Bike lanes

[Helmet Head]

My point was that renewing the BL marking would only exacerbate, increase the heat, on the issue we're talking about: the role of bike lanes in reinforcing the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars.

[patc]

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.

As a result of my recent discussion with Noisebeam, I have been asking around on the issue of bike lane markings and how clear or unclear they may be. A few have felt that the markings are something unclear from a car, or that they confused the sign for speed limit signs* (ours are the same size, shape, and colour). A few told me they just registered the presence of a special use lane, but not always that it was a bike lane. So far no one has said they felt confused about shoulders vs. bike lanes.

Mind you, confusing or not, the issue of a driver showing aggression to another road user is completely unacceptable, whether or not that aggression comes from a misunderstanding of bike lane markings.

*This implies they don't read speed limit signs either!

[genec]

My point was that renewing the BL marking would only exacerbate, increase the heat, on the issue we're talking about: the role of bike lanes in reinforcing the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars.

Or it will help differentiate BL from fog lines and shoulder markings...

Training motorists is another story... and there, a better design of BL marking might be the key (since motorists are never going to RTFM* anyway), such as the dashed lanes so often suggested.



*Read The F*cking Manual... which apparently most motorists don't do...

[Helmet Head]

Or it will help differentiate BL from fog lines and shoulder markings...
It may very well do that too, in fact I have no reason to believe it won't.

But doing that will take nothing away from the impact of the bike lane in reinforcing the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars, and renewing BL markings will logically make their presence and hence their reinforcement effect more notable.

The operational/reinforcement difference in effect between solid and striped bike lane stripes seems to be negligible, so far as I can tell. Whether it's demarcated by solid or dashed stripe, the point is made: there is the bike lane, the space where cyclists belong, and outside of which they don't.

[Brian Ratliff]

I'll bet that this very same discussion, starting from the same starting point, has been repeated at least 3 times in this very thread, not to mention the other threads with the same subject matter. Always the same people too. It's time to agree to disagree on the issue of bike lanes.

[noisebeam]

I'll bet that this very same discussion, starting from the same starting point, has been repeated at least 3 times in this very thread, not to mention the other threads with the same subject matter. Always the same people too. It's time to agree to disagree on the issue of bike lanes.
Funny, last night I was thinking I'd post a message that I was going to bow out of the BL debates as there is not much more to say.
Differing experience and anecdote have more to do with regional differences in road systems, road and BL design, terrain and riding style.
I think BLs (especially badly designed ones, but not only) cause some issues even for experience cyclists, but I recognise they are appeciated by many cyclists, experienced or not.
I don't want to fight BLs and in cases find them better than nothing (nothing being a high speed narrow lane)
Better use of my time is working to improve BL designs before they get implemented.
I've learned an awful lot in these debates that has made me a safer and better cyclist.
I'll still chime in here and there, but (like it always has been) for fun more than arguement.
I also hope to provide some videos where appropriate to show good and bad.
I respect all points of view on the BL and related issues.
I hope there will be more even money in the future to improve roadways to make them both safer and more comfortable for bicycle use.

Al

[Helmet Head]

I'll bet that this very same discussion, starting from the same starting point, has been repeated at least 3 times in this very thread, not to mention the other threads with the same subject matter. Always the same people too. It's time to agree to disagree on the issue of bike lanes.
I disagree.

I can't speak for others, but one of the reasons I participate here is to refine and polish my arguments.

I realize that in all the repetition, sometimes there is regression, but, for the most part, I feel many of us are able to present our positions more clearly and succinctly then we could at first.

I think Gene and noisebeam have made great strides, for example.

Gene and I used to go back and forth, most of the time past each other, on and on. That essentially does not happen any more, though it certainly does not mean that we agree on everything. On the other hand, my back and forth with chipcom lately has been very reminiscent of the early days with Gene. I hope he too will eventually tire of it and start paying better attention to what is being written, and respond to that, so that we can being to communicate and discuss effectively.

[genec]

I think Gene and noisebeam have made great strides, for example.

Gene and I used to go back and forth, most of the time past each other, on and on. That essentially does not happen any more, though it certainly does not mean that we agree on everything.


Just so the world understands... we have agreed to disagree on certain things and I basically have stopped beating HH about the head and shoulders about his ridiculous "no bike lanes ever" stand.

That doesn't mean he is right though. :D

[Helmet Head]

Gene convinced me that he understands the advantages and disadvantages of bike lanes, and that that understanding is consistent with his position of supporting bike lane only in certain high speed intersections areas.

We agree to disagree that they serve enough purpose there to warrant all the disadvantages of having them there (debris, reinforcing the notion that cyclists haven an obligation to stay out of the way of cars, etc. etc.)

[Brian Ratliff]

I can't speak for others, but one of the reasons I participate here is to refine and polish my arguments.

I realize that in all the repetition, sometimes there is regression, but, for the most part, I feel many of us are able to present our positions more clearly and succinctly then we could at first.

Sounds like you are shopping. You've got your solution, now you want your problem. If you end up king of the mountain, it is simply because others have lost interest in your repetitious argument. Yes, the debates started out interesting, and postitions started evolving, but every couple of months, the VC argument generator resets itself and starts back at the beginning. Like it just did when several of the regulars came back from Christmas vacation.

