Bike lanes

[I-Like-To-Bike]

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.
Thanks for the first hand reporting from Cambridge. I agree with you about the contemptible efforts by a handful of VC™ proselytizers to capitalize on the tragic death of Donna Laird to add fuel to their bombastic rants against bike lanes with the claims that bike lanes was the cause of the accident, and that bike lanes are the only reason why cyclists ride in door zones.

[randya]

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.
I agree on the third point, but think your first two points fail as sweeping generalizations and strawmen. Cyclist education beginning at a young age - as soon as a child is old enough to ride and comprehend, and before they are old enough to have established bad cycling habits or phobias - would be a very good thing, and is at the heart of many successful European programs. Well-trained cyclists will also make better trained drivers when they get old enough to operate a motor vehicle. From first hand experience I can also tell you that the City of Portland bases their decisions to build bike lanes and other facilities on the ability of these facilities to encourage and attract more 'category 1' novice cyclists, many of whom have never had any formal or informal (e.g. from experience) training.

[Brian Ratliff]

I agree on the third point, but think your first two points fail as sweeping generalizations and strawmen.

They are fallacies which are used on both sides of this debate for the last 50 some odd pages. My point is that we all need to stop using them, not that one is right and the other wrong.

Cyclist education beginning at a young age - as soon as a child is old enough to ride and comprehend, and before they are old enough to have established bad cycling habits or phobias - would be a very good thing, and is at the heart of many successful European programs. Well-trained cyclists will also make better trained drivers when they get old enough to operate a motor vehicle. From first hand experience I can also tell you that the City of Portland bases their decisions to build bike lanes and other facilities on the ability of these facilities to encourage and attract more 'category 1' novice cyclists, many of whom have never had any formal or informal (e.g. from experience) training.

Training is good. Bike rodeos and other bike programs help in their way. They are certainly not the only advocacy to undertake, but as long as someone does the other things, which is the case, then there is not much more to say.

As for Portland basing their decisions on attacting 'category 1' novice cyclists, what better criteria is there? Certainly you are not suggesting that 'category 1' cyclists be forced off the road? Unless there is a baseline law mandating a certain level of training for novice cyclists (read: licenses), the city must go to the lowest common denominator by default (edit: it should go without saying, but not in this crowd, that they shouldn't restrict cyclists of a higher skill level from the road either). As a member of the category 2 (3,4,5,10,20??) cyclist class, I must say I can handle most things short of a freeway. Why would they cater to me? Why would I want them to?

[genec]

As for Portland basing their decisions on attacting 'category 1' novice cyclists, what better criteria is there? Certainly you are not suggesting that 'category 1' cyclists be forced off the road? Unless there is a baseline law mandating a certain level of training for novice cyclists (read: licenses), the city must go to the lowest common denominator by default (edit: it should go without saying, but not in this crowd, that they shouldn't restrict cyclists of a higher skill level from the road either). As a member of the category 2 (3,4,5,10,20??) cyclist class, I must say I can handle most things short of a freeway. Why would they cater to me? Why would I want them to?

No, but the flip side of that arguement is that cyclists progress from "cat 1" to some other catagory; so should bike facilities be geared to only serving that lowest (and most populated) group?

The facilites I regularly use are geared for little more then rolling pedestrians... with such tiny but overlooked design features as light sensors not being used, but relying on crosswalk buttons not at grade level, and on the "wrong" side of the road. It honestly does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that bicycles ARE rolling vehicles (or human powered devices) that basically adhere to the "rules of the road..." IE crossing signal buttons should be on the right of the path/lane.

Catagory 1 riders are usually little more then rolling pedestrians... how about a bit of focus for the commuters that can easily maintain 12+MPH AND might prefer to stay on their bikes to address road controls.

In other words, facilities should be geared to address more then the lowest common user... but should also raise the standards a bit to encompass the next level of cyclists which would encourage cycling "progression."

[patc]

This, for example:

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

That is a specific, known, problem with a specific bike lane implementation. I doubt you will find many bike lane proponents who argue FOR bike lanes in the door zone of parked cars.

So I ask again, in general is there any inherent damage or problem caused by the existence of bike lanes (other than specific bad designs)? I keep hearing people complain about the evils of bike lanes, but the only examples ever given are the same old design errors.

[Brian Ratliff]

No, but the flip side of that arguement is that cyclists progress from "cat 1" to some other catagory; so should bike facilities be geared to only serving that lowest (and most populated) group?

