The particular argument above is kind of like saying that you will never make an omelet because it involves breaking eggs and may make a mess of things. There are some end points which cannot be reached by going slow and incrementally. To get to the point where cyclists have their own space and their own right of way, i.e. not having to share space with other vehicles, means that we have to go through a phase where some roads are set up ideally, and some roads are not. WOL's make sense for roads as they are now. They don't make sense when there are enough cyclists on the road to create constant right of way conflicts between cars.
Ah ha!
Brian, I will get to your other thread, which I finally just read, when I have more time. I have to say I really, really appreciate your posts. I've been looking for someone who can really defend bike lanes, and have not been able to find anyone. Finally, you are here.
But, this last post reveals a fundamental difference between you and me. You seem to take as a given that we all share a common goal of getting "to the point where cyclists have their own space and their own right of way, i.e. not having to share space with other vehicles, means that we have to go through a phase where some roads are set up ideally, and some roads are not."
I have long felt that this is the unstated ultimate motivation of most if not all bike lane advocates, and you are the first to tate it explicitly here, so far as I know. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your honesty and intellectual understanding of your own position. It's refreshing.
In essence, the argument is, so what if bike lanes are imperfect? In fact, so what if they are a side step... for bike lanes are a necessary step to the ultimate goal - a totally separate infrastructure for cyclists.
As a cyclist who looks at the existing roadway infrastructure as being close to ideal for cycling transportation and recreation, and not just for the current number of cyclists, but for virtually any number of cyclists, I really have to scratch my head about that one. Cyclists can already get anywhere they want using the current roadway infrastructure, comfortably, safely and enjoyably (with some minimal education/training). So why take any steps, particularly compromising steps (which bike lanes arguably are), towards some Nirvana separate infrastructure which cyclists need about as much as giraffes need stilts?
Serge
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Very compelling thoughts from both Serge and Briand and if I may jsut comment, Brian seems to be coming from the point that good BLs can be made, covering our need for safety and a clear understanding between driver adn cyclist. It seems though that this must be a well thought out process that is done before construction and also involves a highly cycling educated environment.
On the other hand Serge seems to deal with the current realities of bad bike lanes (which are prevalent).
So while we should strive to push for better bike lanes for future roods (or fiing of current ones I think we also need to educate/guide people with the current dangers of the existing bad ones.
JamesV
The best way to get more adults to ride bikes to work is to encourage bicycling to school when they are young.
The best way to get more adults to allow their 11 year old kids to ride to school, and to encourage kids to want to ride to school, is to provide bike lanes in and around schools (for example, California's Safe Routes to School program).
If you push to abolish bike lanes, kids will stop riding or will never start riding, and get used to car travel. Then they won't ride bikes as adults.
Vehicular Cycling is fine for adults but is absolutely unsafe for a child.
Therefore, if you abolish bike lanes you run the risk of abolishing bicycling as we know it through declining participation and popularity.
I think VC'ers need to drop the bike lane hostility and instead adopt bike lane tolerance in the interest of fostering bicycling among our youth.
jslopez
The best way to get more adults to ride bikes to work is to encourage bicycling to school when they are young.
The best way to get more adults to allow their 11 year old kids to ride to school, and to encourage kids to want to ride to school, is to provide bike lanes in and around schools (for example, California's Safe Routes to School program).
If you push to abolish bike lanes, kids will stop riding or will never start riding, and get used to car travel. Then they won't ride bikes as adults.
Vehicular Cycling is fine for adults but is absolutely unsafe for a child.
Therefore, if you abolish bike lanes you run the risk of abolishing bicycling as we know it through declining participation and popularity.
I think VC'ers need to drop the bike lane hostility and instead adopt bike lane tolerance in the interest of fostering bicycling among our youth.
If BLs (even just some of them) prove to be a potential danger to any cyclist. woudl you still promote them jsut for the sake that our kids learn to ride?
Helmet Head
The best way to get more adults to ride bikes to work is to encourage bicycling to school when they are young.
The best way to get more adults to allow their 11 year old kids to ride to school, and to encourage kids to want to ride to school, is to provide bike lanes in and around schools (for example, California's Safe Routes to School program).
If you push to abolish bike lanes, kids will stop riding or will never start riding, and get used to car travel. Then they won't ride bikes as adults.
Vehicular Cycling is fine for adults but is absolutely unsafe for a child.
Therefore, if you abolish bike lanes you run the risk of abolishing bicycling as we know it through declining participation and popularity.
I think VC'ers need to drop the bike lane hostility and instead adopt bike lane tolerance in the interest of fostering bicycling among our youth.
What a bunch of hooey. When I grew up in the 60s, bike lanes were unheard of and all the kids rode their bikes.
If anything, bike lanes (along with the proliferation of traffic signals, acceleration/deceleration lanes, dedicated turn lanes, reduced onstreet parking, etc. etc.) contribute to "freeway mentality" having spread to urban roadways, which in turn has increased speeds on these roadways, and reduced the popularity of cycling and walking.
I will have much more to say on this topic, but I could not let this one go. The idea that bike lanes make cycling safer is preposterous (not to mention without basis). Perpetuating that myth is disengenous, at best. If a child is not prepared skill-wise to ride on a certain roadway, and a parent allows or even encourages them to ride anyway because someone painted a white stripe along its edge, that's a tragedy waiting to happen. Shame on anyone who promotes anything having to do with this.
"Vehicular Cycling is fine for adults but is absolutely unsafe for a child." First, my understanding is that is not true, and I plan to start teaching my own daughter VC when she turns eight. We'll see. Second, even if it were true, the implication is that painting a bike lane somehow makes non-vehicular cycling on the street safe? Say what?
Serge
Treespeed
The best way to get more adults to ride bikes to work is to encourage bicycling to school when they are young.
The best way to get more adults to allow their 11 year old kids to ride to school, and to encourage kids to want to ride to school, is to provide bike lanes in and around schools (for example, California's Safe Routes to School program).
If you push to abolish bike lanes, kids will stop riding or will never start riding, and get used to car travel. Then they won't ride bikes as adults.
Vehicular Cycling is fine for adults but is absolutely unsafe for a child.
Therefore, if you abolish bike lanes you run the risk of abolishing bicycling as we know it through declining participation and popularity.
I think VC'ers need to drop the bike lane hostility and instead adopt bike lane tolerance in the interest of fostering bicycling among our youth.
That is ridiculous logic. I think it would be safe to argue that most kids grew up learning to ride without ever using a bike lane. I know that I did. I never saw a bike lane until I was in my late teens. From what I've seen bike lanes give kids a false sense of security when riding in traffic.
Helmet Head
No, my contention is that there is no such thing as "good" bike lane, and never can be. In other words, I contend that given any bike lane (except on limited access roads like freeways where cycling access would otherwise be prohibited), the situation for cyclists could only be improved if the bike lane stripe were erased.
Serge
Helmet Head
That is ridiculous logic. I think it would be safe to argue that most kids grew up learning to ride without ever using a bike lane. I know that I did. I never saw a bike lane until I was in my late teens. From what I've seen bike lanes give kids a false sense of security when riding in traffic.
Treespeed... so succinct. A shining example of your brilliant intellect.
