Advocacy & Safety - Bike lanes

Again, to be clear. When I disregard the "disbenefits" arguments, I see these as technical and educational problems not fundamental problems which disqualify any type of bike lane, now or in the future. (I'm an engineer; perhaps I see everything as an engineering problem.)

Perhaps this is the fundamental disconnect in this discussion.

BR

This is not about cyclists interacting or not interacting with cars. We interact with cars if we use the road, end of story. It is about clarity regarding the rules of the road and not using ambiguity and confusion as a tool for cyclists to have a place on the road.
Brian, there is no more confusion and ambiguity between motorists and a vehicular cyclist than there is between motorists and any other vehicle driver.

I don't employ false slow signals and swerving motions to create confusion and uncertainty, I do that when riding in a bike lane so that motorists are forced to take notice of my presence and not pass me (close and fast) as if I'm not even there. Further, I never have to resort to such tactics when sharing a wide lane side-by-side with motorists - the problem of not being noticed by same-direction passing motorists is peculiar to bike lane cycling. Well, it can happen in a WOL to curb-huggers who are asking to be ignored, but not to a vehicular cyclist riding about 3 feet to the right of faster traffic within the lane.

The bike lane stripe delineates the ROW border between cyclists and motorists precisely: the stripe itself. This makes it clear that the motorist has the ROW to travel just one inch to the left of the stripe, even if the cyclist is traveling just one inch to the right of the stripe. I contend that precise delineation of ROW between cyclists in a very narrow debris-filled lane and same direction motorist traffic is not good for the cyclists.

In a WOL the ROW border is less clear, true, but that does not mean it is totally unclear, or confusing. It just means its location must be estimated, and since it's only logical to err on the side of caution, requires motorists to make sure they leave about 3 feet between them and the cyclist. This is perfectly natural and common sense, and I don't think even qualifies as inconveniencing the motorist. Motorists need to be aware of other traffic on the road, including slower same traffic they are passing. Cyclists riding vehicularly in a wide lane (which means off to the side if traveling slower than other traffic) are no more an inconvenience than any other traffic is.

A narrow lane is a different story, and has nothing to do with the bike lane issue. If motorist inconvenience is an issue on a road with a narrow outside lane (NOL), then lane widening is the solution, which may require roadway widening. That creates the WOL.

Serge

Again, to be clear. When I disregard the "disbenefits" arguments, I see these as technical and educational problems not fundamental problems which disqualify any type of bike lane, now or in the future. (I'm an engineer; perhaps I see everything as an engineering problem.)

Perhaps this is the fundamental disconnect in this discussion.

BR

Are you talking about the entire list of disbenefits?


Bike lanes make cycling in traffic less safe.

There is no evidence that bike lanes make cycling in traffic less safe.

The existing vehicular roadway system serves as an excellent infrastructure for cycling transportation and recreation. Thus bike lanes serve no useful purpose for cyclists, and their very existence wrongly implies that somehow the roadway system is lacking for cyclists, and a segregated system is needed, for which bike lanes are a step in the right direction.

While the existing vehicular roadway system may serve experienced Lycra clad vehicular cyclists well enough, most "folk" and less experienced cyclists, and even many (arguably the vast majority of) experienced cyclists, are intimidated or made uncomfortable by a lot of traffic, and feel safer and more comfortable on these roads when riding in bike lanes. For them, the existing infrastructure is improved with bike lanes.

The vast majority of cyclists are unaware of the problems with bike lanes, much less that they cause more problems than they solve, so it's not surprising nor very relevant that they prefer bike lanes. The vast majority of cyclists are also unaware of, much less trained or educated in, the vehicular cycling skills and techniques that foster an attitude of freedom, independence, comfort and safety in busy traffic without bike lanes. If anything, bike lanes inhibit cyclists from learning vehicular cycling techniques and practices. The solution to all this is not more and more bike lanes, but more education and training and fewer and fewer bike lanes.


Right-of-way rules of the road are generally defined to be clear and unambiguous. This is imperative for smooth and safe vehicular flow. Bike lanes and the rules that govern them create ambiguous right-of-way situations, particularly at intersections. For example, when a motorist slows to prepare for a turn into a driveway, and a cyclist in a bike lane catches him and starts passing him on the inside of the turn, who has the right-of-way as the motorist turns? Is it the cyclist in the sacred bike lane, or is it the motorist? There is no analogous situation with regular traffic lanes because there the turner is always traveling in the lane closest to his turn.
Many jurisdictions solve this problem by requiring motorists to merge into bike lanes prior to turning, as long as they first yield to any cyclists who may be traveling in the bike lane.

The need to make special case law for this makes the point. While such a law may technically address this situation, how many drivers and cyclists know about it (not to mention law enforcement officers and judges)? The practice is not well understood largely because bike lanes are generally not treated like regular traffic lanes, and rules such as this are all non-intuitive special cases, leading to ambiguous ROW situations.
The static nature of bike lanes establishes that they are based on the premise that the correct/appropriate/safe lateral roadway position for a cyclist on a given roadway can usually if not always be determined and specified as one particular static position (usually off to the side). This premise is false. The correct/appropriate/safe lateral roadway position for a cyclist on a given roadway can rarely if ever be determined a priori and statically, but, instead, varies depending ever-changing factors and conditions, including but not limited to: speed and amount of traffic, speed of cyclist, cyclist's destination, obstructions, time of day, weather, etc. Bike lanes discourage cyclists from merging left sufficiently early when preparing for a left turn. Bike lanes legitimize feeling being "out there where I don't belong" whenever the cyclist has reason to be out there where he does belong.
The very existence of bike lanes inhibits novice cyclists from learning about the dynamic nature of proper vehicular cycling lane positioning for cyclists.
By making cyclists feel safer riding in bike lanes, and not actually making them any safer, bike lanes give cyclists a false sense of security.
Bike lanes inhibit left-turning cyclists (right-turning cyclists in England) from starting their merge sufficiently early.
Bike lanes can't be everywhere. In many cities, bike lanes already exist on all roadways where they can be reasonably accomodated. Cyclists must learn how to ride effectively on roadways without bike lanes, and the roadways with bike lanes delay this necessary process, especially if there are just enough roadways with bike lanes to allow the cyclist to get away with "submissive cycling" on the roads without.
Bike lanes make it more difficult for a cyclist to act like a vehicle driver, and thus, inhibit motorists from treating cyclists like vehicle drivers.
Bike lanes misguide cyclists and motorists at intersections. In particular, thru cyclists are encouraged to keep to the side, while right (left in left-side driving countries) turning motorists are encouraged to keep away from the side, thus setting up a conflict at the intersection.

