WOLs vs. BLS vs NOLs

[Helmet Head]

If you have about 27 feet to work with on half of a 45 mph roadway with no driveways and few intersections, which configuration would you prefer:


WOL. A 10 foot inside lane and a 17 foot WOL. 10-17
BL. 10 foot inside lane, 12 foot outside traffic lane, and a 5 foot bike lane. 10-12-5
NOL. Three narrow 9 foot lanes. 9-9-9.
Something substantially different (please specify)


Note that the only difference between the first two is a bike lane stripe.

Choice (c) effectively expands the bike lane from 5 feet to 9 feet (gaining the space to do so by narrowing the other two lanes), but allows other traffic to travel in it as well. In all three configurations there are always two lanes that faster traffic could use to pass the cyclist.

[noisebeam]

a

or

c with 25mph enforced speed limit OR sharrows on outside lane

edit: (made after genec agreed c is acceptable, not sure if this changes his opinion): to clarify 25mph enforced speed limit is only on outside lane. Inner 2 lanes would remain 45mph speed limit.

Al

[Paul L.]

All three are equally acceptable to me providing option C has an appropriate speed limit (wouldn't want to be there if the speed limit was 75 mph or anything like that). Do have a slight preference for A and B though.

[genec]

I like B as it removes the ambiguity of "shared lanes."

But Noisebeam's option C is also very acceptable.

[Roody]

I like the NOL. (Actually, HH, didn't you just tell me that a 9 foot lane would be a very narrow lane?)

I'm used to VNOLs. Unless motor traffic is very heavy, drivers usually find it easy to get around you. You soon learn not to worry too much about overtaking cars, just take your lane in the center and ride.

I'm dubious about one thing. I'm not sure that a 9-9-9 road would likely have a speed limit of 45 or more. Usually such a narrow road would be driven at 35 to 40 mph, wouldn't it?

[Helmet Head]

Maybe you're right, Roody. I should measure the actual width of lanes on such roads.

[LittleBigMan]

How about 12-12, 40 mph. with cameras capable of enforcing and ticketing speed violations?

[noisebeam]

As to the 9-9-9, I don't have experience on such a road.

I do on a VNL-VNOL road (VNOL means a Hummers wheels touch both gutter and lane stripe) posted at 45mph and I find it the worst to ride on during rush hour density traffic. But an extra lane would make it good, so I think 9-9-9 would be fine as it would elminate the pinch point I create by riding in the OL.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

I have no preference between A and B. However, I would advocate for B. C is situationally dependent - my response would vary considerably depending on road conditions, lighting conditions, and traffic density and real speed. Note that this is regarding preference, not ability.

You forgot all types of single lane roads on your list, which are more prevalent in Portland (at least on the west side) than multilane streets, even for arterials.

[CommuterRun]

I would go for option A over any of the others. That would give everybody plenty of room to work with, without any of the down-sides of a designated BL.

Another option I would go for would be like option B, with a twist. Don't make the BL a designated BL. Instead just make it a paved shoulder. This would give the cyclist the option of using the taffic lane or the shoulder.

[noisebeam]

Don't make the BL a designated BL. Instead just make it a paved shoulder. This would give the cyclist the option of using the taffic lane or the shoulder.
How is paved shoulder different from a BL - especially as seen by a motorist?

Al

[Helmet Head]

In CA, at least, there is absolutely no legal obligation for a cyclist to ride in a shoulder (even if paved).

But, you have a good point. Whether motorists, not to mention cyclists, understand this distinction is something else again.

Essentially, a bike lane IS a paved shoulder that cyclists are required (in most jurisdictions) to ride in.

[John E]

The minimum lane width permitted under California road design standards is 11 feet = 3.35m. A 9-foot = 2.75m lane is too narrow, particularly at the speed postulated.

Note also that California's homicidally written 85th percentile law essentially lets the fastest 15 percent of motorists set the speed limits, as anything lower is considered an unenforceable "speed trap."

Because of these complications, and because I see too many motorists using outside lanes and even shoulders to pass other traffic, I remain extremely skeptical of the narrow outside lane concept, whilst admitting that it does probably solve the right-hook problem.

