Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike Lane deaths

People drift into adjacent lanes intended for cars just as often as they drift into lanes intended for bicycles. Ask any motorcyclist.

- Warren
Hell, yeah! I saw 5 of them in a row today drift over to my side of the street from the other side of the double-yellow line. One of them came dangerously close to me as I was taking the lane up the hill.

The only reason a lot of bicyclists get killed in bike lanes is because that is where they are. How many motorists got killed driving on the street? Is it more or less than how many motorists get killed driving on the sidewalk?

HH, your theory that drivers are more aware of something if its in their lane rather than off to the side is totally wrong. A very common car-car collision is the 'rear ender' (according to my friend who owns two panel shops it's the most common one they see) so if drivers don't see another car in front of them what chance do we have of being seen on a bike? There is a huge difference between being rear-ended in your car and rear-ended on your bike, maybe you should think about that every time you're the last 'vehichle' stopped in a line of traffic and a car approaches from behind.... is this the one thats not going to stop?.... so whats the VC trick for determining that before you're squashed between 2 cars?

HH, your theory that drivers are more aware of something if its in their lane rather than off to the side is totally wrong. A very common car-car collision is the 'rear ender'
The fact that rear enders are common car-car collisions (which I know and do not dispute) has no bearing on the phenomenon I'm talking about.

When there is a car-car collision that is a rear ender, how often do you think it happens because the one behind didn't see the one in front of him? I'll bet very rarely. The cause of these is usually unexpected behavior. For example, light turns green, car 1 starts going, car 2 starts going, suddenly driver of car 1 notices a pedestrian, hits the brakes, and car 2 rear ends car 1.

What I'm talking about is when someone is driving along at speed, relatively relaxed, not intending on turning anywhere or going anywhere other than continuing to go straight. It is that person who is likely to be paying much more attention to what is up ahead in his intended path, which is his lane, and not so much to what is outside of his intended path which includes cyclists riding up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane.

So, the fact that rear enders are common car-car collisions has no bearing on this phenomenon.

The fact that rear enders are common car-car collisions (which I know and do not dispute) has no bearing on the phenomenon I'm talking about.

When there is a car-car collision that is a rear ender, how often do you think it happens because the one behind didn't see the one in front of him? I'll bet very rarely. The cause of these is usually unexpected behavior. For example, light turns green, car 1 starts going, car 2 starts going, suddenly driver of car 1 notices a pedestrian, hits the brakes, and car 2 rear ends car 1.

What I'm talking about is when someone is driving along at speed, relatively relaxed, not intending on turning anywhere or going anywhere other than continuing to go straight. It is that person who is likely to be paying much more attention to what is up ahead in his intended path, which is his lane, and not so much to what is outside of his intended path which includes cyclists riding up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane.

So, the fact that rear enders are common car-car collisions has no bearing on this phenomenon.

That's fine but the examle you present is the most common one in traffic where the speeds are almost constantly changing and you have start-stop traffic at lights, stop signs, etc. and where your vc cyclist would be taking the lane possibly right behind that vehichle that stops suddendly and gets rearended. so how do you mitigate that risk as a VC cyclist?

The situation you describe as "relatively relaxed, not intending on turning anywhere or going anywhere other than continuing to go straight" sounds like a freeway to me where you have already stated your support for bike lanes. So clearly the greatest risk of a rear ender exists when a vc cyclist is most likely to be in the lane directly behind the car that gets rear ended.

OK, getting theoretical here because that is where the traffic engineers dwell (or at least it seems that way sometimes). Supposing that Bike Lanes had no debris, and were smooth and well designed, What would be wrong with traffic flowing smoothly past a cyclist who also is riding along un-obstructed? How is that more dangerous? What we are describing here is a slow moving vehicle lane dedicated for bicycle use. If they worked as designed how would they be arguably more dangerous? Once we establish this we can talk about shortcomings. When motorists can pass me with less worry then I get less harassment and that makes greater safety in my mind. Not that I don't ride roads without bike lanes but just having a little trouble getting your logic here as far as well designed bike lanes making things more dangerous. Now ill designed bike lanes is another story but it seems like we are dealing in generalities here so lets assume a utopian bike lane.
This statement makes it sound like you think that some drivers who hit cyclists do so intentionally or maliciously, while they are "worried" and "harrassing" cyclists. I think that kind of paranoia explains one reason for the popularity of bike lane stripes.

