WOLs vs. BLS vs NOLs

[Bekologist]

In several A&S puzzlers recently, Helmet, puzzlers with pictures, with no ambiguity as to roadway accomodations,

you've shown an inability to choose the most obvious lane positioning of a well provided bicycle lane.


If that's not a clear example of your failing to understand how to ride your bike on roads with bike lanes, I don't know what it is.

Here are a couple of examples Helmet Head recently identified as two bike facilities he would choose to ignore.

I think someone needs to go back to traffic school.

[Helmet Head]

In several A&S puzzlers recently, Helmet, puzzlers with pictures, with no ambiguity as to roadway accomodations,

you've shown an inability to choose the most obvious lane positioning of a well provided bicycle lane.
No, I haven't. You see how this pure opinion stuff can go back and forth, endlessly, pointlessly? That's why humans have invented these concepts, like reason, facts, logic, and arguments. You might want to get familar with them.


If that's not a clear example of your failing to understand how to ride your bike on roads with bike lanes, I don't know what it is.
I do. The clear example of you being unable to explain in logical terms what you think is specifically wrong with my methods, and why yours are better. Now that's a clear example of your failing to understand how to ride your bike on roads with bike lanes.

[Helmet Head]

Here are a couple of examples Helmet Head recently identified as two bike facilities he would choose to ignore.
And this would be a clear example of Bek's inability to comprehend simple English.

In post #13 of Bek's "Lane Position Puzzler #1" thread I clearly stated: "If there was same-direction traffic at the time, I would be in the bike lane ..."

Now, how Bek gets from "I would be in the bike lane" to "bike facilities he would choose to ignore" is anyone's guess, but at the top of my list of probable explanations is his inability to comprehend simple English.

Comprehending simple English is required to engage in productive discussion here, Bek. One more example of this kind of nonsense, and you're going back on ignore.

[Bekologist]

Helmet, it's what i'd call 'photographic evidence' of you not knowing how to ride on roads with good bike lanes. I don't want to engage in pithy semantic debates. The proof is in the pictures.

[Helmet Head]

Helmet, it's what i'd call 'photographic evidence' of you not knowing how to ride on roads with good bike lanes. I don't want to engage in pithy semantic debates. The proof is in the pictures.
Surely one can address the argument I posted here in #45 without engaging in semantic debates.

Your apparent inability to do this, or to differentiate between semantic debates from non-semantic ones, coupled with your previously demonstrated inability to comprehend simple English, is now making me think that the problem here is simply a lack of intelligence.

[Da Tinker]

Want another viewpoint? Try this:
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/BLvsWCL.htm

[noisebeam]

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
You are the one limiting creative discussion. I just provided an idea for what was already non-studied design (9-9-9), I'm not claiming it is the right thing to do. You seem to have this pattern of adding negativity to many of the discussions round here involving me and/or try picking fights.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

No, I haven't. You see how this pure opinion stuff can go back and forth, endlessly, pointlessly? That's why humans have invented these concepts, like reason, facts, logic, and arguments. You might want to get familar with them.

You've heard of the term "garbage in, garbage out" right? That's what happens when too few facts meets with too little data, and logic is used to process an argument. This is no better than pure opinion, and actually a little worse, since using logic on a simplified problem to analyze the "big picture" can actually be deceptive.

I do. The clear example of you being unable to explain in logical terms what you think is specifically wrong with my methods, and why yours are better. Now that's a clear example of your failing to understand how to ride your bike on roads with bike lanes.

Finite element analysis can be used to solve many different problems. But it has its drawbacks because it relies on a simplified problem to provide the analysis. I can analyze a heat sink using any number of simplifications to get any solution to the anaysis I want; but while the FEA program analyzes perfectly, this does not mean that it gives the correct result.

You can have perfect logic with your bike lane analyses, but it does not mean that you arrive at the correct solution. Just like with the FEA computer program, if your simplifications and assumptions are incorrect, then your solution is also incorrect.

We have been endlessly pointing out that your simplifications and assumptions are flawed, from the visibility argument, to your assumptions about driver behavior. Yet you dismiss this as chaff, and want us to find a flaw in your logical argument, starting from the assumptions you give, then chide us when your logic shines through. Well, perhaps your logic is perfect. Perhaps we cannot assault your logic. Yet it is still garbage in-garbage out, until you can prove otherwise.

Murphy's First Law of Technology:
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

[Paul L.]

http://www.nohomers.net/images/avatars/Kang.gif

In the words of Kang from the Simpsons:
Bike Lanes for Some! None for Others!