I argue for sport, and I debate to sharpen my skills, but I never argue simply to argue. Tell you what. What if I told you that I really started my involvement here simply to sharpen my debating skills. That first post, "A defense of Bike Lanes" (now combined with this "Bike Lane" thread, post #108) was really a position I took just for kicks. If you were really here to refine and sharpen your skills, let us switch positions. I will argue against bike lanes and for the VC position, and you will argue for bike lanes and the status quo of advocacy. Remember, all the arguments have to be original, and you cannot muddle things by soft pitching it. If you accept this, we can start in the beginning of next week.

[Helmet Head]

I am here to polish my arguments, not sharpen my debating skills. I have never argued for the sake of arguing here.

However, I recognize the value of "switching sides", as a way to see how well you understand the other's arguments. In fact, what if we start a bikelane or vc thread where all participants are supposed to argue the opposite of their actual position?

[chipcom]

Gene and I used to go back and forth, most of the time past each other, on and on. That essentially does not happen any more, though it certainly does not mean that we agree on everything. On the other hand, my back and forth with chipcom lately has been very reminiscent of the early days with Gene. I hope he too will eventually tire of it and start paying better attention to what is being written, and respond to that, so that we can being to communicate and discuss effectively.

I do pay attention, that's the problem, as time as gone by I see less and less logic in your writing and more not paying attention to or giving seriousness to other's viewpoints. Like it or not Serge, you are not the final authority on safe cycling, nor is VC. My best advice, as I have stated many times, is to drop the Forrester style VC dogma and discuss specific tactics and strategies on their merits, without trying to tie everything back to VC. You seem to obsess way too much on the term and it's implications and associated baggage rather than focusing on the bottom line - how to ride.

[Helmet Head]

Then your idea of paying attention is very different from mine. If you were really paying attention, then you'd actually respond to what I was writing, and not just repeat your same old lines that don't address what I'm saying, which is what you're doing over in the thread where we're discussing the UROTR (where even Gene has pointed out that I'm essentially correct, but not old stick-to-your-guns-no-matter-what-Chipcom, oh no).

And who on this forum focuses more on the bottom line - how to ride - more than I do?

Why don't you mention this to someone who actually deserves it, like ILTB, who maybe makes an actually riding comment in 1% of his posts (if that).

[genec]

I do pay attention, that's the problem, as time as gone by I see less and less logic in your writing and more not paying attention to or giving seriousness to other's viewpoints. Like it or not Serge, you are not the final authority on safe cycling, nor is VC. My best advice, as I have stated many times, is to drop the Forrester style VC dogma and discuss specific tactics and strategies on their merits, without trying to tie everything back to VC. You seem to obsess way too much on the term and it's implications and associated baggage rather than focusing on the bottom line - how to ride.

+1

Must be the result of the EC superiority complex... Fostered by Forester.

[Helmet Head]

Gene, you have a lot of gall agreeing with Chipcom on this when you're one of the biggest proponents of switching to a different term because "vehicular" doesn't mean "vehicular" in VC.

I, really, could care less.

[chipcom]

Then your idea of paying attention is very different from mine. If you were really paying attention, then you'd actually respond to what I was writing, and not just repeat your same old lines that don't address what I'm saying, which is what you're doing over in the thread where we're discussing the UROTR (where even Gene has pointed out that I'm essentially correct, but not old stick-to-your-guns-no-matter-what-Chipcom, oh no).

And who on this forum focuses more on the bottom line - how to ride - more than I do?

Why don't you mention this to someone who actually deserves it, like ILTB, who maybe makes an actually riding comment in 1% of his posts (if that).

I don't address everything in your long responses because you fail to address the main issue, so I persist until you do. If Gene agrees with your UROTR, fine, I don't because you get stuck on trying to label things and label them incorrectly. If you stated that VC was premised on 'generally accepted concepts' I would agree, but you try to pass them off as 'universally' accepted 'rules', which they are not. Plus you get so hung up on acronymns that I feel like I am back in the military!

As far as compromise is concerned, who steadfastly refuses to accept advocacy for 'all' cyclists and will not accept bike lanes as having a place in the total picture? Everytime many of us have tried compromise with you on those issues, you refuse...so I for one decided to adopt the same tac. Why compromise with someone who refuses to compromise.

As far as ILTB, once I learned to get past 'how' he says things to see 'what' he was saying, I found that we agree in many cases. Funny how he and I can accept where we disagree and move on, but with you it's always your way or the doorway. I agree with you on many things as well, but compromise is not part of your vocabulary. You have begun acting more and more like a zealot, rather than an equal party to a debate where there are no cut and dried right or wrong positions.

Like my daddy used to say to me, 'you're getting too big for your britches and have overinflated the importance of your opinions' - I've done the same thing many times in my life when getting too emotionally involved in something...you gotta learn to lighten up and remember where you came from and that other people are just as smart, sometimes smarter, than you are.

That's all the preaching I am gonna do, because if I continue I wouldn't be taking my own advice. ;)

[JRA]

Now do you believe me?No.

I believe that you twist everything to fit the premises of your anti-bike lane bias. The ruling in the case in question had virtually nothing to do with bike lanes.

The judge's ruling contained some comments that were somewhat troubling but they were not the basis of his decision. The reasoning was somewhat flawed but the decision was a good one. Bike lanes were only mentioned in passing. For you to use that as "proof" of your ridiculous statements about the effect of bike lanes only shows how obsessed you are.

