Bike lanes

[lancekagar]

I don't own a car, and rarely drive. A few weeks ago my wife and I rented a car to travel out of town, and I couldn't believe how handicapped my view was. I felt like I was wearing one of these:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v88/lancekagar/panda20animal20costume20character.jpg

The car we rented was a Chevy Cobalt, and with four blind spots and almost no ability to HEAR anything around me, I felt completely isolated from the surroundings. Maintaining a clear view of my immediate area (especially the bike lane on the right side), while avoiding other drivers and navigating traffic required persistant neck-craning and sharp focus. I finally rolled the windows down. Not being able to hear my surroundings seemed like a handicap.


It's no wonder why drivers often don't see or hear cyclists.

[lancekagar]

Looking forward to moving to Eugene, Oregon, where some bike lanes are separated from the auto traffic with parking blocks:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v88/lancekagar/Eugenebikelane300.jpg

[joejack951]

Looking forward to moving to Eugene, Oregon, where some bike lanes are separated from the auto traffic with parking blocks:

Are you saying you like the looks of that bike lane? Do you currently ride through a war zone?

[lancekagar]

Are you saying you like the looks of that bike lane? Do you currently ride through a war zone?

Yes, I like the looks of them. Very much.

I don't currently ride in a war zone, but as of a few weeks ago, I was working as a messenger here in San Francisco, and have been doing it since 1999 also in Los Angeles and Chicago.

City-zones.

[joejack951]

I guess I don't see the appeal of a narrow, debris filled lane that probably has more pedestrians in it than cyclists given it's location.

[lancekagar]

Okay.

[keemex]

bike lanes should be separated from the auto traffic!!!!

[Barb Rowe]

...if this hasn't yet been done, you should contact the police and see that this accident is a matter of record.

I can recommend a very good bicycle accident attorney. This fellow advocates NOT getting the bicycle fixed --what more graphic evidence when dealing with insurance settlement people or a judge. I wish I had known this....

And you want to keep track of all medical expenses --co-pays, etc.; mileage for dr appts; any lost work time.

THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO HOLD THIS DRIVER ACCOUNTABLE. If her insurance coverage is not adequate to cover the damage and expenses, your vehicle underinsured/uninsured driver coverage should apply.

Go back to the accident site and take photos, write everything down. I know that it's hard to remember when you are in shock (I was nearly knocked unconscious), but if you warned the driver that you were in the bike lane and she then struck your wife, that is ASSAULT. Pretty serious business.

And in Santa Monica....

Been there. BR

[campybrat]

I tend to agree....and contempt just sort of perpetuates an "us vs them" attitude on the road, which usually doesnt bode well for us.

[thenomad]

I'm a "cager" every day of the week. I got a "cage" with a convertible top though so I guess I'm half liberated. When I don;t have to pedal myself, my wife, kid, and all my stuff around I'm happy for my little gas powered cage.

I think bike lanes are much better than no bike lanes at all. I ride just to the right, sometimes to the left of the white line. They are usually dirty and rutted but it gives me an escape route in case a car does come over on my left.

Any bike lane is better than none.

A bike lane that is taken care of would be better than the dirty one.

A bike lane that is seperate from traffic would be even better but it needs to mirror the regular streets because I like to ride where I want, not just a single out and back route.

I've put my head through a windshield many years ago and I'm not looking forward to doing it again. Any safety feature is better than none.

A cyclist complaining about bike lanes in an accident is like the driver complaining about the slight burns from an airbag after a head on. It could have been much worse.

You don't want to be sandwiched into the curb by a car.

[noisebeam]

I think bike lanes are much better than no bike lanes at all. I ride just to the right, sometimes to the left of the white line. They are usually dirty and rutted but it gives me an escape route in case a car does come over on my left.

Any bike lane is better than none.

A bike lane that is taken care of would be better than the dirty one.

A bike lane that is seperate from traffic would be even better but it needs to mirror the regular streets because I like to ride where I want, not just a single out and back route.

...

You don't want to be sandwiched into the curb by a car.
Are you sure it is the bike lane you find helpful to as an escape space or is it the extra space?
If the stripe was not there, but all the extra pavement remains (which would be cleaner) couldn't you ride in the same effective place (about where the line would be) or even further left and move over for vehicles that don't respond to your presence? After all if you are riding about on the bike lane stripe, you need to monitor all rear-coming vehicles to know if you need to move over since many drivers position their vehicles only inches from the line, staying neatly in 'their' lane.

A bike 'lane' that is completely separated from traffic is most often called a bike path.

Al

[thenomad]

I enjoy the extra space, yes. I moved from west coast to east coast adn immediately realized a major difference. West coast typically has wider roads. So yes, extra space with or without the line helps. The line however helps with the conditioned response of drivers to follow lines and stay wihin them In the absence of lines on really wide roads people tend to drive in random areas, often seeking proximity to the curb in order to follow that line. Ever see people merge onto the freeway and refuse to get over into the lane until the white line "pushes" them into the main lane?

With the white bike lane, drivers are typically staying to the left of it.

