Which would you choose?

[chipcom]

You guys just don't get it that most people don't want what you're selling--your steely gaze alpha dog experience. It's useful as far as it goes for coping with difficult situations, but it's not anything that makes the world a better place.

I'll bet you I see easily 4 times more cyclists every day on my 8 mile commute in bike lane/bike path infested Santa Barbara than you do in the motor city or San Diego. I probably see 10 times more. Could it be because it is more livable here? We offer more choices for people? It's more inviting? It's not all alpha dog aggro?

I, maybe we, get it just fine. I am sharing my personal preference, not trying to force it on others. We are allowed to do that when it comes to expenditure of public funds, ya know. ;) Plus, I only mentioned on-road BL, I have no problem with bike paths and MUPs. I like riding on the road for the most part, but I also love to ride on a couple of the area MUPs, especially the O&E towpath. That does not prevent me from believing that public road funds could be better spent to improve the roads to a usable state for everyone to share, rather than on adding a bike specific lane. What's the difference between most BL and a wide shoulder? Lines? Bike-only symbols? Barriers? We have a bike lane on one road here that has a full concrete barrier beween it and the road. They cut down the width of the road and made it more dangerous for bikes on the road because there is no room to share and no possibility of moving to the BL to allow traffic to pass. Just as you don't want to be forced to use the road, I don't want to be forced to use the BL because they made the road less safe by segregating the BL.

[Brad M]

Hahah, I'm diggin the ASL.

[Helmet Head]

You guys just don't get it that most people don't want what you're selling--your steely gaze alpha dog experience.
Oh, believe me, I get it. So what? A lot of 'em probably do want cocaine and heroin, that doesn't mean we have to give it to them.


It's useful as far as it goes for coping with difficult situations, but it's not anything that makes the world a better place.
More people able to comfortably and safely cope with traffic does make the world a better place, much better than more of it covered with concrete facilities.


I'll bet you I see easily 4 times more cyclists every day on my 8 mile commute in bike lane/bike path infested Santa Barbara than you do in the motor city or San Diego. I probably see 10 times more. Could it be because it is more livable here? We offer more choices for people? It's more inviting? It's not all alpha dog aggro?
Maybe it's generally flatter and has less sprawl?

[lws]

I'll bet you I see easily 4 times more cyclists every day on my 8 mile commute in bike lane/bike path infested Santa Barbara than you do in the motor city or San Diego. I probably see 10 times more.
Not having been to Santa Barbara, I can't say for certain, but I don't think the comparison with Detroit is even remotely due to the presence of bike lanes. Detroit has weather, and a significantly worse economy.

[patc]

This kind of setup give people choices and provides suitable places to cycle for people of all ages and abilities (well, they might find the hill a bit tough.) There's a path for people who don't want to be out in traffic, bike lanes for people like me who don't want to weave in and out as traffic approaches, and people like Serge can always opt out of it all and ride out in the lane.

The problem with Serge's ideology is that it doesn't offer any choices. There is no opting out of VC if VC is all there is. But when there are multiple types of paths to choose from, you choose the one that is right for you. I want more than just coping skills for aggressive traffic. I want choices.

Amen. There is no reason for a cyclist to limit himself to only non-bike lane roadways. That's just lowering yourself to the level of cars. If you intend to ditch the advantages of bikes, why bother with one at all? Bikes offer a healthier alternative, and that includes a less stressful, more pleasant mode of transportation.

Any cyclist who uses a bike as a primary means of transportation will, sooner or later, learn to cope with traffic out of necessity. Anyone who prefers no to is free not to. Cycling isn't some grand ideal to be kept "pure", nor do bikes come with a standard all riders must conform to. How/where one cyclist choses to ride is none of anyone else's business. "Traffic" is one of the worse inventions of modern times - cycling in it may be a thrill for some, an unavoidable requirement for others, but being part of it is nothing to be proud of.

Frankly if people want to improve the world (and thus cycling in it), they should lobby cities for improved urban design and leave other individuals the heck alone.

[Mars]

How/where one cyclist choses to ride is none of anyone else's business. .[/I]

I don't agree with this assessment. Whether being part of traffic is something to be proud of or not, cyclists are part of the transportation fabric of their community. The decisions they make about how they ride affects other people.... maybe going so far as to endanger them.

As an extreme example, I saw a cyclist riding on the sidewalk of a residential neighbourhood and a child ran from behind a hedge in front of her. The woman hollered at the child as if HE had done something wrong! The kid was playing on the sidewalks and yards of his neighbourhood, and rightly, I think, didn't think he needed to look both ways before stepping out on a sidewalk (who does?).

Wrong way cyclists, or those who disobey other fundamental traffic laws also endanger and/or inconvenience other people who have every right to expect a safe and orderly environment to move around in.

[Mars]

You guys just don't get it that most people don't want what you're selling--your steely gaze alpha dog experience. It's not all alpha dog aggro?

I don't know anything about alpha dog steely eyed gazes. I don't look in a challenging way, I look in a friendly way into the cockpit of the car and at the face of the driver. That connection is one human being to another, something that doesn't happend that much in traffic situations where people tend to think in terms of objects: cars, trucks, bikes. On my bent, I don't look over my shoulder at all. I look in my mirror and signal with my hands. I have found that being able to actually make eye contact helps, just like Serge claims, to get the drivers to cooperate with you.

[patc]

I don't agree with this assessment. Whether being part of traffic is something to be proud of or not, cyclists are part of the transportation fabric of their community. The decisions they make about how they ride affects other people.... maybe going so far as to endanger them.

Ok, you have a point - you may be affected by someone riding in a significantly unsafe manner near you. However in the context of this discussion: using bike lanes, or (only) generic traffic lanes, or pathways, an individual's choice has no direct affect on anyone else and, therefore, those anyone-elses should mind their own business.

Now, in the context of advocacy you can certainly stand up at city hall (or wherever) and try to convince people (generic groups) to heed your brand of wisdom, but you and I have no business telling any other individual what to do unless that individual directly affects us. That sort of thing is quite properly answered with a "mind your own bleeping business" and/or a swift kick in the rump. For example I am anti-car and make myself heard at all relevant public meetings but I do not confront individuals with their choice to drive unless I am invited to voice an opinion.

