Bike lanes

[Brian Ratliff]

The right-of-way belongs to me, not the passing driver.

Not really. If a car is starting to initiate a pass in a WOL and you, all of the sudden, wish to center yourself in the lane without giving the car enough space to react, then who is at fault? 10 to 1 says that the police officer will determine that you were at fault for the collision.

BR

[noisebeam]

Serge - I wanted your thoughts on this. I have posted about these dense high speed roads and the hazard they create due to very narrow lanes and agressive passing by motorists using the adjacent lane.

This past Friday for a 1/2 miles stretch of this road, all but one lane was closed for street repair. Of course I rode in the center of the remaining lane and traffic backed up behind me for that stretch. I found this a pleasant experience as I did not feel bad for backing up traffic and did not find it hazardous because no one was agressively trying to pass me, we all happily shared the road. Only after the road opened back up to several lanes did the unpleasant experience start again - where I am riding in the center of outside lane and traffic backs up behind me and faster traffic is on our left and the agressive passing and jocking for position within feet, sometimes inches, of me starts again. That is what I find unpleasant, the close clearance agressive passing, high reving engines and squealing brakes become the pattern. I do not classify this as abuse as it is not aimed at me, it is the normal reaction and traffic flow of a dense fast flow of vehicles trying to pass a single slow vehicle, but the rapid speed changes, split decisions, fast timing and speed differential in my opinion is what creates the elevated danger and risk for incident.

Al

[genec]

That's attitude is reasonable and understandable in a society where cyclists themselves ride as if they are second class citizens.

It's easy to beat up on those who ask for it.

Stand up for your rights, or lose them.

And just who is going to enforce those rights? Cops that think the roads belong to cars, judges that think dead cyclists are just due to reckless driving?

Just what do you suggest? Oh yeah... human speed bumps. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=95202&highlight=human+speed+bumps)

[Helmet Head]

If there is no bike lane and I'm in a regular lane, regardless of the width or my position in the lane, why on earth am I expected to keep and eye on and cede right of way to the traffic behind me?

The right-of-way belongs to me, not the passing driver.

But when you pull off to the side of the lane, you are ceding the right-of-way in the remainder of the lane, up to an implicit/invisible bike lane in which you are riding. I think the lack of an explicit segregation stripe is a small price to pay for the power and flexibility of the implicit lane, the boundaries for which the cyclist controls. If you want the entire lane, just ride in the center; if you feel it's safe and reasonable to cede the right-of-way in the left part of the lane, move to the right. If you need to prepare for a left, merge left, then merge to the left, ceding the right part of the lane for those behind you to pass, while you negotiate to get into the next lane, etc.



None of you anti-bike lane people are getting the point made by Brian Ratcliff ... Which is that there are two systems of traffic--the right-of-way system and the negotiated free-for-all system like you see a lot in third world countries.

Diane, you must have skimmed by posts #220-223 in this thread. When you get a few minutes to go back and read them carefully, you'll find that I not only got Brian's point, but was impressed by it, gave it a lot of thought, and addressed it. In a nutshell (using his terminology, though I think it is inaccurate and misleading) our system has the best of both worlds: main lanes are governed by the "right-of-way" system, while right-of-way within the lanes between vehicles that can safely fit side-by-side within the lane is "free for all" (I prefer to think of it as "negotiated right-of-way"). I think we should focus on teaching "negotiated right-of-way" in all lanes, instead of taking us in the wrong direction with explicit right of way demarcated for cyclists in some situations. But I go into this more in #220. Please read it and let me know what you think.

Speaking of Brian, where is the response I was expecting to see by now?



What exactly did you share with who?
...
I don't know who this Wayne guy is or why he is responding to something I wrote not on this forum, but anyway...
You can google for "Wayne Pein" (http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=%22wayne+pein%22&btnG=Search) to find stuff that Wayne has written. He participates on a VC advocacy list (as do I), and I posted your description of the AZ roadway on that list. That was his response, so I shared it here.

I think you have good points and wanted to get a perspective from some other VC advocates. I figured since this is a public forum I didn't need explicit permission to share it with others.

Serge

[noisebeam]

You can google for "Wayne Pein" (http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=%22wayne+pein%22&btnG=Search) to find stuff that Wayne has written. He participates on a VC advocacy list (as do I), and I posted your description of the AZ roadway on that list. That was his response, so I shared it here.

I think you have good points and wanted to get a perspective from some other VC advocates. I figured since this is a public forum I didn't need explicit permission to share it with others.

Serge
OK, I'm not that concerned that you shared publicly posted material, but I think it would be more appropriate/polite for Wayne to come here and share his thoughts directly instead of this oneway backdoor communication.
I'd still like to know what exactly you shared (I've written much about AZ roads) so I would better understand the specific context of the response.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Speaking of Brian, where is the response I was expecting to see by now?
Serge

Here I am...

First, I don't agree it's the "one-on-one" system vs. "right-of-way". Just because there is no stripe separating the cyclist from the other vehicle in a shared wide lane does not mean there is no right-of-way. The person being passed has the right-of-way, if no one is being passed, then the lane shouldn't be shared. It's not about right-of-way vs. no right-of-way. It's about explicit vs. implicit lanes.

Second, I don't have to deal with the "whole philosophical issue of the [implicitly-laned] traffic system verses our current system based on [explicit lanes]" because we're talking about implicit lanes only within one very limited scope. Implicit lane systems do work to some extent, and that extent is plenty for the needs of cyclists and motorists sharing wide lanes. In fact, I can't think of a single problem that occurs with implicit lanes shared within a wide lane that is solved by a bike lane stripe. Can you?

The advantage of using implicit lanes to the cyclist are abundant...
The cyclist determines the lane boundaries. If you position yourself 4 feet from the curb, motorists are going to give you about 4 feet on your left. It's amazing how that works in general. I say in general because there is one major exception, which is when your position leaves just enough room to your left for them to squeeze in. If it's unsafe for you to give them more room by moving further right, then you should be further left and using the full lane. In any case, the cyclist determines the lane boundaries.
The pavement of the implicit lane is swept clean by traffic when cyclists are not present - the explicit bike lane just collects debris.
Because the cyclist controls the boundaries of his implicit lane (in which he has the right-of-way, by the way, relative to faster traffic behind him that will be passing him), he can move the lane as needed. This is particularly useful when negotiating a merge left to preparare for a left turn, to position properly when going straight through an intersection, or to pass someone or an obstacle up ahead, etc.
One less slippery-when-wet obstacle (the 6" wide solid white BL stripe) to worry about.

Serge

This is a genuinely new argument, the first I have heard from the VC/anti-bike lane crowd. The idea of an implicit bike lane is very different than the system which you are advocating, as near as I can tell, but perhaps more true to what actually happens when the average commuter cyclists uses a WOL.

The idea of negotiating with cars in a WOL is one philosphy, but it is not compatible with treating the WOL as an implicit bike lane because when you negotiate with cars, communication is happening. When you ride as if you are in an implicit bike lane, you ride with complete confidence that drivers will avoid the obsticle on the road, which is you. As I understand your arguements, this is exactly the argument which you use to oppose bike lanes. There is a reason John Forester does not argue a WOL is an implicit bike lane. You don't really get anywhere. Either it is a lane, and you get the same effect of a bike lane regardless of whether the line is painted or not, or there is no lane and you negotiate with traffic. The latter is what John Forester argues, and it is probably the stronger of the two arguements. You have argued yourself that you have to be in the "primary position" most of the time to keep true to VC principles. Since the primary position is in the middle of the lane, then there is no bike lane, implicit or otherwise. You have the "negotiate-as-you-go" type system.