East coast roads are much narrower on average. I moved to Georgia and immediately stopped riding. The roads often end where the single lane whit line is. The road breaks away into the dirt.
Northeast was the same way with the curb being essentially where the single lane edge was. In that case you do have to take the lane and then you're dealing with a population who is even less familiar with driving around cyclists so things get crazy.

Bike lane, bike path, it's just semantics.

[Helmet Head]

Bike lane, bike path, it's just semantics.
No, a bike lane is entirely different from a bike path.
A bike lane is designated space on the road. Riding in a bike lane requires the cyclist to interact with traffic most of the time.

A bike path is physically separated from the road, and only requires cyclist/driver interaction where the path crosses roads.

[thenomad]

:rolleyes:

[genec]

:rolleyes:

Seriously... there is a vast difference between bike lanes and bike paths.

Here is a bike path...
http://www.econ.brown.edu/students/Arhan_Ertan/Web_Page/Pictures/Bike%20Path%202005-s.jpg
.
.
.
.
.


And this is a bike lane...
http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/uploadedimages/dpt/bike/bike%20lane%20at%20Moscone%20Center%20w%20cyclist.JPG
.
.
.
.
.
There is a difference.

[Brian Ratliff]

It's funny how the "elders" of the forum feel the need to "educate" newcomers in the language and expectations that have come to describe this echo chamber of a forum. We've got the joejack and noisebeam trying to convince the newcomers that they really don't like what they think they like. And we've even got our own language in this forum where certain words are defined very narrowly.

Ever wonder why most cyclists, while interested in advocacy, never come on this forum? A newcomer posts; is immediately "educated" by 2 or 3 "regulars" on the "proper" definitions and the "approved" ways of looking at the world; we get the ":rolleyes:" from them and they leave. It has gotten extremely boring here lately.

[genec]

It's funny how the "elders" of the forum feel the need to "educate" newcomers in the language and expectations that have come to describe this echo chamber of a forum. We've got the joejack and noisebeam trying to convince the newcomers that they really don't like what they think they like. And we've even got our own language in this forum where certain words are defined very narrowly.

Ever wonder why most cyclists, while interested in advocacy, never come on this forum? A newcomer posts; is immediately "educated" by 2 or 3 "regulars" on the "proper" definitions and the "approved" ways of looking at the world; we get the ":rolleyes:" from them and they leave. It has gotten extremely boring here lately.

Well really would we want "advocates" asking their public officals for "bike lanes" when they mean "bike paths?"

And shouldn't there be some common language that we all can use... a vernacular or lingo so that we are all refering to the same structures?

I got "the lessons" from HH, along with his whole litany of tests... and since we get folks on BF who even ride counter flow with traffic, perhaps some lessons are worth sharing.

[Brian Ratliff]

Well really would we want "advocates" asking their public officals for "bike lanes" when they mean "bike paths?"

You make like all politicing for accomodation is done through slogans on signs. The details of road planning, which make up the meat of cycling advocacy are discussed in planning sessions and on paper, where language misques are cleared up very quickly.

And shouldn't there be some common language that we all can use... a vernacular or lingo so that we are all refering to the same structures?

"lingo" is language used in a profession amongst professionals. This forum is open to the general public. In this case, lingo only serves to close the door. As you can see, most of our discussions center around the meaning of a few words. Perhaps, instead of keying off of words, trying to one up one another, we key off of discriptions using common English; clarifying when needed, and not bickering over the precision of the words we use.

I got "the lessons" from HH, along with his whole litany of tests... and since we get folks on BF who even ride counter flow with traffic, perhaps some lessons are worth sharing.

Much of what HH says is very much up for debate. There is no one recognized source of information on this forum; therefore, there is no one on this forum who is in the position to "teach" a newcomer anything. A lot of what goes on there are simply individuals making power plays to fill a vacuum left by the lack of an established academic field of professionals studying this topic. Everyone claims to be an expert. One here, for a time, even made that claim explicit.

Try this. Instead of playing expert in a field with no established experts; make your point by drawing from personal experiences. Instead of saying: "...this is a bike path, and this is a bike lane..." like you are the sole arbitrator of such definitions, say it like this: ..."around here, we tend to separate these definitions so that bike path means this and bike lane means this..." See how that works? The latter leaves space for facilities which are inbetween, such as a [path?] denoted by a painted line on the same grade of the road but separated from traffic by parking spots. By defining your terms so rigidly, you've constrained yourself to thinking inside the proverbial box, when in fact, the adolescent field of shared roadway accomodations demands out of the box thinking and creativity.

[patc]

Well really would we want "advocates" asking their public officals for "bike lanes" when they mean "bike paths?"

I have to side with Gene on this one, Brian. While much in this forum is (at best) pedantic, the distinction between a bike lane and a bike path is neither subtle nor trivial. These are completely different concepts with little in common, and confusing them is a gross error.

[Brian Ratliff]

I have to side with Gene on this one, Brian. While much in this forum is (at best) pedantic, the distinction between a bike lane and a bike path is neither subtle nor trivial. These are completely different concepts with little in common, and confusing them is a gross error.

The definitions to refer to structures which are pictured in our minds are not subtle or trivial, but we are too often tying our opposition or support of an argument to words, not ideas. Someone sees "bike path" written, they picture something without reading the description, or asking for a description, and they register their opposition or support based on the word.