Let me put a little different emphasis on what you quoted (with your emphasis) in post #1494:


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).

So this judge would have the same opinion (that bicycles are required to travel at the margins of the highway) whether bike lanes exist or not.

In any case, the ruling was not based on that and the defendants were not found guilty of a traffic violation. Actually, the fact that they were on bicycles had little to do with the ruling.

But, go ahead, twist it any way you want. Hijack virtually every frickin' thread in this forum (oh, wait, you already do that). You hate bike lanes. We get it.

[chipcom]

Gene, you have a lot of gall agreeing with Chipcom on this when you're one of the biggest proponents of switching to a different term because "vehicular" doesn't mean "vehicular" in VC.

I, really, could care less.

There it is... You keep fixating on the term rather than on what the term is supposed to stand for. You are right, nobody cares what we call it, so quit worrying about it and get back to discussing riding. That has been my problem from day one...we don't need no stinkin categories, brands or labels, we just need to promote and discuss safe cycling.

[genec]

Gene, you have a lot of gall agreeing with Chipcom on this when you're one of the biggest proponents of switching to a different term because "vehicular" doesn't mean "vehicular" in VC.

I, really, could care less.

Yup, I did champion that charge... mainly because I saw again and again the response of early conversations by other cyclists that "vehicular" = "riding like a car."

I agreed with chipcom on the dogma issue... Forester had the concepts right, but packaged it with a lot of unneeded baggage... that baggage is a big part of the anti-VC rhetoric here.

The basic tenets of vc are quite powerful and good, but the other stuff from the issues of phobia, to anti-bike lanes, to no need for mirrors... on and on is just BS.

Separate those issues from the actual riding style, and surprise surprise... most experienced cyclists ride in a vc manner, because it works.

That was essentially what chipcom said, and what I have said and others have also said. Forester was right, but he could be a real jerk about the way he said it. Don't follow his model.

Want to push bicycle safety... fine, but to adhere to the whole agenda... that is as foolish as following some of Henry Ford's little known personal side:


Financed a pacifist expedition to Europe during WWI.

Adopted a paternalistic policy to reform his workers' lives both at home and at work.

Owned a controversial newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, that published anti-Jewish articles which offended many and tarnished his image.
http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/hf/facts.asp

[chipcom]

OMG I think we are having an intervention here! VCaohlics anonymous!

[noisebeam]

here's a example of 'good' integrated bicycle accomodations .... Rural-suburban area with 40mph traffic. ....I'd like to see more stuff just like this.
(from: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2090197&postcount=27)

1. BL ends after intersection. I'd much rather merge with traffic before intersection, not after with limited space and accerating line of vehicles.
2. Where the RTOL breaks away, the BL path going left over it starts way too late. I'd want to merge left into go straight lane well before the RTOL break away, otherwise there is a right hook potential.
3. They are narrow (same width as here). The furthest right I'd want to ride in it is about so my tire would bisect the left wheel of the cyclist icon. Doing this would encourage close passes by motorists staying in the lines.
Bottom line is that the lane itself is no big deal, but keep the stripes away from intersections. Once they are in place, motorists don't expect cyclists to be out of them and in order to ride in flow of traffic one can not be kept to this single path.

Al

[Ozrider]

Here's my two cents: I think a lot of it has to do with where you live. I live in Wisconsin, which is the Land of Trek and Waterford. I don't know if anyone has ever done a count on this, but I am willing to bet we in Wisconsin have more cyclists per capita than almost any other state.
What that means is that drivers are used to seeing us and know how to respond. Oh sure, we get the occasional jerk, but in general, drivers are courteous and fair. They watch out for us and we watch out for them. When a car comes up on me, I always look for a rack and about half the time, I see one. I know it's a fellow rider in that car.
And no, a line of paint is not a wall. But, most drivers see it and know what it's for. I like bike lanes.
Now saying all this, I did get hit last May by a woman who ran a stop sign. She told the cops she never saw me. The cop was a rider and basically asked this woman how she could miss a person in a bright red jersey. Two of the three paramedics were competitive mountain bikers who teased me about being a roadie.
What I do now in those situations, when I am not sure if a driver saw me, is throw my water bottle at them. That wakes 'em up. I would rather lose a water bottle than get hit again.
Now, I have driven in LA several times. I think riding a bike in LA means you have a death wish. Those people are insane. Almost as bad as Chicago drivers. But, at least Chicago has this great system of bike trails.
I hope your wife is okay. Having been through this, I know it it can be traumatic laying in an ER waiting to get checked. And that MRI is weird. And, tell her the best thing to do is get right back up on the bike. It is the only way to overcome the fear.

