, since he wasn't far right as practicable (at the point of collision, he hadn't yet reached the section of road with the bike lane). Somehow, the bike lane placement came up in the discussion, and the investigating officer (who was a triathlete, but gave up road cycling because of the traffic) had checked with the traffic engineers. The traffic engineer came back with an answer to the effect that the bike lane was there so that the motorists would have a buffer zone to the right when they start the right turn.

Simply put, a bike lane is something more than a simple road shoulder.Agreed, a bike lane isn't a simple road shoulder. It's a complicated road shoulder (aka a road shoulder with a complex). ;)

Some of the bike lanes here are shockers, sticks, stones all over them, and in 'sub-residnetial' areas cars are parked in them. Shocking, I dont ride on them/try not to.

The traffic engineer came back with an answer to the effect that the bike lane was there so that the motorists would have a buffer zone to the right when they start the right turn.
Another case in point -- Bike Lanes were recently striped and signed on an existing road near where I work. In some sections, what was the shoulder is now marked as the BL. Where right turn lanes lead to entrance ramps, the BL lies where the shoulder used to (to the outside of the turn lane).

Why do traffic engineers do that sort of thing so often? Because they've been put in a difficult and complex situation:

A BL* is a roadway portion. The traveled way** is a roadway portion. But when right turns can be made, all vehicular traffic needs to travel in one portion so that right turning traffic is much less likely to cut off (i.e., "hook") same direction traffic that's not also turning. Now the portion of the roadway which can physically accommodate all traveling traffic is the traveled way. Other flows of vehicular traffic within the right-of-way (whether in BLs, parking lanes, parallel paths, or shoulders***) interfere with that traffic engineering fundamental to a greater or lesser degree.

If we want traffic engineers to do a better job, we should simplify the situation. One way to accomplish that is to have the government use Shared Lane Markings (http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=22747)

Bicycle—a pedal-powered vehicle [...]
*Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway that has been designated [...] for [...] use by bicyclists.
**Traveled Way—the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles [...]
***Shoulder— the roadway portion for accommodation of stopped vehicles for emergency use, and for lateral support of the base and surface courses.

By the above quote off the summary of the MUTCD, this document is simply an engineering document, used by engineers to design roads. Not just roads: from Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part1/part1a.htm#section1A07)
Standard: 23 CFR 655.603 adopts the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel. When a State or other Federal agency manual or supplement is required, that manual or supplement shall be in substantial conformance with the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
This [...] is not a legally binding documentContinuing in Section 1A.07 (btw, CFR means Code of Federal Regulations):23 CFR 655.603 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0655f.htm) also states that traffic control devices on all streets and highways open to public travel in each State shall be in substantial conformance with standards issued or endorsed by the Federal Highway Administrator.