Google sponsored links
Whether to us advocacy means building bicycle facilities, improving road conditions, learning and teaching others to ride in traffic more effectively or educating the public, I suspect we can agree that if we are cyclists that use our bikes for transportation, we all want to be able to do so safely, comfortably and conveniently. It seems to me that those of us who support bicycle facilities because they want to get from A to B as hassle-free as possible and those of us who prefer roads without them want the same convenience. We just disagree on how this can be accomplished because we prefer different facilities. This may never change.
Can't we have bicycle facilities while also supporting laws that protect a cyclist's right not to use them? Can't we agree that there are certain safety standards that bicycle facilities must have?
Can't we have our cake and eat it too? What do you think?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I don't think it's possible. If we take our cue from what works in other countries where riding a bike is a basic and accepted a form of transportation, than I don't think the two philosophies will ever come together.
The biggest impediment to riding a bicycle for basic transportation safely in this country is ATTITUDE! Many cyclists have an inferiority complex they have inherited from growing up here which is only reinforced by the attitude of motorists, highway engineers and municipal planners - all of who relegate the bicycle to second-class transportation status and all of whom have NEVER ridden a bike ANYWHERE for the most part.
Look at Asian and Euro cities - cyclists riding on huge open boulevards not on 6' wide bike paths. Piazzas in the center city free of automobiles. My sister just came back from Germany. They have several layers of public transportation - a subway, a trolley and inter-region rail service plus bus service - all in one city! In older metropolitan areas (east coast cities) there is just not enough room to construct bicycle facilities to match what is found in other parts of the world.
To my mind, the solution in Metro areas is simple:
1) reduce the speed limit.
2) dedicate the right lane of multi-lane roads to buses, bikes and right-turning vehicles
3) re-educate the public to respect not only the rights of cyclists but pedestrians as well
4) INFORCE THE LAWS!!!!
5) When roads are upgraded, construct the right lane 14' wide with signage
I don't think it's possible. If we take our cue from what works in other countries where riding a bike is a basic and accepted a form of transportation, than I don't think the two philosophies will ever come together.
I thought most of your post was very thought-provoking. But I'm not sure I can agree with the above statement.
Here in the U.S., I think that we'll probably see a limited implementation of bike facilities, more as a compliment to road cycling than as a total, universal solution. That's how it's happening where I live, so most cyclists will have options to use both, and that means the philosophies will come together, at least in daily practice.
On my route, I ride about 15 miles each way. Less than two miles are on bike facilities, and those are optional as there are many other routes.
Bike facilities already exist, so cyclists will push for them to be made safer, not eliminate them. And cyclists who prefer facilities will understand that they'll never get facilities everywhere they want to ride, so they'll learn to adapt to the road more and more. In the end, it will be a hybrid system.
As for me, I prefer the road. But I'm not against letting people who want bike facilities have them, too.
3) re-educate the public to respect not only the rights of cyclists but pedestrians as wellI keep seeing this "Educate the public" thing. Exactly how does that happen? In my state they eliminated driver's training from schools, and I understand the same is true elsewhere. You read a little pamphlet, and then take a short test -- And THAT'S IT for educating the public!
The "public" wants to drive while talking on cell phones. The "public" believes they own the road. The "public" thinks they're doing a good thing buzzing around in vehicles the size of small apartment houses.
I see absolutely no inclination on the part of the public to restore driver's education, get off the phone, drive reasonably sized vehicles, or pay for service announcements telling them to share the road with bicyclists.
The best hope to get the public interested is to get more of the public on the roads. And the only way that's likely to happen in the U.S., if at all, is with steep increases in gasoline prices.
Can't we have bicycle facilities while also supporting laws that protect a cyclist's right not to use them? Can't we agree that there are certain safety standards that bicycle facilities must have?
Can't we have our cake and eat it too? What do you think?
Sure. That's the way it is here where I live. We have a MUP by the beach on the route I take to work each day. It's difficult to use when the tourists are thick. But we can easily ride in the street. You get no hassle from the law for opting for the street over the path.
I keep seeing this "Educate the public" thing. Exactly how does that happen? In my state they eliminated driver's training from schools, and I understand the same is true elsewhere. You read a little pamphlet, and then take a short test -- And THAT'S IT for educating the public!
The "public" wants to drive while talking on cell phones. The "public" believes they own the road. The "public" thinks they're doing a good thing buzzing around in vehicles the size of small apartment houses.
I see absolutely no inclination on the part of the public to restore driver's education, get off the phone, drive reasonably sized vehicles, or pay for service announcements telling them to share the road with bicyclists.
The best hope to get the public interested is to get more of the public on the roads. And the only way that's likely to happen in the U.S., if at all, is with steep increases in gasoline prices.