[Helmet Head]

Disadvantages of bike lanes:



Bike lane stripes are often seen by non-cyclists, including law enforcement officers, as an official sanction of the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars, a notion that most cycling advocates find abhorrent (and a notion that goes well beyond the concept that slower traffic should yield to faster traffic when safe and reasonable to do so). The greater the prevalence of bike lane stripes, the greater the societal acceptance (cyclists, cycling advocates, motorists, law enforcement, the press, everybody) of the idea that cyclists always belong "off to the side" and out of the way of motorists, even on roads where there is no bike lane stripe; that if a cyclist is ever in the way of a motorist he is doing something wrong; that if a cyclist is ever hit by a motorist, then it's his fault, unless he is in a bike lane, and even then... In short, bike lanes promote thinking that puts cyclists in a separate inferior class from motorists. In simpler terms, it makes motorists less accustomed to seeing and dealing with cyclists in "their" lanes. Bike lane stripes encourage separationist cycling that discourages motorists from treating cyclists like drivers of vehicles.
Bike lane stripes encourage many drivers to ignore the presence of cyclists, thus reducing drivers' awareness of cyclists' presence, and making the cyclists more vulnerable to collisions.
Bike lane stripes cause significant increases in puncture-causing and crash-causing debris accumulation in the part of the pavement where even vehicular cyclists ride when accomodating the passing of faster traffic.
Bike lane stripes inhibit cyclists from using safer (away from the right edge) lane positioning in the absence of faster same-direction traffic that would make them more visible and conspicuous to drivers, thus making them more vulnerable to car-bike collisions.
Bike lane stripes pose a slickness hazard to cyclists when wet.
Bike lane stripes make right-of-way rules so confusing that even neighboring states like CA, OR and AZ have diametrically opposed rules governing their usage by motorists at right turns (CA requires the motorist to merge into the lane, AZ and OR forbid it).
Bike lanes, like uphill truck lanes, are based on the premise that there is generally one appropriate static roadway position for the target type of vehicle on the section of the road where the specialized lane exists. While this premise holds true for the vast majority of truckers traveling on the uphill stretches of intersectionless roadway where truck lanes are typically found, the premise is usually false for the cyclists traveling in bike lanes, who encounter countless factors and conditions that make roadway positions outside of the bike lane more safe, appropriate, functional and/or effective much more often than is the case for truckers in uphill truck lanes.
Bike lane stripes induce a dangerous false sense of security in novice cyclists, and even in many experienced cyclists.

And those are just some of the disadvantages that apply to ALL bike lanes, even the so-called "good" ones on 45 mph roads. The fact that "good" bike lanes are often practically impossible to implement makes the prevalance of bad bike lanes all too common, including door zone bike lanes, bike lanes on 25 mph streets, bike lanes that leave novices enticed to count on them stranded at busy and intimidating intersections, etc., etc.

[Helmet Head]

I lifted this from another thread, as an example in support of #6 in the list of BL disadvantages I provided in the previous post.




Lane drop markings as shown in Figure 3B-10 may be used in advance of lane drops at exit ramps to distinguish a lane drop from a normal exit ramp or from an auxiliary lane. The lane drop marking may consist of a wide, white dotted line with line segments 0.9 m (3 ft) in length separated by 2.7 m (9 ft) gaps.
When the line becomes dotted, it indicates that the auxiliary lane has ended temporarily. When this is combined with the bike lane use laws in Oregon, it is an indication that cars are now allowed to cross the bike lane line.

I disagree with your analysis.

The "lane drop markings" "may be used in advance of lane drops". Therefore, where the lane drop markings exist, the lane has not yet been dropped. And the Oregon law prohibiting motorists from driving in bike lanes still applies until the lane is actually dropped, which is after the last lane drop marking.

When the line becomes dotted, it does not indicate that the auxiliary lane has ended temporarily. It does indicate that the auxiilary lane is about to end temporarily.

Therefore, when this is combined with the bike lane use laws in Oregon, it is NOT an indication that cars are now allowed to cross the bike lane line. First of all, cars in Oregon can always CROSS a bike lane line in order to cross the bike lane. What they can't do is what they're required to do in California: cross the bike lane stripe in order to enter and travel in the bike lane prior to turning right. And this applies whether the lane line is solid, dashed, dotted, or whatever, for the lane does not end until the line ends, regardless of its type.

Anyway, all this confusion, along with CA's, OR's and AZ's diametrically opposed treatement of bike lanes at right turns, just points to the practical impossibility of a clear understanding regarding right-of-way at right turns when bike lanes are present. Lack of clarify regarding right-of-way is very bad, and it is inherent with all bike lanes that are present at right turns (including right turns into driveways) and their approaches.

[Helmet Head]

This is from post #12 in the best/worst cities thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=169817&page=1), an example in support of #1 in the list of disadvantages of bike lanes provided in post #1523 of this thread.


I grew up in the Portland area, and just moved to Pittsburgh. The comparison for biking is interesting to me, because Portland definitely has many, many more bikers, better bike lanes and bike paths, better quality roads, etc. I really enjoyed biking there, and I still miss it. However, I've found that all that infrastructure seems to make many Portland drivers behave worse towards bicyclists. The cars seem to feel like the bikes belong in certain, designated areas, and if they're not there than they're taking the risk of being honked at, or sideswiped. In Pittsburgh, there are a few annoyed drivers, but more of them seem to not know exactly what to do about bikers, so they give me a wide berth, and are generally (I've found) more polite.

[noisebeam]

Disadvantages of bike lanes:

9. Create a width of ambiguity (or even potentialy illegal place ?) where a cyclist should not ride, that is on or closely adjacent to the stripe. This position could very well be the best/safest place to ride if the stripe was not there.

Al

[genec]

Advantages of bike lanes...

Remove the issues of ambiguity of "shared lanes..." where neither cyclist or motorist has ROW.

[patc]

9. Create a width of ambiguity (or even potentialy illegal place ?) where a cyclist should not ride, that is on or closely adjacent to the stripe. This position could very well be the best/safest place to ride if the stripe was not there.