(and don't blame me, I voted for Kodos)

[Brian Ratliff]

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

Is an interesting idea, though it would be hard to implement and enforce unless the lanes were separated by a physical barrier. It would also make it real tough for a car in the outside lane to accelerate enough in heavy traffic to merge into the middle lane. Likewise, the speed differential would also make it difficult to merge out of the middle lane and into the outer lane.

It would also make it more difficult for cars in the outer lane to get around a cyclist, because the speed differential would make changing lanes difficult. You'd probably get all the badness of a NOL, combined with the badness of a heavily traveled, narrow, single lane rural highway with no shoulder. Probably the worse of all worlds.

[John E]

In several A&S puzzlers recently, Helmet, puzzlers with pictures, with no ambiguity as to roadway accomodations,

you've shown an inability to choose the most obvious lane positioning of a well provided bicycle lane.


If that's not a clear example of your failing to understand how to ride your bike on roads with bike lanes, I don't know what it is.

Here are a couple of examples Helmet Head recently identified as two bike facilities he would choose to ignore.

I think someone needs to go back to traffic school. One of my biggest debates with Serge concerns bike lanes between through lanes and right-turn-only lanes. I strongly support these, because they ENCOURAGE vehicular cycling, placing cyclists to the LEFT of right-turning motorists. They make motorists anticipate such (correct) behavior, and they further encourage motorists to leave a clear berth for cyclists to position themselves accordingly. Westbound Encinitas Bl. at I-5 has a wide right-turn-only lane adjacent to a narrow through lane; I would love to see the leftmost 5 feet of that right turn lane demarked as a bike lane.

[John E]

In California, speed limits are set by speed surveys, rather than by legislative fiat. Until this is changed, there is no way we could hope for 25mph curb lanes on 45mph arterials.

[noisebeam]

It would also make it real tough for a car in the outside lane to accelerate enough in heavy traffic to merge into the middle lane.
Agreed with everything you wrote.
But I quoted the above as it is the exact safety issue I see everyday when riding in a NOL on a multilane 45mph road. In rush hour density (but still 45mph+ speed,) vehicles get stuck behind me for 1mi, even 1.5mi because they can't accelerate into the occasional tiny gaps in the adjacent same direction lane to pass me. So I end up effectively impeding them, even though there are multiple same direction lanes. Drivers often take great risks in trying to pass me in this situation.

I do think if drivers put more thought into passing me they could do it easier and safer (i.e. not be 10ft behind me waiting to pass, but back up >50ft so they have space to accelerate and merge. But that is not how the vast majority of folks drive unfortunately)

ps- this is what I hope for in these forums, constructive critisicm fostering good discussion, instead of attacks.

Al

[noisebeam]

I voted WOL as all my most pleasurable riding experiences (that is with the least conflict with other vehicles/drivers) on multilane 45mph roads are the ones with WOL.

Al

[Helmet Head]

You've heard of the term "garbage in, garbage out" right? That's what happens when too few facts meets with too little data, and logic is used to process an argument. This is no better than pure opinion, and actually a little worse, since using logic on a simplified problem to analyze the "big picture" can actually be deceptive.
...
Finite element analysis can be used to solve many different problems. But it has its drawbacks because it relies on a simplified problem to provide the analysis. I can analyze a heat sink using any number of simplifications to get any solution to the anaysis I want; but while the FEA program analyzes perfectly, this does not mean that it gives the correct result.

You can have perfect logic with your bike lane analyses, but it does not mean that you arrive at the correct solution. Just like with the FEA computer program, if your simplifications and assumptions are incorrect, then your solution is also incorrect.
Brian, you write in such general terms that they have no relevance to anything actually going on here.

All logical argument is based on premises. Whether the premises are fact or data or pure conjecture is immaterial, if they are accepted. Acceptance, or non-acceptance, of the premises, is all that matters. In court, this is known as stipulation.

I present informal logical arguments.

Informal logic is the study of arguments as presented in ordinary language, as contrasted with the presentations of arguments in an artificial (technical) or formal language (see formal logic). The focus of informal logic lies in distinguishing good arguments (valid, cogent) from bad arguments or fallacies (invalid, uncogent). The activity of analysing argument structures in ordinary language and representing them in a diagramatic manner is normally regarded as part of informal logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic

Typically, I present an argument to explain my point in terms that are based on premises that have been accepted, or that I believe will be likely to be accepted. What I expect in return is an analysis of my argument. Saying "I disagree", does not constitute an analysis, but that's pretty much all I ever get from Bek (and most others here, with you often making a valiant and exceptional effort, though you too slip to using their approach of baseless dismissiveness, as you did in this post).

