Bike lanes [Archive] - Page 29

Brian Ratliff

12-20-05, 11:12 AM

23 CFR 655.603 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.

(bolded words mine)

Bruce: "substantial conformance" leaves things open to interpretation. I was going to write something here about how you are simply trying to insert politically correct phrases in place of the ones already there, but I realize you purpose is different. You are trying to suggest that, given the circumlocutationous route around different definitions of an engineering document, that bike lanes are off the traveled way which is to say that they are in the clear zone which is the same as the shoulder which, by definition (notice how statements gain force by this term "by definition," regardless if it is actually "by definition"), is not the portion of the road which we want to ride in. Engineering standards documents are not read or interpreted this way, and your circumlocutation around the various definitions don't mean anything to anyone other than yourself.

Remember people, that this is a standards document made by engineers, for engineers. Yes, their biggest problem is to get car traffic to move easily and safely. Cars, after all, are the hardest things to get moving safely. Bicycles are generally easier to move around because there are fewer of us; accept it and get over it. The design of individual roads and travel paths are controlled by local governments. This document is designed simply so that people from Portland, OR can still understand the road markings over in Arizona and are able to rent a car and successfully drive. This document, by itself, only sets the baseline standards that all roads adhere. Trends in bicycle movement or any other novel roadway feature start at the local level and trickle down to this standard. If bicycles become a significant portion of the vehicles on the road, this document will suddenly take notice and ensure that travel by bicycle is standardized. As it is, bicycle travel is nowhere near universal, and so standards for bike facilities are less important to the writers of this document.

Understandably, we on this forum wish that bicycle travel would become standardized, and we all have our opinion as to what those standards should be, but taking the amount of controversy generated by roadway feature for cyclists just on this forum, we are still in the experimental phase, and standards would not be helpful. In fact, they could be harmful, enshrining into our roadway standards something that is not optimal for cyclists. Think, Bruce, of what your arguments would be if this document, instead of simply defining a bike lane in a certain way, actually designated a design for a bike lane and enshrined bike lanes into road designs. If you push for bike standards before the experimental phase is over, this is the likely result.

LCI_Brian

12-21-05, 08:25 AM

Understandably, we on this forum wish that bicycle travel would become standardized, and we all have our opinion as to what those standards should be, but taking the amount of controversy generated by roadway feature for cyclists just on this forum, we are still in the experimental phase, and standards would not be helpful. In fact, they could be harmful, enshrining into our roadway standards something that is not optimal for cyclists. Think, Bruce, of what your arguments would be if this document, instead of simply defining a bike lane in a certain way, actually designated a design for a bike lane and enshrined bike lanes into road designs. If you push for bike standards before the experimental phase is over, this is the likely result.
It's been 30 years since the first bike lanes have been around, and you're saying we're still in the experimental phase? In that time there are things that we know for sure that are bad for cyclists, such as placing bike lanes in the door zone of parked cars, or placing them to the right of right turn only lanes. Certainly a standard could prohibit these bike lane placements.

Brian Ratliff

12-21-05, 11:25 AM

It's been 30 years since the first bike lanes have been around, and you're saying we're still in the experimental phase? In that time there are things that we know for sure that are bad for cyclists, such as placing bike lanes in the door zone of parked cars, or placing them to the right of right turn only lanes. Certainly a standard could prohibit these bike lane placements.

There are some standards in place, such as prohibiting bike lanes to the right of right turn only lanes. However, the bicycling community is still at odds with each other over the best type of bike facility. Individual cities do cycling facilities differently, and they are all custom jobs.

As for still being in the experimental phase, bike lane design and usage are still changing significantly in cities where they are being used extensively. This indicates there are disagreements over the "best" design, and it may even indicate that bike facilities are something which cannot be standardized. Bottom line, there is no agreement, and standards are only put into place once there is agreement in the industry. Engineering standards are not used to force agreement; they are only to formallize agreements which have already been made. Such as it is, new standards take a long time to come about.

LCI_Brian

12-21-05, 12:54 PM

As for still being in the experimental phase, bike lane design and usage are still changing significantly in cities where they are being used extensively. This indicates there are disagreements over the "best" design, and it may even indicate that bike facilities are something which cannot be standardized. Bottom line, there is no agreement, and standards are only put into place once there is agreement in the industry. Engineering standards are not used to force agreement; they are only to formallize agreements which have already been made. Such as it is, new standards take a long time to come about.
Maybe bike lane design and application is changing significantly where you live, but that is not the case in my area. The newer cities in my area have had bike lanes for over 20 years, and based on my observations over the last 10 years, these bike lanes have changed very little. By California law, bike facilities must be designed to Caltrans' standards.

In cities where bike lane design and application are changing, any disagreement over the "best" design is more likely from a political point of view rather than an engineering one. For example, from an engineering point of view it is not possible to route a continuous bike lane through a freeway interchange without violating traffic priniciples, because at some point bicyclists need to merge left and motorists need to merge right, and the bicyclist merge left cannot always safely be done at a location predetermined by bike lane stripes. Yet there are calls for things like striping blue bike lanes to solve that problem, which in my view is more of a political solution to make beginning cyclists feel safer.

In other parts of the state, namely San Francisco, there are requests to experiment with new types of facilities (such as the shared lane marking). These experiments are approved on a case by case basis and are limited to a certain test area, then they are evaluated and it is discussed whether it should be allowed in other parts of the state. That's much better than a whole city or state being a testing ground for an idea.

In my opinion, the best bike lane is one that is mid-block with no onstreet parking (or completely striped outside of the door zone) and few driveways. The bike lanes in my area generally are very close to this arrangement, and I suspect that is one reason why they haven't changed much.

genec

12-21-05, 06:59 PM

LCI_Brian

12-21-05, 07:56 PM

Regarding the comment that bike lanes are not "evolving." Take a look at this 2000 report on a different way to address right turn areas on narrow streets.

http://www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/r&d/blue_box_combined.PDF

Also those bike lanes that have been around for "20 years..." Do they now stop well before an intersection? Are they dashed to indicate merge areas?
I was addressing Brian's comment that "bike lane design and usage are still changing significantly in cities where they are being used extensively" (bolding is mine). As the Caltrans standards in Calfornia have evolved, so have the bike lanes in my area, although I wouldn't call the changes significant. So the bike lanes in my area are dashed lines before intersections, for example.