You don't have to poo-poo the negotiate-as-you-go system. There are many respected people who take the position that the negotiate-as-you-go system is a better and safer system than the right of way system we have in place on our roads. Part of my arguement is that we have to decide for ourselves and for all cyclists who may use the roads which system we want to use and what the consequences are. It goes without saying that both systems work. Both are used and both are better for the average cyclist than a fast road without any sort of cycling facility. You will argue this point on the basis of your, personal, experience, but most of us here on Bike Forums, and certainly the people having this dicussion, are not your average cyclist. We have learned to deal with whatever roads we have, in whatever way works. In general, what works today is to negotiate with cars to keep our place on the road and to get where we want to go.

My arguement suggests that cyclists can be worked into the road system and be a legitiment part of traffic, with no special rules of our own. If we were to design the perfect road for a mix of cyclists and moterists, the cyclists would not have to negotiate every pass by a moterist. We would only have to negotiate when changing lanes. My arguement suggests that with a WOL, a special set of rules have to be applied to a cyclist to determine right of way in every instance of a conflict. With a bike lane, the rules are already set by the existing traffic right of way rules, and all we have to do is design the street to make these rules applicable and notify people that the rules apply to cyclists as well as cars.

Perhaps too, future roads can be a hybrid of many things. Perhaps at intersections, WOL's or the termination of bike lanes are in order, perhaps even the sharing of bike lanes with cars. In sections of road which are long, fast, and don't have many intersections, bike lanes can be implimented as an expressway for bicycles. There are no catch-all solutions, but the implications for issues such as right of way and such have to be recognized and addressed.

The purpose for this arguement, on my side, at least, was not to propose that bike lanes were superior to WOL's in all instances. It is to illustrate the implications of a WOL road hold for the future of traffic integration. The arguement cannot only be seen as an increment from the status quo. Hopefully, we can assume that there will be many more cyclists in the future. Hopefully we can see laws changed to fully integrate bicyclists into traffic where they should be, and see drivers education changed to reflect the equal status for bicycles and to reflect the bicyclist's integration into traffic. For these to happen, we need to know what we want and what the consequences of what we ask for are with respect to the moterists. We cannot be blind to the inconvenience on the moterists part of having to slow to 15 or 20 mph, down from 55 or 65 as they round a corner. These are real issues for moterists, and ones which we have a stake in addressing.

BR

[jslopez]

just out of curiousity, assuming that there's actually a clear cut winner in this debate, has anyone figured out a way fo these ideas to be heard and implemented by the proper government agency?

[noisebeam]

just out of curiousity, assuming that there's actually a clear cut winner in this debate, has anyone figured out a way fo these ideas to be heard and implemented by the proper government agency?
This is actually the key, the most important - how are the ideas going to be consistenly and properly implemented.

I suspect part of the anti-BL sentiment is not only for the arguements presented, but due to the reality that there are so many cases of poorly implemented BLs (Yes I know that some will argue that any type of BL is a poor implementation, but for arguements sake lets call a bad implementation a BL that does worse even in the eyes of a pro-BL advocate) that on net it is far better to have no bike lanes than a mix of say some 'good' ones and some 'bad' ones. I have yet to ride on any city/suburban road for more than 1mi and not find at least one case of bad BL implementation somewhere on that 1mi stretch, often multiple times. I have many observations of BLs also in CA (bay area) and OR (portland area) and have seen many poor implementations there as well. Other very frustrating BL results include where they are (commonly) added to quiet 25mph streets.

Even with good intents and 'good' planning guidelines on the books, for some reason bad designs slip thru on initial design/construction, but also very often on re-construction efforts.

That to me is one of the benefits of a WOL, that it is very hard to screw up a WOL design.

Al

[Helmet Head]

This is a genuinely new argument, the first I have heard from the VC/anti-bike lane crowd.
No, it's the same argument, just using a different paradigm to explain the dynamics. Your cut-to-the-chase questions caused me to think it through a little deeper, or a little differently, and come up with the implicit bike lane paradigm.

By the way, have you ever seen a 30 foot wide newly paved road without lane stripes painted yet? Does it have 2 lanes, or 3? And where are they? The answer is: it depends. The drivers, depending on how they use it, create the implicit lanes. It's also like drivers create the implicit parking spots on dirt parking lots without any designated/demarcated spots.


The idea of an implicit bike lane is very different than the system which you are advocating, as near as I can tell, but perhaps more true to what actually happens when the average commuter cyclists uses a WOL.
I probably did not explain it very well if you think it's different (much less very different) from what I (or any other VC advocates) have been advocating. Yes it is what actually happens when the average commuter, or any any cyclist for that matter, uses a WOL. Whenever there is no explicit bike lane (BL), the cyclist is always in an implicit bike lane (IBL). The width of the IBL cannot be determined as objectively as can the width of a BL, but that's a small price to pay for all of the advantages of the IBL.

With respect to IBLs, the difference between the average cyclist and the vehicular cyclist is that the VC, whether he thinks of it in these terms or not, knows how to control the dimensions of the IBL. As I wrote before, if you ride about a foot from the edge of the road, then your IBL extends about a foot to your left... if you ride about 3 feet from the edge, then it extends about 3 feet to your left. This effect works to an extent - limited by situations where there is enough room for a vehicle to fit in the lane with some encroachment in the IBL - in that case the IBL is curtailed early, and, if the encroachment is far enough to be unsafe for the cyclist, the VC knows to ride even further left in these cases, thus extending the IBL to be the entire lane.


The idea of negotiating with cars in a WOL is one philosphy, but it is not compatible with treating the WOL as an implicit bike lane because when you negotiate with cars, communication is happening.
They are one and the same, though I reject the notion that when you are riding in a WOL you are negotiating with cars. When you're driving 25mph in your car, and a 60mph speeder comes up from behind, are you "negotiating" with him? Holding your ground is "negotiating"? Since when? More on this below.


When you ride as if you are in an implicit bike lane, you ride with complete confidence that drivers will avoid the obsticle on the road, which is you. As I understand your arguements, this is exactly the argument which you use to oppose bike lanes.
First, a VC never rides in a real BL or in an IBL with "complete confidence" that drivers will avoid the obstacle on the road. First, there is all the cross traffic. But there is a difference between an IBL and a real BL: the division is not as clear in the IBL. That's a good thing, because it requires passing motorists to pay attention and usually err on the side of caution. When there is a stripe, an explicit BL, motorists typically ignore the presence of the cyclist in the BL, and do not adjust speed or distance from cyclist as they pass.

My argument against (real) bike lanes is multi-faceted. The main thrust has to do with intersections (including minor ones). But I have argued that even on long stretches of intersection-free roadway, the ignored cyclist in the shoulder or BL is more prone to inadverdent drift collisions than is the more-likely-to-be-noticed cyclist in the IBL.

The IBL does not give the VC the same kind of "complete confidence" and false sense of security that a real BL gives to the average cyclist. That's why the VC adjusts his position to expand the dimension of the IBL at intersections and their approaches.


There is a reason John Forester does not argue a WOL is an implicit bike lane.
Haven't you ever heard VC advocates argue that "every lane is a bike lane"? What do you think that means? Of course JF does not argue that a WOL is an IBL. Nor do I. But it can be, just as any other lane, or any portion of any lane, can be, depending on how it's used by the cyclist.

In fact, just to further illustrate the meaning of an IBL, a real BL can be split into two IBLs, which is what happens any time one cyclist passes another in a BL.


You don't really get anywhere. Either it is a lane, and you get the same effect of a bike lane regardless of whether the line is painted or not, or there is no lane and you negotiate with traffic.
No, you don't get the same effects with an IBL as you do with a real BL. First, the boundaries of an IBL are vague, dynamic, and within the control of the cyclist. The boundaries of a real BL are clear and static.


