Advocacy & Safety - Busted for driving in the bike lane

There is a street near Prospect Park (I think the name is Park Plaza West...something like that) that has a bike lane (on the left side of the street for some reason) that is about the same width as the regular lane for traffic. I often take this street on my way home as it allows me to avoid this high traffic roundabout. At certain times of the day (around rush hour when the traffic is heavy) there is always at least one (usually 3-5) car[s] driving in the bike lane to cut ahead of backed up traffic.

With that explaination out of the way, today I was riding on that very street, and at the intersection where the bike lane ends there was a police van, with an officer stopping all the cars that were driving in the bike lane and giving them tickets. That particular section of street is curved so you can't see the intersection (where the cop was positioned) until you are only a few yards away. I imagine he busted quite a few drivers as I personally saw him ticket 4 cars.

I gave the officer a little nod as I was waiting for the light to change.

:D :D :D :D :D

I always give an officer a thank you when he is writing up a motorist, loud enough for the motorist to hear.

Oh, yeah, giving them tickets for driving in "our" lanes and expressing glee when they're busted for doing so should help get motorists and cops to treat us as drivers of vehicles with the same rights to "their" road that they have... NOT.

Way to go.

Helmet Head -

Instead of wasting your time *****ing here, how about spending some of that energy to actually try to CHANGE the laws you so vehemently disagree with?

-chris

The segregationary laws are simply a manifestation of segregationary thinking in our culture about cyclists. Working to change the laws would not be addressing the root probem: the segregationary thinking. And the first place to change that is among cyclists, which is I spend so much ****ing time here.

The purpose of posts like the one I lobbed in this thread is to bring attention to segregationary thinking among cyclists, and actions that stem from it.

We should be dismayed about motorists getting this treatment, not happy about it.

We should think of motorists as our friends and equals, not our enemies.

We should be breaking down the walls between cyclists and motorists, not building them up.

This is no different from officers giving tickets to car pool lane violators...

It's no different only if you're missing the big picture.

Car pool lanes are not a manisfestation of segregationary thinking that anyone that I know of opposes.

Bike lanes are a manifestation of segregationary thinking that I, for one, do oppose.

Do you support or oppose segregation of car pools? I support it, hence I do not oppose car pool lanes.

Do you support or oppose segregation of cyclists? I oppose it, hence I do oppose bike lanes.

Oh, yeah, giving them tickets for driving in "our" lanes and expressing glee when they're busted for doing so should help get motorists and cops to treat us as drivers of vehicles with the same rights to "their" road that they have... NOT.

Way to go.

I was hoping to keep this thread "apolitical" in regards to bike lanes but oh well, there goes that.

In any case, I see your point, and I agree with it to an extent. I don't usually use the bike lane (except when traffic is backed up so I can filter forward) but it still annoys me when motorists drive in the bike lane. Seeing as how one of the major problems with bike lanes (which is really just a symptom of the segregation created by bike lanes) is that too many motorists abuse them to make them effective for cycling.

In any case, I thought that some people might like to hear about it, especially because of the recent crack down on legal (and illegal, I'll admit) cycling in NYC.

I am not 100% clear on the vehicular cyclist camp's position... In my locality (Commonwealth of Virginia) the law states:

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

This clearly states "motor vehicle", so are bicylces exempted from this requirement? It would seem that if they are not, then bicycle lanes are a necessary thing since we can't keep up with cars in certain circumstances.

I am not 100% clear on the vehicular cyclist camp's position... In my locality (Commonwealth of Virginia) the law states:

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

This clearly states "motor vehicle", so are bicylces exempted from this requirement? It would seem that if they are not, then bicycle lanes are a necessary thing since we can't keep up with cars in certain circumstances.

Virginia does not consider bicycles to be motor vehicles. It does consider them to be vehicles, so the applicable code section is 46.2-804



Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions existing, shall be driven in the lane nearest the right edge or right curb of the highway when such lane is available for travel except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or where right lanes are reserved for slow-moving traffic as permitted in this section.