Al

What ambiguity?!? Vehicles are expected to stay within lane markers (unless changing lanes, obviously). Its is never ok for a vehicle - car, bike, or otherwise - to straddle a lane strip. Unless you want to remove all lane stripes, this is not going to change any time soon.

[Helmet Head]

But bike lanes and bike lane stripes are different from other lanes and other lane stripes, Pat.
In particular, because motor traffic is generally prohibited from traveling to the right of the bike lane stripe, that area tends to accumulate debris. That makes riding near the stripe, even straddling it, often the best place to ride.

Not only that , but when a cyclist is centered in a 4 foot bike lane (which meets minimum standards, at least in the U.S.) his approximate 2 foot width leaves only about 12 inches between him and the edge of the road. That's often insufficent buffer escape space. Even in a 5 foot lane, a centered position only provide 18 inches of buffer, which is also often insufficent, requiring the cyclist to move left, often into a better position that is straddling the bike lane stripe.

Why should we settle for a pathetic 4 or 5 feet of width, at the hazardous edge of the road, when people driving 5,000 lbs oil burning machines, also traveling alone, get to have lanes 10+ feet in width, at much safer positions away from the edge of the road?

[patc]

But bike lanes and bike lane stripes are different from other lanes and other lane stripes, Pat.

:rolleyes:

[noisebeam]

What ambiguity?!? Vehicles are expected to stay within lane markers (unless changing lanes, obviously). Its is never ok for a vehicle - car, bike, or otherwise - to straddle a lane strip. Unless you want to remove all lane stripes, this is not going to change any time soon.
That is my point. Obviously some people (you) think it is never OK to straddle a stripe, while others (HH) think it is OK. That is why I said ambiguity. Maybe confusion is a better word.

But for argument sake, lets use your position - that is it is never OK to straddle the stripe. Then there is a significant disadvantage of creating a width where cyclists can no longer ride.

I am curious how wide this width is in your opinion? What if my tires remain is 1mm to the right of the line, 1cm, 10cm? Or does my whole body need to be inside (or fully outside the line). If this body width standard is used, then we have a 2ft+ width of pavement that is no longer usable. Thats huge considering the BL only added 4-5ft of pavement compared to a NOL.

In my experience it is this space I find to be the best position to be visible while also allowing same direction cars to pass, it also has the least debris compared to further right in the BL. I am aware of many other cyclists who 'ride the line'. Another time I ride the line is when preparing to merge left. If I stick my left arm out while fully in the BL I get univerally ignored. I must move left (usually on the line) and have my arm out to get drivers attention to negotiate a merge.

Al

[genec]

Not only that , but when a cyclist is centered in a 4 foot bike lane (which meets minimum standards, at least in the U.S.) his approximate 2 foot width leaves only about 12 inches between him and the edge of the road. That's often insufficent buffer escape space. Even in a 5 foot lane, a centered position only provide 18 inches of buffer, which is also often insufficent, requiring the cyclist to move left, often into a better position that is straddling the bike lane stripe.

Why should we settle for a pathetic 4 or 5 feet of width, at the hazardous edge of the road, when people driving 5,000 lbs oil burning machines, also traveling alone, get to have lanes 10+ feet in width, at much safer positions away from the edge of the road?

If a cyclist is centered in a four foot lane... that means his tire is centered... while his handle bars are extended out either side... but for the life of me I cannot imagine what might be to the right of a road that would interfere with the handle bars (discounting growth along undeveloped areas) His tires then however have a full 24 inches to allow "escape"... not the limited 12 inches you are implying based on the handlebars which are well above the curb and roadway. Of course going the otherway (to the left) is a different story, where handle bars and autos should not mix.

Of course a five foot lane is much nicer.

Want to use the same wider lane as the auto driver? Simply travel at the speed of the rest of traffic.

[Helmet Head]

If a cyclist is centered in a four foot lane... that means his tire is centered... while his handle bars are extended out either side... but for the life of me I cannot imagine what might be to the right of a road that would interfere with the handle bars (discounting growth along undeveloped areas)
It's not just handlebars. It's cranks and pedals too. The curb interferes with that. And even if there was nothing interfering with handlebars, elbows, hips and pedals in the downstroke, the centered cyclist still has only 2-2.5 feet of escape buffer, which often is not enough. And the buffer space is not only for him to escape into, it's a buffer space that separates him from moving obstacles like dogs, kids, pedestrians, balls, etc. There is a reason motorcyclists don't ride 2 feet from the curb... it's dangerous!

[genec]

It's not just handlebars. It's cranks and pedals too. The curb interferes with that. And even if there was nothing interfering with handlebars, elbows, hips and pedals in the downstroke, the centered cyclist still has only 2-2.5 feet of escape buffer, which often is not enough. And the buffer space is not only for him to escape into, it's a buffer space that separates him from moving obstacles like dogs, kids, pedestrians, balls, etc. There is a reason motorcyclists don't ride 2 feet from the curb... it's dangerous!

Those motorcyclists are generally riding at the speed of other traffic too.

Drive at 18MPH and it's not all that hard to stay in a narrow space.

I know at 18MPH I can usually keep my tire right on the BL stripe, and that's what, 6-8 inches wide?

[Helmet Head]

N/B El Camino Real dropping into Via de la Valle... 40+ mph. Most cyclists ride it about 2-3 feet from the curb. It's insane as doing 40 on a motorcycle 3 feet from the curb. Why do they do it? Because they think that's where they're "supposed" to be... in the bike lane and out of the way of the cars going 50-55.

