Bike lanes [Archive] - Page 3

noisebeam

04-26-05, 07:16 PM

1. What are you doing (where are you riding) when passed closely while honking? I find that when I'm riding in a narrow lane, if I ride in the middle of the lane passing motorists move completely into the adjacent lane. Here is a Wayne Pein photo that illustrates this:

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wawa42p/my_photos

(the leftmost one)

2. Again, when riding in the center of a lane too narrow to be safely shared, since they move completely into the adjacent lane to pass, why do they need to know the physical boundaries of their car?

3. Bicycles are not the only types of slow vehicles that can cause this to happen. So what?
1. I am riding either in the exact center of the lane (as in photo) or also in the right tire track of the lane. Almost always when I ride in the center some motorists only merge enough left to clear me (meaning centered on the lane dividing line while they pass) and then quickly merge back. I am talking about near bumper to bumper traffic flowing at 45-50mph - traffic is dense enough that both lanes are full. Even motorists struggle to merge left to pass me as they themselves need to find a gap to merge into and have to negotiate with the motorists to their left, all the while avoiding me, so the see a gap, slip in it then quickly merge back. I drive this road and it can take several hundred yards to negotate to change lanes in a car during rush hour.
2. Because some motorists do not merge all the way into the next lane and an small subset purposely like to pass close to make a point ('get on the sidewalk a-hole') was the instruction I got 3 days ago from the passenger of a truck passing me within 6" while I was riding in the center of the lane at 30mph. (one advantage of the dense traffic is the draft effect) also note I am not always this fast, mostly 22-27mph.
3. Its one thing to be rear ended while in a car, but on a bike it is likely to be fatal. Oh, so what is your response? I've told this before, but even busses stopped picking up passengers have been rear ended by cars on similar streets.

So I've painted a picture that seems quite dangerous and stupid to ride on, but it is not all like this. Many motorist are respectful and there can be days when it is quite enjoyable. But all it takes it one idiot to f up my day or even life. I am absolutely confident that if this road has a WOL it would be significantly safer for me.

Al

Helmet Head

04-26-05, 07:17 PM

I fixed the link, and here it is:

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/

Brian Ratliff

04-26-05, 07:25 PM

Exactly. It's interesting that the same person who says, "I wish I had the guts to ride this way." (implying that he doesn't take the lane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_lane) even when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared) is also the one who insists, "I find drivers rarely slow down when passing or pull very far into the next lane to go around me." I wonder if the two are connected?

I can't remember who, but somebody quipped a few months ago here, "Drivers are like dogs, act like the Alpha and they'll treat you like the Alpha". This was obviously written by someone who did "have the guts" to take the lane like the woman in the image (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wawa42p/my_photos) I posted a link to earlier.

Perhaps the biggest secret about vehicular cycling is that when you do act like a vehicle driver, you are treated as one; and when you don't, you aren't. This is but one of the reasons so many vehicular cyclists are opposed to bike lanes: bike lanes make it all too easy for motorists to dismiss cyclists and NOT treat us as vehicle drivers. People hate it when I draw this analogy, but arguing that bike lanes are special treatment for cyclists - supposedly a good thing for cyclists - reminds me of arguing that reserving the back seats of the bus was special treatment for blacks in the segregationist South - supposedly a good thing for blacks. Perhaps they hate it because the truth hurts? It's easy to say that's an unfair comparison because segregation based on race was so much more serious. True, but experiments have been done where teachers would segregate based on eye color, and within days (hours?) kids would start treating each other differently based on eye color. That is how profound and effective any kind of segregation is, and why segregationist bike lanes have such a profound effect on not only how motorists treat cyclists, but how cyclists view themselves relative to motorists. Let's just say bike lanes do not foster high cyclist self-esteem. And the result is attitudes that are exemplified in posts written here today by crashtest and Brian Ratliff.

Now I cannot just let that go. No, this is not comparable to race. It was written into law that the black people had to use segregated facilities and they were forbidden from using white facilities. At least in Portland and Seattle, this is hardly the case. I can take the lane at any time, for any reason, and as long as I yield right of way, drivers don't complain. I believe I made myself clear that we cannot have laws which restrict cyclists to bike lanes. With no laws in the way, dealing with drivers over lane positioning is like dealing with dogs. By Alpha and be treated as Alpha. This is in no way related to bike lanes. I bike where I want to bike, PERIOD. I simply want to have a bike lane so I can get out of the way when I have no interest in being in the way. This smooths over relationships with cars on the road. If they know I will get out of their way to let them pass when it is safe for me to do so, they will trust me when I have to get in their way for my own safety, and most importantly, when another cyclist gets in the way for their safety.

This is not about inferiority complex, or anything like that. I know John Forrester has written about that supposed inferiority complex cyclists have, so it is not even your (Serge's) original idea. It is simply a nod to the fact that we don't have to be militant about our cycling anymore. It is about getting along with drivers and not just seeing them as people out to kill us. It is about recognizing that I will never be able to push my crusing speed greater than 25 mph, and it is about wanting the traffic system to recognize that I exist, have limitations, and have the right to be there and be integrated into the traffic flow.

Despite our differences in opinion about cycling facilities, you will probably find that we are equal in skill in traffic. We simply have a different view about cycling's place in society. You are satisfied with the fact that there is 1 cyclist per 100 cars, and will not take into account that someday there may be 10 or 20 cyclists per 100 cars. You want a solution to the status quo, and are willing to sacrifice the future needs of cyclists.

And then there is your attitude. Belittling people, essentially calling them cowardly, is not the way to deal with honest differences in opinion. There is a reason why you make enemies on this board, Serge, and it is not because you have an opinion about WOL's. It is because you have no concept of argument. Apparently, you are God, because you already know the answer and you only have to trumpet the news to the ignorant people of this board. The subject of bicycling advocacy is too important to get bogged down in petty arguements of whether you follow the gospel of three John's or whether you actually, God forbid, advocate bike lanes.

So in the words of someone... NUFF SAID!

jslopez

04-26-05, 07:35 PM

So then I really don't know what to do except avoid certain roads I guess. The other day I was riding in the right hand lane of a 4 lane road. There was no shoulder - just a curb, and the speed limit was 60km. Traffic was moving at about 80km (approx 50 mph I guess). I was riding about a foot and a half from the curb, and one of these monster sized gravel hauling dump trucks went past me with about 6 inches to spare. I believe the driver's hand didn't even twitch on the wheel to give me hair's breadth more room, and if he had hit me I would be under his wheels and he wouldn't even feel a bump.

What should I do here? Take the lane at one quarter the speed of the traffic and piss off a hundred angry drivers? Stay where I was, and almost get killed by someone who doesn't give a crap? I really don't know - I'm asking here.

The truck looked something like the attached picture. Imagine this guy passing 6 inches away at 4 times your speed. Then imagine him behind you... I don't like either situation, and I guess I'll just avoid that section of road if there's a lot of traffic. What is the correct answer?

Well for the sake of argument, let's say this truck wasn't out to turn you into a pancake and is generally a normal deecnt human being who has 3.75 lanes to ride (the last.25 taken by you). What would possess him to take your lane? Is he evil? Was he trying to scare you? Or did he think he had enough room since you were huddled near the curb?

Now let's say you were 50% or into the lane outside really bad intentions a vehicle would go over to the next lane. This ofcourse is not a universal law but that's the logic I'm seeing for this aprticular scenario.

Santaria

04-26-05, 09:28 PM

JRA

04-26-05, 09:33 PM

Somewhere in the distant past this thread was about bike lanes.

The accident that prompted this thread was not caused by the bike lane; it was caused by a very poor driver who twice veered to the right without first determining that there was no one on the right. Lousy drivers happen with or without bike lanes.

I'm not a big fan of bike lanes. In most cases, I'd much rather see a WOL. While I've never actually seen a bike lane I liked a whole lot, I have seen some WOLs I thought were fantastic.

When I ride on a road with a bike lane I pretty much ignore the line. I make my own decision where it's safe to ride. This usually means that I ride to the left of the line.

There's one street near my house that has a bike lane that I've been riding for years. Within the space of a couple of miles can be found the good, the bad and the ugly of bike lanes.

On some sections the bike lane is wide and there are generally no cars parked. No problem. I ride just about on the line. No one has ever honked at me, had a problem passing or passed too close. The only problem comes from idiot cyclist, runners or skaters who go the wrong way in the bike lane putting both me and them in danger.