We should be dismayed about motorists getting this treatment, not happy about it.

Total nonsense, Serge, and a good example of why I usually ignore your posts. As cyclists we should be glad whenever ANY traffic laws are enforced; without traffic enforcement, a safe cycling environment is a pipe dream. The question as to whether drivers are our "friends" or our "enemies" is irrelevent to this discussion; it doesn't matter how either of us feel about them - in this instance, they are in violation of the law, and ticketing is appropriate.

Virginia does not consider bicycles to be motor vehicles. It does consider them to be vehicles, so the applicable code section is 46.2-804

Thanks for your clarification.

I do oppose bike lanes.

How in the world could anyone oppose bike lanes?????
As a car driver I don't want to be slowed down by cyclists and as a cyclist I don't want to battle 4,000lb car's. Who lose's?

This is why I don't hang out in A&S very often.

This is why I don't hang out in A&S very often.

But where else can you go to get a reliable dose of sneering blame-the-victim superiority?

Oh, yeah, giving them tickets for driving in "our" lanes and expressing glee when they're busted for doing so should help get motorists and cops to treat us as drivers of vehicles with the same rights to "their" road that they have... NOT.

Way to go.

I do not believe there are rights to the road, only laws/codes and if you break a law you should be busted and are subject to the rotten fruit throwers while you are in the "stockades". You makes your choice, you pays your nickel and you live with the consequences.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Oh, yeah, giving them tickets for driving in "our" lanes and expressing glee when they're busted for doing so should help get motorists and cops to treat us as drivers of vehicles with the same rights to "their" road that they have... NOT.

Way to go.

The bike lane is mine, I own it. If I choose to ride in the bike lane, I do so. If I choose to ride in traffic, I'll do that too. Cars need to stay out of it, except for the near the corner, where they can enter it to make a turn. As I approach corners, I look over my shoulder to make sure that if there is a car turning, I am not going to get hit. I ride in traffic as well, depending on the conditions. It's called common sense.

How many children do you have? Would you advocate a child riding in the road as you do? Or would you help them to take a more sensible approach based on conditions? VC is one thing, but a little common sense never goes astray. Rigidly sticking to principles will get you killed, but that's ok, because you have a right to the roadway. Currently, cyclists are segregated in some areas by their very own bike lane. Many cyclists are happy to use it, and happier when motorists are penalized for using it.

Since you are unable to educate each and every motorist out there, you are just wasting bandwith here, and I think the only ones responding are those that enjoy the debate. Why must you turn every thread into one where you spout your never-ending agenda of VC?

How in the world could anyone oppose bike lanes?????
As a car driver I don't want to be slowed down by cyclists and as a cyclist I don't want to battle 4,000lb car's. Who lose's?

You've just opened yourself up to a lecture from Helmet Head, but I'll summarize the main points:

1) First and foremost bike lanes are a form of cyclo-segregation. They are meant specifically to separate bicycles from the rest of traffic, and in most cases do little to actually prevent accidents from occuring.

2) Bike lanes make you less visible to traffic. Since bike lanes are typically aren't filled with cyclists (at least like the lanes are filled with cars) motorists are used to them being empty. Couple that with them being off to the side and containing cyclists which motorists typically aren't looking for, and you become nearly invisible.

3) The only type of accident that they might prevent is being rear ended (and given that man was just rear ended and killed in Oregon makes that even that assertion suspect). Being rear ended is extremely rare - most accidents occur at intersections and involve being hooked (when a driver is making a turn and hits you). Since you are off to the side you are in the optimal position for being hooked, and since you are riding in an area that normally doesn't have car traffic (coupled with the invisibility, as mentioned previously) you are much more likely to be hooked if you are in a bike lane than if you are riding in the center of the car lane.