To me, the most important consideration is still motor vehicle speed. I can live with almost any road and intersection configuration if the speed limit is 25mph = 40kph, but at higher speeds, bicyclists need safe accommodations, such as wide outside lanes (with or without bike lane demarcation) and traffic-calmed intersections (i.e., no free right turns, merges, or diverges).

[Treespeed]

Wide outside lane with Sharrows.

[Roody]

The minimum lane width permitted under California road design standards is 11 feet = 3.35m. A 9-foot = 2.75m lane is too narrow, particularly at the speed postulated.

Note also that California's homicidally written 85th percentile law essentially lets the fastest 15 percent of motorists set the speed limits, as anything lower is considered an unenforceable "speed trap."

Because of these complications, and because I see too many motorists using outside lanes and even shoulders to pass other traffic, I remain extremely skeptical of the narrow outside lane concept, whilst admitting that it does probably solve the right-hook problem.

To me, the most important consideration is still motor vehicle speed. I can live with almost any road and intersection configuration if the speed limit is 25mph = 40kph, but at higher speeds, bicyclists need safe accommodations, such as wide outside lanes (with or without bike lane demarcation) and traffic-calmed intersections (i.e., no free right turns, merges, or diverges).
I'm not a traffic engineer, but I think 9 foot lanes would be 35 mph by the 85th %ile rule. that is awfully narrow, and most motorists wouldn't feel comfortable driving real fast on it. Of course there are other factors, like stop lights, streets, etc.

But i think the point for cyclists is that these lanes can certainly be ridable for cyclists.

[Helmet Head]

The minimum lane width permitted under California road design standards is 11 feet = 3.35m. A 9-foot = 2.75m lane is too narrow, particularly at the speed postulated.
Are you sure you're not thinking about freeway standards or something? I am under the impression that 10 feet is pretty common.

[noisebeam]

Anyone care to estimate how wide the outside lane is on this road? The asphault width only, not the concrete gutter. The transition between gutter (about 18" wide) and asphault is a very subtantial bump of built up asphault from resurfacing.

Al

[Paul L.]

Anyone care to estimate how wide the outside lane is on this road? The asphault width only, not the concrete gutter. The transition between gutter (about 18" wide) and asphault is a very subtantial bump of built up asphault from resurfacing.

Al


I would guess 9 feet if you figure the maximum width trailer is 8 feet wide and the fact that is quite a bit wider than those little cars. Is that Broadway in Tempe?

[noisebeam]

I would guess 9 feet if you figure the maximum width trailer is 8 feet wide and the fact that is quite a bit wider than those little cars. Is that Broadway in Tempe?
Its Southern. I too estimated 9ft. 6ft width for the silver BMW, 1ft on its left, 3ft on its right. I've seen gardeners trailers that barely in the lane though with right wheel bumping on asphault/concrete transition and left wheel almost touching lane line.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Uh, 6 + 1 + 3 = 10, not 9.

[noisebeam]

Uh, 6 + 1 + 3 = 10, not 9.
Well your completely wrong. Didn't we already go over the 1+1=/2 discussion ;)

Yeah, thats what I estimated. (10) Not what I typed.
I want to lay a tape measure over it someday.

Al

[genec]

Its Southern. I too estimated 9ft. 6ft width for the silver BMW, 1ft on its left, 3ft on its right. I've seen gardeners trailers that barely in the lane though with right wheel bumping on asphault/concrete transition and left wheel almost touching lane line.

Al

Maximum vehicle width in the US is 8 foot 6... everything else requires a permit.

Learned that as a trailer sailor.

[Helmet Head]

Right, which is why I thought the minimum lane width is 9 feet - that leaves 3 inches per side!

[genec]

Right, which is why I thought the minimum lane width is 9 feet - that leaves 3 inches per side!

Might be a bit hard to do at 25MPH. But then again "they" only give us cyclists 5 feet. ;)

Heck, I have a hard time backing the trailer into the parking spot between the garage and fence, and it's nearly 13 feet between the wall and fence back there. :eek:

[CommuterRun]

How is paved shoulder different from a BL - especially as seen by a motorist?