The latter is what John Forester argues, and it is probably the stronger of the two arguements.
The only time Forester uses "negotiate" or "negotiation" is when the cyclist is merging left across multiple lanes in preparation for a left turn. You make it sound like just riding along the right side of a WOL is "negotiation". That's not what Forester or any other VC advocate with which I'm familiar argues. It does sound like something Hurst would say, in one of his mischaracterizations of VC.


You have argued yourself that you have to be in the "primary position" most of the time to keep true to VC principles. Since the primary position is in the middle of the lane, then there is no bike lane, implicit or otherwise. You have the "negotiate-as-you-go" type system.
Now I know I was not clear. Whereever the cyclist is riding is where the IBL is, and the boundaries of the IBL vary depending on where he is riding. Oh, I see, you think I said that in any WOL there is an IBL along the right edge. No! In particular, when there is no cyclist present, there is no IBL at all. When the cyclist is present, so is the IBL, its location and boundaries dependent on the lane position of the cyclist. If he's riding along the right side, ceding the ROW in the rest of the lane to any passing faster traffic, then the IBL is along the right edge. But if he is in the primary riding position, the IBL is comprised of the entire lane.


You don't have to poo-poo the negotiate-as-you-go system.
I'm not. I'm saying what you are calling the "the negotiate-as-you-go system" is the IBL system, although I don't like the connotation of "negotiate as you go" implying that you have to negotiate constantly. If you are riding in a straight line in the center of a lane, or along the right edge, or along the left edge, then there is no need to negotiate at all. You have the ROW for where you are riding and where you are going, so long as you don't run into someone who is in front of you, or until you get to an intersection, whichever comes first. There is no negotiation as you go, as long as you are going straight and not coming into conflict with anyone else's path (at any intersection).


There are many respected people who take the position that the negotiate-as-you-go system is a better and safer system than the right of way system we have in place on our roads.
Yes, I think you're talking about traffic calming, getting rid of signals, signs, etc. I've read a bit about that, and, like I said, I think it works to an extent, and that extent is plenty for what is needed in order to safely and reasonably share WOLs by standard-width and narrow-width vehicles.


Part of my arguement is that we have to decide for ourselves and for all cyclists who may use the roads which system we want to use and what the consequences are. It goes without saying that both systems work. Both are used and both are better for the average cyclist than a fast road without any sort of cycling facility. You will argue this point on the basis of your, personal, experience, but most of us here on Bike Forums, and certainly the people having this dicussion, are not your average cyclist. We have learned to deal with whatever roads we have, in whatever way works. In general, what works today is to negotiate with cars to keep our place on the road and to get where we want to go.
I'm bothered by the way you use the word negotiate here - as if negotiation is constant. I only need to negotiate when someone else has the ROW, and I want it. I certainly do not "negotiate with [drivers] to keep [my] place on the road." Typically, I only negotiate to get where I want to go a few times, if any, on any commute or ride. Most of the time I already have the ROW and just use it. But I can't emphasize how much trouble I have with your depiction of riding in a WOL as having to "negotiate with cars to keep our place on the road and to get where we want to go. "


My arguement suggests that cyclists can be worked into the road system and be a legitiment part of traffic, with no special rules of our own.
Exactly. No special rules are needed since we can follow the existing vehicular rules of the road (ROTR). Or, for that matter, we can follow the pedestrian ROTR. We can even follow both, as long as we yield the ROW appropriately when we transition between the two.


If we were to design the perfect road for a mix of cyclists and moterists, the cyclists would not have to negotiate every pass by a moterist.
Presto, we're done. Every lane that is wide enough to be safely shared by a bicycle and another vehicle at the same time already meets this requirement: cyclists do not have to ever negotiate any pass by any motorist in such a lane. In lanes that are not wide enough to share, VCs use the full lane, and faster traffic has to negotiate for the ROW in the adjacent or oncoming lane in order to pass, but the cyclist has no negotiation to do since he already has the ROW (though he may choose to move right to accomodate the passing by the motorist, if it's safe and reasonable to do so).


We would only have to negotiate when changing lanes.
Again, we're already there. This is exactly what VC is all about!


My arguement suggests that with a WOL, a special set of rules have to be applied to a cyclist to determine right of way in every instance of a conflict.
What special rules? If there is a collision, the one doing the passing is at fault, period, unless the cyclist swerved out of his ROW (moved out of the IBL) into the ROW of the passing motorist. Even though the boundary, or probably because it is, passing motorists keep a safer margin from cyclists in IBL than from cyclists riding in real BLs.


With a bike lane, the rules are already set by the existing traffic right of way rules, and all we have to do is design the street to make these rules applicable and notify people that the rules apply to cyclists as well as cars.
The rules governing BLs conflict with existing traffic ROW rules. The rules governing BLs are "special", confusing, conflicting, and practically impossible to follow, understand and enforce.


Perhaps too, future roads can be a hybrid of many things. Perhaps at intersections, WOL's or the termination of bike lanes are in order, perhaps even the sharing of bike lanes with cars. In sections of road which are long, fast, and don't have many intersections, bike lanes can be implimented as an expressway for bicycles. There are no catch-all solutions, but the implications for issues such as right of way and such have to be recognized and addressed.
On long intersectionless stretches of roadway, the problems with bike lanes are limited to:

Debris accumulation.
Misguidance for when cyclists are traveling the same speed as traffic.
Encouraging cyclists to passing on the right side when traffic is slow or stopped.
Decreasing conspicuity of cyclists (on the theory that motorists focus on what is in their lane, not on what is off to the side outside of their lane) and, thus, increasing their vulernability to inadverdent drift collisions.
Generally behaving not as vehicle driver decreases likelihood of being treated as a vehicle driver.


That list is sufficiently weighty for me to oppose bike lanes on even long intersectionless stretches of roadway and instead advocate for IBLs on WOLs, or even (when it's a multi-lane roadway) for a narrow outside lane where the cyclist can ride down the center.


The purpose for this arguement, on my side, at least, was not to propose that bike lanes were superior to WOL's in all instances. It is to illustrate the implications of a WOL road hold for the future of traffic integration. The arguement cannot only be seen as an increment from the status quo.
Yes, here you are again alluding to the assertion that the current system is not sustainable with a significantly higher percentage of cyclists integrated into traffic. I challenged this in an earlier post, and it stands unaddressed.


Hopefully, we can assume that there will be many more cyclists in the future.
Agreed!


Hopefully we can see laws changed to fully integrate bicyclists into traffic where they should be, and see drivers education changed to reflect the equal status for bicycles and to reflect the bicyclist's integration into traffic.
That's fine, but I think we're already there. At least I have yet to encounter a driver who treats me otherwise. But even if there was, I'd have to discount the significance of that 1 in 10,000 exception as a statistical anomaly.


We cannot be blind to the inconvenience on the moterists part of having to slow to 15 or 20 mph, down from 55 or 65 as they round a corner.
Which is why we advocate for WOLs where cyclists can ride and adjust their IBLs as necessary...

Serge

[Helmet Head]

just out of curiousity, assuming that there's actually a clear cut winner in this debate, has anyone figured out a way fo these ideas to be heard and implemented by the proper government agency?
Cycling advocacy groups have a surprising amount of political power with government agencies, considering the relatively small (numbers and economically) size of their constituency (cyclists and the bicycle industry).

Cycling advocacy groups consist of cyclists.

That's why I believe in getting more cyclists to see the problems with bike lanes (not just the problems with specific bike lanes, but all bike lanes), and the advantages of vehicular cycling, and get these VC groups to advocate for that.