Brian Ratliff
Serge, thanks for the recognition of my argument. Thinking through your posts have lead me down some interesting roads. There are good and bad aspects of most all road infrastructures, and I have done a lot of thinking about how traffic interacts and how people interact in traffic.
I can honestly argue both sides. I argue the bike lane side as a counterweight to your arguments for WOL's. I cannot predict the future, so I don't know what road infrastructure will turn out to be the winner, but the positions and the traffic philosophies of different road infrastructures have to be thought out now, so when we pick something to advocate, we are not getting crosswise when the arguments actually count for something.
Honestly, I am still of mixed opinion as to which is the better road infrastructure. It is odd when a cyclist, who has always just taken what was being given, is asked what he or she really wants. For now though, since you are putting up the strong arguments for WOL's, I will put up the strong arguments for bike lanes. This way all opinions and ideas get aired and we have a clearer understanding of the issue as a whole.
BR
RocketsRedglare
Most kids didn't wear helmets in the 60's either, and still survived.
I never thought vehiculary cycling was a philosophy, had such rabid advocates and until I came on the forum, I never knew the phrase even existed. Its they way I always rode growing up on the east coast.
Coming to California, I was very happy to see dedicated bike lanes and multi use trials - That for the most part separated the traffic. But I still ride "vehicularly" needed. If anyone is lulled into a false sense of security, perhaps they shouldn't be riding.
There is a time and place for everything. Ride "vehicularly" all you want, but don't take away my option of riding in a dedicated lane just because YOU perceive it as unsafe.
genec
What a bunch of hooey. When I grew up in the 60s, bike lanes were unheard of and all the kids rode their bikes.
If anything, bike lanes (along with the proliferation of traffic signals, acceleration/deceleration lanes, dedicated turn lanes, reduced onstreet parking, etc. etc.) contribute to "freeway mentality" having spread to urban roadways, which in turn has increased speeds on these roadways, and reduced the popularity of cycling and walking.
And rarely did you see kids going more than a couple miles and mostly on residental streets. Also motorists then had fewer distractions, and most autos did not have AC, so windows were rolled down and the motorists had more awareness of the environment around them.
Today the motorists are driving faster, more efficient vehicles, coupled with a "freeway mentality" in those air conditioned, sound conditioned, CD, DVD, GPS, Cell phone equipped, rolling coccoons and have the added confidence of an automatic airbag restraint system...
The last thing on their mind is "some idiot bicycle rider..." If they even see you.
"I just didn't see him officer... "
"Fine, deposit two SUV payments here, and be on your way... "
Sigh...
Just give us a place to ride... that's all I ask... BL, WOL, Path...
Crashtest
Today the motorists are driving faster, more efficient vehicles, coupled with a "freeway mentality" in those air conditioned, sound conditioned, CD, DVD, GPS, Cell phone equipped, rolling coccoons and have the added confidence of an automatic airbag restraint system...
The last thing on their mind is "some idiot bicycle rider..." If they even see you.
Wow! Well said.
Brian Ratliff
Right hooks are really a failure of the driver to move to the rightmost position on the roadway before turning right. A driver could possibly violate the right of way of a cycist while merging to the rightmost position, but that is a lateral-movement violation, not an actual right-hook, and is less common.
A lot of us believe that bike lane stripes, be they solid or striped, discourage automobile drivers from moving to the rightmost position of the roadway prior to turning right. Eliminating the stripe well before the lateral merges occur may be more effective at reducing this problem than a motorist education campaign about when to cross a bike lane stripe. One of the basic principles of effective user interface design is that if a great deal of education effort is needed to mitigate a counter-intuitive design, the better approach is to fix the design.
One of the reasons why many bike lane designers promote bike lane striping all the way up to the intersection is that they really don't understand or believe that having right-turning motor traffic merge right, in line with bicycle traffic, is safer than turning across a separate lane of bicycle traffic. This is an example of where vehicular cyclists are quite frustrated with bike lane designers, because the crash statistics clearly show that right-hooks are much more likely and no less dangerous than merging movements on junction approaches. This is a specific case where vehicular cyclists believe that the striping proponents are working on an ideological basis favoring segregation rather than a pragmatic one.
This is true, but I contend that this is not a fundamental issue with bike lanes. In other words, the problem can be both designed out and educated out. While WOL's encourage vehicles to move to the right when turning right, it is not required, and there will still be the problem of the driver misjudging the speed of the cyclist and right hooking him or her. In fact, you can say that all right hooks are caused by misjudgements of bicycle speed on the part of the driver. After all, presumably cars normally pass cyclists on the left, even in a WOL. The only difference now, is that, with a WOL, there is no right of way determination, so a cyclist who is right hooked in a WOL is SOL (sh** out of luck). With a bike lane, a right hook is clearly the fault of the driver intruding on the cyclist's right of way.
Understand too, that when I talk about education, I am not only refering to a crash course campaign to educate all people, I am primarily interested in the drivers licensing process and drivers ed programs. I am talking about sustainable traffic solutions which favor cyclists, not stop-gap measures to make things better next week. We don't need stop-gap measures. All of us here know how to ride in traffic and manage well enough.
BR
cphfxt
No, my contention is that there is no such thing as "good" bike lane, and never can be. In other words, I contend that given any bike lane (except on limited access roads like freeways where cycling access would otherwise be prohibited), the situation for cyclists could only be improved if the bike lane stripe were erased.
Serge
dear serge
have you ever been to a city where the number of bike trips exceeds the number of car trips?
if not, you have not done your research- have insufficient knowledge..
if so, how is the flows of bikes to be able to work without free movement of bikes on the lanes?
where i come from all age groups ride and i would hate to take the BL away just because my flow would speed up.. so please.. man get a grip..
Helmet Head
Right hooks are really a failure of the driver to move to the rightmost position on the roadway before turning right.
...
This is true, but I contend that this is not a fundamental issue with bike lanes.
Certainly the motorist not moving far enough right, and often misjudging the cyclist's speed, are contributory causes to right hooks. But the behavior of the thru cyclist keeping too far to the right in the first place, and passing a slow/turning motorist on the right, is also very important, and for which we as cyclists have infinitely more control.
The bike lane giving the wrongly positioned cyclist the right-of-way in this situation only exacerbates the situation, and teaches the cyclist wrong behavior not only at that intersection, but at other non-bikelaned intersections as well.
Right hooks may not be a fundamental issue with bike lanes, but they certainly don't help. Yes, if a cyclist is hit in a bike lane, the motorist is usually at fault legally, but I do not accept the notion that this is necessarily a good thing for cyclists and cycling.
If the law gave the right-of-way to cyclists riding on the wrong side of the roadway, would that be a good thing for cyclists and cycling? Is that something cyclists should advocate? Of course not.
Daily Commute
This may be true, but in practice, the police defer to the cyclist's judgement. In other words, if you leave the bike lane, they assume that you are avoiding something or have some reason to do so. It is enforced in a way that makes it clear that you can leave the bike lane to avoid obstacles, or to make a left turn. They obviously don't want you hogging a whole lane for miles on end when there is a bike lane just to your right.
The drivers manual clearly states that a cyclist is legally allowed to leave the bike lane and gives many of the reasons to do so. It also clearly states that a cyclist may leave the bike lane for reasons that are not obvious to moter vehicles. I have never had any problem with this law and have never been stopped and had it slapped on me to discriminate or anything of that nature.