[RobertHurst]

Wow. Thanks for showing up to clear this up. It's been bugging me, along with some other stuff in your book, for many months. You hammer and nail the cyclist responsibility theme like nobody else. It's a great book for that alone. But the passage discussed here is not the only one that at least appears to me to convey a misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of vehicular cycling.

I have found that definitions, representations, and understandings of 'vehicular cycling' are subject to wide variations and puzzling loopholes depending on who exactly is doing the telling. So it is not surprising that my 'understanding' of it does not coincide with yours.

Back to the incident... (and thanks for officially acknowledging that you were writing about yourself ;))... so if I understand (and remember) it correctly, you moved aside to facilitate the passing of the car that was approaching from behind, which put you in the more vulnerable position where a car, like the Mercedes, might suddenly pull out of the blind alley in front of you, but not so far out as to stop in the path of the other car. Hmm. Yes, that explains it. I agree that the move yielding the ROW to the passing motorist, by moving closer to the edge of the roadway (in the bike lane), should have been coupled with slowing down and being more alert.

This vehicle rocketed out of the alleyway all the way into the traffic lane. The driver could not see a thing and decided, what the hell, let's roll the dice. In such a situation it is obviously in the rider's interest to be as far left 'as practicable.' This gives you half a chance to see the play developing as early as possible and to be as far away from it as possible. Had the car behind me been closer, it might have collided with the vehicle as well.

I would sure like to see that concept -- that riding in a bike lane at the edge of the roadway requires slower speeds, more care, and more alertness, or at least a different kind of care and focus, than riding on the same road outside of the bike lane -- emphasized more in a future edition...

That's one of the main themes that runs throughout the book--keeping a buffer zone between yourself and the right-side hazards--that probably needs to be clarified with respect to bike lanes. I'd say it depends on the street and bike lane in question. In general, while bike lanes can help in passing situations, I agree they keep cyclists too close to the side of the road in some situations where there is no compelling reason to ride on the right side of the road. This is a much bigger problem if the bike lane is on a street with lots of side parking and poor sight lines. I like the line-less 'sharrow' concept, which could possibly solve this dilemma.

I like your wording, false impression that I was unwilling to ride outside the bike lane. I believe the widespread lack of willingness to ride outside of bike lanes regularly puts cyclists in unnecessarily dangerous situations. You should see how much sh!t I get around here from the resident "thinkers" for merely suggesting methods based on moving in and out of bike lanes based on changing factors and conditions.

If the space is available, I say use it.

Robert

[anchojoe]

That is one thing I like about the advocacy we have in Santa Barbara. We ensure choices for cyclists. We recognize the value of paths but refuse to allow the city to force us to use them. We get noisy about bad design (they could have ended the path at a cross walk but deliberately did not.) We have effective cycling courses here, too. Point is, we have a culture of cycling here. You can't go anywhere without seeing hoards of them. I think that providing choices for cyclists helps create a cycling culture and diminishes the domination of the automobile.

.

A biking culture with choices, that diminishes the domination of the automobile, that sounds nice. :)

[nova]

Seldom Kill - thanks for you thoughtful and well-written response. It's a refreshing contrast to the usual rebuttals I get, bogged down in semantic arguments about whether "segregation" is the right word.

My main point is based on the belief that "mass re-education of cyclists" regarding integrated cycling would make cycling much safer (perhaps by reducing by as much as 10 times the number of bike-car collisions and fatalities) and more popular (perhaps by as much as 100 times), and that integrated cycling facilities take us in the opposite direction, entrenching us more and more into the segregated cycling philosophy and making cultural acceptance of integregated cycling that much more difficult to achieve, and for what? At best, segregated facilities can only achieve relatively marginal improvements in cycling safety and popularity.

How would the cost of implementing ASLs at every junction in London, for example, compare to the cost of dropping off a copy of John Franklin's Cyclecraft on every doorstep in the city?

You always mention the re education of cyclists. We are only 1 part of the equation. Drivers tend to not accept us on the roads. Many have the false beleife that we do not belong on the road and that they have the right to cuss us out harrass us and in some cases hit us.

Educate cyclists all you want it will do no good unless the motorists are also re educated. We tend to know our rights very well and use them in some cases as a weapon of sorts. Most of us already know how to ride in a vc fasion.

How many here cary a cycling hand book with laws regarding bikes on the roads included?
I carry a few copies of those pages related to the laws that govern bicycle use on the streets around some times.
Why well its simple while i know my rights many drivers do not. If i ever manage to catch such a person i will give them a copy of the laws.

Cliff notes version
Re educate motorists as well as cyclists
Many cyclists know their own rights and know how to ride in a vc fasion
most motorists believe that cyclists have no right right to even be on the road.

[nova]

I, maybe we, get it just fine. I am sharing my personal preference, not trying to force it on others. We are allowed to do that when it comes to expenditure of public funds, ya know. ;) Plus, I only mentioned on-road BL, I have no problem with bike paths and MUPs. I like riding on the road for the most part, but I also love to ride on a couple of the area MUPs, especially the O&E towpath. That does not prevent me from believing that public road funds could be better spent to improve the roads to a usable state for everyone to share, rather than on adding a bike specific lane. What's the difference between most BL and a wide shoulder? Lines? Bike-only symbols? Barriers? We have a bike lane on one road here that has a full concrete barrier beween it and the road. They cut down the width of the road and made it more dangerous for bikes on the road because there is no room to share and no possibility of moving to the BL to allow traffic to pass. Just as you don't want to be forced to use the road, I don't want to be forced to use the BL because they made the road less safe by segregating the BL.

I dont think theres a better place to ride than most of the O&E towpath trail. I love that thing. If all goes well tomorow (first person who bashes my spelling of tomorowgets smacked its purposeful :p) Im going to put in at least 20 miles there and to there center road down leaving around noon i think (less some from this area decide to tag along and we could meet up at silver creek)

I think for safty and comfort we need multiple things to happen.
In no paticular order of importance.
1 more mups
2 bike lanes
3 more acceptance from drivers
4 better education for both drivers and cyclists as to what the laws realy are.
and
5 more marked and maintained bike routes.
Those bike route signs are our friends. It increases drivers awareness of us on the roads. They expect us to be there so they are more careful. Id like to see these sign made larger and more frequent how ever. On the 3 or 4 bike routes close to me theres only 1 sign every 2 blocks on 2nd street and only 2 or 3 total on wooster road. Tuck should also be made a bike route as its a major aaterial road for both bikes and cars. You have 2 choices to get to secound street wooster road or tusk. You next easy roads are about a mile away.