The good is one intersection with a traffic light where there's a neat little space between the through lane and the right turn lane where cyclists can stop.

The bad is where cars are parked in the bike lane. This renders the bike lane completely useless. It's impossible to ride even close to the bike lane without being in the door zone. Fortunately, this particular street is wide enough that it's possible to ride well outside the bike lane and cars can still pass safely.

The ugly is where the road suddenly narrows and the 'bike lane' becomes a ridiculously narrow strip of shoulder filled with debris. I've seen other bike lanes like this and I don't want any part of them.

All in all, the opponents of bike lanes have a pretty good case (although some of them overstate it). The solid white line creates expectations of safety that are unrealistic. Personally, I can take bike lanes or I can leave them. WOLs are probably a better solution in most cases.

Crashtest

04-26-05, 09:37 PM

Well for the sake of argument, let's say this truck wasn't out to turn you into a pancake and is generally a normal deecnt human being who has 3.75 lanes to ride (the last.25 taken by you). What would possess him to take your lane? Is he evil? Was he trying to scare you? Or did he think he had enough room since you were huddled near the curb?

Now let's say you were 50% or into the lane outside really bad intentions a vehicle would go over to the next lane. This ofcourse is not a universal law but that's the logic I'm seeing for this aprticular scenario.

Basically I think he was trying to bully me or scare me - just throw his weight around a little. I'm sure he would rather just keep on going in the lane he was already in than try to merge left to avoid someone who had "no right" to be there in the first place. I'm sure he did not plan to actually hit me, or I wouldn't be here typing this.

Was he evil? Well not by most definitions, but I think agressive bullying behavior is quite common on the road, and often it's the larger vehicle that tailgates the smaller, trying to push them out of the way, or act in other ways like the "alpha male dog" as someone put it.

I'm not trying to argue for or against bike lanes here, or argue for or against VC biking. I'm more interested in asking what others think, and what I'm hearing here is that I should be taking the lane. So... one more question: take the lane for how long? If this stretch of road continues let's say for a mile, do I hold the lane that long, or should I pull off at some point to allow traffic to pass? This happened during rush hour, so all the lanes were pretty full. It's kind of rare to find a break in traffic, so if I give up the lane at some point, it might be hard to take it back.

Again, I'm just asking for opinions here.

EDIT: I probably didn't describe the road well enough. When I said 4 lanes I meant 2 in each direction.

Brian Ratliff

04-26-05, 09:46 PM

Okay, too many people are bashing bike lanes and there are no good counter argument threads. I want to explore some of the philosophies behind our traffic system and try to deduce whether bike lanes or wide outside lanes (WOL's) are the best match for our roads.

To start off, contrary to popular belief, there are good bike lanes in existence. Here, in Beaverton (near Portland, OR), there are several examples. A good example is on Sholls Ferry Rd (sp?) near Washington Square Mall in Beaverton. The road is a four lane road (two lanes in each direction) with a center turn lane. The bike lane is of constant width, and at each and every major intersection, guides the cyclist to the left of the right turn lane without changing direction. For background, in Oregon, we are not restricted to riding in the bike lane, but cars are kept out. Cars are only allowed to cross the bike lane at intersections and the line turns from solid to dashed to indicate where right of way conflicts can occur. From a legal standpoint, the cyclist has the right of way in the bike lane at all times.

Previous discussions regarding the issue of WOL's verses bike lanes forced me to look closely at the arguments for one or the other. I used to be indifferent to the issue, but would take the side of the WOL's if asked, due to the arguments of John Forrester. Since Serge's stance (Helmet Head) has been so unforgiving against bike lanes, I have had to sharpen my arguments FOR bike lanes. Many of my specific arguments have been aired elsewhere, so I will put out something new.

There are two different philosophies in traffic design which I can think of. There is the system which we have at current, where relationships on the road are governed by rules, all of which can be reduced down to the assignment of "right-of-way." For instance, the reason why we can move at 70 or 80 mph on the freeway is because of the very restrictive right of way assignments. Cars have right of way in the lane where they are traveling, and any car who wants to move into a different lane has to yield right of way to the cars already in it. Intersections are the same way. The driver with the green light is given the right of way to enter the intersection. All others are restricted.

The second traffic philosophy is the "one-on-one negotiation" way of operating on the road. I saw this type of road in Cambodia. Here, there are NO painted lines on the road. Everybody is given the right to be on the road, and the only suggestion is to "stay to the right." This type of road works, but on a different basis. Here, each driver negotiates on a one-on-one basis with every vehicle they encounter. This negotiation is done by road position, gestures, and horns (for cars). It is chaotic, but this traffic pattern actually works in real life. Traffic engineers have even found that if you put in an uncontrolled intersection on a road (not necessarly residential), the traffic will find their way through the intersection with minimum fuss by slowing down and negotiating for their space.

The two types of traffic philosophies have different types of problems. Our system, we have relatively few accidents, but the ones we have are very serious, resulting in totalled cars, injury, and loss of life. The second philosophy has many more accidents, but are more of the fender bender variety.

If the second traffic philosophy sounds familiar, it is because this is how we cyclists tend to ride in traffic. We are not given right of way, and we are left to negotiate with drivers. We call this vehicular cycling. We do this out of necessity. We are not fast enough to stay up with cars, unless we are in the inner city, and we are not big enough to take up enough room to strongly make the case for right of way. If we had right of way, then a car coming up behind us will be required to change lanes to pass, regardless of how far to the right we were riding. This largely works because there are very few cyclists, and those cyclists are skilled in negotiating with drivers and vehicular cycling.

Throw a bike lane into the mix, and we make the case that we are part of the first philosophy of traffic flow with every other vehicle on the road. We have our own lane which accomodates our inability to ride faster than about 20-25 mph. We are out of the way, and we have a legally protected refuge. A well designed bike lane will be able to accomodate any number of cyclists. Not just the 1 per 100 cars or so who are on the road now. Of course, it goes without saying that the bike lane not be used to discriminate against cyclists by making it illegal for them to travel in other lanes of the road.

WOL's give us the second philosophy. In a wide outside lane which intended to be shared between cyclist and driver, the right of way issues which govern every other aspect of the road in the US are muddied. The cyclist is not expected to be given the entire lane for right of way. The car neither. It is sharing at its best. But in potential conflicts, how is right of way evaluated? Say the common situation of the right hook. With a bike lane, the car clearly violates the right of way of the cyclist. In a WOL, is the cyclist supposed to be on the right side of the lane or on the left when there is a potential for a right turn by an overtaking car? Clearly rules can be contrived to evaluate right of way, but these rules have to be special since nowhere else on our roadways are vehicles expected to share a traveling lane. With a bike lane, the standard right of way rules which govern other traveling lanes can be applied to the bike lane. Enforcement of these rules is a different issue, but one which can be solved through standard political means.

The main point is that WOL's, by definition, are a stop-gap measure for roads which are not designed for bikes in the first place. WOL's muddy up the right of way rules which govern other vehicles on the road and are not really sustainable for a large population of cyclists. Therefore, our energies are better spend researching correct road design to accomodate bike lanes safely and orderly and getting those designs enacted rather than spending the energy advocating the stop-gap measure of WOL's.

BR

Dchiefransom

04-26-05, 09:58 PM

The logic you're about to get in the answers to your post will make the best political spin doctors in the world look like amateurs.

Crashtest

04-26-05, 10:01 PM

I wonder if anyone from Ottawa is following this thread? I was there a couple of years ago and the number of bikes on the road was very high. I saw a lot of bike lanes, and some of them were very different from the norm: in places they ran straight thru the middle of the road with multiple lanes of traffic on either side. In some places I saw separate traffic lights for bicycles only.

I didn't try riding in these lanes, and I wasn't there long enough to form any opinion on how well they worked. Anyone from Ottawa with a comment?

Santaria

04-26-05, 10:04 PM

jslopez

04-26-05, 10:12 PM

Basically I think he was trying to bully me or scare me - just throw his weight around a little. I'm sure he would rather just keep on going in the lane he was already in than try to merge left to avoid someone who had "no right" to be there in the first place. I'm sure he did not plan to actually hit me, or I wouldn't be here typing this.