Pretty low of you to use a death like this as a tool in your personal vendetta. Of course, we all know you would have completely ignored this news item had the death occured on a WOL or normal lane with all other details identical.
You mean Like MADD exploited the deaths of people hit by drunk drivers?

You mean Like MADD exploited the deaths of people hit by drunk drivers?
Why are you quoting a post from October? I didn't even remember having a sub to this thread!

Why are you quoting a post from October? I didn't even remember having a sub to this thread!
I wasn't the one who bumped it, grumpy.

I don't think the fact that the victim was riding in a 'bike lane' had much to do with it. She could have just as easily been riding on the shoulder, not a 'bike lane' per say.

The old guy that hit her was not watching where he was going plain and simple. You could be standing in your front yard and get hit by some motorist who's not watching where they are going...
Or for that fact , you can be sitting in your front room & be run over...lol.
there has been a few cars in this neighborhood that has careened through front yards & straight into houses & apartments.

This statement makes it sound like you think that some drivers who hit cyclists do so intentionally or maliciously, while they are "worried" and "harrassing" cyclists. I think that kind of paranoia explains one reason for the popularity of bike lane stripes.
I believe that car operators do pull in front of cyclists intentionally sometimes. Call it what ever you like.

I wasn't the one who bumped it, grumpy.

I'm not grumpy, just wondering why you would quote text from two seasons ago. Sure, the thread has been bumped, but you chose to reply to an old post instead of a new one. Surely you had a reason, and didn't just do it as a waste of time. You had new posts to respond to in the flow of thread if you cared about the current direction of the conversation. How productive can it be to respond to things months old?

As to your question... no, the original post was not "...Like MADD exploited the deaths of people hit by drunk drivers". It was more like a prohobitionist using a death resulting from worker negligence at a brewery as evidence of the "evils" of alcohol.

Another bike lane death caused by yet another motorist drifting inadvertently into the bike lane:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=193277

Same fatality, different thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=193201

Hell, yeah! I saw 5 of them in a row today drift over to my side of the street from the other side of the double-yellow line. One of them came dangerously close to me as I was taking the lane up the hill.

The only reason a lot of bicyclists get killed in bike lanes is because that is where they are. How many motorists got killed driving on the street? Is it more or less than how many motorists get killed driving on the sidewalk?

Agree. The reducio ad absurdium would be to point very few cyclists get killed riding in hte fast lane on the freeway.

But we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because Serge pushes the point too far does not mean there is no validity to it. Let's take the bike lane in the door zone. The cyclist is somewhere unexpected AND somewhat camoflaged by the background of parked cars. I think there is a valid point in this case. But in some of the nicer bike lanes I have seen the cyclist is out from the curb and not near anything else, and if the rider is in a colorful kit or safety geek yellow they stick out like a sore thumb.

One other thing. Years ago riding out on a highway with limited shoulder, wide lanes and several riders in a group I ended up riding on the shoulder line for about a mile. I thought my bike was having problems in the rear hub. It was making the kind of noise you get when bearings were not greased. Turns out it was a kind of paint designed to alert drifting drivers. It seems it is almost as good as tightly packed dots. I think that paint is ideal for bike lane lines. Alerts drifting drivers and I think not nearly the slickness in hte rain problems that ordinary paint has.

You are actually describing the newest concept of road design. This has already been tried in several countries. There are no lane markers, stripes or signs of any kind. There are no separate facilities (sidewalks) for pedestrians, let alone cyclists. Sounds like the new (in Europe and North America) engineering approach to urban traffic design that has been called designing for negotiation (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=1888668&highlight=Monderman#post1888668).

... in some of the nicer bike lanes I have seen the cyclist is out from the curb and not near anything else...BTW, a narrow travel lane could provide the same benefit without the segregation.

Bruces' statement in #65 is patently false; a narrow outside laned roadway does NOT provide all the advantages of a preferred lane for bicyclists. In addition, plying the 'segregation' gambit is a dubious and misleading way of fingering bike lanes as the cause of these tragedies.

Skewed, maligned, misleading, and macabre. These deaths were a result of distracted drivers, some vague 'cyclosegregation' myths, or gorillas playing basketball?


in a related construct, most of us northern tier commuters that ride year round are familiar with riding to and fro in the dark.

I think visibility is more important than lane position after dark.

At night, which is more crucial for driver recognition and negotiation past cyclists? Visibility, or lane position?

Mr, HEAD, when is the last time YOU rode at night? Do you feel visibility, or lane position, is a more valuable tool for cyclist recognition after dark?