An analysis would identify the premises I've used, acknowledge acceptance, or explain non-acceptance. If acceptance is stipulated, then it would show how the logic is sound or flawed, and whether the conclusion(s) follow (if the premises are not accepted, there is no point in going on, of course). This is what I expect, I don't think that's unreasonable, but I rarely get it.


We have been endlessly pointing out that your simplifications and assumptions are flawed,
I wish! If you mean by this that you and others have pointed out that the premises of my arguments are simplified and assumptions are flawed, sure, that happens once in a while. But usually it's about some minor immaterial point. Consider the informal argument I presented in #35 in this thread, in response to a question. Has even one premise in any of that even been identified, much less addressed and pointed out how it is flawed? No. Not once. Instead, the entire argument is completely ignored and your disagreements are expressed in terms of logical fallacies ranging from ad hominem attacks to mindless "I just disagree" and baseless claims that the arguments are based on "simplifications and assumptions [that] are flawed".

What I'm looking for here is a some critical thinking. Please.

Critical thinking consists of a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. It forms a process of reflecting upon the meaning of statements, examining the offered evidence and reasoning, and forming judgments about the facts.

Critical thinkers can gather such information from observation, experience, reasoning, and/or communication. Critical thinking has its basis in intellectual values that go beyond subject-matter divisions and which include: clarity, accuracy, precision, evidence, thoroughness and fairness.

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

I realize that is too much to ask of someone like Bekologist or ILTB, but I expect substantially more from you.


from the visibility argument, to your assumptions about driver behavior. Yet you dismiss this as chaff,
Please find an actual example of where premises in an argument of mine were shown to me to be a flawed simplification and/or flawed assumption, and I dismissed it as chaff. If you can't find any such examples, I would appreciate it if you would retract this statement.

[genec]

I do think if drivers put more thought into passing me they could do it easier and safer (i.e. not be 10ft behind me waiting to pass, but back up >50ft so they have space to accelerate and merge. But that is not how the vast majority of folks drive unfortunately)

ps- this is what I hope for in these forums, constructive critisicm fostering good discussion, instead of attacks.

Al

LOL if drivers put more thought into driving period, then we all would be better off. Hard to legislate behaviour.

[Helmet Head]

One of my biggest debates with Serge concerns bike lanes between through lanes and right-turn-only lanes. I strongly support these...
If that's one of our biggest debates, John, we have little to debate. Even though most if not all of the disadvantages of bike lanes I identified in post #35 apply to these bike lanes as well, they do have the advantage of guiding novice through cyclists out of the right only lane, albeit into a separatist/inferior and often rubble-strewn piece of pavement. Some people think they're nice because they give us space to pass stopped motorists, but that space would be there without the extra stripe anyway. Anyway, while I don't support them, let's just say they're on the bottom of my hit list.

[galen_52657]

I voted for 'something substantially different' only because I think a 17' wide curb lane is overkill. 13-14' wide with signage is plenty.

[Roody]

In several A&S puzzlers recently, Helmet, puzzlers with pictures, with no ambiguity as to roadway accomodations,

you've shown an inability to choose the most obvious lane positioning of a well provided bicycle lane.


If that's not a clear example of your failing to understand how to ride your bike on roads with bike lanes, I don't know what it is.

Here are a couple of examples Helmet Head recently identified as two bike facilities he would choose to ignore.

I think someone needs to go back to traffic school.
Since you posted the pictures, explain why you think those stripes make it easier or safer for us to ride on those streets? Those streets would be ridiculously easy to ride on--with or without stripes. Should the government have to spend a lot of money on stripes just because some cyclists are too lazy to learn how to ride without the stripes?

Since it's hard to understand, I'll repeat the concept: Not one rider on this forum would ride on your utopian streets any differently, regardless if somebody went to the expense of putting stripes there or not.

I defy anybody to tell me how the presence of stripes would alter their riding behavior on this or any othe road.

[Helmet Head]

Well, since you're defying anyone, how about bike lane stripes sometimes make me ride further left than I would normally ride, in order to avoid the debris that tends to accumulate to the right of the stripe. But that's not really altering my behavior, as it is a slight alteration to my lane position.

[Roody]

Well, since you're defying anyone, how about bike lane stripes sometimes make me ride further left than I would normally ride, in order to avoid the debris that tends to accumulate to the right of the stripe. But that's not really altering my behavior, as it is a slight alteration to my lane position.
Maybe I'm a little over the top, but I already know the answer to my question because I've axed it before. They'll ignore it. Or twist it around.