Was he evil? Well not by most definitions, but I think agressive bullying behavior is quite common on the road, and often it's the larger vehicle that tailgates the smaller, trying to push them out of the way, or act in other ways like the "alpha male dog" as someone put it.

I'm not trying to argue for or against bike lanes here, or argue for or against VC biking. I'm more interested in asking what others think, and what I'm hearing here is that I should be taking the lane. So... one more question: take the lane for how long? If this stretch of road continues let's say for a mile, do I hold the lane that long, or should I pull off at some point to allow traffic to pass? This happened during rush hour, so all the lanes were pretty full. It's kind of rare to find a break in traffic, so if I give up the lane at some point, it might be hard to take it back.

Again, I'm just asking for opinions here.

EDIT: I probably didn't describe the road well enough. When I said 4 lanes I meant 2 in each direction.

Don't worry I'm not trying to start any arguments, I find both sides of th BL talk rather informing and I do hope that the powers that be find a better solution for everyone involved.

As far as the driver goes, I really can't speak for his intentions but if he was trying to bully or scare you that's one hell of a gamble (as I would think most people have better things to do than nearly killing people) hence my thought that it was more because 1) he didn't notice you, 2 he thought he had enough room for both of your to ride in the same lane. The lady who hit my wife from our point of view looked like she was baiting us to come into the lane before she hit the wife. In actuality, she jsut didn't think to look for anyone.

I believe the law for riding is you can take as much space as you deem to be safe and if it's for one mile, how long will that take? I'd rather piss off people and be visible and safe rather than put myself in a compromisng/dangerous position and be clipped by people who don't even notice me.

Bruce Rosar

04-26-05, 10:15 PM

... what I'm hearing here is that I should be taking the lane. So... one more question: take the lane for how long? If this stretch of road continues let's say for a mile, do I hold the lane that long, or should I pull off at some point to allow traffic to pass? This happened during rush hour, so all the lanes were pretty full. It's kind of rare to find a break in traffic, so if I give up the lane at some point, it might be hard to take it back.
That's a good question. A friend of mine who used to commute in heavy traffic found that if he moved from the primary position (near the center of the marked lane) to the secondary position (near the right edge) when there was enough room to let the car/truck behind him get by within the lane, that sometimes the car/trucks/buses would then pass in such a continuous stream that he couldn't merge back to the primary position when the lane later became too narrow to share comfortably.

So the answer to the question "When should I move to the secondary position and share the marked lane" is "it depends" on quite a few different factors, such as:

1) Width of the Traveled Way available for
a. traveling by the overtaken vehicle (your marked lane)
b. overtaking & passing (may include an adjacent marked lane)

2) Safety Zone Width of the vehicles that are
a. overtaken (your pedal vehicle)
b. overtaking ("them")

where;
Traveled Way -- The portion of the highway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of shoulders, sidewalks, and parking lanes.
Safety Zone Width -- The sum of the vehicle's width plus reasonable clearance to each side. The zone may increase in size under certain conditions, including surface hazards, weather hazards and traffic
hazards (such as wind blast from passing vehicles).

In my state (N.C.), all vehicle operators are legally required to operate according to the same Rules of the Road (no matter whether the vehicle is pedal or motor powered). Traveling along in the secondary position is never required, and most operators normally center their vehicle in the primary position.

Even though traveling along in the secondary position decreases my comfort level, I will do so while pedaling if:
* it will avoid creating excessive delay for others, and
* I'm confident that it will not significantly compromise the travel effectiveness (efficiency/safety) of anyone who would be directly affected.

Crashtest

04-26-05, 10:17 PM

The bike lane is of constant width, and at each and every major intersection, guides the cyclist to the left of the right turn lane without changing direction. For background, in Oregon, we are not restricted to riding in the bike lane, but cars are kept out. Cars are only allowed to cross the bike lane at intersections and the line turns from solid to dashed to indicate where right of way conflicts can occur. From a legal standpoint, the cyclist has the right of way in the bike lane at all times.

BR

Does everybody seem to understand how this is supposed to work? I can think of at least a couple of sections of bike lane in Toronto that work like this. It seems to me that the point where the car traffic has to cross the bike lane to make a right hand turn is likely to have a lot of conflict.

Santaria

04-26-05, 10:24 PM

I've always played by this fast and loose rule:

I take the lane as long as I feel comfortable doing so - not comfortable by the number of cars that have to pass me, but comfortable in that, if I know the road, I know when it narrows and give myself plenty of room to deal with the changing conditions of the road (its width).

jslopez

04-26-05, 10:28 PM

Crashtest

04-26-05, 10:28 PM

hence my thought that it was more because 1) he didn't notice you, 2 he thought he had enough room for both of your to ride in the same lane.

1. I think I was easy to see: bright yellow jacket, flashing red tail light, broad daylight.

2. I guess technically there was enough room for both of us, because I'm still here! Sure was uncomfortable however.

I think maybe I'm starting to highjack this thread a little too much, so I'm going to shut up and go back to lurking for a while.

jslopez

04-26-05, 10:35 PM

This thread has been was hijacked a long time ago (I should know I was the OP) some good points brought up thought.

When I say he didn't notice you, I mean you weren't in a place where he had to consciously think of you as being in danger because you were too near the curb. Best example I can come with is that you were lumped with the same people walking on the sidewalk. Since you didn't register the comfort level of sharing the lane with you was higher.

77Univega

04-26-05, 10:50 PM

Education and enforcement is the key.

- - Yes, especially education.
Some streets I have traveled have one of these two kinds of bicycle lanes:
1. Safe bike lanes--wide and well marked in a traffic lane wide enough to accomodate them.
2. Crummy bike lanes--just a stripe painted in a narrow traffic lane.

I think many of the anti-bike lanes people are referring to the second kind.
.

Brian Ratliff

04-26-05, 11:05 PM

Does everybody seem to understand how this is supposed to work? I can think of at least a couple of sections of bike lane in Toronto that work like this. It seems to me that the point where the car traffic has to cross the bike lane to make a right hand turn is likely to have a lot of conflict.

Yes. The key to this is that the bike lane does not change direction. It is the right turn traffic lane which curves to cross the bike lane. The other way around, where the bike lane changes direction to cross the right turn lane, creates a good deal of confusion. The point where the right turn lane crosses the bike lane is a point of conflict, but law gives the right of way to the cyclist. This is taught in drivers ed and the cyclist's right of way is, for the most part, respected by drivers.

A good deal of the arguments against bike lanes assumes that drivers do not follow the laws regarding bicycle right of way. I have seen this can be the case, but driver's ed and the driving test can and has been used to educate new drivers as to who has the right of way, where. The right of way for cyclists can be taught in the same way as teaching the right of way rules for a four way stop or a freeway merge. If the laws are taught and enforced, then the hostility of drivers toward cyclists is greatly reduced. I have seen this in observing traffic behavior in the Portland area now, as compared to five years ago.

BR

genec

04-26-05, 11:26 PM

Education would be a better place for the funding, imho.

In Texas, a bike is a vehicle, and is allowed to occupy the same space. If someone is stupid enough to spend the rest of their lives behind bars, or more on par, to suffer the slings and arrows of road rage - which could easily be turned into something far worse than vehicular manslaughter - meaning they get to walk the last mile, I guess they're more important than I.

I will continue to ride as I always have, be visible, be in the lane, avoid having someone throw my down into the gravel at 30 MPH. If you have to go around me and get pissed, I have zero issues with calling the police on the cell phone I carry. If a complaint is made, they're basically leaving the scene of a crime - which is another matter entirely. Either way, educating the masses simplifies the issue. If you KNOW that by doing something you'll spend a good 5-life in the graybar hotel, you tend to avoid it like an STD. If someone is dumb enough to still take aggressive measures for the sake of a few seconds - aggressive to the point of risking someone elses life to make it to work on time, they need to sit and rot for a few in jail anyhow.

Has anyone ever gone to jail for 5 years or more for hitting a cyclist? Or do they usually get off on the "I didn't see them" defense and end up with simple reckless driving? Several other threads have discussed cases where cyclists were killed on the road, and the usual punishment is about $1000, the typical fine for reckless driving. $1000 is also the fine for littering in California... that is all a dead cyclist is apparently worth.

check these threads for examples of what happens when someone hits a cyclist:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=100562
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=99600
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=59635
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=89047

The sad fact is that if you are killed, there are no other witnesses. Also in spite of the law being on your side, it appears as though it is not interpreted that way.