Bruce Rosar

12-21-05, 10:31 PM

[...] we on this forum wish that bicycle travel would become standardized [...]BTW, some of us on this forum already enjoy standardized bicycle travel by sharing both the roads and the RotR (Rules of the Road) that are common to all drivers. Of course, that's easier in the free states (i.e., the ones where the standard traffic movement rules are the same regardless of vehicle type).

[...] standards would not be helpful. That reminds me of an exchange which occured in a different list during YADABL (yet-another-discussion-about-bike-lanes). A bicycle advisory committee member told Richard C. Moeur, a traffic engineer, that: Parents have suggested barriers between the car and bike lane so cars don't use the bike lanes to pass.To which the engineer replied (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.soc/msg/ef6a953a895aa521):
First, this seems to be another instance of the "public
opinion passing as traffic engineering expertise" syndrome.
Nearly every nut that holds down a steering wheel (and
even a few nuts holding down handlebars) consider
themselves to be greater traffic experts than the
poor souls whose job it is to keep all users moving
safely on public roads. One of the greatest differences,
of course, is that these members of the public don't hurt
people if their traffic ideas go wrong. That's not to
say that the public is always wrong, or that the ideas
are uniformly bad (after all, we work for 'em). However,
the guys and gals who do traffic for a living are held to
a much higher standard of care, and of proof.

Unfortunately, many people who are expert in the fields
of roadway and traffic engineering aren't as up to date
in the specialty area of bicycle traffic control.
Over the past few years, the Bicycle Technical Committee
(BTC) of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (NCUTCD) has been advising the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) on improvements to the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the uniform
traffic control standard for all roads open to public
travel in the US. Items in the MUTCD are read and heeded
by nearly all involved with traffic control in this
nation, and provide a sound basis for making decisions
on what devices are appropriate for accommodation of
bicyclists and other road users. While this isn't
enough to make everyone as expert as they should be
in bicycle traffic control, it at least provides a
uniform benchmark for roads and other facilities
across the country.
--
Richard C. Moeur, P.E.

genec

12-22-05, 06:43 AM

First, this seems to be another instance of the "public
opinion passing as traffic engineering expertise" syndrome.
Nearly every nut that holds down a steering wheel (and
even a few nuts holding down handlebars) consider
themselves to be greater traffic experts than the
poor souls whose job it is to keep all users moving
safely on public roads. One of the greatest differences,
of course, is that these members of the public don't hurt
people if their traffic ideas go wrong. That's not to
say that the public is always wrong, or that the ideas
are uniformly bad (after all, we work for 'em). However,
the guys and gals who do traffic for a living are held to
a much higher standard of care, and of proof.

Unfortunately, many people who are expert in the fields
of roadway and traffic engineering aren't as up to date
in the specialty area of bicycle traffic control.
Over the past few years, the Bicycle Technical Committee
(BTC) of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (NCUTCD) has been advising the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) on improvements to the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the uniform
traffic control standard for all roads open to public
travel in the US. Items in the MUTCD are read and heeded
by nearly all involved with traffic control in this
nation, and provide a sound basis for making decisions
on what devices are appropriate for accommodation of
bicyclists and other road users. While this isn't
enough to make everyone as expert as they should be
in bicycle traffic control, it at least provides a
uniform benchmark for roads and other facilities
across the country.
--
Richard C. Moeur, P.E.

Right... Nice "engineering:" http://www.labreform.org/blunders/laird.jpg

Perhaps it's time to get a few engineers out on bicycles to actually ride what has only been seen on a "drawingboard." This location for a BL (next to parked cars) is actually permitted in the "precious" MUTCD.

I'd say right off hand that the MUTCD has some "evolving" to do.

Here's a little something from the "public:" http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf

Bruce Rosar

12-22-05, 08:59 AM

Right... Nice "engineering:" http://www.labreform.org/blunders/laird.jpg
[...] This location for a BL (next to parked cars) is actually permitted in the [...] MUTCD.The vehicle type specific language (i.e., the BL stuff) is (IMHO) an exception which, when compared to the rest of the MUTCD, proves the general rule that the MUTCD provides a sound basis for making decisions on what devices are appropriate for accommodating all road users.

I'd say right off hand that the MUTCD has some "evolving" to do.In my experience, the P.E.s (Professional Engineers) who are up to date in the specialty area of bicycle traffic control do take such exceptions and inconsistencies seriously once they recognize them as such (note that your typical bike/ped planner is not a P.E.)

Here's a little something from the "public:" http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdfYea, Bicycling and on-street parallel parking (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf) is a nice paper (which, BTW, quotes a non-BL section of the MUTCD on page 2) by Wayne Pein (a member of the N.C. Coalition for Bicycle Driving (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving)). FYI: there's a list of links to a dozen or so other such resources on the subject over at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate#External_links)

Bruce Rosar

12-22-05, 09:59 AM

a bike lane isn't a simple road shoulder. It's a complicated road shoulder
Which is part of the problem. Both the MUTCD and AASHTO "standards" are designed more to keep automobile traffic moving than to create a safe space for bicycles.That (IMHO) is also true of BLs, as they don't provide grade or time separation at points where other vehicles can cross the BL to enter or leave the traveled way.

For example, they put bike lanes in parking door zones. There are no cyclist-centered bike lane standards (please correct me if I'm wrong on that).In a sense, all BLs are "cyclist-centered" (they're just for bikers) and the BL standards are too (they're bike specific). Today, after 20-30 years, we're still trying to fit such "square" (i.e., vehicle type specific) facilities into the "round" (i.e., not vehicle type specific) system of public ways.

A common assumption these days is that standards (engineering, legal, etc.) for public highways (aka streets, roads, etc.) should differentiate between travelers on a basis of the class, group or collection that the person belongs to (rather than just on that particular person's own merit). IMHO, the best way to improve the situation is not by segregating people more, but rather by better integrating every person's travel into the public ways (regardless of their speed).

I believe that segregation of people according to the average speed of their choosen means of travel is anti-STR (Share The Road).

genec

12-22-05, 11:01 AM

In a sense, all BLs are "cyclist-centered" (they're just for bikers) and the BL standards are too (they're bike specific). Today, after 20-30 years, we're still trying to fit such "square" (i.e., vehicle type specific) facilities into the "round" (i.e., not vehicle type specific) system of public ways.

A common assumption these days is that standards (engineering, legal, etc.) for public highways (aka streets, roads, etc.) should differentiate between travelers on a basis of the class, group or collection that the person belongs to, rather than just on that particular person's own merit. IMHO, the best way to improve the situation is not by segregating people more, but rather by better integrating every person's travel into the public ways (regardless of their speed).