For instance, what is a bike path:

1) is it like a sidewalk which bikes can travel on?

2) is it a path through a park?

3) is it like a bike lane but separated by a curb?

4) is it like a bike lane but separated by parking?

5) is it a raised pavement strip separated from the road by grass?

What other terms do we use for "bike path" on this forum:

1) sidepath

2) multi-use path (MUP)

3) bike highway

My point is that being pedantic is not a strength, and there is no established consensus on a "lingo" of any type. We shouldn't be caught up in semantic arguments, but rather, we should read the descriptions and not get hung up on whether the writer refered to the picture as one of a bike lane or a bike path, or what an approved term for that structure is. Ultimately, it doesn't matter.

I mean, look where it leads us. HH is over there in another thread worrying about what to call his new invention, and people are over here chewing a newcomer out for using "inappropriate" terminology for a concept which was clearly described in his post.

These are completely different concepts with little in common, and confusing them is a gross error.

I want to highlight this statement for a second. First, you have implied that the name is the embodiment of the concept, when in fact, a name simply labels a concept. It is a subtle but distinct difference. The phrase "a bike lane completely separate from traffic" is a concrete concept. Labeling such a thing a "bike path" simply is shorthand for the same thing. So there is, at best, no difference between using the phrase and the shorthand.

Second, the phrase contains more description, and therefore, the phrase is more useful to generate new ideas. To separate the bike lane from the edge of the road envokes visions of a whole bike network isolated from the car traffic. This is because, while networks of bike lanes are common, full networks of bike paths are not. Simply saying "bike path" envokes visions of the Burke-Gilman trail in Seattle, not a full network of bike paths superimposed on our existing road structure and intersecting (or not intersecting) it.

This is why I contend that "lingo," while useful in fields where lots of professionals are working together to build something concrete, restricts creativity and out of the box thinking. Lingo only works when everyone chooses to be in agreement about a term's definition. That is hardly the case here, on this forum. And in a field as young as traffic integration, the development of lingo by anyone other than the engineers actually designing and building specific roads is counterproductive. We need creativity. Lingo squashes that.

We need to communicate, yes, but we need to communicate using plain, discriptive English.

[genec]

You make like all politicing for accomodation is done through slogans on signs. The details of road planning, which make up the meat of cycling advocacy are discussed in planning sessions and on paper, where language misques are cleared up very quickly.



"lingo" is language used in a profession amongst professionals. This forum is open to the general public. In this case, lingo only serves to close the door. As you can see, most of our discussions center around the meaning of a few words. Perhaps, instead of keying off of words, trying to one up one another, we key off of discriptions using common English; clarifying when needed, and not bickering over the precision of the words we use.



Much of what HH says is very much up for debate. There is no one recognized source of information on this forum; therefore, there is no one on this forum who is in the position to "teach" a newcomer anything. A lot of what goes on there are simply individuals making power plays to fill a vacuum left by the lack of an established academic field of professionals studying this topic. Everyone claims to be an expert. One here, for a time, even made that claim explicit.

Try this. Instead of playing expert in a field with no established experts; make your point by drawing from personal experiences. Instead of saying: "...this is a bike path, and this is a bike lane..." like you are the sole arbitrator of such definitions, say it like this: ..."around here, we tend to separate these definitions so that bike path means this and bike lane means this..." See how that works? The latter leaves space for facilities which are inbetween, such as a [path?] denoted by a painted line on the same grade of the road but separated from traffic by parking spots. By defining your terms so rigidly, you've constrained yourself to thinking inside the proverbial box, when in fact, the adolescent field of shared roadway accomodations demands out of the box thinking and creativity.


Your points are well taken and I understand. Regarding the issues specifically of lingo... advocacy is a more specialized area and it pays for those interested to at least become familiar with the proper terms... but indeed some flexability must remain to deal with the differences in different areas.

Regarding advocating for a particular type of thing... in my area we have public forums where the public presents their views regarding whatever issue they have interest in... using the proper terminology in the limited time you have, helps drive your intent home to those paying attention.

But I do understand that we don't need to make S&A an area of professionals only.

I was only trying to use pictures to save a few thousand words. :D

[JRA]

Bike lane, bike path, it's just semantics.

I concur.

Your comment is insightful. Others have apparently interpreted it differently than I have (they have assumed) and are engaging in a heated debate.

This forum cracks me up sometimes.

[patc]

My point is that being pedantic is not a strength, and there is no established consensus on a "lingo" of any type.

I agree with you that being pedantic is not a strength, in fact it is a weakness (or, rather, a symptom of a greater weakness: inf

Can you site an example in which the distinction is ambiguous, or at the least obtaining a consensus would be difficult? Of course. Does the occasion exist in which the two term may be, within context, essentially interchangeable? Of course. Planes, trains, and ships are all transportation methods, planes usually don't float very well, and trains only fly down the tracks metaphorically.

We shouldn't be caught up in semantic arguments, but rather, we should read the descriptions and not get hung up on whether the writer refered to the picture as one of a bike lane or a bike path, or what an approved term for that structure is. Ultimately, it doesn't matter.