The facilites I regularly use are geared for little more then rolling pedestrians... with such tiny but overlooked design features as light sensors not being used, but relying on crosswalk buttons not at grade level, and on the "wrong" side of the road. It honestly does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that bicycles ARE rolling vehicles (or human powered devices) that basically adhere to the "rules of the road..." IE crossing signal buttons should be on the right of the path/lane.

Catagory 1 riders are usually little more then rolling pedestrians... how about a bit of focus for the commuters that can easily maintain 12+MPH AND might prefer to stay on their bikes to address road controls.

In other words, facilities should be geared to address more then the lowest common user... but should also raise the standards a bit to encompass the next level of cyclists which would encourage cycling "progression."

Not a bad idea. There is no sense in not accomodating a skilled cyclist if it does not take away from the un-skilled cyclist. However, you cannot expect them to accomate the higher skilled cyclist at the expense of the lower skilled one. That is my point.

I have no problems navigating the bike lanes, or any other road, around here at >15mph. Road controls are a non-issue for me, except sometimes at left turns. Other than that, which is not a bike lane issue, the bike lanes "designed for category 1 cyclists" work fine for my speedy self.

[randya]

A properly designed bike lane should work, and be safe for, all levels of cyclists.

[genec]

A properly designed bike lane should work, and be safe for, all levels of cyclists.

Now apply that same consideration to all bike facilities... including paths.

AND BTW be aware that some cyclists can easily reach 25+MPH on level ground...

[randya]

A multi-use path is NOT a bike lane and the Lance wannabes should either stay off the MUP or slow down. And if you can keep up with traffic on the road, I would say get out of the bike lane, as well. One of the big problems with bike lanes anywhere bicycling is popular in the US is that most US bike lanes are not wide enough or designed for passing, and they don't work very well when congested with many cyclists travelling at different speeds.

[genec]

A multi-use path is NOT a bike lane and the Lance wannabes should either stay off the MUP or slow down. And if you can keep up with traffic on the road, I would say get out of the bike lane, as well. One of the big problems with bike lanes anywhere bicycling is popular in the US is that most US bike lanes are not wide enough or designed for passing, and they don't work very well when congested with many cyclists travelling at different speeds.

OK, agree with comments RE MUPs... but RE the comment on speed of traffic... if traffic is doing 55 or 65MPH, then the cyclist is NOT going to keep up with traffic, yet often BL are designed for sub 25MPH cyclists.

RE MUPs, why not put cross signals at locations for cyclists... rather then on light stands out and away from paths, at the perpendicular sidewalk? Can the darn buttons on a raised pole cost that much? (granted this is mixing the subjects of BL and Paths, but it does point to the attitude that was raised earlier regarding cyclists as "second class citizens")

[chipcom]

A multi-use path is NOT a bike lane and the Lance wannabes should either stay off the MUP or slow down. And if you can keep up with traffic on the road, I would say get out of the bike lane, as well. One of the big problems with bike lanes anywhere bicycling is popular in the US is that most US bike lanes are not wide enough or designed for passing, and they don't work very well when congested with many cyclists travelling at different speeds.

I seriously think this entire debate has been over-complicated. I have no problem with bike lanes and other dedicated infrastructure that is designed for the novice cyclist, as long as cyclists in general are not banned from using the roadways because those dedicated facilities exist. I don't see this as an either-or issue. Those who wish to use the dedicated facilites can, those that don't, won't. So someone tell me why all advocacy groups can't agree on such a simple concept?

[randya]

Many state laws require you to use either the bike lane or the path if one is present.

[genec]

So someone tell me why all advocacy groups can't agree on such a simple concept?

A guess on my part: it seems to be part of the Forester/"segregationist" thinking that some advocates have.

[chipcom]

Many state laws require you to use either the bike lane or the path if one is present.

Sounds to me like those state laws are good targets that both the specific state and national advocacy groups could be concentrating on then, rather than bickering about bike lanes. Of course I recall reading, perhaps in this thread, where some don't want to 'risk' going after such laws in California. Brave of them.

[chipcom]

A guess on my part: it seems to be part of the Forester/"segregationist" thinking that some advocates have.

