Advocacy & Safety - New Bike Lanes Causing Driver Outrage

My city has FINALLY begun striping bike lanes on our streets, but we seem to have a bit of a problem. They haven't reached my side of town yet, so using them hasn't been an issue for me, but I have seen the new lanes and I must admit they seem be poorly-planned compared to those I've seen in other cities. They've been placed on busy streets, but they're not against the curb, they cut into the lanes that are used by cars and trucks. There are basically two new "lanes" now; the one against the curb is for people to park in, then there's the bike lane. That means the once wide street is now a very narrow lane in both directions. And people are pissed! It's led to a lot more cyclist harrassment (we already had plenty of that, thank you very much) and a lot of letters to the editor of our paper in which people are stating their intentions to drive in the bike lanes and swerve into them if they need to, whether there are bikers in them or not. There have also been a lot of calls for bikers to either ride on sidewalks or get off the road, period. Cyclists I know who live in the newly-striped areas of town are not only afraid to use the new bike lanes, they're afraid to ride on the street at all because they fear being victims of angry drivers who used to not pay attention to them at all. Has anyone experienced this? Is it just resistance to change? I used to be excited by the prospect of having our city streets connected by bike lanes, but now I'm kind of glad I don't have to ride on them.

Sounds like a case of "Gee, guess I don't own the whole darn road now do I." Motorists like to think they do own the road, even mention gas taxes and the like to justify their thinking. Probably upsets them when the discover they have to actually "share."

If the letters weren't anonymous, maybe your letter to the editor should contain a statement about keeping copies of those other letters, for future use by law enforcement and civil litigation attorneys if those people ever actually do that.

And by the way, our city's municipal code states that if a bike lane is available, cyclists must ride in it unless making a lefthand turn. Kind of a catch 22 there, too.

That's what happens with new bike lanes. Drivers will get used to it eventually and it will be about the same as without the lanes. Mostly no better or worse. Possibly worse at intersections. That law is terrible. If you stay on the right at a right hand turn cars may turn right into you. You may have to go into the traffic lane at intersections. Or just be extra careful at every corner. I ride in some occasionally that have the same set up, parking against the curb, then the bike lane, then the car lane. In the end it really means not very much. It's a waste of paint.

Do you have a bicycle club or advocacy group in the city? Sounds like some activism is needed right away. You don't want to let them start limiting your rights to use the roads!

I never understood why bike lanes are striped right next to the door zone.

I never understood why bike lanes are striped right next to the door zone.

Where else would they be able to put them? They aren't going to widen the street 8 feet for a bike lane. The people making the rules don't know what they're doing, anyway.

Where else would they be able to put them? They aren't going to widen the street 8 feet for a bike lane. The people making the rules don't know what they're doing, anyway.
Turning the right-side parking lane into a bike lane would work.

In downtown Minneapolis, for example:

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/minneapolis/images/DSCF01492waylanesm.jpg

That picture is interesting. I haven't seen bike lanes like that before. I don't know if there is an advocacy group, but I am looking. I found a seemingly defunct website for one here, but I assume there are some very active cyclists, otherwise I don't think our city would have put bike lanes anywhere to begin with.

That means the once wide street is now a very narrow lane in both directions. --- Sounds like the street wasn't wide enough.
Did cyclists use the street before bike lanes were painted?

I never understood why bike lanes are striped right next to the door zone.

Where else would they be able to put them? They aren't going to widen the street 8 feet for a bike lane. The people making the rules don't know what they're doing, anyway.
Someone probably decided to put a bike lane on the street without thinking through the engineering. Then the engineers had to shoe-horn a lane onto a road where it did not belong.

Part of the reason why I oppose most (but not all) bike lanes is that local governments refuse to design them properly. If you're going to build one, you have to do it right. The problem with putting a bike lane next to a parking lane is that if you make it outside of the door zone, the lane will be just wide enough to make it tempting to cars. And if you make it in the door zone, it's dangerous for cyclists, especially when coupled with the kind of anti-cyclist mandatory-use laws like they have in Amarillo or Portland.

As to the letters from the drivers, think about sending copies to all the auto insurance companies in you local yellow pages. The insurers have huge databases and might just keep a copy. Then, if there's an accident, the right people will have a record.

In the end, these lanes sound like a classic example of "be careful what you ask for."

In downtown Minneapolis, for example:


What is that odd skinny vehicle moving toward the camera? Must be something European. Imagine if everyone drove something like that - the reduced congestion and decreased wear on roads! I'll bet it's pretty quiet, too. It would be an urban revolution! :eek:

--- Sounds like the street wasn't wide enough.
Did cyclists use the street before bike lanes were painted?