I guess this post pretty much covers the completely pessimistic viewpoint. :)
Whether to us advocacy means building bicycle facilities, improving road conditions, learning and teaching others to ride in traffic more effectively or educating the public, I suspect we can agree that if we are cyclists that use our bikes for transportation, we all want to be able to do so safely, comfortably and conveniently. It seems to me that those of us who support bicycle facilities because they want to get from A to B as hassle-free as possible and those of us who prefer roads without them want the same convenience. We just disagree on how this can be accomplished because we prefer different facilities. This may never change.
Can't we have bicycle facilities while also supporting laws that protect a cyclist's right not to use them? Can't we agree that there are certain safety standards that bicycle facilities must have?
Can't we have our cake and eat it too? What do you think?
I don't see why not.
We have a MUP by the beach on the route I take to work each day. It's difficult to use when the tourists are thick. But we can easily ride in the street. You get no hassle from the law for opting for the street over the path.
Same here, no hassles, even though the law says the local authorities can order me to use the path that's adjacent to the roadway, if I understand it. I'd like it better if the law wasn't written that way.
"Thumbs up" to the wisdom of local police on that one.
Can't we have bicycle facilities while also supporting laws that protect a cyclist's right not to use them?
I can agree to that. The question is whether the guy in the car agrees, and whether he cares. I think in most places bikes ARE allowed to not use the bike lanes, yet I've read lots of stories here about drivers deciding to "educate" the cyclist by pushing them off the road.
Can't we agree that there are certain safety standards that bicycle facilities must have?
Can't we have our cake and eat it too? What do you think?
Certainly WE can agree to safety standards, IE **IF** there are bike lanes, they should not be in the door zone, they should be kept swept, they should be X feet wide, they should be immediately to the right of straight-through lanes, not to the right of right turn lanes, etc.
Again, the problem is not us, the problem is whether the people who PUT the lanes there will agree to that.
But if you're asking whether we can present a united front to those people who need convincing, then I think probably so.
But there is a subset of cyclists who won't even talk about bike lanes, even to admit to what constitutes a good (or least bad) one.
Can't we have bicycle facilities while also supporting laws that protect a cyclist's right not to use them? Can't we agree that there are certain safety standards that bicycle facilities must have?
Well, in theory an advocacy group can represent all of its members, even if sometimes concentrating on one specific cause or other. In practice, however, this seldom works: advocacy attracts zealots (who by definition can't compromise) the way cow patties attract flies.
As others have said, it seems to boil down to the Three E's:
Engineering - design & build bike facilities, including everything from WOL's and bike-capable sensors to MUP's.
Education - not only riders, but motor vehicle operators & law enforcement, including judges.
Enforcement - fair & level enforcement of all laws for all vehicles.
Sounds like a basic culture shift would be required for the USA. And I'm trying to change my little part of it, by riding as a legal vehicle on the roads, educating riders, drivers & cops, and working as a citizen member of the local Metro Planing Organization.
The sheep have let a wolf into their fold, but have not realized it yet.
Whether to us advocacy means building bicycle facilities, improving road conditions, learning and teaching others to ride in traffic more effectively or educating the public, I suspect we can agree that if we are cyclists that use our bikes for transportation, we all want to be able to do so safely, comfortably and conveniently. It seems to me that those of us who support bicycle facilities because they want to get from A to B as hassle-free as possible and those of us who prefer roads without them want the same convenience. We just disagree on how this can be accomplished because we prefer different facilities. This may never change.
Can't we have bicycle facilities while also supporting laws that protect a cyclist's right not to use them? Can't we agree that there are certain safety standards that bicycle facilities must have?
My thoughts exactly. By and large, I think this is happening already, given the sum total of all the forces pulling at cycling advocacy, at least in my area.
Can't we have our cake and eat it too? What do you think?
In theory, probably not. We bicker too much about the color of the frosting. :D
Can't we have bicycle facilities while also supporting laws that protect a cyclist's right not to use them? Can't we agree that there are certain safety standards that bicycle facilities must have?
Can't we have our cake and eat it too? What do you think?
I really don't think it's possible.
The very existence of a segregated cycle facility on a "shared road" is much too easy to interpret as an official sanction of the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars. And as long as most people (not to mention most law enforcement officers and even most cyclists) believe that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars - a notion/opinion we bicycling advocates should challenge at every opportunity - all onstreet segregated cycling facilities on "shared" roadways do is add fuel to their fire.
I don't see how we can have it both ways.
Da Tinker said it: "The sheep have let a wolf into their fold, but have not realized it yet."