I have a problem with segregated facilities too...I think women are unfairly diminished because us guys are not allowed to share public restrooms with them. ;)

[genec]

I have a problem with segregated facilities too...I think women are unfairly diminished because us guys are not allowed to share public restrooms with them. ;)

Doesn't seem to stop the women here in San Diego from using the men's room at the local NFL games... when the stadium was built there were simply less woman's rooms then men's and now woman just are not going to wait patiently.

Equality wins!

[randya]

Of course I recall reading, perhaps in this thread, where some don't want to 'risk' going after such laws in California. Brave of them.
That would actually be the side discussion about legally defining bicycles as 'vehicles'.

On another side note, the 2005 Oregon legislature passed SB 938, which goes into effect Jan '06, and which allows cyclists to pass on the right and defines exceptions to the requirement to use a bike lane if one is present. Considering yourself to be a vehicular cyclist is not one of the exceptions, however. ;)


SECTION 3. ORS 814.420 is amended to read:
814.420. (1) Except as provided in [subsection (2)] subsections (2) and (3) 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) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is able to
safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for the purpose of:
(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian that is in the bicycle
lane or path and passage cannot safely be made in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is authorized.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right
of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.
[(3)] (4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class
D traffic violation.
SECTION 4. The amendments to ORS 811.415, 814.410 and 814.420 by sections 1 to 3 of this
2005 Act apply to offenses committed on or after the effective date of this 2005 Act.

http://www.bta4bikes.org/info/legis/sb0938.en.pdf

[LittleBigMan]

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.
A very sad misrepresentation of the intentions of my post.

I am not against bike lanes. But there is no excuse for the kind of bike lane shown in the link.

As for cyclists being doored without the presence of a bike lane, certainly riding outside the door zone would prevent such a thing, but painting a bike lane in the door zone is malicious.

John Allen, whose link I posted, stated he was not opposed to properly designed bicycle facilities.

[sggoodri]

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.

I have no interest in using rhetoric in a situation where it doesn't apply.

I make the simple observation that a well-meaning road engineer can't be expected to design a bicycle lane properly if he never uses them at speed. He can neither understand nor empathize. Thus we get door zone bike lanes.

Similarly, I make the observation that city managers in charge of street sweeping don't notice roadway debris when traveling in their car at 45 mph as easily as does a cyclist traveling on narrow tires at 15.

Lastly, I make the observation that motoring society in general supports laws prohibiting cyclists from leaving separately designated space, in order to keep cyclists out of their way. Because they do not need to obey such a law themselves, the majority population can neither understand nor empathize.

Perhaps the word segregation is more politically volatile than is useful, and for that I sincerely apologize to anyone offended by what might appear as an out of scale analogy, but I am unable to find another word that desribes the relevant principle quite as concisely. The word has far wider use than just racial and ethnic issues.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

But there is no excuse for the kind of bike lane shown in the link.

As for cyclists being doored without the presence of a bike lane, certainly riding outside the door zone would prevent such a thing, but painting a bike lane in the door zone is malicious.
Easily writen, easily done, when not actually cycling in the type of trafffic conditions in question.

Believe it or not, many city cyclists find that cycling in a door zone (or on the sidewalk) is the most practical and realistic method for them to ride and navigate through crowded urban streets with on street parking. Admonitions to take lanes in dense flowing urban traffic are considered by those cyclists unrealistic dreaming from unaffected dogmatists, as well as being a worse alternative than riding with caution in a door zone.

That some other cyclists (often from Sun Belt cities with WOLs and plenty off street parking ) are agahst at that idea, doesn't carry much weight to the cyclists affected; and no amount of handwringing (or political capitalizing) by VC™ proseltyzers over Donna Laird's tragic death, or "education" about the evils of bike lanes will change the reality on the ground as seen by cyclists on such densely crowded city streets.

[LittleBigMan]

Easily writen, easily done, when not actually cycling in the type of trafffic conditions in question.
How do you know that? And I suppose John Allen's opinion is also unimportant, since he is a "VC proselytizer" and therefore not to be trusted.


Believe it or not, many city cyclists find that cycling in a door zone (or on the sidewalk) is the most practical and realistic method for them to ride and navigate through crowded urban streets with on street parking.
That might be, I don't know. If that's what you prefer, it's your business.


Admonitions to take lanes in dense flowing urban traffic are considered by those cyclists unrealistic dreaming from unaffected dogmatists, as well as being a worse alternative than riding with caution in a door zone.
Again, that's your judgement call. Nobody's forcing you through "dogmatism" to ride any other way than the way you choose to ride. After almost being doored myself (what? Door zones in Atlanta?) I choose to accept the wisdom of avoiding door zones, and I feel no guilt about warning others to avoid them, too.