This problem can be alleviated with signs that encourage right- (left-) turning motorists to merge into the bike lane before turning.
At best, these signs address only half the problem. Thru cyclists should merge away from the edge at intersections and their approaches, and bike lanes discourage this.
Because motorists tend to not drive in bike lanes, puncture-causing and crash-causing debris that is normally swept to the side by traffic collects in bike lanes.
Bike lanes allow motorists to be less concerned with cyclists, and, thus, more likely to be unaware of the presence of a cyclist, and, so, more likely to inadverdently drift into a cyclist.
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.
The bike lane is sometimes in the "door zone", the area that doors of parked cars will open into.

This is not a disbenefit of bike lanes per se, but a problem with certain poorly designed bike lanes that can be rectified by any number of mechanisms, including removing the bike lane, moving the bike lane stripe further away from the parked cars, eliminating onstreet parking, etc.
Motorists need to be trained to not open their doors without first checking to make sure that it's safe to do so, which they are required to do by law. A rear-view mirror sticker campaign (http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/sticker.htm) can be used to help accomplish this.

No matter how much training motorists get, some will forget to look. Riding in door zones is playing a form of Russian roulette. It is simply unsafe to rely on motorists remembering to check; the only reasonably safe behavior it to cycle completely outside of the door zone.
Bike lanes encourage motorists to expect cyclists to stay within the bike lane and thus to pass them at higher speeds and with less of a safety passing margin, which should be at least one meter (3 feet), than when there is no separating stripe. This, coupled with the fact that bike lane debris collection causes cyclists to tend to ride near the separating stripe, makes cyclists who have to suddenly swerve left to avoid a hazard more vulnerable to being hit.
Bike lanes contribute to the degradation of cyclist rights to the roadway.

Cyclists are rarely required to use bike lanes, and are usually afforded reasonable exceptions when they are.

"First they passed laws requiring us to ride far to the right, but I could cleverly use the exceptions, so I said nothing. Then they required bike lane use, but I could avoid roads with bike lanes and cleverly use the exceptions, so I did nothing. Then they required us to use side paths, but I could find roads with no side paths to ride, so still said nothing. And then they banned cyclists from expressways and arterials and gave us bike boulevards, but I could still use side streets and ride as a vehicular cyclist, so I did little. Then when they banned road cycling altogether, there was no one left to stand up for the rights of vehicular cyclists." Bike lanes do contribute to the degradation of cyclist rights to the roadway.
If motorists are not used to encountering bicyclists in the regular lanes, they will soon completely forget to pay attention to them.



Every single one of those is a "technical and educational problem", not a "fundamental problem" with all bike lanes? Really?

Are you saying a legitimate rebuttal to all 17 of these is either:

this is a technical design issue with some bike lanes, not all of them, so it is not a fundamental problem that affects all bike lanes.
this is not a fundamental problem with bike lanes, but is an education issues.

J I have never been, and never will be, a proponent of a completely separated cycling facility. This causes all sorts of problems, far beyond that of a bike lane.


So you oppose paths dedicated to cyclists? Bike paths? What problems form the basis of your opposition to them?

Are you saying a legitimate rebuttal to all 17 of these is either:
this is a technical design issue with some bike lanes, not all of them, so it is not a fundamental problem that affects all bike lanes.
this is not a fundamental problem with bike lanes, but is an education issues.


Sure, why not. I'll take the gambit.


So you oppose paths dedicated to cyclists? Bike paths?

Yes, I avoid paths when I can.

BR

So you oppose paths dedicated to cyclists? Bike paths? What problems form the basis of your opposition to them?

Mostly minor intersections with roads and driveways; it makes them somewhat dangerous and very inconvenient. This is a tricky problem that probably cannot be solved from a technical standpoint without great cost. Very different from bike lanes though.

BR

When I have the time, I will edit the bike lane debate entry on Wikipedia to add your rebuttal to each of the disbenefits. At that time I will give it the required thought to see if I agree it applies, and, if not, why not.

In the mean time, now that we've got the clarifications clarified, I think the ball is in your court (#402).

My commute is comprised of approximately 65% streets without bike lanes, 25% bike lanes and 10% MUP. I am sure my ride is not the same as everybody's, but it is pretty ordinary.


Bike lanes make cycling in traffic less safe.
Intersections are the problem, as is the proliferation of traffic and the proliferation of distractions (cell phones, GPSs, DVDs, eating, drinking, etc.) In some poorly designed places, bike lanes can make cycling less safe, but this is an engineering issue.


The existing vehicular roadway system serves as an excellent infrastructure for cycling transportation and recreation. Thus bike lanes serve no useful purpose for cyclists, and their very existence wrongly implies that somehow the roadway system is lacking for cyclists, and a segregated system is needed, for which bike lanes are a step in the right direction.
Some places the exsting roadway system is lacking for cyclists. In my area this is usually on freeway overpasses. Bike lanes often force engineers to consider the needs of cyclists in these types of difficult roadway situations. Cyclists won't be getting on the freeway, so funnelling multiple lanes traffic toward the freeway creates a difficult situation for cyclists. WOLs do nothing to clarify the situation.


Right-of-way rules of the road are generally defined to be clear and unambiguous. This is imperative for smooth and safe vehicular flow. Bike lanes and the rules that govern them create ambiguous right-of-way situations, particularly at intersections. For example, when a motorist slows to prepare for a turn into a driveway, and a cyclist in a bike lane catches him and starts passing him on the inside of the turn, who has the right-of-way as the motorist turns? Is it the cyclist in the sacred bike lane, or is it the motorist? There is no analogous situation with regular traffic lanes because there the turner is always traveling in the lane closest to his turn.
This is a matter for education, not the fault of bike lanes. Same thing will happen without a line in the street. I see it every day at a particular un-bike-laned intersection I use. I stop in the left turn lane, some other guy stops to the right of the right turn lane. We both turn left. Tell me how the lack of a bike lane has clarified the situation for anybody here.