Forester also quotes similar cases in his book.

Brian Ratliff

04-26-05, 11:29 PM

What are the rules of bike lanes btw ? does anyone have a link as to how drivers (and cyclists) should treat them ?

If I (a pretty well read cyclist) have not really encountered too much documentation on this, how can we expect drivers of a not so bike friendly state to know this as well.

I've actually had joggers (running agaings traffic on the bike lane) yell at us becasue we were in the bike lane.

Education and enforcement is the key.

In Oregon, the department of moter vehicles (DMV) puts a full section of the driver's manual outlining the rules of the road regarding cyclists. The Oregon DMV also puts out a pamphlet for cyclists titled "Oregon Bicyclist Manual." The rules are progressive. They require that we only stay to the right as far as practical. The give cyclists right of way in the bike lanes and don't restrict the cyclist to the bike lane. The drivers manual details that we have the right to take the lane when we feel the need at intersections or in narrow parts of the road and how drivers should react to cyclists. Since it is in the manual, it is also probably on the drivers test.

This is pretty new. When I took the test nine years ago, the drivers manual had very little on cyclists. Now, the manual has a good sized section on cyclists, and it shows out on the road.

Oregon DMV link to drivers manual (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/forms/index.shtml)

genec

04-26-05, 11:33 PM

What are the rules of bike lanes btw ? does anyone have a link as to how drivers (and cyclists) should treat them ?

If I (a pretty well read cyclist) have not really encountered too much documentation on this, how can we expect drivers of a not so bike friendly state to know this as well.

I've actually had joggers (running agaings traffic on the bike lane) yell at us becasue we were in the bike lane.

Education and enforcement is the key.

Here is some information from the CA driver's handbook:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike

This handbook is available to any driver for free at any time. Yet I doubt that many drivers recall this page.

* Bicyclists:
o must ride in the same direction as other traffic, not against it.
o must ride in a straight line as near to the right curb or edge of the roadway as practical— not on the sidewalk.
o must make left and right turns in the same way that drivers do, using the same turn lanes.
o may legally move left to turn left, to pass a parked or moving vehicle, another bicycle, an animal, or to make a turn, avoid debris, or other hazards.
o may choose to ride near the left curb or edge of one-way street.
o may use a left turn lane. If the bicyclist is traveling straight ahead, he or she should use a through traffic lane rather than ride next to the curb and block traffic making right turns.
o are lawfully permitted to ride on certain sections of freeways, when signs are posted. Be careful when approaching or passing a bicyclist on a freeway.
* Drivers must:
o look carefully for bicyclists before opening doors next to moving traffic or before turning right.
o safely merge toward the curb or into the bike lane.
o not overtake a bicyclist just before making a right turn. Merge first, then turn.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/images/dlhdbk/59bhop.gif

Brian Ratliff

04-26-05, 11:40 PM

John C. Ratliff

04-26-05, 11:48 PM

My only counter arguement posits this:

In Texas (at least) bicycles are considered vehicles. Period. We are not segregated, and they never will do this throughout the region. Places like Austin are much more bike friendly than where I am - about 60 miles north of there - in Temple.

The only solution is WOLs imho simply because by creating bike lanes you are creating bigots, people that are ignorant of the law and assume incorrectly that 'that is our place.' This is not the mentality that needs to be cultivated. It is dangerous, it is wrong and it subjegates us into a second class citizen status. We all must share the road, we all must learn to follow the laws of those roads, regardless of the locomotion involved.

Pardon me, Brian, for getting into your thread, but there are two points I'd like to make. First, in answer to Santaria, yes we are vehicles, but we are human-powered vehicles. Modern roadways were designed for motorized traffic, and then incorporated human-powered vehicles (bicycles) into the mix. We, as human-powerd vehicles, do not have the same capabilities, mass, or visual profile as motorized vehicles, so there will always be an actual inequity even if there is a legal equality.

Second, in answer to another question, there are a number of on-line references. Here are a few:

City of Portland's Design References for Bicycles
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/designreferences/bicycle/appenda.htm

Oregon Department of Transportation's Bicycle Website
http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/

Oregon Department of Transportation's Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Website
http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/bikepedpagesafety%20page.htm

On the last website, you can download the PDF of the Oregon Bicyclists Manual. It has a lot of good diagrams. I believe the City of Portland also has very good descriptions of their design criterion of bike lanes and paths, and a good discussion of the rationale too.

John

Roody

04-27-05, 12:30 AM

Are you Ratliffs cousins or something? You are both very polite.

Daily Commute

04-27-05, 03:41 AM

. . . Oregon DMV also puts out a pamphlet for cyclists titled "Oregon Bicyclist Manual." The rules are progressive. They require that we only stay to the right as far as practical. The give cyclists right of way in the bike lanes and don't restrict the cyclist to the bike lane. . . .With all due respect, you are just plain dead wrong:

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.
(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic infraction.
Here's the statute (http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/plan_app/statutes.htm#bikeduty). To make it worse, an (the?) Oregon court of appeals has all but read the second paragraph out of the statute. The court said it would "presume" that the local government passed a resolution requiring bike lane use. Here's that case (http://159.121.112.45/A115242.htm).

twahl

04-27-05, 04:53 AM

I have to admit that I've never ridden my bike any place that has bike lanes, so my experience is limited. I think that's the one component in these discussions that a lot of people miss: What have they been exposed to? I'm sure that there are places where lanes work. The problem I see, and again my only exposure to them is as a driver, is that the bike lanes are often in between places that cars are supposed to go. Between main lanes of travel and turn lanes, main lanes of travel and parking, main lanes of travel and driveways.
That's really a unique situation for a driver to face, so it's going to cause problems, especially since (again in my limited experience) the bike lanes aren't used often, at least not compared to a main lane of travel. As a driver, I'm used to seeing them empty, and I have to cross them to get where I'm going. Between that, and their similarity to a crosswalk...where a driver's perception is that vehicles have the right of way EXCEPT when there is a "walk" sign, ie: most of the time, and you're going to have problems. I'm sure they work well in some areas. They probably work better the more they are used, where drivers are better conditioned to seeing bicycle traffic.
Keeping bike lanes as a seperate issue from sidewalks and MUPs, only comparing them to travelling in the main lanes of traffic, I would tend to believe that as a cyclist, you are better positioned to be able to negotiate your position in traffic as part of the regular flow of traffic.
While a bike lane may provide a "legal refuge", that doesn't help me if a car driver is used to seeing that refuge not being used, and needs to cross it to get where they are going. They may not be looking for, and may be angered by a bike in front of them going slower than they are, but at least they are expecting something to be there.
I'm sure that they can work well in some areas, and almost positive that they would work better if they were used more, conditioning drivers to be more aware of them. As a stop-gap measure though, I think they probably suck.

PaulH

04-27-05, 06:59 AM

There have been bike lanes recently added to part of my commute. I honestly can't see how they make any real difference. My verdict, "mostly harmless."

Paul

kf5nd

04-27-05, 07:14 AM

I'm not going to argue from theory or philosophy... I ride Vehicularly, but when I find a designated bike lane around here in Houston, I use it, and I feel thankful that it's there.

My empirical observation is that funny psychological device of a paint strip creates a useful refuge for me, the cyclist, which frees me up from having to "inidividually negotiate" with every car I see in my rear-view mirror... which are HUNDREDS on my 25 mile commute to work.

Bike lanes are not perfect, and I still have to keep my guard up, but I'd rather have them than not.

Brian Ratliff

04-27-05, 07:37 AM

nathank

04-27-05, 07:40 AM

If I (a pretty well read cyclist) have not really encountered too much documentation on this, how can we expect drivers of a not so bike friendly state to know this as well.

I've actually had joggers (running agaings traffic on the bike lane) yell at us becasue we were in the bike lane.