[genec]

N/B El Camino Real dropping into Via de la Valle... 40+ mph. Most cyclists ride it about 2-3 feet from the curb. It's insane as doing 40 on a motorcycle 3 feet from the curb. Why do they do it? Because they think that's where they're "supposed" to be... in the bike lane and out of the way of the cars going 50-55.


Or it could be they just got buzzed by the Jaguars going 65+ on their way out to Rancho Santa Fe.

I know that on the section of El Camino Real that I often ride, there are some real speed demons from time to time. I often wonder when one is going to plow into me as I slowly take the right turn lane at the top at Carmel Mountain Road.

I also know that when I ride about 30MPH + down Carmel Creek road, I am not in the bike lane... and the same applies when riding down Genesee approaching 52 from the south.

Then again, I rarely hit 40 MPH + on my bike... the brakes work, the tires are skinny, and I am merely mortal.

[TexasGuy]

There is this road alled Lockheed and Selma. The first part that branches off from 1604 going into san antonio has a nice wide shoulder. This eventuallyexpands into an officially designated cycling lane. The cycling lane crosses over a 4rth or 5th driving lane that is for making right hand turn and left hand turns only . It's funny however because after you check yourself off, and make sure you're not going to cross over into traffic and come to a complete stop at the stop light in your cycling lane. As you get ready to go when the light goes green you suddenly realize that your cycling lane and your shoulder are both non-existant :p Somebody there was real bright

[noisebeam]

Here is a video of using a BL to get ahead of stopped traffic and make a light. I very rarely do this. Even so I still wish the BL stripe was not on this road as I have more difficulty negotiating out of the BL well before the intersection than I get benefit from sometimes avoiding extra light cycles.

(2.1MB, right click, save target as..., then play from your local drive)
Using BL to pass traffic (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/060227-0749.7878blpass.avi)

Al

[genec]

Here is a video of using a BL to get ahead of stopped traffic and make a light. I very rarely do this. Even so I still wish the BL stripe was not on this road as I have more difficulty negotiating out of the BL well before the intersection than I get benefit from sometimes avoiding extra light cycles.

(2.1MB, right click, save target as..., then play from your local drive)
Using BL to pass traffic (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/060227-0749.7878blpass.avi)

Al


Ha ha... and along the way you run into the one idiot trying to use the BL as their personal passing lane... love those guys.

I don't have a video, but there is one area here where the BL is beautiful for passing the stopped auto traffic... that can wait up to 30 minutes to use this "shortcut" road.

[noisebeam]

I just stumbled across a very bad bike lane design manual. Yikes, so many designs suggested in here that even die hard BL supporters would find troublesome.

Chicago's Bike Lane Design Manual (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/pdf/bike_lane.pdf)

Anyone from Chicago active in promoting a better manual?

[Helmet Head]

IN another thread, Blue Order quoted an article that ended with this paragraph:


This Thursday, April 13, a second biker is taking a driver to court, on an "improperly executed right turn" citation. Bicyclist Sean Barrett slammed into a car last November, in a bike lane near the Rose Quarter. The driver had cut off another car, and veered into Barrett's path, causing him to crash. "I was pretty battered up," he says. "I had bruises everywhere, a sprained wrist, an abrasion on my check and neck, and a bruised heel on my right foot."
I contend that the bike lane was a significant contributing factor in this crash. Please see the attached image for a diagram of how I think this happened.

[Blue Order]

IN another thread, Blue Order quoted an article that ended with this paragraph:



I contend that the bike lane was a significant contributing factor in this crash. Please see the attached image for a diagram of how I think this happened.The story doesn't support the assumptions you've made about how this collision occurred. It could have happened that way, but it could just as easily have happened another way. The story doesn't "prove" that the use of the bike lane caused the collision.

[Helmet Head]

I don't care about your attachment. The driver of the first car is the driver who cut off a car and caused an accident with the cyclist. The driver of the first car didn't see or didn't care that he/she cut off the driver of the second car, which was positioned in the adjacent lane, right where you argue the cyclist should be positioned. Now, if the driver of the first car didn't see/didn't care that he/she cut off the second car, then why on Earth would the driver of the first car see/care that he/she cut off the cyclist?
The driver of the first car (second/blue in my diagram) didn't care that he/she cut off the second car (first/orange in my diagram) because the first car WAS STOPPED (or moving slow enough to be passed and cut off). As anyone who has ever ridden a bike will tell you, what often happens in these situations is the cyclist is passed by a car on his left which then has to slow or stop to allow the cyclist to pass it on the right before it turns right. The guy behind (which is why I call him the second car) probably had no idea why the first car stopped (because he didn't notice the cyclist in the bike lane), so he goes around on the left and cuts in front of the stopped car. Does that answer your question?

Now, if the cyclist had been out in the lane like he should have been, the first car would have slowed down sooner, but would not have passed the cyclist and then had to stop (it would have slowed to the cyclist's speed). At this point either the driver of the second car would stay behind, or maybe he would go around anyway. But if he did go around, as soon as he started passing the first car he would see the cyclist, figure out why the first car had slowed in the first place, and, unless he was homocidal maniac, he would slow or stop... no collision.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

[Helmet Head]

The story doesn't support the assumptions you've made about how this collision occurred.