Here is a picture of a particularily useful velotransit accomodation for Seattle bicyclists, day or night, in the picture below. At night, what would be a good choice of positioning-to the right of the passable WOL( to the right of the bike lane stripe, i mean), or out in the main travel lane?

and if the rider was using no lights or visibility equipment at night, where would the cyclist be the safest - where would a night riding, darklighter bicyclist position themselves for maximum safety on this roadway- in the main travel lane, or to the right, in the velotransit lane?

Why am i even posting in this macabe thread? Mr. HEAD, he even bumped his own 'bike lane death' thread in march with a 'bike lane accident' to keep his spiel alive, his hype about vague 'notions', his illusory armchair observations. Downright macabre.

Bruces' statement in #65 is patently false; a narrow outside laned roadway does NOT provide all the advantages of a preferred lane for bicyclists. In addition, plying the 'segregation' gambit is a dubious and misleading way of fingering bike lanes as the cause of these tragedies.

Skewed, maligned, misleading, and macabre. These deaths were a result of distracted drivers, some vague 'cyclosegregation' myths, or gorillas playing basketball?


in a related construct, most of us northern tier commuters that ride year round are familiar with riding to and fro in the dark.

I think visibility is more important than lane position after dark.

At night, which is more crucial for driver recognition and negotiation past cyclists? Visibility, or lane position?

Mr, HEAD, when is the last time YOU rode at night? Do you feel visibility, or lane position, is a more valuable tool for cyclist recognition after dark?

Here is a picture of a particularily useful velotransit accomodation for Seattle bicyclists, day or night, in the picture below. At night, what would be a good choice of positioning-to the right of the passable WOL( to the right of the bike lane stripe, i mean), or out in the main travel lane?

and if the rider was using no lights or visibility equipment at night, where would the cyclist be the safest - where would a night riding, darklighter bicyclist position themselves for maximum safety on this roadway- in the main travel lane, or to the right, in the velotransit lane?

Why am i even posting in this macabe thread? Mr. HEAD, he even bumped his own 'bike lane death' thread in march with a 'bike lane accident' to keep his spiel alive, his hype about vague 'notions', his illusory armchair observations. Downright macabre.

He likes to talk about of center deaths but never about those who were in the center of the lane who were killed. When these incidents are broght to his attention he ignores them and does not comment. I suspect though he will comment in reply to this and ask for a link showing him one of these posts he ignored and once posted he will ignore the reply and go on about the bike lane or off centerdeaths.

See heres the thing vc does infact work some what. Mostly though it simply gets those border line drivers who may or may not buzz you to pass you with more distance. And if you happen to see some one passing you to closely and are in the center of the lane you can move right to increase your distance from the car.

Another bike lane death caused by yet another motorist drifting inadvertently into the bike lane:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=193277

Same fatality, different thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=193201


Ambulance chaser.

VC and anti-bike lane BS are not one and the same despite the agenda of some folks.

And again, if cyclists usually ride on the right margins of the road, isn't that where they are usually going to be when a motorist kills them? You don't go to the hardware store to pick up a loaf of bread and you don't stay in your own lane to kill cyclists traveling in other lanes.

And that goes for BL stripes - it facilitiates faster passing of cyclists by motorists

Ding! Ding! Ding!

The BL proponents seem to be clueless to this fact.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

The BL proponents seem to be clueless to this fact.

Question what is the problem of motorists being able to pass faster easyer and more saftly when a cyclist is in the bike lane?

Its no diffrent than if im holding the lane on a road with a right turn lane + left turn pluss strait lane and a motoroist passes me while im doing 12 mph up the hill and hes making a left turn while im going strait and hes doing the speed limit. Did he pass me faster sure he did did he have to move out of his lane to do so or did i need to make room for him to pass? The answer is no. So same deal im in bike lanee car on my left doing speed limit im doing 12 to 15 mph hes doing speed limit of 25 or 30 and passes me. I ee no diffrence.

Diffrent case im in my lane going strait car behind me and in the left turn only lane hes doing the speed limit and dialing his cell phone or even useing a hands free one and not paying atention to the lane (or maybe he drops the fire off his cig in to his lap and greaches down to brush it off take your pick) he drifts over in to the strait lane and hits me.

Dont say it doesnt happen simply put is has to have happened dozens of times. I have seen cars get smashed in this very same condition. Simply put your not going to find many deaths talking about cyclists who were riding in a vc manner because its not news worthy to include that bit. It is news worthy to report the deaths from car v bike collisions. Regardless of where the cyclist was when he was killed.