I believe that segregation of people according to the average speed of their choosen means of travel is anti-STR (Share The Road).

Funny, you find that Bike Lanes on the road are a "square peg in a round hole," but you don't find 200lb bicycles (+rider) that travel at 10-25MPH on roads directly shared with 6000lb motorvehicles moving at 50+MPH, as being that same "square peg in a round hole."

You need to wake up and calculate the mass.

Bike Lanes are not to "segregate people," but ARE used to separate fast moving motorvehicles from much slower moving "human powered devices."

Bruce Rosar

12-22-05, 12:15 PM

You need to wake up and calculate the mass. Unlike weight limits on bridges, BLs don't directly distinguish between travelers according to the mass of their vehicle. If separation by mass is all that important, then let's have a rule (like the weight rules for bridges) that implements such a distinction in a direct, honest, forthright, fair and efficient manner.

Bike Lanes are not to "segregate people," [...] From the MUTCD (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part1/part1a.htm):Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway [...] for [...] use by bicyclists.All the bicyclists I've meet are people. ;) As for "segregate"; the separation of a person on a basis other than their own individual merit or performance (such as class, group or category) is segregation. "Bicyclist" is a class (of traveler).

[...] but ARE used to separate fast moving motorvehicles from much slower moving "human powered devices."There better ways to mitigate the danger posed by others (such as overtaking drivers) on a public facility than by government sponsored segregation.

I-Like-To-Bike

12-22-05, 12:37 PM

There better ways to mitigate the danger posed by others (such as overtaking drivers) on a public facility than by government sponsored segregation.
I know! Smoke/drink the same stuff that Bruce does when concocting his legal interpretations.

Heck, everything will make sense and everything will seem in order then in your own personal spacey Wonderland.

genec

12-22-05, 02:41 PM

Unlike weight limits on bridges, BLs don't directly distinguish between travelers according to the mass of their vehicle. If separation by mass is all that important, then let's have a rule (like the weight rules for bridges) that implements such a distinction in a direct, honest, forthright, fair and efficient manner.

From the MUTCD (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part1/part1a.htm):All the bicyclists I've meet are people. ;) As for "segregate"; the separation of a person on a basis other than their own individual merit or performance (such as class, group or category) is segregation. "Bicyclist" is a class (of traveler).

There better ways to mitigate the danger posed by others (such as overtaking drivers) on a public facility than by government sponsored segregation.

Take all the vehicles and "devices" (California for instance does not recognize bicycles as vehicles) away and you have people, put the people on the roads without their "transportation systems" and there is no segregation.

Confuse the mass of their transportation systems with the actual operators and you get strange comparisons to water fountains.

Put the people in and on their various means of transportation and the mass and speed of their "systems" is quite different, and should therefore be separated. Failing to realize that is as delusional as supporting gliders on the same runways with 747s.

Bruce Rosar

12-22-05, 05:27 PM

[...] as delusional as supporting gliders on the same runways with 747s.As a matter of fact, looking at the right of way rules for various transportation systems can help us to better understand the fundamental principles for all of them. The Transportation Systems (TSs) that are similar are those in which traffic is composed of autonomous and self-propelled units.

In the highway, marine and aviation TSs, operators almost always use the same travel areas and the same rules for handling traffic conflicts, with one fundamental exception: categories of less maneuverable users are given a higher priority in conflict situations and travel area selection than categories of more maneuverable users.

For example: in the Federal Aviation Regulations, right-of-way priority is given to the aircraft least able to maneuver. Aircraft of different categories have the right-of-way in the following order of priority:
Balloons.
Gliders.
Aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft.
Airships.
Rotary or fixed-wing aircraft under power.
Another example: Marine "Collision Regulations" state ... less-maneuverable vessels must be given the right of way. and that a member of the category sailing vessel is less-maneuverable than a member of the category power-driven vessel.

A sailboat with an auxiliary engine is like a cyclist in this respect: the maneuverability category of both can be changed. The sailboat motoring along in the power-driven vessel category can change to the sailing vessel category just by switching from motor to sail propulsion. Nothing else about the sailboat (including hull speed) need change in order to switch the maneuverability category.

A cyclist wheeling along in the vehicle category can change to the pedestrian category just by dismounting and switching from wheels to feet. Carrying the cycle (wheels off the ground) may be required for full pedestrian category maneuverability.

BTW, I found a picture of a glider landing (http://www.nasaexplores.com/show2_k_4a.php?id=02-017&gl=k4) on the same runway used by 747s (http://www.peterson.af.mil/hqafspc/news/images/shuttle.jpg). :rolleyes:

randya

12-22-05, 05:32 PM

I would say a bicycle is more maneuverable than a motor vehicle. On the other hand, I think ROW on roads should be given to the most vulnerable users, and not the least maneuverable.

genec

12-22-05, 05:39 PM

As a matter of fact, looking at the right of way rules for various transportation systems can help us to better understand the fundamental principles for all of them. The Transportation Systems (TSs) that are similar are those in which traffic is composed of autonomous and self-propelled units.

In the highway, marine and aviation TSs, operators almost always use the same travel areas and the same rules for handling traffic conflicts, with one fundamental exception: categories of less maneuverable users are given a higher priority in conflict situations and travel area selection than categories of more maneuverable users.

For example: in the Federal Aviation Regulations, right-of-way priority is given to the aircraft least able to maneuver. Aircraft of different categories have the right-of-way in the following order of priority:
Balloons.
Gliders.
Aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft.
Airships.
Rotary or fixed-wing aircraft under power.
Another example: Marine "Collision Regulations" state and that a member of the category sailing vessel is less-maneuverable than a member of the category power-driven vessel.

A sailboat with an auxiliary engine is like a cyclist in this respect: the maneuverability category of both can be changed. The sailboat motoring along in the power-driven vessel category can change to the sailing vessel category just by switching from motor to sail propulsion. Nothing else about the sailboat (including hull speed) need change in order to switch the maneuverability category.

A cyclist wheeling along in the vehicle category can change to the pedestrian category just by dismounting and switching from wheels to feet. Carrying the cycle (wheels off the ground) may be required for full pedestrian category maneuverability.

BTW, I found a picture of a glider landing (http://www.nasaexplores.com/show2_k_4a.php?id=02-017&gl=k4) on the same runway used by 747s (http://www.peterson.af.mil/hqafspc/news/images/shuttle.jpg). :rolleyes:

+1.

