Cycling facilities as symbolic priorities

[Helmet Head]

I am curious to know how important people feel is the role of cycling facilities, including bike paths, bike lanes, blue lanes, sharrows, "bike route" signs, "share the road" signs, etc., regardless of what real practical function they may or may not provide, in terms of serving as "symbolic priorities" for cycling, providing an advertising and legitimizing effect for bicycling in general.

Hence, this poll, and, hopefully, an interesting and informative discussion to follow.

[Dchiefransom]

Well Serge, there might be a problem with your wording. I picked an answer based not exactly on what I believe, but what I believe is the intent of "our culture". I think "bike facilities" are a kind of advertising. Just like someone suggesting people read certain books on cycling to learn techniques, I think the facilities are there to make some "newbies", and people that are worried about riding with cars, look at cycling more favorably.
Thus, we have "advertising", by communities and advocacy groups to attract more riders, and the physical presence of the "facilities" to enhance travel on the roads/trails.

Now, remember, Serge, I use the word "enhance" in my last sentence to point out what I believe our "culture" believes.

[noisebeam]

I said minor. But that is what I think they do, not what they should do. Also there are a range of facilities, from WOL, BLs, share the road signs, and city sponsored shower facilities and bike garage (soon to be build in Tempe, AZ).

I do notice and hear from more casual cyclists that BL do get more people out riding. For example, there is a main arterial road (Guadalupe) that has BLs. On weekends you find many cyclists on this road. There are parallel roads (Baseline, Southern) that have NOLs. You rarely find cyclists on these roads, unless they need to be for tranport purposes.

Al

[H23]

By "bike facilities", I assume that means things like bike storage areas at metro stops, racks at commercial/entertainment/sport venues, showers at work, bike carriers on buses.

There is much more to "bike facilities" than BL's/WOD's and signs.

As for the purpose of "bike facilities"-- the purpose belongs to whomever installs them. A business may be able to attract more customers if they provide racks, the metro may get more ridership if people can store their bikes at the station, an employer may be doing his workers a favor by facilitating a bike commute. Municipalities may be able to promote a "green" image by encouraging bike traffic, as well as respond to the demands of their citizens.

[genec]

I believe bike lanes announce the potential presence of cyclists...

I would really rather believe that we are "legitimate" on our own, but far too many motorists believe that we should not be on the road... Also, sadly, there are just too few cyclists.

I think anything that can announce that cyclists belong on the road, and share the road, is better than leaving that decision to a mis-informed driving public.

Now along these lines I would actually prefer other facilities than bike lanes... Signs and stencils and dashed NOL would be far better.

Oddly enough, motorists often have signs that inform them of conditions and hazards up ahead, yet few signs (if any) let them know that cyclists may be ahead. While bicycles may not be a "hazard" per se, they can represent a change in traffic pattern that motorists should be made aware of just as "Ped Crossing."

[noisebeam]

Oddly enough, motorists often have signs that inform them of conditions and hazards up ahead, yet few signs (if any) let them know that cyclists may be ahead. While bicycles may not be a "hazard" per se, they can represent a change in traffic pattern that motorists should be made aware of just as "Ped Crossing."
But shouldn't cyclists be expected anywhere and everywhere (except of course limited access freeway)?

Sure there may be the occasional bike path x-ing that could be signed.

But at least where I am I can think of no particular place where they represent a change in traffic pattern.

Al

[genec]

But shouldn't cyclists be expected anywhere and everywhere (except of course limited access freeway)?

Sure there may be the occasional bike path x-ing that could be signed.

But at least where I am I can think of no particular place where they represent a change in traffic pattern.

Al

Actually I have one very specific place in mind... it is a freeway off ramp going up hill... along the freeway cyclists are allowed as this is the only connection from a particular valley. At that ramp, cyclists must cross the Y of the ramp that breaks the ramp into a right only and a left only merge onto city streets. Crossing the tail of the ramp right at left/right break is required to make the left only turn. Thus cyclists face freeway speed traffic, while they ride up hill (8-10 MPH) and have to cross said traffic.

I signal long in advance and wait for the first car to slow down and act as a block. Sure would be nice to have a sign somewere on the ramp that said... "Slow for Crossing Bicycles."

But in generally, a change in traffic pattern can also mean slowing... so if a cyclist is required to take a lane wherein any motor traffic may be moving at otherwise a much higher speed, then perhaps some sign should indicate that change. I know of one place where there is such as sign... and it says "cyclists entering" just a "trucks entering" sign might also occur. The sign is there now due to construction, it will be interesting to see if it remains.

Another sign that would be quite nice to see is where the roads have already been designated as a "bike route" and the cyclist must take the lane due to narrow road and or parked cars. It would be nice to see "Cyclist may use full lane" in such areas.

Those are just a few ideas... anything to inform motorists that they are likely to see and should be well prepared for cyclists in and along their path.

Of course if we were as numerous as motorists... ("anywhere and everywhere") then such needs would not exist, but we are still rare, thus motorists still need to be reminded.

[noisebeam]

Actually I have one very specific place in mind... it is a freeway off ramp going up hill...
You just reminded me of a place where such a sign would be good here. On the off ramp of freeways where access road traffic must yield to off ramp traffic, but bicyclists do not have sufficient sight line and accerlation power to safely yield and merge into the off ramp traffic. (I posted about this a few months ago)

Al

[webist]

Your poll choices seem to imply that the government's intent is to legitimize cycling. I don't think that's true.