Simply put if the cyclists dies he cant say i was following vc practices when i was killed and theres realy no way to prove the cyclist was riding vc or not riding vc.

This is one more post that helmet head will choose to ignore as it makes points that he does not want to admit to or even acknowlage. Sorry hh but you have soe isues. You do not want to accept the fact that vc is not the single solution to being safe on a bike. You wont even acknowlage posts that point out the flaws in your logic.

Cyclist are killed daily riding in many 100s of difrent ways wrong way far right edge bike lanes mups pulling out of their drive way riding on side wallks riding as pedestrians doing pedesrian turns and yes riding vc as well.

I will ride in what ever way protects me the most over all. If theres a nice clean bike lane with out cars parked in it ill ride it if there a 3 foot wide shoulder that may as well have bike lane written in it ill ride there when safe to do so. IF vc will keep me safe then ill use it as well.

BL proponents don't have a problem with traffic passing them quickly. When each is in his own lane, fast passing is the intended outcome.

Thread killer...

Beer Biscuits

One 12 oz Beer
3 cups Biscuit Mix
2 tbs Sugar
*** Mix all ingredients and cut and bake @ 375F till brown.

Yield: 6 Biscuits
are those actually any good? I bet mixing a small handful of grated cheddar cheese in there would be pretty good, or maybe some chopped green onions.

Maybe even both!

BL proponents don't have a problem with traffic passing them quickly. When each is in his own lane

That's the problem. Many motorists treat BL's just like they do breakdown lanes - drifting in and out at will.
BL's (to me anyway) give a false sense of security for the cyclists; make for dangerous left turns; and further reinforces the motorists idea that we aren't REALLY legal vehicles and must STAY in our "designated" area.

A very common car-car collision is the 'rear ender' (according to my friend who owns two panel shops it's the most common one they see) so if drivers don't see another car in front of them what chance do we have of being seen on a bike?
I always thought that was from tailgating, which I get all the time driving, but rarely on my bike. Cars following each other at speeds to fast to stop in distances too short.

Sorry but drifting motorists does not have anything to do with being passed quickly and efficiency. And until I can be certain that motorists won't drift over the double-yellow line (which I see every single day--EVERY DAY! I'm not making this up.), I won't concern myself too much with wild rantings about drifting into the bike lane (which is something I almost never see).

I wonder if those who don't like bike lanes will ever convince those who do like them otherwise, or visa-versa.

I wonder if those who don't like bike lanes will ever convince those who do like them otherwise, or visa-versa.

I don't like bike lanes, but I don't buy the 'inadvertent drift' theory either. From my own experience, drivers tend to drift into other traffic lanes just as much as they drift into bike lanes or shoulders...so from that standpoint I don't consider a bike lane any more dangerous than the traffic lane. This isn't a black-white issue and you can't categorize people into two neat little categories on the subject.

And until I can be certain that motorists won't drift over the double-yellow line (which I see every single day--EVERY DAY! I'm not making this up.),
Intentional or due to inattention?
Many cyclists intentionally go over the double yellow on winding mountain decents.

Al

This isn't a black-white issue and you can't categorize people into two neat little categories on the subject.
I agree with that, since I don't prefer bike lanes, but I figure it's a waste of time arguing about it. That's what lies beneath most of these discussions, a basic position for/against bike lanes.

I'm not saying it's a black-and-white issue, just that the pro/anti bike lane positioning can lie just beneath the surface of the argument.

so from that standpoint I don't consider a bike lane any more dangerous than the traffic lane..

I'll assume you also don't consider it any safer as well.

Which is my whole point. BL's give a false sense of security (esp. for noobs). And also BL's imply (to most motorists) that we must STAY in the BL, regardless of debris, doors, stopped buses etc.

I don't think the fact that the victim was riding in a 'bike lane' had much to do with it. She could have just as easily been riding on the shoulder, not a 'bike lane' per say.

The old guy that hit her was not watching where he was going plain and simple. You could be standing in your front yard and get hit by some motorist who's not watching where they are going...

+1. So are you trying to see how painted lines are directly responsible for the deaths of cyclists?