[snip]most accidents occur at intersections and involve being hooked (when a driver is making a turn and hits you). Since you are off to the side you are in the optimal position for being hooked, and since you are riding in an area that normally doesn't have car traffic (coupled with the invisibility, as mentioned previously) you are much more likely to be hooked if you are in a bike lane than if you are riding in the center of the car lane.[snip]

That's why I'm an advocate of looking, and using common sense. Not to say that you don't, but it seems to me that watching out for cars is far more effective than trying to take control of a lane all the time, even if it is your legal right.

You guys can't let HH get to you.

I'm with the OP, "wo0t!" for the cops doing something helpful traffic-wise. The on time I pointed out to a traffic cop that a guy immediately in his view was double-parked in a bike lane the cop shrugged and ignored it. WTF?

I should add that a couple of times on Riverside Drive at the bottom of a "dip" (rolling terrain) I've seen cars getting tickets for what I imagine is speeding (should have posted that in the ticket thread, whoops). I give a little nod when I see that. :)

Okay, let me weigh in here though I know I will regret it.
For me personally, I wouldn't care if one inch of bike lane was ever striped again. I ride responsibly, defensively and with courtesy. I take the lane when I have to, move into appropriate turn lanes, etc and ride to the side to allow motorists to pass when I can safely do so. That being said, I am in favor of bike lanes. (Pause for effect)

Most of us here are experienced cyclists with the skill to address almost any traffic situation. However, the vast majority of people are not. We want more people to use their bikes, but if they are forced to take to major roadways to get anywhere....which they often are in our age of cul-de-sacs and land use separation through zoning codes...inexperienced cyclists will seldom take to their bikes without some sense of security through an identifiable bicycle accommodation. In spite of the issues expressed by those opposed to lanes - and most are valid - I am unaware of any objective studies that concluded bike lanes to actually be significantly more dangerous than not having lanes. Similarly, there is no study I am aware of that shows them to be significantly safer, either. Essentially, it is a wash (and hence the tiresomely enduring pro/con lane debates among experienced cyclists). That being the case, if a bike lane will encourage someone to ride that would not otherwise do so, gimme the brush and I'll paint the stripe. The same cannot be said of sidepaths and sidewalk riding as there are studies which have concluded increased risk with those practices.

Without a bike lane, the novice rider will likely forgo bicycle transportation beyond a recreational ride around the block or a visit to the neighborhood park where he/she can ride on the path. Without a lane stripe and instead a wide outside lane, the motorist will see a wide lane which promotes faster driving. We all know that speed limits are the most ignored law on the books. Motorists drive the speed a road is designed for, not an arbitrary limit. The bike lane stripe narrows the motorist's perception of asphalt width and encourages them to take a few mph off the pedal. Slower actual motorists' speeds are themselves an inducement and benefit to cycling.

So, if our goal is to slowly eradicate bicycles from the transportation arena, then let's widen all the roads and do away with bike lanes. On the other hand, if a little bit of paint will help to encourage more bicycle use, then let's get lanes on the major roadways and do a better job of connectivity so cyclists can avoid major roadways altogether if they choose.

Sorry, Yoshi. Even though I wasn't the instigator, I'm guilty of turning your thread into yet another pro/con bike lane debate. For what it's worth, I thought your initial post was a good one. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for your clarification.

This might also be of some use to you:
Virginia Cycling Laws (http://www.virginiadot.org/infoservice/bk-laws.asp)

Oh, yeah, giving them tickets for driving in "our" lanes and expressing glee when they're busted for doing so should help get motorists and cops to treat us as drivers of vehicles with the same rights to "their" road that they have... NOT.

Way to go.


Oh jeeze, STFU.

I find this a very useful page that lays out some interesting thought about BL vs. WOL

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/blvswol.htm

I bring this up as there is always seems to be this asssumption from some new to the debate that lack of BL means a narrow street.