I have to give you credit for this post... First and foremost I agree with your premise that catagorically giving priority to the less maneuverable vessle/vehicle is a wonderful thing. I would love to see this as a cyclist... as a sailor I am quite familiar with COLREGs... There are exceptions, but we needn't go there for now.

I also have to give you credit for the glider/747 pic... yes, the shuttle is indeed a glider... :roflmao: However, you did rather miss the "spirit" of my comment with that pic.

Back to the rules of the road... now all we have to do is change the rules of the roads in the US. BTW, I understand (but have not confirmed) that in European countries, there is a severe penalty for a motorist causing harm to a cyclist... unlike here, where the fine is roughly equivalent to the fine for littering, if ever enforced. :eek:

Bruce Rosar

12-22-05, 07:19 PM

I would say a bicycle is more maneuverable than a motor vehicle. The various Transportation Systems have each established categories of maneuverablility. John S. Allen once wrote (in the massbike list) The basic maneuvering characteristics of a bicycle are those of a vehicle...Vehicles with at least one steered wheel at one end of the frame and at least one trailing wheel at the other all have a minimum turning radius, and do not maneuver in reverse effectively when compared to traveling forward. These common characteristics place bicycles, tricycles and quadcycles (whether pedal or motor powered) in the same general category of maneuverability.

Unicycles and Segways are in a higher category of maneuverability because their wheel(s) are all in the middle of the vehicle (rather than at the ends). This fundamental difference gives this latter set of vehicles the ability to pivot during normal operation (due to a wheelbase and minimum turning radius of zero), plus they can maneuver in reverse about as easily as when traveling forward. In other words, these vehicles can do things that vehicles in the former category cannot perform as nearly as well (if at all).

On the other hand, I think ROW on roads should be given to the most vulnerable users, and not the least maneuverable.BTW, a person on foot has less protection than someone driving a pedal vehicle (the wheels and the frame provide more protection than air does). ;)

Bruce Rosar

12-27-05, 07:39 AM

[...] California for instance does not recognize bicycles as vehicles [...]Just in case any readers of this thread have been wondering why many cyclists in California don't advocate for legally defining bicycles as vehicles in that state, here are some relevant quotes:

From The Bicycle as Vehicle (http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/vehicle.htm), summary by Al Sturges:Most ... states appear to classify bicycles as vehicles... Six states -- AZ, CA, IA, IL, IN, MI, NY -- give bicycles the rights and responsibilities ... of vehicles, but exclude bicycles as vehicles in the code.
From John Forester, 17 Mar 1997:The disadvantages of defining bicycles as vehicles are that this then prohibits century rides, racing, ... and pace lining. These are not necessary consequences ... California [law] does not define bicycles as vehicles, and we who considered that project many years ago decided against trying for it.
From Allan Forkosh, 1997:Redefining bicycles as vehicles in California [law] would involve major revisions of the vehicle code... Since the current rule has been interpreted to allow bicycles on all roads and to follow all rules of the road except where the vehicle code explicitly calls for something different, organized bicyclists in the state have decided that it is not (worth) opening up this can of worms.
The next two quotations are from the Recommendations section of Bicycles and the Law: The Case of California (http://www.cvcbike.org/club/bikelaw.htm) by Alan Wachtel
There is no rational basis for the current distinction between bicycles and vehicles. This distinction is not only confusing in itself, but leads directly to superfluous special regulations for bicycles, such as the slow bicycle rule and the bike-lane rule. These superfluous regulations, in turn, are readily subject to misunderstanding and misinterpretation... Special regulations also tend to relegate the bicycle to second-class status...
The key word in first sentence of Alan's next paragraph (quoted below) is simply. The complication (as Alan notes in the last sentence) is that equal and rational rights for bicyclists must be simultaneously and explicitly established if and when bicycles are redefined as vehicles in California law.
...it would be a mistake simply to amend California law to define bicycles as vehicles. ... because bicycles are not vehicles [in California law], localities cannot use their authority to prohibit certain vehicles from particular streets as justification for banning bicycles. ... If bicycles are ever to be defined [in California law] as vehicles, bicyclists' right to share the roadway must be expressly preserved.

"If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you."

genec

12-27-05, 09:26 AM

Just in case any readers of this thread have been wondering why many cyclists in California don't advocate for legally defining bicycles as vehicles in that state, here are some relevant quotes:

From The Bicycle as Vehicle (http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/vehicle.htm), summary by Al Sturges:
From John Forester, 17 Mar 1997:
From Allan Forkosh, 1997:
The next two quotations are from the Recommendations section of Bicycles and the Law: The Case of California (http://www.cvcbike.org/club/bikelaw.htm) by Alan Wachtel

The key word in first sentence of Alan's next paragraph (quoted below) is simply. The complication (as Alan notes in the last sentence) is that equal and rational rights for bicyclists must be simultaneously and explicitly established if and when bicycles are redefined as vehicles in California law.

"If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you."

Interesting... Especially this:

From John Forester, 17 Mar 1997:

The disadvantages of defining bicycles as vehicles are that this then prohibits century rides, racing, ... and pace lining. These are not necessary consequences ... California [law] does not define bicycles as vehicles, and we who considered that project many years ago decided against trying for it.

As this means that the king of vehicular cycling recognized that cyclists acting in a large mass ride are not acting in a vehicular manner AND he is looking for an exception to his "preachings" by not pushing for vehicular status for bicycles.

This gets right to the heart of the motivation of some advocates who one one hand push for strict law abidance, but on the other hand want exceptions for their special desires.

See this thread for an example of this dichotomy. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=158695)

Now I happen to like pace lines and century rides and the like... but I also don't feel that cyclists and motorists are exactly equal on the road... The difference in mass and speed of the vehicle verses the human powered device are enough in my mind to warrant special handling of the human powered device... and in that light Bike Lanes and other facilities have their place. I aknowledge the difference between bicycles and motorcars...

Others don't... or so it seems... with their quest for "rights" and "equality" on the road, yet... they want "special handling" when it best suits them. Very interesting.

Bruce Rosar

12-27-05, 10:42 AM

The difference in mass and speed ... are enough in my mind to warrant special handling ...It's unfair and ineffective for the government to sponsor the separation by class of a person because of extraordinary danger posed by someone else. If anyone deserves "special handling", it's the person who poses the extreme danger to others and their property (the motorist) and not the potential victims (everybody else).