The law does not allow for all reasons that cyclists might need to leave the lane. For example, cyclists should generally be in the right tire track at interections to increase visibility (See Effective Cycling) and Maneuverability (see Art of Urban Cycling), as well as to deter left hooks. Would every cop in the state of Oregon (and every traffic judge) permit you to move out of the lane 50' to 100' before each intersection?
What if there is only an obstacle every couple hundred feet? In that situation, you should ride several feet to the left of the obstacles in a straight line, but that could keep you out of the lane for blocks.
What if you plan on turning left in three blocks and and to get into the left lane in case you don't get another gap?
What if there are structual defects in the lane design that put you too close to the curb or parked cars, even where the road is swept clean?
What if there are enough problems in the lane that it slows you down, but does not make it completely unridable? How much of a slow-down is permitted before you are allowed to leave the lane? It's easy to imagine just enough debris and/or potholes to permit you to ride 5 mph, but no faster. As another example, I can go 25-35 mph (depending on conditions and my energy level) on a one- to two-mile downhill stretch of one of my commuting routes to work. The road has a 35 mph speed limit. The city is thinking about outting in bike lanes engineered for 15 mph. Should I be forced to stay in the lane if the speed differential were 5 mph? 10 mph? 15 mph? Where would you draw the line? Where would every cop and judge draw the line? What is your basis for where you/cops/judges would draw the line?
For now, the cops you have dealt with have been reasonable, but cops can and do illagally harass cyclists, as the NYT recently reported (see this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=99127&page=1&pp=25) for an example).
And finally, you said that the laws don't restrict cyclists to the bike lane. That was wrong. They do. You just count on cops who know nothing about cycling to be reasonable. And if you think your cops know something about cycling, ask them to compare and contrast any aspect (the cop's choice) of Forester, Hurst, and Bicyclesafe.com. In addition, a cop here recently ticketed a cyclist for riding in the left lane downtown even though the right lane was marked for buses only. (The cyclist asked a local advocacy leader for an attorney referral, but I never heard about the outcome.) Yeah, I trust them to be fair.
P.S. Genec, does this answer your question about when we might want to leave the lane when the Oregon law says we don't have to?
genec
What if there is only an obstacle every couple hundred feet? In that situation, you should ride several feet to the left of the obstacles in a straight line, but that could keep you out of the lane for blocks.
What if you plan on turning left in three blocks and and to get into the left lane in case you don't get another gap?
What if there are structual defects in the lane design that put you too close to the curb or parked cars, even where the road is swept clean?
What if there are enough problems in the lane that it slows you down, but does not make it completely unridable? How much of a slow-down is permitted before you are allowed to leave the lane? It's easy to imagine just enough debris and/or potholes to permit you to ride 5 mph, but no faster. As another example, I can go 25-35 mph (depending on conditions and my energy level) on a one- to two-mile downhill stretch of one of my commuting routes to work. The road has a 35 mph speed limit. The city is thinking about outting in bike lanes engineered for 15 mph. Should I be forced to stay in the lane if the speed differential were 5 mph? 10 mph? 15 mph? Where would you draw the line? Where would every cop and judge draw the line? What is your basis for where you/cops/judges would draw the line?
For now, the cops you have dealt with have been reasonable, but cops can and do illagally harass cyclists, as the NYT recently reported (see this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=99127&page=1&pp=25) for an example).
And finally, you said that the laws don't restrict cyclists to the bike lane. That was wrong. They do. You just count on cops who know nothing about cycling to be reasonable. And if you think your cops know something about cycling, ask them to compare and contrast any aspect (the cop's choice) of Forester, Hurst, and Bicyclesafe.com. In addition, a cop here recently ticketed a cyclist for riding in the left lane downtown even though the right lane was marked for buses only. (The cyclist asked a local advocacy leader for an attorney referral, but I never heard about the outcome.) Yeah, I trust them to be fair.
P.S. Genec, does this answer your question about when we might want to leave the lane when the Oregon law says we don't have to?
According to the Oregon bike lane law and the CA bike lane laws, all the examples, especially the speed issue are permitted reasons to leave the bike lanes.
Now you may have to defend your reasons to some donut chomping traffic cop that has never left a cruiser... but that is a different issue. It was probably time for that officer to get a re-education anyway... meet him in court with a copy of the laws and pictures.
noisebeam
Quickly... I haven't responded since I've been busy...
Right hooks. They are actually my least concern cycling as i don't position myself so I am vunerable. But wiht a BL I find I am always leaving it so I am not in a bad position. With a WOL it is a natural flow to not be too far right at intersections. With BLs I find I must negotate (and often with resistance) to move out of this right zone. It is hard to explain, but it basically results from motorist not expecting and being annoyed or blocking me from leaving BL. With a WOL a quick look behind well before every possible right turns makes it very obvious to me if there is a possible right turner and I can respond accordingly. Same of course with BL, but I find that drivers don't get it.
For what its worth I grew up without BLs of any kind.
Again a short and not well presented response above, but wanted to as i saw my name mentioned a couple times in this thread (which I haven't yet read in detail)
Al
Brian Ratliff
Quickly... I haven't responded since I've been busy...
Right hooks. They are actually my least concern cycling as i don't position myself so I am vunerable. But wiht a BL I find I am always leaving it so I am not in a bad position. With a WOL it is a natural flow to not be too far right at intersections. With BLs I find I must negotate (and often with resistance) to move out of this right zone. It is hard to explain, but it basically results from motorist not expecting and being annoyed or blocking me from leaving BL. With a WOL a quick look behind well before every possible right turns makes it very obvious to me if there is a possible right turner and I can respond accordingly. Same of course with BL, but I find that drivers don't get it.
For what its worth I grew up without BLs of any kind.
Again a short and not well presented response above, but wanted to as i saw my name mentioned a couple times in this thread (which I haven't yet read in detail)
Al
Of course, when you change a lane, which you are doing when you are leaving the bike lane, you have to yield right of way to the cars in the adjacent lane. Likewise, when cars need to cross the bike lane for any reason, they have to yield right of way to you. If you are in the far right lane in a car on a four lane road and need to make a left turn, you have to yield to the cars in the adjacent lanes to make a lane change. Likewise on a bike.
Positioning yourself in the bike lane to avoid a right hook is pretty easy and most of us do it naturally if we have been cycling for any length of time. If we have reason to move out into the lane at an intersection, then we do that too.
We can turn the situation around. If you are in a WOL and move left from the right side of the lane, not leaving enough room for the car behind you to adjust, then who is responsible for yielding? The cyclist presumably has the right to the entire lane with a WOL (otherwise there is no difference between the WOL and the bike lane), so if a car is passing and you want to move left, who yields? Do you yield to the car because it is imminently overtaking, or does the car yield to you because you are in front? The cyclist and the car are sharing the lane, so the situation is muddied. I'll bet, that right now, you yield to the passing car as if you were in a bike lane and changing lanes. If this is the case, then why not put the line in and call it what it is so the whole situation is clearer to everyone involved?