Many motorists treat BL's just like they do breakdown lanes - drifting in and out at will.For those who didn't already know, breakdown lane is a synonym for shoulder, which just so happens to be part of the 1998 MUTCD definition for Designated Bicycle Lane:
A portion of a roadway or shoulder which has been designated for use by bicyclists…

Of course they missed seeing it, because their subconscious minds deemed the gorilla to be irrelevant to the task at hand (counting the number of passes), and did not bother to alert the conscious mind about it.

This is what I believe happens when a driver's subconscious mind processes a sighting of a cyclist up ahead who is "out of the way' off to the side and/or in the bike lane. It deems the "out of the way" cyclist to be irrelevant to the task at hand - getting from A to B.

Now, a cyclist who is IN the driver's path up ahead, that's something else. When the subconscious mind processes this cyclist, it WILL alert the conscious mind. Once you have the driver's attention, then you move out of the way, so that as he passes you he is aware of your presence, and exceedingly unlikely to inadvertently drift into you.
This is one of the reason's I don't get offended about one of those drivers that seem to get off on "scaring" you by screaming an obscenity lor insult like "Get a job so you can afford a car!" At least I know he see's me!:D

This is one of the reason's I don't get offended about one of those drivers that seem to get off on "scaring" you by screaming an obscenity lor insult like "Get a job so you can afford a car!" At least I know he see's me!:D


Lol i had some dork yell that at me once he was in some barly legal beat up honda. I said somethign to the effect well my bike is worth more than your car. He looked over the bike and said you know your probably right and laughed.

For those who didn't already know, breakdown lane is a synonym for shoulder, which just so happens to be part of the 1998 MUTCD definition for Designated Bicycle Lane:

Yea, but you forgot to mention that it is 2006 (8 years in the future) and the MUTCD definition has been formally changed so that a bike lane is now not equivilent to a shoulder.

Yea, but you forgot to mention that it is 2006 (8 years in the future) and the MUTCD definition has been formally changed so that a bike lane is now not equivilent to a shoulder.
So finally some traffic engineer types really focusing on the issue understand the difference sufficiently to update the MUTCD accordingly.

Now, how many decades do you expect it to take for the general driving culture to catch up with the thinking now finally corrected in the MUTCD?

And as far as your comment (in the sensationalism thread) that you might agree with me if you lived where I lived, I bring to your attention the several incidents of bike lane deaths due to inadvertent drift that we've talked about on this forum, which took place in Portland and the surrounding area. If you think you're immune, you're fooling yourself. Now, it's true that the likelihood of it happening to you (or me) or any one cyclist is very low, but several cyclists are killed by this phenomenon every year. As far as I'm concerned, most if not all of them could have been prevented by minor adjustments in cyclist behavior alone. Why not promote a general acceptance among cyclists that reduces the chances of anyone falling vicitim to same-direction inadvertent drift, and, more importantly, to hooks and crosses from cross-traffic? What's the downside of promoting the Cyclecraft methodology (use a conspicuous centerish lane position during significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic, rather than keeping to the right or in the bike lane)?

Why not promote a general acceptance among cyclists that reduces the chances of anyone falling vicitim to same-direction inadvertent drift, and, more importantly, to hooks and crosses from cross-traffic?

Well....
I'll take a bite at that apple.

It's easier to start threads that make HH out to be an arsehole?

Well....
I'll take a bite at that apple.

It's easier to start threads that make HH out to be an arsehole?
But why bother, when he's so willing to do it himself?

It's too bad the fear mongers on this forum derailled this thread. A comparison of crashes with regard to the cyclists road position would have been useful. :mad:

<falsetto "Oooh, I'm afraid of the big, bad cars and do everything I can to stay out of their way so I won't upset them. They might run over poor little me. All cyclists should ride this way, even if it isn't safer than VC.">

So finally some traffic engineer types really focusing on the issue understand the difference sufficiently to update the MUTCD accordingly.

Now, how many decades do you expect it to take for the general driving culture to catch up with the thinking now finally corrected in the MUTCD?

And as far as your comment (in the sensationalism thread) that you might agree with me if you lived where I lived, I bring to your attention the several incidents of bike lane deaths due to inadvertent drift that we've talked about on this forum, which took place in Portland and the surrounding area. If you think you're immune, you're fooling yourself. Now, it's true that the likelihood of it happening to you (or me) or any one cyclist is very low, but several cyclists are killed by this phenomenon every year. As far as I'm concerned, most if not all of them could have been prevented by minor adjustments in cyclist behavior alone. Why not promote a general acceptance among cyclists that reduces the chances of anyone falling vicitim to same-direction inadvertent drift, and, more importantly, to hooks and crosses from cross-traffic? What's the downside of promoting the Cyclecraft methodology (use a conspicuous centerish lane position during significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic, rather than keeping to the right or in the bike lane)?