Anything which calls attention to cycling however, does result in some additional legitimacy. However, I'd be cautious that the intent was to segregate.

[Roody]

Well Serge, there might be a problem with your wording. I picked an answer based not exactly on what I believe, but what I believe is the intent of "our culture". I think "bike facilities" are a kind of advertising. Just like someone suggesting people read certain books on cycling to learn techniques, I think the facilities are there to make some "newbies", and people that are worried about riding with cars, look at cycling more favorably.
Thus, we have "advertising", by communities and advocacy groups to attract more riders, and the physical presence of the "facilities" to enhance travel on the roads/trails.

Now, remember, Serge, I use the word "enhance" in my last sentence to point out what I believe our "culture" believes.
Ditto. Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Bruce Rosar]

Your poll choices seem to imply that the government's intent is to legitimize cycling. I don't think that's true.The government appears to have two conflicting goals:
avoid painful traffic congestion and pollution mitigation measures by converting some Motor Vehicle trips to bicycle trips
ensure that MV drivers never have to slow down for bicyclists
Given both of these goals, I can see why the government has been promoting bicycling anywhere but on the set of paths which are the widest, smoothest, most extensive and already paid for (i.e., our public roads).

[Helmet Head]

However, I'd be cautious that the intent was to segregate.
The bikeway movement in America started in the late 60s/early 70s in California (primarily in Davis, CA, a flat-as-a-pancake university town near Sacramento). Folks involved with representing cyclist rights interests at that time, including John Forester and John Finley Scott, assure me that the primary motivating interest in the movement was the concern that the fast growing popularity of cycling at that time would lead to cyclists holding up motor traffic, and that the point of bikeways (including bike lanes) and the keep-to-the-side laws passed back then was to segregate cyclists from other vehicular traffic.

Everything I've read and heard regarding this topic supports this view, and nothing I've seen or heard contradicts it.

I believe I am reasonably cautious when I contend that the primary intent behind the bikeways movement was and is to segregate cyclists.

[noisebeam]

I believe I am reasonably cautious when I contend that the primary intent behind the bikeways movement was and is to segregate cyclists.
Looks like some stuff in here leans toward that mentality:

http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/COMPREHENSIVEPLANBOARDS.htm

Bikes shown only off to side, emphasis on side streets (even alleys!)

But there is a lot of good too.

Al

[JRA]

I voted for the third choice - legitimizing cycling is a major effect of bike facilities. I don't know that it is a major purpose and, quite honestly, I don't really care. I'm much more interested in the effect than the intended purpose ("Don't look a gift horse in the mouth", and all that). Sometimes good things happen for not so good reasons.

I've noticed lately that there are "Bike Route" and "Share the Road" signs all over the place. They're practically everywhere. That can't help but help legitimize cycling.

BTW, "the government" is not a monolithic thing, (just as "cycling advocacy" is not monolithic). There are a number of governments (local, county, state, federal) and there are different agencies and departments in each. Often these different governments, agencies and departments have conflicting goals (just as different cycling advocacy groups often have conflicting goals).

Not that it matters because polls like this aren't scientific, anyway, but the last choice is the same as part of the third choice. It appears that the majority of voters (currently 55.55%) think that legitimizing cycling is either a major purpose or major effect of bike facilities.

[sbhikes]

There'd probably be no consideration whatsoever of bicycles if the local bicycle advocacy group didn't advocate for their inclusion, which includes the installation of bike lanes, bike paths, and designated bike routes marked by signs.

-Diane in Santa Barbara where biking is a pleasure

[lilHinault]

More bikes on the road will do a lot...........

[Bruce Rosar]

... legitimizing cycling is a major effect of bike facilities. It's Not Just About the Engineering :)
There are other "E" planning options which are more effective at improving the social environment for human powered travel. The following quote is from the bicycle plan for Montgomery County, PA (http://www.montcopa.org/plancom/sect3.htm)The Four E's
Successful bicycle planning efforts throughout the U.S. and in other countries have demonstrated that effective initiatives involve more than road improvement considerations. To thoroughly address all impediments to bicycling, four fundamental components of a comprehensive bicycle mobility plan (often referred to as the "Four Es") must be considered.
Engineering ... deals with ... roadway design and construction issues ... also involves providing bike parking facilities at destinations and accommodating bikes on transit.
Encouragement addresses the promotion of bicycling as a means of transportation.
Education deals with teaching proper bicycling skills and educating bicyclists and motorists about key safety issues (rules of the road).
Enforcement involves enforcing traffic laws to ensure safe roads for bicyclists and motorists.
The Federal Highway Administration endorses the Four Es approach in its national bicycling and walking study.
There's a Case Study (http://www.bikeplan.com/4epaper.htm ) that discusses how to develop a "Four Es" program. The study includes suggestions for collecting data, setting objectives, building a plan, and evaluating results.

[lilHinault]

That picture, your avatar, of the car door opening in the bike lane cracks me up, around here bike lanes are where cars are parked! I see this in Palo Alto all the time, bike lane filled with cars end to end.

[Daily Commute]

None of the above: You can't lump all "cycling facilities" into one basket:
Some cycling facilties (most striped bike lanes) de-legitimize cyclists' right to use the road.
Some cycling facilties (roads designed to integrate cyclists into traffic, bike route signs, share the road signs) legitimize cyclists' right to use the road.

More bikes on the road will do a lot...........
. . . to de-legitimize the right of cyclists to share the road if the cyclists aren't really on the road, but are forced to use a shoulder labeled as a "bike lane."