WOLs vs. BLS vs NOLs

[noisebeam]

Or, let's look at what really works with some real world examples.
As I stated above all my opinions are based on real world examples. I've even provided a few videos showing differences. When I get my knee back will make videos with rear facing camera which will give an even better view.

Al

[sbhikes]

As I stated above all my opinions are based on real world examples. I've even provided a few videos showing differences. When I get my knee back will make videos with rear facing camera which will give an even better view.

Al
Does Phoenix, AZ have a critical mass of cyclists?

[Brian Ratliff]

1) First and foremost, bicycling is an accepted form of transportation

Accepted, but not practiced by many.

2) In less-developed countries, lots of other forms of slow-moving traffic integrated with higher-speed motor vehicle traffic such as rickshaws, pedicabs, horse/ox/mule-drawn carts and it seems to work.

It works because the people on bikes know they are beneath the people in carts, who know they are beneath people on scooters, who know they are beneath cars, who know they are beneath trucks. Each yields in that order to the horns from behind.

3) In many developed countries you have wide, segregated boulevards dedicated to bicycle traffic (this will not work in older US cities with tearing down tons of buildings)

They have both more experience, and more cyclists. I wouldn't knock what they are doing because if the number of cyclists starts equaling the number of cars, we might have to do much the same.

Personally, I don't find someone sounding their horn to let me know they wish to pass to be that objectionable. A little 'toot toot' is fine with me. Someone toots behind me, I wave an acknowledgement and wave them on when safe to pass. Now having a motorist 3' off my rear tire sounding the horn incessantly is a different story. The good thing about some blowing the horn is at least they have seen you and are making an attempt to communicate their intentions.

In Cambodia, negotiation by horn is not some "toot toot", type of thing. It is sustained horn blasts for several seconds, every several seconds for the entire drive. It is the only place I've been to when the average car had a broken horn. I've never seen a car horn wear out before, but there it is common.

There is no waiting until it is safe to pass to let a car through. The car is higher on the food chain and it will pass when it wants to pass. People on bikes and scooters simply move out of the way when they hear the horn. And yes, accidents are quite common, expecially involving scooters. We were driving out to my sig. other's aunt's house and we got into an accident with a scooter. Our driver, nor anyone else, stopped to help. Said aunt had been recently hit by a scooter on that road and now has a bent back. My sig. other's nephew has lost several of his teeth because of a scooter accident. All the cars have various dents in them.

This is all on their equivilent of a rural highway, with half the number of cars and at slower speeds. We don't want a "negotiation by horn" system in the US.

[Brian Ratliff]

Kinda like this, but on a two-way street and without the parked cars? (On this street, even with the parked cars they could fling open the doors and the bike lane still isn't in the door zone.)

Something like this, but on a smaller scale - a bike lane only 2 feet wide, and about 3-5 feet from the curb (no on-street parking).

[noisebeam]

Does Phoenix, AZ have a critical mass of cyclists?
Yes by statistics.
No in reality in regard to commuting cyclists. When I visit San Franciso, Portland, Boston, NY, etc. on weekdays I see far more commuter cyclist by a very wide margin, not just in quantity but in percentage compared to cars. But weekends in phx-metro areas you see hundreds of recreational cyclists, even when one isn't one.

I misunderstood your point - you talked about looking at places with critical mass of cyclist. Then you had a separate paragraph that said too look at real world examples. I missed that you meant real world examples of places with critical mass. Sorry for the confusion, I thought your point was to not arm chair theorize on what works and what doesn't.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

...So, your conclusion, not your premise, is that integrated cycling can (may, but not necessarily will) get more difficult with increased numbers of cyclists? I find it curious that the conclusion of an argument referring so much to bike lanes would make no reference to bike lanes itself. If this is not your conclusion please state what is.

We use the term integrated differently, but yes, lane sharing can only take us so far (BTW, you are restating an argument, not a premise or conclusion). Example: I was on the freeway one day between Seattle and Portland and came up to a car which was drifting between lanes. It must have taken me 5 miles to pass him, even though traffic was relatively light, because I had to put an extra lane between myself and him, or wait until I could trust that he would hold his line. If he had been steady in his lane, I could have passed immediately. Note that he was drifting slowly, yet he still made it difficult to pass because he wasn't being predictable.

This is how lane sharing is and why cars give such large berths when passing cyclists in WOL's. Eventually there will be a point where the number of cyclists makes this facility unuseable - hence WOL's are unsustainable.

I am not wedded to the idea of bike lanes, but it is the current state of the art in bicycling facilities which adhere to the right of way standards (ROW principled facilities) of the rest of the road. If I am to draw examples for my arguments, then bike lanes are the standard. However, bike lanes are still in flux, and 50 years from now, what we call bike lanes might look very different from our current state of the art. However, I think that they will share the ROW concepts of "one vehicle per lane" as opposed to the lane sharing concept.

Note that MUPs and side paths are not ROW principled facilities, since they must yield in all instances of interaction with other traffic on other roads.

While you're at it, for our benefit, as well as your own, it would help with the critical analysis of the logic if you would identify the premises of your argument, as well as any other conclusions drawn from it besides the one above, if any. I'm having difficulty identifying them on my own. Thanks.

Basically, I'm asking you to do an informal logic exercise. I would do it myself, but I'm having difficulty. Please read and analyze your own argument, copying key phrases/statements that are either premises or conclusions in your post and paste them under one of the following labels. If a key premise or conclusion was implied, but not stated explicitly, specifying it/them also in parentheses would be most helpful.