The clincher is that VC advocacy needs very little from government. Stopping bike lane building will be hard enough, because in the end bike lanes are facilities for motorists, not for cyclists. They make it possible for motorists to pass cyclists as if they are not on the road. That's good for motorists, but bad for cyclists.

[noisebeam]

The clincher is that VC advocacy needs very little from government. Stopping bike lane building will be hard enough, because in the end bike lanes are facilities for motorists, not for cyclists. They make it possible for motorists to pass cyclists as if they are not on the road. That's good for motorists, but bad for cyclists.
I disagree. I believe that even with no WOLs or BLs, that cycle awareness thru street signs and instruction to cyclist and motorists are very helpful. For example the 'share the road' signs that show an icon of a bicycle and an auto on top of each other (i.e. not indicating that cycle is to the right side of road) are very helpful as reminders to drivers that cyclist will be sharing the lane and I believe correct the mindset that cyclists should be on the sidewalk when there are narrow lanes, reducing motorist agression. There are other cycle signs I think are important in specific areas, but I wont go into them. Other facilities that must be cycle friendly include signal light sensors including sensitivity to cyclists when in a VC position and also markings to show where the sensors are after repaving.

Finally I think there should be PSA that give attention to cyclists rights - only because there is such a low regard for cyclists on the road these days. These are no different than having goverment pay for speed awareness, drinking/driving and red light running awareness and road construction.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Yes, I agree some signage and PSAs might be in order, but these would be tiny efforts compared to the huge (and hugely expensive) facilities that most cycling advocacy groups are focused on promoting these days.

Bike paths are over $1,000,000 per mile now (and that's after ROW has been established). Bike lane costs are considerably cheaper when no road widening is required, but leaving the WOL as is is always cheaper...

[jslopez]

I think money should also be spent on awareness programs, like public safety adverstisments and stronger information education by your local DMV. If bike related questions came out in the written driving tests (not from the US so I wouldn't know if it's already present) I wonder how many people would actually get those questions right.

edit: OOPS call me mr. redundant.

[genec]

Yes, I agree some signage and PSAs might be in order, but these would be tiny efforts compared to the huge (and hugely expensive) facilities that most cycling advocacy groups are focused on promoting these days.

Bike paths are over $1,000,000 per mile now (and that's after ROW has been established). Bike lane costs are considerably cheaper when no road widening is required, but leaving the WOL as is is always cheaper...

OK but let's give that some perspective...

The following data on vehicle travel and traffic congestion levels and costs in the Los Angeles area is based on the latest information from the Texas Transportation Institute and the Federal Highway Administration.

Population 12.6 million
Daily vehicle miles of travel 277 million
Additional percentage in time it takes to complete a vehicle trip during rush hour (Travel Rate Index) Trip taken during rush hour takes 55 percent longer than same trip during non-rush hour
National Travel Rate Index ranking 1
Average cost of congestion per person in cost of lost time and extra fuel used $1,000
Total regional cost of congestion $12.5 billion
Average annual additional hours spent driving per person because of congestion 56
Total hours of delay in region annually because of congestion 711 million
Percentage of rush-hour travel on freeways which is congested 95
Percentage of rush-hour travel on major, non-freeway roads which is congested 80

http://www.transportationca.org/research/5-7-01/fact_sheet.shtml

So getting 1000 people off of the freeways onto bike paths is enough to pay for one mile of bike path.

A mile of freeway through a rural area (the lowest possible cost) is about 8 million dollars in Michigan.

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-14011-28076--F,00.html

So bike paths cost about 1/8th the amount of a freeway? This is assuming that 1 million is an accurate quote for a bike path mile... I find it difficult to believe as the road beds and crash barriers for a freeway alone would add far more cost, and then there are the issues of annual maintenance...

But if it were possible to get 1 million people off of the freeways, that could equate to 1000 miles of bike paths built just by the savings of cost of fuel and lost time...

I donno, but when you throw that number of 1 million dollars per mile (for a bike path), I think it really helps to see what freeways cost and what alternative transportation could do.

[Helmet Head]

So getting 1000 people off of the freeways onto bike paths is enough to pay for one mile of bike path.
1000 people?

I doubt you could find one hundred people total who regularly use any one of the paths in San Diego on their commutes.

[genec]

1000 people?

I doubt you could find one hundred people total who regularly use any one of the paths in San Diego on their commutes.

Uh, one hundred would be easy... I see the same 20 or so people each day on my little training ride... That's just one path, in one hour... and late, at that. They are heading east... I do a round trip.

Getting the politicians to make the bike paths connect to more areas is the real issue.

You build it and they will come.

I also knew at least 5 riders at my last place of employment that used canyons vice streets... The cyclists are out there, but they just don't want to use the streets.

[Helmet Head]

Getting the politicians to make the bike paths connect to more areas is the real issue.
The real issue is that it is not feasible/plausible to build paths where necessary to connect any more areas.

Consider just one project: bike/ped bridge over Lake Hodges just west of I-15. What a nightmare, connecting that bridge to the surrounding roads It won't be pretty...

If contributing your ideas to these types of projects interests you, I hope you'll consider joining the SDCBC. This is a project we talked about last week.

[genec]

The real issue is that it is not feasible/plausible to build paths where necessary to connect any more areas.

Consider just one project: bike/ped bridge over Lake Hodges just west of I-15. What a nightmare, connecting that bridge to the surrounding roads It won't be pretty...

If contributing your ideas to these types of projects interests you, I hope you'll consider joining the SDCBC. This is a project we talked about last week.

Have they considered simply building a bridge, like the one in the link below:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=lake+hodges&ll=32.953652,-117.142464&sll=33.250000,-117.627509&spn=0.005547,0.007457&sspn=0.031555,0.054974&t=k&hl=en

For those of you not sure what you are looking at... the lower "road" of the three centered in this pic is a bike path, that parallels a freeway.

Sure it will have to be longer... But it is not as if the engineering is that difficult.

[sbhikes]

Diane, you must have skimmed by posts #220-223 in this thread.

Yes, I must have. This thread started out as an interesting post by Brian and ended up some kind of sticky amalgomation of threads so I missed a lot.

I can't understand why all of a sudden you are touting the idea of an implicit bike lane. What's the difference? Whether this bike lane is marked with a stripe or not you are still locked onto a small space near the door zone where automobiles believe you should be with no guarantee that cars won't drift into you and the same confusion as you approach an intersection, as well as the same visibility problems you have described that you get when you ride off to the side, and the same guidance of inexperienced bike riders into the right-hook zone and no guarantee that cops won't harrass you if you leave this implicit space to make a lateral change more than 200 feet from an intersection.

To me an implicit bike lane is the same as an explicit one. The major difference is there is less veering of traffic around me with explicit bike lanes. I find it a little safer when people stay the course like they do when there's a white stripe rather than have some of them pass me too widely in an unsafe manner.

[LittleBigMan]

The right of way belongs to me, not the passing driver.

Not really. If a car is starting to initiate a pass in a WOL and you, all of the sudden, wish to center yourself in the lane without giving the car enough space to react, then who is at fault?
Yes, I do have right of way. The traffic code says I do.

But if a driver is passing me at the legal minimum of three feet, I would forfeit my right-of-way by suddenly swerving out in front of him/her.

Is there anything in the traffic code that requires drivers to pass a cyclist at a minimum of three feet when the cyclist is in a bike lane? And, would I forfeit my right-of-way by leaving the bike lane? If I left a bike lane to avoid debris or rough pavement, and a car hit me, would I be forced to prove my case in court, rather than the driver prove his case?

[genec]

Yes, I do have right of way. The traffic code says I do.

But if a driver is passing me at the legal minimum of three feet, I would forfeit my right-of-way by suddenly swerving out in front of him/her.