Education and enforcement is the key.

bike-lanes is one of the issues where i don't have a solid "answer". it depends on the place and the attitude toward cyclists, and mostly because as soon as bike-lanes exist, comes the attempt to make them mandatory!

basically, bike lanes CAN be REALLY good (like in the Portland area), but the main danger is the requirement or assumption that bike lanes be used if present.

yes, in Texas, if there is a bike lane ANYWHERE near the road, drivers expect cyclists NOT to be on the road b/c "the road is for cars, dammit!"

in Munich where close to 60% of all roads in the city have bike paths/lanes you are legally REQUIRED to use the bike lane/path even when it is poorly built and dangerous (full of pedestrains and auto-parkers getting in and out of cars) - of course i don't about 50% of the time (safety first!) and have never been stopped or cited, but CAR drivers often are less friendly as i am not "supposed" to be on the road --- this is the REAL danger of bike lanes! that we loose the right to be on the road, even when the road is the best and safest method!

in the Portland area the bike lanes are for the most part EXCELLENT. this is because:
1) there are LOTS of cyclists so drivers expect them and watch for them
2) there are various government agencies that are required to and/or make a point of designing and improving road and intersection facilities FOR CYCLISTS (i.e. the Broadway bridge was redesigned and widened and it was rejected and redesigned with safe and adaquate bike and pedestrian acces).
3) cyclists are not required to use bike lanes (at least in practice)
(as to Daily Commute's quote of the Oregon statute i have never seen that or seen it enforced by officials: note: i have also not lived in Oregon in almost 5 years, so maybe it is new - although i must admit it seems surprizing - i'm too lazy to look it up myself)
4) for the most part drivers do not use the bike lanes as passing lanes or parking lanes and police tend to enforce this as well (counterexample is Philadelphia where i found LARGE numbers of cars using the bike lanes as "short-term" parking)

i.e. i agree with Brian that in Beaverton the bike lanes really DO improve the safety for cycling as well as promote/encourage cycling and increase the positive aspects of the experience.

my PERSONAL take:
* cyclists should be allowed to use most roads (only high speed controlled-access roadways like Interstates should be off-limits)
* when feasable cyclists should ride along with motor vehicles
* on large and high-speed roads (say a 55mph 4-lane urban artery road) and especially bridges bike LANES such as those Brian refers to in Beaverton DO much improve the cycling experience and safety
* BUT, bike lanes should rarely be REQUIRED
* bike PATHS (not just an extended lane of the road, but a separate path, often winding and often multi-use and often with very dangerous intersections as not directly "part" of the road) should NEVER EVER be mandatory for cycling as they are typically VERY dangerous for all but "near walking-speed" cycling
--> the promotion of Bike Lanes (and especially Paths) must be done with caution as the worst outcome is the loss of the right to CYCLE on the perfectly good and safe roadway (b/c it someone becomes mandatory to ride on a bike path or bike lane)

--> although Munich is a very good city for cyclists, the MADATORY bike paths and few bike lanes (mostly the unsafe bike path type) are VERY dangerous. Munich would certainly be safer for cyclists without bike paths! (although without bike paths many people would FEEL less safe, so the number of cyclists would be lower)

Brian Ratliff

04-27-05, 07:46 AM

I'm sure that they can work well in some areas, and almost positive that they would work better if they were used more, conditioning drivers to be more aware of them. As a stop-gap measure though, I think they probably suck.

You are probably right. As a stop-gap measure they probably cause some problems because drivers don't know how to treat them, especially if they are painted onto a road which was not designed for them. When they are designed into the road, I cannot see how they would be a problem.

By designed in, I mean that they are wide enough to really provide a good place to bike, and they are positioned so that the traffic crosses them as few times as possible. In other words, they are designed to be a regular traffic lane on the road, albeit, a lane who's usage is restricted to cyclists. When they are designed into the road, the cyclist IS an integrated part of traffic. They are simply not forced to share a regular traffic lane with other vehicles.

If the bike lanes are effectively designed into the traffic flow of the road, I think the worst they can be is irrelevant, but never downright dangerous.

BR

Brian Ratliff

04-27-05, 08:03 AM

my PERSONAL take:
* cyclists should be allowed to use most roads (only high speed controlled-access roadways like Interstates should be off-limits)
* when feasable cyclists should ride along with motor vehicles
* on large and high-speed roads (say a 55mph 4-lane urban artery road) and especially bridges bike LANES such as those Brian refers to in Beaverton DO much improve the cycling experience and safety
* BUT, bike lanes should rarely be REQUIRED
* bike PATHS (not just an extended lane of the road, but a separate path, often winding and often multi-use and often with very dangerous intersections as not directly "part" of the road) should NEVER EVER be mandatory for cycling as they are typically VERY dangerous for all but "near walking-speed" cycling
--> the promotion of Bike Lanes (and especially Paths) must be done with caution as the worst outcome is the loss of the right to CYCLE on the perfectly good and safe roadway (b/c it someone becomes mandatory to ride on a bike path or bike lane)

--> although Munich is a very good city for cyclists, the MADATORY bike paths and few bike lanes (mostly the unsafe bike path type) are VERY dangerous. Munich would certainly be safer for cyclists without bike paths! (although without bike paths many people would FEEL less safe, so the number of cyclists would be lower)

I agree perfectly. With bike lanes comes some people who want to make them madatory. This is the flip side of the coin, especially the part to urge caution when promoting bike lanes because of the issue of mandatory use. I especially agree that bike paths can be especially dangerous and should never be made mandatory.

This is the part where I don't know the answer. In Portland and Seattle, this problem seems to have been sidestepped, maybe because of a large cycling population and some vocal bicycle advocates. All I can say is that it is up to us to delineate our exact needs as cyclists and not fall into the trap of demanding bike lanes (or other bike facilities) and having to give up our right to the rest of the road in exchange. I would rather have no bike lanes and the ability to ride anywhere on the road than have bike lanes, but be restricted to them. And just to be clear, I would rather than a WOL than an ill designed bike lane.

The best of all worlds, of course, is to have well designed bike lanes, but not be restricted to them. I also firmly believe that the possibility of falling into this trap does not disqualify bike lanes from the discussion of bike facilities.

BR

patc

04-27-05, 08:31 AM

Okay, too many people are bashing bike lanes and there are no good counter argument threads. I want to explore some of the philosophies behind our traffic system and try to deduce whether bike lanes or wide outside lanes (WOL's) are the best match for our roads.

Both may be useful. My city (Ottawa) plans to use both, as well as "signed only" bike routes. Bikes here are generally allowed on all lanes and all roads, but the idea is to make some roads particularly bike friendly, and to fix unfriendly roads, using the most appropriate method possible on a case-by-case basis. Some of the more.... dogmatic... types here seem convinced that only one answer fits all roads and all cyclists.

To start off, contrary to popular belief, there are good bike lanes in existence. Here, in Beaverton (near Portland, OR), there are several examples.

There are many good ones in Ottawa as well. There is a short bike lane on Bank street near Billing's Bridge, which allows me to take my time climbing a steep hill when loaded with groceries. The Alta Vista bike lanes allow me to move significantly faster than car traffic at peak hours. The McKenzie-King bridge lane allows access to/from downtown and the east on a bridge otherwise very problematic (outer lane is bus only, inner lanes very busy, strange intersections at each end).

Since Serge's stance (Helmet Head) has been so unforgiving against bike lanes, I have had to sharpen my arguments FOR bike lanes. Many of my specific arguments have been aired elsewhere, so I will put out something new.

Serge beleives some mysterious force emanates from bike lanes, causing bikes to enter a Twilight Zone in which any and all issues are caused by the bike lane. Disregard anything he writes, others have more rational views for and against bike lanes.

There are two different philosophies in traffic design which I can think of. There is the system which we have at current, where relationships on the road are governed by rules, all of which can be reduced down to the assignment of "right-of-way."

I want to add to that. Within the "right of way" system many different approaches exist to road planning. Ottawa is, I think, and extreme example of "separation and special cases". We have bike lanes, bus lanes, car-pooling lanes, etc. We have "no right/left turn except [vehicle types]" intersections. We nearly always separate left-turning, right-turning, and through traffic on major intersections. We have many one-ways, local-traffic-only streets, and dead-ends. The philosophy here seems to be very much based on separating vehicles based on needs, priority, type, and road usage efficiency.

I bring this up because in past bike lane discussions it became apparent to me that regional differences are very evident in these debates. Someone from a city where special-use lanes and traffic separation is less common is more likely to think bike lanes are strange. I, on the other hand, find it strange when a multi-lane road has NO special lanes!