Brian Ratliff
The law does not allow for all reasons that cyclists might need to leave the lane. For example, cyclists should generally be in the right tire track at interections to increase visibility (See Effective Cycling) and Maneuverability (see Art of Urban Cycling), as well as to deter left hooks. Would every cop in the state of Oregon (and every traffic judge) permit you to move out of the lane 50' to 100' before each intersection?
What if there is only an obstacle every couple hundred feet? In that situation, you should ride several feet to the left of the obstacles in a straight line, but that could keep you out of the lane for blocks.
What if you plan on turning left in three blocks and and to get into the left lane in case you don't get another gap?
What if there are structual defects in the lane design that put you too close to the curb or parked cars, even where the road is swept clean?
What if there are enough problems in the lane that it slows you down, but does not make it completely unridable? How much of a slow-down is permitted before you are allowed to leave the lane? It's easy to imagine just enough debris and/or potholes to permit you to ride 5 mph, but no faster. As another example, I can go 25-35 mph (depending on conditions and my energy level) on a one- to two-mile downhill stretch of one of my commuting routes to work. The road has a 35 mph speed limit. The city is thinking about outting in bike lanes engineered for 15 mph. Should I be forced to stay in the lane if the speed differential were 5 mph? 10 mph? 15 mph? Where would you draw the line? Where would every cop and judge draw the line? What is your basis for where you/cops/judges would draw the line?
For now, the cops you have dealt with have been reasonable, but cops can and do illagally harass cyclists, as the NYT recently reported (see this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=99127&page=1&pp=25) for an example).
And finally, you said that the laws don't restrict cyclists to the bike lane. That was wrong. They do. You just count on cops who know nothing about cycling to be reasonable. And if you think your cops know something about cycling, ask them to compare and contrast any aspect (the cop's choice) of Forester, Hurst, and Bicyclesafe.com. In addition, a cop here recently ticketed a cyclist for riding in the left lane downtown even though the right lane was marked for buses only. (The cyclist asked a local advocacy leader for an attorney referral, but I never heard about the outcome.) Yeah, I trust them to be fair.
P.S. Genec, does this answer your question about when we might want to leave the lane when the Oregon law says we don't have to?
So, yea, the law is in the books and it would obviously be good to change. It is a legacy law from many years ago, and in the Portland area at least, is never enforced. We could advocate for the law to be changed, but it would be in a quiet way. It is not worth the effort to get an unenforced law changed. Even the drivers manual does not even mention this part of the law. It only details to new drivers that cyclists may leave the bike lane for reasons not always apparent to drivers. Really, the only people who know that this law is on the books are the people who read the actual statute. There is no official document other than the statute, no manual, no rule book, which mentions this law.
I live here and ride here. I have never had a problem with leaving the bike lane and have never had my decision to leave the bike lane questioned.
BR
randya
...in Oregon, we are not restricted to riding in the bike lane...
I'd like to make a correction to this statement. In Oregon, if a bike lane is present you are required to use it. At least according to the Portland Police, who routinely write tickets for 'failure to use bike lane' on Critical Mass Rides.
ORS 814.420. Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.
(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/814.html
ORS 814.420(2) has apparently been negated by a judgement in the Potter case, which judgement in part reads:
"ORS 810.250(3) provides:
"When a traffic control device is placed in position approximately conforming to the requirements of the traffic regulations or other laws of this state, the device is presumed to have been placed by an official act or at the direction of lawful authority unless the contrary is established by competent evidence."
A bicycle lane is a traffic control device within the meaning of ORS 810.250(3), (2) and ORS 810.250(3) creates a rebuttable presumption that the bicycle lane was placed on the Hawthorne Bridge in compliance with the requirements of ORS 814.420(2). Given the evidence in this case, the trial court could find that the state had proved the basic fact (3) and that the presumed fact was sufficient to meet the state's burden of production. (4) The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of failing to use a bicycle lane."
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115242.htm
randya
Uh there is a lot more to that law...
814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty.
(1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.
(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.
(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.
(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(e) When operating a bicycle along side not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.
Right off the start if you are moving at the same speed as traffic, you may leave the lane, if you are passing or making a left, you may leave the lane, and when there are hazards, you may leave the lane.
So in other words if you are slow, not passing, and not facing any hazards... is there any reason to not stay to the right, in the lane?
Sorry, but I think that you're interpreting ORS 814.430 incorrectly. This section of the statute only applies to a roadway where no bike lane is present, see (2)(f) above...
randya
With a bike lane, a right hook is clearly the fault of the driver intruding on the cyclist's right of way.
Sure, it's the motorist's fault, but I see this happen all the time on eastbound SE Hawthorne at SE 7th and SE 11th, so much so that I now avoid this very popular stretch of bike lane almost completely. Same thing at eastbound NW Everett and NW 16th. All three are dangerous intersections waiting to claim the life of a bicyclist using the bike lane who thought s/he had the right-of-way. On lower SE Hawthorne, many 'door prizes' are waiting to be awarded to cyclists in the bike lane, as well.
Helmet Head
Of course, when you change a lane, which you are doing when you are leaving the bike lane, you have to yield right of way to the cars in the adjacent lane. Likewise, when cars need to cross the bike lane for any reason, they have to yield right of way to you. If you are in the far right lane in a car on a four lane road and need to make a left turn, you have to yield to the cars in the adjacent lanes to make a lane change. Likewise on a bike.
Positioning yourself in the bike lane to avoid a right hook is pretty easy and most of us do it naturally if we have been cycling for any length of time. If we have reason to move out into the lane at an intersection, then we do that too.
We can turn the situation around. If you are in a WOL and move left from the right side of the lane, not leaving enough room for the car behind you to adjust, then who is responsible for yielding? The cyclist presumably has the right to the entire lane with a WOL (otherwise there is no difference between the WOL and the bike lane), so if a car is passing and you want to move left, who yields? Do you yield to the car because it is imminently overtaking, or does the car yield to you because you are in front? The cyclist and the car are sharing the lane, so the situation is muddied. I'll bet, that right now, you yield to the passing car as if you were in a bike lane and changing lanes. If this is the case, then why not put the line in and call it what it is so the whole situation is clearer to everyone involved?
Brian, my man, I love the way you think. You get at the core issue, that's for sure.
First, let's realize that in general, if two vehicles can fit in a lane, they are allowed to. It's just that lanes wide enough to fit two cars side-by-side are relatively rare. But motorcyclists can certainly share lanes with other motorcyclists, and often share (split) lanes with other, wider, vehicles. But even car drivers share lanes, usually at intersections. So, the "problem", such as it is, of determining right-of-way in lane sharing situations is not exclusive to cyclists.
Second, when a vehicle driver leaves enough room in the lane for another vehicle, he is essentially yielding the right-of-way in that part of the lane. You only have the right-of-way to the part of the lane that you are using. This is why motorcyclists are allowed to ride down freeways using the unused parts of the lanes (except when this behavior is explicitly disallowed by law). In California, there is no law that explicitly allows it, but it is implicitly allowed because it is not forbidden.
Third, when a faster driver is passing a slower driver, the slower driver has the right-of-way. The one passing has the responsibility to pass responsibly, including at a safe passing distance and at a safe speed. This responsibility is alleviated when the two are separated by a lane stripe, which generally allows for closer/faster passing, ostensibily because the rights-of-way are delineated and the behavior is more predictable (a disbenefit to the cyclist in the bike lane, in my view).