The point you choose to ignore and not respond to is a drift is a drift is a drift Do you realy think it would make one tiny bit of diffrence if those riders were in front of the car in the center of the lane? These drivers were not paying atention pure and simple. Had they been in the left turn strait lanes with a lane to their right for right turns they would have plowed a car. Likly also hittign the one directly infront of them. Ive seen these crashes many many times. Its not because the lane the cyclist was hit in was a bike lane its because the driver paid no attention to driving.

If ither/any of the deaths your useing to promote your case were in center of lane ahead of the car they would have still been hit its as simple as that. The driver was looking fooward seen no one took his atention off the road drifted and hit the cyclist. Put the cyclist in center lane same thing driver see nothign ahead do to cyclist being out of range or line of site he looks away drifts hits. Only diffrence is where the clyclist was hit. In one case its primarly from the left in another its on the right side.

This is just one more post that helmethead will choose to not reply to as it counters his argument directly and points out the fatal flaw of his argument.

Nova, I think mr. HEAD is also going to completely ignore my question on page 3 RE: lane position after dark.......


..... I think visibility is more important than lane position after dark.

At night, which is more crucial for driver recognition and negotiation past cyclists? Visibility, or lane position?

Mr, HEAD, when is the last time YOU rode at night? Do you feel visibility, or lane position, is a more valuable tool for cyclist recognition after dark?



This is a downright disturbing and macabre thread, and one that deserves no debate with mr. HEAD & his overlay of antibike lane, anti 'inadverdant drift' notions from all his armchair bicycling experience-

-from the armchair, it is ALL notion.

Nova, I think mr. HEAD is also going to completely ignore my question on page 3 RE: lane position after dark.......



This is a downright disturbing and macabre thread, and one that deserves no debate with mr. HEAD & his overlay of antibike lane, anti 'inadverdant drift' notions from all his armchair bicycling experience-

-from the armchair, it is ALL notion.
Personaly i ride how ever i feel is safest. If theres a bike lane and its clean i ride it. Personaly ilike riding on the marked bike routes. Drivers tend to be more aware of cyclists than other places. And because the bike routes are often in or near park controlled land and roads its safer still do to driver awareness. Ive been on one thats 45 mph and been passed by cars doign 55. Never have i realy felt in danger riding alittle over from the right tire strip of a car.
Thn there are places where ill take the lane. Mostly when crossign bridges friend had a close call when on a bridge. He lost control when he hit some loose gravel just before the bridge and ended up hanging over the side while his bike landed in the grass median below. Takeing the lane on a bridge will help to lessen the chances of this happening.

Then in areas like south cleveland massilion road i ride almost exclusivly in the wide shoulder. Its clean and free of trash for most part. Drivers know im there (many friendly waves as they go by) So why on a road like that would i bother to take the lane? Driers know its a popular route for cyclists do to fact it leads to the tow path and if you take center road all the way out you got a local bike shop and a little further on south main and you got portage lake stat park.

Center road i take the lane to up my safty. It has alot of sweeping turns and visability isnt as high. Takign the lane beyound the gresse strip is just a good idea to make your self more visable. Drivers expect there to be a cyclist on this road and drive acordingly.

Ive dropped my chain a few times on that road and had drivers stop and ask if i needed any help.

... the MUTCD definition has been formally changed ...
Yep, Designated Bicycle Lane (DBL) was relabeled as Bicycle Lane (BL) in the 2000 edition.

... so that a bike lane is now not equivilent to a shoulder.
In curb & gutter sections (where shoulders don't exist for engineering reasons), BLs provide an equivalent path beside the travel lanes just for our favorite minority group (cyclists 8-).

So finally some traffic engineer types really focusing on the issue understand the difference sufficiently to update the MUTCD accordingly.The only authoritative explanation that I've found so far for the change is in an FHWA slideshow (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ppts/training/SidebySide/9SidebySide.ppt): "This term [BL] is similar in definition [to DBL]."