[Helmet Head]

Well of course. It's all those unidentified simplifications and flawed assumtions that you're relying on. After all, you must be, if they disagree with you! it's so obvious, there is no need to point out what they are! :rolleyes:

[Brian Ratliff]

Since you posted the pictures, explain why you think those stripes make it easier or safer for us to ride on those streets? Those streets would be ridiculously easy to ride on--with or without stripes. Should the government have to spend a lot of money on stripes just because some cyclists are too lazy to learn how to ride without the stripes?

Since it's hard to understand, I'll repeat the concept: Not one rider on this forum would ride on your utopian streets any differently, regardless if somebody went to the expense of putting stripes there or not.

I defy anybody to tell me how the presence of stripes would alter their riding behavior on this or any othe road.

First, there is no expense to the lane stripes. Seattle is a rainy city, so we have fog lines, and compared to the cost of the road, the cost of paint is lost in the roundoff. The real difference is between pavement and no pavement, and I thought we had established that most of us would like the extra pavement.

Second, these are no utopian streets - they actually exist. Despite the picture showing no cars, I doubt that it is like this all the time.

Third, the presence of stripes and a bike lane give a clear line for both car and bike to follow. However, you have already rejected out of hand this explanation - you ask for another, but there is none. If you choose to reject an argument out of hand, then we have nothing left to talk about.

Now, answer me this. If the bike lane, arguably makes right of way clear, gives clean lines for car and bike to follow, and yet, does not change cycling behavior, why all the venom against bike lanes. Are you saying that the social hypothesis you believe in (yet have no evidence for) is the only reason? Or is it in minor effect of debris?

BTW, this is Seattle. Perhaps we don't have the debris problem that drier states have. I have never not used a bike lane on principle simply because of the possibility of debris. I have never had to move out of a bike lane more than occasionally and temporarily to avoid debris. I have never seen a bike lane so full of debris to be unuseable. Oh, and I ride one of three road bikes, all with 700x23c tires, no puncture strip even. Perhaps this is a regional effect, but VC'ists won't admit to that either.

[noisebeam]

I voted for 'something substantially different' only because I think a 17' wide curb lane is overkill. 13-14' wide with signage is plenty.
I agree. The WOLs I so enjoy riding on are definitely narrower than 17'. Maybe 15 ? I haven't measured. I wonder if too wide WOLs cause some of the lane sharing ROW that some folks object to with WOLs, or the issue of drivers using the right portion of a WOL.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Well of course. It's all those unidentified simplifications and flawed assumtions that you're relying on. After all, you must be, if they disagree with you! it's so obvious, there is no need to point out what they are! :rolleyes:

Congrats, you are king of the hill. I salute you. I tremble in your presence. I gasp at your logic. I bow down and dedicate my life to the perpetuation of your ideas. It is all crystal clear to me now. I should have never have doubted. You are the personification of perfect bicycling. Let me kiss your ring and wash your feet. You understand all, and you are correct in all your arguments. Let nobody stand in your way of your message to the people. You are the messiah, our leader, and we follow.

Do you feel better now?

Goodbye.

[Helmet Head]

the presence of stripes and a bike lane give a clear line for both car and bike to follow. However, you have already rejected out of hand this explanation - you ask for another, but there is none. If you choose to reject an argument out of hand, then we have nothing left to talk about.
So now a mere assertion -- the presence of stripes and a bike lane give a clear line for both car and bike to follow -- constitutes an argument?

And no one has dismissed this fact. What is not explained is the significance of this fact in relation to it being beneficial to cyclists (and I'm now disputing your apparent contention that stating the obvious constitutes some kind of argument). In particular, in the absence of the stripe (see #35 for the reasons to remove), what's the downside to cyclists? Now there is no clear line to follow? So what? Is that problematic? By the way, motorists still have a line to follow - the lane line to their left. And cyclists also have a line to follow... the edge of the road. Actually, motorist use that too, of course.

Are you contending that there exists some kind of signficant problem in WOLs that is solved by a bike lane stripe? What exactly do you perceive that problem to be?

[Helmet Head]

Congrats, you are king of the hill. I salute you. I tremble in your presence. I gasp at your logic. I bow down and dedicate my life to the perpetuation of your ideas. It is all crystal clear to me now. I should have never have doubted. You are the personification of perfect bicycling. Let me kiss your ring and wash your feet. You understand all, and you are correct in all your arguments. Let nobody stand in your way of your message to the people. You are the messiah, our leader, and we follow.

Do you feel better now?

Goodbye.
No, I don't feel better now. That is not what I'm looking for, and you know it.

Your inability to provide cogent critical analysis of my arguments, and instead to find lame excuses to avoid addressing them, however, does speak volumes regarding their soundness.