[nova]

Barriers? We have a bike lane on one road here that has a full concrete barrier beween it and the road. They cut down the width of the road and made it more dangerous for bikes on the road because there is no room to share and no possibility of moving to the BL to allow traffic to pass. Just as you don't want to be forced to use the road, I don't want to be forced to use the BL because they made the road less safe by segregating the BL.

Used another reply as i wanted to give this special attention.
Im all for a wide out side lane or bike lane. But if your going to segrigate cyclist in a area dont do some half mesure seperation. Make a useable system of bike roads. Ones that will get us to all areas of a city town or neighborhood as easly and effectivly as the road system. It should also be made very clear to drivers that cyclists may still use the road ways and that it is their choice as to what they use. After all we may not have house access to that bike road and need to use a couple roads to get to the bike road.

[sbhikes]

We also have bike roads in Santa Barbara. Simply a bike path well away from any roads at all. It even has "off-ramps" to nearby streets and various other bike paths that branch off from it, and solar-powered lights for the evening. This is not an mup with walkers, joggers and strollers. Those folks are there, but they do not set foot on the bike path. They'll get run over and they know it. The bike path is for bikes.

Riding on this thing is a total dream. You can get from Santa Barbara to Goleta quickly because there are no traffic lights and you can ride as fast as you want. You can get to wherever you need to go, like shops or neighborhoods, by getting off at your "exit". I use it to go to my doctor's office. There should be more of these. They are wonderful.

I would much rather cruise along looking at wildlife and listening to silence than alpha-dogging it in traffic breathing diesel fumes and listening to engine-braking trucks on the freeway.

[chipcom]

I dont think theres a better place to ride than most of the O&E towpath trail. I love that thing. If all goes well tomorow (first person who bashes my spelling of tomorowgets smacked its purposeful :p) Im going to put in at least 20 miles there and to there center road down leaving around noon i think (less some from this area decide to tag along and we could meet up at silver creek)

We're probably taking off from the GFs house near Silver Creek at around 11 or so. Gonna take the road down to near Massillon before jumping on the towpath to go down to Navarre, stop there for lunch, then probably take the towpath back to Center then home from there. Bout a 50 mile ride. We're riding the Red Flannel next Sunday and she wants to get some miles and a few hills in, since she doesn't commute every day like I do.

[chipcom]

I would much rather cruise along looking at wildlife and listening to silence than alpha-dogging it in traffic breathing diesel fumes and listening to engine-braking trucks on the freeway.

I'll second that. Wish we had something like that here, but we don't. For commuting, the MUPs here can be more dangerous than the road. There is less room to maneuver, less visibility, blind curves & road intersections, peds, pets, joggers, cyclists with no clue and/or no lights, wet leaves, road apples and critters. During the daylight hours this is manageable, albeit slower, but in the dark, I'll keep to the road, thank you.
Much of my commute is on the Valley Parkway, which is part of Cleveland's Emerald Necklace. A MUP runs parallel for most of it, but I prefer to keep to the road for the reasons mentioned. Traffic is sparse in the morning, not bad on the way home, speed limit is 35 and those who use it are used to seeing bicycles. Also, using the MUP would increase my commute time by 50% because of the lower speed required for safety and countless road crossings.

[nova]

We're probably taking off from the GFs house near Silver Creek at around 11 or so. Gonna take the road down to near Massillon before jumping on the towpath to go down to Navarre, stop there for lunch, then probably take the towpath back to Center then home from there. Bout a 50 mile ride. We're riding the Red Flannel next Sunday and she wants to get some miles and a few hills in, since she doesn't commute every day like I do.

If the temp is barable by 11 i might see you up at silvercreek. Its suppose to be 52 53 and sunny.

[Roody]

But of course, sbhikes, regarding bike roads, you understand well that:

Your bike highway, unlike "regular" streets, does not travel to every destination in the city.
Even when it does go approximately to your destination, you still have to ride on "regular" streets for the initial and final legs of almost any journey.
Unlike Shangri-Barbara, most communities do not have bike freeways, and probably never will have, within our lifetimes.


It seems obvious that we are forced to ride with motor traffic--whether we like it or not--until either autos are outlawed, or we have all moved to Santa Barbara. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen! I guess I'd rather learn to co-exist safely and enjoyably, accepting of the realities of this imperfect world. If auto traffic is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.

[sbhikes]

Yes, let's learn to ride in traffic. By why settle for that?

If they want to encourage people out of their cars to create livable cities, or relieve congestion or air pollution, why not advocate for bike roads? Why do the Netherlands, Santa Barbara and China have to be the only bike friendly places on the planet? Why do we have to settle for limited choices? Why do the choices of VC advocates have to come first? I don't accept that as being good enough. That's not advocacy. That's giving in to car culture.

[Roody]

Yes, let's learn to ride in traffic. By why settle for that?

If they want to encourage people out of their cars to create livable cities, or relieve congestion or air pollution, why not advocate for bike roads? Why do the Netherlands, Santa Barbara and China have to be the only bike friendly places on the planet? Why do we have to settle for limited choices? Why do the choices of VC advocates have to come first? I don't accept that as being good enough. That's not advocacy. That's giving in to car culture.Where I live seems pretty bike-friendly to me. I am able (and almost always welcome) to go anywhere both cars and pedestrians go. Nobody bothers me, I don't bother nobody (except on legume days). Actually, local cagers are quite friendly to me; they probably treat me better than I treat them!

I don't expect my neighbors to spend thousands of dollars to set me up with a little bike road that probably won't go my way, anyway. They already were kind enough to spend millions on a beautiful street network that does go where I want.

[Daily Commute]

. . .Why do we have to settle for limited choices? . . . .
Then you must oppose striping bike lanes in California. Because the law then largely forces cyclists off the rest of the road. Forcing cyclists out of an 11' lane and into a 5' bike lane (3' of which is door zone or gutter) limits choices more than if no line had been striped.

Why not start the advocacy with an attempt to repeal the mandatory bike-lane-use law? Then, when you stripe a lane, you are increasing, not decreasing, the "limited choices" of cyclists.