Which specific assumptions are not supported?


but it could just as easily have happened another way.
Such as?

[Blue Order]

Which specific assumptions are not supported?Your assumptions that the accident occurred as you diagrammed it. For example, your asumption that car in the right lane was stopped (or moving slowly) at the light. Your asumption that the car in the left lane was in the right lane but swerved around the car in the right lane before cutting it off. All assumptions, all unsupported by the story.



Such as?Two cars approaching an intersection, the car in the left lane slightly ahead of the car in the right lane. The car in the right lane is in the blind spot of the car in the left lane. The driver of the car in the left lane decides that he/she wants to turn right, and does so suddenly, cutting off the car in the right lane, and the cyclist. If the cyclist had been positioned in the right lane, the accident would still occur, except in the right lane instead of in the bike lane.

[Blue Order]

The driver of the first car (second/blue in my diagram) didn't care that he/she cut off the second car (first/orange in my diagram) because the first car WAS STOPPED (or moving slow enough to be passed and cut off). As anyone who has ever ridden a bike will tell you, what often happens in these situations is the cyclist is passed by a car on his left which then has to slow or stop to allow the cyclist to pass it on the right before it turns right. The guy behind (which is why I call him the second car) probably had no idea why the first car stopped (because he didn't notice the cyclist in the bike lane), so he goes around on the left and cuts in front of the stopped car. Does that answer your question?

Now, if the cyclist had been out in the lane like he should have been, the first car would have slowed down sooner, but would not have passed the cyclist and then had to stop (it would have slowed to the cyclist's speed). At this point either the driver of the second car would stay behind, or maybe he would go around anyway. But if he did go around, as soon as he started passing the first car he would see the cyclist, figure out why the first car had slowed in the first place, and, unless he was homocidal maniac, he would slow or stop... no collision.

Why is this so difficult to understand?Because it's all unsupported conjecture.

[Helmet Head]

Because it's all unsupported conjecture.
Unsupported conjecture?

The description,


This Thursday, April 13, a second biker is taking a driver to court, on an "improperly executed right turn" citation. Bicyclist Sean Barrett slammed into a car last November, in a bike lane near the Rose Quarter. The driver had cut off another car, and veered into Barrett's path, causing him to crash. "I was pretty battered up," he says. "I had bruises everywhere, a sprained wrist, an abrasion on my check and neck, and a bruised heel on my right foot."


provided these facts:


There was one cyclist involved.
There were two cars involved.
The driver of the car in question passed one car which he then "cut off" and turned right.
For the above, the driver was cited for "improperly executed right turn".
The cyclist was in the bike lane.
The cyclist "slammed into the right-turning car" which had veered into his path as it was turning right after cutting off the other car.


That's not "unsupported conjecture". That's straight out of the description provided. Now, if you can't connect the dots, that's another story. But I can.

There are only so many potential scenarios that are consistent with the facts in the above list. In fact, I could only come up with one scenario that matches all of the facts, and you couldn't come up with even one.

In the scenario I envision, the only assumptions I add are:


The first car was stopped, or moving very slowly (this is obvious, since the driver of the second car had to pass him before he could cut him off).
The driver of the second car passed the first car on its left (if he was passing on the right, and then turning right, he would be in the bike lane, and wouldn't cut off the first car).
He couldn't see the cyclist in the bike lane because he was blocked from his view by the first car (since the cyclist hit the car, and not the other way around, moments before the crash the cyclist must have been beside the first car that was cut off by the second car).
After cutting off the car, the driver was probably looking left in order to make sure there was no traffic coming from his left (this is normal and natural for anyone turning right).

From that, the scenario I depicted, more or less, is the only one that makes sense. You call this unsupported conjecture?

[Blue Order]

Unsupported conjecture?

The description,





provided these facts:


There was one cyclist involved.
There were two cars involved.
The driver of the car in question passed one car which he then "cut off" and turned right.
For the above, the driver was cited for "improperly executed right turn".
The cyclist was in the bike lane.
The cyclist "slammed into the right-turning car" which had veered into his path as it was turning right after cutting off the other car.


That's not "unsupported conjecture". That's straight out of the description provided. Now, if you can't connect the dots, that's another story. But I can.If by connecting the dots, you mean supplying your own facts when the story doesn't supply them, which facts conveniently support your conclusion, then yes, you can connect the dots.


There are only so many potential scenarios that are consistent with the facts in the above list. In fact, I could only come up with one scenario that matches all of the facts, and you couldn't come up with even one.Wrong on both counts.


In the scenario I envision, the only assumptions I add are:

[list=a]
The first car was stopped, or moving very slowly (this is obvious, since the driver of the second car had to pass him before he could cut him off).An assumption. See my alternate explanation above-- the one you say I didn't provide.


The driver of the second car passed the first car on its left (if he was passing on the right, and then turning right, he would be in the bike lane, and wouldn't cut off the first car).An assumption. The car you have called "the second car" (in actuality, the first car) could just as easily have been ahead of the car you call "the first car" the entire time. In fact, in my alternate scenario-- see above-- the one you say I didn't provide, the car you call "the first car" is in the blind spot of the car you call th "second car."


He couldn't see the cyclist in the bike lane because he was blocked from his view by the first car (since the cyclist hit the car, and not the other way around, moment before the crash the cyclist must have been beside the first car that was cut off by the second car).More unsupported assumptions...