Brian confirmed the "have not realized it yet" aspect: "By and large, I think this is happening already, given the sum total of all the forces pulling at cycling advocacy, at least in my area."
In many ways the biggest problem facing transportational cycling is recreational cycling.
Most cycling facitlities are designed with recreational cyclists in mind -- even though the primary funding source in the US is the federal Department of Transportation, which insists that recipients certify (wink, wink) that the facilities are primarily transportational in nature. From a purely numerical standpoint, it makes sense. There are something like 100 million recreational cyclists and perhaps 3 million transportational cyclists in the US.
While recreational cyclists want to have fun, transportational cyclists want to get somewhere useful. In general, when someplace usefule exists, other people want to go there as well, and they go by car, so there is a road that goes there. What transportational cyclists generally want is just to be able to use the existing roads.
From an advocacy perspective, there is an important difference as well. Transportation is a right, ensconced in common law, the constitution, and federal and state laws. Recreation is an amenity. So transportational advocacy is largely about access and enforcement of rights, and recreational advocacy is largely about agitating for facilities.
These two types of cycling don't always work at cross purposes, but sometimes they do. The classic example is recreational advocates arguing for facilities because the roads are too dangerous, which provides ammunition to those who would ban cyclists from the roads.
In many ways the biggest problem facing transportational cycling is recreational cycling. ...
This is certainly true in many places. We can only hope that recreational cyclists view the rest of us favorably when they drive a car.
In many ways the biggest problem facing transportational cycling is recreational cycling.
Most cycling facitlities are designed with recreational cyclists in mind -- even though the primary funding source in the US is the federal Department of Transportation, which insists that recipients certify (wink, wink) that the facilities are primarily transportational in nature. From a purely numerical standpoint, it makes sense. There are something like 100 million recreational cyclists and perhaps 3 million transportational cyclists in the US.
While recreational cyclists want to have fun, transportational cyclists want to get somewhere useful. In general, when someplace usefule exists, other people want to go there as well, and they go by car, so there is a road that goes there. What transportational cyclists generally want is just to be able to use the existing roads.
From an advocacy perspective, there is an important difference as well. Transportation is a right, ensconced in common law, the constitution, and federal and state laws. Recreation is an amenity. So transportational advocacy is largely about access and enforcement of rights, and recreational advocacy is largely about agitating for facilities.
These two types of cycling don't always work at cross purposes, but sometimes they do. The classic example is recreational advocates arguing for facilities because the roads are too dangerous, which provides ammunition to those who would ban cyclists from the roads.
+1
This does seem to be right at the heart of the dichotomy of the situation...
Yup, damned those recreational cyclists. They are not worthy.
The very existence of a segregated cycle facility on a "shared road" is much too easy to interpret as an official sanction of the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars. And as long as most people (not to mention most law enforcement officers and even most cyclists) believe that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars - a notion/opinion we bicycling advocates should challenge at every opportunity - all onstreet segregated cycling facilities on "shared" roadways do is add fuel to their fire.
I don't see how we can have it both ways.
I think the average motorist is more intelligent than we like to give him credit for. After all, it's the intelligence of the average motorist that vehicular cycling depends on for safety, and if motorists were incompetent, none of us would dare venture out on the roadways. We'd all be cringing with fear and screaming to be given separate facilities for our own protection.
Take the high-occupancy-vehicle lane (HOV lane) for example. This leftmost lane on freeways is reserved for vehicles carrying two or more occupants, and although there are violators of this requirement, everybody at least understands the rules of their use. But when it comes to bike lanes, we get overly paranoid and panic at the notion that motorists will think that cyclists are restricted to these lanes, even if we're not. After all, it's a restricted lane for cyclists--but that doesn't mean people can't understand the concept that a restricted lane is not the only lane a cyclist can use. If people understand HOV lanes, they can also grasp bike lanes: both are lanes restricted to certain users, but you don't have to use them. Not rocket science.
Where I get angry is when authorities pass laws allowing police to order cyclists onto an adjacent path. That's where I draw the line, and it's an obvious attempt to get cyclists off the roads in order to speed up traffic flow.
And yet, it has been said that there are very few transportational cyclists, by proportion, in the U.S. as compared with recreational cyclists and especially motorists. Therefore, what real purpose would be served to remove that small percentage of cyclists from the road? There just aren't enough of them to fuss about anyway. They don't ride in groups (generally,) and are easy to overtake.
Where I get angry is when authorities pass laws allowing police to order cyclists onto an adjacent path. That's where I draw the line, and it's an obvious attempt to get cyclists off the roads in order to speed up traffic flow.
And yet, it has been said that there are very few transportational cyclists, by proportion, in the U.S. as compared with recreational cyclists and especially motorists. Therefore, what real purpose would be served to remove that small percentage of cyclists from the road? There just aren't enough of them to fuss about anyway. They don't ride in groups (generally,) and are easy to overtake.