BTW, that danger becomes even greater when the driver of a heavy motor vehicle is impaired. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is offering a way for each of us to help fight that problem: Join the National Fight Against Impaired Driving (http://www.stopimpaireddriving.org/)
Tools You Can Use (http://www.stopimpaireddriving.org/tools-community.htm) in support of the national campaign

Advice about "What you can do" from Mothers Against Drunk Driving:
Write letters to the editor of local newspapers expressing your concern over drunk driving and underage drinking in your community.
http://www.lee-county.com/healthdept/Drinkdrive.htm#What You Can Do About Impaired Driving
Support measures to strengthen drunk driving and victims rights laws by contacting elected officials
http://capwiz.com/congressorg/dbq/officials/
Report drunk drivers immediately to area law enforcement from a car phone or pay phone with the license plate number, description of the vehicle and the direction in which it was traveling.
http://www.maddorangecounty.org/cellular.htm

genec

12-27-05, 11:50 AM

It's unfair and ineffective for the government to sponsor the separation by class of a person because of extraordinary danger posed by someone else. If anyone deserves "special handling", it's the person who poses the extreme danger to others and their property (the motorist) and not the potential victims (everybody else).

Great... I would love to have priority on the road over those that pose an "extreme danger" to me...

Now can someone tell the majority of the road users out there that they must behave and watch out for everyone else. Gee, as if that is going to happen.

So much for reality and the issue of "unfair and ineffective... "

The counter argument by the government and the majority users of the road might be along the lines of "economic basis" and "vast majority..." But I digress.

Again the REALITY is that roads are designed by "driving" engineers for drivers of motor vehicles. Further, traffic speeds are dictated by the driving public... based on the 85 percentile rule used to establish speed limits... Further, the lack of enforcement of speed laws and other traffic laws also adds subtle acceptance to the motorvehicle users over any other potential user of the road.

Sorry Bruce, but life here IS just "unfair and ineffective" toward cyclists... You want to keep fighting that battle? Good luck.

Bruce Rosar

12-27-05, 12:11 PM

Now can someone tell the majority of the road users out there that they must behave and watch out for everyone else.We can advocate that the government, via comprehensive transportation planning, improve the social environment for human powered travel. The following quote is from the bicycle plan for Montgomery County, PA (http://www.montcopa.org/plancom/sect3.htm)The Four E's
Successful bicycle planning efforts throughout the U.S. and in other countries have demonstrated that effective initiatives involve more than road improvement considerations. To thoroughly address all impediments to bicycling, four fundamental components of a comprehensive bicycle mobility plan (often referred to as the "Four Es") must be considered.
Engineering ... deals with ... roadway design and construction issues ... also involves providing bike parking facilities at destinations and accommodating bikes on transit.
Encouragement addresses the promotion of bicycling as a means of transportation.
Education deals with teaching proper bicycling skills, and educating bicyclists and motorists about key safety issues (rules of the road).
Enforcement involves enforcing traffic laws to ensure safe roads for bicyclists and motorists.
The Federal Highway Administration endorses the Four Es approach in its national bicycling and walking study.
Tracy-Williams Consulting has published a Case Study (http://www.bikeplan.com/4epaper.htm ) that discusses how to develop a "4-E" program. The study includes suggestions for collecting data, setting objectives, building a plan, and evaluating results.

patc

12-27-05, 12:57 PM

Bruce Rosar

12-27-05, 08:32 PM

(Yes, I know some places do not allow bikes to use other lanes when a bike lane is present, but that legal limitation is not inherent in bike lanes and should not be considered synonymous with the existence of bike lanes.)A designated Bicycle Lane (dBL) is, by definition, always "a portion of a roadway ... for ... use by bicyclists" and so is always government sponsored separation of a person using a public facility (our roads) just because they're a member of a class (bicyclists). BTW, dBLs can be desegregated just by removing the class-specific signs, symbols and name. Changing the solid line to the same broken line used for marking a regular travel lane, or just replacing the line all together with Shared Lane Markings (http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=22747), is optional.

Brian Ratliff

12-28-05, 09:31 AM

A designated Bicycle Lane (dBL) is, by definition, always "a portion of a roadway ... for ... use by bicyclists" and so is always government sponsored separation of a person using a public facility (our roads) just because they're a member of a class (bicyclists). BTW, dBLs can be desegregated just by removing the class-specific signs, symbols and name. Changing the solid line to the same broken line used for marking a regular travel lane, or just replacing the line all together with Shared Lane Markings (http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=22747), is optional.

You are really hung up on this. Why? Are you extrapolating from the Brown vs. Board of Ed. ruling? You do realize that the situation for cyclists is very, very, very different than black racism of the 50's and 60's, do you? In their case, the situation of schooling made for a viscious cycle of poverty and racism from which black people could not escape and from which they are still escaping. In our case, we are inconvenienced. The inequality stemming from racism was used against people for being who they were; something they could not change. Cyclists simply have to step out of our cycling cloths and off our bike to be treated like everyone else. Simply put, there can be no comparison between our situation and the situation of Brown vs. Board of Education. We need to lay to rest the notion that the cyclist's plight is somehow similar to other discrimination which has happened to people throughout history.

Segregation, using the better form of the definition, is something that happens all the time. Signs tell trucks which roads to travel and that they cannot cross a bridge if they weigh more than a certain amount. Pedestrians are restricted largely to the sidewalk and to crossing at crosswalks. Buses travel in lanes from which ordinary traffic is restricted. Bikes are largely banned from using sidewalks. Men and women have separate restrooms. Children of different ages have different schools. Being segregated does not automatically equal being treated badly. The comment that "separate is inherently unequal" referred only to the plight of the black people fighting off Jim Crow laws in the South.

Granted, in some places, bike lanes are installed for the simple purpose of keeping bikes off the road. But this is not inherently a property of bike lanes, but rather a product of a particular political atmosphere. Bike lanes, in many other places, are modeled as a special use lane, giving more freedom to cyclists then is given to cars. You keep trying to stubornly make the argument that somehow the wording of a definition in an engineering standards document somehow directly affects how bike lanes are inherently implemented. This is wrong. The definition is simply put there to give a language for engineers to talk about the road. That it is not worked into the document and is tacked on instead simply means that their document revision system makes it easier to add a couple of lines into a document than to completely rewrite whole sections.