Al

Essentially, a bike lane IS a paved shoulder that cyclists are required (in most jurisdictions) to ride in.

A bike lane is a paved shoulder with one distinct difference. It has signs and road markings that legally designate it as a BL. Once this distinction is made, bicycles can be restricted to the BL by local ordinance, because it's now part of the roadway.

On the other hand, a paved shoulder is not a designated lane and, therefore, is not part of the roadway. This gives the cyclist the option of being on the shoulder or "as far right as practicable" in the roadway.


In CA, at least, there is absolutely no legal obligation for a cyclist to ride in a shoulder (even if paved).

Florida is the same.

[CommuterRun]

Another option would be to go with option B, above, and add a paved shoulder outside the BL.

[Da Tinker]

A few points from the AASHTO guide:
Gutter pan width is not to be used when measuring useable lane width.
Minimum recommended lane width is 12'.
Maximum recommended lane width is 15'.

There is ome evidence (Forester & others, I believe) that very wide outside lanes can cause some of the same problems for cyclists that bike lanes do. They can place cyclists too far away from the main traffic flow, thus leaving them riding outside the zone being scanned by merging motorists. How about 12 - 15 for the road plan? It does have the drawback of causing higher motorist speeds.

[Helmet Head]

A bike lane is a paved shoulder with one distinct difference. It has signs and road markings that legally designate it as a BL. Once this distinction is made, bicycles can be restricted to the BL by local ordinance, because it's now part of the roadway.
Some people would probably learn to enjoy eating banana peels if they were all wrapped up pretty and labeled with their name for their use only.

Shoulder. Gutter. Bike lane. I don't care how it's "dressed up" - it's all the same to me - it's pavement I'll reluctantly use, and only if I have no reasonable alternative.

[Paul L.]

Some people would probably learn to enjoy eating banana peels if they were all wrapped up pretty and labeled with their name for their use only.

Shoulder. Gutter. Bike lane. I don't care how it's "dressed up" - it's all the same to me - it's pavement I'll reluctantly use, and only if I have no reasonable alternative.


Mmmmm. Paul banana peels. Mmmmmmmm. Must now go use the Paul Bike Lane that is striped to include only the gutter which is full of crap all the time and it's use is legally required. When can I get my very own Paul soon to be Evil(apparently) WOL?

[Bekologist]

Unfortunate slant on bicycle facilities, Helmet...if properly implemented, a bike lane IS the most reasonable alternative for bicyclists along 45mph roadways.

A bike accomodation for cyclists, along a traffic cooridor where posted speeds are 45 mph is not unreasonable, in fact, it is a reasonable consideration and would improve this type of high speed, multi lane roadway for the vast majority of bicyclists.

How misdirected and assuming for a poster to suggest a 3 lane 45 mph roadway could ever have an outer lane posted as a 25 mph zone ... I've never seen such a multispeed roadway (except in the case of mountain passes with truck speed limits), and doubt it would fly by traffic engineers, every driver would push the speed limit in all lanes to the prevailing speed.

[Treespeed]

Some people would probably learn to enjoy eating banana peels if they were all wrapped up pretty and labeled with their name for their use only.

Shoulder. Gutter. Bike lane. I don't care how it's "dressed up" - it's all the same to me - it's pavement I'll reluctantly use, and only if I have no reasonable alternative.

Come on Serge tell us how you really feel. Why do you even bother starting all of these threads and polls when your opinion on the topic of Bike Lanes and VC are so well known. You say that you are open to debate, but you have your mind all made up. Now bike lanes are banana peels? Nice way to keep the dialogue flowing.

So pretend I haven't read a hundred of your posts already, shoulder, bike lane, WOL with sharrows, what it the fundamental problem with giving cyclists more room on roads with high speed differentials such as the above quoted 45mph? And if you say drift I'm going to reach through the computer and smack your ears, because for all the drift related accidents you can recall there are at least an equal number of plain old overtaking fatalities.

[Helmet Head]

Unfortunate slant on bicycle facilities, Helmet...if properly implemented, a bike lane IS the most reasonable alternative for bicyclists along 45mph roadways.