Ultimately, it does matter. Language is how we (attempt to) discuss concepts, and fundamental errors in language make discussion impossible. I can have a meaningful discussion with you about cycling without a mutual agreement on the definitions of "urban bike", "hybrid bike", or "comfort bike". I can not have a meaningful discussion with you about cycling if I don't understand that a bike is a 2-wheeled pedaled vehicle, or I use the term "airplane" interchangeably with "bicycle". I agree, we should avoid being pedantic, but we should also avoid grossly incorrect language.

I mean, look where it leads us. HH is over there in another thread worrying about what to call his new invention, and people are over here chewing a newcomer out for using "inappropriate" terminology for a concept which was clearly described in his post.

Apples and oranges. HH uses hair-splitting of terminology as a means of creating conversation, and steering that conversation toward a desired conclusion (look up "politician"). The post here was just plain wrong. Its not a cat, even if you say "to me a cat is four legged animal which barks, is related to wolves, and commonly described as man's best friend".


I want to highlight this statement for a second. First, you have implied that the name is the embodiment of the concept, when in fact, a name simply labels a concept. It is a subtle but distinct difference.

I think you are wrong. In human discourse - and, I think, in the way the human mind works - symbols ARE interchangeable with concepts. Once a symbol has been sufficiently internalized, we often treat it as if it were the "real thing" (i.e. religion). (See this interesting tangent (http://www.physorg.com/news85899074.html))


To separate the bike lane from the edge of the road envokes visions of a whole bike network isolated from the car traffic. This is because, while networks of bike lanes are common, full networks of bike paths are not. Simply saying "bike path" envokes visions of the Burke-Gilman trail in Seattle, not a full network of bike paths superimposed on our existing road structure and intersecting (or not intersecting) it.

Perhaps to you, but certainly not to me! I've never seen a network of bike lanes. You are mudding the waters here, however, by debating what assumptions a person may make when using either term. Yes, it is inevitable that people will carry pre-conceptions with them when they here specific terms, and the onus is on you when you present a term to add clarity as needed... that is completely different from using a completely WRONG term.

We need to communicate, yes, but we need to communicate using plain, discriptive English.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. I don't discuss photography with incorrect terms, nor do I assume people don't know what I mean by "an image", "a print", or "a camera". I certainly don't discuss it by using incorrect terminology. The same applies to a cycling context. You are doing no one a favor if you accept dumbing down discussion to the point were any terms means anything you want, as long as you define it that way clearly!

You're a smart guy, and I don't disagree with the substance of what you are trying to say. I do think you are pushing your conclusion to extremes, however, and that you have chosen a very poor launching pad for it. "Bike lane" and "bike path" are terms with generally accepted definitions; legal and official definitions in many places; and terms which carry a few fundamental differences. (You may or may not agree with me on that last, but that doesn't seem directly relevant to your argument).

I'll wrap up by saying that the dumbing down of everything is one of the biggest problems I see in our society, and a rejection of proper terminology is one of the most glaring examples. If someone wants to join in a discussion, then they should be prepared to learn the generally accepted terms... if not, they should stay home and play with their crayons. Unfortunately we live in a society which goes to extremes to avoid putting the onus on the individual to ever actually learn anything... for example, in my field camera makers have invented this "crop factor" nonsense, rejecting perfectly functional definitions of what is a "wide", "normal", or "long" lens and creating endless confusion on that part of the public.

If you want to talk cycling, learn the difference between a "pedal" and a "saddle", and between a "bike path" and a "bike lane". At that point you can debate that difference, if you want, at least you are not contributing to confusion and ignorance.

Sorry for typos, tired.

[thenomad]

A bike 'lane' that is completely separated from traffic is most often called a bike path.
Al

Apparently you should have said "... is ALWAYS, EXCLUSIVELY, called a bike path."

*sigh*

Seems like there are some folks here who are so intent on pondering their own navels that they cannot see what's going on around them.

I posted regarding my perceptions of riding in traffic, with traffic, in bike lanes etc. If you don't agree with what I have to say then engage in a conversation regarding the topic. It's a bit childish to latch on to word useage and instead of the subject matter. It's like the internet-forum-weenies who correct other people's grammar and spelling all day instead of engaging in dialogue.

I know the difference between a pedal, a saddle, a bike path and bike lane (according to BF rules). I may have a small post count but it makes me no "newbie" to riding... just to wasting time on the 'net pontificating.

[Helmet Head]

Bike lane, bike path, it's just semantics.


I know the difference between a pedal, a saddle, a bike path and bike lane (according to BF rules).
Help us reconcile the apparent contradiction in these two statements.

If whether something is called "bike lane" or "bike path" is "just semantics", then how can there really be a difference?

Would you say, "saddle, pedal, it's just semantics"?

Perhaps Gene, Pat and I misunderstood when you wrote, "Bike lane, bike path, it's just semantics". I, for one, thought you were saying that "bike lane" and "bike path" are different terms for the same or very similar concept. If that's not what you what were you trying to convey, what was it?