You keep making the assertion that segregation (in the better use of the word) is inherently bad for cyclists. You need to provide some reasons for this assertion outside of the "Jim Crow" argument.

LittleBigMan

12-28-05, 11:19 AM

randya

12-28-05, 12:54 PM

You keep making the assertion that segregation (in the better use of the word) is inherently bad for cyclists. You need to provide some reasons for this assertion outside of the "Jim Crow" argument.
I would say that bike lane placement (or engineering) which endangers the cyclist fall into this category. This would include bike lanes that are adjacent to or in a parallel parking door zone, bike lanes to the right of a location with a high volume of right turning traffic (not necessarily a separate right turn lane), or bike lanes routinely interupted by drainage grates that are fully 2/3 the width of the bike lane would fall in this category.

Brian Ratliff

12-28-05, 02:22 PM

All I have to do is to take a look at the photograph of a car door opening into a bicycle lane and I get it.

Brian says that cyclists are only "inconvenienced." Some cyclists who have died from this stupid bike lane design might disagree.

You miss my point, not to mention your taking my words out of context (the context of the "inconvenienced" statement was referring to being mildly harrassed by moterists and being ignored in the political realm in favor of cars). Bike lanes can be better designed. Not all bike lanes are in door zones. However, how do you justify bike lanes being inherently bad based on a segregation argument?

Brian Ratliff

12-28-05, 02:25 PM

I would say that bike lane placement (or engineering) which endangers the cyclist fall into this category. This would include bike lanes that are adjacent to or in a parallel parking door zone, bike lanes to the right of a location with a high volume of right turning traffic (not necessarily a separate right turn lane), or bike lanes routinely interupted by drainage grates that are fully 2/3 the width of the bike lane would fall in this category.

None of these are inherent to bike lanes. Anything can be designed badly. Many bicycle designs throughout history have turned out to be badly and dangerously designed - Forester and others have written papers on these design defects. Do we then take those examples and state that bicycling as a whole is inherently unsafe?

randya

12-28-05, 02:36 PM

None of these are inherent to bike lanes. Anything can be designed badly. Many bicycle designs throughout history have turned out to be badly and dangerously designed - Forester and others have written papers on these design defects. Do we then take those examples and state that bicycling as a whole is inherently unsafe?
Of course not, neither did I intend my examples to be a justification or defense of the VC point of view. IMO, as long as the motor vehicle remains the standard for which we design roads, and the bike lane as we know it continues to be the standard by which we design on-road bicycle facilities, these bad engineering designs will continue to be foisted on the public by our transportation 'professionals'. IMO, what we need is a change in the way the professionals do transportation planning and engineering, facilitated by a change in the heirarchy of road users, see this thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=156599&highlight=heirarchy

genec

12-28-05, 02:37 PM

I would say that bike lane placement (or engineering) which endangers the cyclist fall into this category. This would include bike lanes that are adjacent to or in a parallel parking door zone, bike lanes to the right of a location with a high volume of right turning traffic (not necessarily a separate right turn lane), or bike lanes routinely interupted by drainage grates that are fully 2/3 the width of the bike lane would fall in this category.

Granted, these are all bad bike lane designs... but they have nothing to do with "segregation."

Bike lanes that are solid lines across intersections are also bad designs, bl that are narrow or that force cyclists into pedestrian mode are also bad designs... but these are engineering flaws, not "rights issues." And since the bloody document that tells engineers how to design these flaws is flawed... that is the heart of the problem.

genec

12-28-05, 02:38 PM

Of course not, neither did I intend my examples to be a justification or defense of the VC point of view. IMO, as long as the motor vehicle remains the standard for which we design roads, and the bike lane as we know it continues to be the standard by which we design on-road bicycle facilities, these bad engineering designs will continue to be foisted on the public by our transportation 'professionals'. IMO, what we need is a change in the way the professionals do transportation planning and engineering, facilitated by a change in the heirarchy of road users, see this thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=156599&highlight=heirarchy

Now that is a darn good idea!!!

patc

12-28-05, 07:08 PM

buzzman

12-28-05, 11:30 PM

Now that winter is upon us I've been a pedestrian a bit more than usual.

I've noticed that sidewalks and crosswalks are not terribly user friendly in design and/or maintenance. There are newspaper boxes, fire hydrants, trash cans, people with strollers, on roller skates- it's chaos. It's especially bad at parking lots where I've got to dodge and weave to get past the entrance. And statistically a great many pedestrian fatalities occur where pedestrians cross the roadway. Many times these fatalities are due to pedestrian error. Obviously pedestrian education is the solution.

I've been resenting being segregated from the road way as well. I mean why should I, as a pedestrian, be forced to walk on a separate facility all the time. The speed differential between me as a pedestrian (3-5mph) and me as a cyclist (15-25mph) is no greater (more likely even less) than the difference in speed between an automobile (30-55mph) and a cyclist.

When there isn't enough room for me to walk on the highway I've been just taking a lane. I think my body could be legally defined as a vehicle for my soul.

Let's get rid of all sidewalks! Reducing the number of sidewalks and widening roadways to allow pedestrians to walk on the road will encourage more people to walk as opposed to driving.

sggoodri

12-29-05, 12:28 AM

Granted, these are all bad bike lane designs... but they have nothing to do with "segregation."

Bike lanes that are solid lines across intersections are also bad designs, bl that are narrow or that force cyclists into pedestrian mode are also bad designs... but these are engineering flaws, not "rights issues." And since the bloody document that tells engineers how to design these flaws is flawed... that is the heart of the problem.

I often say that my support or opposition for bicycle-specific engineering is based on the balance of operational advantages versus disadvantages from the experienced cyclists' point of view. From this perspective, simply eliminating engineering flaws such as those cited previously would be possible, and whatever operational advantages might be offered by some of the "best" facility designs could be exploited.

However, I think it is useful to observe that the main reason those engineering flaws exist is that the facility is segregated for the use of a minority population. One can rarely expect a separate-but-top-quality facility if the user is in a minority population, of which the designer/planner doing the segregating is not a member.

I personally think that there may be operational benefits of separated facilities for cyclists in some situations, but that the social phenomena related to segregation often create inferior facilities and generate unexpected operational problems on top of the social stigma. It would be nice if we could simply outlaw door-zone bike lanes and get those existing lanes swept and fixed, but my experience is that this would be far more difficult to accomplish than improving the design and use of shared roadways. That's why I favor wide outside lanes over the same pavement space with a segregation stripe added.