Is there anything in the traffic code that requires drivers to pass a cyclist at a minimum of three feet when the cyclist is in a bike lane? And, would I forfeit my right-of-way by leaving the bike lane? If I left a bike lane to avoid debris or rough pavement, and a car hit me, would I be forced to prove my case in court, rather than the driver prove his case?

There is nothing in our local State code that says anything about 3 feet... period. This is part of the whole discussion issue regarding bike lanes. The lanes that are loved in one part of the country may not even exist in another. The laws that allow one to leave BL may restrict a cyclist in another area... We are not talking apples and apples here... Driving habits, weather, and the actual implementation of the different rules can make or break the actual cycling experience. Even the paint for the BL can differ... some states use blue paint...

So making blanket statements about BL is a pretty dangerous affair...

3 feet... LOL. I wish.

[noisebeam]

Picture.. taken yesterday at 5:45 pm

http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/i1/IMG_8531w.jpg

I know, I know, it would be a pleasure to ride on. Actually I've ridden it hundreds of times and my complaints are not that it is terrible, etc - in fact I've had some great rides down this road. But my point is that it could be made more pleasant and perhaps safer if it had a WOL.

Keep in mind...
-Traffic flow you see here when photo is taken is 45-50mph (posted limit is 45mph)
-There are very few gaps in traffic. Note line of cars goes all the way to the freeway intersection in the far distance. Note the green light at the x-street you see is rarely triggered by x-traffic as it is a minor street.
-1 of every 100 or so cyclists uses this road. Cars do not expect nor want cyclist on this road. Note there are no pedestrians during late rush hour. The sidewalk is terrible to ride on.

Actually it came to me yesterday riding home why I like a WOL vs. NOL. (as I have a chance to ride on both types). It has to do with control. With a NOL you must ride in the center and you can never give the opportunity for cars to pass you in the shared lane, instead they all must squeeze by you on your left which creates agression. However with a WOL you are in control. You decide when it is safe to share the lane let a car pass in the same lane. This is key as it gives you some control over traffic flow. Remember, just because it is a WOL does not mean you can not ride in the center of it, just like a narrow lane. Instead you have more options.

And finally another example yesterday of agressive drivers. At one point further up this road it changes from 3 lanes to 2. I prepare in advance and as I ride from the center, to the left of the right lane. I stick out arm assertively during this merge, I give a steely look over my shoulder to the driver of the car behind to my left in the next lane. I keep my arm out and keep the look as I merge into the next lane. So, yesterday the driver did slow down per my request and let me merge, but just as I was merging the car (a white Mustang) directly behind me (who also had to merge) hit the accerator hard and slipped into the gap that the slowing car had created, this mustang brushed me in the process as we were both merging to the same spot. It was not pleasant and would glady like to know, Serge, what I could have done differently. As far as I know it was a by the book VC maneuver.

Al

[sggoodri]

Here in NC, the minimum legal passing distance between any two vehicles is two feet. But, the law also requires drivers to operate safely. Passing too close for safety under the given circumstances violates the law.

Some states have adopted 3-foot minimum distances for passing cyclists.

On my commute to work today, mostly in narrow lanes of arterial roads, most of the drivers changed lanes completely to pass me. The average passing distance is over seven feet. One passed on the line at a distance of about three feet. On one stretch of road where the road widens to a 13' lane, I ride the right edge of the lane, and drivers sometimes pass me as close as 3'. On other roads where the lanes are 16' wide, I never get passed at closer than 5 feet. But on those quiet residential roads where the city has striped bike lanes and the bike lanes are full of debris, forcing me to ride to the left of the stripe, I regularly get passed at less than three feet. I think the drivers are trying to "teach me a lesson" for not using the debris lane where I "officially" belong thanks to the bike stencil.

[Brian Ratliff]

Yes, I do have right of way. The traffic code says I do.

But if a driver is passing me at the legal minimum of three feet, I would forfeit my right-of-way by suddenly swerving out in front of him/her.

Is there anything in the traffic code that requires drivers to pass a cyclist at a minimum of three feet when the cyclist is in a bike lane? And, would I forfeit my right-of-way by leaving the bike lane? If I left a bike lane to avoid debris or rough pavement, and a car hit me, would I be forced to prove my case in court, rather than the driver prove his case?

And if you did not know the car was coming up behind you...? Does this mean that you are responsible for traffic coming up from behind? This is my point in a nut shell. You are sharing a lane so nobody should be expecting anyone to be anywhere, unless you cede that the cyclist is expected to be to the right.

BR

[Helmet Head]

Have they considered simply building a bridge, like the one in the link below:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=lake+hodges&ll=32.953652,-117.142464&sll=33.250000,-117.627509&spn=0.005547,0.007457&sspn=0.031555,0.054974&t=k&hl=en

For those of you not sure what you are looking at... the lower "road" of the three centered in this pic is a bike path, that parallels a freeway.

Sure it will have to be longer... But it is not as if the engineering is that difficult.

Yes, Gene, exactly such a bridge is what I meant by, "bike/ped bridge over Lake Hodges just west of I-15. ".

All the plans and funding are in place for the bridge. The issues remaining are getting cyclists to/from the bridge on both ends in a reasonable fashion from the relevant roads on both ends. There are also some issues with respect to the material they can use for the path itself. For environmental nature-preserving reasons sounds like they're going for "soil stabilizers" rather than regular materials.

Serge

[Helmet Head]

Yes, I must have. This thread started out as an interesting post by Brian and ended up some kind of sticky amalgomation of threads so I missed a lot.

I can't understand why all of a sudden you are touting the idea of an implicit bike lane. What's the difference? Whether this bike lane is marked with a stripe or not you are still locked onto a small space near the door zone where automobiles believe you should be with no guarantee that cars won't drift into you and the same confusion as you approach an intersection, as well as the same visibility problems you have described that you get when you ride off to the side, and the same guidance of inexperienced bike riders into the right-hook zone and no guarantee that cops won't harrass you if you leave this implicit space to make a lateral change more than 200 feet from an intersection.

To me an implicit bike lane is the same as an explicit one. The major difference is there is less veering of traffic around me with explicit bike lanes. I find it a little safer when people stay the course like they do when there's a white stripe rather than have some of them pass me too widely in an unsafe manner.

Diane, writing takes a lot more time than reading. I have spent hours developing the concept of implicit bike lanes, and, I believe have explained it fairly clearly in posts 220-223 and #259. You obviously have not read these posts, or, if you did, you only skimmed them because your comments indicate you don't get what I mean by implicit bike lanes. Perhaps I repeated myself enough in #259 that you can get away with reading just it, but you have to go back to 220-223 as well to really get it. In any case, I am not going to repeat all that stuff again, in the offchance that you might read it this time. We're talking 5 posts (albeit a couple of lengthy ones). It will probably take you 10 minutes or so to read all of it, and will hopefully cause at least 10 minutes more of thinking. If you do just that, then I would be pleased to discuss the concept further with you.

Thanks,
Serge

[genec]

Here in NC, the minimum legal passing distance between any two vehicles is two feet. But, the law also requires drivers to operate safely. Passing too close for safety under the given circumstances violates the law.

Some states have adopted 3-foot minimum distances for passing cyclists.

On my commute to work today, mostly in narrow lanes of arterial roads, most of the drivers changed lanes completely to pass me. The average passing distance is over seven feet. One passed on the line at a distance of about three feet. On one stretch of road where the road widens to a 13' lane, I ride the right edge of the lane, and drivers sometimes pass me as close as 3'. On other roads where the lanes are 16' wide, I never get passed at closer than 5 feet. But on those quiet residential roads where the city has striped bike lanes and the bike lanes are full of debris, forcing me to ride to the left of the stripe, I regularly get passed at less than three feet. I think the drivers are trying to "teach me a lesson" for not using the debris lane where I "officially" belong thanks to the bike stencil.