[Mat B]

When i ride down a road which is not very often i prefer off road but when i do i take lots of precautions when riding with traffic i always pull onto the pavement if i think there is a dangerous driver on the road

[thenomad]

Help us reconcile the apparent contradiction in these two statements.

If whether something is called "bike lane" or "bike path" is "just semantics", then how can there really be a difference?

Would you say, "saddle, pedal, it's just semantics"?

Perhaps Gene, Pat and I misunderstood when you wrote, "Bike lane, bike path, it's just semantics". I, for one, thought you were saying that "bike lane" and "bike path" are different terms for the same or very similar concept. If that's not what you what were you trying to convey, what was it?

You've now taken the original post and married it to a later post and asked how I can now "justify" this.

Because I am bored, I'll humor you.

Initial post = Obviously what I wrote (on initial topic) was not read. The use of Path and Lane were latched on to as a reason to commence the pissing match.
So I was referring to the rediculousness of arguing semantics. For instance a Bike Path is often made up of two lanes, so I could argue that one could ride in a bike lane while still being on a bike path.
But only 3 people care, and I'm not one of them.

Second post = I posted, after reading the very detailed musings on the subject and explained that I now know the difference between the path and the lane "according to BFrules". The last part of the sentence qualifies the statement. But again, only 3 people care, and I'm not one of them.

"Pedal and Saddle" comment refers to patc's demand that if one is to "talk cycling" then they must first be prequalified by learning the difference betwen peddle, saddle, bike path and bike lane. They they are only then allowed to be a part of the cycling masses.

[Helmet Head]

I enjoy the extra space, yes. I moved from west coast to east coast adn immediately realized a major difference. West coast typically has wider roads. So yes, extra space with or without the line helps. The line however helps with the conditioned response of drivers to follow lines and stay wihin them In the absence of lines on really wide roads people tend to drive in random areas, often seeking proximity to the curb in order to follow that line. Ever see people merge onto the freeway and refuse to get over into the lane until the white line "pushes" them into the main lane?

With the white bike lane, drivers are typically staying to the left of it.

East coast roads are much narrower on average. I moved to Georgia and immediately stopped riding. The roads often end where the single lane whit line is. The road breaks away into the dirt.
Northeast was the same way with the curb being essentially where the single lane edge was. In that case you do have to take the lane and then you're dealing with a population who is even less familiar with driving around cyclists so things get crazy.

Bike lane, bike path, it's just semantics.
Okay, so let's address the rest of your first post (above), which you say "was not read" (for the record, I did read it, but wanted to disspell any possible misconceptions about the differences between bike lanes and bike paths being "only semantic". By the way, I've never heard or read anyone - until your most recent post - refer to the lane in a bike path as a bike lane, but enough on that, which would just be semantics).

I agree that the "line however helps with the conditioned response of drivers to follow lines and stay wihin them", in general. However, it's the exceptions I'm concerned with, and the false sense of security the stripe seems to invoke in most cyclists to not be prepared for those exceptions. Since I've starting paying attention to this, I've read about far too many cyclists who have been killed or maimed by an inadvertent drift by a motorist into an occupied bike lane, and practically no incidents of cyclists hit from behind in wide lanes without bike lane stripes, to believe that the existence of the stripe does anything to protect the cyclist in any way whatsoever. More importantly, the role bike lanes play in misdirecting through cyclists and right turning motorists at minor (alleys, driveways, commercial entrances) as well as at major intersections (except, perhaps, those with right only lanes and bike lanes to the left of them) makes me believe that cyclists are far better off without the paint.

On roads with lanes that are too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side, as many apparently are in Georgia, it is very helpful to choose a lane position near the center of the lane, sometimes even near the left tire track, to communicate in no uncertain terms with drivers (particularly with those who are "less familiar with driving around cyclists"), that they must change lanes to pass. If you keep to the right, they think you're telling them to go ahead and try to squeeze by, and that's usually when "things get crazy".

[thenomad]

I definitely agree that there are problems with the driving population's attention to safety and proper attention behind the wheel. The right and left turn situation is always one in which a cyclist must take extreme care and keep a watchful eye out for car movement. From drivers riding on the rear wheel to "intimidate" a slow cyclist out of the way for thier right turn, to jumping ahead of a cyclist only to slam the brakes to make their right turn, to the totally oblivious left turners, there are a myriad of dangers for the cyclist.
I feel that more road will help give runoff room and maneuvering room to cyclists. If drivers obeyed the rules of the road we'd have no problem with bike lanes. Since this isn't the case, every little bit helps.

I am hesitant to take the middle of the road on many of the roads I ride because of the lack of attentive drivers. If a driver has trouble keeping the car between the white lines, I'm not confident enough to place myself dead in his path as he speeds through residential areas fumbling with a phone. While fully in my legal right to do so, and him hitting me will certainly teach him a lesson, I don't feel it is in my best interest to bet on his skill level.

The best I can do is ride with as much attention and anticipation as possible, make sure I am easily seen with color and reflectives, and ride predictably with communication to other vehicles.

[Helmet Head]

I definitely agree that there are problems with the driving population's attention to safety and proper attention behind the wheel. The right and left turn situation is always one in which a cyclist must take extreme care and keep a watchful eye out for car movement. From drivers riding on the rear wheel to "intimidate" a slow cyclist out of the way for thier right turn, to jumping ahead of a cyclist only to slam the brakes to make their right turn, to the totally oblivious left turners, there are a myriad of dangers for the cyclist.
I feel that more road will help give runoff room and maneuvering room to cyclists. If drivers obeyed the rules of the road we'd have no problem with bike lanes. Since this isn't the case, every little bit helps.

I am hesitant to take the middle of the road on many of the roads I ride because of the lack of attentive drivers. If a driver has trouble keeping the car between the white lines, I'm not confident enough to place myself dead in his path as he speeds through residential areas fumbling with a phone. While fully in my legal right to do so, and him hitting me will certainly teach him a lesson, I don't feel it is in my best interest to bet on his skill level.

The best I can do is ride with as much attention and anticipation as possible, make sure I am easily seen with color and reflectives, and ride predictably with communication to other vehicles.
Nomad, your hesitation to take the middle of the road is understandable and typical of cyclists who are uncomfortable with riding on narrow roads where controlling the full lane is required. I think it's important to recognize conditions under which drivers allow themselves to focus attention from the road in front of them to other matters (like the radio, a child, calling someone, picking up the spilt fries, digging for a brush in the purse, etc.) for more than a fraction of second. This is important for it is under those conditions when they have "trouble keeping the car between the white lines".

Based on what I've read and observed, I think it's a mistake to paint the issue of inattentive driving with such a broad brush that we take inattentive driving out of the context in which it usually occurs: when the driver believes it is safe to momentarily divert his or her attention from the road ahead, and to the cyclist-related factors that are relevant to establishing or eliminating such a context.

In particular, do you think either of the following factors has any significant influence on a driver's decision to allow his attention to focus on something other than the road ahead?


A cyclist up ahead in his lane in his intended path.
A cyclist up ahead clearly outside of his intended path in an adjacent stripe-separated bike lane or shoulder.


In other words, the cyclist can see himself as a potential victim to inattentive drivers over which he has little to no influence (much less control), or he can see himself as an active participant in traffic who actually greatly determines whether the drivers relevant to his safety are attentive to his presence or not. The former perspective encourages stay-out-of-the-way cycling (for lack of a better term) which welcomes bike lanes because they designate roadway space in which the stay-out-of-the-way cyclist can feel comfortable because he believes it allows him to achieve his objective to a reasonable degree. I recommend the latter. I have discovered, particularly with the use of a mirror, that I have great influence over the degree of attention drivers choose to devote to my presence.

Again, based on the crashes I've heard and read about all too much, I believe it is significantly safer to make sure the few-at-any-given-time drivers who are immediately or soon-to-be relevant to my safety are attentive to my presence, rather than trying to stay out of their way and not doing anything (or very little) to make sure they notice me, because I'm hoping/betting that they just stay between the lines.

It may be useful to note that those cyclists who are hesitant at controlling a narrow lane because of a lack of trust in drivers' attention seem to have the least experience with getting drivers' attention by controlling lanes. They tend to ride in a manner that makes it easy for drivers to ignore them, and thus, their experience is dominated by interactions with drivers who are not paying attention to them. In other words, believing that many drivers are inherently inattentive in a way that cannot be remedied by the cyclist, and riding accordingly, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ironically, the flip-side of this coin is also self-reinforcing behavior. The more you ride in an attention-getting way, the more your experience is dominated with drivers who are attentive to your presence.

[Helmet Head]

The best I can do is ride with as much attention and anticipation as possible, make sure I am easily seen with color and reflectives, and ride predictably with communication to other vehicles.
One more note. This statement too reflects a commonly-held notion, and is missing what I believe to be a key element: the role of lane positioning in making the cyclist cognitively conspicuous to motorists. Color and reflectives help with sensory conspicuity, to be sure, and that's very important. But to address inattentional blindness, the cyclist must also be relevant to the motorist. A cyclist up ahead who is off to the side, particularly in a stripe-separated "bike lane" or shoulder, is particularly prone to inattentional blindness, precisely because he appears to be out of the way and, thus, irrelevant to the driver, no matter how bright his clothes and reflectives.

So I disagree that the above describes the best that you can do. I believe you can do much better: you can add the use of effective use of lane positioning to enhance your cognitive conspicuity and greatly reduce the probability of falling victim to inattentional blindness. Using "centerish" lane position for enhanced conspicuity is not a novel concept; it is long known to be a best practice for motorcyclists. It applies to cyclists for the same reasons. You can do better.

[genec]

I believe you can do much better: you can add the use of effective use of lane positioning to enhance your cognitive conspicuity and greatly reduce the probability of falling victim to inattentional blindness. Using "centerish" lane position for enhanced conspicuity is not a novel concept; it is long known to be a best practice for motorcyclists. It applies to cyclists for the same reasons. You can do better.

I am not disagreeing with you except on one tiny point... and this is a point that every motorcyclist knows well or learns very quickly. (the hard way) The center of the road is full of grease... the slightest dampness on that grease turns the center of the road into a very very slipperly area.