[genec]

BTW, this is Seattle. Perhaps we don't have the debris problem that drier states have. I have never not used a bike lane on principle simply because of the possibility of debris. I have never had to move out of a bike lane more than occasionally and temporarily to avoid debris. I have never seen a bike lane so full of debris to be unuseable. Oh, and I ride one of three road bikes, all with 700x23c tires, no puncture strip even. Perhaps this is a regional effect, but VC'ists won't admit to that either.


I hate to support the anti-BL crowd as I am generally pro-Bike Lane, but in the interest of equal disclosure, I offer this web site (biased, obviously) and the pictures therein.

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/carystripes.htm

I have also noticed that bike tires can displace debris.... just like car tires. It just take enough riders using the facilities to do so.

[genec]

So now a mere assertion -- the presence of stripes and a bike lane give a clear line for both car and bike to follow -- constitutes an argument?

And no one has dismissed this fact. What is not explained is the significance of this fact in relation to it being beneficial to cyclists (and I'm now disputing your apparent contention that stating the obvious constitutes some kind of argument). In particular, in the absence of the stripe (see #35 for the reasons to remove), what's the downside to cyclists? Now there is no clear line to follow? So what? Is that problematic? By the way, motorists still have a line to follow - the lane line to their left. And cyclists also have a line to follow... the edge of the road. Actually, motorist use that too, of course.

Are you contending that there exists some kind of signficant problem in WOLs that is solved by a bike lane stripe? What exactly do you perceive that problem to be?


The ambiguity of a "sharing space..." who has ROW, who has responsiblity in event of an accident.

It's kind of funny that you asked, as you recently mentioned that cyclists should not see riding on the road as "competing for space," but in fact, that is exactly what "sharing a lane" is.

[The Seldom Kill]

The trouble with this poll, and dare I problem I find with a number of HH's polls, is that it only addresses a part of a whole which should properly constitute at least the following; facilities, education, legislation and culture. Polling on such a narrow bandwidth leaves too much open in my rather humble opinion.

That taken into consideration I can't reasonably select one or even an alternative where I am not informed where the ground lies on the other factors.

However, I will say this, I am very much in support of bike lanes, not least because they provide an essential facility for those lacking in confidence to fully engage with the rest of traffic and therefore of an overiding importance than the "everyone in traffic all the time" thinking of some VC evangelists. I refuse to segregate on confidence, not to be linked with ability, and thus relegate the slightly more timid to backroads. Until training is free and freely accessible to all then, I feel, certain acts of VC evangelism does far greater harm than good to the image of cycling and the campaign for sustainable transport.

However, even when bike lanes are provided there should never be an obligation to remain in them.

On a more personal preference note, bike lanes do sometimes provide an excellent opportunity for selective, albeit limited, disengagement from traffic. Certain VC evangelists seem eager to claim that all outside the bounds of the road is of no interest and thus not worth looking at. The opposite can very much be the case. And sometimes, just sometimes, a cyclist may wish to ponder whether the fifth bowl of Uncle Jose's Psychotic Shark Chilli was the prudent choice.

[Helmet Head]

The ambiguity of a "sharing space..." who has ROW, who has responsiblity in event of an accident.

It's kind of funny that you asked, as you recently mentioned that cyclists should not see riding on the road as "competing for space," but in fact, that is exactly what "sharing a lane" is.
What ambiguity? The one in front has the right-of-way, and the one behind has the responsibility to not violate that right-of-way as he is passing.

I never liked "sharing space", since it could imply that two are using the same space at the same time. Perhaps a better term would be "splitting space". You could "share" a glass of wine with your wife by alternating sips, or you could split the wine into two glasses. Both are "sharing" the wine, but there are different ways to share. I the latter case, some of the wine becomes hers, and some of it becomes yours. That's how cyclists and motorists "share" WOLs. I have my space within the shared WOL.

Anyway, identifying one or two minor alleged "advantages" of bike lanes hardly addresses much less refutes the argument - that the disadvantages of bike lanes far outweigh all of the marginal advantages.

[Roody]

First, there is no expense to the lane stripes. Seattle is a rainy city, so we have fog lines, and compared to the cost of the road, the cost of paint is lost in the roundoff. The real difference is between pavement and no pavement, and I thought we had established that most of us would like the extra pavement.

Second, these are no utopian streets - they actually exist. Despite the picture showing no cars, I doubt that it is like this all the time.

Third, the presence of stripes and a bike lane give a clear line for both car and bike to follow. However, you have already rejected out of hand this explanation - you ask for another, but there is none. If you choose to reject an argument out of hand, then we have nothing left to talk about.