Throw a bike lane into the mix, and we make the case that we are part of the first philosophy of traffic flow with every other vehicle on the road. We have our own lane which accomodates our inability to ride faster than about 20-25 mph. We are out of the way, and we have a legally protected refuge. A well designed bike lane will be able to accomodate any number of cyclists. Not just the 1 per 100 cars or so who are on the road now. Of course, it goes without saying that the bike lane not be used to discriminate against cyclists by making it illegal for them to travel in other lanes of the road.

Unfortunately some people use mandatory bike lane laws as an argument against ALL bike lanes, which is stupid.

One of the justifications for bike lanes here is that they allow extra road capacity without increasing motor-vehicle capacity. Bike lanes can serve as bike expressways on a street with bumper-to-bumper traffic, while still meeting a city's desire to limit motor-vehicle traffic in that area.

WOL's give us the second philosophy. In a wide outside lane which intended to be shared between cyclist and driver, the right of way issues which govern every other aspect of the road in the US are muddied.

I just don't like sharing the lane. Highway laws, driving practices, and habits in North America are based on "one vehicle per lane" on the street's cross-section. There are a few exceptions to this, but generally speaking you do not expect to share the lane with another vehicle. While sharing the lane works well enough on residential roads and minor roads, it becomes increasingly problematic as traffic density, speed, and size of vehicles increase.

The final issue with sharing the lane - WOL or otherwise - is that a motor vehicle may be validly positioned anywhere in the lane. There is nothing stopping someone from driving on the right-hand edge of the road, getting in the way of bikes. There is nothing guiding a driver into leaving enough distance when passing a bike, or suggesting that he/she should expect vehicles to the right.

The main point is that WOL's, by definition, are a stop-gap measure for roads which are not designed for bikes in the first place. WOL's muddy up the right of way rules which govern other vehicles on the road and are not really sustainable for a large population of cyclists. Therefore, our energies are better spend researching correct road design to accomodate bike lanes safely and orderly and getting those designs enacted rather than spending the energy advocating the stop-gap measure of WOL's.

Great post. While there are a few issues with Ottawa's Draft Cycling Plan, overall it does exactly what you suggest: address road design so that roads are all accessible as cycling roads - from grade to construction closures to intersection. The plans acknowledges that there are no one-size fits all solutions and that bike lanes, WOLs, signed-only routes, and roads with no specific bike facilities are all part of reasonable road design.

Sadly the one-sided dogma types are complaining about the plan, and may weaken it to serve their holy war for/against whatever view they strongly hold. That's the way these things go.

genec

04-27-05, 08:37 AM

With all due respect, you are just plain dead wrong:

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.
(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic infraction.
Here's the statute (http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/plan_app/statutes.htm#bikeduty). To make it worse, an (the?) Oregon court of appeals has all but read the second paragraph out of the statute. The court said it would "presume" that the local government passed a resolution requiring bike lane use. Here's that case (http://159.121.112.45/A115242.htm).

Uh there is a lot more to that law...

814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty.
(1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:

(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.
(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.
(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.
(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(e) When operating a bicycle along side not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.

Right off the start if you are moving at the same speed as traffic, you may leave the lane, if you are passing or making a left, you may leave the lane, and when there are hazards, you may leave the lane.

So in other words if you are slow, not passing, and not facing any hazards... is there any reason to not stay to the right, in the lane?

sggoodri

04-27-05, 08:41 AM

Bike lane striping will never be a panacea for safety, because only a very tiny percentage of injuries to cyclists involve a motorist overtaking a straight-traveling cyclist in a lane wide enough to easily pass at safe distance. Most injuries involve falls; most car-bike collisions involve junctions, and most overtaking collisions where I live involve lanes too narrow to add a bike lane stripe per state standards.

That said, I think that on a frequently-swept, well maintained, high-speed road with few junctions and wide pavement, a mid-block bike lane stripe isn't a problem, and may even provide a safety benefit. But since few to none of the streets I ride meet these criteria, I don't see striping being of any benefit to me personally. Some local low-speed residential streets in my city have recently been outfitted with bike lane stripes, and this has only resulted in increased debris in the area where I used to ride. Now I have to ride farther into the roadway, to the left of the stripe, in order to avoid the debris zone.

On my commute to work today, I had a close call that a bike lane would not have prevented, and could have exacerbated. Most of my trip is on a busy arterial with four narrow through lanes, the outside through lane being lined with potholes. I ride in the center of the right through lane for most of the trip. There are lots of driveways and intersections with heavy turning and entering traffic; being in the center of the lane not only keeps me from getting squeezed into the curb and the potholes, but it also makes me more visible to entering traffic. Near the end of my commute the road widens out with a 13' wide outside through lane, with smoother pavement and fewer junctions. At this point I moved toward the edge of the lane to allow drivers to pass without changing lanes. Not half a mile down the road, a driver turned right on red from a side street directly in front of me (I had the green). I yelled at him as I slammed on the brakes. He looked visibly startled through his open driver-side window, then he punched the gas to try to accelerate through the turn and out of my path. I have never had this happen with a right-turning drover while riding in the center of the lane; I suspect, but admittedly do not know for certain, that my position near the curb made me less noticeable to him. If I had moved to the center of the lane when approaching the intersection like I usually do, he probably would have noticed me. But a bike lane would contra-indicate such a maneuver.

I do think there are some well designed and maintained bike lane installations out there, just not the installations where I live. I therefore base my advocacy for better pavement (sans-striping) on the specific operational problems that I see, rather than any ideology. I really can't get excited about asking for better bike lanes when the wider outside through lanes here work just as well and often better than our average bike lane striping project.

-Steve Goodridge

Helmet Head

04-27-05, 10:42 AM

Somewhere in the distant past this thread was about bike lanes.

The accident that prompted this thread was not caused by the bike lane; it was caused by a very poor driver who twice veered to the right without first determining that there was no one on the right. Lousy drivers happen with or without bike lanes.
I prefer to think of good driving vs. bad driving, as opposed to good drivers vs. bad drivers.
There are no perfect drivers. There are no drivers so horrible that they are constantly driving bad (anyone constantly driving bad can't drive for long, by definition).

All drivers are somewhere in between, most driving pretty good most of the time, and all doing some bad driving some of the time.

So the key for me is to increase the incidence of good driving among all drivers, and reduce the incidence of bad driving among all drivers. In short, try to move everyone up on the bad-to-good driving scale.

In that context, I think bike lanes increase the incidence of bad driving among all drivers because the rules governing their use are so complex that they are either not known or not well understood. In this case the bike lane -- and all bike lanes do this, not just the really bad ones -- encouraged the cyclist to proceed in the "safety" of her bike lane, despite the fact that there was a slowing motorist to her left. The motorist, already in the rightmost lane as far as she was concerned, understandably did not think that there might be someone to her right.

The bike lane itself was a major contributing cause to this incident. And, all those who support bike lanes are therefore partially responsible for it too.

John E

04-27-05, 10:55 AM

Bike lane striping will never be a panacea for safety, because only a very tiny percentage of injuries to cyclists involve a motorist overtaking a straight-traveling cyclist in a lane wide enough to easily pass at safe distance. ...
I do think there are some well designed and maintained bike lane installations out there, just not the installations where I live. I therefore base my advocacy for better pavement (sans-striping) on the specific operational problems that I see, rather than any ideology. I really can't get excited about asking for better bike lanes when the wider outside through lanes here work just as well and often better than our average bike lane striping project.

-Steve Goodridge I think alot of us would agree with Steve. On a fast prime arterial, I want a sharably wide outside lane or a clean, smooth, well-maintained shoulder, and I generally do not really care whether or not it has formal bike lane demarcation. At an intersection with a right-turn-only lane, I want either a wide rightmost through lane or a marked bike lane BETWEEN the through lane and the right-turn-only lane. Most, but not all, of the newer intersections in San Diego County are pretty bike-friendly.

Helmet Head

04-27-05, 11:02 AM

That's a good question. A friend of mine who used to commute in heavy traffic found that if he moved from the primary position (near the center of the marked lane) to the secondary position (near the right edge) when there was enough room to let the car/truck behind him get by within the lane, that sometimes the car/trucks/buses would then pass in such a continuous stream that he couldn't merge back to the primary position when the lane later became too narrow to share comfortably.

So the answer to the question "When should I move to the secondary position and share the marked lane" is "it depends" on quite a few different factors, such as:
I agree as usual with everything that Bruce said, but would add only one point.