Basically, you're saying: look, the behavior is the same in the WOL case as in the BL case, so why not have the stripe? My response is that the behavior is not the same. Or shouldn't be. For a cyclist who has not yet learned vehicular cycling, it may seem the same, because such a cyclist typically spends too much time riding near the edge of the roadway (where the BL would be anyway). So from that perspective, yeah, it could make sense to just paint the stripe and be done with it. One of my biggest problems with bike lanes is that they are based on the assumption that the proper/safe/appropriate lateral lane position for a cyclist can be determined a priori, and delineated statically. In fact, that's exactly what a bike lane is: a static demarcation of the alleged proper/safe/appropriate lateral lane position for the cyclist. But the truth is that the appropriate lateral lane position varies all the time, and this is something that cyclists need to learn to enjoy safe cycling in traffic, and bike lanes inhibit them from doing so. The appropriate lane position for a cyclist is constantly changing, because it is determined by ever-changing factors and conditions, including but not limited to: speed and amount of traffic, speed of cyclist, cyclist's destination, road condition, obstructions, time of day, weather, etc. Sometimes the cyclist's position is on the right, sometimes in the center, sometimes on the left. Should each of these positions be demarcated in every lane? That would, of course, be absurd.
Have you read John Franklin's Cyclecraft? You must. He explains all this much better than I do. First, he designates the center of the lane as the primary riding position for a cyclist, while riding along the edge of the lane, be it the left or the right, as the secondary riding position. As the terms imply, he advocates riding in the primary riding position most of the time, and only using a secondary riding position when appropriate and safe to allow faster traffic to pass. In particular, the primary riding position is advocated at all intersections, regardless of whether there is other traffic. With this paradigm the point of the bike lane, even the oft-lauded BL-to-the-left-of-the-RTOL, is moot. In short, the entire BL concept is based on the premise that "off the side" should be the cyclist's primary riding position. This is contrary to what Franklin, Forester and most experienced and educated cyclists espouse.
But I have taken us way beyond the right hook avoidance issue, though it is all related. Here's the point, in a WOL, you're likely to not be riding in the secondary riding position in the first place, so there is no need to negotiate for a merge. That's the difference in the behavior. With a BL, the cyclist is much more likely to be in the secondary riding position (in the BL), and, thus needing to merge to establish himself in the primary riding position to avoid the hook problem.
But even if you are in the secondary riding position in a WOL, and need to merge left (to avoid hook vulnerability at an intersection, or whatever), generally, motorists are much more conducive to allowing you away from that edge, heck they're much more likely to even be aware of your presence, if there is no BL stripe separating the motorist from the cyclist.
So the reason to not add that stripe to the WOL: it discourages proper positioning, it discourages motorist awareness of cyclist presence, it inhibits motorist understanding of what you are doing when they are aware of you, and it makes it easier for them to deny your request to merge left back in the primary riding position. The well delineated right-of-way of a BL works against the cyclist. That's why we don't want the stripe.
Serge
sbhikes
I want to commend the original author (Brian Ratcliff) for boiling down what the essential difference is between WOLs and BLs. That was a really good essay.
I went to Nepal in 1999. In Kathmandu the predominant method was the second one, the "one-on-one negotiation" method. Traffic was AMAZING there. The roads were VERY narrow, like a single lane is here in the US. No sidewalks. The pedestrians, pedicabs, rickshaws, bicycles, cattle, mopeds, motorcycles, tuk-tuks, cars, buses and SUVs all shared the same space. Sometimes you'd get these knots where everybody had to move inch by inch until the knot was untangled. There was a great cacophony of honking in the streets. I never could understand what the point of all that honking was. So different from the US. It's merely another way of doing it, and it works very well. But then the cars there are in 4th gear by about 25mph, which is close to the max speed anybody ever goes.
Anyway, there are places where the one-on-one negotiation system works and places where the right-of-way system works and therein lies the problem I have with the fundamentalist bike lane haters. They cannot accept that conditions are different and different systems work in different places. Having my own lane where I can be assured that at least the attentive, non-drunk drivers won't be in is a blessing in a lot of places.
There are a lot of places in Santa Barbara that don't have bike lanes, or even WOLs because our roads are quite narrow. On those roads things are a lot more contentious, even dangerous, sometimes so dangerous that I've resorted to passing my turnoff to find a good place to make a U turn so I can take the turn as a right turn instead of left. The idea that you can do the negotiating system all the time fails to understand that there are conditions where the motorists won't negotiate with you at all.
Dchiefransom
Here is some information from the CA driver's handbook:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike
This handbook is available to any driver for free at any time. Yet I doubt that many drivers recall this page.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/images/dlhdbk/59bhop.gif
While I have no problem with bike lanes, the cyclist pictured in that handbook waited much too long to get over to the left turn lane. IMO
Brian Ratliff
Have you read John Franklin's Cyclecraft? You must. He explains all this much better than I do. First, he designates the center of the lane as the primary riding position for a cyclist, while riding along the edge of the lane, be it the left or the right, as the secondary riding position. As the terms imply, he advocates riding in the primary riding position most of the time, and only using a secondary riding position when appropriate and safe to allow faster traffic to pass. In particular, the primary riding position is advocated at all intersections, regardless of whether there is other traffic. With this paradigm the point of the bike lane, even the oft-lauded BL-to-the-left-of-the-RTOL, is moot. In short, the entire BL concept is based on the premise that "off the side" should be the cyclist's primary riding position. This is contrary to what Franklin, Forester and most experienced and educated cyclists espouse.
But I have taken us way beyond the right hook avoidance issue, though it is all related. Here's the point, in a WOL, you're likely to not be riding in the secondary riding position in the first place, so there is no need to negotiate for a merge. That's the difference in the behavior. With a BL, the cyclist is much more likely to be in the secondary riding position (in the BL), and, thus needing to merge to establish himself in the primary riding position to avoid the hook problem.
But even if you are in the secondary riding position in a WOL, and need to merge left (to avoid hook vulnerability at an intersection, or whatever), generally, motorists are much more conducive to allowing you away from that edge, heck they're much more likely to even be aware of your presence, if there is no BL stripe separating the motorist from the cyclist.
So the reason to not add that stripe to the WOL: it discourages proper positioning, it discourages motorist awareness of cyclist presence, it inhibits motorist understanding of what you are doing when they are aware of you, and it makes it easier for them to deny your request to merge left back in the primary riding position. The well delineated right-of-way of a BL works against the cyclist. That's why we don't want the stripe.
Serge
You raise some good points.
You talk about lane positioning. Now, before I get started, let me say that I ride where I need to and where it is most safe. Of all the information in Foresters book, his theories about where to ride on the road are the most useful. I agree that, from a purely theoretical point of view, the center of the lane is the best place to ride. You have all the advantages cars have. You are not hemed in, and you are not forced to share a lane. However, in practice, this is utterly impossible. Human factors enter in, such as road rage and irritation on the part of the moterists. So while this may be labeled the "primary position," in practice, you will spend very little time in the primary position unless you are going at the same speed as traffic. On my 20+ mile commute, I spend zero time at the same speed of cars, aside from intersections of course; we will get to that in a minute. So, when crusing, the average commuter cyclist is traveling to the right of traffic. Our traffic system is based on "slowest to the right;" we are the slowest most of the time, so we are to the right.