The static nature of bike lanes establishes that they are based on the premise that the correct/appropriate/safe lateral roadway position for a cyclist on a given roadway can usually if not always be determined and specified as one particular static position (usually off to the side).
How does a WOL, or "implicit bike lane" do any differently? Only people with something to prove will ride their bikes down the center everywhere, yielding to cars behind them one-by-one.


This premise is false. The correct/appropriate/safe lateral roadway position for a cyclist on a given roadway can rarely if ever be determined a priori and statically, but, instead, varies depending ever-changing factors and conditions, including but not limited to: speed and amount of traffic, speed of cyclist, cyclist's destination, obstructions, time of day, weather, etc. Bike lanes discourage cyclists from merging left sufficiently early when preparing for a left turn. Bike lanes legitimize feeling being "out there where I don't belong" whenever the cyclist has reason to be out there where he does belong.
Perhaps bike lanes do make people feel they don't own the rights to the whole road, but how do WOLs/implicit bike lanes differ in that? Fact is, as slow-moving vehicles, we're going to spend a lot of time on the side letting faster traffic blow by.


The very existence of bike lanes inhibits novice cyclists from learning about the dynamic nature of proper vehicular cycling lane positioning for cyclists.
Novice cyclists learn from others who teach tham, not from the presence or absence of lines on pavement. Observe sometime the number of sidewalk cyclists on roads w/out bike lanes.


By making cyclists feel safer riding in bike lanes, and not actually making them any safer, bike lanes give cyclists a false sense of security.
With a few weeks' experience you lose any false sense of secuity you might have had on any roadway surface, bike lanes or no.


Bike lanes inhibit left-turning cyclists (right-turning cyclists in England) from starting their merge sufficiently early.
I merge when I'm good and ready, and have not found that to be significantly outside the realm of when the bike lane line becomes dotted. Since my obligation according to the law is to use the proper lane for turns, I can't see how my merging when there's an opening is in conflict with that.


Bike lanes can't be everywhere. In many cities, bike lanes already exist on all roadways where they can be reasonably accomodated. Cyclists must learn how to ride effectively on roadways without bike lanes, and the roadways with bike lanes delay this necessary process, especially if there are just enough roadways with bike lanes to allow the cyclist to get away with "submissive cycling" on the roads without.
Bike lanes shouldn't be everywhere. They are simply a tool. I have already stated that 65% of my commute is bikelane free, and I haven't found it difficult to deal with. I can't be all that unusual.

As for "submissive cylcling" do you have any data that clearly ties bike lanes to this phenomenon? And what the heck is "submissive cycling" anyway. I mean I know what it is, you've described it, but where is there some hard data about this phenomenon.

Further, why do you think concern for others' convenience constitutes submissiveness? I for one feel I've had a smoother day when I have not inconvenienced another. You might feel otherwise. There's too much me me me out there on the roads, in my opinion. What is wrong with having some consideration for others? I wouldn't have a geeky flag on my bike if I didn't want to avoid inconveniencing others on my daily commute.


Bike lanes make it more difficult for a cyclist to act like a vehicle driver, and thus, inhibit motorists from treating cyclists like vehicle drivers.
I use vehicular cycling techniques regardless of the presence or absence of bike lanes. And I'm not the only person who rides the way I do.


Bike lanes misguide cyclists and motorists at intersections. In particular, thru cyclists are encouraged to keep to the side, while right (left in left-side driving countries) turning motorists are encouraged to keep away from the side, thus setting up a conflict at the intersection.
This is not true of all bike lanes. And where it is, it's is an engineering problem.


Because motorists tend to not drive in bike lanes, puncture-causing and crash-causing debris that is normally swept to the side by traffic collects in bike lanes.

Motorists also don't usually drive on the far right of a wide lane, either. And my personal experience in Santa Barbara has been that my worst, most debris-prone section is a spot without a bike lane. Also, debis is not the fault of bike lanes, but of inadequate street sweeping. Further, I've seen the debris and some of it is nails and screws. Why should I be dependent on the flat tires of motorists for a smooth ride?


Bike lanes allow motorists to be less concerned with cyclists, and, thus, more likely to be unaware of the presence of a cyclist, and, so, more likely to inadverdently drift into a cyclist.
Do you have data to back this statement up? It seems that drifting and awareness of cyclists is not something that has anything to do with bike lanes. People usually drift and lose awareness when they are no longer aware of the road as a whole, usually due to some distraction that is physical, emotional or chemical. Have you ever suddenly realized while driving that you have no idea how you got there? Can you tell me if there was a bike lane there at that time?


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.
So complicated that an entire page plus 1.5 sentences is devoted to it in the California Driver's handbook.


The bike lane is sometimes in the "door zone", the area that doors of parked cars will open into.
It is not always in the door zone. Sometimes when there is no bike lane the implicit bike lane is also in the door zone, and some roads are so narrow you are in the door zone even when going down the middle of the lane.


Bike lanes encourage motorists to expect cyclists to stay within the bike lane and thus to pass them at higher speeds and with less of a safety passing margin, which should be at least one meter (3 feet), than when there is no separating stripe.
Is this documented? It has not been my personal experience. Also, can you show clear documented evidence that it is unsafe to be passed by quickly?

This, coupled with the fact that bike lane debris collection causes cyclists to tend to ride near the separating stripe, makes cyclists who have to suddenly swerve left to avoid a hazard more vulnerable to being hit.
Do you always have to swerve left? Have you considered swerving right? Also, all drivers of every kind of vehicle are required to make sure it's safe before veering around obstacles in the way. If you are swerving suddenly you are engaging in unsafe operation of your vehicle.


Bike lanes contribute to the degradation of cyclist rights to the roadway.
With a bike lane, how can some hick holler out the window from behind his gun rack "get on the sidewalk!" when the right to the road is clearly marked?


If motorists are not used to encountering bicyclists in the regular lanes, they will soon completely forget to pay attention to them.
I can't see how that can happen when so many roads have no bike lanes, and when bicyclists are required by law to leave the bike lane and use regular traffic lanes at intersections (in California). As I've said, bike lanes are a tool. They aren't a necessity everywhere. 65% of my route is bike lane free. So 65% of the time I'm out there motorists are encountering me in regular lanes. (On one or two of those roads I wish a bike lane was there.)