Al

...snip...it seems to me that watching out for cars is far more effective than trying to take control of a lane all the time, even if it is your legal right.
Nobody is advocating taking control of the lane all the time. What I've seen HH advocate is staying until cars are aware of you, and then moving over if possible.

I find this a very useful page that lays out some interesting thought about BL vs. WOL

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/blvswol.htm

I bring this up as there is always seems to be this asssumption from some new to the debate that lack of BL means a narrow street.

Al

At least around here, anything wider than 10 feet is by default multi-lane, even if it's striped for just one lane. So where there's not a bike lane, it's always take-the-lane; there's no such thing as being able to share a single wide lane. If there's a wide outside lane, cars treat it as two lanes and drive in it side by side.

We should be dismayed about motorists getting this treatment, not happy about it.


Nonsense.

If this was either a bike lane, parking lane, bus lane, HOV lane, or breakdown lane, the behavior demonstrated by these ticketed drivers was pure unadulterated selfishness. Their willingness to risk flow of traffic, not wait your turn (like they taught you to do in kindergarden), abuse space not reserved for the normal flow of traffic, and possibly risk lives is why they are being ticketed. I, for one, abhor selfishness and abhor vehicular selfishness even more so. You will get no dismay from me.

Being rear ended is extremely rare - most accidents occur at intersections and involve being hooked (when a driver is making a turn and hits you).Do you have any actual stats for this? We've had 2 rear-end fatalities here in less than 3 months. From this perspective, it appears that though right-hooks might be the most *common* accident, rear-ending is the most common *fatal* accident. The bike lane gives at least *some* protection from this kind of thing.

Do you have any actual stats for this? We've had 2 rear-end fatalities here in less than 3 months. From this perspective, it appears that though right-hooks might be the most *common* accident, rear-ending is the most common *fatal* accident. The bike lane gives at least *some* protection from this kind of thing.

Interesting note: I was rereading parts of John Forester's book, and he admits that there is not much a cyclist can do about a rear end accident. His only advice to guard against drunks or sleepers is to stay off to the right a little to give an impaired driver someplace to go besides through you. This advice is obviously coming from his experience rather than his idealogy. In my thinking, idealogy is nice, but experience is needed to temper the idealogy into something useful.

Another interesting thing I saw in his book is that bike lanes were not opposed per se. Most of Forester's beef was with side paths. His opposition to bike lanes was from a study done in the 70's or early 80's in 4 or 5 different cities showing that cyclists tended to have fewer accidents by percentage in cities without bike lanes verses those cities with bike lanes. Times have changed. If bike lanes, their design and enforcement, can be made to be consistent with the VC technique (which includes riding to the right most of the time), he doesn't have an argument against them.

At least around here, anything wider than 10 feet is by default multi-lane, even if it's striped for just one lane. So where there's not a bike lane, it's always take-the-lane; there's no such thing as being able to share a single wide lane. If there's a wide outside lane, cars treat it as two lanes and drive in it side by side.
But not at 45mph. When traffic is slow and dense you just ride in the middle or even to the left of the lane, even/especially if wide. That is what I did when I visited my friend in Manhattan and rode around for about 35mi over the course of a weekend (but not during weekday rush hour - so a very limited experience). I specifically avoided riding so someone would try and squeeze by me, worked fairly well and I found that even though traffic was dense and chaotic it was relatively easy to maneuver in as long as you stayed ultra alert.

Al

Nonsense.

If this was either a bike lane, parking lane, bus lane, HOV lane, or breakdown lane, the behavior demonstrated by these ticketed drivers was pure unadulterated selfishness. Their willingness to risk flow of traffic, not wait your turn (like they taught you to do in kindergarden), abuse space not reserved for the normal flow of traffic, and possibly risk lives is why they are being ticketed. I, for one, abhor selfishness and abhor vehicular selfishness even more so. You will get no dismay from me.