We'll see how this goes. I am an engineer, not a philosopher (or at least, just a casual philosopher ;)), so be gentle in throwing this back in my face.

premises:
1) ROW concepts (one vehicle per lane) are integral and fundamental to our current road system and are the best way to handle large volumes of high speed traffic. (evidence for this is taken from our road facilities for cars. Road facilities for cars have evolved into ROW principled facilities, away from lane sharing principles. I assume this will be the same for high speed, high volume bicycle traffic.)

2) We should be headed away from the "quick and dirty" solutions, toward sustainable solutions. (sustainable referring to the ability to evolve and expand to take into account evolving tendencies of drivers and cyclists, as well as their numbers)

conclusion:
ROW principled facilities (such as bike lanes, to cite the current state of the art) are sustainable and should be pursued over facilities which follow lane sharing principles (such as WOL's).

[noisebeam]

This is how lane sharing is and why cars give such large berths when passing cyclists in WOL's. Eventually there will be a point where the number of cyclists makes this facility unuseable - hence WOL's are unsustainable.

You are assuming that many cyclists who ride in WOL don't hold a steady line. I know I do and if I want to move within the lane I signal. The other assumption you are making is that cyclist in BLs don't drift out of them and are therefore more predictable. That is not my experience I have when passing some cyclists in BLs - in fact the slower the road speed the more likely I am to encounter very erratic cyclists around BLs. Also when I ride on a road with a BL my lateral position changes far more often than when I ride on a WOL road, for avoiding bumps (most often manhole covers), debris, etc. in the BL.

Al

[patc]

Vehicular lane sharing works, but it is a simple stopgap measure; it allows cyclists to survive in a sea of cars. But when the number of cyclists equals the number of cars, then the traffic system needs to revert back to its basic premise of one lane per vehicle - otherwise we will have chaos and negotiation by horn.

Brian, I cut text for space but I agree with most of what you wrote, nice to see some common-sense analysis here, and not something based political bias or conspiracy theories. I have stated before, many times, that I dislike lane sharing because it goes against the most basic principle of our traffic system - one vehicle per lane.

I think car use is very likely to decrease over the next few decades, although there are too many factors at play to make any real predictions (including human stupidity). I think bike use is almost certain to increase, and such an increase is part of Ottawa's official plan. Therefore changing road design to reflect that the change in vehicle types will be required. I have used the proposed Alta-Vista corridor as an example before of what I see as the correct road design for today: one general lane; one transit and HOV lane; one bike lane; one detached MTU. Note that, with the exception of car-pooling, private motor vehicles could only use one lane out of three (per direction). This sort of accommodation will be required within a few decades, lane-sharing will no longer function effectively as the number of bikes continues to increase.


As as aside, I would prefer they be "human powered travel" lanes than bike lanes. In-line skates, for example, or a valid transportation device that could share a "bike lane".

[Helmet Head]

(BTW, you are restating an argument, not a premise or conclusion)
Whoa. We're using very different terminology. I stated a single assertion, "integrated cycling can (may, but not necessarily will) get more difficult with increased numbers of cyclists". How can that be an argument? It's just an assertion. An argument can be stated in a single assertion? I'm not familiar with that usage of the term argument. To me, an informal logical argument, which is what we keep throwing at each other here, is comprised of premises, logic/reasoning, and conclusions which are supposedly based on those premises and logic/reasoning. A single assertion be a premise (hopefully accepted to be true by all parties), a statement that logically follows from or connects some premises, or a conclusion of the argument that is hopefully supported by the argument, if it's a good one.

In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

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

We'll see how this goes. I am an engineer, not a philosopher (or at least, just a casual philosopher ), so be gentle in throwing this back in my face.

Fair enough. I'm an engineer too, not a philosopher. But any engineer should be able to quickly pick up the terminology and structure of informal logic. Just to get on the same page, it would be helpful if you spent a few minutes reading the above link (to which I have not contributed at all, and the following, also not my work). It's good knowledge/skills to have in general, and I highly recommend everyone else do this too. It will really take only a few minutes, and if everyone understood these concepts, we could easily raise the quality of debate by an order of magnitude.

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


premises:
1) ROW concepts (one vehicle per lane) are integral and fundamental to our current road system and are the best way to handle large volumes of high speed traffic. (evidence for this is taken from our road facilities for cars. Road facilities for cars have evolved into ROW principled facilities, away from lane sharing principles. I assume this will be the same for high speed, high volume bicycle traffic.)

2) We should be headed away from the "quick and dirty" solutions, toward sustainable solutions. (sustainable referring to the ability to evolve and expand to take into account evolving tendencies of drivers and cyclists, as well as their numbers)

conclusion:
ROW principled facilities (such as bike lanes, to cite the current state of the art) are sustainable and should be pursued over facilities which follow lane sharing principles (such as WOL's).

Actually, that's pretty good. I'm out of time now, but the next step in the analysis is to see if the conclusion is supported by the argument.

Again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic

[Bekologist]

Enough with the wikipedia references to semantics already!!!!!

Your arguments should stand without having to wrestle Wikipedia and a Robert's rules of order to these threads, Helmet!!!

"Wikipedia- the largest source of misinformation on the internet"

[Brian Ratliff]

You are assuming that many cyclists who ride in WOL don't hold a steady line. I know I do and if I want to move within the lane I signal. The other assumption you are making is that cyclist in BLs don't drift out of them and are therefore more predictable. That is not my experience I have when passing some cyclists in BLs - in fact the slower the road speed the more likely I am to encounter very erratic cyclists around BLs. Also when I ride on a road with a BL my lateral position changes far more often than when I ride on a WOL road, for avoiding bumps (most often manhole covers), debris, etc. in the BL.

Al

What I am saying is not that cyclists in a WOL don't hold their line, it is that the lack of a reference makes it difficult to determine what that line is. You could be on a trajectory towards the road edge, or toward the left turn lane, and the only way to know it is to reference your position against the background. With a lane line, the distance between your tires and the line can be noted very precisely, and so a fairly precise measurement of the cyclist's position and bearing can be made. Trying to use the background as a reference will result in an inherently less precise measurement on position and bearing, and so motorists are forced to give more space.