Some states have no required minimum... This is as much of part of the problem as the variance in bike lanes and the rules governing cyclists across the states... some states give cyclists full rights to the roads, others have mandatory side path rules. And above all, I doubt that most motorists know that cyclists have rights to the roads... I suspect most motorists just think you are an obstruction.

[genec]

Yes, Gene, exactly such a bridge is what I meant by, "bike/ped bridge over Lake Hodges just west of I-15. ".

All the plans and funding are in place for the bridge. The issues remaining are getting cyclists to/from the bridge on both ends in a reasonable fashion from the relevant roads on both ends. There are also some issues with respect to the material they can use for the path itself. For environmental nature-preserving reasons sounds like they're going for "soil stabilizers" rather than regular materials.

Serge

Regarding "resonable fashion" may I suggest on and off ramp like structures... something that allows a cyclist to merge into the existing roads vice bluntly end up in the middle of the block. I know, I know... just join in and express my views...

BTW as an aside, last night there were only 7 other cyclists on the bike path between 6:30 and 7:30... guess the gloomy clouds chased them away.

[noisebeam]

Some states have no required minimum... This is as much of part of the problem as the variance in bike lanes and the rules governing cyclists across the states... some states give cyclists full rights to the roads, others have mandatory side path rules. And above all, I doubt that most motorists know that cyclists have rights to the roads... I suspect most motorists just think you are an obstruction.
Arizona Bicycle Passing Law:
"28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties

A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.

B. If a person violates this section and the violation results in a collision causing:

• 1. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.

• 2. Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.

C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable."

[genec]

Arizona Bicycle Passing Law:
"28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties

A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.

B. If a person violates this section and the violation results in a collision causing:

• 1. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.

• 2. Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.

C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable."


<sarcasm on> I "love" subsection C. <sarcasm off> so if you are making a left turn and out of the bike lane... you are open season for injury. Sheesh.

[noisebeam]

<sarcasm on> I "love" subsection C. <sarcasm off> so if you are making a left turn and out of the bike lane... you are open season for injury. Sheesh.
Exactly. I knew you'd love the way this law was written.

I think it could also be viewed as giving drivers fuel for the anger of cyclist not riding in BL when one is present i.e. 'well the law says its not as bad to hit them, so I'll show 'em and pass em close.' (not that there are any drivers that actually know this law ;)

Al

[Helmet Head]

There is nothing in our local State code that says anything about 3 feet... period. This is part of the whole discussion issue regarding bike lanes. The lanes that are loved in one part of the country may not even exist in another. The laws that allow one to leave BL may restrict a cyclist in another area... We are not talking apples and apples here... Driving habits, weather, and the actual implementation of the different rules can make or break the actual cycling experience. Even the paint for the BL can differ... some states use blue paint...

So making blanket statements about BL is a pretty dangerous affair...

3 feet... LOL. I wish.

The 3 feet is not explicitly stated, but is implied by the words, "at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken ... bicycle".



21750 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21750.htm). The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and exceptions hereinafter stated.

In jurisdictions where this distance is codified and there is no stripe dividing the implicit lanes between the two vehicles it is usually at least 3 feet (1 meter). Robert Hurst writes that at least in some places it's as much as 5 feet.


Now, "at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken" is often taken to be less than 3 feet when an explicit lane stripe separates the two vehicles. This is generally true, as long as the vehicle being passed is not a two-wheeled balanced vehicle (ie., a motorcycle or a bicycle). Yet most motorists treat the bike lane stripe just like any other lane stripe (can you blame them?) - believing that as long as they are in their lane and the cyclist is in his lane that constitutes a "safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken", regardless how close they are to each other. I've had police cars buzz past me with less than one foot clearance while I was riding near the BL stripe to avoid BL debris.

The incidence of close/fast passes is much, much lower in WOLs, for at least two reasons:


Cyclists can generally safely move closer to the roadway edge to accomodate safe passing in a WOL than in a BL because of the absense of the BL debris collection effect in WOLs.
In a WOL the cyclist can employ subtle lane positioning techniques to influence the behavior of passing traffic that is not possible to accomplish in a BL because of the stupefying effect of the BL stripe.


The BL stripe has a stupefying effect on motorists that is by definition not in effect when the BL stripe is absent. While riding inside a BL - the cyclist's position has little to no effect on passing traffic; while riding in an implicit BL of a WOL, subtle lateral lane position adjustments of just a few inches have immediate and significant effects on the speed and passing distance of passing traffic.

In short, passing a cyclist just a foot away does not seem safe to most motorists, unless there is a stripe separating them.

Serge

[Helmet Head]

Regarding "resonable fashion" may I suggest on and off ramp like structures... something that allows a cyclist to merge into the existing roads vice bluntly end up in the middle of the block. I know, I know... just join in and express my views...

BTW as an aside, last night there were only 7 other cyclists on the bike path between 6:30 and 7:30... guess the gloomy clouds chased them away.
See, that's why I need you on the SDCBC board. This is exactly what I suggested, and basically got laughed at. Not that the other cycling advocates did not also want that, but I guess they're more realistic in terms of what is possible with funding.

My main concern is that right now we have a reasonable route - along the freeway. Caltrans allows it on this section because there is no reasonable alternative. Once the bridge is built, it is expected that Caltrans will close the freeway bridge to cyclist access because there will be a "reasonable" alternative, no matter how unreasonable it really is.

By the way, wouldn't you like to see an update of that satellite photo of Lake Hodges - all filled now?

Serge

[genec]

By the way, wouldn't you like to see an update of that satellite photo of Lake Hodges - all filled now?

Serge

Not sure I follow you there... are you refering to the link I posted? That is of the new bike path along 56 and a bridge going over a canyon.

I am not sure it is even shown on any local bike maps yet. Parts of it are pretty nice... going along the freeway and under bridges to avoid the freeway off ramps. In the western section (Carmel Valley) it is a "bike hiway" and has actual offramps to surface streets (there is even a sign posted at one intersection). Further east it "degrades" into a standard bike path and the cyclists are just bluntly delivered to the street and controlled with cross "walk" signals.

At the far west end, the bike path is almost finished... if it will ever be... there are no curb cuts where it meets the north bound El Camino Real, south bound El Camino Real has curb cuts but the surface of the "ramp" is far less than desirable.

Speaking of the surface... this bike path is already starting to degrade... in several areas the asphalt is cracking and roots are bulging the surface. In a few more years it will be a weed strewn foregone conclusion... The minimal recent rains piled sand up in a couple areas...

This sadly will go the way of most bike paths in the area, and will soon be forgotten and unused and unusable.

But for the moment... 9 feet wide of almost new asphalt... auto free... nearly a true "bike hiway."

Oh well. :(

[genec]

By the way, wouldn't you like to see an update of that satellite photo of Lake Hodges - all filled now?

Serge

Oh... I went back and looked and see what I think you mean... all the sat image shows is brown where the lake should be. :o

I had not even thought of it. :)

[Helmet Head]

Al (noisebeam), I'm not ignoring your posts, just delaying responding because they pose challenging questions.

Serge

[LittleBigMan]

And if you did not know the car was coming up behind you...? Does this mean that you are responsible for traffic coming up from behind? This is my point in a nut shell. You are sharing a lane so nobody should be expecting anyone to be anywhere, unless you cede that the cyclist is expected to be to the right.
Passing vehicles must yield right-of-way in the same way that turning vehicles or vehicles changing lanes are expected to. Once you surrender your right-of-way by initiating a pass, you can be charged at-fault for any collision that ensues.