That some other cyclists (often from Sun Belt cities with WOLs and plenty off street parking ) are agahst at that idea, doesn't carry much weight to the cyclists affected; and no amount of handwringing (or political capitalizing) by VC™ proseltyzers over Donna Laird's tragic death, or "education" about the evils of bike lanes will change the reality on the ground as seen by cyclists on such densely crowded city streets.
I wasn't aware anyone needed protecting from "VC proselytizers." Why don't you just let it go?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

How do you know that? And I suppose John Allen's opinion is also unimportant, since he is a "VC proselytizer" and therefore not to be trusted.
No matter how much useful info John Allen places on his informative web site (and there is plenty), its value as a source of cycling information is diminished by it's tone of relentless anti-bike lane rhetoric (as well as odes to John Forester) and cherry picking of the the worst in bike lane implementation to represent the evil of bike lanes in general.

If true believers wish to worship at a shrine for such rhetoric, fine, but don't expect skeptics to bow down upon uttering the Great One's (or an acolyte's) name.

[chipcom]

No matter how much useful info John Allen places on his informative web site (and there is plenty), its value as a source of cycling information is diminished by it's tone of relentless anti-bike lane rhetoric (as well as odes to John Forester) and cherry picking of the the worst in bike lane implementation to represent the evil of bike lanes in general.

If true believers wish to worship at a shrine for such rhetoric, fine, but don't expect skeptics to bow down upon uttering the Great One's (or an acolyte's) name.

You mean I shouldn't buy a top-of-the-line, out-of-my-price-range, totally-unsuited-to-my-needs, bike just because Lance Armstrong rode one in the TDF?

[LittleBigMan]

No matter how much useful info John Allen places on his informative web site (and there is plenty), its value as a source of cycling information is diminished by it's tone of relentless anti-bike lane rhetoric (as well as odes to John Forester) and cherry picking of the the worst in bike lane implementation to represent the evil of bike lanes in general.
You're entitled to your opinion.



If true believers wish to worship at a shrine for such rhetoric, fine, but don't expect skeptics to bow down upon uttering the Great One's (or an acolyte's) name.

Neither should you expect skeptics of your own viewpoints to accept the contents of your arguments simply because you repeat them so often, or because you have created demeaning labels for your ideological foes.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You mean I shouldn't buy a top-of-the-line, out-of-my-price-range, totally-unsuited-to-my-needs, bike just because Lance Armstrong rode one in the TDF?
Sure you should; it will provide you the ultimate prize in the coin of the Kingdom of Real Cyclists - Speed and Efficiency Über Alles.

And the better yet, the Know-nothings on the xmart bikes riding to work, school or wherever in bike lanes or the sidewalk will never know the satisfaction you will have showing off your pride and joy to the guys on your weekend rides.

Just remember, forget about getting a lock, you will be the ball and chain if you take this thing outside.

Note "you" and "your" used in the context of the stereotypical I]Real Cyclists[/I] poser who lusts for such stuff, not any specific poster on this thread.

[captHij]

... I thank all known deities that my wife doesn't seem to have any major injuries (we're headed to the doctor now) and I must admit I was a bit torn about how to react.

I agree that the nutcase driver is out of line, but next time it might be better if you do not take the time to post the situation on a discussion board before going to hospital. And, if the reason you have time is because your wife wants to clean up before seeing the doctor you might have other things to worry about! :-)

[Bruce Rosar]

...I think women are unfairly diminished because us guys are not allowed to share public restrooms with them. ;)
Doesn't seem to stop the women here in San Diego from using the men's room at the local NFL games... Equality wins!Not too many years ago, one of the rest stops for a moderately large organized ride was located at a convenience store which actually was fairly convenient; we were allowed to use the restrooms inside. Those single occupant rooms were labeled by gender. A line had already formed when I entered, and I got on the end of it. Then the mixed group of riders already in line said:We're just using whichever restroom becomes available first, and ignoring the signs.
It worked out well, since that was consistent with the principle of first come, first relieved ;)

[AGuinness]

I think that in threads this long, the OP (please pm and tell me what that stands for) should be able to "direct" the discussion by coming up with one or two sentences that would be displayed above every page of the thread more or less summarizing what purpose that particular thread was meant to serve. Anyone with me?