As I said before, this might work out conveniently now with so few cyclists on the road, but it is a secondary effect and I suspect that it is not sustainable as the number of cyclists approach the number of cars. It's like using duct tape to secure a (plastic) bumper to a car. That duct tape works well at all is a secondary effect, because it was made to seal ducts, not to mechanically hold bumpers onto cars. It works in the short term, if you need to secure the bumper for a few days or a week before it is replaced, but in the long term, it is not sustainable and a more permanant fix is required.

[Brian Ratliff]

Like I said, HH, I am not a philosopher and have had very little training in the proper use of formal logic in a philosophical argument. Maybe call this assertion a "supporting argument" which perhaps is the conclusion to a different argument starting from a different set of premises.

Please, back on topic. We are both engineers here. By our unwritten code, we are allowed to half ass the liberal arts stuff.

[noisebeam]

Like I said, HH, I am not a philosopher and have had very little training in the proper use of formal logic in a philosophical argument.

...

We are both engineers here. By our unwritten code, we are allowed to half ass the liberal arts stuff.
Same here. If anyone has noticed I tend to drift away from the 'debate team' type side discussions and just like to chime in with personal observations and ideas.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Wikipedia gets a bad wrap, and some of it is warranted. But a lot of it is overblown. What it's particularly good at is nailing down "squishy" topics and controversial issues. Because people with biases from all sides contribute and collaberate, the tendency over time is for the article to take on a neutral unbiased POV, certainly more neutral and unbiased than an article written by any one person, or by a collaberation of people from one organization representing a particular viewpoint.

Because most if not all of us have had no formal training "in the proper use of formal logic in a philosophical argument", the two articles I referenced are particularly useful to get us on the same page. Again, I urge everyone to take the few minutes it takes to read them. Can it hurt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic

I'll get back on topic soon enough. In the mean time, please humor me. Check out these two articles.

Edit:This one is worth a quick skim too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonargument

Thus we can ask with respect to what we present to each other, is it a logical argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) or a nonargument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonargument)?

[Helmet Head]

Same here. If anyone has noticed I tend to drift away from the 'debate team' type side discussions and just like to chime in with personal observations and ideas.
There is a big difference between learning how to "out debate" someone else, for which "debate team" skills and tactics might be useful, and learning how to construct a logical and compelling argument. It's the latter I am striving to get better at, and encouraging everyone here at improving. I see little value in the former.

[genec]

1) First and foremost, bicycling is an accepted form of transportation
2) In less-developed countries, lots of other forms of slow-moving traffic integrated with higher-speed motor vehicle traffic such as rickshaws, pedicabs, horse/ox/mule-drawn carts and it seems to work.
3) In many developed countries you have wide, segregated boulevards dedicated to bicycle traffic (this will not work in older US cities with tearing down tons of buildings)

Personally, I don't find someone sounding their horn to let me know they wish to pass to be that objectionable. A little 'toot toot' is fine with me. Someone toots behind me, I wave an acknowledgement and wave them on when safe to pass. Now having a motorist 3' off my rear tire sounding the horn incessantly is a different story. The good thing about some blowing the horn is at least they have seen you and are making an attempt to communicate their intentions.


Add to your list the generally underpowered vehicles of other countries. I had not thought about it until today... I just read a piece in a local small news paper called the Reader about energy efficient auto design (http://www.sdreader.com/php/cover.php?mode=print&id=20051020). One of the key issues of the design which was focused toward American drivers and partially sponsored by GM was "power." According to the article, one of the key issues in designing the car was performance.

"to help push the market open for vehicles that have the power and performance people want to buy. If you put an anemic, slow, stodgy power plant in one of these vehicles, maybe you could get 45 or 50 miles per gallon." That would be impressive, Burns acknowledges. "But I wouldn't buy the thing.

"Performance" is not necessarily an attribute of vehicles typically used in developing nations... or even in Europe where vehicles such as the Smart Car have been developed. (oh, sure we know Ferraris and BMWs and Mercedes all exist in Europe, but they do not constitute the "average" car).

The typical vehicle one sees in European cities is something between a Mercedes and a Smart Car... something along the line of a small Fiat or Citroen... none of which compete with say a Mustang or Malibu or Impala.

With smaller, lower powered vehicles and a general acceptance of bicycles as a mode of transportation, there is little wonder that cyclists fare better in other countries.

[Helmet Head]

With smaller, lower powered vehicles and a general acceptance of bicycles as a mode of transportation, there is little wonder that cyclists fare better in other countries.
By what measure do cyclists "fare better" in other countries?

And if the measure is the (relatively higher) popularity of cycling, what factor does impediments to motoring play in that?

Remember, demand for high gas mileage cars and bicycles is artificially inflated in Europe by heavy fuel taxes. Also, developed Europe is obviously much older than the USA. In particular, most of Europe was developed prior to the advent of the motor car; while most of the developed U.S. was developed after, and thus cars are generally adopted for better in the US than in Europe (more/cheaper parking, to start). Hence, there are fewer impediments to motoring in the U.S. than in Europe. That's a big factor in explaining the difference in popularity of cycling between here and there.

But I don't see much of a difference in how cyclists "fare" cycling here vs. over there. I certainly did not fare any better cycling there than I do here. How cyclists "fare" has much more to do with how cyclists behave than where they are cycling.

[genec]

By what measure do cyclists "fare better" in other countries?

And if the measure is the (relatively higher) popularity of cycling, what factor does impediments to motoring play in that?