Now, answer me this. If the bike lane, arguably makes right of way clear, gives clean lines for car and bike to follow, and yet, does not change cycling behavior, why all the venom against bike lanes. Are you saying that the social hypothesis you believe in (yet have no evidence for) is the only reason? Or is it in minor effect of debris?

BTW, this is Seattle. Perhaps we don't have the debris problem that drier states have. I have never not used a bike lane on principle simply because of the possibility of debris. I have never had to move out of a bike lane more than occasionally and temporarily to avoid debris. I have never seen a bike lane so full of debris to be unuseable. Oh, and I ride one of three road bikes, all with 700x23c tires, no puncture strip even. Perhaps this is a regional effect, but VC'ists won't admit to that either.
As expected, you have an answer for everything except what I asked: How would the paint stripes alter the way you ride on these streets?

1. Bike lanes are expensive. Before they're painted there are studies, consultations, public hearings and so forth. do you think this is cheap? Workers and supervisors (usually more of the latter :)) must be paid. Sometimes the street must be blocked, causing expense to businneses. Etc., etc...

2. I know the streets exist. They probably existed before the strpes were painted, and people probably rode on them in exactly the same way they ride on thm now.

3. What do you mean they give a clear line of travel? Are some cyclists and motorists so stupid that they would have difficulty seeing which way the road goes? Maybe they would try to go east, but the road runs north and south? I reject this argument because it is not an argument. It simply makes no sense, unless you can provide some.

4. Why the venom against bike lanes? They're stupid when painted on streets like this, where nobody with a lick of sense would have trouble riding anyway.

[genec]

Until training is free and freely accessible to all then, I feel, certain acts of VC evangelism does far greater harm than good to the image of cycling and the campaign for sustainable transport.



Of course this points to the real issue... that riding vc often has little to do with "VC evangelism..."

[genec]

What ambiguity? The one in front has the right-of-way, and the one behind has the responsibility to not violate that right-of-way as he is passing.

I never liked "sharing space", since it could imply that two are using the same space at the same time. Perhaps a better term would be "splitting space". You could "share" a glass of wine with your wife by alternating sips, or you could split the wine into two glasses. Both are "sharing" the wine, but there are different ways to share. I the latter case, some of the wine becomes hers, and some of it becomes yours. That's how cyclists and motorists "share" WOLs. I have my space within the shared WOL.

Anyway, identifying one or two minor alleged "advantages" of bike lanes hardly addresses much less refutes the argument - that the disadvantages of bike lanes far outweigh all of the marginal advantages.

At the moment the cyclist and motorist are alongside, who has ROW?

Interesting... your "example" involves equals... "two glasses."

And your counter argument attacks "minor issues" which is exactly the same kind of issues you use to attack Bike Lanes. What elevates your issues to major and hold my issues to minor.

[Roody]

Congrats, you are king of the hill. I salute you. I tremble in your presence. I gasp at your logic. I bow down and dedicate my life to the perpetuation of your ideas. It is all crystal clear to me now. I should have never have doubted. You are the personification of perfect bicycling. Let me kiss your ring and wash your feet. You understand all, and you are correct in all your arguments. Let nobody stand in your way of your message to the people. You are the messiah, our leader, and we follow.

Do you feel better now?

Goodbye.
About time you figured this out. :p

[Jalopy]

Anyway, identifying one or two minor alleged "advantages" of bike lanes hardly addresses much less refutes the argument - that the disadvantages of bike lanes far outweigh all of the marginal advantages.
So now a mere assertion -- the disadvantages of bike lanes far outweigh all of the marginal advantages-- constitutes an argument?

It's funny, HH. I agree with you about (at least some of) the disadvantages of bike lanes. I am very hesitant to use some of them on my daily commute. However, I also agree with others that there are advantages to bike lanes which make my ride more enjoyable in many spots.

When you consider a subjective issue that seems to be very situational and claim that your alleged disadvantages outweigh someone else's alleged advantages, your statements reek of arrogance. I'm sure that's not what you intended but it is what you conveyed. It makes me wonder what your intentions are? If you are just trying to win an argument then, by all means, continue. If you are actually advocating for what you believe are safer roads with the hope that others will come to see your point of view, perhaps you should take a different approach.

Jalopy

[noisebeam]

890kB Video of WOL with RTOL:

Jan 5, 2006 WOL w/RTOL (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/060105-1609-wolrtl.avi) (right click, save target as..., then open from local)

Would a BL help or hurt? Why?