Thanks to some misguided "bike-friendly" advocacy, my city has largely shelved efforts to correct "barrier intersections." These are largely roads over and under freeways and rivers that are very difficult for cyclists to traverse. The city has a giant map speckled with dotted red stickers indicating dozens of these cyclist-unfriendly intersections. But instead of fixing this clearly identifiable problem, the local "bike advocacy" group has the city busy drafting and re-drafting a "real bike plan" to stripe lanes on 25 mph streets. What a waste.

[sbhikes]

We don't have mandatory bike lane use laws in California.

[Daily Commute]

We don't have mandatory bike lane use laws in California.
Yes, you do. See post 23 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1735321&postcount=23).

[Dchiefransom]

Yes, you do. See post 23 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1735321&postcount=23).


If we try to justify one of those exceptions either for a ticket, or accident, it would be our judgement against the officer's.

Along the freeway down toward Monterey, they have a MUP. I didn't see many people using it, but it was the day after Thanksgiving. In that area, there didn't seem to be too many roads as alternatives, so that trail seems to help. We can ride on the shoulders of the freeways in the rural areas here.

[The Seldom Kill]

Seldom Kill - thanks for you thoughtful and well-written response. It's a refreshing contrast to the usual rebuttals I get, bogged down in semantic arguments about whether "segregation" is the right word.

Rhetoric has never been a productive form of debate. Alas it is far too symptomatic of discussion boards.

At best, segregated facilities can only achieve relatively marginal improvements in cycling safety and popularity.

I would disagree with on the matter of marginal. The point of issue here is related to cyclist skill and confidence. Provision of a degree of segregation allows inexperienced riders that important opportunity to develop whilst bringing them ever closer to the traffic and allows progression at a comfortable pace. If all traffic were integrated then the enforced deep-ending of all new cyclists would lead, I believe, to an increase in accidents which would have a significant impact on popularity. In short the learning curve of humans precludes any instant induction into the flow of traffic.

How would the cost of implementing ASLs at every junction in London, for example, compare to the cost of dropping off a copy of John Franklin's Cyclecraft on every doorstep in the city?

It may well compare favourably on an economic scale. But how then do you ensure that everyone reads, understands and agrees with the principles?

[Helmet Head]

Robert,

One of my weaknesses as a writer is that I tend to be repetitive and more verbose than is necessary, and I'm sure this post is a great example of that. Please forgive me. So I don't expect, nor would want, you to respond to everything, but I do hope I managed to convey my main point effectively, and that you'll be able to share your thoughts on it. Either way, thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to what I've written so far.


I have found that definitions, representations, and understandings of 'vehicular cycling' are subject to wide variations and puzzling loopholes depending on who exactly is doing the telling. So it is not surprising that my 'understanding' of it does not coincide with yours.
This is what I find so puzzling. Among those who advocate or promote vehicular cycling (i.e., Forester, Allen, Goodrich, etc. etc.), I detect no "wide variations and puzzling loopholes" over what they mean. It's very clear to me, and I've even written a Wikipedia vehicular cycling entry putting it in my own words.

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

I've had it reviewed by VC advocates, and while there have been a few minor updates, and I'm sure many would have taken a different stylistic approach, there don't appear to be any substantive disagreements. I would even throw in John Franklin's Cyclecraft depiction of traffic cycling in there too, even though he does not use the term "vehicular cycling" per se. Even Jeffrey Hiles' description of VC in his essay, "Listening to Bike Lane", which is quite critical of Forester, I find to be consistent with all of the above, except maybe the issue of the feasibility of negotation in fast/busy traffic.

It is among the critics of vehicular cycling, in which I would include you, Michael Bluejay (bicyclesafe.com), many of the posters on this forum, etc., that I find the "wide variations and puzzling loopholes". Speaking of puzzling loopholes, a puzzling contradiction I'm aware of stems from the "buffer creation" approach advocated by you and Bluejay, not vehicular cycling (see below).

To use your book as an example, while it is sprinkled with criticisms of "vehicular cycling" and Forester throughout, unless I missed it, there is no clear definition of what exactly you are criticizing. For me, those parts read like a strawman argument in which the strawman was not even described, just rebutted. For someone who has never heard of "vehicular cycling" prior to reading your book (which is probably the vast majority of your readers), I can't even imagine what impression they'd be left with. A vague impression of some kind of ridiculously rigid system, perhaps? There is no sentence that starts with the three words, "vehicular cycling is ...", or anything equivalent.

My copy of your book has notes in the margins on dozens of pages, many of which highlight assumptions about vehicular cycling which are significantly different from the vehicular cycling that I've seen described and promoted by those who advocate it. If you're interested, I'd be happy to share these with you.


That's one of the main themes that runs throughout the book--keeping a buffer zone between yourself and the right-side hazards--that probably needs to be clarified with respect to bike lanes. I'd say it depends on the street and bike lane in question. In general, while bike lanes can help in passing situations, I agree they keep cyclists too close to the side of the road in some situations where there is no compelling reason to ride on the right side of the road. This is a much bigger problem if the bike lane is on a street with lots of side parking and poor sight lines. I like the line-less 'sharrow' concept, which could possibly solve this dilemma.
I've posed this question to Michael Bluejay, who replied that he was too busy to answer it. I understand the buffer zone approach you guys promote, and agree with much of it. But the Forester/Franklin/Allen approach seems more practical to me, and I'll try to explain why. I'd love to hear what you think of it. Maybe I'm missing something.

As I understand it, the buffer zone approach is about maximizing buffer space between the cyclist and potential threats. So if you're approaching an intersection with a potential right-crosser stopped on your right, you'll move left, to increase the buffer between you and him. And if there is a potential oncoming left-hooker, you'll keep to the right, again to increase buffer space. However, if someone is coming from behind, Bluejay does advocate keeping left, and I believe you do too, to reduce the chance of a right hook. In other words, the "appropriate" lane position for a given situation according to this system is largely influenced by potential threats that are present and where they happen to be. That's my basic understanding of it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, because I see two problems with it, especially as compared to the "vc" approach.

The "vc" approach, which in Forester's language is "destination positioning" at intersections, and in Franklin's language "primary riding position", determines "appropriate" lane position largely independent of others. That is, their approach is to take the same position at intersections regardless of what potential threats may or may not be present - one's position should be dictated by his destination, period. So, according to the vc approach, when going straight, you should keep "centerish" in the rightmost lane serving your destination even if there are oncoming left hookers approaching the intersection. I can't tell you how many times I've moved left at an intersection approach to a centerish position, per the vc approach, "for no apparent buffer maximizing reason", only to realize later that someone from behind showed up without my noticing who slowed down in preparing for his right turn, instead of trying to pass me and cutting right in front of me (like they used to do all the time before I learned and adopted more assertive vc approaches in my riding).