Remember, demand for high gas mileage cars and bicycles is artificially inflated in Europe by heavy fuel taxes. Also, developed Europe is obviously much older than the USA. In particular, most of Europe was developed prior to the advent of the motor car; while most of the developed U.S. was developed after, and thus cars are generally adopted for better in the US than in Europe (more/cheaper parking, to start). Hence, there are fewer impediments to motoring in the U.S. than in Europe. That's a big factor in explaining the difference in popularity of cycling between here and there.

But I don't see much of a difference in how cyclists "fare" cycling here vs. over there. I certainly did not fare any better cycling there than I do here. How cyclists "fare" has much more to do with how cyclists behave than where they are cycling.


Well from personal experience, in Mexico I found that the locals had no problem giving me half the lane, where as those from the US would never do that under the same conditions.

Yes, part of the problem is "impedements to motoring in other countries," just as part of our problem is the "addiction to oil" problem of the US.

Again, clearly from personal experience, my observance of huge numbers of people cyclo commuting in China, and the lack of automotive parking spaces... a clear indicator that bicycles were accepted, while autos were considered unusual.

Perhaps fare better was not the proper term (as it comes so "politically" loaded), perhaps the term should be "cycling is more highly used and accepted by the population."

[Helmet Head]

Again, clearly from personal experience, my observance of huge numbers of people cyclo commuting in China, and the lack of automotive parking spaces... a clear indicator that bicycles were accepted, while autos were considered unusual.
And, I'm guessing, all those cyclists were not riding in bike lanes. This appears to be a counter example to Brian's theory that the roadway system without special accomodation for cyclists can only accomodate the relatively small numbers we have in the U.S. today.

There seem to be no problems sustaining large numbers of cyclists in other countries.

I think what might be underlying Brian's argument is the assumption that the existing system without change (and bike lanes are just a start) cannot accomodate/sustain increasing numbers of cyclists without impacting current/typical usage by motorists.

But, increasing numbers of cyclists cannot be reasonably expected unless there are significant increases in barriers to motoring (most likely in terms of cost, not only gas, but parking, etc.). And with increases in barriers to motoring, we can expect reductions and changes in motoring, reduction and changes that could in turn accomodate the increases in cycling.

For every extra cyclist out there, there is one less motorist. As the culture evolves towards more cycling, it will also evolve towards less motoring, which should more than accomodate for whatever impact Brian is concerned with.

A related concept is that as cycling popularity increases due to increased impediments to motoring, more motorists will become at least part-time cyclists. I think most of us here would agree that being a cyclist himself tends to affect (positively) how a motorist views and treats cyclists on the road. This is perhaps the cause of the difference in treatment Gene reports having experienced from Mexican vs. U.S. drivers in terms of giving him space on certain types of roads.

[genec]

And, I'm guessing, all those cyclists were not riding in bike lanes. This appears to be a counter example to Brian's theory that the roadway system without special accomodation for cyclists can only accomodate the relatively small numbers we have in the U.S. today.

There seem to be no problems sustaining large numbers of cyclists in other countries.

I think what might be underlying Brian's argument is the assumption that the existing system without change (and bike lanes are just a start) cannot accomodate/sustain increasing numbers of cyclists without impacting current/typical usage by motorists.

But, increasing numbers of cyclists cannot be reasonably expected unless there are significant increases in barriers to motoring (most likely in terms of cost, not only gas, but parking, etc.). And with increases in barriers to motoring, we can expect reductions and changes in motoring, reduction and changes that could in turn accomodate the increases in cycling.

For every extra cyclist out there, there is one less motorist. As the culture evolves towards more cycling, it will also evolve towards less motoring, which should more than accomodate for whatever impact Brian is concerned with.

A related concept is that as cycling popularity increases due to increased impediments to motoring, more motorists will become at least part-time cyclists. I think most of us here would agree that being a cyclist himself tends to affect (positively) how a motorist views and treats cyclists on the road. This is perhaps the cause of the difference in treatment Gene reports having experienced from Mexican vs. U.S. drivers in terms of giving him space on certain types of roads.


You're right, it is a counter example... And while I agree with Brian, I think your argument holds some water too... provided that the population doesn't increase, and that the American quest for automotive thrills via power are not answered via some other means... such as bio diesel (per the article I mentioned).

If that is the case, then in America (vice the rest of the world) the auto centric image will pervail, and ROW will be best preserved via the concepts that Brian has mentioned... lest we devolve into a system such as that mentioned by sbhikes (which is also used in China) where size rules and horns are the order of the day. For a reminder of this... search the archives for the confusion of the Vietnam bicycle road video.

[Helmet Head]

Here's another problem I have with Brian's argument.

One of the oft-stated criticisms of vc is that there are so few cyclists doing it; it's supposedly "strange" or unexpected, for a cyclist to act like a driver of a vehicle. It's said that the problem is that it's not accepted. The obvious solution is to increase the numbers of cyclists riding vehicular, to make it more of the norm.

But Brian's argument is that as you have increased numbers of vehicular cyclists, something (the cycling, the motoring, both?) gets harder, to the point where the roadway system cannot "sustain" motor traffic and such a large number of vehicular cyclists simultanously, though he does not specify what exactly happens as result of the "nonsustainability" (as opposed to his duct tape analogy, where what happens is clear: the broken bumper falls off).

In short, Brian's argument amounts to:


Cyclists must stay out of the way of motorists. Sure, with small numbers of cyclists, the "system" can tolerate it, but as the numbers of cyclists increase, cyclists getting in the way of motorists is not sustainable; motorists must be able to proceed as if the cyclists are not there. Therefore, we need separate cycle facilities to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists, and bike lanes, though far from perfect, are a step in the right direction.

No?