A bike accomodation for cyclists, along a traffic cooridor where posted speeds are 45 mph is not unreasonable, in fact, it is a reasonable consideration and would improve this type of high speed, multi lane roadway for the vast majority of bicyclists.

How misdirected and assuming for a poster to suggest a 3 lane 45 mph roadway could ever have an outer lane posted as a 25 mph zone ... I've never seen such a multispeed roadway (except in the case of mountain passes with truck speed limits), and doubt it would fly by traffic engineers, every driver would push the speed limit in all lanes to the prevailing speed.
Please explain how dividing a 16 foot lane into an 11+5 provides an accomodation for cyclists that isn't there without the dividing.

[oldguy52]

If you have about 27 feet to work with on half of a 45 mph roadway with no driveways and few intersections, which configuration would you prefer:


WOL. A 10 foot inside lane and a 17 foot WOL. 10-17
BL. 10 foot inside lane, 12 foot outside traffic lane, and a 5 foot bike lane. 10-12-5
NOL. Three narrow 9 foot lanes. 9-9-9.
Something substantially different (please specify)


Note that the only difference between the first two is a bike lane stripe.

Choice (c) effectively expands the bike lane from 5 feet to 9 feet (gaining the space to do so by narrowing the other two lanes), but allows other traffic to travel in it as well. In all three configurations there are always two lanes that faster traffic could use to pass the cyclist.

I don't have much experience with bike lanes, but I do know that 9 foot lanes are not reasonable anymore. Think about it, a truck or a bus is 8 feet 6 inches wide ....... and that doesn't count the mirrors, they are wider. Two (or 3) nine foot lanes side by side ain't gonna' work.

Your A and B choices seem like reasonable possibilities to me. The one with the bike lane (B) would probably be my pick.

[Bekologist]

Please explain how dividing a 16 foot lane into an 11+5 provides an accomodation for cyclists.

Is that a no brainer, or am I missing something remarkably obvious?

[Helmet Head]

So pretend I haven't read a hundred of your posts already, shoulder, bike lane, WOL with sharrows, what it the fundamental problem with giving cyclists more room on roads with high speed differentials such as the above quoted 45mph? And if you say drift I'm going to reach through the computer and smack your ears, because for all the drift related accidents you can recall there are at least an equal number of plain old overtaking fatalities.
There is NO fundamental problem with giving cyclists more room on roads with high speeds differentials.

What does this have to do with bike lanes?

Bike lanes aren't about giving cyclists more room. The bike lane stripe only demarcates room that is already there.

[Helmet Head]

Please explain how dividing a 16 foot lane into an 11+5 provides an accomodation for cyclists.

Is that a no brainer, or am I missing something remarkably obvious?

It's not a no-brainer for me. I can think of a couple of advantages of marginal value for cyclists, and probably a dozen disadvantages that overwhelm those advantages, for adding the bike lane stripe.

So, please explain how dividing a 16 foot lane into an 11+5 provides an accomodation for cyclists.

[Bekologist]

Yep. Bike lanes demarcate roadway space specifically for bicyclists.

[Treespeed]

Please explain how dividing a 16 foot lane into an 11+5 provides an accomodation for cyclists that isn't there without the dividing.

Why don't you explain how such an accomodation on a 45mph roadway negatively impacts VC instead.

[Treespeed]

It's not a no-brainer for me. I can think of a couple of advantages of marginal value for cyclists, and probably a dozen disadvantages that overwhelm those advantages, for adding the bike lane stripe.

So, please explain how dividing a 16 foot lane into an 11+5 provides an accomodation for cyclists.

Fine, what are the disadvantages, again as you stated on a 45 mph roadway, which in any real city has fairly continuous traffic flow?

[sbhikes]

Is it just me or has HH really gone off the deep end lately? It used to be interesting, but his anti-bike lane pitch has reached feverish proportions. It's like we've traveled up the heart of darkeness and now all we can here is, "The Horror The Horror."

[CommuterRun]

One of the key points that seems get missed a lot, like almost all the time, in these discussions is: How congested is the traffic we're talking about?