I'm a little new here, and as of yet have no experience persuading the administrators, but I hear they like Mexican food—I can help there, aplenty. ;)

I personally think this is a really good idea, like *whoa* good. :)

Sebastián

edit: OK, I figured it out now (01/12): it stands for Original Poster?

[NextLevelMentor]

So automobile drivers are stupid animals to be pitied. Gotcha.

I love my bicycle, but I find it to be rather difficult to transport 70 board feet of rough cut oak with it. Sometimes a motor vehicle is the only or best way to get somewhere.

That's because like "Cagers" your vision is the size of your car! Try browsing around http://bikes.jkcc.com/links.htm#homebuilt and look at some of the rigs being built that can carry 2 refrigerators, loads of lumber, and such.

We dont "need" cars or even most trucks. What most folks believe is they "need" to sit on their butts and do nothing but become "rolling head trips" that numb out to their connection the other humans they are amongst!

[genec]

That's because like "Cagers" your vision is the size of your car! Try browsing around http://bikes.jkcc.com/links.htm#homebuilt and look at some of the rigs being built that can carry 2 refrigerators, loads of lumber, and such.

We dont "need" cars or even most trucks. What most folks believe is they "need" to sit on their butts and do nothing but become "rolling head trips" that numb out to their connection the other humans they are amongst!

While these bikes are interesting in concept, and I have seen cyclists in China carry everything from 5, 5 gallon water bottles to 5 propane bottles to a huge amount of lumber... so it can be done, but the practicality IS somewhat limited.

On the flip side, putting one human in one 3000-4000 vehicle that gets about 10% effiency is just as impractical... meaning there is a time and place for bikes as well as for large vehicles that can carry huge heavy loads.

[Daily Commute]

. . . Let me try this: Just because a subclass of a superclass of items can be rated relatively high (say a B+) doesn't mean that the entire superclass (and thus the entire subclass) is not unacceptable.

Even though the subclass (in this case, SoCal bike lanes) rates a B+ relative to all members of the superclass (all bike lanes), does not mean that any of the bike lanes are acceptable It doesn't mean that they are all unacceptable either. It just means that some bike lanes are better than others, and the SoCal ones are relatively good, so far as bike lanes go. It does not rule out the possibility that ALL bike lanes (on "shared" roads) are unacceptable, never-the-less, based on how all bike lanes, even the B+ and A+ ones, imply an official sanction of the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cagers.

Does that make my point clear? Would someone please respond so we can continue with this discussion, and not be further derailed?
I see your point. But when the lanes are well-designed and limited to high-speed, low-intersection roads, the trade-off is worth it, especially if the law allows (as it should) cycling in the roads.

[Helmet Head]

I see your point. But when the lanes are well-designed and limited to high-speed, low-intersection roads, the trade-off is worth it, especially if the law allows (as it should) cycling in the roads.
Whether the "tradeoff" is worth it is a different topic.
My point is that RELATIVE ratings of items within a certain class are meaningless, and should not be included in any calculus regarding the evaluation of the entire class. Please don't make me use an extreme example again to illustrate this point.

[Daily Commute]

Whether the "tradeoff" is worth it is a different topic.
My point is that RELATIVE ratings of items within a certain class are meaningless, and should not be included in any calculus regarding the evaluation of the entire class. Please don't make me use an extreme example again to illustrate this point.
I strongly disagree. If all the bike lanes were well designed, well maintained, 6' wide and only placed on 45+ mph roads with few intersection, the discussion would be very different.

If all we do is say "bike lanes are evil," we won't persuade many people of anything. But if we make people think about what makes a bike lane useful and what doesn't, we'll avoid the stupid bike lanes (pretty much any striped lane on a 25 mph road, for example) and get them only where they can improve cyclist safety (and not just the perception of safety).

This is why I got rid of the "bike lanes = bike ghettos" slogan under my name.

I am not telling you to "shut up." Far from it. You are usually an eloquent critic of striped lanes. In a bike forum, that's a very useful contribution. But from time to time, you jump off the rhetorical deep end.

[Helmet Head]

I strongly disagree. If all the bike lanes were well designed, well maintained, 6' wide and only placed on 45+ mph roads with few intersection, the discussion would be very different.

Not much different. We still need to take the lane, make left turns, approach right turns, etc. etc. on 45+ mph roads. There is still no obligation to stay out of the way of cars on such roads that would justify the placement of bike lanes.