[Brian Ratliff]

And, I'm guessing, all those cyclists were not riding in bike lanes. This appears to be a counter example to Brian's theory that the roadway system without special accomodation for cyclists can only accomodate the relatively small numbers we have in the U.S. today.

There seem to be no problems sustaining large numbers of cyclists in other countries.

At speed. You won't see cyclists traveling at 20 mph. And you won't see many cars in that environment either. Also, they are not doing just fine, they are in a process of change at the moment and congestion in Chinese cities is as bad, or worse than it is here, but with fewer cars being involved. Look for them to start implementing a more thought out traffic system in the near future if they are not doing so already. They are in the process of evolving away from their current system, and they are in a state of rapid flux.

I think what might be underlying Brian's argument is the assumption that the existing system without change (and bike lanes are just a start) cannot accomodate/sustain increasing numbers of cyclists without impacting current/typical usage by motorists.

But, increasing numbers of cyclists cannot be reasonably expected unless there are significant increases in barriers to motoring (most likely in terms of cost, not only gas, but parking, etc.). And with increases in barriers to motoring, we can expect reductions and changes in motoring, reduction and changes that could in turn accomodate the increases in cycling.

For every extra cyclist out there, there is one less motorist. As the culture evolves towards more cycling, it will also evolve towards less motoring, which should more than accomodate for whatever impact Brian is concerned with.

Yes, without changing current car useage. The population is increasing all the time, and so the total number of people will increase, hence, car useage can stay level or even increase while increasing the number of cyclists at the same time. For a system to be sustainable, one must assume that car useage will follow the trends of recent history and continue to increase. We cannot rely on a balancing effect to make our predictions - it would be like taking the best case scenerio and planning for it, rather than the worse case. There will still be a significant portion of the population who are unable to bike, and this population will always exceed the number able bodied cyclists. Once the prospect of personal freedom without using our body's energy is en vogue, we cannot rely on that trend reversing itself.

However, there is a good possibility that there is a crossing point between the amount of traffic a population will tolerate before turning towards alternative forms of travel, such as cycling. That does not mean that once the crossing point is reached, that traffic all of the sudden disappears. It just means that the amount of car traffic won't increase, but the level of cycling will increase as the population rises. The crossing point then becomes a local minimum, where a certain number get caught in the traffic, while the rest use alternatives, including cycling.

A related concept is that as cycling popularity increases due to increased impediments to motoring, more motorists will become at least part-time cyclists. I think most of us here would agree that being a cyclist himself tends to affect (positively) how a motorist views and treats cyclists on the road. This is perhaps the cause of the difference in treatment Gene reports having experienced from Mexican vs. U.S. drivers in terms of giving him space on certain types of roads.

Again, I am looking for a sustainable system. Relying on such wishes such as the moterist population decreasing to balance out the increaseing cycling population and the notion that driver's attitude will change on a large scale is not sound. There is a third possibility that as the population grows, a segment of the population is full time cyclists, a segment are part timers, and a segement is full time drivers. For a sustainable system, we cannot rely on a wish that all three segements will all start getting along. A sustainable system plans for the worse case while making sure the best case is also taken into account.

[Brian Ratliff]

Here's another problem I have with Brian's argument.

One of the oft-stated criticisms of vc is that there are so few cyclists doing it; it's supposedly "strange" or unexpected, for a cyclist to act like a driver of a vehicle. It's said that the problem is that it's not accepted. The obvious solution is to increase the numbers of cyclists riding vehicular, to make it more of the norm.

But Brian's argument is that as you have increased numbers of vehicular cyclists, something (the cycling, the motoring, both?) gets harder, to the point where the roadway system cannot "sustain" motor traffic and such a large number of vehicular cyclists simultanously, though he does not specify what exactly happens as result of the "nonsustainability" (as opposed to his duct tape analogy, where what happens is clear: the broken bumper falls off).

In short, Brian's argument amounts to:


Cyclists must stay out of the way of motorists. Sure, with small numbers of cyclists, the "system" can tolerate it, but as the numbers of cyclists increase, cyclists getting in the way of motorists is not sustainable; motorists must be able to proceed as if the cyclists are not there. Therefore, we need separate cycle facilities to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists, and bike lanes, though far from perfect, are a step in the right direction.

No?

No. Nice try to get my argument to fit your world, but you present a strawman in the grandest sense. I did outline what I thought would happen. Drivers would take to playing "dodge the cyclist" and we would get negotiation by horn. There are examples of this in developing countries. In fact, this is probably the way a car negotiates a bicycle crowded street in China you cited in a previous post. A ROW system (such as we have) fundamentally cannot stand vehicles having to change lanes every few seconds in order to take into account shared lane users.

You keep coming back to the phrase "as if the cyclists are not there;" hammering it as if it is a political talking point. If you are meaning in the same sense that they pass other same direction cars as if they are not there, then YES, as if the cyclists are not there. However, if you mean that cars simply don't treat cyclists, don't notice, don't take them into account, then NO, not as if the cyclists are not there. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

I expect a system which lets cars pass with the same care and awareness as is given other same direction traffic in adjacent lanes. No more, no less. When you pass a car (in a car) on the highway in an adjacent lane, do you give them wide berth? If you are like every other driver on the road, you do not. Yet you are aware of the car you are passing, and you watch it to make sure it does not drift into you. It is this casual awareness I am after and think that our traffic system should strive for as it seeks to integrate cyclists.

[genec]

Here's another problem I have with Brian's argument.

One of the oft-stated criticisms of vc is that there are so few cyclists doing it; it's supposedly "strange" or unexpected, for a cyclist to act like a driver of a vehicle. It's said that the problem is that it's not accepted. The obvious solution is to increase the numbers of cyclists riding vehicular, to make it more of the norm.