Because of my location, I don't ride in a city anymore. 45-60 MPH highways are the norm, with no bicycle specific facilities. These are easy even at peak traffic times. Just take the lane and keep your line, all the time. Be conspicuous, be bright, be visible and be in the way. Personally, on NOL two-lane highways I take the entire right half of the right lane. Faster traffic can change lanes to pass or slow to my speed until it's safe to do so. And they nearly always do, given that there is going to be the occasional pinhead to watch out for that passes in unsafe conditions.

At peak traffic times in this area traffic is steady and constant, but not bumper-to-bumper like it was where I used to ride.

[Bekologist]

Is it just me or has HH really gone off the deep end lately? It used to be interesting, but his anti-bike lane pitch has reached feverish proportions. It's like we've traveled up the heart of darkeness and now all we can here is, "The Horror The Horror."


Helmet Head has no clear notion of how to use a well provided bike accomodation, or take advantage of a bike lane. That's a major problem, but easily remedied by some basic bike riding knowledge, readily available in phamplets or over the internet.

[AndrewP]

I prefer the WOL to having the outside 5' designated for bikes. If there is an obstruction (pothole or parked car), in that outside 5', I dont want to feel constrained to stay in that part of the road, and with a WOL the traffic wont be bothered by me moving out for a few seconds.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Is it just me or has HH really gone off the deep end lately? It used to be interesting, but his anti-bike lane pitch has reached feverish proportions. It's like we've traveled up the heart of darkeness and now all we can here is, "The Horror The Horror."
Lately? It must be just you who ever found him interesting (except as an example of a flaming dogmatist blind to reality). You and perhaps the handful of posters who continually humor him by trying to make sense of his gibberish or asking him to provide clarification for nut house theories.

[Helmet Head]

Fine, what are the disadvantages, again as you stated on a 45 mph roadway, which in any real city has fairly continuous traffic flow?


Bike lane stripes are often seen by non-cyclists, including law enforcement officers, as an official sanction of the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars, a notion that most cycling advocates find abhorrent (and a notion that goes well beyond the concept that slower traffic should yield to faster traffic when safe and reasonable to do so). The greater the prevalence of bike lane stripes, the greater the societal acceptance (cyclists, cycling advocates, motorists, law enforcement, the press, everybody) of the idea that cyclists always belong "off to the side" and out of the way of motorists, even on roads where there is no bike lane stripe; that if a cyclist is ever in the way of a motorist he is doing something wrong; that if a cyclist is ever hit by a motorist, then it's his fault, unless he is in a bike lane, and even then... In short, bike lanes promote thinking that puts cyclists in a separate inferior class from motorists. In simpler terms, it makes motorists less accustomed to seeing and dealing with cyclists in "their" lanes. Bike lane stripes encourage separationist cycling that discourages motorists from treating cyclists like drivers of vehicles.
Bike lane stripes encourage many drivers to ignore the presence of cyclists, thus reducing drivers' awareness of cyclists' presence, and making the cyclists more vulnerable to collisions.
Bike lane stripes cause significant increases in puncture-causing and crash-causing debris accumulation in the part of the pavement where even vehicular cyclists ride when accomodating the passing of faster traffic.
Bike lane stripes inhibit cyclists from using safer (away from the right edge) lane positioning in the absence of faster same-direction traffic that would make them more visible and conspicuous to drivers, thus making them more vulnerable to car-bike collisions.
Bike lane stripes pose a slickness hazard to cyclists when wet.
Bike lane stripes make right-of-way rules so confusing that even neighboring states like CA, OR and AZ have diametrically opposed rules governing their usage by motorists at right turns (CA requires the motorist to merge into the lane, AZ and OR forbid it).
Bike lanes, like uphill truck lanes, are based on the premise that there is generally one appropriate static roadway position for the target type of vehicle on the section of the road where the specialized lane exists. While this premise holds true for the vast majority of truckers traveling on the uphill stretches of intersectionless roadway where truck lanes are typically found, the premise is usually false for the cyclists traveling in bike lanes, who encounter countless factors and conditions that make roadway positions outside of the bike lane more safe, appropriate, functional and/or effective much more often than is the case for truckers in uphill truck lanes.
Bike lane stripes induce a dangerous false sense of security in novice cyclists, and even in many experienced cyclists.