Steve Goodridge
Member, Tau Beta Pi engineering honor society

LittleBigMan

12-29-05, 08:55 AM

You miss my point, not to mention your taking my words out of context (the context of the "inconvenienced" statement was referring to being mildly harrassed by moterists and being ignored in the political realm in favor of cars). Bike lanes can be better designed. Not all bike lanes are in door zones. However, how do you justify bike lanes being inherently bad based on a segregation argument?
Brian, I agree racial segregation is an issue which is far greater than any cyclist rights issue. Racism has left such a deep wound on Americans that it will probably always be visible as a scar. You just can't put cyclists rights on the same level with that. It runs too deeply, has existed too long and the injustices have been so very extreme.

Yet there is slight similarity, however small. Separate facilities was proven unfair, because whenever people's access to public facilities was separated based upon a class distinction like race, those facilities always came up unequal. Not just unequal, but as different as night and day.

Now if roads were constructed for motorists with the same disregard for personal safety as many bike lanes, people would be fired for incompetance. Cyclists have lost their lives to bad bike lane design, which is a glaring example of how separate facilities are not equal. Even after cyclists are killed, these bad designs persist.

Sure, bike lanes can be improved. But their separateness has already caused problems; damage has been done. Does this mean we should fight separate bike facilites just because they are separate? I don't think so.

But the fact that we cyclists too often get the scraps that fall from the table should wake us up quickly.

JRA

12-29-05, 09:48 AM

However, I think it is useful to observe that the main reason those engineering flaws exist is that the facility is segregated for the use of a minority population. One can rarely expect a separate-but-top-quality facility if the user is in a minority population, of which the designer/planner doing the segregating is not a member.That's simply your opinion and I stongly disagree.

Sometimes poor design is simply poor design.

All this "segregation" and "minority polulation" nonsense is the heart of my disagreement with VC-ists with whom I would otherwise agree on many things. I'm convinced that many well-meaning people are so engrossed in VC propaganda that they've forgotten that it's propaganda.

The segregation analogy doesn't pass the stink test. The cry of "segregation", especially with regard to bike lanes, is nonsense. A well-designed bicycle lane is simply speed positioning between intersections and violates none of the Traffic Negotiation Principles (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/page4.html) listed on the humantransport.org website. The claim that bike lanes are "segregation" and discrimination places the person who uses that argument clearly in the "crackpot" category as far as I'm concerned. There is nothing inherent in a BL that is either segregation or discrimination.

There are many valid reasons for opposing bike lanes. Opponents of BLs would do well to stick to those arguments and stay away from ridiculous social analogies and offensive word games.

I'm not a big fan of BLs myself but I'm opposed enough to the "bike lanes are Jim Crow" nonsense that, if we're choosing sides, I'm going to get as far away from those who cry that BLs are "segregation" as I can.

Opposition to bike lanes simply on the basis of a highly questionable social theory (that bike lanes are Jim Crow) is not only nonsense but it's self-defeating. It places VC-ists in opposition to many bicyclists and it divides the bicycling community. It's sad that so many have chosen to make such an issue of a strip of paint on the roadway. It's yet another case of ideologues shooting themselves in the foot, as ideologues of all kinds are so prone to do.

Segregation! Discrimination! The world is against us! The sky is falling.

Yea, right!

Is chicken little a bike lane opponent now?

LittleBigMan

12-29-05, 10:32 AM

All this "segregation" and "minority polulation" nonsense is the heart of my disagreement with VC-ists with whom I would otherwise agree on many things. I'm convinced that many well-meaning people are so engrossed in VC propaganda that they've forgotten that it's propaganda.
I just ride my bike to work for transportation. I started on 25 mph. streets, but I'd park my bike and take a bus because I was afraid to ride on anything else. I even tried sidewalks, but found out how dangerous that was (and I had never heard of Forester or vehicular cycling.) As time went by, I tried bike paths, side streets, even planned my trips to wander maze-like through adjoining neighborhoods to avoid more direct roads, but discovered just how risky (or incovenient) many of the "bike facililties" were.

Whenever I question bike facilities, I do it out of an honest dissatisfaction with the ones I've used. When I first read any of John Forester's comments, anything I agreed with him about was based on my own bad experiences, and I had wished I had read him sooner (though his writings did come off as snobbish at times, and hard to swallow for that reason.)

Anyone who dares to share any of Forester's views, or to question the wisdom of bike facilities--bike facilities as they truly are, not as they should be in an ideal world--is immediately labeled a mindless "VC propagandist." If anyone is promoting propaganda, it's those who paint everyone who disagrees with them with a broad "VC" brush, suggesting we can't think for ourselves.

If you disagree, just do it. Don't base your position on false labels.

patc

12-29-05, 10:53 AM

Sure, bike lanes can be improved. But their separateness has already caused problems; damage has been done. Does this mean we should fight separate bike facilites just because they are separate? I don't think so.

What problems? What damage?

LittleBigMan

12-29-05, 11:04 AM

What problems? What damage?
This, for example:

http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm

Brian Ratliff

12-29-05, 11:24 AM

What problems? What damage?

I'll have to second these questions. Perhaps the extent of the "damage" is local? Maybe there are some localities which are doing it right? How can a line in the road lead to damage to the cycling cause? Doesn't non-separation have its own share of problems, different perhaps, but equal in importance?

Sure, one can argue that cyclists can learn to adjust to non-separation using vehicular cycling techniques, but isn't this argument equally applicable to bike lanes?

Okay, enough with the questions; we've been through this. Perhaps it is because I am young and didn't experience the bad ol' days, but I look around at my environment, and people are tolerant of cyclists and bike lanes have not caused lasting problems or damage. Standard vehicular cycling techniques complement my city's array of bike lanes well, and they seem to serve those who are less skilled as a bonus. We have a strong pro-bike lobby in our state and they get things done. When roads are redesigned, and sometimes if they are simply re-surfaced, new and updated bike lanes and other facilities get put in which seem to work. Now, it is a slow process, but it is one which Portland and surrounding areas are committed to.