After cutting off the car, the driver was probably looking left in order to make sure there was no traffic coming from his left (this is normal and natural for anyone turning right).
And a new assumtion-- the driver was bothering to look when he/she made the turn...


From that, the scenario I depicted, more or less, is the only one that makes sense. You call this unsupported conjecture?Because it isn't the only one that makes sense, and it is unsupported conjecture.

[Helmet Head]

Two cars approaching an intersection, the car in the left lane slightly ahead of the car in the right lane. The car in the right lane is in the blind spot of the car in the left lane. The driver of the car in the left lane decides that he/she wants to turn right, and does so suddenly, cutting off the car in the right lane, and the cyclist. If the cyclist had been positioned in the right lane, the accident would still occur, except in the right lane instead of in the bike lane.
Sorry I missed this earlier.

But I thought of this before I even posted my first comment.
I ruled it out because only the cyclist slammed into the car, the other car did not. That's how I deduced it must have been stopped or moving slowly. Since the cyclist was further to the right, in the bike lane, he had more time and space to stop than did the car. If nothing else, he would have heard the car braking to avoid hitting the car that was cutting him off.




He couldn't see the cyclist in the bike lane because he was blocked from his view by the first car (since the cyclist hit the car, and not the other way around, moment before the crash the cyclist must have been beside the first car that was cut off by the second car).

More unsupported assumptions...

How is it unsupported? Let's say the cyclist was not blocked from his view by the car. That would mean he was ahead of that car. Now, how could the blue car cut off the orange car while turning right if the orange car was not already at the intersection? And if the orange car was already at the intersection, and the cyclist was ahead of it, how did the blue car manage to veer in front of him in his path, rather than into him?

I wish we were in one room with a white board. This would be much easier to discuss.

But okay, there is another slightly different scenario. Maybe the orange car was cut off a bit earlier, before they reached the intersection. I didn't think of this because mentioning the other car would seem irrelevant to the bike-car crash incident. Anyway, that would mean the blue car was in the right lane (after cutting off the orange car) before he turned right in front of the cyclist. But then you just have a pure and simple classic right hook which has been shown countless times to be prevented almost every time by the through cyclist getting out of the bike lane and into the main traffic lane.

By the way, whether the blue car was originally in the right lane and then temporarily moved into the left lane to pass and cut-off the orange car, or whether the blue car was in the left lane the whole time until he swerved right to cut off the orange car doesn't matter. The significant events commence with the blue car's turning right in front of the orange car.

[Blue Order]

Sorry I missed this earlier.

But I thought of this before I even posted my first comment.
I ruled it out because only the cyclist slammed into the car, the other car did not. That's how I deduced it must have been stopped or moving slowly. Since the cyclist was further to the right, in the bike lane, he had more time and space to stop than did the car. If nothing else, he would have heard the car braking to avoid hitting the car that was cutting him off.Another possible explanation is that the car that was cut off was far enough back to not slam into the car doing the illegal turn-- in the blind spot, for example-- and that the cyclist arrived at the collsion point at the same time as the car.



How is it unsupported? Let's say the cyclist was not blocked from his view by the car. That would mean he was ahead of that car. Now, how could the blue car cut off the orange car while turning right if the orange car was not already at the intersection? And if the orange car was already at the intersection, and the cyclist was ahead of it, how did the blue car manage to veer in front of him in his path, rather than into him?A scenario: The orange car is in the cars blind spot, The blue car arrives at the intersection first, realizes that this is where "he" wants to turn, and makes the turn suddenly, either without looking, or perhaps, doing a quick but insufficient check, and seeing nothing, makes the turn. The cyclist arrives at the collision point at the same time as the car.

Now, let's put the cyclist in the lane ahead of the orange car, but still in the blind spot. Let's assume that all three vehicles are traveling at roughly the same speed. The blue car makes a sudden turn, the cyclist is cut off, and perhaps doesn't actually hit the car, but nevertheless falls, and perhaps is hit by the car following. Or, alternatively, the cyclist is slightly ahead of my assumed spot, the blue car suddenly turns, without looking, and plows right into the cyclist, even though the cyclist is riding right where you would advocate he should be.

I wish we were in one room with a white board. This would be much easier to discuss.Yes.

But okay, there is another slightly different scenario. Maybe the orange car was cut off a bit earlier, before they reached the intersection. I didn't think of this because mentioning the other car would seem irrelevant to the bike-car crash incident. Anyway, that would mean the blue car was in the right lane (after cutting off the orange car) before he turned right in front of the cyclist. But then you just have a pure and simple classic right hook which has been shown countless times to be prevented almost every time by the through cyclist getting out of the bike lane and into the main traffic lane.Another possibility. But suppose that instead of being in the bike lane, the cyclist is in the traffic lane, and the car suddenly cuts into that lane, watching in his rearview mirror because he's aware that he's cutting it close with the orange car. Only the cyclist is in the lane, and riding VC didn't save him. In fact, it probably killed him in this alternate scenario.

By the way, whether the blue car was originally in the right lane and then temporarily moved into the left lane to pass and cut-off the orange car, or whether the blue car was in the left lane the whole time until he swerved right to cut off the orange car doesn't matter. The significant events commence with the blue car's turning right in front of the orange car.Right.

OK, I've got work to do, so that's enough theorizing for me. Your scenario is possible, but it's only one of several possible scenarios, based on what we know of the facts from this "accident."