[Helmet Head]

Passing vehicles must yield right-of-way in the same way that turning vehicles or vehicles changing lanes are expected to. Once you surrender your right-of-way by initiating a pass, you can be charged at-fault for any collision that ensues.
I don't think the rules are quite that cut and dried (in terms of the passer having all the responsibility) for within lane passing as they are for overtaking on 2-lane highways where the passer temporarily moves into the adjacent oncoming lane in order to pass.

I believe within lane passing is much more akin to one vehicle in one lane passing another vehicle in an adjacent same-direction lane, except that the lane separation is implicit.

In the case of two explicit same-direction lanes, each driver has the right-of-way in his own lane. If the one being passed (the passee) swerves out of his lane into the path of the passing driver in the adjacent lane, the collision is the fault of the swerving passee, not the passer.

I believe the situation is, and should be, the same when a driver passes another vehicle within the same lane. Essentially, if the passee has moved over enough to cede the right-of-way in the remainder of the lane, then the passer has just as much ROW as he passes the passee as he would in in the case of two explicit same-direction lanes. In particular, if the passee swerves and moves into the path of the passer, the collision is the fault of the passee, not the passer.

In theory, the bike lane proponents have a point: in the case of within-lane passing there is a gray area that does not exist with bike lanes: with bike lanes, if the cyclist swerves out of the bike lane, it's the cyclist's fault; if he is hit within the bike lane, it's the motorist's fault. With implicit bike lanes, it's not as clear: if the cyclist swerves 3 feet, is that going beyond his ROW and into the ROW he had previously ceded to the passer? 2 feet? 3 feet? Some states make this clear by specifying a set distance for this: 3 feet, 5 feet. Other states say it must be "safe and reasonable", or words to that effect (in other words, about 1 meter, or 3 feet). This is the old argument that with bike lanes liability can be more clearly assigned in case of collision (I've listed it as a claimed benefit of bike lanes in the "bike lane debate" entry at Wikipedia). But, in practice, it's a very minor point in favor of explicitly demarcated bike lanes because motorist-passing-cyclist collisions constitute such a tiny percentage of car-bike collisions, bike lane or not, particularly in daylight hours. Further, the ability to assign clear liability absolves the motorist of any responsibility as long as he stays within his lane, even if the cyclist he is passing is riding on or immediately next to the bike lane stripe (in order to avoid bike lane debris), and the motorist is driving near the right side of his lane, which can lead to a collision that is technically the cyclist's fault, because although his wheels are within the bike lane, his elbow, shoulder and handlebars are protruding into the motorist's ROW within the motorist's lane, not to mention the case where the cyclist is riding in the center of the bike lane, but has to suddenly swerve 2 feet left to avoid an obstacle, and thus protrude into the motorist's lane suddenly and is hit.

This is why we argue that cyclists utilizing implicit bike lanes with WOLs are ultimately better off than cyclists riding within explicit bike lanes: in the case of implicit BLs motorists are required, and tend, to pass with a wider safety margin than in the case of explicit bike lanes. The importance of being able to easily assign liability in the case of a motorist-passing-cyclist collision is a moot point if the collision can be avoided in the first place.

Serge

[noisebeam]

Al (noisebeam), I'm not ignoring your posts, just delaying responding because they pose challenging questions.

Serge
Thanks. I eagerly await your thoughts. Perhaps before you provide your opinion if it is taking a bit to work out, can you summarize what the specific challenge as you see it is?
Al

[Helmet Head]

Al, I just need to take the time to visualize the situation, and think about it. Haven't done it yet. Hopefully later today.

[Brian Ratliff]

I don't think the rules are quite that cut and dried (in terms of the passer having all the responsibility) for within lane passing as they are for overtaking on 2-lane highways where the passer temporarily moves into the adjacent oncoming lane in order to pass.

I believe within lane passing is much more akin to one vehicle in one lane passing another vehicle in an adjacent same-direction lane, except that the lane separation is implicit.

In the case of two explicit same-direction lanes, each driver has the right-of-way in his own lane. If the one being passed (the passee) swerves out of his lane into the path of the passing driver in the adjacent lane, the collision is the fault of the swerving passee, not the passer.

I believe the situation is, and should be, the same when a driver passes another vehicle within the same lane. Essentially, if the passee has moved over enough to cede the right-of-way in the remainder of the lane, then the passer has just as much ROW as he passes the passee as he would in in the case of two explicit same-direction lanes. In particular, if the passee swerves and moves into the path of the passer, the collision is the fault of the passee, not the passer.

In theory, the bike lane proponents have a point: in the case of within-lane passing there is a gray area that does not exist with bike lanes: with bike lanes, if the cyclist swerves out of the bike lane, it's the cyclist's fault; if he is hit within the bike lane, it's the motorist's fault. With implicit bike lanes, it's not as clear: if the cyclist swerves 3 feet, is that going beyond his ROW and into the ROW he had previously ceded to the passer? 2 feet? 3 feet? Some states make this clear by specifying a set distance for this: 3 feet, 5 feet. Other states say it must be "safe and reasonable", or words to that effect (in other words, about 1 meter, or 3 feet). This is the old argument that with bike lanes liability can be more clearly assigned in case of collision (I've listed it as a claimed benefit of bike lanes in the "bike lane debate" entry at Wikipedia). But, in practice, it's a very minor point in favor of explicitly demarcated bike lanes because motorist-passing-cyclist collisions constitute such a tiny percentage of car-bike collisions, bike lane or not, particularly in daylight hours. Further, the ability to assign clear liability absolves the motorist of any responsibility as long as he stays within his lane, even if the cyclist he is passing is riding on or immediately next to the bike lane stripe (in order to avoid bike lane debris), and the motorist is driving near the right side of his lane, which can lead to a collision that is technically the cyclist's fault, because although his wheels are within the bike lane, his elbow, shoulder and handlebars are protruding into the motorist's ROW within the motorist's lane, not to mention the case where the cyclist is riding in the center of the bike lane, but has to suddenly swerve 2 feet left to avoid an obstacle, and thus protrude into the motorist's lane suddenly and is hit.

This is why we argue that cyclists utilizing implicit bike lanes with WOLs are ultimately better off than cyclists riding within explicit bike lanes: in the case of implicit BLs motorists are required, and tend, to pass with a wider safety margin than in the case of explicit bike lanes. The importance of being able to easily assign liability in the case of a motorist-passing-cyclist collision is a moot point if the collision can be avoided in the first place.

Serge


By now, you probably have noticed I have bowed out of the conversation somewhat. It is simply taking up too much of my time and thought process which would better be put to use on what I am being payed to do.

One last word though. I think the argument in terms of implicit bike lanes, now that you have fleshed it out a bit, probably makes the best of both worlds. If the laws were set up so WOL's were ridden by cyclists like implicit bike lanes, than the WOL concept makes sense. This happens in practice anyway, I suspect, so maybe the change in law is not even that important.

With an implicit lane, it really is like there is a bubble around the cyclist, which is actually what it is like today on any road. The only problems I see are when moterists violate this bubble (or implicit bike lane) and how to enforce the implicit bike lane. As I have seen to date, it is very difficult to enforce something that is relative, and this makes a good argument in favor of bike lanes. An explicit bike lane is not relative, so enforcement of an intrusion into the cyclist's space is easier, but then the cyclist is expected to be somewhere. This "expectation of road position" is what VC cyclists object to.