I ride a mix of roads with bike lanes and without for my commute. Which just happens to be from downtown San Diego to Lakeside. Park Blvd and Adams ave, don't have bike lanes, and traffic and I get along just fine, mostly because park has a nice WIDE right lane, and Adams is 25-30mph most the way, and I can maintain the same speed as traffic fairly easily. Fairmont has bike lanes along with Mission Gorge road, traffic on these two roads is 50+ and thre is one spot on Mission Gorge that is scary, and that's eastbound just before Princess View by the Jack In The Box. The road narrows here and you have to take the lane with 50+ mph traffic, only for about a block, but you have to do it. My speed at this point is usualy around 25 give or take, and I'm usually praying for the light to change so people have to start slowing before I have to enter that lane. VC aside, on a road like that, I'd rather have a bike lane than not. On other roads on my commute, like Mast Blvd in Santee between Halberns and Cuyamaca, they've got a 9 foot wide traffic lane, a bike lane, and parked cars. That's a bike lane that can go away, and I'm surprised there hasn't been any accidents with that one. You see cars driving in the bike lane all the time since the traffic lane is so narrow. I take the traffic lane.

There are places where it's nice to have a bike lane, and places where it doesn't make a difference. I'd rather have the lane on fast roads, and not have it where there are cars parked on the side of the road and the speed limit is less than 35. I think a car drifting into a lane and hitting a cyclist isn't because the lane was there or not, it's because the driver was in-attentive, and probably would've hit the bike anyway. Lanes next to parked cars need to go away.

Yep, Designated Bicycle Lane (DBL) was relabeled as Bicycle Lane (BL) in the 2000 edition.

In curb & gutter sections (where shoulders don't exist for engineering reasons), BLs provide an equivalent path beside the travel lanes just for our favorite minority group (cyclists 8-).

The only authoritative explanation that I've found so far for the change is in an FHWA slideshow (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ppts/training/SidebySide/9SidebySide.ppt): "This term [BL] is similar in definition [to DBL]."

First, since the MUTCD is all about definitions, how do you criticize a document like this for "only" making a change in definition? Every explanation you give for why this change in definition is irrelevent involves a circumlocutation which encompasses nearly the entire section and involves several steps using an "if this, then this" type interpretation which no engineering document is ever subject to.

Second, perhaps in NC there is no difference, but here in Oregon, BL's are marked, signed and swept, whereas shoulders are neither marked, nor signed, nor swept. This is a huge practical distinction between a shoulder and a bike lane. Personally, I think you are splitting hairs, looking for deliberate, malevolent discrimination where none exists simply to perpetuate an air of persecution.

We need to get past the "everyone's out to get us" knee jerk attitude if cycling is ever going to become more prevailent and more accepted. One of the most frequent complaints about cyclists as an interest group is that we are so very reactionary, bringing our big cannons out to swat at every fly. It becomes tedious to the public at large and trickles down to how we are treated on the road on a personal level. If we dial it down half a notch, focusing on more on the practical and less on the theoretical, we would achieve the same or better results with less backlash against individual cyclists.

The point you choose to ignore and not respond to is a drift is a drift is a drift
You've got to be kidding.



Do you realy think it would make one tiny bit of diffrence if those riders were in front of the car in the center of the lane?
Yes, I do.



These drivers were not paying atention pure and simple.
I have no reason to believe it's that simple.



Had they been in the left turn strait lanes with a lane to their right for right turns they would have plowed a car.
I doubt it. Almost all of these drifts occur on long stretches between intersections. At intersection approaches (where there would be a right turn only lane), motorists rarely choose to take their eyes off the road to attend to a distraction.



Likly also hittign the one directly infront of them. Ive seen these crashes many many times. Its not because the lane the cyclist was hit in was a bike lane its because the driver paid no attention to driving.
That's very simplistic, Nova. Again, I have no reason to believe it's that simple. I believe the following factors are all relevant. If you have issues with any of them, please let me know.


All drivers don't drift most of time.
All drivers drift from time to time.
Some drivers are more inclined to drift than others.
Drift usually occurs while the driver is attending to a distraction (unwrapping a burger, changing the radio station, answering the phone, etc.)
Whether a driver chooses to attend to a distraction depends on his assessment of the current situation. For example, a driver is much more likely to choose to attend to a distraction that take his eyes off the road for more than a second or two while driving down an empty road than when tailgating in 50 mph traffic.
Drivers who choose to take their eyes off the road to attend to a distraction often know that they might drift, and take precautions to make sure that if they drift, they drift in the "safe" direction (into the shoulder as opposed to into the oncoming traffic lane).
Harmless drift is so common we often tune it out and don't even notice it when others do it right in front of us. Start looking for it, and you'll find it occuring more often than you may have realized.
When a driver assesses a current situation to decide whether to attend to a distraction now, or to wait, an out-of-the-way cyclist up ahead (say, in a bike lane) is much less likely to be noticed than is a cyclist up ahead riding in the driver's intended path. Therefore, a cyclist in the bike lane is less likely to cause a driver to keep his eyes on the road (and his vehicle in his lane) than is a cyclist riding in a more centerish position.
Though probably helpful in reducing the likelihood of falling victim to an inadvertent drift, the conspicuity advantages of the centerish out-of-the-bike-lane position during gaps in same-direction traffic are much more important for preventing hooks and crosses from cross-traffic, which is a much more likely type of car-bike collision. Either way, bike lanes discourage cyclists from using a more conspicuous roadway position during gaps in same-direction traffic.