While I fully understand what you mean by "a centerish position" and it's benefits... please understand that in reality, dead center is a dangerous spot... and one should actually keep to right or left of dead center... the tire tracks are really the best places to ride. Use one or the other depending on your need to be seen. Stay out of the center.

I know you and I have discussed this before... but for the benefit of new readers on BF, I want to make this point.

[Helmet Head]

Gene's right. What I mean by "centerish" (the quotes are intentional) is:
Somewhere between the left and right tire tracks, where exactly depending on circumstances and various factors, but rarely in the very center due to grease issues, and the fact that you are likely to be not visible in side rear-view mirrors when in the center.

But "centerish" is much less to type!

[RomSpaceKnight]

Bike lanes are just coming in, in London, Ontario. It may take a generation but there should be lanes on most secondary streets by then.

[Saltheart]

It's not the bike lanes, it's the drivers not paying attention. I've been forced out of the right hand lane while I was riding almost in the center of it. When a cyclist is in the right lane, and a car is in the left, the situation is no different. Was the woman arrested and taken to jail? Was she even given a ticket for carless driving? Did the police officer take her license on the spot? Until these drastic actions happen, nothing will change. See the thread about cyclists running red lights. When nothing happens, behavior doesn't change.


I agree with this in principle but where I live (New Orleans,LA sub) it would take a police force the size of ...well truly gargantuan size to cover all the needed areas intersections. What between rolling stops at stop signs, blocking crosswalks, speeding through yellow lights etc etc. Add to that the apathy of the police in my locale, the degree of incompitance and dereliction of duty I see from them. (And I can't see as how it is really much different in any large metro area) Most motorist I know will simply continue to drive without thought, even if increased enforcement takes place knowing that they have the police outnumbered. It's equaitable with a drunk driver, they know they shouldn't do it, they do it anyhow (in regards to the bad driving habits listed above.)

The best course for cyclist at this time is to cycle defensively, expect motorist to ignore you and cycle accordingly. At the moment the impitous is on us to be safe and defensive drivers and in a real way that is as it should be.

[C8H10N4O2]

One more reason to take the traffic lane. Where you belong... ;)

Yes, they're parked.

Cheers

[rhm]

Nice. It's almost comical, but I could post a few pics each day, each showing a different NYPD patrol car parked in the bike lane on 8th Ave. Yesterday I had to go out in the traffic lane to avoid one just as he pulled out into traffic without the benefit of a turn signal. About a block later he pulled right back into the bike lane and stopped, his front bumper barely a foot from a parked car; again he did this without a turn signal or probably even looking where he was going. I slammed on my brakes and was trapped between the police car and the parked one.

I asked (and rather politely, I think!) "Officer, can't you use a turn signal when pulling into the bicycle lane?"

The policeman answered, "No."

I was unable to engage him in further conversation. I didn't take his photo. I didn't think he'd like that. This is an older photo; yes, it's parked.

[noisebeam]

yes, it's parked.
Where else should the police car be parked?

Al

[rhm]

Where else should the police car be parked?

Al

Well, I don't know if you're being facetious, but you have a point. A policeman will frequently have to get out of the car to do his job, and may not have time to go hunting for a legal spot. So in an emergency --and let's be liberal about defining the term-- the bike lane may be the perfect place. I have no problem with that.

But I often see as many as three or four of them parked in the bike lane between 55th and 56th streets, so I presume there is a station somewhere near there. They need to designate an area for police car parking in such areas.

[noisebeam]

Well, I don't know if you're being facetious, but you have a point. A policeman will frequently have to get out of the car to do his job, and may not have time to go hunting for a legal spot. So in an emergency --and let's be liberal about defining the term-- the bike lane may be the perfect place. I have no problem with that.

But I often see as many as three or four of them parked in the bike lane between 55th and 56th streets, so I presume there is a station somewhere near there. They need to designate an area for police car parking in such areas.
I wasn't being facetious and you got my point. I don't think it needs to be an emergency, often officers need to make many short stops for a variety of reasons. Time spent searching for a 'legal' place could significantly cut down on effectiveness.

Of course the practice can be abused too.

Al

[deputyjones]

But I often see as many as three or four of them parked in the bike lane between 55th and 56th streets, so I presume there is a station somewhere near there. They need to designate an area for police car parking in such areas.

I would agree with that and I bet the administration of that particular station would also agree if presented with that argument. Maybe shoot them an email?

[Helmet Head]

Well, I don't know if you're being facetious, but you have a point. A policeman will frequently have to get out of the car to do his job, and may not have time to go hunting for a legal spot. So in an emergency --and let's be liberal about defining the term-- the bike lane may be the perfect place. I have no problem with that.

But I often see as many as three or four of them parked in the bike lane between 55th and 56th streets, so I presume there is a station somewhere near there. They need to designate an area for police car parking in such areas.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the issue is. What problem does the police parking in the bike lane cause for you? Is it difficult to merge left and go around them?

I guess I appreciate any opportunity I'm given to avoid riding in a bike lane, especially a door zone bike lane like the one in your picture.

(The above was edited/reworded to not appear to be rude)

[deputyjones]

Why is this even worth posting about, or calling the station? What problem does it cause for you? Is it so hard to merge left and go around them?