Good example of vehicular selfishness and impatience yesterday. I'm riding along (bike lane, gasp) coming up on a traffic light. On the corner is a mini-mart/gas station. The light is red, there is little traffic at the time. A delivery truck is pulling out of the store and trying to manuver over to the left turn lane, so for a short while he is blocking all the lanes. Did I mention the light is red? A gal in a jeep races up, bearing down on the big ol truck, blaring her horn and wagging her head off. Finally the track is able to get into the left turn lane and jeep gal can move the 30 feet up to the wait line at the red light. I pulled up along side her and tried to tell her that she could have given the truck driver a break, the light was red, and so on, but she just kept screaming at me, didn't want to hear. Well that got me going, I mocked her, her come back was that I was on a stupid bike and I should grow up. She was the one getting all bent out of shape for nothing and I needed to grow up for calling her out for it. Sheesh.

Interesting note: I was rereading parts of John Forester's book, and he admits that there is not much a cyclist can do about a rear end accident. His only advice to guard against drunks or sleepers is to stay off to the right a little to give an impaired driver someplace to go besides through you. This advice is obviously coming from his experience rather than his idealogy. In my thinking, idealogy is nice, but experience is needed to temper the idealogy into something useful.

Another interesting thing I saw in his book is that bike lanes were not opposed per se. Most of Forester's beef was with side paths. His opposition to bike lanes was from a study done in the 70's or early 80's in 4 or 5 different cities showing that cyclists tended to have fewer accidents by percentage in cities without bike lanes verses those cities with bike lanes. Times have changed. If bike lanes, their design and enforcement, can be made to be consistent with the VC technique (which includes riding to the right most of the time), he doesn't have an argument against them.

Interesting observations...

I believe the whole bike lane hate issue is derived from EC readers who then project Foresters "cyclists' inferiority" into a "segregation" issue and then beat that logic into a "rights" issue. They use the negative aspect of "segregation" and build that up into a drumbeat for "rights." Meanwhile, there are situations where cyclists should indeed be largely "separated" from motor vehicle traffic, and these cases are totally ignored and denied by the strict "EC segragationists" or as I read on another web page "Foresterites."

Oh jeeze, STFU.
Now that I would call an example of dismissing what someone said out of hand.

...snip...it seems to me that watching out for cars is far more effective than trying to take control of a lane all the time, even if it is your legal right.

Nobody is advocating taking control of the lane all the time. What I've seen HH advocate is staying until cars are aware of you, and then moving over if possible.
Exactly. At least someone is paying attention. Thank you

Actually, while I'm at it, Yoshi, thank you for that excellent summary of the argument against BLs.

And thanks to Al for posting the link addressing the stripe/width issue.

PurpleK - I don't have time for a full answer, but you bring up a good point. The problem for me is that novice cyclists are at a fork in the road. One way is towards learning integrated cycling by starting on light traffic roads and moving up as one gains skills and confidence, the other way is learning segregated cycling, which includes riding, almost from the beginning, even on streets with fast/busy traffic, as long as there is a bike lane. The problem with taking that path is it then becomes very difficult to make the leap to integrated cycling; the more you go down the segregated cycling path, the further you get from integrated cycling. It's a different mental paradigm.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence that shows that bike lanes increase the popularity of cycling in the long run. It might increase some limited cycling in certain areas, but these people typically remain intimidated by traffic and continue to seek cycling experienced away from traffic, are eventually dispappointed and frustrated, and quit. I think what we want to do is get novices on the path towards integrated cycling, learning to enjoy cycling even in traffic, and bike lanes move them away from that.

Maybe others can add to this point.

Now that I would call an example of dismissing what someone said out of hand.

If only you had said anything.

I don't even like Bike Lanes.

I also can't figure out your damage.