When I have the time, I will edit the bike lane debate entry on Wikipedia to add your rebuttal to each of the disbenefits. At that time I will give it the required thought to see if I agree it applies, and, if not, why not.

In the mean time, now that we've got the clarifications clarified, I think the ball is in your court (#402).
See, this is why you come off as being so haughty. A wiki is something that anybody can edit, not just you, and not just if you think it matches your arguments.

Let whoever you've addressed this to edit the wiki himself.

See, this is why you come off as being so haughty. A wiki is something that anybody can edit, not just you, and not just if you think it matches your arguments.

Let whoever you've addressed this to edit the wiki himself.

Diane, anyone can edit wikipedia... even yourself.

Serge just happens to be maintaining this particular entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate

It is open to the world. The language Serge is using is somewhat biased in the negative as are most of the links provided, however, anyone may edit it, and the entry does address the "bike lane debates" vice bike lanes.

Just trying to make sure all parties of the debate are equipped with all the info they need. -- Gene

When I have the time, I will edit the bike lane debate entry on Wikipedia to add your rebuttal to each of the disbenefits. At that time I will give it the required thought to see if I agree it applies, and, if not, why not.

In the mean time, now that we've got the clarifications clarified, I think the ball is in your court (#402).

Good, I look forward to it. Give me a day or so. This is taking up too much time when I should be working.

BR

Diane, anyone can edit wikipedia... even yourself.

Serge just happens to be maintaining this particular entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate

It is open to the world. The language Serge is using is somewhat biased in the negative as are most of the links provided, however, anyone may edit it, and the entry does address the "bike lane debates" vice bike lanes.

Just trying to make sure all parties of the debate are equipped with all the info they need. -- Gene

This is good to know. I was wondering why the look of the website itself was neutral to everything but the bike lane entry was clearly biased.

BR

This is good to know. I was wondering why the look of the website itself was neutral to everything but the bike lane entry was clearly biased.

BR
I think he is trying to maintain balance, but due to his natural bias, of course he tends to slant it one way... I feel that we too might slant it the other way. It is hard to be truly objective when one is so passionate about a subject.

One of the things that really bothers me about all aspects of the bike lane debate is that there never has been done a truly objective study... especially recently since they have been established for some time.

There have been studies done, but the ones I have seen tend to look hard for a raison 'd ete or reason to justify their particular change (such as the Portland blue lane study (http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/bicycles/Bluelane.pdf) ). Of course, on the flip side is the über EC leader, Forester and those that hold religiously to his dogma (gee, that didn't sound biased at all... did it...)

Where Forester et. al. tend to use reason to justify their thoughts on BL, they also dismiss any study that may find any benefit in BL... and I don't know of any particular study that finds harm in BL. Opponents of course will point out possible intersection conflicts, but these are in fact "intersection" conflicts, not BL conflicts.

Other issues tend to deal with motorist issues such as how to "address" BL, but then some motorists in CA also have a hard time with merge lanes... so I believe that this again is an issue of training the motorists. Road rage and other driving issues (lack of turn signal use) are also signs of impatience and poor motorist training.

I tried to present both sides of the bike lane debate in the Wiki entry on "bike lane debate" in the neutral point of view, but, given my bias, it was very difficult, and I'm sure I failed.

I welcome corrections and additions from anyone to that entry. Of course. That should go without saying. I only said I would add Brian's comments because no one else has shown any interest to work on it.

Diane - I appreciate your long post. When I have time, I want to focus on what I am starting to see as the key theme here: that bike lanes accomodate the cyclist's desire to ride on roadways without inconveniencing same-direction faster traffic.

Would you agree that that is the key benefit of bike lanes?
Brian?
Gene?
Others?

Two substantially different answers from two different experienced cyclists. How many more do you think we need to make my point that there is no right answer?

In the case of a WOL motorists are not inhibited by the (non-existent) BL stripe from doing what they normally do when they make right turn: merge right and establish their ROW "as close as practicable to" the right edge of the roadway before turning right. At the same time, the cyclist is not inhibited from leaving the right side by the (non-existent) BL stripe, and so is more likely to understand that he should merge left and pass the slowing motorist on the left.

Yes, sharing lanes adds some complexity to traffic cycling in situations like this, requiring cyclists to know when and where they should be moving laterally in the shared lane, which is why cyclists need special training arguably more than motorcyclists do, but bike lanes make these situations much worse.

Serge


BTW the real answer here is that the designs of the bike lanes in the two different areas are different and thus requires motorists to address the lanes differently.

By the same token, does Oregon use hiway merge lanes with the short fat dashed likes that are used on the hiways in CA? Does CA have the "road pumpkins" used in Texas to delineate lanes? Are Botts dots universal? Ever seen someone from a different state try to figure out what the "road pumpkins" mean? Do all states allow "right on red?"

Ahhh... if only all our road "rules" and subtlies were the same across all states.

Diane - I appreciate your long post. When I have time, I want to focus on what I am starting to see as the key theme here: that bike lanes accomodate the cyclist's desire to ride on roadways without inconveniencing same-direction faster traffic.

Would you agree that that is the key benefit of bike lanes?
Brian?
Gene?
Others?
Please don't boil down what I said to one simplistic, imprecise statement that you and your buddies can then huddle up on and come up with another straw man argument against.

I would prefer rather than rebutting my post you go out and find some hard data/unbiased studies to confirm some of your statements.

I want to focus on what I am starting to see as the key theme here: that bike lanes accomodate the cyclist's desire to ride on roadways without inconveniencing same-direction faster traffic.

Would you agree that that is the key benefit of bike lanes?
Brian?
Gene?
Others?

No, I would not agree to that... I find BL quite handy for allowing me to pass backed up motorists during rush hour. I find BL give me a handy space for my narrow vehicle when I would otherwise be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. This is especially true on long stretches of uninterupped boulevard.

As I have stated before, BL allow cyclists to move at their own natural speed, regardless of the speed of vehicles parallel to them... be it slower than other traffic, or faster.

BTW I do understand your wiki entries and pointed out that anyone passionate about a subject would be hard pressed to be totally objective.