And those are just some of the disadvantages that apply to ALL bike lanes, even the so-called "good" ones on 45 mph roads. The fact that "good" bike lanes are often practically impossible to implement makes the prevalance of bad bike lanes all too common, including door zone bike lanes, bike lanes on 25 mph streets, bike lanes that leave novices enticed to count on them stranded at busy and intimidating intersections, etc., etc.

Now, I recognize that bike lanes do have some advantages, but I contend they are dwarfed by all of the above.

Some claim that bike lanes help motorists understand that cyclists belong on the road, not on the sidewalk. Maybe. So what? Those who think we belong on the sidewalk are wrong. Ignore them.

The only other advantage that I believe has any weight is that advocates can use bike lanes as a political tool - to get roads widened. But road widening for cyclists - with or without bike lanes - comprises such a tiny percentage of roads, that it is insignificant by definition.

Others claim that bike lanes remind motorists cyclists are on the road. Actually, I believe they have the opposite effect, and there is no conclusive evidence either way.

Some people opine that bike lanes clarify right-of-way rules between intersections, but whatever help they provide there, it's marginal, since right-of-way rules between intersections in WOLs is not really a problem. In fact, some, including I, believe that riding in bike lanes and shoulders makes cyclists actually more vulnerable to inadvertent drift by drivers attending to distractions, because a driver's focus of attention is often limited to his intended path, his lane, and anything up ahead outside of his lane is not taken into account with respect to his decision to attend to the distraction during which he subsequently drifts. Without the bike lane stripe, the driver's "focus of attention" (his lane) extends further right, to the edge of the roadway, including where the cyclist is riding, which makes the driver more likely to be aware of the cyclist up ahead, and he is therefore less likely to choose to attend to the distraction before he passes the cyclist.

There are claims that bike lanes make novices and even some experienced cyclists feel safer or "more comfortable" - but most of that obviously comes from ignorance (lack of understanding), and arguably should not be reinforced for that reason. Some say that the ignorance doesn't matter, because more comfort leads to more cycling, and anything that helps get more people cycling, even if it's marginal, is more important than anything else.

Most other claimed advantages are trumped directly by the list of numbered disadvantages above. I find that most people who support bike lanes do so from a position based in emotion, not reason, and, so, cannot present a cogent argument in their favor, that even recognizes the disadvantages, much less addresses or counters them effectively. But maybe I'm missing something.

[Helmet Head]

Lately? It must be just you who ever found him interesting (except as an example of a flaming dogmatist blind to reality). You and perhaps the handful of posters who continually humor him by trying to make sense of his gibberish or asking him to provide clarification for nut house theories.
Reason and logic, expressed politely and respectfully, are the currency of productive debate.

[chipcom]

Is it just me or has HH really gone off the deep end lately? It used to be interesting, but his anti-bike lane pitch has reached feverish proportions. It's like we've traveled up the heart of darkeness and now all we can here is, "The Horror The Horror."

I've noticed the same thing.

[Helmet Head]

Give me a break. So I've taken a break and hardly mentioned bike lanes for a while, now I bring up the main argument again, and you act like my obsession is something new? Please.

What's next? Surprise that I mention you-know-what?

[Bekologist]

If you don't understand how to use a bike lane, how can this forum expect your analysis of them to be reasonable?

Admitting your obsessions is sometimes the first step to conquering irrational behaviors..... place your hands on the hoods and move away from the vehicles while riding on roadways with well provided bicycle accomodations.

[Helmet Head]

If you don't understand how to use a bike lane, how can this forum expect your analysis of them to be reasonable?
Classic ad hominem argument, Bek. Ignore the argument, and attack the argument presenter.

It doesn't matter who presents the argument. What should matter is the argument, period.

Not to mention that your premise is completely unsupported, and false. I understand how to use bike lanes, thank you very much.

I would be embarassed to post such lame retorts.