I'm not sure how heavily used by cyclists the now-striped roads were. Like I said earlier, I don't ride in that part of town and I rarely, if ever, see any other cyclists during my own commute.

I did finally see a map of the planned bike lanes in the southwest quadrant of our city. I guess the idea is that all the schools will be connected by the lanes, but as far as I can tell, there are bike lanes on only four or five major streets. Those are the ones that have already been striped and are causing so many problems.

If more people biked they wouldn't need those parking spots. I mean, how much parking spots on one block? Not even enough to serve a single office with 20 employees I bet.

People will just have to drive slower now that the lanes are narrower. Too bad. Boo hoo.

If the parking lane is generous and includes room for the door then the bike lane next to the parking lane isn't a problem. That's how they do it in most (not all, I'll admit) places here.

In downtown Minneapolis, for example:

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/minneapolis/images/DSCF01492waylanesm.jpg

That looks like a recipe for diaster to me. How is it working out?

That picture is interesting. I haven't seen bike lanes like that before. I don't know if there is an advocacy group, but I am looking. I found a seemingly defunct website for one here, but I assume there are some very active cyclists, otherwise I don't think our city would have put bike lanes anywhere to begin with.

That picture is interesting for the cyclist is actually riding in the wrong direction against traffic! This is a two way bike lane where one end of the lane is going against traffic only 8 feet away probably going 30-45 mph! Wonderfully dangerous.

Look again. I think it is a one-way street so the bikes travelling opposite the one pictured would be going with traffic.

That picture is interesting for the cyclist is actually riding in the wrong direction against traffic!

Incorrect -- Mpls is well known for these two-way bikeways on an otherwise one-way streets. I'm not generally thrilled about bike lanes, but this is one instance where it's a really good idea.

RFM

An article in the Amarillo Globe News describes the "confusion" the bike lanes are causing. Here are some excerpts:


"Where are we going to put the bike lanes next? ... We have had people comment about them - mostly because they didn't know anything about it," Bill Hall, chairman of the Amarillo Traffic Commission, said during the panel's meeting Wednesday.

McDaniel acknowledged that some residents have expressed surprise to see the new markings on the streets.

"Now we're going to - over the next phase of striping bike lanes - try to send postcards to residents a week ahead of time so they won't be surprised to see them," McDaniel said.

In addition to sending the postcard notices to residents whose streets will get bike lanes, the city's education campaign will include: an article in the August city water bills;
a news conference in late August or early September; flyers distributed to local gyms and bike shops; collaborating with Amarillo Independent School District to educate schoolchildren about the lanes; working with drivers education and defensive driving classes to include bicycle lanes in the curricula for motorists; and broadcasting public service announcements.

"I think the confusion has come because the stripes went down and signs are not up yet," Forrester said.

In downtown Minneapolis, for example:

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/minneapolis/images/DSCF01492waylanesm.jpg

That is positively horrible! All a cyclist needs is a extra wide lane so that they can, if they are fast enough, ride with traffic taking the lane, or, if they are slower, ride along the right side allowing traffic to easily pass.

Get your ass out of Texas! Post haste! The state deserves all the pickup driving rednecks it can handle! Let them drink oil! :eek:

Ah, Texas isn't so bad! :)

And by the way, our city's municipal code states that if a bike lane is available, cyclists must ride in it unless making a lefthand turn. Kind of a catch 22 there, too.

Read the section carefully. I'd suggest that the words "if practicable" or something similar will appear there. In that case, the entire meaning of the clause is changed completely.

In downtown Minneapolis, for example:

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/minneapolis/images/DSCF01492waylanesm.jpg

It's not that bad until the lanes end. We have no standard here, I don't know who thought these up. The picture I posted has one lane going in the same direction as the bus only lane, and one lane going the way of traffic. It makes for really weird turns because you have to cut across a lane of traffic to turn right going either way.

It's even weirder on other streets. I think I've seen a bike lane next to a bus lane going the other way. Half the people don't even use those lanes.

What does it matter anyway. It's Minnesota. It's probably frozen over 9 months of the year, right?

Ah, Texas isn't so bad! :)

...its got it's pluses and minuses depending on where you live of course.

90% of the state is in general not bike friendly, so yes, it's my assumption that if you want to be in a bike-friendly area, either move to Austin (parts) or move to the coast. Where I live, I fight traffic daily.