There are probably even fewer (as in infinitesimally small) cases where transportation cyclists are negatively affected by legal enforcement of such rare "laws". Certainly not enough for distant anti-bike lane ideologues to get their hair on fire and justify obstructionist rants/tactics.
There are probably even fewer (as in infinitesimally small) cases where transportation cyclists are negatively affected by legal enforcement of such rare "laws".
There is no need for them in the first place. They set a bad precedent. Get them off the books.
The last thing we need is to be considered "at fault" as an "unintended road user" when we're the victim of the negligence of an "intended road user."
There is no need for them <"laws allowing police to order cyclists onto an adjacent path> in the first place. They set a bad precedent. Get them off the books.
The last thing we need is to be considered "at fault" as an "unintended road user" when we're the victim of the negligence of an "intended road user."
So where are any of this things (which we don't need) happening to transportation (or any other) cyclist as a result of "laws allowing police to order cyclists onto an adjacent path"?
My take is that the threat of such "laws" to actual cyclists exists almost totally in the fevered imaginations of anti bike lane legal "theorists."
So where are any of this things (which we don't need) happening to transportation (or any other) cyclist as a result of "laws allowing police to order cyclists onto an adjacent path"?
My take is that the threat of such "laws" to actual cyclists exists almost totally in the fevered imaginations of anti bike lane legal "theorists."
The laws are redundant. It's already legal for a policeman to order a cyclist to pull over if traffic is backing up behind him unnecessarily.
In the case of this particular law no justification is necessary, other than that there is an adjacent bicycle path. If that sits well with you, it's your call. But I've read where it's been used to order a cyclist off the road at nighttime, which was not a safe choice for the cyclist because a friend of his had been attacked at night on that same path.
My take is that the threat of such "laws" to actual cyclists exists almost totally in the fevered imaginations of anti bike lane legal "theorists."
Tell that to the CHP officer, and the management that backs him up, who said that the "spirit of the law is that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars".
These two types of cycling don't always work at cross purposes, but sometimes they do. The classic example is recreational advocates arguing for facilities because the roads are too dangerous, which provides ammunition to those who would ban cyclists from the roads.
I see just as much, if not more, clammering for facilities by commuters as I do by pure recreationalists. Recreational cyclists are out to get miles in, so they are willing to find quiet low traffic routes where traffic skills are less important and the perceived need for facilities is less (in particular, the ability to "create" gaps is not required). It's the transportational cyclists, who are unable to avoid traffic, and are frustrated by their difficulties in navigating through it, to the point of thinking their problems could be solved by facilities.
Tell that to the CHP officer, and the management that backs him up, who said that the "spirit of the law is that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars".
I see just as much, if not more, clammering for facilities by commuters as I do by pure recreationalists. Recreational cyclists are out to get miles in, so they are willing to find quiet low traffic routes where traffic skills are less important and the perceived need for facilities is less (in particular, the ability to "create" gaps is not required). It's the transportational cyclists, who are unable to avoid traffic, and are frustrated by their difficulties in navigating through it, to the point of thinking their problems could be solved by facilities.
Actually there are two kinds of recreational cyclist... there are those that "want to get the miles in," such as myself, and there are those that generally are found in parks and on paths... and it is this latter group that generally facilities are built for... those that are sometimes called "class 1 riders*". They probably will never ride a bike at 25MPH on the flats and most likely will never ride beyond 10 or 12 miles in a day.
Now the interesting thing is that college students can also be called transportational riders and are generally also moving at the same pace as these slow recreational riders.
* I have never seen an actual classification of riders, but I do remember sometime back that one city (Philidelphia, perhaps???) classed all the riders and those that would likely use a path or bike lane... and the majority were called "class 1 riders."
I've seen the bike facilities rated by classes. I also ride with a lot of these types of "class 1" riders and we often go 30 miles in a day, but yes, at about 10-12 mph.
I'll tell ya, recreational or not, if I want to get from Ventura to Ojai I much prefer using the bike path to the Highway 33 "Safety Corridor". (Why is it whenever they call it a "Safety Corridor" it's dreadfully unsafe?)
Tell that to the CHP officer, and the management that backs him up, who said that the "spirit of the law is that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars".
This is not only pure ignorance, it's dangerous ignorance, dangerous to a cyclist's freedoms.
I see just as much, if not more, clammering for facilities by commuters as I do by pure recreationalists. Recreational cyclists are out to get miles in, so they are willing to find quiet low traffic routes where traffic skills are less important and the perceived need for facilities is less (in particular, the ability to "create" gaps is not required). It's the transportational cyclists, who are unable to avoid traffic, and are frustrated by their difficulties in navigating through it, to the point of thinking their problems could be solved by facilities.