Quick Reply:

We have fairly decent routes and lanes here in Garden Grove (on major streets ONLY) but I am noticing that older people (like my father) are having trouble staying away from them expecially at night due to visual problems. Also, there are SOME major streets (mostly North-South aligned) that now have 3 lanes for traffic unless there is a need for parking; so with this in mind, I need to inform y'all that I was riding North on one of these streets one morning a few weeks ago and was enjoying it so much to the point of oblivion when I passed a parked car that had a passenger who didn't look back fast enough to see me riding past him so I think you get the picture without me going into details. As for me, I have recovered easily from this incident with only a few scrapes.

So to sum it up, I would advise anyone riding on a non-bikelane street to stick on the sidewalk even if there are pedestrians using it. Common sense goes a long way if people would simply USE it once in awhile.

Quick Reply:

We have fairly decent routes and lanes here in Garden Grove (on major streets ONLY) but I am noticing that older people (like my father) are having trouble staying away from them expecially at night due to visual problems. Also, there are SOME major streets (mostly North-South aligned) that now have 3 lanes for traffic unless there is a need for parking; so with this in mind, I need to inform y'all that I was riding North on one of these streets one morning a few weeks ago and was enjoying it so much to the point of oblivion when I passed a parked car that had a passenger who didn't look back fast enough to see me riding past him so I think you get the picture without me going into details. As for me, I have recovered easily from this incident with only a few scrapes.

So to sum it up, I would advise anyone riding on a non-bikelane street to stick on the sidewalk even if there are pedestrians using it. Common sense goes a long way if people would simply USE it once in awhile.
Uh...Where to begin?

I want to focus on what I am starting to see as the key theme here: that bike lanes accomodate the cyclist's desire to ride on roadways without inconveniencing same-direction faster traffic.

Would you agree that that is the key benefit of bike lanes?
Please don't boil down what I said to one simplistic, imprecise statement that you and your buddies can then huddle up on and come up with another straw man argument against.

Diane, if I wanted to present a strawman argument, then I would create the strawman and present the argument all at once. But I'm interested in real communication here, and have no interest in rebutting something no one else is even arguing.

In this case I'm really trying to understand the support for bike lanes, so I can address that, not some strawman. That's why I asked if I got it right before continuing. Lately I've been trying to recollect my own attitudes before learning vehicular cycling, back when I thought bike lanes were a good thing and was not aware of all the problems. Thinking back, I really do think a big part of it was related to their accomodating my ability to not inconvenience same-direction faster traffic. So I'm inquiring if that's the case for you guys too. Is it close? Actually, something you said inspired it:



I for one feel I've had a smoother day when I have not inconvenienced another. You might feel otherwise. There's too much me me me out there on the roads, in my opinion. What is wrong with having some consideration for others? I wouldn't have a geeky flag on my bike if I didn't want to avoid inconveniencing others on my daily commute.


I am interested in talking about the inconveniencing issue further, but was hoping to establish some agreement that it's relevant to the bike lane issue before proceeding.



I would prefer rather than rebutting my post you go out and find some hard data/unbiased studies to confirm some of your statements.
If only they were out there.

Quick Reply:

We have fairly decent routes and lanes here in Garden Grove (on major streets ONLY) but I am noticing that older people (like my father) are having trouble staying away from them expecially at night due to visual problems. Also, there are SOME major streets (mostly North-South aligned) that now have 3 lanes for traffic unless there is a need for parking; so with this in mind, I need to inform y'all that I was riding North on one of these streets one morning a few weeks ago and was enjoying it so much to the point of oblivion when I passed a parked car that had a passenger who didn't look back fast enough to see me riding past him so I think you get the picture without me going into details. As for me, I have recovered easily from this incident with only a few scrapes.

So to sum it up, I would advise anyone riding on a non-bikelane street to stick on the sidewalk even if there are pedestrians using it. Common sense goes a long way if people would simply USE it once in awhile.

Learning how to "ride a bike" is not sufficient to learning how to ride safely in traffic. Even most adult cyclists have not learned much past the basic bike operations skills they learned as children.

The cycling experts don't agree on everything, but they do agree that there is much to learn about riding in traffic, and that certainly includes not riding in door zones (the area to the side of a parked car where doors swing open). Most also advise against sidewalk cycling, unless it is done with extreme care (very slowly). It's not so much about interactions with pedestrians, as it is about unexpected intereactions with motorists at intersections (including driveways and alleys as well as major intersections). You would probably be surprised to learn how often sidewalk cycling is involved in car-bike collisions.

I strongly recommend you order the book Effective Cycling from Amazon and give it a close study.

Serge

I would prefer rather than rebutting my post you go out and find some hard data/unbiased studies to confirm some of your statements.

If only they were out there.

Exactly.

Learning how to "ride a bike" is not sufficient to learning how to ride safely in traffic. Even most adult cyclists have not learned much past the basic bike operations skills they learned as children.

The cycling experts don't agree on everything, but they do agree that there is much to learn about riding in traffic, and that certainly includes not riding in door zones (the area to the side of a parked car where doors swing open).

I strongly recommend you order the book Effective Cycling from Amazon and give it a close study.

Serge

I would concure with that. For all of John Forester's biases, he really did put together a good book.

BR

I tried to present both sides of the bike lane debate in the Wiki entry on "bike lane debate" in the neutral point of view, but, given my bias, it was very difficult, and I'm sure I failed.

I welcome corrections and additions from anyone to that entry. Of course. That should go without saying. I only said I would add Brian's comments because no one else has shown any interest to work on it.

Diane - I appreciate your long post. When I have time, I want to focus on what I am starting to see as the key theme here: that bike lanes accomodate the cyclist's desire to ride on roadways without inconveniencing same-direction faster traffic.

Would you agree that that is the key benefit of bike lanes?
Brian?
Gene?
Others?

It's not "inconveniencing" them. The job of the traffic engineers is to move the most people in the least amount of time. Slow moving vehicles, other than bicycles, are less numerous in my area than cyclists would be. Yes, that's why the bike lanes keep us to the side. On your side of the debate, I've noticed that whomever paints the bike lanes seems to think we should wait until about 50 feet before an intersection to move over for a turn. I've also noticed that the bike lane solid line extends past the start of a solid line delineating a right turn lane, evn though crossing that solid line to move over is illegal.
I didn't realize that before that so many bikes were out there, until I was out today on my day off, and realized that the majority of cycling commuters seem to be headed to work more than an hour after I start work, so I miss them. There were some nicely equipped bikes out there, like yours, Serge.