For me, the problem his friend had merging back into traffic never happens when I use negotiation.
All you have to do is take your left arm off the handlebars and turn around looking behind, twisting your body in the process so that your whole body is turned looking back. Almost without exception, the motorist behind will immediately slow and yield to me. In the rare events when he doesn't, the next one always does.

Note: it takes practice to learn to do this maneuver safely. You have to scan ahead and know it's safe to proceed without looking ahead for a second or two, and you have to know how to continue in a straight line while looking behind with only one hand on the handlebars. it's not hard to learn, but it's also not automatic. While in heavy traffic is not the right place to try it for the first time!

Serge

Brian Ratliff

04-27-05, 11:04 AM

In that context, I think bike lanes increase the incidence of bad driving among all drivers because the rules governing their use are so complex that they are either not known or not well understood. In this case the bike lane -- and all bike lanes do this, not just the really bad ones -- encouraged the cyclist to proceed in the "safety" of her bike lane, despite the fact that there was a slowing motorist to her left. The motorist, already in the rightmost lane as far as she was concerned, understandably did not think that there might be someone to her right.

The bike lane itself was a major contributing cause to this incident. And, all those who support bike lanes are therefore partially responsible for it too.

So, using your logic, if I get sideswiped in my car by another car merging onto the freeway, all those in favor of high speed freeway ramps are held partially responsible for my accident. Don't think this flies.

As far as I am concerned, the best road is one where cyclists and drivers are well aware of each other, but are not in immenent fear of colliding. Apparently this is not your concept of the best road. You want a road where all cyclists are hard core commuting warriors, looking out for themselves; who, of coarse have taken the Effective Cycling course.

I am kind of curious if you can form original arguments of your own for the case of WOL's. Everything I have heard from you so far is straight out of Effective Cycling by John Forrester. It is a good book with lots of good information, but he uses some arguments which are up for criticism. Furthermore, there has been much work in the area of traffic engineering since his book was written which can mute some of his arguments. You, so far, have sidestepped all the arguments I have made in favor of bike lanes, and you have not responded to any of my arguments against WOL's.

I have a parallel thread to this specifically defending bicycle lanes. I am curious to what you can come up with to counter my arguments, or to defend WOL's against the specific arguments I make against them regarding right of way conflicts and the like. I am curious about your philosophy about the "best" roads for cycling and how you will deal with with right of way conflicts which arise when you have a system where vehicles are asked explicitly to share a travel lane.

BR

noisebeam

04-27-05, 11:08 AM

....Cars are only allowed to cross the bike lane at intersections and the line turns from solid to dashed to indicate where right of way conflicts can occur. From a legal standpoint, the cyclist has the right of way in the bike lane at all times.

...We are out of the way, and we have a legally protected refuge. A well designed bike lane will be able to accomodate any number of cyclists. Not just the 1 per 100 cars or so who are on the road now. Of course, it goes without saying that the bike lane not be used to discriminate against cyclists by making it illegal for them to travel in other lanes of the road.

.... Say the common situation of the right hook. With a bike lane, the car clearly violates the right of way of the cyclist. In a WOL, is the cyclist supposed to be on the right side of the lane or on the left when there is a potential for a right turn by an overtaking car? BR

I understand that at major intersections where there is a right turn lane a bike lane can continue straight, avoiding right hook.
But just the same the WOL can continue straight and this works great.
But then you talk about WOL creating the right hook. Right hooks are actually worse when BLs are present, not for major intersections where there is a right turn lane, but the numerous minor ones or the major ones where the (badly designed) BL does not end and there is not a right turn lane.
At a later time (I gotta run) I can explain my experience better, but I always have a much easier time negotiating intersections and right of way when there is a WOL compared to when there is a BL. When there is a separate right turn lane and BL continues to its left - it is neutral which is better (BL or WOL)
I find far more issues with BL due to the very nature of it being a separate protected refuge - it is an overworn saying by anti-BL folks, but it is true in my experience that is does more to protect drivers from worrying about cyclists than the reverse.
I wrote my comfort ratingsabout WOL vs. BL vs. Narrow lane and on all busy roads where no intersections are present I find the lowest stress with WOL, second BL and far worse narrow lanes, around intersections this changes from WOL best, narrow lane second, bike lanes significantly worse (mainly because I must leave the BL to position myself for going straight or left). I really want to better explain, but like I said am a bit short of time.

Al

Brian Ratliff

04-27-05, 11:18 AM

noisebeam,

I did not say WOL's create the right hook. I made the observation that a new right of way rule must be implimented to determine who is at fault for the right hook in a WOL. You can almost say that right of way does not apply in the WOL, because two vehicles are asked to share the same travel lane. Right of way rules apply to sections of road which are occupied by cars. The rules are not well suited for creating exceptions for certain specific types of vehicles. When a section of the road is shared by two vehicles, who has right of way in case of a conflict?

scarry

04-27-05, 11:20 AM

I find the term "cagers" offensive. Comments like this:

"The bike lane is not at fault it was the lady drivers actions of not staying allert which is very common with cagers"

I myself love the term. It's right to the point. People stuck in a metal cage.
Car addicts.
Cars are coffins.
http://www.cars-suck.org/

Brian Ratliff

04-27-05, 11:34 AM

noisebeam,

I answered one argument, I will answer the other. When we talk about right hooks and bike lanes, we are really highlighting one transition effects of moving to bike lanes and not having a driving population which is used to the same right of way rules as they live by on the road being applied to a bike lane.

Right hooks across a bike lane, by definition, are conflicts of right of way. In this case, the driver failed to yield right of way to the cyclist. It does highlight a problem area for bike lanes, but one which can be solved by good road design, not only in having right turn only lanes, but by using a broken line at minor intersections for the bike lane and the like to indicate areas of posible conflict. This problem is a problem with education more than anything else and can be solved using the drivers licensing process and drivers ed.

Like all right of way rules, they have to be learned. WOL's use the second philosophy, which does not require as much education, but is contrary to how US roads work. The lack of a good drivers licensing process in Cambodia is why they use the second traffic philosophy. It does require less education and is more intuitive. However, US roads use the right of way philosophy, which is less intuitive and requires more education, but also allows higher speed and greater efficiency, so a WOL is contrary to how our roads work.

BR

Helmet Head

04-27-05, 11:43 AM

At least in Portland and Seattle, this is hardly the case. I can take the lane at any time, for any reason, and as long as I yield right of way, drivers don't complain.
What do you mean "as long as I yield the right of way, drivers don't complain"? Does that mean taking the lane only when there is no one driving behind you? If not, what do you mean?

I simply want to have a bike lane so I can get out of the way when I have no interest in being in the way.
Why do you need a bike lane to "get out of the way when [you] have no interest in being in the way. "? Why is a WOL without the BL stripe not good enough?

If they know I will get out of their way to let them pass when it is safe for me to do so, they will trust me when I have to get in their way for my own safety, and most importantly, when another cyclist gets in the way for their safety.
Absolutely. Don't see what this has to do with bike lanes though.

It is about recognizing that I will never be able to push my crusing speed greater than 25 mph, and it is about wanting the traffic system to recognize that I exist, have limitations, and have the right to be there and be integrated into the traffic flow.
Again, I don't see how BLs do any of this.

Despite our differences in opinion about cycling facilities, you will probably find that we are equal in skill in traffic.
Perhaps, but, honestly, I would be surprised if that were the case. The arguments you make are consistent with the way I thought and felt about cycling in traffic after 30 years of bicycling experience, but before I really learned vehicular cycling, took it to heart, so to speak, and learned that Forester had a total of two rs, not three.

We simply have a different view about cycling's place in society. You are satisfied with the fact that there is 1 cyclist per 100 cars, and will not take into account that someday there may be 10 or 20 cyclists per 100 cars. You want a solution to the status quo, and are willing to sacrifice the future needs of cyclists.
Amazing. Later on you accuse me of being "God", and here you are proclaiming knowledge about what I am satisfied with and what I want a solution to and what I'm willing to sacrifice (wrong on all three counts, by the way).

And then there is your attitude.
Here it comes...