90% of the state is in general not bike friendly, so yes, it's my assumption that if you want to be in a bike-friendly area, either move to Austin (parts) or move to the coast. Where I live, I fight traffic daily.

Wow, you must have ridden a whole lot of miles if you've checked out 90 percent of the state! ;)

I find Dallas pretty good as far as driver attitudes go. You get the occasional giblet-head, but no more than anywhere else. The layout of the city isn't good for bicyclists, but most people seem to understand you have a right to the road. I am very, very glad we don't have bike lanes, though. The roads are usually funky near the curb and I'm sure all the drivers would expect me to be riding in the potholes and glass if there were bike lanes.

When I was in Austin the bike lanes were a horror-show. I didn't do extensive research, granted, but the ones I encountered were much too narrow.

What does it matter anyway. It's Minnesota. It's probably frozen over 9 months of the year, right?

Believe it or not they actually plow the dedicated commuter routes. We have an east-west highway from the West suburbs into the city which makes getting downtown really easy in the winter.

Actually that sounds like the lanes in San Jose.
I moved there from Denver and it took some adjustment from the "small streets or off streets" to "main streets" bike path concept.

Small streets of paths are okay if you don't mind winding all over the city to get somewhere. Main street paths like this are better for commuting though, they generally go somewhere. If you commute busy streets you probably ride these roads and in "the door zone" anyway. These lanes widen the door zone a little and create a lane out of space that was already there. The 'weaving' of the lane is normal, directing how bike should ride in traffic. (I'm guessing, but the lane directs you to the right/ middle lane when there's a right turn lane correct? Or places you in the middle of the forward lane on activated lights?)

They might take some getting used to though.

People are so damn slow to accept change. In the land of Corvettes and pickups I can see trouble brewing. It is interesting that the city put the lines in this way without much thought. Here in Pittsburgh, we have a few curb lane bike paths on the wider streets, but the locations make them worthless for commuting. There is one major street that they changed all around about 20 years ago. In that case they added a bus lane going the other way on a 5 lane one-way street. That caused a lot of confusion and a few deaths, (people forgot to look to the left for buses). But after some time everyone got used to it.

Found this about the creation of your paths:
http://www.biketexas.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=323&Itemid=115

Yeah, I saw that article. I think though that one of the guys that was instrumental in getting the lanes striped is now trying to change that ordinance requiring cyclists to use them. Still trying to get in touch with someone from the local bike club. I haven't heard hardly any complaints about the lanes the last several days or so, so maybe everything's quieting down.

90% of the state is in general not bike friendly...

I've biked all over the Hurst-Euless-Bedford, the north side of Fort Worth, Irving, through DFW Airport, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Trophy Club, Grapevine, Burleson, Wichita County, Montague County, etc. I'm an assertive cyclist who takes the lane, and I've never had problems cycling in any of those places in Texas.

Amarillo could very well be different -- it's a sprawled city with very wide streets and very fast traffic.

RFM

My city has FINALLY begun striping bike lanes on our streets, but we seem to have a bit of a problem. They haven't reached my side of town yet, so using them hasn't been an issue for me, but I have seen the new lanes and I must admit they seem be poorly-planned compared to those I've seen in other cities. They've been placed on busy streets, but they're not against the curb, they cut into the lanes that are used by cars and trucks. There are basically two new "lanes" now; the one against the curb is for people to park in, then there's the bike lane. That means the once wide street is now a very narrow lane in both directions. And people are pissed! It's led to a lot more cyclist harrassment (we already had plenty of that, thank you very much) and a lot of letters to the editor of our paper in which people are stating their intentions to drive in the bike lanes and swerve into them if they need to, whether there are bikers in them or not. There have also been a lot of calls for bikers to either ride on sidewalks or get off the road, period. Cyclists I know who live in the newly-striped areas of town are not only afraid to use the new bike lanes, they're afraid to ride on the street at all because they fear being victims of angry drivers who used to not pay attention to them at all. Has anyone experienced this? Is it just resistance to change? I used to be excited by the prospect of having our city streets connected by bike lanes, but now I'm kind of glad I don't have to ride on them.


This is one of those times when I ask this question: How did we get to this point in this country? What is it about the motorized vehicle that brings out the worst in some people? Someone should letters to the editors of the aformentioned papers now, stating that anyone who would use a motor vehicle to intentionally harass and injure (and possibly kill) bicyclists is nothing more than a coward and a terrorist.

Let's call them what they really are.