I don't really give a **** about your little ideological battles. This is what I know from much urban cycling experience:
When I ride in a marked bike lane, cagers often buzz me.
When I ride in the "grown-up" lane, cagers never buzz me.
Anybody who thinks a 3 inch stripe of paint will protect them from being rear-ended is a supertistitious fool. Rear-ending happens to improperly lit cyclists at night, and it happens when cagers are drunk or sleepy. They won't even see the stripe in those cases.
In my opinion, most of those who like bike lanes have never learned how to cycle properly and legally in the street.

I ride responsibly, defensively and with courtesy. I take the lane when I have to, move into appropriate turn lanes, etc and ride to the side to allow motorists to pass when I can safely do so. That being said, I am in favor of bike lanes.

Score 1 point for the sensibility side.


Nobody is advocating taking control of the lane all the time. What I've seen HH advocate is staying until cars are aware of you, and then moving over if possible.

How does he know they're aware of him? Does he ride in the middle of the lane and wait for every driver to give him the finger before moving over? :D I have ridden in California, and now I ride in Australia. Drivers are different in different locales. What works in one place, with traffic at a given speed, may get you killed elsewhere. There is no singular set of rules that apply to all cyclists everywhere. For an exception to the comment, see above quote from PurpleK.

This thread is making me feel Dejavu

This thread is making me feel Dejavu
Its bound to happen.

A&S is about:
The cyclist environment
-facilties (roads, bike lanes, paths, weather, light)
-other users of facilities (bikes, cars, trucks, peds, etc.)

The cyclist behavior & skill

The cyclist equipment
-bike & capabilities
-lights
-helmets

By all means not exhaustive, but it gives you the idea that any discussion about S&A is bound to include one or more of these three main areas.

Al

. . . one of the major problems with bike lanes (which is really just a symptom of the segregation created by bike lanes) is that too many motorists abuse them to make them effective for cycling. . . .
You hit the nail on the head.



. . . .there are situations where cyclists should indeed be largely "separated" from motor vehicle traffic, and these cases are totally ignored and denied by the strict "EC segragationists" or as I read on another web page "Foresterites."
Yes, there are situation when "cyclists should indeed be largely 'separated' from motor vehicle traffic," but they are a lot rarer than many "bike-ped advocates" claim. Those situations almost never exist on streets with speed limits below 35 mph.

So who has taken a position that all bike lanes are bad all the time?

It's no different only if you're missing the big picture.
You're missing the bigger picture. There will be cyclists in the bike lane like it or not. That road has a curve. Even you admit to pulling to the side --and even using bike lanes-- to let faster traffic pass. Therefore the cops are doing us all a favor keeping these shortcut-seekers from running over bicyclists.

Diane - try to imagine the bottom of State Street without all the bike lanes and multi user paths. Heck, try to imagine SB without bike lanes. It would never work.

[Giving tickets to bike lane violaters] is no different from [officers giving tickets to car pool lane violators] only if you're missing the big picture.
<snip the part explaining the bigger picture>

You're missing the bigger picture. There will be cyclists in the bike lane like it or not. That road has a curve. Even you admit to pulling to the side --and even using bike lanes-- to let faster traffic pass. Therefore the cops are doing us all a favor keeping these shortcut-seekers from running over bicyclists.
I don't get what the bigger picture is that you think I'm missing.

Cyclists will be in the bike lane? I'm not missing that.
The road has a curve? Didn't miss it.
I pull aside to let faster traffic pass, even using the BL to do so? No, I'm quite aware of that too.
Therefore the cops are doing us all a favor keeping these shortcut-seekers from running over bicyclists? Whoa! That's a leap, maybe that's the big picture that I'm missing? I thought they were keeping shortcut-seekers out of the bike lane... keeping them from running over bicyclists is something else again... Has a bicyclist ever been run over from behind here? Somehow I doubt it.

You hit the nail on the head.



Yes, there are situation when "cyclists should indeed be largely 'separated' from motor vehicle traffic," but they are a lot rarer than many "bike-ped advocates" claim. Those situations almost never exist on streets with speed limits below 35 mph.