I guess I appreciate any opportunity I'm given to avoid riding in a bike lane, especially a door zone bike lane like the one in your picture.

Obviously if he posted it is of some concern to him. How about you show some respect for his concern like the forum guidelines (http://bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=forum_guidelines) suggest?

[Helmet Head]

Yes, deputyjones, obviously it is of some concern to him. I respect that. What makes you think I don't? I'm just curious as to why it's of some concern to him.

Do you feel it's disrespectful to ask? I know I can be a little insensitive at times, but that seems a little overly sensitive, no?

[deputyjones]

Yes, deputyjones, obviously it is of some concern to him. I respect that. What makes you think I don't? I'm just curious as to why it's of some concern to him.

Do you feel it's disrespectful to ask? I know I can be a little insensitive at times, but that seems a little overly sensitive, no?

Because your first question was worded as a rude, rhetorical question which I found particularly ironic because about 20 minutes prior you were complaining about another poster not following the forum guidelines.

[C8H10N4O2]

HH, the original post #1636 was meant for amusement purposes, hence the ;) ...I was struck by the irony and wanted to share. You're so serious...this should be fun, right?

BTW Al, there was plenty of other parking available, this being the 'burbs. But the entrance to the coffee shop was right there

If nothing else, he could have parked closer to the curb so that people who need the (perilous for many reasons)bike lane would not have to veer into traffic.

Just to be clear, nothing in this post is facetious, sarcastic or otherwise meant to be hurtful or disrespectful...sheesh!

[rhm]

What problem does the police parking in the bike lane cause for you? Is it difficult to merge left and go around them?

I guess I appreciate any opportunity I'm given to avoid riding in a bike lane, especially a door zone bike lane like the one in your picture.

(The above was edited/reworded to not appear to be rude)

Hey, I wish I could see your unedited post! But I assure you, no offense is taken. Let me try to address your question....

Correction, the bike lane in question is at the LEFT side of a busy north-south street through Manhattan. The right lane is used by buses, car parking, taxis, etc. There are three or four traffic lanes, one of them designated as a fire lane. Then there's the bike lane, and finally, at the extreme left, another parking lane, which is dedicated to taxis at some locations (such as Port Authority Bus Terminal). The bike lane as such has numerous problems, but I'd rather not get into all of them.

I have been commuting intermittently for 25+ years. I am very good at checking over my left shoulder before changing lanes, and have a mirror mounted on the left side of my helmet to keep an eye on traffic there. Now that I have been riding NYC traffic for only 2 years, I am learning to look over my right shoulder to check for traffic... but I don't feel safe doing that.

I believe a bicyclist is safest when obeying certain rules, such as:
*stay out of the way of cars;
*stay where the cars expect you to be;
*behave predictably; ride in a straight line if possible;
and so on.

Now, this is doubtless obvious to many of us, but just for the record... In heavy NYC traffic, especially in the morning rush hour, traffic goes in waves. The lanes of cars &c line up at a red light, and all take off when it goes green; then they surf a wave of fresh green lights, going as fast as they can for as far as they can, until the lights all go yellow, at which time they reluctantly stop. I do exactly the same thing, and at the same time, just not as fast. Around twenty seconds after the lights go green, I'll be reaching my absolute top speed, spinning my little folding bike at 120 rpm or something to reach 16 mph; and at this time there will be a constant stream of cars passing me on my right, going approx. double my speed. My survival depends on staying out of thier way. Unless I can be absolutely certain that there is no traffic, every time the bike lane is obstructed by a truck, taxi, policecar, pedestrian, or whatever, I have to slow down enough to let ALL the traffic go by; and by this time you can be sure I will have to stop at the next traffic light.

Regarding the taxis, trucks, pedestrians, ambulances, &c., of course I regard these as part of the real world, an obstacle I have to live with and respect. They can and will use the bike lane in an emergency; I'm not such a fool as to challenge that.

But here's my point, even though I know it's naive. Shouldn't I expect the police to be my ally? Shouldn't I expect them to protect my right to use the bike lane when there is no emergency? In practice, they are as much a problem as anyone. In this forum, in which we debate the utility of bike lanes, I consider this to be a worthwhile observation.

For the record, I will upload a screenshot from Google Earth showing an older satellite image of the intersection in question. This photo seems to have been taken in the early afternoon, when there was not too much traffic. And the photo is old, before the bike lane was painted in. There were four traffic lanes at that time; I'm not sure how many are there now. And in this photo, there seems to be a police car double parked in the location I describe. If it's not allowed to upload a picture from Google Earth, no worries-- you can find it for yourself on Google Earth at 40 45 52.77 N, 73 59 03.43 W.

Cheers!

Rudi

[rhm]

Oops, my file was too big. I've cropped it down a bit, so here's another try.

[rhm]

This morning I took this photo with my phone. Just another visual so you'll all understand the situation as fully as possible.

[noisebeam]

This morning I took this photo with my phone. Just another visual so you'll all understand the situation as fully as possible.
Did you intentionally ride up behind the stopped police vehicle to take the picture? If not why were you not in the passing lane long before the pic was snapped? Giving yourself this little space to negotiate a merge right is asking for trouble.
Al