One could argue that bike facilities degrade the riding pleasure of some, while enhancing it for others. Yet that is not reason enough in itself to oppose bike facilities.
As long a they aren't dangerous, it seems a waste of energy to oppose facilities in general. That makes enemies of potential allies. It makes more sense to rally support amongst bike lane advocates for higher standards and better maintenance for bike lanes, as well as to uphold our privilege to ride our bikes on the road with equivalent standing alongside motorists.
After all, if a basic tenet of vehicular cycling principles is developing the ability to ride on any given road, how is it that a bike lane becomes too difficult to navigate?
how is it that a bike lane becomes too difficult to navigate?
What if the BL stripe would be the best position on the road to ride if it wasn't otherwise there?
Once the stripe is in place the cyclist then must decide to either ride in the travel lane which may have dense fast traffic or in the BL which may be too close to the curb/debris or out of visibility for the cyclists comfort zone.
Al
The width of the BL stripe is not insignificant - typically 6 inches - especially when you consider its slippery-when-wet characteristic.
Also, technically, once you are close enough to the stripe for any part of you or the bike to intersect with the 6-inche wide area above the stripe, you are as far as you can go. This makes the effective space occupied by the stripe to be closer to 3 feet wide.
Now, we always want to maintain at least 3 feet (1 meter) of clearance anyway... so what's the problem? Well, the problem is that with that stripe, the 3 foot zone is fixed/static; without it, it's 3 feet to the left of wherever we happen to be riding, which gives us much more flexibility.
The width of the BL stripe is not insignificant - typically 6 inches - especially when you consider its slippery-when-wet characteristic.
It also has a delightful smooth when dry characteristic.
What if the BL stripe would be the best position on the road to ride if it wasn't otherwise there?
Once the stripe is in place the cyclist then must decide to either ride in the travel lane which may have dense fast traffic or in the BL which may be too close to the curb/debris or out of visibility for the cyclists comfort zone.
Al
I don't know about anyone else, but I simply ride on the bike lane line. Beginning cyclists (who will use the bike lane and not ride on the line) don't need to have as much concern about debris (slower and less fragile equipment), and if the bike lane is adequate, it is far from the curb. As for the visibility thing, that is an intersection concern and is handled in a number of different ways. (Though perhaps a certain person on my ignore list will debate...)
Experienced cyclists don't have to choose between one side of the line or the other. The line is simply a strip of paint. The only concern is if it is wet, but in my experience, this is a minor issue. I've never slid on a painted strip. Pros sometimes slide on paint in a race, but this is more because they are pushing their bikes and their traction in corners than anything else.
I don't know about anyone else, but I simply ride on the bike lane line. Beginning cyclists (who will use the bike lane and not ride on the line) don't need to have as much concern about debris (slower and less fragile equipment), and if the bike lane is adequate, it is far from the curb. As for the visibility thing, that is an intersection concern and is handled in a number of different ways. (Though perhaps a certain person on my ignore list will debate...)
Experienced cyclists don't have to choose between one side of the line or the other. The line is simply a strip of paint. The only concern is if it is wet, but in my experience, this is a minor issue. I've never slid on a painted strip. Pros sometimes slide on paint in a race, but this is more because they are pushing their bikes and their traction in corners than anything else.
That is exactly what I do as well. But I was pondering it based on this comment from a cyclist, not a motorist:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1956205&postcount=26
In response to this:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1955139&postcount=18
Al
That is a pretty narrow bike lane; most of ours (on high traffic roads) are wider. I'd like to say I'd not be in the bike lane in this situation but a couple on inches to the left, but in this situation, without the aural and visual experience of the cyclist I don't know what I would do or where I would ride.
It's funny, but watching the video, I was wanting to move about 6 inches or a foot to the left during the whole thing and just as the car passed, move left and accelerate sharply, perhaps to go around or prevent the next car in line from right hooking. My body almost jumped to do these things even though I was at my desk.
and just as the car passed, move left and accelerate sharply, perhaps to go around or prevent the next car in line from right hooking. .
I know the drill and do it often, but in this case there was no way I could go around it. I didn't even let up on my speed and didn't catch the car. There were no other vehicles beind this car to make it necessary to move left to prevent a right hooking.
Also notice I was riding to the left of the stripe by about 1', then I looked at rear view mirror (you can see when in video) and noticed car about to pass who was not making an noticable movement left and I moved back on stripe (and also went right of manhole cover which is 2" below pavement and because it hasn't been finished yet since repaving and is therefore marked with a white paint circle.)