Al

[Roody]

However, I will say this, I am very much in support of bike lanes, not least because they provide an essential facility for those lacking in confidence to fully engage with the rest of traffic and therefore of an overiding importance than the "everyone in traffic all the time" thinking of some VC evangelists. I refuse to segregate on confidence, not to be linked with ability, and thus relegate the slightly more timid to backroads. Until training is free and freely accessible to all then, I feel, certain acts of VC evangelism does far greater harm than good to the image of cycling and the campaign for sustainable transport. Why do paint stripes inspire confidence? Both cyclists an motorists have a superstitious belief that this invisible wall will protect riders form other traffic. I reject this belief because I've noticed that cars get a lot closer to me when there is a stripe. Far from protecting me, the stripe fools drivers into thinking they can get closer.

On a more personal preference note, bike lanes do sometimes provide an excellent opportunity for selective, albeit limited, disengagement from traffic. Certain VC evangelists seem eager to claim that all outside the bounds of the road is of no interest and thus not worth looking at.
How do stripes disengage you from traffic? Do you think they somehow make it less likely that a car will hit you, then if you were riding in the same position without the stripe? If so, think it through without the superstitious claptrap. The cars are just as close to you, in fact often closer, when there's a stripe. When I want to disengage from traffic I get on the MUP, or better yet, get on the MTB and hit the trails.

[Roody]

The ambiguity of a "sharing space..." who has ROW, who has responsiblity in event of an accident.

It's kind of funny that you asked, as you recently mentioned that cyclists should not see riding on the road as "competing for space," but in fact, that is exactly what "sharing a lane" is.
If we are competing, it is a competition that is heavily regulated. Clearly, the traffic in front has the ROW on an unstriped street.

The only thing that ever makes ROW ambiguous is bike lanes. When stripes are there, many cagers assume that bikes are in a separate universe, so they don't even think about ROW. They just pass bikes in the BL wherever, whenever they want to.

[sbhikes]

So what if HH is absolutely 100% right and we should never ride in bike lanes or off to the right on WOLs unless we have to pull over to let people in cars go by? Let's say his center-lane biased positioning scheme is The Way Things Ought To Be™.

What if some cyclists won't do it? Then what?

Who is going to force these people to adopt this method of riding? The law? How are you going to get center-lane biasing into the law? You would never get a majority vote to make center-lane biasing the law.

But let's say you do. Then what? How do you enforce it? Ticket people for riding in the gutter when there's no traffic? How would anybody get caught?

Are you going to (en)force people into it by removing the bike lanes? Then when they cling to the WOLs, remove those, too? Until all that's left are NOLs and cyclists are forced into the lane? Don't you think people would simply ask for more MUPs? Or ride on the sidewalk? Don't you think even motorists will find this objectionable?

What is the outcome you are working for, Serge? Is it attainable?

[Roody]

At the moment the cyclist and motorist are alongside, who has ROW?

In a real traffic lane, the vehicle that was originally in front, be it car or bike, and is now in the process of being overtaken, still has the ROW. It is the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to proceed cautiously and safely. But you know that, so I assume you're just trying to cloud the issue?

Now when there's a bike lane, the situation really is ambiguous. The bikes are always "alongside," they are never in front, so evidently bikes in a bike lane never have the ROW. They can be overtaken at will, whether or not it is safe to do so.

[genec]

In a real traffic lane, the vehicle that was originally in front, be it car or bike, and is now in the process of being overtaken, still has the ROW. It is the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to proceed cautiously and safely. But you know that, so I assume you're just trying to cloud the issue?

Now when there's a bike lane, the situation really is ambiguous. The bikes are always "alongside," they are never in front, so evidently bikes in a bike lane never have the ROW. They can be overtaken at will, whether or not it is safe to do so.

Gee "overtaken at will..." just like all the other traffic in all the other lanes, eh?

Cloud the issue... not hardly... the issue is cloudy enough as it is. So at what point does the overtaking vehicle become the vehicle ahead... when the front of the car passes the front of the bike, or when the whole vehicle passes in front of the bike? What if they are parallel for some long stretch? Who is "in front" if they both leave a light at the same time?

If a motorist swerves right and knocks a cyclist down, and there was no clear "in front" decision... who is at fault?

If that same motorist swerves and crosses a BL stripe, who is at fault then?

[Roody]

So what if HH is absolutely 100% right and we should never ride in bike lanes or off to the right on WOLs unless we have to pull over to let people in cars go by? Let's say his center-lane biased positioning scheme is The Way Things Ought To Be™.

What if some cyclists won't do it? Then what?

Who is going to force these people to adopt this method of riding? The law? How are you going to get center-lane biasing into the law? You would never get a majority vote to make center-lane biasing the law.

But let's say you do. Then what? How do you enforce it? Ticket people for riding in the gutter when there's no traffic? How would anybody get caught?