So who has taken a position that all bike lanes are bad all the time?

We are in agreement... especially with regard to the 35MPH.

The answer to your latter question is Helmet Head, who is fond of saying "no bike lanes, past, present or future.

I think there is some middle ground that can be met somewhere, and in all cases proper, well thought out design is key.

I don't really give a **** about your little ideological battles. This is what I know from much urban cycling experience:
When I ride in a marked bike lane, cagers often buzz me.
When I ride in the "grown-up" lane, cagers never buzz me.
Anybody who thinks a 3 inch stripe of paint will protect them from being rear-ended is a supertistitious fool. Rear-ending happens to improperly lit cyclists at night, and it happens when cagers are drunk or sleepy. They won't even see the stripe in those cases.
In my opinion, most of those who like bike lanes have never learned how to cycle properly and legally in the street.


The vehicle drivers in your area must be totally different than the ones here. Whether I'm in the bike lane, or taking the lane, I get buzzed just as much.

FWIW - I ride my motorcycle in the bicycle lane when there is bumper-to-bumper traffic on the street. :D

What HH said comes down to this - are cars and bicycles different enough to warrant segregation? YES! That is why bicycles are not allowed on the freeway except in rural areas where there are no surface streets. There is a tremendous difference between human-powered transport and fuel-powered transport - acceleration & speed being the biggest ones.

What HH said comes down to this - are cars and bicycles different enough to warrant segregation? YES!
I agree that there is enough difference to warrant segregation on freeways, but not on regular streets with intersections.

Therefore the cops are doing us all a favor keeping these shortcut-seekers from running over bicyclists? Whoa! That's a leap, maybe that's the big picture that I'm missing? I thought they were keeping shortcut-seekers out of the bike lane... keeping them from running over bicyclists is something else again... Has a bicyclist ever been run over from behind here? Somehow I doubt it.

I don't know whether anyone's ever been hit from behind at that exact intersection, but several times a week I ride past a memorial where two kids were killed when hit by behind by a speeder trying to use the bike lane as a shortcut to get around traffic backed up at a light. The memorial is less than a mile from the intersection where the OP saw police ticketing.

These things AREN'T just theory, Serge; enforcement saves lives, even if you disapprove.

We are in agreement... especially with regard to the 35MPH.

The answer to your latter question is Helmet Head, who is fond of saying "no bike lanes, past, present or future.

I think there is some middle ground that can be met somewhere, and in all cases proper, well thought out design is key.
The problem is that the LAB's "Bike-Friendly" program and most (all?) "Bicycle Coordinators" don't make the distinction between roads where segregation could be helpful and roads where it's useless at best and dangerous at worst. By contrast, the Ohio Bike Federation's (http://ohiobike.org/) "Cyclist-Friendly Community (http://ohiobike.org/obf-cfc.html)" award requires communties to show that their "bike facilities" actually help cyclists.

I think a lot (but not all) of the acrimony over bike lanes on these forums is that the bike-lane skeptics are thinking about 25 mph roads when we criticize bike lanes, and many pro-bike-lane people are thinking about freeway-like conditions.

But that's not universal. I'm fighting a plan to put bike lanes on the 25 mph downtown streets of my city (traffic often goes more slowly). There is no reasonable argument for bike lanes on 25 mph streets with lots of turning. In the world of bike and cyclist advocacy, I think there are a lot more unreasonable bike-lane-everywhere people than unreasonable bike-lane-nowhere people.

As to HH, I'll let him speak for himself, but I thought I remembered threads where he has said that some bike lanes are appropriate.

The vehicle drivers in your area must be totally different than the ones here. Whether I'm in the bike lane, or taking the lane, I get buzzed just as much.
I assume that by "vehicle drivers" you mean motor vehicle drivers. I don't know if they are different here. Why would they be different? I do know what works best for me on city streets, and it ain't no freekin bike lanes.