But I do agree there are minor things I could do to ride better on this little stretch, but I don't as it it not usually the concerning part of my ride. What I am admitting here is that sometimes I play a little loose with ideal positioning, but still safe as I monitor rear and am prepared to take action. Bottom line for me is that the car passed me safely (if not legally and/or courteously) and I deal with much closer passes.
I only brought this up again as to the comment I got saying I shouldn't ever ride on the line due to the ambiguity it creates (i.e. pick a lane)
Al
My take is that the threat of such "laws" to actual cyclists exists almost totally in the fevered imaginations of anti bike lane legal "theorists."
Tell that to the CHP officer, and the management that backs him up, who said that the "spirit of the law is that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars".
Actually neither the isolated incident of a silly/rogue CHP enforcing a non-law in reaction to the antics/actions of a large group of cyclists riding in a double paceline down the highway have any relationship to the thread subject or the specific question. I am not surprised that posting a relevant answer is not easy.
I started cycling for transportation back in 1969. In that time I'd estimate I've accumulated somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000 thousand miles on my bikes. Certainly not all of it has been strictly "transportation" mileage (as in commuting to work) since much of it was touring, racing and training. By far the smallest percentage of the riding I have done has been on what is termed "bicycle facilities" (ie, bike lanes, bike trails and multi-use trails)- perhaps as little as 1-2% of my total mileage. I steadfastly refuse, and have been asked by local and state police, to ride on inadequate paths, lanes or trails.
BUT I have ridden on excellent sections of bike trails in particular (more so than designated lanes). Here in Massachusetts we have the Minuteman Trail, the Ashuwilltocook, the Cape Cod Rail Trail and the MDC Bike Paths. Yes, there are design flaws but the difference between riding on busy roads on Cape Cod and the bike path- especially very early in the morning or at night is a huge difference in the quality of the ride. I'll ride wherever I can that gets me in touch with a more "natural" environment than the panorama of the overly developed human landscape. Riding 10 miles on a bike trail along a river with wild geese, rabbits, even an occasional fox while watching crew teams row in their shells as the sun breaks on the skyline of Boston as opposed to city streets lined with cars, trucks, buses, jay-walking pedestrians, fast food restaurants, strip malls, telephone poles, buildings, trolley tracks is at this point in my life a no brainer of a choice- I'm just not that much in a hurry.
Sure I'll ride on the road and yeah, I obey the rules of the road- I wouldn't be here today if I didn't know how to ride in traffic. Absolutely we can advocate for both the right to ride on the road and well-designed facilities. We need to advocate for a bicycling network of roads, trails, lanes even dirt roads. When I'm in Western Massachusetts I delight in seeing how many contiguous miles I can go using MTB trails, fire roads and dirt roads and never touch pavement (and seldom see a car). C'mon let's stop negating every possibilty and open our minds and imagine using every possible route we can.
[. . .]I see just as much, if not more, clammering for facilities by commuters as I do by pure recreationalists. Recreational cyclists are out to get miles in, so they are willing to find quiet low traffic routes where traffic skills are less important and the perceived need for facilities is less (in particular, the ability to "create" gaps is not required). It's the transportational cyclists, who are unable to avoid traffic, and are frustrated by their difficulties in navigating through it, to the point of thinking their problems could be solved by facilities. Most rec riders (at least outside of California and a few other areas) are not road riders but families riding together and couples or older adults riding on comfort bikes. These people want segregated bike trails, usually. Most commuters (outside of the bedroom town to office park routes) are "invisible cyclists." They often want bike lanes or they ride on the sidewalk.
I started cycling for transportation back in 1969. In that time I'd estimate I've accumulated somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000 thousand miles on my bikes.
... Now that is some serious mileage.... ;)
Most rec riders (at least outside of California and a few other areas) are not road riders but families riding together and couples or older adults riding on comfort bikes. These people want segregated bike trails, usually. Most commuters (outside of the bedroom town to office park routes) are "invisible cyclists." They often want bike lanes or they ride on the sidewalk.
But, according to a handful of VC™ proselytizers, it is the concerns and desires of a relatively few "Experienced High Mileage Road Cyclists" that should determine what will/will not be done in regards to facilitating bicycling.
What if the BL stripe would be the best position on the road to ride if it wasn't otherwise there?
Once the stripe is in place the cyclist then must decide to either ride in the travel lane which may have dense fast traffic or in the BL which may be too close to the curb/debris or out of visibility for the cyclists comfort zone.
Al
As I said before, as long as a bike lanes does not present a hazard or undue inconvenience to cyclists, we should be able to adapt to them. The scenario you mention is not only quite possible, but does exist in many places.