Now, on freeways where all slow vehicles are prohibited? That's a different story.

[Daily Commute]

Not much different. We still need to take the lane, make left turns, approach right turns, etc. etc. on 45+ mph roads. There is still no obligation to stay out of the way of cars on such roads that would justify the placement of bike lanes.

Now, on freeways where all slow vehicles are prohibited? That's a different story.
I should have added--with laws saying that (except in extreme situations) we can ride with the rest of traffic when we deem it appropriate, even if a cop, judge or jury thinks the bike lane is perfectly safe.

[genec]

Not much different. We still need to take the lane, make left turns, approach right turns, etc. etc. on 45+ mph roads. There is still no obligation to stay out of the way of cars on such roads that would justify the placement of bike lanes.

Now, on freeways where all slow vehicles are prohibited? That's a different story.

Except for the prohibition of "all slow vehicles" what is the difference between freeway traffic and traffic moving at freeway speeds on surface streets?

[noisebeam]

Except for the prohibition of "all slow vehicles" what is the difference between freeway traffic and traffic moving at freeway speeds on surface streets?
I don't know of any surface street where traffic moves at freeway speeds. (i.e. 70-90mph)

But I am being unneccessarily picky as I know what you meant is near freeway speeds or at speeds the same as slower freeways (i.e. 50-65mph)

Al

[genec]

I don't know of any surface street where traffic moves at freeway speeds. (i.e. 70-90mph)

But I am being unneccessarily picky as I know what you meant is near freeway speeds or at speeds the same as slower freeways (i.e. 50-65mph)

Al

I know I am being picky here, but the local freeways are marked at 65MPH, and I do know of local surface streets also marked at 65MPH... What's the difference?

And for the sake of argument... yeah, "near freeway speeds" are close enough as far as I am really concerned.

[noisebeam]

I know I am being picky here, but the local freeways are marked at 65MPH, and I do know of local surface streets also marked at 65MPH... What's the difference?

And for the sake of argument... yeah, "near freeway speeds" are close enough as far as I am really concerned.
Freeways here are posted 75mph. Urban surface streets here are 45, 50 and sometimes 55mph. Rural surface streets are posted 65mph.

I was being picky, but there is something that feels different driving on a 75mph freeway vs. a 65mph rural road that gives me different sense of cycling appropriateness, but its just a feeling. ;)

Al

[Helmet Head]

Except for the prohibition of "all slow vehicles" what is the difference between freeway traffic and traffic moving at freeway speeds on surface streets?
A lot. In the first case we don't have the right to cause them to slow down just because we're slow; in the second we do. Makes all the difference in the world, at least to me.

[Helmet Head]

I know I am being picky here, but the local freeways are marked at 65MPH, and I do know of local surface streets also marked at 65MPH... What's the difference?

And for the sake of argument... yeah, "near freeway speeds" are close enough as far as I am really concerned.
I have no qualms taking the lane on s/b KV Rd, just south of Harris Plant Road, causing motorists to slow down, so I can cross the traffic flow headed to I-15 south and I can continue on KV Rd, because it is my right to do so.

I would not try to merge across I-5 s/b lanes at the merge to get to I-805, because that would require slowing freeway drivers down (assuming no congestion), and I have no right to do so.

[genec]

I have no qualms taking the lane on s/b KV Rd, just south of Harris Plant Road, causing motorists to slow down, so I can cross the traffic flow headed to I-15 south and I can continue on KV Rd, because it is my right to do so.

I would not try to merge across I-5 s/b lanes at the merge to get to I-805, because that would require slowing freeway drivers down (assuming no congestion), and I have no right to do so.

But if you had the right to do so (as I said, "excepting prohibitions") would you?

And BTW the number of motorists on KV is no where near the number of motorists on I-5.

[Helmet Head]

But if you had the right to do so (as I said, "excepting prohibitions") would you?
To be clear, let's say they changed nothing else except suddenly allowed bicycle traffic to get onto I-5 south at Carmel Valley Road and continue along to either Genesee, along 5, or to cross the lanes to continue along 805 to Mira Mesa Blvd.

That would mean I would have to merge way over before the "diverge", at a pretty slow speed. I think it's at least 5 lanes over.

No, that would be too unexpected; too dangerous. There is a good reason slow moving vehicles are prohibited here, and removing that restriction does not eliminate the reasons.