So the two problems with the buffer approach, and why I find the vc approach more practical, are:


The buffer approach seems to have a "puzzling contradiction" when approaching an intersection where there is both oncoming (potential left-hooker) and right-cross traffic. Keep left because of the potential right-cross while keeping right because of the potential left-hook? Not sure how do that in the Newtonian world in which we cyclists must exist. Do you split the difference and try to maximize buffers to both? That's what I would assume, but neither you nor Bluejay discuss this. You only cover scenarios where you're reacting to traffic from only one source. Anyway, that would mean to use the vc "centerish" position... if that's sufficient buffer space in that situation for all potential threats, why not just always use that position regardless?
Lane positioning according to the buffer maximizing system depends on the cyclist's vigilance, and as long as cyclists remain human, that's not a very practical assumption. That is, a buffer zone maximizer is only supposed to move left at an intersection approach if he happens to be aware of traffic coming from the right (or, perhaps, from behind, in the absence of oncoming potential left-hook traffic). If he doesn't notice, or is unable to see for some reason... he presumably stays right. VC lane positioning, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that the main purpose of your lane position is to be visible and to make clear to others, regardless of where they are coming from and going to, where you are headed. If you keep to the right, then you're communicating to everyone that you're turning right; if you keep to the left, then you're communicating to everyone that you're turning left; if you stay in between, then you're communicating to everyone that you're going straight. Vigilance is clearly important to all cyclists, of course, but VC lane positioning does not depend on noticing and reacting to everyone and everything. It is about choosing the correct lane position independent of one's ability to always notice potential threats.
In other words, even to an observer in a helicopter, much less to everyone else to whom it matters, the intent/destination of a VC cyclist is quite obvious from his lane position, while that of a buffer zone cyclist might often be unclear. For similar reasons, the appropriate lane position according to the VC system is simple and easy to determine, which makes it relatively easy to turn into a reliable habit which is not as vulnerable to human error of the conscious mind. To the buffer maximizer, lane positioning is more complex, inconsistent, and hence more prone to error.

Perhaps the incident in your book that we've been discussing is a good example to illustrate what I am trying to convey. Since you were approaching an intersection (with an alley), according to the vc system, you should have stayed centerish, until you passed it. And according to the buffer system, you were not aware of needing to create a buffer from the car in the alley, because you were not aware of the presence of the car. So, according to the buffer system, riding in the bike lane was fine.

Riding in traffic requires a lot of vigilance, to be sure. But, given the choice, I prefer using a system that determines a safe lane position for me without relying on the accuracy of my vigilance. That's why the vc approach to lane position selection seems more practical to me than does the buffer maximizing approach.

Happy Riding!
Serge

[Helmet Head]

At best, segregated facilities can only achieve relatively marginal improvements in cycling safety and popularity.

I would disagree with on the matter of marginal.

I am not aware of any evidence that indicates that segregated facilities make cycling safer or more popular, beyond tiny margins at best.

A similar progression in growing skills and confidence that you describe via facilities can be accomplished by starting with quiet roads, and moving up to more busy/faster roads. You know, like we did as kids.

In fact, one of the drawbacks of onstreet facilities like bike lanes, I feel, is that they convey a false sense of security on busy roads to cyclists who are not sufficiently skilled and/or confident to cope with traffic on such roads.

[patc]

That's one of the main themes that runs throughout the book--keeping a buffer zone between yourself and the right-side hazards--that probably needs to be clarified with respect to bike lanes. I'd say it depends on the street and bike lane in question. In general, while bike lanes can help in passing situations, I agree they keep cyclists too close to the side of the road in some situations where there is no compelling reason to ride on the right side of the road. This is a much bigger problem if the bike lane is on a street with lots of side parking and poor sight lines. I like the line-less 'sharrow' concept, which could possibly solve this dilemma.

What is your opinion of bike lane if you assume that ONLY properly designed bike lanes are in place? E.g. no on-street parking, 2m wide, right-turns are done from a right-turn lane to the right of the bike lane, etc.

I haven't read your book (but now I think I should). While I didn't frame my thoughts in terms of a buffer zone, this is very much what I find bike lanes create in terms of passing. In addition they often allow much faster forward motion, fewer negotiations, and avoid lane-sharing which I have a philosophical objection to.

[Roody]

I am not aware of any evidence that indicates that segregated facilities make cycling safer or more popular, beyond tiny margins at best.

A similar progression in growing skills and confidence that you describe via facilities can be accomplished by starting with quiet roads, and moving up to more busy/faster roads. You know, like we did as kids.

In fact, one of the drawbacks of onstreet facilities like bike lanes, I feel, is that they convey a false sense of security on busy roads to cyclists who are not sufficiently skilled and/or confident to cope with traffic on such roads.I think this is a crucial point, based only on my own experience. After starting to ride just over 3 years ago, I very quickly came to feel comfortable with a vehicular style of "mixing it up" with other traffic. One reason was reading Helmet Head and others here, as well as books by Hurst and Forester (thank you all!). But a much bigger reason was that we simply do not have bike lanes around here. I didn't have much choice in riding style, other than the crazy, wrong-way or sidewalk cyling conducted here so often. I'm really glad the bike lanes were not an option for me, although the OP and many others would probably feel that this makes my city less than "bike-friendly."

[genec]

When I started riding, bike lanes did not exist... I too learned to mix it up. However, when I started riding, cars were generally slower and "Road Rage" did not exist... no one would have thought to shoot at another road user. Just did not happen.

Cars have become high performance protective coccoons... and somehow motorists have changed from the old "See America First" type drivers to something that now demands an "entitlement" to "their" road.

Things have changed over the years. I now want a Bike Lane on any road that is posted for over 45MPH speed... I want a bike lane to act just like those mountain grade road "passing lanes." I don't want BL on every road, and find it rediculous for BL to be on any road with less then 25MPH posted speed.

Here in my area, there are several surface roads with speeds posted at 50MPH or greater... what used to be "hiway speeds..." I want some form of bike "riding lane" on those roads primarily to acknowledge that cyclists will be on that road and to give me a space to ride in (yes a WOL does that too) but at 50+MPH I want a motorist to have plenty of warning that I may be there... and if that means signs, stripes and even flashing lights... so be it...

Otherwise, slow the F down!

[patc]

But a much bigger reason was that we simply do not have bike lanes around here. I didn't have much choice in riding style, other than the crazy, wrong-way or sidewalk cyling conducted here so often. I'm really glad the bike lanes were not an option for me, although the OP and many others would probably feel that this makes my city less than "bike-friendly."

Well, having started to cycle less than two years ago with bike lanes, I found them a tremendous opportunity to use roads I would not have felt up to handling otherwise. I did mean often converting to pedestrian mode at intersections for left turns and such, but I was able to get from point "A" to "B". I was new to cycling, but did not feel stuck in my neighbourhood, and this was a great encouragement. As I gained confidence handling the bike I also gained skills such as negotiating lane-changes etc. Within three months cycling became my primary mode of transportation, and that would have taken me much longer had I no been given choices such as bike lanes and pathways. I still value bike lanes as often providing a faster, easier, and more comfortable way of using the road.

I'm really happy that bike lanes were an option for me, I doubt my ability to cycle as a form of transportation would have developed nearly as fast without them.

[chipcom]

Well, having started to cycle less than two years ago with bike lanes, I found them a tremendous opportunity to use roads I would not have felt up to handling otherwise. I did mean often converting to pedestrian mode at intersections for left turns and such, but I was able to get from point "A" to "B". I was new to cycling, but did not feel stuck in my neighbourhood, and this was a great encouragement. As I gained confidence handling the bike I also gained skills such as negotiating lane-changes etc. Within three months cycling became my primary mode of transportation, and that would have taken me much longer had I no been given choices such as bike lanes and pathways. I still value bike lanes as often providing a faster, easier, and more comfortable way of using the road.

I'm really happy that bike lanes were an option for me, I doubt my ability to cycle as a form of transportation would have developed nearly as fast without them.

I guess I just grew up different. My Dad taught me to ride at 4 and by 7 or so I was riding all over town, sometimes on the sidewalk (if in eye-shot of the house or when more convenient to get where I wanted to), but on the road the vast majority of the time. We rode to school, we rode to the store, we rode everywhere. When I started working at 13, I rode to work and continued to do so off and on since. I've always ridden on the road and in traffic, it's as natural to me as walking or driving. Never needed no Zen Voodoo or experts' books to tell me if I was riding 'right' or not, not getting killed was the only validation I needed.

I never experienced much in the way of bike paths before this century. Most places I lived either didn't have them, or they were tiny MUPs through parks and playgrounds, crowded with peds, pets, skaters, skateboarders, etc. Funny, it was coming back home to Ohio in 2000 that I discovered MUPs like the O&E towpath, the Emerald Necklace, etc. When I was a kid, these didn't exist or were rough bridle paths (that I loved to ride). I think of the MUPs as more for recreation - nice long rides with your gal to enjoy nature, or as a convenient shortcut when going from A to B. Some are nice if you want to avoid hills or bad road or F'd up traffic, but for the most part, to get where I want to go, the road is my huckleberry. On a summer weekend or an early morning/evening ride in the fall darkness, the road feels safer too.

Obviously we have all grown up differently, lived different lives and have different experiences. Perhaps that is why trying to categorize cyclists (or people for that matter) into neat little boxes with neat little rules is doomed to failure and why, even among cyclists, we can't agree on what is 'best' for our ilk as a whole. So we have to consider everyone's needs and capablities while discussing or formulating public policy in an attempt to accomodate everyone. In the end, we all end up having to make compromises to gain a consensus and while the solution may not be 'perfect' for everyone, it is a baby step forward for everyone, warts and all. I have some experience in public office. From my own perspective, when an issue is being debated, I not only want to hear quantifiable facts and figures, I want to hear how the people affected 'feel' about it - whether they recite a bunch of stuff other people wrote or said, or whether is makes no sense at all. In the end, how these people feel and what they perceive their needs are is what counts, not the technical perfection of the end product. Don't feel compelled to fit into someone's little box unless the fit feels right to you.

I hate when I get long-winded and preachy, somebody please slap some sense into me!

[The Seldom Kill]

A similar progression in growing skills and confidence that you describe via facilities can be accomplished by starting with quiet roads, and moving up to more busy/faster roads. You know, like we did as kids.

So are you happy to consign the less skilled and more nervous to back roads and driving when they want to get a little further afield than the cornershop?

If you want to make use of a broad range of ammenities in any urbanised area will mean that you have to interact at some level with busy/arterial roads. I for one think that it is a remarkably poor attitude to effectively say "sorry, you can't cycle to the cinema/restaurant/supermarket/whatever because you're not good enough". All your doing there is exchanging one form of segregation for another, far worse kind. It's bad enough that we're alienated by motorists without doing it amongst ourselves.

[patc]

I've always ridden on the road and in traffic, it's as natural to me as walking or driving. ever needed no Zen Voodoo or experts' books to tell me if I was riding 'right' or not, not getting killed was the only validation I needed.

While it was neither natural nor an old skill for me, I pretty much agree with you. Not becoming road kill is, really, the only validation of my methods that matters!


I think of the MUPs as more for recreation - nice long rides with your gal to enjoy nature, or as a convenient shortcut when going from A to B.

Some of our pathways are very useful as expressways to cross from one part of the city to another. They fail due to their own popularity, though, as they often have fender-to-fender bike gridlock in the summer.


In the end, we all end up having to make compromises to gain a consensus and while the solution may not be 'perfect' for everyone, it is a baby step forward for everyone, warts and all. I have some experience in public office.

And that has been one of my biggest peeves with discussing cycling issues both on these forums and in person.... too many people holding to one view, completely unfamiliar with the word "compromise".

[Helmet Head]

A similar progression in growing skills and confidence that you describe via facilities can be accomplished by starting with quiet roads, and moving up to more busy/faster roads. You know, like we did as kids.
So are you happy to consign the less skilled and more nervous to back roads and driving when they want to get a little further afield than the cornershop?

No, of course not.

If a facility actually facilities the ability of someone "less skilled" to get somewhere, that's fine.

What I'm opposed to are facade facilities... facilities that do not actually facilitate anything for anyone, except perhaps enticing some who lack sufficient skill to cope with certain types of traffic to interact with it anyway. I am speaking exclusively of facilities like bike lanes and sidepaths - facilities that leave the impression of segregation, and hence a false of sense of security (see Pat's post above for a well-stated example of this), while actually making the most dangerous points of interaction between cyclists and motorists -- intersections -- arguably more dangerous.

If nothing else, these facilities make intersections more dangerous because of the false sense of security they impart on cyclists. Do you ever see a cyclist go straight through an intersection from a bike lane, sidepath or sidewalk without looking back to make sure no car is approaching from behind about to make a right turn in front of or into him? It's true that sometimes cyclists do this even when there is no bike lane, but usually they are much more cautious and look, because they don't feel "protected" by the stripe.

Traffic engineers know it would be crazy to designate a straight-or-right (straight-or-left) lane to the right (left) of another straight-or-right lane (straight-or-left) lane, yet they routinely violate this fundamental traffic engineering concept with straight-or-right (straight-or-left) bike lanes to the right (left) of straight-or-right (straight-or-left) regular traffic lanes. While in the U.S. they thankfully mostly stopped putting through bike lanes to the right of right only lanes, the practice of through bike lanes to the right of straight-or-right regular traffic lanes remains rampant. They do this because there is no reasonable alternative besides bike lane elimination. They don't want to put a bike lane to the left of a lane that allows regular through traffic. They also don't want to end bike lanes the minimum 100 feet (30m) prior to every intersection, especially when they should be considering every alley (see Robert Hurst's example discussed in this thread for the reason) and driveway (same reason) as an intersection where cyclists should not be guided to ride to the right (left) of traffic that is potentially turning right (left), or out of the normal flow of traffic where drivers in oncoming traffic could be turning left (right) into that alley or driveway are much more likely to be looking. If engineers ended/restarted every bike lane for the 100 feet prior to ever intersection, most bike lanes would be so chopped up that the absurdity of their "facility" would be made all too obvious. So what they do in the U.S., is they change the striping from solid to broken at major intersection approaches. Very few cyclists or motorists understand the significance of the striping change, and how it should affect their behavior. Most right turning motorists continue to stay outside of the striped bike lane, and turn right across it, while most through cyclists continue along in the bike lane, entering the intersection feeling too secure to bother looking back. And, of course, in situation like that in which Hurst found himself, in intersections with alleys and driveways, there is no guidance whatsoever to the cyclist to get away from the side of the road to be more visible and predictable.

So, there is no reasonable alternative to guiding cyclist traffic to the right (left) of right (left) turning motor traffic with bike lanes, except to eliminate bike lanes altogether, which forms an important part of my opposition to them.

[LittleBigMan]

So, there is no reasonable alternative to guiding cyclist traffic to the right (left) of right (left) turning motor traffic with bike lanes, except to eliminate bike lanes altogether, which forms an important part of my opposition to them.
I do not oppose bike lanes for this reason, because I believe that, while I don't think bike lanes are necessary, any reasonably competant cyclist should be able to navigate bike lanes without difficulty, knowing when and where to leave them to merge with motor traffic.

My complaint about bike lanes is that they defeat their own purpose. By excluding motor traffic, they become filled with so much debris that they become unusable for anything else but motor traffic.

Now, if they were kept swept and clean, and away from parked cars...

[patc]

Now, if they were kept swept and clean, and away from parked cars...

Move to Ottawa.

[false_cause]

In the end, I believe very few cyclists ride this way because it is contrary to the "stay out of the way of cars" mentality that has thoroughly permeated cycling culture. The idea that you would ride outside of a "perfectly good" bike lane during traffic lulls between intersections out in the center of the lane to be more visible and predictable sounds preposterous to the vast majority of cyclists, trained or not.

I tend to try to stay out of peoples' way when I am in my car too. I was always taught that slower traffic should keep right so that faster traffic can pass on the left. When I am that fast traffic, I appreciate this courtesy and try to always extend it to others. Obviously some (many) situations exists where the road only has one lane, or space for one vehicle, in which cases people just have to wait (unless I'm going terribly slow, moving furniture say, then I'll let people pass me by pulling over). If the road is wide enough for two vehicles and I'm the slow one, whether in a car or on my bike, I keep to the right except where that creates an unsafe situation.

All this is relative to other traffic. Where there isn't traffic, I do whatever.

[Helmet Head]

Where there isn't traffic, I do whatever.
"Where there isn't traffic" is precisely what I mean by during traffic lulls.

Moving back into the bike lane and out of the way when faster traffic appears is a given.

To repeat: the idea that you would ride outside of a "perfectly good" bike lane during traffic lulls between intersections out in the center of the lane to be more visible and predictable sounds preposterous to the vast majority of cyclists, trained or not.

Purposefully moving "out in the center of the lane to be more visible and predictable" is significantly different from doing "whatever".

[Helmet Head]

I do not oppose bike lanes for this reason, because I believe that, while I don't think bike lanes are necessary, any reasonably competant cyclist should be able to navigate bike lanes without difficulty, knowing when and where to leave them to merge with motor traffic.

You make my point. The topic of this discussion is about whether bike lanes are needed or are helpful for precisely those who are unskilled in riding in traffic.

While reasonably competent cyclists should be able to navigate bike lanes without difficulty, the problem is that many cyclists are unaware that their approach, which may seem to be without difficulty to them, puts them at unnecessary risk. Is a cyclist who goes straight from a bike lane across an intersection, and the path of right-turners, without looking back, navigating with any difficulty? Hey, ignorance is bliss, baby! No difficulty navigating for me!

The point is that you do need to know when and where to leave bike lanes to merge with motor traffic. The irony is is that the ones who think they need bike lanes are the very ones who don't know how to do this. Worse, it's pretty obvious to me that bike lanes hinder their learning to ride in a more integrated fashion.

[nova]

Funny, it was coming back home to Ohio in 2000 that I discovered MUPs like the O&E towpath, the Emerald Necklace, etc. When I was a kid, these didn't exist or were rough bridle paths (that I loved to ride). I think of the MUPs as more for recreation - nice long rides with your gal to enjoy nature, or as a convenient shortcut when going from A to B. Some are nice if you want to avoid hills or bad road or F'd up traffic, but for the most part, to get where I want to go, the road is my huckleberry. On a summer weekend or an early morning/evening ride in the fall darkness, the road feels safer too.