There were some nicely equipped bikes out there, like yours, Serge.
What do you know about my bike?

Didn't you post a pic of it once? Is it black? If not, then someone else has a nice bike.

I posted a marketing picture, not an actual photo of my bike, and it's not black.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about bike lanes. I have no fundamental objection to them.

Some of my biggest complaints are design issues, like BLs that are too narrow, which is just about every BL I've ever experienced. The ones where parking is allowed don't accomplish much other than encouraging cyclists to ride in the door zone, which is another way of saying that they make things more dangerous.

And it has always puzzled me that bike lane stripes are solid. The solid line implies that cyclists should always stay in the bike lane (which is wrong), and that motorists should never merge into a bike lane (which is also wrong). I'd rather see a dashed line.

I have to laugh at some of the BLs I've seen that extend all the way to an intersection - to the right of a 'right turn only' lane - when the bike lane goes straight. I have no idea what they could have been thinking.

I've noticed a minor problem recently - a road with a bike lane that has actuated signals that aren't sensitive to bikes. That makes a lot of sense. I guess cyclists are supposed to wait for the next SUV that comes by. I had to laugh today (really, I laughed out loud) because the guy who pulled up next to me fit the stereotype so well - driving an absolutely humongous SUV with one hand, talking on his cell phone and pulling into the crosswalk so pedestrians couldn't cross - oh, well, at least he tripped the signal.

I posted a marketing picture, not an actual photo of my bike, and it's not black.

Must have been someone else's then, and I thought it was yours.

For those reading this thread who may be interested, I just posted a personal essay entitled, The role of attitude in traffic cycling (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=106637) over in Commuting.

What I didn't get into there was that attitude about traffic cycling is also what largely determines one's view about bike lanes.

Serge

. . . One of the things that really bothers me about all aspects of the bike lane debate is that there never has been done a truly objective study... especially recently since they have been established for some time. . . .
It's really hard to do a study of bike lanes because there are so many variables. You end up comparing bike lanes on some roads with no bike lanes on others, but you can't isolate the effect of the stripe. Even in before-and-after studies on the same road, it's hard to tell what isolate the effect of the stripe from the effects of other road and traffic pattern changes. So we end up drawing inferences from different parts of different studies.

It's really hard to do a study of bike lanes because there are so many variables. You end up comparing bike lanes on some roads with no bike lanes on others, but you can't isolate the effect of the stripe. Even in before-and-after studies on the same road, it's hard to tell what isolate the effect of the stripe from the effects of other road and traffic pattern changes. So we end up drawing inferences from different parts of different studies.

I agree that there are a lot of variables... and indeed it does make it difficult, along with the potential bias of those doing the study. However, a wide study, that covers various areas, and their bike lanes and lack thereof, done with digital cameras would certainly help draw some conclusions. This seems like a ripe opportunity for a university and/or government grant. Along with cameras, should also be "down the road" interviews of the users of the roads.

Current studies are too narrowly focused to really yield any data, and coupled with either pro or con bias, are totally useless.

The rest is simply just opinion and flawed logic.

Perhaps with the steady rising cost of gasoline, this study can be seriously addressed... people will be looking for alternatives to automobiles as the price of operating them becomes increasingly higher.

But so much is so obvious empirically about bike lanes.
Do you really need a study?

But so much is so obvious empirically about bike lanes.
Do you really need a study?

Riiiiight... obvious.

And they are all so much alike too. :D

Gene's comment about not all bike lanes being the same thing, coupled with Diane's comment about how the existing roadway infrastructure is not ideal for cyclists everywhere, like at freeway on and off ramps, made me think about those Portland blue bike lanes again.

As I understand it, one of the things they do is demarcate (in blue paint) a particular path across a ramp where cyclists are given the ROW to cross.

So, if I understand this correctly, cyclists are uncomfortable with having to negotiate for the ROW in order to merge across the lane, for whatever reasons, but are more comfortable doing it with this blue lane in place.

So what I'm wondering is... what's the difference? Why is it okay to ask and/or cause traffic to slow down and wait for a cyclist to do whatever he has to do to get across when there is a blue lane, but not okay, or less okay, when there is no blue lane?

Am I missing something? Can someone explain this to me?

I don't know, maybe you haven't really noticed it, but there's like this attitude among drivers that they don't want to slow up traffic either.

Have you ever tried driving the speed limit on a single-lane highway where most people speed? Some people will actually tuck in behind you, grateful that you have relieved them of the responsibility of having to inconvenience the motorists behind, and grateful they don't have to watch their speedometers and the road ahead for cops. Plus, if anybody gets road rage and they can blame it on you.

You'll know it's happening when you reach a passing lane. Those grateful drivers will stay behind you while the impatient ones will blast on past in a fit of road rage. I do this often because my pickup truck just isn't as fast on mountain roads as most other vehicles. I'll gather a big line behind me, but once I reach the turnout, a few will stay behind me even though they've got late-model, full-powered vehicles.

Usually with freeway onramps, as traffic approaches they are already building up merging speed before they even get to the onramp. To have to suddenly slow or stop because they've all of a sudden noticed there's a guy on a bike in their path can cause the driver himself a lot of anxiety.

Some drivers may not be concerned about slowing the others behind them. They may be good, safe, courteous drivers who slow for you and give you the ROW.

Others might be aggressive and simply just floor it to get around you.

Still others will feel so much anxiety about causing a back-up behind they won't really know what to do. Maybe they'll slow, maybe they'll swerve.

In any of these cases, the traffic behind this first driver may not see what is going on and they might get all road raged or surpised and slam on brakes or swerve because they don't know what the hold-up is up ahead. This pressure from behind can be disasterous for the cyclist who has to make his way. Add multiple onramp lanes and the problem is exponential because now you have adjacent lanes of traffic who won't know (or care) what the hold up is in the other lane.

No other vehicle is expected to cross over such faster-moving lanes of traffic just to keep going (sure maybe a bull-dozer, but how many Hummers even would take on a bull-dozer?). Very often the roads are not designed in a way that makes it practical to move over at an appropriate time. This may be because the point where a motorist would move over is way too far in advance of when a cyclist may want to move over. The difference in speed between the two types of vehicles makes it uncomfortable to move over too far in advance. I don't care how much confidence it takes, I don't think I'll ever have quite enough to feel comfortable riding out there in the middle of a football field of ashpalt, between multiple lanes of traffic that is merging left and right all around me. I'm too small. In a situation like this I need to be visible not just to the cars immediately next to and behind me, but to the ones next to and behind them as well.