Belittling people, essentially calling them cowardly, is not the way to deal with honest differences in opinion.
Where did I belittle anyone, or call anyone cowardly? If I did, I can assure you that was not my intent. Are you referring to the "have the guts" reference a few posts back? I was just using the same language crashtest used, when he said he didn't "have the guts" to take the lane in certain circumstances. Those were his words. I certainly did not mean to belittle, insult, call him (or anyone else) cowardly. I'm sorry you got that impression.

There is a reason why you make enemies on this board, Serge, and it is not because you have an opinion about WOL's. It is because you have no concept of argument.
I have no concept of argument? What do you mean by that?

Apparently, you are God, because you already know the answer and you only have to trumpet the news to the ignorant people of this board.
I am God, and yet here you are once against proclaiming knowledge about me personally. Whatever.

The subject of bicycling advocacy is too important to get bogged down in petty arguements of whether you follow the gospel of three John's or whether you actually, God forbid, advocate bike lanes.
It might seem like petty arguments to you, but when one believes the key to cycling advocacy is advancing the concept that cyclists are legitimate users of all lanes of all public roadways (except limited access roadways like freeways), and such use is safe and appropriate, and opposing initiatives that are contrary to that concept (like advocating for on-roadway segregated facilities for cyclists), then these arguments cease seeming to be so petty.

Look, we want the same thing. We want to improve cycling. We want to make cycling safer, more acceptable, and more popular. We agree cycling advocacy should be about advancing all that. What we differ on is how that could be accomplished, and, in particular, on the role of bike lanes in all that.

There is no argument that bike lanes make most cyclists feel safer. The issue is whether they actually make them safer, and the relevance of that to cycling advocacy. It is my position that bike lanes do not make cycling safer, and, so, it is disengenuous to advocate for them as if they do, and, in the long run, will backfire in terms of making cycling more acceptable and popular. The key is to help people learn how to ride on regular roads in traffic safely, especially without bike lanes. The more bike lanes we have, the less opportunity they have to learn this. So they will continue to not learn how to do it, and continue to feel that riding in traffic without bike lanes is inherently unsafe. Perpetuating the myth that traffic cycling without bike lanes is inherently unsafe does not seem like the correct mission for cycling advocacy to me.

Serge

SpokesInMyPoop

04-27-05, 11:49 AM

By the way, John is my father for those of you who are wondering.

Man, I wish my dad was into bikes :(

sggoodri

04-27-05, 12:01 PM

Right hooks across a bike lane, by definition, are conflicts of right of way. In this case, the driver failed to yield right of way to the cyclist. It does highlight a problem area for bike lanes, but one which can be solved by good road design, not only in having right turn only lanes, but by using a broken line at minor intersections for the bike lane and the like to indicate areas of posible conflict. BR

Right hooks are really a failure of the driver to move to the rightmost position on the roadway before turning right. A driver could possibly violate the right of way of a cycist while merging to the rightmost position, but that is a lateral-movement violation, not an actual right-hook, and is less common.

A lot of us believe that bike lane stripes, be they solid or striped, discourage automobile drivers from moving to the rightmost position of the roadway prior to turning right. Eliminating the stripe well before the lateral merges occur may be more effective at reducing this problem than a motorist education campaign about when to cross a bike lane stripe. One of the basic principles of effective user interface design is that if a great deal of education effort is needed to mitigate a counter-intuitive design, the better approach is to fix the design.

One of the reasons why many bike lane designers promote bike lane striping all the way up to the intersection is that they really don't understand or believe that having right-turning motor traffic merge right, in line with bicycle traffic, is safer than turning across a separate lane of bicycle traffic. This is an example of where vehicular cyclists are quite frustrated with bike lane designers, because the crash statistics clearly show that right-hooks are much more likely and no less dangerous than merging movements on junction approaches. This is a specific case where vehicular cyclists believe that the striping proponents are working on an ideological basis favoring segregation rather than a pragmatic one.

-Steve Goodridge
http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/

Helmet Head

04-27-05, 12:10 PM

The bike lane itself was a major contributing cause to this incident. And, all those who support bike lanes are therefore partially responsible for it too.
So, using your logic, if I get sideswiped in my car by another car merging onto the freeway, all those in favor of high speed freeway ramps are held partially responsible for my accident. Don't think this flies.

That would follow if:

The highspeed freeway ramp was a contributing cause to the collision.
There was a reasonable alternative to having the freeway ramp.
The creation of freeway ramps was controversial, with some supporting them on the basis of increasing safety, and others opposing them on the basis of making driving more dangerous.

As far as I am concerned, the best road is one where cyclists and drivers are well aware of each other, but are not in immenent fear of colliding.
I'll agree with that.

Apparently this is not your concept of the best road.
Apparently? Apparently based on what? Your apparent presumption that you can read my mind is becoming laugable.

You want a road where all cyclists are hard core commuting warriors, looking out for themselves; who, of coarse have taken the Effective Cycling course.
Hardly. It's statements like this that make me doubt that we are equal in skill in traffic. I view riding in traffic on roadways without bike lanes as a cooperative and beautiful dance, rather than as a battle or a war. I suspect our radically different attitudes about cycling in traffic must be reflected in how we behave in traffic: I dance, you fight.

I am kind of curious if you can form original arguments of your own for the case of WOL's.
What do you mean? For WOLs as opposed to what? NOLs? Bike lanes? I have posted at length about this stuff in other threads, but my opinion is not yet settled. I'm engaged in a discussion currently on whether WOLs should be advocated for by a VC organization. There is a fairly compelling argument presented by an anti-motorist/environmentalist guy that WOLs are actually facilities for motorists, not cyclists. I could go on and on, and am probably going to create an entry on this in Wikipedia.

Everything I have heard from you so far is straight out of Effective Cycling by John Forrester.
You must mean John Forester. ;-) I guess that would explain why I have engaged in debates with him on some of these topics. :rolleyes:

It is a good book with lots of good information, but he uses some arguments which are up for criticism.
Of course.

Furthermore, there has been much work in the area of traffic engineering since his book was written which can mute some of his arguments.
You mean make his arguments moot? Got any specifics as to what work makes which of his arguments moot?

You, so far, have sidestepped all the arguments I have made in favor of bike lanes, and you have not responded to any of my arguments against WOL's.
You're kidding, right?

I have a parallel thread to this specifically defending bicycle lanes. I am curious to what you can come up with to counter my arguments, or to defend WOL's against the specific arguments I make against them regarding right of way conflicts and the like. I am curious about your philosophy about the "best" roads for cycling and how you will deal with with right of way conflicts which arise when you have a system where vehicles are asked explicitly to share a travel lane.
I'll look for your other thread.

Serge

Brian Ratliff

04-27-05, 12:20 PM

What do you mean "as long as I yield the right of way, drivers don't complain"? Does that mean taking the lane only when there is no one driving behind you? If not, what do you mean?

There is no argument that bike lanes make most cyclists feel safer. The issue is whether they actually make them safer, and the relevance of that to cycling advocacy. It is my position that bike lanes do not make cycling safer, and, so, it is disengenuous to advocate for them as if they do, and, in the long run, will backfire in terms of making cycling more acceptable and popular. The key is to help people learn how to ride on regular roads in traffic safely, especially without bike lanes. The more bike lanes we have, the less opportunity they have to learn this. So they will continue to not learn how to do it, and continue to feel that riding in traffic without bike lanes is inherently unsafe. Perpetuating the myth that traffic cycling without bike lanes is inherently unsafe does not seem like the correct mission for cycling advocacy to me.

Serge

Sorry about most of that. I was frustrated with your lack of willingness to meet my arguments head on.

The first reply is simply a misunderstanding. When you take a lane, like any other lane change, you yield right of way. Once you are in the lane, you have right of way so there is no reason to yield it. This should be clear, but this misunderstanding illustrates the right of way problems with two vehicles sharing the same space.

I am glad that we have the same goals in mind, but I am concerned that, like with all converts to an idea, you are attached to a particular solution with a religious zeal. Most of your arguments are answered in the other thread. Reply there if you want to respond to those arguments.

The particular argument above is kind of like saying that you will never make an omelet because it involves breaking eggs and may make a mess of things. There are some end points which cannot be reached by going slow and incrementally. To get to the point where cyclists have their own space and their own right of way, i.e. not having to share space with other vehicles, means that we have to go through a phase where some roads are set up ideally, and some roads are not. WOL's make sense for roads as they are now. They don't make sense when there are enough cyclists on the road to create constant right of way conflicts between cars.

BR