Perhaps it is simply that I am naive, or it is luck of the draw with regards to where my parents chose to raise their family, but I can see no fault with the cycling advocacy in Oregon and have observed a noticeable increase in tolerance to cyclists as a whole. I can see no reason why other cities and other advocacy groups cannot simply stop squabbling over details (best left to engineers anyway) and pick up our template and run. Perhaps sometimes a bike lane is simply a lane for bikes.

genec

12-29-05, 11:26 AM

I just ride my bike to work for transportation. I started on 25 mph. streets, but I'd park my bike and take a bus because I was afraid to ride on anything else. I even tried sidewalks, but found out how dangerous that was (and I had never heard of Forester or vehicular cycling.) As time went by, I tried bike paths, side streets, even planned my trips to wander maze-like through adjoining neighborhoods to avoid more direct roads, but discovered just how risky (or incovenient) many of the "bike facililties" were.

Whenever I question bike facilities, I do it out of an honest dissatisfaction with the ones I've used. When I first read any of John Forester's comments, anything I agreed with him about was based on my own bad experiences, and I had wished I had read him sooner (though his writings did come off as snobbish at times, and hard to swallow for that reason.)

Anyone who dares to share any of Forester's views, or to question the wisdom of bike facilities--bike facilities as they truly are, not as they should be in an ideal world--is immediately labeled a mindless "VC propagandist." If anyone is promoting propaganda, it's those who paint everyone who disagrees with them with a broad "VC" brush, suggesting we can't think for ourselves.

If you disagree, just do it. Don't base your position on false labels.

The problem is that "Bike Lanes as they truly are" are vastly different in different areas. Some work beautifully, some suck and are quite dangerous. But being "pro-Bike Lane" or "anti-Bike Lane" are both diametrically opposed general categories that does not address the gray area in between... that some Bike Lanes work and some do not.

Looking at what physically works and encouraging that while discouraging what does not physically work is nothing more then simply practical, and not based on any ideological principles.

Brian Ratliff

12-29-05, 12:37 PM

The problem is that "Bike Lanes as they truly are" are vastly different in different areas. Some work beautifully, some suck and are quite dangerous. But being "pro-Bike Lane" or "anti-Bike Lane" are both diametrically opposed general categories that does not address the gray area in between... that some Bike Lanes work and some do not.

Looking at what physically works and encouraging that while discouraging what does not physically work is nothing more then simply practical, and not based on any ideological principles.

I just deleted an irresponsible post - this is what I should have said. We are getting too into the "meaning" of bike lanes. A bike lane is a bike lane and nothing more. Learn what works and implement it; if nothing works in a situation, then don't force it. Bike lane, like all other tools, have no intrinsic meaning or properties; it is all in how we humans put them to use. A hammer can be designed so it doesn't work as a hammer, just like a bike lane can be designed to not work as a bike lane. It's not a reason to somehow "oppose" hammers, it is simply a reason to not buy the ill designed one. Same goes for bike lanes.

The VC people need to get off their high horse and stop opposing all good will efforts to install bike lanes. The bike facility people should get off their high horse and stop forcing bike lanes into places where they don't belong. It is a complex engineering problem, but it is just that: and engineering problem.

Above all, we must drop the notion that cyclist education is mandatory, as well as the notion that cyclists should all be treated as if they are ignorant. Cyclists, just like drivers, can learn rules of road operation, whatever they may be, just as well as any driver. Most of them, after all, are drivers in their off-bike time. We need to quit looking for the quick route to cyclist utopia, whether it be a system devoid of bike lanes with everyone practicing VC or a system where all roads are bike laned and cyclists are treated with kid gloves. Incremental improvements are the name of the game. This means working on getting educational classes for those cyclists who want it. This means working to get laws unfavorable to cyclists changed. This means calling in that pothole and the light that won't respond and staying on it till it is fixed. This means donating time and resources to local and national advocacy groups, whatever they may be doing, as long as they are working in some fashion to promote cycling. And this means riding our bikes.

It is a fallacy that there should be some "master plan" for implementing our preferred version of utopia. Our future cycling environment will be what it will be, and as long as lots of people are working in some fashion to improve our environment; physically, legally, and sociologically; then the future will be better than it is today. We need to cut the debate, go to our corners, and working in our own spheres of what we think is best, knowing that eventually these spheres will meet.

Now, of course, there will be conflicts. Each side of the bike lane debate will show up to planning meetings and fight and present their case, but here is the beauty of it: the side with the best argument on the right day will win. Sometimes bike lanes, sometimes sidepaths, sometimes WOL's, sometimes the "do nothing" crowd. Experience then will decide for the future what is best, and the best performing facilities will boost the arguments of those who proposed them. Natural selection, so to speak, will provide the truely best solution. It's a long haul and a lot of work, but it will be okay in the end, and better than it is today.

genec

12-29-05, 12:48 PM

Good summation... Brian +1

buzzman

12-29-05, 12:57 PM

My apologies that the irony of my previous post (about sidewalks) was too obtuse to spur comment. But I do think the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" logic being expressed about bike lanes could easily apply to sidewalks- something that, I think, most of us would agree are, at least in principal, a good idea. Certainly a community with lots of sidewalks is thought of as a "pedestrian friendly" community where pedestrians are being respected by being given a separated facility not segregated and marginalized. But does that mean sidewalks are "safe"? That they are not subject to design and maintenance issues much like bike lanes?

All I have to do is to take a look at the photograph of a car door opening into a bicycle lane and I get it.

Then this photo might convince you that sidewalks are likewise a bad idea. On trash days this sidewalk, which leads to a grammar school at the end of the road, is impassable forcing children to walk in the street. Also take note of the high wall at the end of every driveway making children under 4' tall invisible to someone backing a car out of the driveway.

buzzman

12-29-05, 01:32 PM

This, for example:

http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/c...zone/laird1.htm

And I must reply to this since it is quite literally "close to home". Close enough that, in fact, I will be riding past this very spot in about 2 hours on my way to work. This accident occured in Cambridge on Massachusetts Avenue- a busy thoroughfare, which I have been traversing with some regularity since 1980. This road has, unfortunately, seen the demise of many a cyclist over the years and that was one of the reasons cyclists in Cambridge advocated designated lanes on this and many of Cambridge's streets. I worked in a bike shop on Mass Ave in Cambridge and heard the daily reports of cyclists who were doored on Mass Ave long before the bike lane ever existed there.

A similar accident occured while I was working in the shop when one of the women who worked with me (a very competent cyclist) was clipped by a bus on Mass Ave on the Boston side of the river at Symphony Hall and quite seriously injured- there was not at that time nor is there now a bike lane on that part of Mass Ave.

I am in the category who appreciate the bike lanes in Cambridge, despite their flaws and I hope that, should I fall prey to a similar fate, my death will not be used as cannon fodder in on line discussion groups as arguments against them.