Are you going to (en)force people into it by removing the bike lanes? Then when they cling to the WOLs, remove those, too? Until all that's left are NOLs and cyclists are forced into the lane? Don't you think people would simply ask for more MUPs? Or ride on the sidewalk? Don't you think even motorists will find this objectionable?

What is the outcome you are working for, Serge? Is it attainable?
My point would be that everybody is going to ride the same whether the bike lane's there or not. Gutter bunnies will ride in the gutter and road hogs will ride in the center. There's no practical way to enforce these rules, whether bike lanes are there or not. Of course if you want to enforce silly rules, bike lanes would be the way to go!

If people want more MUPs that's fine. They're getting more and more common just about everywhere. Better than riding on a busy street--bike lanes or not--if you don't know what you're doing. But what does this have to do with the topic here? Are you trying to confuse the issue?

[genec]

Why do paint stripes inspire confidence?

Simply because they now define clear cut boundries... otherwise we would never have bothered striping the roadway at all in the first place.

[noisebeam]

If that same motorist swerves and crosses a BL stripe, who is at fault then?
In Arizona:
28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties

A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.

B. If a person violates this section and the violation results in a collision causing:

1. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.

2. Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.

C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable.

Bold is mine.

Al

[Helmet Head]

It makes me wonder what your intentions are? If you are just trying to win an argument then, by all means, continue. If you are actually advocating for what you believe are safer roads with the hope that others will come to see your point of view, perhaps you should take a different approach.
Ultimately, I'm advocating cycling. In particular, what it takes to make it safer, more enjoyable, and more popular.

There are many issues involved, of course. I listen to arguments on all sides of the issues, decide which are most compelling to me, and present them in my own words. I'm looking for critical analysis in case I missed something. In return, I offer critical analysis of arguments presented by others.

Why everyone takes all this so personally is beyond me. It's like they own the argument they are presenting or something. Hey, if someone can shoot holes in it, they're not shooting holes in YOU. Why Brian has to leave in a huff I really don't understand. But there is much I don't understand.

The best predictor of one's religion and political party or persuasion: his or her parents religion and/or political party or persuasion.

It's like people learn what their religion is, what their politics are (and the "special rules" for how to ride a bike - stay out of the way of cars) as kids, and never change.

There is very little appreciation for critical thinking in our society, in all areas, not just bicycling. The lack of appreciation for critical thinking leads to the kinds of emotonal outbursts and personal attacks we see on this forum all too often.

It's really a shame.

Anyway, I don't seek any outcome in particular, other than increased clarity on the issues, including the arguments, pro and con.

[genec]

In Arizona:
28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties

A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.

B. If a person violates this section and the violation results in a collision causing:

1. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.

2. Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.

C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable.

Bold is mine.

Al

Subsection C sucks... means you can never make a left turn using a "vehicular traffic lane," but it does not address "sharing lanes."


You didn't answer the question... which I do present in more consise manner here:

If a motorist and a cyclist "sharing a lane" leave a light at the same time, and are parallel an moving at the same speed... and the motorist swerves hitting the cyclist... who had ROW?

If a motorist and a cyclist in a Bike Lane leave a light at the same time, and are parallel an moving at the same speed... and the motorist swerves, crossing the bike lane stripe and hits the cyclist... who had ROW?

[John E]

... Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars. ... Since it is a "civil," rather than "criminal," penalty, does this preclude a wrongful death lawsuit? Life is evidently cheap in AZ!

[genec]

If we are competing, it is a competition that is heavily regulated. Clearly, the traffic in front has the ROW on an unstriped street.

The only thing that ever makes ROW ambiguous is bike lanes. When stripes are there, many cagers assume that bikes are in a separate universe, so they don't even think about ROW. They just pass bikes in the BL wherever, whenever they want to.

Oh, the "cagers" treat cyclists just like all other traffic in adjacent lanes... passing whenever they want to. And that is a problem?

[Helmet Head]

You didn't answer the question... which I do present in more consise manner here:

If a motorist and a cyclist "sharing a lane" leave a light at the same time, and are parallel an moving at the same speed... and the motorist swerves hitting the cyclist... who had ROW?

If a motorist and a cyclist in a Bike Lane leave a light at the same time, and are parallel an moving at the same speed... and the motorist swerves, crossing the bike lane stripe and hits the cyclist... who had ROW?
Now we're resorting to hypothetical pathological cases?

My answer: who cares? I never find myself in that situation for more than a fraction of a second. It's called being in the blind spot, and it should be avoided immediately by slowing down and letting the car get ahead. And that's just as true whether there is a painted stripe on the pavement separating you from the car or not.