If ither/any of the deaths your useing to promote your case were in center of lane ahead of the car they would have still been hit its as simple as that.
That assumes that a) the motorist is not even paying attention to what is directly in front of him, and b) that the cyclist will not move aside as the motorist approaches. While (a) is possible, it's much less likely than a motorist not noticing a cyclist outside of his intended path. (b) is contrary to the method I promote.



This is just one more post that helmethead will choose to not reply to as it counters his argument directly and points out the fatal flaw of his argument.
You've said nothing new in here that I have not already addressed countless times before, and just did again.

So finally some traffic engineer types really focusing on the issue understand the difference sufficiently to update the MUTCD accordingly.

Now, how many decades do you expect it to take for the general driving culture to catch up with the thinking now finally corrected in the MUTCD?

Less then you think. Driving behavior has markedly changed (for the better) in the Beaverton (Portland suburb) area in the 5 years since I started cycling here. This has been clearly helped by new road construction which has lessened the frustrations of motorists and cyclists alike. In the same period of time, the number of cyclists has increased, and not all of them are on Trek bicycles.


And as far as your comment (in the sensationalism thread) that you might agree with me if you lived where I lived, I bring to your attention the several incidents of bike lane deaths due to inadvertent drift that we've talked about on this forum, which took place in Portland and the surrounding area. If you think you're immune, you're fooling yourself. Now, it's true that the likelihood of it happening to you (or me) or any one cyclist is very low, but several cyclists are killed by this phenomenon every year. As far as I'm concerned, most if not all of them could have been prevented by minor adjustments in cyclist behavior alone. Why not promote a general acceptance among cyclists that reduces the chances of anyone falling vicitim to same-direction inadvertent drift, and, more importantly, to hooks and crosses from cross-traffic? What's the downside of promoting the Cyclecraft methodology (use a conspicuous centerish lane position during significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic, rather than keeping to the right or in the bike lane)?

I agree; teach, teach, teach. I will do the same. However, I simply think that things can be done in parallel. And they are. In my paragraph you are refering to, I am simply telling of my observations as a cyclist. I have never witnessed an "inadvertent drift" which ever put me in danger in the slightest when in a bike lane. Obviously it happens, but my point is that it does not happen very often.

Yes, we teach defensive cycling, but in the big picture if we allow nothing to be done regarding the cause of the problems, then we achieve nothing but an escalation. We teach people how to stand and ward off an assault, but we also need to ensure that the assaults don't happen in the first place. Defenses don't always work. The less they need to be employed, the less the chance that something goes wrong.

BTW, has there been more than one of these "inadvertent drift" accidents in the Portland area? I only remember the single one in Sherwood. And there, the driver quite possibly fell asleep.

And in the words of the famous Helmet Head: I have no reason to believe that the reason why motorists drift is more complicated than the simple fact that they were distracted. After all, the lanes on a road are simply separated by paint, and sometimes drivers can and do inadvertently drift over them. I have no reason to believe that incidents of cyclists being killed due to this type of accident are more numerous in either numbers or percentages to the number of drivers being killed due to the same type of accident.

I have no reason to believe that this is a problem limited to cyclists.

(ain't the phrase "I have no reason to believe..." a great phrase. It totally cuts through any attempts at rational discussion from the get go. There's no arguing for what people "...have no reason to believe", since apparently it is a matter of belief; not up for discussion.)

Yes, we teach defensive cycling, but in the big picture if we allow nothing to be done regarding the cause of the problems, then we achieve nothing but an escalation. We teach people how to stand and ward off an assault, but we also need to ensure that the assaults don't happen in the first place. Defenses don't always work. The less they need to be employed, the less the chance that something goes wrong.


God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer