If the stripe is in what you feel is the best roadway position, is it because you bike lanes are poorly designed, or because of some other criteria? Given a typical 1.5m-2.0m bike lane, I can't see any reason to ride on the stripe.

How about everything to the right of the stripe is glass and other debris? Happens all the time around here.

We don't get much rain around here (avg 10"/year), but when we do, the bike lanes are totally trashed in many areas.

Here is a WOL video (1.4MB) with me riding about where a bike lane stripe would be added:

Dec 19, 2005 WOLPass (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/wolpass.avi)

If a stripe was added cars would be further to the right and I would be forced further to the right too, too close to the curb to deal with obsticals, right turners and good visibility. Same road has a BL and I ride on the stripe, but in the winter its too dark to make video in the morning.

Al

Here's a really cool video/pics of what it's like to ride a trike. The white line is just a suggestion for us. Toward the end take a look at the wide berth he gets.

link to trike (http://www.tagworld.com/dougfoot/World/MyWeb.aspx?page=8c756612-f3a0-435e-ab88-2ae3f34f5e05)

patc--Bike lanes around here are typically 1.5 to 2 feet, not meters like you have in Ottawa.

Al-- I agree with your observation that cars buzz you in the bike lane much more than in the traffic lane. In fact, I almost never have a car within 2 feet in a traffic lane, wide or narrow. But they get that close frequently if there is a bike lane -- whether I am riding in the traffic lane or in the bike lane--no difference.

It seems like some cagers believe that you are "supposed" to be in the bike lane so you are fair game if you are not. This is my biggest complaint about bike lanes, my only complaint really. The false perception that paint stripes protect cyclists is believed by many cagers as well as many cyclists.

I'd like to see a study that looked at the correlation between bike lanes and side-swipes of cyclists, in order to confirm my observation.

Pat, if bike lanes should be treated as any other traffic lanes, what do you do at intersections? In particular, assume an intersection where a lot of the traffic turns right. in two cases, one where there is a right turn only lane, and another where there isn't.

Conveniently forgot the other times I addressed this with you? Hoping my answer will give you something to twist around to your PROV?


Gee, lets see. If I am going straight, I use the bike lane, duh. If I am turning left, I use the left turn lane, duh. If I turn right, I use the right-turn lane, duh. On the rare occasion that a road was significant enough to have a bike lane but didn't rate a turn lane, you turn right from the rightmost lane (in this case the bike lane), and left from the leftmost lane. Duh. And no, that doesn't cause any problems, for bikes or buses (which end up in the same situation).


In San Diego they do the following. In the case of a right turn only lane, the bike lane always ends at the intersection approach. There maybe another one painted to the left of the right turn only lane, but it's not one continuous bike lane. In either case, no ordinary traffic lane is ever treated like that.

Its been suggested before that you need to get out more.

In the absence of a right turn only lane, the bike lane typically continues all the way up to the intersection along the curb, though the stripe changes from solid to striped. This tends to guide cyclists to go straight from a position to the right of right-turning motorists, something that is never allowed with ordinary traffic lanes.

Yes, here as well. Not really a problem. While the ideal is to have a right-turn lane whenever a bike lane is present (for that matter, the ideal is to always have a right-turn lane at any important intersection) the few problems don't really cause any actual problems, no matter what you think.


What do they do in Ottwa, and would they do ideally in PatWorld?

I have answered both many times. Bugger off, this response was you one indulgence for this year. Hope you make the best of it.

It amazes me that after 60,423,527pages of BL debate this issue never came up? Or did it? ;)

Al

Probably one of those times when we each worked from "obvious" assumptions.

patc--Bike lanes around here are typically 1.5 to 2 feet, not meters like you have in Ottawa.

We lack a provincial standard. 1.5m is recommended as the minimum for Ottawa, and only to be used when 2.0m can not be accommodated for some reason. Up to 3.0m is suggested for busy roads. Unfortunately these recommendations are new, and "Ottawa" is an amalgamation of 5 previous municipalities and several townships, so implementations vary a lot.

How can anyone ride a bike in 1.5 feet? That's not enough clearance for your handlebars. No wonder so many Americans here have rabid reactions to bike lanes. In my mind a "lane" should have clearance for the whole vehicle with a safe buffer zone!

If I am riding roughly entered in a bike lane, the only time I need to worry about a passing vehicle (staying in its own lane) is a speeding 18-wheeler... the wake on those can be brutal.


It seems like some cagers believe that you are "supposed" to be in the bike lane so you are fair game if you are not. This is my biggest complaint about bike lanes, my only complaint really. The false perception that paint stripes protect cyclists is believed by many cagers as well as many cyclists.


Its a valid concern, but I'm not willing to rule out something just because of the ignorance of others. Everyone loses when you do that. Why not just advocate FOR bike lanes and FOR driver education? Out of curiosity, what's the modal share of cycling in your city?

I'd like to see a study that looked at the correlation between bike lanes and side-swipes of cyclists, in order to confirm my observation.

For such a study to be valid, it would need some common definition of "bike lane". I would also like to see a city-by-city comparison, including WOL. My biggest complaint about cycling in Ottawa (and its shared by many other cyclists I speak with) is being passed unsafely when sharing the lane, WOL or otherwise.

Actually, let me amend that to my second biggest complaint. Mu current biggest complaint is all the freaking snow we have, with only freezing rain to break the monotony.

Pat around here the bike lanes are about 5 feet wide... not 1.5 to 2 feet wide. That five feet equates to about 1.5 meters.

Any place with 1.5 to 2 foot bike lanes, does have a real problem.

patc-
There are a wide range of BL widths in the US. Most standarized designs are much larger than the 2ft that Roody mentioned. Maybe 5-6ft.
Take a look at this link (it notes US national standard is 5ft, not sure if true):
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html
Note the BL shown on the top left photo - this is a proper BL design and is about as wide as they come round here in phx-metro area. If I ride in a BL like this (but left biased like the cyclist in the photo) I am sure to get buzzed.

We also sometimes have shoulders separated by a fog line. Sometimes these shoulders are wide enough to look just like a BL, but as they are short of standards. I also ride on streets with marked shoulders as wide or wider as the standard BL width, but they are not marked as BL for a number of reasons I can speculate about (not maintained, not done right at intersections, etc.) These psuedo BLs cause me problems just like regular offical BLs do.

Al

patc--Bike lanes around here are typically 1.5 to 2 feet, not meters like you have in Ottawa.

Are you 100% sure these are official marked and signed as such BLs?

Al

To be honest it never occurred to me that anyone would ride (or drive) on top of a lane stripe, bike lane or otherwise. I would hope anyone doing that would get pulled over by the cops (but chances are they wouldn't be, at least around here.)

What about riding on a fog line?

This 5MB video is me riding mostly on the fog line that defines a wide shoulder that 99% of people think is a bike lane.

Jan05, 2006 NotABikeLane (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/060105-1609-pbl.avi)

Al

If I ride in a BL like this (but left biased like the cyclist in the photo) I am sure to get buzzed.

So why ride left biased? I'm not trying to be judgemental, but this doesn't make any sense to me. While I don't always agree with you, I do respect your opinions I assume there is a reason.

Here is my reasoning. I should ride in any lane (bike lane or otherwise) in a position such that I will be safe and comfortably from any vehicle passing me in another lane - providing all parts of that vehicle stays "within the lines". I would apply that rule to all vehicles, not just bikes, to me its part of using the road responsibly.

So what happens if surface conditions means I can't ride in a safe position, as described above? Say snow accumulation at the curb, for example, has narrowed the bike lane. In that case the bike lane is not currently usable and I don't use it. I will use the next lane over, in whatever position seems appropriate in that lane but completely within that lane. That's just the way lanes work, to my mind, I can't condone doing otherwise. Deep down I'm probably more vehicular than most VCers on this board, I'm just not fanatical about preaching my version of the gospel. I also apply plenty of fudging, and sometimes ignore the law a bit. I keep in mind that my bike is also a great off-road vehicle - but when on the road I generally follow the rules of the road, and that includes riding within a lane.

What I don't have to deal with, and most contributors here do, are aggressive drivers who don't think I belong on the road. I think one guy yelled at me to get off the road last spring some time.. may have been further back than that. I often use the Queen Elizabeth Driveway, for example, which has pathways on both sides (not bike lanes, MUPs) and no one has ever told me to get off the road there.


I also ride on streets with marked shoulders as wide or wider as the standard BL width, but they are not marked as BL for a number of reasons I can speculate about (not maintained, not done right at intersections, etc.) These psuedo BLs cause me problems just like regular offical BLs do.


What problems do the pseudo-BLs cause you?

I will ride right on the line on highway 1 between Ventura and Seacliff. The pavement is very rough and the line is very smooth so you can go faster with less vibration. The vibration is significant and can become almost debilitating after a while.

I will also ride on the line in a scenario where there is a right turn lane and I need to go straight and I wish to filter to the front. I'll ride right on the line dividing the right turn and straight lane as if it was my own tiny little bike lane. Nobody has misunderstood this yet.

What problems do the pseudo-BLs cause you?
The same as BLs, do I have to hash it out again. ;)

-drivers yelling at me to get in the BL
-having to be more agressive to merge over the fog line compared to no line at all
-fog lines going all the way up to the stop line of the intersection (related to above)
-some drivers not adjusting lane position if they are in auto pilot between the line

'problems' is too strong a word, what I should say is more often a hassle compared to having no lines at all.

ps- I support government funding for bike facilties (are you surprised HH) but I have a big problem with 85% of the results of that spending. Please don't ask me to explain this mixed up point of view ;)

Al

So why ride left biased? I'm not trying to be judgemental, but this doesn't make any sense to me. While I don't always agree with you, I do respect your opinions I assume there is a reason.
...
So what happens if surface conditions means I can't ride in a safe position, as described above? ... I will use the next lane over, in whatever position seems appropriate in that lane but completely within that lane.
Why not left? Quickly and not so thoughoughly...
-Too far out of the way of appoaching motorists. When on the line or in the lane I can see them react and if they don't I can move into lane.
-Right hooks
-Debris - sure go around it, but on bad days I'd end up swerving a bit too much, but more important is hard to see debris. When its a WOL there is always less debris.

Why not in the adjacent lane? Cause I have a pidgeon on my shoulder. Actually because I'm sick of the crap I get from drivers when I do, I get enought when riding in NOL and personally find the line a good compromise between abuse and safety. Believe me I've tried both ways. Motorists are actually far more understanding and tollerant of riding in the center of a NOL compared to riding in the travel lane when there is a BL or wide shoulder that seems available to them.

Al

I think the average motorist is more intelligent than we like to give him credit for.

The problem is that half the drivers out there are below average. Some of them are downright frightningly incompetent. If all but the bottom 0.1% of drivers were great, and that 1 of 1000 were homicidal, none of us would last a week.

I agree that the average motorist is great. It's the 1 in 100,000 road-raging freak, or the 1 in 10,000 distracted driver that is going to getcha.

The problem is that half the drivers out there are below average. Some of them are downright frightningly incompetent. If all but the bottom 0.1% of drivers were great, and that 1 of 1000 were homicidal, none of us would last a week.

I agree that the average motorist is great. It's the 1 in 100,000 road-raging freak, or the 1 in 10,000 distracted driver that is going to getcha.

The thought just crossed my mind as I read the last few posts...if deer could write and had their own forum I'm sure it would sound a lot like BF & us! :eek:

Pat around here the bike lanes are about 5 feet wide... not 1.5 to 2 feet wide. That five feet equates to about 1.5 meters.

Any place with 1.5 to 2 foot bike lanes, does have a real problem.
Pictures of alleged 1.5 to 2 foot bike lanes to include their marking and the surrounding environment would be of interest.

Roody, the U.S. standard width for bike lanes is minimum of 4 feet, with 5 feet recommended.

Any jurisdiction that paints bike lane narrow than 4 feet wide is in violation of standard traffic engineering practices. Note sure if there is any teeth behind that, but I've never seen a 1.5 foot wide bike lane! As Pat pointed out, a bike cannot even fit in 1.5 feet, much less have any buffer space.

Roody, the U.S. standard width for bike lanes is minimum of 4 feet, with 5 feet recommended..
I wonder if the mix up is the same as discussed in the link I posted above, to repeat:

http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html

Al

Only Roody will be able to tell us. That's a good article.

I wonder if the mix up is the same as discussed in the link I posted above, to repeat:

http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html

Al

I have to wonder what they were thinking when they painted the white line in that picture. What purpose does it serve?

I have to wonder what they were thinking when they painted the white line in that picture. What purpose does it serve?
Maybe from traditional design of putting a fog line (reflective white paint) that helps define the roadway edge in the night?

The road I ride on most is a WOL, I can see where the pavement used to have a fog line painted and it has been removed for most miles of this road. The pavement is still a bit smoother where the line used to be.

Al

Are you 100% sure these are official marked and signed as such BLs?

AlThese 18-24 inch wide jokes absolutely are marked on the pavement and with signs as bike lanes. Of course they are actually just (poorly) paved shoulders that somebody decided to call bike lanes. Not only are they narrow, they contain sewer grates, potholes, overhanging branches, and all the debris the cars sweep in there.

Folks, if your town is thinking about bike lanes, be careful before you jump on the bandwagon. You just might get something you can't live with (literally).

OTOH, Lansing does have one of the finest MUPs I've ever seen. It goes 13 miles (I believe) right through the center of the city, without even once intersecting with a street. It's pretty too, right on the banks of the Grand and Red Cedar rivers.

Why not left? Quickly and not so thoughoughly...
-Too far out of the way of appoaching motorists. When on the line or in the lane I can see them react and if they don't I can move into lane.
-Right hooks
-Debris - sure go around it, but on bad days I'd end up swerving a bit too much, but more important is hard to see debris. When its a WOL there is always less debris.

Hmm. I still wonder if you're not just setting yourself up for hassle, but out experiences and locale differ widely so I can't really comment.


Why not in the adjacent lane? Cause I have a pidgeon on my shoulder. Actually because I'm sick of the crap I get from drivers when I do, I get enought when riding in NOL and personally find the line a good compromise between abuse and safety. Believe me I've tried both ways. Motorists are actually far more understanding and tollerant of riding in the center of a NOL compared to riding in the travel lane when there is a BL or wide shoulder that seems available to them.

Sounds like you deal with a very poor cycling environment in how drivers treat you! I'm lucky there, although I think a 3% cycling modal share has a lot to do with that luck.

Thinking about it, I seldom ride on roads with shoulders. Most of our roads have an "urban cross section", that is a raised concrete curb but no shoulder or fog line. I'll have to ask around to see how other cyclists in less urban areas get treated on roads with real shoulders.

From my POV there are only three things keeping Ottawa from being a cycling heaven:

1- Snow removal on bike lanes and some important pathways (e.g. links under rail lines)
2- Keep the bike racks on buses through the winter.
3- Teach drivers to pass safely in WOLs! (Or get rid of lane sharing entirely).

And points 1 and 2 above are part of the (still Draft) Ottawa Cycling Plan.

I wonder if the mix up is the same as discussed in the link I posted above, to repeat:

http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html

Al

Good article... around here I have seen such fog lines and (for lack of a better term) "virtual islands" that can have well more then 5 feet to the right. These do cause confusion for the motoring public, but at the same time they may offer a ridable area.

Should we use it??? That is the real question.

HH himself questioned why we couldn't ride in a similar "virtual island" in a certain area where a busy boulevard meets a hiway off ramp and a merge lane... certainly the "virtual island" area gave cyclists a easy place to be out of the way of the merging auto traffic... at least until the island disappeared... which they are prone to do.

I have been known to use these same "virtual islands" and pavement areas as an area from which to "negotiate" with motorists to effect my own merges... But at the same time, I do not want motorists to tell me to use that area, nor expect me to use that area... Why? Because those white line areas do not always lead to useable space, and the motorist never really understands what the condition of the road is on the other side of the line.

The same as BLs, do I have to hash it out again. ;)

Actually, I didn't realize that a shoulder would cause the same problems. I seldom ride on roads with shoulders, and don't consider the shoulder to be a usable part of the road. Its "off my radar" and I don't think it would occur to me to ride in it. Heck, my instinct would be to assume the presence of a concrete curb.


-drivers yelling at me to get in the BL

Holy crap, does no one there know the difference between a shoulder and a bike lane? No offense, but just how dumb are your drivers?


-some drivers not adjusting lane position if they are in auto pilot between the line

I see that too, hence why I hate WOLs and lane sharing. Give me my own lane, be it a narrow lane or a bike lane!


'problems' is too strong a word, what I should say is more often a hassle compared to having no lines at all.

A hassle that you deal with daily soon becomes a problem.


ps- I support government funding for bike facilties (are you surprised HH) but I have a big problem with 85% of the results of that spending. Please don't ask me to explain this mixed up point of view

I'm a socialist libertarian. If you can get a grasp of that, everything else is easy.

Holy crap, does no one there know the difference between a shoulder and a bike lane? No offense, but just how dumb are your drivers?




:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Do they care? That is the real question... Look most motorists probably don't care, they also probably don't bother cyclists, and are themselves just trying to get along with whatever the traffic situation is... they simply want to get along with their lives.

But then there is a tiny minority (that HH says to just ignore... and folks like chipcom probably do) that may yell out, may honk, may rev engines etc... all rather rude unjustified behaviours. (heck, they probably kick dogs too). These are the motorists that don't know a bike lane from a shoulder, don't know or care about cyclists rights and probably don't merge gracefully in traffic either.

They are simply a thorn in the side of any cyclist... (and probably their fellow motorists too) They pop out of nowhere, make their noises, act aggressive and are a PITA. And yes, they are dumb. And rude.

So how do you respond... ignore, or try to educate or???

BTW does every driver in your fair north land always use a turn signal? If not, why not?

I wonder if the mix up is the same as discussed in the link I posted above, to repeat:

http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html

Al

Small world...I knew Bobby Mac back in the early 80s while I was stationed in Yuma and working at Wally White's CB shop part-time. I used to fix and trick out his CB for him. He knew that both my buddy Dennis and myself were cyclists, but never said anything negative about it that I can recall. He spent more time telling us 'old Corps' stories.

Interesting to read all of those articles. It seems the biggest complaints against cyclists were directed towards large groups of roadies and cyclists who don't obey traffic laws. What was troubling was the common perception that 'we don't drive in the bike lane, so stay out of our motor vehicle lanes', but another common theme was an important point - motorists see cyclists as having little respect for them. I think this reinforces the notion that we should be as courteous to drivers as we expect them to be to us, and that our desire to get out of their way when safe to do so is far from an 'albatross' that we need to overcome.

...another common theme was an important point - motorists see cyclists as having little respect for them. I think this reinforces the notion that we should be as courteous to drivers as we expect them to be to us, and that our desire to get out of their way when safe to do so is far from an 'albatross' that we need to overcome.

I would interpret this differently. I would say that motorists wrongly see cyclists as having little respect for them, because they wrongly believe that bicycles are not supposed to be ridden in the road, and wrongly believe that cyclists are flouting the law by doing so.

I guess we all ride in different conditions. My typical confrontation with a motorist involves someone who is apparently offended at the very notion of a bicycle being in the road. I ride mostly on multi-lane urban streets, and every so often I will have someone honk at me or yell even though there is another lane open for them to go around. I'm not sure how to be courteous to someone who I didn't even notice until they went out of their way to be rude to me.

Hmm, I don't think so.

I don't have a problem with cycling on the local highways with all the rights and responsibilities of operating a vehicle. Florida law defines my bicycle as a vehicle and me, being the operator, as a driver. It also allows me to take the lane at my discretion, including all the time, on any road with lanes less than 14' wide. Which is all but three roads in this county, that I can think of.

The problems with bicycle specific facilities here are money, how to pay for a whole new infrastructure, installation and upkeep, and more importantly green space. Wide outside lanes and bike lanes might be okay attached to established roads, but I would fight any encroachment of green space to build any kind separate facilities when they're totally unnecessary. Separate facilities might be an option in metropolitan areas, where green space is just a token anyway.

I would interpret this differently. I would say that motorists wrongly see cyclists as having little respect for them, because they wrongly believe that bicycles are not supposed to be ridden in the road, and wrongly believe that cyclists are flouting the law by doing so.

I guess we all ride in different conditions. My typical confrontation with a motorist involves someone who is apparently offended at the very notion of a bicycle being in the road. I ride mostly on multi-lane urban streets, and every so often I will have someone honk at me or yell even though there is another lane open for them to go around. I'm not sure how to be courteous to someone who I didn't even notice until they went out of their way to be rude to me.


Whoa, exactly... my last two confrontations were from folks just like this... who felt it was their duty to tell me I was riding "wrong."

In one case I was the only other person using the road for at least a 1/2 mile in all directions, and was using the far right lane on a 6 lane road (three lanes either way).

But then there is a tiny minority (that HH says to just ignore... and folks like chipcom probably do) that may yell out, may honk, may rev engines etc... all rather rude unjustified behaviours. (heck, they probably kick dogs too). These are the motorists that don't know a bike lane from a shoulder, don't know or care about cyclists rights and probably don't merge gracefully in traffic either.

Oh, I understand the difference. You just seem to have more of these types directing their ignorance/penile inadequacy at cyclists than we do. I'm convinced its due to our cycling modal share (1.9% to 5%, depending on the survey).


So how do you respond... ignore, or try to educate or???

Systemic problems need to be adressed with education. Particularly dangerous behaviour should be reported to the police, of course. As an individual I beleive it best and easiest for me to ignore most of life's rude ignorant jerks, however that doesn't mean the problem as a whole should be ignored.

If drivers don't know the difference between a shoulder and a bike lane, they shouldn't be allowed to drive, period. We're going through a mini-scandal here in Ontario over how easy it has been to get a driver's license. I find it inexcusable that I - who does not have a DL nor ever had one - have read the Ontario Driver's Handbook and the entire Highway Traffic Act, yet most licensed drivers haven't!


BTW does every driver in your fair north land always use a turn signal? If not, why not?

No. In fact cab drivers seem to have a religious aversion to using one. I blame that one on laziness, and I do think those drivers should have the licenses suspended. However there is a big difference between sloppy driving and actively turning you ignorance and hostility on other road users. When the problem reaches the point where cyclists don't want bike lanes because of how drivers act (instead of any actual property of the bike lanes) then its long past time drivers got remedial training. It may also be time to offer cyclists lessons on how to deal with bullies.

Back when I was a photo lab tech, I could have been fired or suspended for mixing chemistry without the MSDS manual visibly handy in the room or without using goggles and gloves. Yet drivers get away with reckless behaviour with a warning or less. That has to change.

Yet drivers get away with reckless behaviour with a warning or less. That has to change.

Well OK, I certainly agree with that.

Holy crap, does no one there know the difference between a shoulder and a bike lane? No offense, but just how dumb are your drivers?

Did you read the article I posted? To a motorist the difference between Fig. 1 and 2 is subtle. During rush hour when both lanes are full of 45mph+ cars how do you think motorist react when you ride in the center of the right travel lane vs. the shoulder?

Also look at my video of a non bike lane that looks like a bike lane, but is not marked as one.

Jan05, 2006 NotABikeLane with working link in post above

Al

Systemic problems need to be adressed with education. Particularly dangerous behaviour should be reported to the police, of course. As an individual I beleive it best and easiest for me to ignore most of life's rude ignorant jerks, however that doesn't mean the problem as a whole should be ignored.
Yes, it serves us well not to respond in kind when harassed by motorists.

In Georgia, it is a misdemeanor to harass (which may include taunting, threats or intimidation) cyclists or motorists. Aggressive driving (operating a motor vehicle with the intent to annoy, harass, molest, intimidate, injure or obstruct another person,) is considered a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. Also, when a motorist places a cyclist at risk of personal injury, that could be considered reckless endangerment, also a misdemeanor.

Did you read the article I posted? To a motorist the difference between Fig. 1 and 2 is subtle. During rush hour when both lanes are full of 45mph+ cars how do you think motorist react when you ride in the center of the right travel lane vs. the shoulder?

Yes, I had read it, but had another look to remind myself. OK, I'll concede that one is confusing. I'm certainly confused as to why a fog line was painted there at all. Still, A bike lane would have a diamond lane marking, a bike-lane marking, signs, etc. So, aside from your example of very poor road engineering, I think that in general a driver would have to be very dumb to confuse a shoulder with a bike lane.

So, aside from your example of very poor road engineering, I think that in general a driver would have to be very dumb to confuse a shoulder with a bike lane.

It happens... remember, it doesn't take much to become a driver...

It happens... remember, it doesn't take much to become a driver...

Particularly in Ontario!

The provincial Auditor General broke that story a few weeks ago, apparently a monkey with a fake out-of-province license can get an Ontario Driver's License with no problems around here!

A bike lane would have a diamond lane marking, a bike-lane marking, signs, etc. The BLs around here usually have a sign or marking only every quarter mile or so. In some areas, the intersections are close enough together (and the sight lines short enough) that you can turn onto and then off of a BL'd street without having seen a BL specific mark or sign.

... a driver would have to be very dumb to confuse a shoulder with a bike lane.Drivers aren't the only ones who are confused about them. The MUTCD contained the following definition (http://cms.transportation.org/sites/scote/docs/Bike3%20Bike%20Lane%20Signs%20(4%20Pgs).doc) as recently as the 1998 edition: Designated Bicycle Lane - A portion of a roadway or shoulder …

Drivers aren't the only ones who are confused about them. The MUTCD contained the following definition as recently as the 1998 edition: Quote:Designated Bicycle Lane - A portion of a roadway or shoulder …


That language got written into the law in Maryland's mandatory bike lane law and is still the law.

I think that in general a driver would have to be very dumb to confuse a shoulder with a bike lane.
Here is another example from video I shot. This is not a bike lane. It is not signed or marked as one anywhere and on the city bike map, it is not called out as one.
Note at the intersection the marked shoulder appears between the straight and RTOL.
I think most (even smart) drivers of bikes or cars would confuse this with a bike lane.

Jan 9, 2006 Not A Bike Lane Intersection (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/060109-0905%20notabikelane.avi)

Al

Here is another example from video I shot. This is not a bike lane. It is not signed or marked as one anywhere and on the city bike map, it is not called out as one.
Note at the intersection the marked shoulder appears between the straight and RTOL.
I think most (even smart) drivers of bikes or cars would confuse this with a bike lane.

Jan 9, 2006 Not A Bike Lane Intersection (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/060109-0905%20notabikelane.avi)

Al

Why do they paint fog lines on these roads? If I went by that road, I wouldn't think it was a bike lane.

- the asphalt is too narrow for a bike lane (concrete gutters don't count)
- no diamond (restricted lane) markers painted on the road
- no diamond (restricted lane) markers on signs
- ditto above re: bike lane markers and signs
- the "lane" is discontinuous with the strange gap at the intersection

The strange paint job at the intersection is confusing! If its a bike lane, why is it not marked, and why is it not continuous with the previous area? If its not a bike lane, why is that space between two lanes not cross-hatched, and why does the stop line extend into this space? I wouldn't confuse the rest of the video for a bike lane, but this intersection I might.

Looks like those superfluous fog lines are causing a lot of confusion.