Does that make sense?

Gene's comment about not all bike lanes being the same thing, coupled with Diane's comment about how the existing roadway infrastructure is not ideal for cyclists everywhere, like at freeway on and off ramps, made me think about those Portland blue bike lanes again.

As I understand it, one of the things they do is demarcate (in blue paint) a particular path across a ramp where cyclists are given the ROW to cross.

So, if I understand this correctly, cyclists are uncomfortable with having to negotiate for the ROW in order to merge across the lane, for whatever reasons, but are more comfortable doing it with this blue lane in place.

So what I'm wondering is... what's the difference? Why is it okay to ask and/or cause traffic to slow down and wait for a cyclist to do whatever he has to do to get across when there is a blue lane, but not okay, or less okay, when there is no blue lane?

Am I missing something? Can someone explain this to me?


Have not ridden there... but as I understand it, the blue lanes give cyclists the ROW, and remind motorists to specifically look for the cyclist.... otherwise a negotiation has to take place that may result in conflict... motorist believing they have ROW due to perceived time or priority issues... (dumb, but rationalized) or they were there first (after speeding up)...

Contrast this with CA BL lanes which are simply "parallel lanes," where the motorist should look, ascertain clearance, then merge as if changing to any other lane... but this appears to not be fully understood by motorists... confusion due to solid stripes vice dashed typical "travel lane" stripes...

P.S. I don't know anything about blue lines, but I don't think blue lines or bike lanes are helpful in the above situation. I'm simply stating that an air of confidence and VC skills aren't enough in every case. In a case like the one above, I would rather just have a separate facility altogether.

I don't know, maybe you haven't really noticed it, but there's like this attitude among drivers that they don't want to slow up traffic either.

Have you ever tried driving the speed limit on a single-lane highway where most people speed? Some people will actually tuck in behind you, grateful that you have relieved them of the responsibility of having to inconvenience the motorists behind, and grateful they don't have to watch their speedometers and the road ahead for cops. Plus, if anybody gets road rage and they can blame it on you.

You'll know it's happening when you reach a passing lane. Those grateful drivers will stay behind you while the impatient ones will blast on past in a fit of road rage. I do this often because my pickup truck just isn't as fast on mountain roads as most other vehicles. I'll gather a big line behind me, but once I reach the turnout, a few will stay behind me even though they've got late-model, full-powered vehicles.

Usually with freeway onramps, as traffic approaches they are already building up merging speed before they even get to the onramp. To have to suddenly slow or stop because they've all of a sudden noticed there's a guy on a bike in their path can cause the driver himself a lot of anxiety.

Some drivers may not be concerned about slowing the others behind them. They may be good, safe, courteous drivers who slow for you and give you the ROW.

Others might be aggressive and simply just floor it to get around you.

Still others will feel so much anxiety about causing a back-up behind they won't really know what to do. Maybe they'll slow, maybe they'll swerve.

In any of these cases, the traffic behind this first driver may not see what is going on and they might get all road raged or surpised and slam on brakes or swerve because they don't know what the hold-up is up ahead. This pressure from behind can be disasterous for the cyclist who has to make his way. Add multiple onramp lanes and the problem is exponential because now you have adjacent lanes of traffic who won't know (or care) what the hold up is in the other lane.

No other vehicle is expected to cross over such faster-moving lanes of traffic just to keep going (sure maybe a bull-dozer, but how many Hummers even would take on a bull-dozer?). Very often the roads are not designed in a way that makes it practical to move over at an appropriate time. This may be because the point where a motorist would move over is way too far in advance of when a cyclist may want to move over. The difference in speed between the two types of vehicles makes it uncomfortable to move over too far in advance. I don't care how much confidence it takes, I don't think I'll ever have quite enough to feel comfortable riding out there in the middle of a football field of ashpalt, between multiple lanes of traffic that is merging left and right all around me. I'm too small. In a situation like this I need to be visible not just to the cars immediately next to and behind me, but to the ones next to and behind them as well.

Does that make sense?


LOL... my wife drives this way... and I constantly remind her that she is the driver... not the person behind her... she should maintain her speed and position that is right and safe for the road conditions. Period. But yes, the agressive drivers then do stupid things (cutting off, swerving in and out... etc) and that tends to re-inforce her opinion.

Diane... you might be on to something. I learned to drive in a 1971 VW bus. From the start, I was always holding up traffic, especially on repeated drives along coast Hwy 1 between Monterey and Big Sur, and Monterey and San Francisco. Causing delays in traffic was the norm in that car, and perhaps I learned that that's just the way it is, and not worry about it. Maybe somebody got irrititated once in a while, just like they might when on my bike. Not my problem...

Come to think of it, I've heard of some people balking at driving slow cars, not so much because they like to drive fast, but because they don't like to cause traffic disruptions.

All this gets back to my theme in the other thread... attitude.

On that note... have a good weekend!

Serge

Oh how I miss my 1978 VW bus with the sun roof and the little pad of paper I used as a mileage log because the gas gage didn't work, and the 265,000 miles on it and the rusted sliding door you could only open from the inside and the paint that covered the rusty spots that I applied with a paint brush and the mechanic who'd pass me on the smog test without even putting my van on the machine. Ah. Those were the days.

Vanagon... pop top roof... needed a good hill to build up speed... 1978... owned it in the late 80's.

Times have changed.

2001 Eurovan Camper... 201HP...

This thread is under a section called Advocacy & Safety right?

So far almost everything has been about safety. What about the Advocacy part?

It seems to me that bike lanes (and for that matter bike paths) are a vital part of Advocacy. I remember when I started riding. I wanted to avoid busy streets at almost any cost. At first I would even drive about 6 miles to a local park with a fairly nice path. When a loop was easy for me it started to seem pretty lame to drive farther than I would bike when I wanted to bike more. I then worked out a route that pretty much kept me on back streets. But there were a few short sections that could not be avoided.

Finally I realized the 'busy' street wasn't that bad. In fact it was better than the zig zag I took to avoid it. Going to streets that were each a little busier than the one before was then no big deal.