One of the conditions of compromising with bike lane advocates is to press for improved design and maintenance. But you can't compromise with people with whom you have no common ground for dialogue.
It would be better to agree to creating a bike lane with high standards of safety and maintenance than to fight the bike lane, lose the fight, and end up with a worse bike lane.
As I said before, as long as a bike lanes does not present a hazard or undue inconvenience to cyclists, we should be able to adapt to them. The scenario you mention is not only quite possible, but does exist in many places.
One of the conditions of compromising with bike lane advocates is to press for improved design and maintenance. But you can't compromise with people with whom you have no common ground for dialogue.
It would be better to agree to creating a bike lane with high standards of safety and maintenance than to fight the bike lane, lose the fight, and end up with a worse bike lane.
Really I have no real issue with bike lane design on straight, flat non intersectioned roads - too narrow, too wide, whatever I don't care. When I start to get 'interested' in bike lanes and their design is around intersections.
And of course I can deal with the stripe, act as if its not there, which I what I do.
But unfortunately other drivers do consider the stripe. If they are to the left of it, they stay to the left and most often don't even think they need to move a bit more left when passing cyclists since each is or should be in their lane. Or they don't think cyclists should merge out of them so even with turned head and left arm out they don't slow to let you it. And then there is this new thought: 'pick a lane, don't ride on the stripe' that may be a factor for some drivers.
Al
But unfortunately other drivers do consider the stripe. If they are to the left of it, they stay to the left and most often don't even think they need to move a bit more left when passing cyclists since each is or should be in their lane. Or they don't think cyclists should merge out of them so even with turned head and left arm out they don't slow to let you it. And then there is this new thought: 'pick a lane, don't ride on the stripe' that may be a factor for some drivers.
Al
This is a true observation, as well. In the case of passing drivers not allowing room, this problem might be addressed by mandating sufficient width for bike lanes.
This morning, as in all mornings I ride to work, I rode in the center of the rightmost lane for almost 1/2 of my 14 mile inbound route. As there was more traffic than usual, I actually encountered two drivers that let me know I didn't belong there--yet they seemed to know exactly how to pass me by changing lanes completely--but everyone else knows almost instinctively to change lanes and pass. Whenever there is a bike lane, I would want it to be as similar in quality to a regular lane as possible, except for the width, which doesn't need to be quite as wide. Some might think that's asking a lot, but where I live, they paint many bike lanes that give you almost no room for lateral maneuverability, which is a key design safety flaw.
I started cycling for transportation back in 1969. In that time I'd estimate I've accumulated somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000 thousand miles on my bikes. Certainly not all of it has been strictly "transportation" mileage (as in commuting to work) since much of it was touring, racing and training. By far the smallest percentage of the riding I have done has been on what is termed "bicycle facilities" (ie, bike lanes, bike trails and multi-use trails)- perhaps as little as 1-2% of my total mileage. I steadfastly refuse, and have been asked by local and state police, to ride on inadequate paths, lanes or trails.
BUT I have ridden on excellent sections of bike trails in particular (more so than designated lanes). Here in Massachusetts we have the Minuteman Trail, the Ashuwilltocook, the Cape Cod Rail Trail and the MDC Bike Paths. Yes, there are design flaws but the difference between riding on busy roads on Cape Cod and the bike path- especially very early in the morning or at night is a huge difference in the quality of the ride. I'll ride wherever I can that gets me in touch with a more "natural" environment than the panorama of the overly developed human landscape. Riding 10 miles on a bike trail along a river with wild geese, rabbits, even an occasional fox while watching crew teams row in their shells as the sun breaks on the skyline of Boston as opposed to city streets lined with cars, trucks, buses, jay-walking pedestrians, fast food restaurants, strip malls, telephone poles, buildings, trolley tracks is at this point in my life a no brainer of a choice- I'm just not that much in a hurry.
Sure I'll ride on the road and yeah, I obey the rules of the road- I wouldn't be here today if I didn't know how to ride in traffic. Absolutely we can advocate for both the right to ride on the road and well-designed facilities. We need to advocate for a bicycling network of roads, trails, lanes even dirt roads. When I'm in Western Massachusetts I delight in seeing how many contiguous miles I can go using MTB trails, fire roads and dirt roads and never touch pavement (and seldom see a car). C'mon let's stop negating every possibilty and open our minds and imagine using every possible route we can.
I apologize for re-posting this in it's entirety, but--
Well said.
This fits my philosophy, that cyclists can enjoy well-designed facilities while also maintaining their privelege to share the road with motorists.
In contrast to thinking of facilities as an alternative to road cycling, it should be considered an adjunct to road cycling.