At intersections, of course, all the rules of lane positioning come to a head and you go where you need to go.
Your arguments seem to revolve around the assumption that by gaining the right of way in a bike lane, the cyclist is actually losing the right of way in the traffic lanes. Of course, while in the bike lane, the cyclist does not have a claim to right of way in any of the other traffic lanes, but if the cyclist chooses to leave the bike lane, they have to first yield right of way just like other road users, and once installed in their new lane, they now have right of way in that lane.
Your arguments also don't make the essential distinction between a bike lane facility and a WOL. In a WOL, you are part of a traffic lane, period. You are using the lane which cars are also using. This is fundamentally different than other situations where vehicles are sharing lanes. With a motercycle cutting between lanes, or cars sharing lanes at intersections, at least one of the vehicles is very slow moving or stopped. With a WOL or a standard width lane with no shoulder or bike lane, two traveling vehicles are sharing the lane. Both take a significant distance to stop if a conflict arises, and each are not always predictable because both are mobile.
A bike lane, on the other hand, is a completely separate lane, with its own, unique, right of way. It should be treated like any other traffic lane, it is simply has restricted use. This means that, to move out of the bike lane, the cyclist has to yield right of way to the occupants of the next lane over, just as a car does when it changes lanes. There is precedent for this type of restricted use lane. For instance, bus lanes and HOV lanes on freeways have this very same restricted use status.
My argument for putting in the white line to demark the bike lane is simply to establish a legal right of way for the cyclist who is crusing to the right of cars, where cyclists are most of the time. At intersections, or in fact, anywhere, the cyclist can change lanes and have right of way rights in other lanes, but the bike lane acknowledges the fact that we are slower than cars most of the time. The bike lane can, therefore, be considered a separate lane of traffic which gives cyclists the right to travel without holding other road users up.
In practice, both bike lanes and WOL's work well. I talk about right hooks, but I have never really been the victim of one, though several have been threatened, both on bike lanes and on roads without bike lanes. WOL's work with our current road system primarily because a cyclist tends to ride them like they would a bike lane, and cars are made wary of the cyclist because of the fact that right of way is unclear. This is exactly how the one-on-one system of traffic negotiation I saw in Cambodia works. The reason it works is because nobody expects right of way to be given implicitly. This is also why it works to bike in regular sized lanes without bike lanes or shoulders.
With a bike lane, the cyclist is expected to stay put in the lane unless they yield right of way to the next lane over. The moterist is expecting the cyclist to stay in the bike lane, and the cyclist is expecting the moterist to stay in their lane. You can object, but in order to do so, you have to take on the whole philosophical issue of the one-on-one traffic system verses our current system based on right of way.
BR
Brian Ratliff
I want to commend the original author (Brian Ratcliff) for boiling down what the essential difference is between WOLs and BLs. That was a really good essay.
I went to Nepal in 1999. In Kathmandu the predominant method was the second one, the "one-on-one negotiation" method. Traffic was AMAZING there. The roads were VERY narrow, like a single lane is here in the US. No sidewalks. The pedestrians, pedicabs, rickshaws, bicycles, cattle, mopeds, motorcycles, tuk-tuks, cars, buses and SUVs all shared the same space. Sometimes you'd get these knots where everybody had to move inch by inch until the knot was untangled. There was a great cacophony of honking in the streets. I never could understand what the point of all that honking was. So different from the US. It's merely another way of doing it, and it works very well. But then the cars there are in 4th gear by about 25mph, which is close to the max speed anybody ever goes.
This is exactly what I saw in Cambodia. The funniest thing of all was noticing that the first part on a car to wear out seemed to be the horn!
LittleBigMan
Okay, too many people are bashing bike lanes and there are no good counter argument threads. I want to explore some of the philosophies behind our traffic system and try to deduce whether bike lanes or wide outside lanes (WOL's) are the best match for our roads.
Brian, you have answered your own question with these words:
"Dodging cars is not all that hard once one is used to it. We have an implicit agreement. I tell you when it is safe to pass and how much room to give me, and you just stay predicatable."
Brian Ratliff
Brian, you have answered your own question with these words:
"Dodging cars is not all that hard once one is used to it. We have an implicit agreement. I tell you when it is safe to pass and how much room to give me, and you just stay predicatable."
Yea, well... we all have to get by on what roads we are given.
BR
Hawkear
While I have no problem with bike lanes, the cyclist pictured in that handbook waited much too long to get over to the left turn lane. IMO
Ask a cop in California, and he'll tell you that the cyclist didn't wait long enough, and should have moved over at the limit line.
Daily Commute
According to the Oregon bike lane law and the CA bike lane laws, all the examples, especially the speed issue are permitted reasons to leave the bike lanes.
Now you may have to defend your reasons to some donut chomping traffic cop that has never left a cruiser... but that is a different issue. It was probably time for that officer to get a re-education anyway... meet him in court with a copy of the laws and pictures.
So, you're saying that if a bike lane slows me down by even 5 mph, cops will let me leave it? They will also let me weave in and out of it at every intersection (which, in most downtown areas, would mean I would never have to use the lane)? As to structural problems with bike lanes, the law clearly says they will be presumed safe if the local city council just passes a resolution saying so (and the court effectively removed even that requirement).
Maybe your cops are more enlightened than ours.
P.S. Brian, thanks for all of your posts on the subject. I disagree with a lot of them, but the civil way you argue makes you a class act (and a better advocate for your points).
Brian Ratliff
Daily Commute,
I have found in practice, yes, if the bike lane is impeding me in any way, then I can leave it. In downtown portland, we don't have as many bike lanes because of that very observation.
BR
noisebeam
Brian,
In theory it merging from right side of lane (i.e. where bike lane is) to middle or less far right of outside primary lane is the same between a WOL and BL. But in practice I find it much more difficult with a BL, not of course because I can't physically cross the line, but because drivers don't expect and more importantly don't want me to. I understand this could be solved with education, but frankly I am too cynical to expect that all drivers can be educated that cyclist will and should leave the BL. It is counter intuitive to non-cyclists and would be a public relations issue as well (i.e. city spend $X millions for BL and now they are spending $x thousands on advertisements saying that cyclists should not always use them)
I would be far less concerned with bike lanes all BL markings were kept at least 100yrds away from EVERY intersection unless the intersection has a right turn lane and the BL continues to its left.
Al
Helmet Head
While I have no problem with bike lanes, the cyclist pictured in that handbook waited much too long to get over to the left turn lane. IMO
This CA driver's manual handbook picture illustrates one of the primary disbenefits of bike lanes:
The rules governing the use of bike lanes are so complex that they are widely unknown and/or misunderstood, and, thus, are ineffective. The result is chaotic/anarchistic interaction between motorists and cyclists when their paths must cross and a bike lane is involved.
See the Bike Lane Debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate) entry at Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org) for my initial attempt to list all the claimed benefits and disbenefits of bike lanes. Warning: it has a long ways to go...