Of course, the speeds on I-5 are considerably higher than on s/b KV Rd (which is posted 55 - only n/b KV Rd is 65).

[Helmet Head]

I have long contended that the mere existence of bike lanes serves to reinforce the notion that cyclists do not belong outside of bike lanes. I often get ridiculed for making this assertion (hi Gene), but now this is documented in a NY judge's court opinion. What do you think of this:


The Charge of Obstructing Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic (PL 240.20(5))...Bicycles are vehicles entitled to the use of the public roads. However, from a practical perspective, they differ in important respects from motorized vehicles. They generally move at a slower speed than cars, and bicyclists are more vulnerable to injury. These distinctions are recognized in the traffic rules that provide special lanes for bicycles and, in the absence of such lanes, require that they travel at the margins of the highway. These regulations serve the dual purpose of affording bicyclists a measure of protection at the same time that they structure a traffic flow less likely to be impeded by slower moving vehicles.
...
Here, the evidence established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that each of the eight defendants were participants in a group of at least fifty bicyclists and, as part of that group, rode their bikes in a manner which obstructed the flow of vehicular traffic. Accordingly, each of the defendants is found guilty of violating Penal Law Section 240.20(5). (my emphasis)

http://www.oliverandoliverlaw.com/ORAM.pdf

Now do you believe me?

Any comments/discussion beyond the bike lane influence should probably be made in the main thread on this decision:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=2032667

[chipcom]

I have long contended that the mere existence of bike lanes serves to reinforce the notion that cyclists do not belong outside of bike lanes. I often get ridiculed for making this assertion (hi Gene), but now this is documented in a NY judge's court opinion. What do you think of this:


(my emphasis)

http://www.oliverandoliverlaw.com/ORAM.pdf

Now do you believe me?

Any comments/discussion beyond the bike lane influence should probably be made in the main thread on this decision:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=2032667


Bullcrap, see the thread for my reasons. You are starting to remind me of Chicken Little.

[Helmet Head]

Which post of yours in that thread addresses the point I made here about the mere existence of bike lanes reinforcing the notion that cyclists do not belong outside of bike lanes? I can't find it.

Your posts over there, by the way, seem to be completing missing Goodridge's point.

[chipcom]

Which post of yours in that thread addresses the point I made here about the mere existence of bike lanes reinforcing the notion that cyclists do not belong outside of bike lanes? I can't find it.

Your posts over there, by the way, seem to be completing missing Goodridge's point.

"but now this is documented in a NY judge's court opinion." is what I was addressing. THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING - give us all a break from your spin...and IMHO it is the zealots like Steve and yourself who are completly mis-reading that court decision in an attempt to support your own political motives. You keep claiming you have no political motives, yet you act just like any other politician, spinning facts to support your own political views. Quack Quack, duck.

[genec]

I have long contended that the mere existence of bike lanes serves to reinforce the notion that cyclists do not belong outside of bike lanes. I often get ridiculed for making this assertion (hi Gene), but now this is documented in a NY judge's court opinion. What do you think of this:



Well in reality I have to admit that this is one issue that cannot be overcome by simple signage and the like. This is one issue that has come up from time to time from motorists that also irritates me. Noisebeam touched on it in another thread (don't have time to look for it right now) regarding motorists believing that fog lines and shoulder markings are BL markings. Yes, the motorists are wrong, and NO, cyclists are not restricted to BL only. But the perceptions are such that conflict arises. Motorists are known to yell "get in the bike lane" which may or may not even exist. (and the idiots are too stupid to even know if it is a BL.)

Be that as it may, I still prefer BL on highspeed dense traffic roads...

Now part of the problem might be that BL are so poorly marked, especially with the tiny signs that motorist cannot see well at 50MPH... if they even look... and the issue that noisebeam brought up, regarding Bike Routes being misunderstood by motorists to be bike lanes and insisting that the cyclist ride in the shoulder.

I really think this boils down to good markings and better marking designs...

But that is just my opinion. Certainly in San Diego, some renewal of the BL markings would be a vast improvement.

[Helmet Head]

Certainly in San Diego, some renewal of the BL markings would be a vast improvement.
Just like throwing gasoline into a fire is a vast improvement.

[genec]

Just like throwing gasoline into a fire is a vast improvement.

if one is looking for heat... yeah.

It all depends on your agenda.

Your's is very clear... and we do not need to rehash it.