Speaking of the tow path im hopign to get a job some where down there this spring just so i can have a job and put in some decent daily miles every day heh. Personaly on the o&e ive only seen it crowded once this year that was on labor or memorial day forget wich. I like to get out by say 10 am or 11 at the latest and make a day of it. I also dont plan a day to go riding i just get up and go hmm tow path would be fun today and off i go. By a day of it i mean a full day of just messing aroudn and having fun. Leave at 10 am get home around 5 30 heh

I only road a few saturdays there though and only a few short rides on those days. I suppose it could get pretty packed on weekends.

On avarage id pass about 10 to 12 others a hour or have them pass me. Whats funny is when you get to the cherry street custard stand right at lunch time any day of the week. You get people from the various bike clubs and the tow path and loner cyclists all there from towpath and road. They get slammed hard daily heh. They could not have choosen a better place to open up shop :)

Its like ernies and the blue herin down in massilon best locations for any shop :)

[Roody]

So are you happy to consign the less skilled and more nervous to back roads and driving when they want to get a little further afield than the cornershop?

If you want to make use of a broad range of ammenities in any urbanised area will mean that you have to interact at some level with busy/arterial roads. I for one think that it is a remarkably poor attitude to effectively say "sorry, you can't cycle to the cinema/restaurant/supermarket/whatever because you're not good enough". All your doing there is exchanging one form of segregation for another, far worse kind. It's bad enough that we're alienated by motorists without doing it amongst ourselves.
You deleted the name of the person you're quoting, so I understand I can't speak for whoever it was. I strongly suspect another straw man here.

But it seems sensible to start out with something easy, then go on to more difficult skills. If I remember right, that's how we did it academically, from kindergarten through grad school. And I doubt that Lance entered the Tour de France the very first day he rode a bike. More likely he started with something a little simpler and worked his way up to it. ;)

When I first started riding, I went on little side streets for a couple weeks, while gradually developing the skill and confidence to go on busier streets. There are still a couple streets I feel a little leery of, but I'm working up to it.

I mean, duh....

[Helmet Head]

Roody - no strawman. That was me he quoted. I requoted, with my name, in #85, and responded.

[Roody]

[. . . .]I do not oppose bike lanes for this reason, because I believe that, while I don't think bike lanes are necessary, any reasonably competant cyclist should be able to navigate bike lanes without difficulty, knowing when and where to leave them to merge with motor traffic.[. . . .]...But of course, the basic premise of this thread is that bike lanes are useful because they "provide a choice" for cyclists who are not "reasonably competent". Now you're saying that one must be competent and knowledgable in order to use a bike lane.

I think your version makes more sense, LittleBigMan!

[Roody]

Roody - no strawman. That was me he quoted. I requoted, with my name, in #85, and responded.Yeah--you posted while I was writing my post, perhaps. Still it's a straw man--saying you suggested that it was good to "consign" beginners to "back roads and driving." I'm quite sure you actually meant that it is good to "consign" learners to learning, so to speak, and to let them learn on real streets rather than in the false security of bike lanes. Correct?

[patc]

When I first started riding, I went on little side streets for a couple weeks, while gradually developing the skill and confidence to go on busier streets. There are still a couple streets I feel a little leery of, but I'm working up to it.

Being leery of some streets is probably a healthy attitude!

Using your post to illustrate my earlier point, however, my cycling developed quickly because I could go useful places on my bike. By being able to reach my bank, downtown, work sites, etc. by bike, I could be out riding instead of leaving the bike at home. Having access to pathways and bike lanes was instrumental in being able to "get there" on the bike earlier than I would have using only car lanes. As my skills increased I became more and more confortable using any car lane, and the bike lanes became less a life-line and more a pleasant/convenient/faster alternative when available.

[Helmet Head]

Yeah--you posted while I was writing my post, perhaps. Still it's a straw man--saying you suggested that it was good to "consign" beginners to "back roads and driving." I'm quite sure you actually meant that it is good to "consign" learners to learning, so to speak, and to let them learn on real streets rather than in the false security of bike lanes. Correct?
Correct, that's what I meant. But I think Seldom Kill honestly thinks that the "consigning" is the logical implication of what I was stating, which it would be, if it were true that the facilities I oppose actually provided safer options for these cyclists. But they don't, so it's not. Since "strawman" usually connotes an intentional misrepresentation, I wouldn't use it in this case.

[genec]

Correct, that's what I meant. But I think Seldom Kill honestly thinks that the "consigning" is the logical implication of what I was stating, which it would be, if it were true that the facilities I oppose actually provided safer options for these cyclists. But they don't, so it's not. Since "strawman" usually connotes an intentional misrepresentation, I wouldn't use it in this case.

While the facilities may not (IYHO) provide safer options... in the case of Patc and others, the facilities did encourage the use of the street, therefore did provide some incentive to simply get out there. A WOL (the closest "cousin" to a BL) doesn't provide any encouragement, therefore does nothing to make cycling more acceptable by either the cyclist or the motorist.

[Helmet Head]

Despite individual claims of encouragement to use the street supposedly provided by bike lanes, it is my understanding that there is little if any evidence that bike lanes actually encourage more cycling, and that to the extent that they might, it is just as likely if not more likely to be due to other factors, like increasing road width, removal of onstreet parking, etc.


A WOL (the closest "cousin" to a BL) doesn't provide any encouragement, ...
What is the basis for the claim that WOLs without BL stripes don't provide about as much (as little?) encouragement as do WOLs with BL stripes?

[genec]

Despite individual claims of encouragement to use the street supposedly provided by bike lanes, it is my understanding that there is little if any evidence that bike lanes actually encourage more cycling, and that to the extent that they might, it is just as likely if not more likely to be due to other factors, like increasing road width, removal of onstreet parking, etc.

What is the basis for the claim that WOLs without BL stripes don't provide about as much (as little?) encouragement as do WOLs with BL stripes?

Sorry no actual data... just ancedotal evidence such as comments from cyclists like patc.

Look, inspite of the "lack of evidence..." ask any newbie cyclist what they look for when venturing out on the roadways for the first time... Bike Lanes. They see Bike Lanes as a form of encouragement.

Now does it have to be an actual stripe on the road... no. Anything that offers some form of encouragement would work equally as well, no doubt.