Serge
Brian Ratliff
Al, you misunderstand. I am saying that the bike lane is a separate lane in and of its self. This means that to get to the adjacent lane, you have to merge with it. As the cyclist, you don't have right of way, so you have to wait until you have a gap to merge. Contrary to your experience, I have never had any issues with merging into a traffic lane, as long as I give enough space between myself and the car coming up behind.
It is easier with a WOL because the right of way is unclear, so all parties are cautious. While this may be good for now, my position is that it is unsustainable for large numbers of cyclists, so it is a stop-gap measure.
I fully agree that, as the situation stands in the present, a WOL makes sense. I am not an evangelical about bike lanes. It makes sense because a driver on an average trip interacts with only one or two bicyclists at most. When the driver on an average trip interacts with 10 or 20 cyclists, then we start to have issues with right of way. We can solve that confusion with WOL's by making up some special rules, which is what we essentially have now, about which many people think that the general population doesn't know about and doesn't heed, but with bike lanes, the rules are already in place. We just have to inform people that they apply to bicyclists as well as to cars.
BR
genec
So, you're saying that if a bike lane slows me down by even 5 mph, cops will let me leave it? They will also let me weave in and out of it at every intersection (which, in most downtown areas, would mean I would never have to use the lane)? As to structural problems with bike lanes, the law clearly says they will be presumed safe if the local city council just passes a resolution saying so (and the court effectively removed even that requirement).
Maybe your cops are more enlightened than ours.
P.S. Brian, thanks for all of your posts on the subject. I disagree with a lot of them, but the civil way you argue makes you a class act (and a better advocate for your points).
No, I am saying that if you are moving at the speed of other traffic, you do not have to use a bikelane. Further, "downtown areas" with typical speeds of 25MPH should not have bike lanes. This of course gets back to the issue that bikelanes that you see are not the same as bike lanes that are in Portland, or San Diego, neither are the laws the same.
Working to define better bikelanes and their application, and the laws that govern cyclists would seem be a fine goal. Currently, there appear to be two diametrically opposed groups, those that want some form of bike lane, and those that oppose any bike lane.
I believe that somewhere in the middle, exists the ideal. Some bikelanes should not exist, others offer a very suitable refuge for cyclists in otherwise stressful situations; some bikelanes are so poorly designed as to be dangerous, others offer a very viable suitable means for cyclists to be a part of the traffic pattern.
genec
Al, you misunderstand. I am saying that the bike lane is a separate lane in and of its self. This means that to get to the adjacent lane, you have to merge with it. As the cyclist, you don't have right of way, so you have to wait until you have a gap to merge. Contrary to your experience, I have never had any issues with merging into a traffic lane, as long as I give enough space between myself and the car coming up behind.
It is easier with a WOL because the right of way is unclear, so all parties are cautious. While this may be good for now, my position is that it is unsustainable for large numbers of cyclists, so it is a stop-gap measure.
I fully agree that, as the situation stands in the present, a WOL makes sense. I am not an evangelical about bike lanes. It makes sense because a driver on an average trip interacts with only one or two bicyclists at most. When the driver on an average trip interacts with 10 or 20 cyclists, then we start to have issues with right of way. We can solve that confusion with WOL's by making up some special rules, which is what we essentially have now, about which many people think that the general population doesn't know about and doesn't heed, but with bike lanes, the rules are already in place. We just have to inform people that they apply to bicyclists as well as to cars.
BR
Very well stated Brian.
You have deduced that the current BL in some locations are of an older style, and that the changing motorist traffic situation will most likely demand some sort of consessions to cyclists... with this in mind, improvements to BL should be a worthy goal, along with improvements in both the laws and the understanding of the laws by all road users and enforcers.
noisebeam
Al, you misunderstand. I am saying that the bike lane is a separate lane in and of its self. This means that to get to the adjacent lane, you have to merge with it. As the cyclist, you don't have right of way, so you have to wait until you have a gap to merge. Contrary to your experience, I have never had any issues with merging into a traffic lane, as long as I give enough space between myself and the car coming up behind.
BR
I don't know if there is complete misunderstanding. Maybe more different situations. When I need to merge from a BL I acknowledge that I need to ask for and get right of way. But I ask and ask, but no one wants to give it - so I remain stuck in BL with left arm sticking out. Traffic is too dense to find a gap without asking. Somehow with a WOL with the same density traffic I am able to request and get a motorist to slow down, very often the first turn of the head does it and the arm signal is a mere courtesy, maybe because I am already further out into the lane well before I need to make the merge left? I know this doesn't make intuitive sense, but it is what I have experienced - maybe it is something to do with the mentality of 'my lane' vs. 'your lane' instead of 'shared lane' - with the shared wide lane there is certainly some unknown to the driver to where I may be, with a BL (right or not) it is 'clear' to most drivers that I should be in my place and am doing something wrong by leaving 'my place' - especially when 'my place' is clear and open all the way up to the intersection.
By the way I have never had a right hook, not even a close call - I attribute this primarily to how I position myself at intersections which is never in a bike lane if the (poorly designed) lane goes all the way to the intersection (very common here) and is almost always at the end of the line of traffic if traffic is stopped.
Al
noisebeam
You have deduced that the current BL in some locations are of an older style,
Around here there is a mix. When there is a dedicated right turn lane the BL always goes to its left, a fine design, one I have no problem with.
But whenever there is no right turn lane, the bike lane goes all the way to the intersection, but because these roads are 3 lanes in each direction, the right lane is by default the right turn lane (often 80% of cars turn right from it and straight going cars avoid it as they don't want to be delayed behind right turners) So it is a must that I leave the BL in these cases and line up behind car in the right turn lane - this can be difficult to negotiate which is why I want the bike lane line to end 100yrs before the intersection.
Also at every minor right turn (parking lot, small side road, etc.) that doesn't have a dedicated right turn lane the line for the BL ends just at the start of the intersection. Sometimes it is dashed paint 10yrds before the turn to indicate cars to merge into it, that is way to short. I would be better if the line ended 100yrd before every possible right turn.
Al
noisebeam
Another tidbit related to design.
When there is an intentionally designed WOL there is always a sign on the side of the road every 1/4mi or so that read "Share the Road" and shows a bike and an auto symbol on top of each other. I think this is great communication to drivers that bikes will be on the road.
When ever there is a bike lane there is a sign every 1/4mi or so that reads "Bike Lane / Bikes Only". This only tells drivers that there is a separate lane and not to worry about bikes in 'their' lane and also tells them never to turn into the bike lane, which is contrary to what they should be doing before a right turn.
It would be much better if when Bike Lane is present that there were still signs that read "Share the Road" because cyclist must still share the road to be safe.
Al
Helmet Head
It [merging left] is easier with a WOL because the right of way is unclear, so all parties are cautious. While this may be good for now, my position is that it is unsustainable for large numbers of cyclists, so it is a stop-gap measure.
My experience, which includes riding almost every Saturday with groups of riders of various sizes is quite the opposite. What's unsustainable is bike lanes with large numbers of cyclists. Despite all the problems caused by bike lanes, they are at least sometimes usable by solo cyclists, or a very small group. But the minute you have more than a handful of cyclists, bike lanes really become useless.