I do NOT think I was unusual. Many would never start street riding without bike paths and lanes which to the novice seem safer. It DOES NOT matter if they really are safer, you will never get teh chance to explain that until they start riding bike paths and bike lanes. (Also here in Los Angeles there are things called bike routes, really just signs showing the way by roads less traveled, almost useless except for making beginners feel better. But that part is vital).

On real safety I think a lot depends on putting bike lanes where they work. At the North end of the San Fernando Valley there is a bike lane on the road next to the 118 freeway. This is a high traffic, high speed road. It is also a road where there is often a mile or more between anything (driveway, road crossing or freeway entrance/exit). Having the bike lane clearly shows cars that they do not belong on the far right. With the distance between intersections there is plenty of room to change over to WOL for each intersection. I think this is a perfect place for a bike lane. Two lane roads (one each way) are often also a good candidate. WOL has the problem that cars often stay to the right to stay away from oncoming traffic. The explicit bike lane helps counter this effect.

On the other side bike lanes with frequent cross streets either continue too close (or right up to) intersections, resulting in riders and cars having to sort things out too quickly, or they change to a WOL setup so much of the time that it hardly seems like a bike lane.

In short Bike Lanes have a place as a part of a master plan, as do bike paths. But they are not the whole solution and are not even a part of the solution in all areas.

It DOES NOT matter if [bike lanes] really are safer, ...
Yes it does matter, if it causes cyclists to ride on roads they do not have the knowledge and skills to ride on reasonably safely.



Having the bike lane clearly shows cars that they do not belong on the far right.
Why don't they belong on the far right? I like it when they drive there - traffic on the far right clears up puncture and crash-causing debris, making a nice clean surface for cyclists.



WOL has the problem that cars often stay to the right to stay away from oncoming traffic. The explicit bike lane helps counter this effect.
Again, by keeping traffic out of the far right space ALL of the time (instead of only when cyclists are there), that space never gets swept. How is that good for cyclists?

Have you ever heard of context? The context was Advocacy and was very clearly stated. When it comes to advocacy it DOES NOT matter if bike lanes are safer, what matters is if novice riders think they are safer, or more to the point if novice riders think they are safe enough. If the only places to ride on the road are places that new riders do not think are safe then there will be no new riders.

Yes, I've heard of context. There is a reason this forum is called Safety AND Advocacy. They go together. You can't separate them like you're trying to do. Advocating cycling through a mechanism that makes cycling unsafe is not good advocacy!

There is a reason new riders thinks roads are unsafe, and it's a good one: for them, riding on those roads IS unsafe. Playing Russian Roulette with their lives by hoodwinking them into thinking the roads are safe for them because they have painted stripes on them is not good advocacy.

Good advocacy involves making it clear that quiet neighborhood and rural roads are the best place to start learning, and then you move up to busier roads and intersections, one step at a time.

All bike lanes do is teach new riders how to incorrectly ride in traffic, causing most of them to eventually quit, mistakenly thinking cycling in traffic is just inherently difficult or unsafe, all because the bike lanes made them think they were doing everything right, yet they still had troubles and/or felt unsafe. "I got cut-off and I was in the bike lane!" "I got hit and I was in the bike lane!". "My loved one got killed and he/she was in the bike lane!". Oh yeah, that's all great for advocacy. Not.

Finally, there is no evidence that bike lanes make any kind of significant difference in increasing the popularity of cycling.

Why don't they belong on the far right? I like it when they drive there - traffic on the far right clears up puncture and crash-causing debris, making a nice clean surface for cyclists.

Again, by keeping traffic out of the far right space ALL of the time (instead of only when cyclists are there), that space never gets swept. How is that good for cyclists?

Actually I have noticed that the area on the right, behind the bike lane line, tends to be a better quality road surface. Often, the area where the car tires run contains potholes and chunks of broken asphalt. While these bits may eventually be swept into the bike lane, at that point they are small rocks not big chunks. This does not happen where roads are well maintained, but in older areas... where the age of the street contributes to the decline of the street. It is far easier for a city to run an occasional street cleaner through an area than a road repair crew. Street cleaning will remove the smaller bits from bike lanes. I have seen this several times on local streets.

I would rather ride where I am running over small bits of broken asphalt and other light debris, which happens to be in a bike lane, than in the pot holes and huge cracks that exist in the tire tracks of the motor lanes.

I see this situation in several areas of my commute... and notice it especially where there is no bike lane, and I am forced to ride in the rutted right tire track to ensure that I am visible and out of the way of parked cars and potential door hazards. The areas of the street on the right, between the parked cars, are pristine, but I do not go in there, which would require swerving in and out.

If "pot holes and huge cracks ... exist in the tire tracks of the motor lanes", then riding in the middle of the lane, where there is no debris or potholes, is the best.

Sorry Helmet Head, I'm on too many boards that get nasty. I agree with your last post and see a major point of confusion. I'm in suburbia. Almost all the bike lanes I can think of are on fairly quiet roads. The road I mentioned at teh North end of the Valley is a rather strange one in that it is high speed yet 'quiet'. The total traffic load (except perhaps at rush hour) is very low yet pretty fast.

I disagree somewhat when it comes to rural roads. Many of the local deaths and serious injuries happen on rural roads. Drivers drift to the right and many are poorly maintained.

All the bike lanes I think of that seem good to me are either in the areas you describe as good for novices to start or in areas where novice riders go anyway (mainly near the beach). In either case I think they are a good adjustment overall.


Coming into work I saw what I think is a very bad bike lane. (I've started looking with a critical eye when driving). It is in the very road where my work is. It is just the painted white line for over half a mile, then finally something that says it is a bike lane. Lots of parked cars and driveways. But the big thing is for drivers it does not stand out as a bike lane. What good is a bike lane if drivers do not know it is a bike lane? To me it seems that bike lanes need to be very clearly marked, if some think something is a bike lane and others do not then things have gotten more dangerous, even in places where I personally think a well marked bikelane would make things less dangerous.

One other thing that really bothers me about many bike lanes is that they seem to be done piecemeal. This leads to bike lanes that seem (and often I think are) fairly safe places for novice riders that suddenly just end, often where a road narrows and becomes very nasty. These I think are a menace. The poor novice is suddenly thrown in the deep end.