I'll throw in my 2 cents about bike lanes. In my experience, the more clearly marked the bike lane is, the more problem motorists have when you leave that bike lane. I don't ride Papermill Road often but the last time I was on it, parts of the otherwise unobjectionable bike lane were littered with all sorts of sticks and stones. At these points, I would move left into the right tire track area of the main lane. I had a few motorists honking and pointing me back into the bike lane (which I ignored). The bike lanes on this road are clearly striped with the "cyclist" stencilled in the lane often and signs at each intersection saying to yield to bicycles when making right turns (the bike lanes goes to the left of the turn lane at every intersection). Now in contrast, on Route 48 (similar in all aspect to Papermill except for being 2 lanes in each direction), there is a bike lane but it's really just the shoulder with a stencilled in cyclist every once in a while. Because it's the shoulder and because I think I'm the only cyclist to ever use that road, the "bike lane" is a mess with gravel and twigs and the occassional piece of lumber that fell of a truck. My default position on this road is the right tire track of the right lane and no one has ever had a problem with that. If the bike lane looks clear enough, I will move right when large packs of cars come by but usually, I hold my line and people just go around me. The "bike lane" on this road dumps you nicely into the right turn lane at every intersection with no signage anywhere about bikes aside from the worn stencils.
But unfortunately other drivers do consider the stripe. If they are to the left of it, they stay to the left and most often don't even think they need to move a bit more left when passing cyclists since each is or should be in their lane.
I'll side with the drivers on that one, generally you shouldn't need to move when passing a vehicle in another lane, that's the point of having lanes. Your bike lanes must be much too narrow if you feel unsafe being passed by a car.
Or they don't think cyclists should merge out of them so even with turned head and left arm out they don't slow to let you it.
That won't change without driver education and a greater number of cyclists on the roads.
And then there is this new thought: 'pick a lane, don't ride on the stripe' that may be a factor for some drivers.
I don't think you should "ride on the stripe", though, that is just as much a problem as running stop signs.
I've been known to run my share of stop signs too, but if I break the rules I can't complain if the system breaks down. Again I'll side with the drivers on this one.
I don't think you should "ride on the stripe", though, that is just as much a problem as running stop signs.
.
Well then if this is a consensus belief then this is another good argument against the type of bike lanes that we have here in favor of WOLs. The stripe is very often the best roadway position and is the same postion relative to the curb I take when riding a WOL. Now if I was to avoid the stripe, I must either ride in the traffic lane (and cause impedment and/or unable to do so because of traffic speed/density) or ride to close to the curb for my comfort.
I thought pro BL folks said that those who want to ride VC can simply ignore the stripe? I guess its not so simple.
Al
...[on]Papermill Road...parts of the otherwise unobjectionable bike lane were littered with all sorts of sticks and stones. At these points, I would move left into the right tire track area of the main lane.
...on Route 48 ...the "bike lane" is a mess with gravel and twigs and the occassional piece of lumber that fell of a truck.
It really angers me that anyone would think we cyclists can actually enjoy riding in a junky bike lane, not to mention it's dangerous. A stick or some sand might not bother a motorist, but I can end up on the ground as fast as I can say, "Oh, crap."
Well then if this is a consensus belief then this is another good argument against the type of bike lanes that we have here in favor of WOLs. The stripe is very often the best roadway position and is the same postion relative to the curb I take when riding a WOL. Now if I was to avoid the stripe, I must either ride in the traffic lane (and cause impedment and/or unable to do so because of traffic speed/density) or ride to close to the curb for my comfort.
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.)
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.
I thought pro BL folks said that those who want to ride VC can simply ignore the stripe? I guess its not so simple.
I don't know if I ever said that, but I would certainly interpret those words as in "ignore the bike lane and use the next lane over", not pretend there is no stripe. I'd have to think about it, but my first reaction rates riding on top of a bike lane stripe as just plain wrong. As in worst than running red lights in busy traffic wrong. Certainly I would consider you at fault if a car ever hit you in that position.
I guess we're very different on this one. I don't see being a cyclist as giving me any special rights to the roadways. Lanes (bike or otherwise) are sometimes not placed were I would like them to be, I still have to respect the lane stripes anyway. Ditto lights, signs, etc. (give or take a little fudging, of course). I have always maintained that bike lanes and other restricted lanes are traffic lanes, and as such must be treated the same way - including respecting the stripe.
I have a bad reaction to what patc just wrote, but before I go there, what is considered 'riding on the stripe'? Does that mean tires are touching the paint? What if the tire is 1cm to the left or right of the paint?
It amazes me that after 60,423,527pages of BL debate this issue never came up? Or did it? ;)
Al
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.
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.
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.
What do they do in Ottwa, and would they do ideally in PatWorld?
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.