The point I was making about bike lanes, is that with a bike lane and in an environment where the cyclist has absolute right of way in a regular car lane, we have the best of all worlds. There is nothing relative to enforce. The bike lane acts as an express lane, both to keep cyclists out of the way of faster traffic, and to give cyclists a place which is somewhat sheltered. The effects of cars passing too close are really irrelevant when everybody has a unique space where they have absolute right of way because everything is more predictable. The same changes in law which requires a safe passing distance can be changed to create a safe passing speed differential. For example, the law which requires a 3 foot difference can be changed in favor of a law which requires a less than 15 mph passing speed. I, for one, would rather be passed at 1.5 feet with a 15 mph speed differential than be passed at 3 feet with a 40 mph speed differential.

I believe that this issue has passed out of the realm of philosophy and is in need of good science to resolve the practical issues. The best we have at the moment are a few studies of dubius quality (any time there are only a few studies, they are of dubius quality by definition, because there is very little to compare to) and individual experience and perceptions. We need better and we should be asking for better. Perhaps a college can add traffic engineering as a major course of study and this subject could be subjected to academic study.

In any case, I regard this as a very good discussion because it got people away from ranting on and on with tired arguments and forced people to really think about the issue. In a good debate, there is no winner, just a clearer understanding of the issue on all sides.

BR

[noisebeam]

For example, the law which requires a 3 foot difference can be changed in favor of a law which requires a less than 15 mph passing speed. I, for one, would rather be passed at 1.5 feet with a 15 mph speed differential than be passed at 3 feet with a 40 mph speed differential.
BR
I wouldn't. I have no problem being passed with 30-35mph (most commonly 25-30) differential with 3-4ft which is typical when I ride to the right in a WOL on 50mph streets. But I do not like close passing even with a 5mph differential. One of the most discomforting passes was a truck that passed me at near the same speed (both of us about 25mph), but with only 1ft to spare.

I don't think the law change woudl be good, requireing cars to slow to 30-40mph everytime they passed cyclist in a WOL.

Al

[genec]

I wouldn't. I have no problem being passed with 30-35mph (most commonly 25-30) differential with 3-4ft which is typical when I ride to the right in a WOL on 50mph streets. But I do not like close passing even with a 5mph differential. One of the most discomforting passes was a truck that passed me at near the same speed (both of us about 25mph), but with only 1ft to spare.

I don't think the law change woudl be good, requireing cars to slow to 30-40mph everytime they passed cyclist in a WOL.

Al

Ya know I was thinking it was speed differential too... but riding on interstates never bothered me (other than the constant noise) as long as the cars were over a good 6 feet or so. Distance IS usually the issue... close passing at high speeds is the worst thing. It is the whole "intrusion into the bubble" thing that makes us uncomfortable.

[Brian Ratliff]

First off, I was referring to bike lanes. In a WOL, this is a different matter as there are no clear reference points on the road between the cyclist and a car. In a WOL, there is less certainty as to the position of both cyclist and car, so a larger passing distance is appropriate.

Second, I'll bet this is all perception. When I get passed at slow speeds, it is the length of time spent passing which bugs me a bit, but I don't feel threatened. We are so used to being passed in less than 2 seconds, that we are uncomfortable when there is a car next to us for more than 5 seconds. I get this feeling when driving on the interstate and someone is beside me for too long as well.

I can probably get used to being passed at slow speed. In any case, the car is probably not an inch away. In close passes, they are probably well over a foot away unless they are trying to malicious simply because a driver does not have a precise reference point to determine where the right side of the car is on the road.

BR

[Helmet Head]

There is the speed differential between the car and the bicycle, but there is also the speed differential between the speed of the car before/after the pass, and the speed of the car during the pass.

When you hear/feel/sense/see-in-mirror a car slow down as it approaches from the rear, even just a tad, that's a sign that the driver is aware of your presence, and intends on passing with care. It's typical to experience that when riding an implicit bike lane inside a WOL, but very rare when riding in an explicitly striped bike lane.

Serge

[noisebeam]

When you hear/feel/sense/see-in-mirror a car slow down as it approaches from the rear, even just a tad, that's a sign that the driver is aware of your presence, and intends on passing with care. It's typical to experience that when riding an implicit bike lane inside a WOL, but very rare when riding in an explicitly striped bike lane.

Serge
I rarely see or sense cars from rear slowing. Firstly I can't spend that much time looking in rear view mirror as there is a constant stream of cars. Secondly it is impossible for me to be able to tell if a car is slowing from say 50mph to 45mph, they just come and go so fast. Thirdly, I don't think most cars do slow when passing me, whether I am in WOL or BL.

But most importantly, I dont' care if they slow. All I care about is that they give safe passing clearance which is most likely if I share a WOL by riding in the IBL (compared to using BL or riding in center of narrow lane)

Al

[Helmet Head]

I guess I can hear when they slow down - the pitch of the sound made by the tires changes or something. Again, it's not so much that they are slowing down, as the implication of why they are slowing: because they saw me and intend on passing with care, including with safe passing clearance). Slowing before they pass is confirmed by the unmistakable sound of acceleration after they pass...


I don't think most cars do slow when passing me, whether I am in WOL or BL.
This is one of those areas where subtle adjustments in lane position can make a huge difference. When riding in a WOL, if they're not slowing as they pass, sometimes just moving left a few inches will fix that. When riding with explicit BLs, I usually have to get to the left of the stripe to get them to notice me, which they indicate by slowing down and, more importantly, by adjusting their lane position to pass with a safer passing distance. I sometimes alternate between riding just inside and just outside of the BL stripe to get the desired behavior out of passing motorists.

Serge

[noisebeam]

I guess I can hear when they slow down
Great, but I can't. I just hear a zimmmm, zimmm, zimmm, as cars pass. Actually I can usuall know alot about what type of car it is before it passes, but never hear any change in speed.


This is one of those areas where subtle adjustments in lane position can make a huge difference. When riding in a WOL, if they're not slowing as they pass, sometimes just moving left a few inches will fix that. When riding with explicit BLs, I usually have to get to the left of the stripe to get them to notice me, which they indicate by slowing down and, more importantly, by adjusting their lane position to pass with a safer passing distance. I sometimes alternate between riding just inside and just outside of the BL stripe to get the desired behavior out of passing motorists.

Serge
Sure I know the theory and know how important several inches can make in many circumstances, but in practice I find cars don't slow unless they need to to merge out their lane to pass me. You are taking this a bit far in my opinion.

Anyway, I'd rather you put your energies into my challenging questions you need to visualize instead of this. ;)

Al

[genec]

While I have not noticed whether a motorist slowed or not in heavy traffic situations, I have noticed different positions in the lane... In fact, I suspect this is more prevalent than actually slowing, as drivers constantly adjust their position in the road and the hand-eye cordination is better than hand-foot.

Normally motorists center their vehicles in the lane between the stripes... however, recently (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=103398) I have seen a lot more motorists giving me more room whether I am in a BL or not... I see this as the motorists pass well over to the left in their lane. As they pass I see their position.

A slowing action, while safe for me, could induce an accident by making that point a "pinch" point in busy traffic... whereas a slight adjustment in motorists lane position is safe for both me and the motorist involved.

[noisebeam]

While I have not noticed whether a motorist slowed or not in heavy traffic situations, I have noticed different positions in the lane... In fact, I suspect this is more prevalent than actually slowing, as drivers constantly adjust their position in the road and the hand-eye cordination is better than hand-foot.

Normally motorists center their vehicles in the lane between the stripes... however, recently (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=103398) I have seen a lot more motorists giving me more room whether I am in a BL or not... I see this as the motorists pass well over to the left in their lane. As they pass I see their position.

A slowing action, while safe for me, could induce an accident by making that point a "pinch" point in busy traffic... whereas a slight adjustment in motorists lane position is safe for both me and the motorist involved.
Gene - you said it far better than I could have.
Al