I reject your contention that WOLs are stop-gap measure only sustainable as long as cyclists remain a tiny minority of road users. You appear to be basing this on the assumption that cyclists must stay out of the way, and the more cyclists there are, the harder this will be without bike lanes. Your first mistake is to assume that cyclists must stay out of the way. Cyclists have the same rights to the roadway as do motorists. If we need to use up a full lane because of our numbers, so be it.
Serge
Helmet Head
You have deduced that the current BL in some locations are of an older style, and that the changing motorist traffic situation will most likely demand some sort of consessions to cyclists... with this in mind, improvements to BL should be a worthy goal, along with improvements in both the laws and the understanding of the laws by all road users and enforcers.
Gene, you are a master at crafting posts like this which seem like they're saying something important, but for the life of me I can't figure out what that might be.
What is an "older style" bike lane, and how does it compare to something else?
What is the "changing motorist traffic situation" that will "most likely" demand "some sort of consession [sic] to cyclists"?
"Improvements to BL should be a worthy goal" sounds as good as apple pie, but what does it mean?
Same with "improvements in laws". But how exactly would you improve the laws, in, say, CA? You seem to be oblivious to the inherent complexities in bike lane usage stemming from the very nature that motorists are prohibited from using them on the one hand, but cannot be in all too many circumstances on the other. Similarly, cyclists are encouraged to use them when "reasonable", but cannot be in all too many circumstances. Trying to put all that in code is necessarily complex, and unreasonable to expect road users and enforcement to keep it all straight. At least you don't show that you have any appreciation for these inherent complications...
Serge
Helmet Head
Around here there is a mix. When there is a dedicated right turn lane the BL always goes to its left, a fine design, one I have no problem with.
In the big scheme of things, which includes acting like a vehicle driver in order to be treated like a vehicle driver, I think cyclists are much better off taking their place in line with everyone else, splitting lanes like motorcyclists do to move up in the line only when necessary to not miss the next light cycle, and communicating with a smile and friendly wave to the motorist in front of whom we cut in. Ever since I started acting this way at lights, even ignoring the so-called "modern" bike lanes that are painted to the left of RTOL's, I have found that motorists' treatment of me has been consistently exemplary. Sitting off to the side in that segregated lane, on the other hand, fosters separationist mentality and treatment. I have a problem with that.
JamesV
I'm not going to argue from theory or philosophy... I ride Vehicularly, but when I find a designated bike lane around here in Houston, I use it, and I feel thankful that it's there.
My empirical observation is that funny psychological device of a paint strip creates a useful refuge for me, the cyclist, which frees me up from having to "inidividually negotiate" with every car I see in my rear-view mirror... which are HUNDREDS on my 25 mile commute to work.
Bike lanes are not perfect, and I still have to keep my guard up, but I'd rather have them than not.
I'm with you, kf5nd. Thanks for sharing this post because it elegantly summarizes how I feel about BL's. "Extreme no-BL VC" is a theoretical dogma. It may be achieveable some distant future day, but only when motorists are educated in and respect the VC concept. We're a long ways from there.
sggoodri
While WOL's encourage vehicles to move to the right when turning right, it is not required, and there will still be the problem of the driver misjudging the speed of the cyclist and right hooking him or her. In fact, you can say that all right hooks are caused by misjudgements of bicycle speed on the part of the driver. After all, presumably cars normally pass cyclists on the left, even in a WOL. The only difference now, is that, with a WOL, there is no right of way determination, so a cyclist who is right hooked in a WOL is SOL (sh** out of luck). With a bike lane, a right hook is clearly the fault of the driver intruding on the cyclist's right of way.
It's my interpretation of the traffic law that merging to the far right position on the roadway *is* required before turning right in those states that match the Uniform Vehicle Code:
11-601 Required position and method of turning
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn shall do so as follows: (a) Right turns - Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
A right-turning driver who passes but cuts across the path of a cyclist at an angle in the immediate vicinity of the junction is in violation of this requirement, because they did not approach the turn from the correct position. They should have merged right first, behind the cyclist.
If the driver merges laterally into the side of the cyclist, or too close in front, they are always guilty of failure to yield regardless of striping.
With a WOL, the automobile driver does not perceive any requirement to stay out of the right hand portion of the roadway, and the bicyclist who operates farther to the left in order to avoid a right hook is not marginalized or disenfranchised by markings elsewhere.
Now, I'll admit that I've been cycling in the middle of a 11' wide through lane and had a driver pass me in the left-hand lane and then turn right across a full width lane in a right-hook maneuver. Fortunately, I had a full 11' lane of pavement to use as I took evasive maneuvers. Had I been up against a gutter when the driver did that from a closer distance, i.e. if I were in a narrow bike lane, I would not have fared so well. And, I've had far fewer right-hook events since I started cycling farther from the curb when approaching intersections, not to mention the fact that I don't pass on the right regardless of space being available for it. This is why I think that intersections where the rightmost lane is a through lane are bad places for bike lane striping.
-Steve Goodridge
Helmet Head
It may be achieveable some distant future day, but only when motorists are educated in and respect the VC concept.
I swear, motorists are educated in and respect the "VC concept" today.
When you act like a vehicle driver they KNOW what to expect - the behavior of a vehicle driver - and they treat you accordingly: like a vehicle driver.
No education of motorists is required! They already know how vehicle drivers act! That's the beauty of VC!
It might be hard to believe, and I would never believe it myself, until I experienced it for myself after I started riding vehicularly consistently (which is very different from dabbling in it here and there).
Until you experience that yourself, it is unlikely that you will be able to appreciate the "Extreme no-BL VC" perspective.
Serge
noisebeam
.... Ever since I started acting this way at lights, even ignoring the so-called "modern" bike lanes that are painted to the left of RTOL's, I have found that motorists' treatment of me has been consistently exemplary. Sitting off to the side in that segregated lane, on the other hand, fosters separationist mentality and treatment. I have a problem with that.
I ride so I am as safe as possible, not to make any 'political' points if you will. I find that in many cases being in the BL left of a RTOL is no more hazardous than being in the regular lane to the left of a RTOL. So I stay in the BL in this case. But this type of BL offers me no benefit either over a WOTL to left of the RTOL.
However there is one (actually quite common) case where being in the BL to the left of a RTOL that is problematic. This when there is a right turn immediately after an intersection, most often a gas station on the corner. There is a very high risk of a right hook as cars do not expect you to be as fast across an intersection, so they turn blindly accross the BL, even if they say you in the BL to their right before the light turned green. In these cases I do stay out of the BL.
Al
Helmet Head
This is why I think that intersections where the rightmost lane is a through lane are bad places for bike lane striping.
Yet what is usually done in these situations is that the bike lane stripe continues, though dashed, all the way to the intersection.
So, you BLapologists (Bike Lane apologists), what is a "good BL design" at an intersection like this, other than no bike lane? Hmm, I like that. The only good bike lane design is no bike lane....
Serge
Helmet Head
I ride so I am as safe as possible, not to make any 'political' points if you will.
I'm not after "political" points when I position myself vehicularly at intersections... I'm after awareness and respect points.
Sitting off to the side in a segregationary bike lane reduces motorist awareness of my presence, and reduces the respect I get from them. I find taking my place in line, and proceeding with everyone else when the light turns green, pulling aside when safe and appropriate (exactly where that is varies from intertersection to intersection, and from situation to situation), is also the safest way to go.