But Brian's argument is that as you have increased numbers of vehicular cyclists, something (the cycling, the motoring, both?) gets harder, to the point where the roadway system cannot "sustain" motor traffic and such a large number of vehicular cyclists simultanously, though he does not specify what exactly happens as result of the "nonsustainability" (as opposed to his duct tape analogy, where what happens is clear: the broken bumper falls off).

In short, Brian's argument amounts to:


Cyclists must stay out of the way of motorists. Sure, with small numbers of cyclists, the "system" can tolerate it, but as the numbers of cyclists increase, cyclists getting in the way of motorists is not sustainable; motorists must be able to proceed as if the cyclists are not there. Therefore, we need separate cycle facilities to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists, and bike lanes, though far from perfect, are a step in the right direction.

No?

Yes. But the "rest" is to move toward perfection in bike lane design... which none of us yet can foresee... Much like the stoplight inventor Brian mentioned... and the invention itself which took around 40 years to come close to the current design.

Otherwise:

Imagine gridlock everywhere... or as a better example, imagine CM everywhere... that is what would occur in your model as more and more cyclists rode in vc fashion... how long would it be before frustrated motorists started targeting cyclists?

Since cyclists are never going to ride human powered devices at 45MPH, increasing the number of cyclists AND motor vehicles will only increase the amount of slow congestion... just like a freeway accident can paralyze a city.

Edit: Brian said "no" and I said "yes," however in his discussion, he goes on to state a similar "yes" to the fact that cyclists Do have to stay out of the way of motorists... which is exactly what HH does anyway... he centers himself in the lane until a motorist comes along and then moves... so the whole discussion of "staying out of the way of motorists" is a strawman.

Sorry, but as long as we are the slower vehicle, we must stay out of the way unless there is no other way... at which point we negotiate with motorists to use the lane.

But what happens when there are 10X or 100X of us negotiating with motorists... that is Brian's well stated point.

[Helmet Head]

Not knowing the ultimate destination but taking a step that at least somewhat improves the current situation is one thing; not knowing the ultimate destination but taking a step that worsens the current situation is another, particularly if the slope is slippery and it's not even clear that the step down could be reversed once taken.

So to convince someone like me, who sees that the disadvantages of bike lanes to cyclists (that I presented way back in #45 on Page 2 and anyone is yet to address here) far outweigh any advantages, you have to convince me that the ultimate destination is worth the temporary setback of having bike lanes. But in order to claim that something is an important first step in the "right"direction, you have to know what your destination is in order to evaluate whether it's the "right" direction.

What's frustrating to me about those who make this claim about bike lanes - that "bike lanes are not perfect but are a step in the right direction" - is that they also claim that the ultimate destination is unknown, or, in your words, something "none of us yet can foresee". Well, if we can't foresee where we're going, how do we know bike lanes are a step in the right direction?

I think Brian's post reveals, again, that while bike lane supporters are honest when they claim we don't know exactly where we're going, I think that they have an approximate destination in mind - and that destination involves a lot of segregation, and significantly more than offered by mere bike lanes, which would explain why they are seen to be but a step in the right direction. After all, according to Brian, and now you ("increasing the number of cyclists AND motor vehicles will only increase the amount of slow congestion... just like a freeway accident can paralyze a city") integration of bike traffic with motor traffic is not sustainable.

What I don't understand is why you don't come out and say it: what you want is a separate system for cyclists, separate and out-of-the-way of motorists as much as is reasonably possibly, much like the pedestrian system is separate and out-of-the-way of motorists as much as is reasonably possible. And the fact that you can't envision exactly how that would evolve is immaterial to you, because that will come with time, one step at a time. And the first step is bike lanes, but we still have a long way to go.

Isn't that right?

[sbhikes]

By what measure do cyclists "fare better" in other countries?

And if the measure is the (relatively higher) popularity of cycling, what factor does impediments to motoring play in that?

Ha ha I have to laugh at this! Impediments to motoring? You've got to be kidding!

In Nepal you can't even see the street for the sheer quantity of life forms and their conveyances that are upon it. It's about as wide as a lane and a half here inside the city. There are more pedestrians in and all over the road than automobiles. There are no lanes. Just a general consensus that you stay to the left. (They drive/walk on the left like England.)

Despite the lack of movement, the horn honking is incessant. They honk whether there's any point to it or not. They make their way through the knots of traffic which consists of every form of conveyance under the sun with more people in/on it than is safe by any means. They inch through literally inches away from each other, and literally an inch at a time sometimes.

Once they finally get to a wide street they're in 5th gear before they even reach 25mph. 25mph is freeway speed. On these larger roads there is a line. It's in the middle. It's a suggestion. The rest of the width consists of as many lanes as can be made with whoever happens to be going down the road at the time. Can you squeeze 3 cars? Then you have 3 lanes? How about 5? Then you have 5 lanes. 3 cars, a bike, a couple of stray dogs, some chickes, a cow and a lady with a basket on her head? Then you have...how many lanes does that make?


But I don't see much of a difference in how cyclists "fare" cycling here vs. over there...How cyclists "fare" has much more to do with how cyclists behave than where they are cycling.

I hope my description above sheds a little light on the difference.

[Helmet Head]

Sorry, but as long as we are the slower vehicle, we must stay out of the way unless there is no other way...
Ah, the heart of the problem reveals itself.
Putting aside discriminatory cyclist-specific laws for the moment, one has no obligation to stay out of the way simply because he is operating a slower vehicle. Many other factors must be present as well before such an obligation is manifested. And those many other factors, that you keep ignoring, make all the difference in the world between the cyclist whose primary riding position is centerish, and the cyclist whose primary riding position is at the side.

[genec]

Isn't that right?

OK, we all agree that we cannot foresee the future... however, let's look at some trends... first, the road makers cannot foresee the future either... yet they continue to make new roads and widen existing ones in the hope that someday they can at least maintain status quo on congestion... history has shown they will never catch up.

Second, the 85th percentile rule for estabishing road speeds means that there will tend to be adjustments to constanly raise road speeds (particularly as drivers have better controlled vehicles with more improved safety systems)... somewhere along the way roadspeeds will reach a point where "negotiating with a motorist" will reach the point of nearly impossible.

So finally yes, with those two points in mind, there is a good chance that a separate parallel system for motorists and cyclists will have to be developed. That is not the goal, but again, no one can see into the future.

What is your vision of riding a bicycle in heavy motor traffic moving at 65MPH?

[genec]

Ah, the heart of the problem reveals itself.
Putting aside discriminatory cyclist-specific laws for the moment, one has no obligation to stay out of the way simply because he is operating a slower vehicle. Many other factors must be present as well before such an obligation is manifested. And those many other factors, that you keep ignoring, make all the difference in the world between the cyclist whose primary riding position is centerish, and the cyclist whose primary riding position is at the side.

Are you denying that slower traffic should stay to the right if the space permits?

[sbhikes]

What I don't understand is why you don't come out and say it: what you want is a separate system for cyclists, separate and out-of-the-way of motorists as much as is reasonably possibly, much like the pedestrian system is separate and out-of-the-way of motorists as much as is reasonably possible.
No, I think what he and most of us want is an organized system.

You need an organized system when the differences in speed are so great. Otherwise all speed is reduced to level nearing the lowest common denominator. Look at any 3rd world, not-quite industrialized country to see how that works.

By the way, you are again mixing up vehicular cycling with your own center-lane biasing approach. It is not necessary to avoid bike lanes and take a center lane position by default in order to ride a bicycle vehicularly.

Please find us a definition--not written by you--of vehicular cycling that expressly states that center-lane biasing and anti-bike lane beliefs are requirements.

[genec]

By the way, you are again mixing up vehicular cycling with your own center-lane biasing approach. It is not necessary to avoid bike lanes and take a center lane position by default in order to ride a bicycle vehicularly.

Please find us a definition--not written by you--of vehicular cycling that expressly states that center-lane biasing and anti-bike lane beliefs are requirements.

+1... oh surly he is not mixing up his theories with the true vc method... :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

What I don't understand is why you don't come out and say it: what you want is a separate system for cyclists, separate and out-of-the-way of motorists as much as is reasonably possibly, much like the pedestrian system is separate and out-of-the-way of motorists as much as is reasonably possible.

No, I think what he and most of us want is an organized system.

What's the difference between an "organized system" and, say, "a system organized into three subsystems, one for motorists, one for cyclists, and one for peds, that are separated as much as reasonably possible"?


You need an organized system when the differences in speed are so great. Otherwise all speed is reduced to level nearing the lowest common denominator.

That's an issue on freeways where continuous flow is an important goal. Freeway thinking has no place on non-freeway roadways, where there are crossing pedestrians, slow moving construction vehicles and busses, motorists slowing to park, congestion for various reasons, motorists going in and out of driveways, stop signs, red lights, bus stops, taxi stops, and, yes, bicyclists too. The differences in speeds are great (between 0 and 60+), and yet the system is already organized by the vehicular rules of the road. That's what they're for.


Look at any 3rd world, not-quite industrialized country to see how that works.
Your Nepal, etc. examples are extreme. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what their relevance is to this discussion. Are you contending that if we have more bicyclists our roads will narrow, all stripes and most of the road pavement will disappear, and oxen will appear?


By the way, you are again mixing up vehicular cycling with your own center-lane biasing approach.
Huh? I didn't even mention or refer implicitly to either vehicular cycling or center-lane biasing. Why are you bringing this up?


It is not necessary to avoid bike lanes and take a center lane position by default in order to ride a bicycle vehicularly.
True.


Please find us a definition--not written by you--of vehicular cycling that expressly states that center-lane biasing and anti-bike lane beliefs are requirements.
No such thing. Not even "my" definition says that. But let's please not turn this into another semantic argument about the meaning of vc. When I say vehicular cycling, I mean what is described on the Wiki page linked in my signature. If you mean something else, please specify what that is, whether it's your own definition, or a reference to someone else's (I think this is the 5th time I've asked you). Otherwise, I'll continue interpreting your reference to vehicular cycling to also mean the same as described in the wiki article; you give me no alternative, literally.

[noisebeam]

I can see a system of 'bike lanes,' but only on fully non-intersectioned roads and with those 'bike lanes' being substantially wider than they are today, or 4-5ft as today, but with a both a shoulder and with a buffer zone to the left of the lane. Perhaps 9ft width in total. This would for example be a road that connects settled areas.

But what I can not see is how any 'bike lane' works in areas with intersections where motorized or faster vehicles may be turning right from the lane to the left of the bike lane. Of couse there is the case of a RTOL in which RTing traffic crosses the BL. But in practice there are so many intersections in urban and suburban areas that RTOL at every intersection are simply not possilbe (i.e. every driveway, shopping center entrance, etc.) There is also the problem in these intersections of left turns.

Al

[genec]

Talk about strawman...


Your Nepal, etc. examples are extreme. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what their relevance is to this discussion. Are you contending that if we have more bicyclists our roads will narrow, all stripes and most of the road pavement will disappear, and oxen will appear?

You just lost all future arguments based on others throwing strawmen at you. You just became king of the strawmen argument.

[sbhikes]

What's the difference between an "organized system" and, say, "a system organized into three subsystems, one for motorists, one for cyclists, and one for peds, that are separated as much as reasonably possible"?



That's an issue on freeways where continuous flow is an important goal. Freeway thinking has no place on non-freeway roadways, where there are crossing pedestrians, slow moving construction vehicles and busses, motorists slowing to park, congestion for various reasons, motorists going in and out of driveways, stop signs, red lights, bus stops, taxi stops, and, yes, bicyclists too. The differences in speeds are great (between 0 and 60+), and yet the system is already organized by the vehicular rules of the road. That's what they're for.



Your Nepal, etc. examples are extreme. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what their relevance is to this discussion. Are you contending that if we have more bicyclists our roads will narrow, all stripes and most of the road pavement will disappear, and oxen will appear?



Huh? I didn't even mention or refer implicitly to either vehicular cycling or center-lane biasing. Why are you bringing this up?



True.



No such thing. Not even "my" definition says that. But let's please not turn this into another semantic argument about the meaning of vc. When I say vehicular cycling, I mean what is described on the Wiki page linked in my signature. If you mean something else, please specify what that is, whether it's your own definition, or a reference to someone else's (I think this is the 5th time I've asked you). Otherwise, I'll continue interpreting your reference to vehicular cycling to also mean the same as described in the wiki article; you give me no alternative, literally.


No our roads won't narrow and oxen won't appear. But when there is no system that is what you get: no system. Chaos. And everybody would go a lot slower.

Maybe that's a good thing, but the voters aren't going to go for it. If they perceive that a group of road users is deliberately, or even not deliberately, slowing them down they will seek to legislate that group off the road entirely.

I am not going to answer your "please tell me where you get your definition" question. Put me on your ignore list if you want to. But you consistently try to make vc equivalent to center-lane bias and anti-bike lane beliefs. It's wrong. Center-lane bias is a theory/practice of you own creation. The anti-bike lane position is a political position that is not a requirement to practice vehicular cycling.

Honestly you're as bad as George Bush & Co. and their insistance that Saddam Hussein/Iraq was responsible for September 11.

[Helmet Head]

No. Nice try to get my argument to fit your world, but you present a strawman in the grandest sense.
Give me a break. I wasn't trying to create a strawman. What would be the point?
A good way to clarify communication between A and B is for B to restate in his own words what he understood A to mean. That's all I was doing. I was close enough for Gene to think I got it right. You sure get all huffy pretty easily. "A strawman in the grandest sense"? LOL.


A ROW system (such as we have) fundamentally cannot stand vehicles having to change lanes every few seconds in order to take into account shared lane users.
Why would they have to change lanes to pass a cyclist or cyclists traveling along the right side of a WOL any more than they would have to pass him or them traveling in the same space but demarcated by a bike lane stripe?



You keep coming back to the phrase "as if the cyclists are not there;" hammering it as if it is a political talking point. If you are meaning in the same sense that they pass other same direction cars as if they are not there, then YES, as if the cyclists are not there. However, if you mean that cars simply don't treat cyclists, don't notice, don't take them into account, then NO, not as if the cyclists are not there. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.
What I mean by this is that motorists don't treat bike lane stripes as lane stripes; they treat them as edge stripes. Let's just say that if I'm riding near the left edge of a regular lane, perhaps in the process of moving left across the road to get into a left turn lane, and I'm passed by cars, they are much less likely to drive near the right edge of their lane than when I'm riding along the left edge of a bike "lane". The treatment of a cyclist in a bike lane is more like the treatment of a cyclist off the roadway in the shoulder or on the sidewalk, than like someone in an adjacent lane. That's what I mean by "as if he is not even there".


I expect a system which lets cars pass with the same care and awareness as is given other same direction traffic in adjacent lanes. No more, no less. When you pass a car (in a car) on the highway in an adjacent lane, do you give them wide berth? If you are like every other driver on the road, you do not. Yet you are aware of the car you are passing, and you watch it to make sure it does not drift into you. It is this casual awareness I am after and think that our traffic system should strive for as it seeks to integrate cyclists.
Well, we're after the same thing. I like the "casual awareness" concept. That's exactly what I'm after, and what I feel I get when I'm on the right side of WOL, but that I feel I often don't get when I'm in a bike lane.

As far as my centerish position and then move aside technique, that's something else again, and has to do with achieving casual awareness early in order to reduce the possibility of the driver choosing to attend to a distraction before he passes me. But that's beside the point, since I do that during gaps whether there is a BL or just a WOL.

[genec]

What I mean by this is that motorists don't treat bike lane stripes as lane stripes; they treat them as edge stripes. Let's just say that if I'm riding near the left edge of a regular lane, perhaps in the process of moving left across the road to get into a left turn lane, and I'm passed by cars, they are much less likely to drive near the right edge of their lane than when I'm riding along the left edge of a bike "lane". The treatment of a cyclist in a bike lane is more like the treatment of a cyclist off the roadway in the shoulder or on the sidewalk, than like someone in an adjacent lane. That's what I mean by "as if he is not even there".


Then clearly BL need more refinement... which might mean perhaps going to a dashed line vice the solid line... and that is part of what the future might bring.

Heck even LA is willing to try Sharrows... even though they are not part of the MUTCD yet. So innovation takes time... especially when dealing with the inertial of the auto centric culture.

[Helmet Head]

Your Nepal, etc. examples are extreme. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what their relevance is to this discussion. Are you contending that if we have more bicyclists our roads will narrow, all stripes and most of the road pavement will disappear, and oxen will appear?

You just lost all future arguments based on others throwing strawmen at you. You just became king of the strawmen argument.

Huh? That wasn't even an argument, much less a strawman argument. It's a question. Diane has repeatedly referenced the oxen in the streets in Nepal. Was it unreasonable of me to assume that that's what she was referring to again by "3rd world, not-quite industrialized country"? I was just asking about how her point was relevant to the discussion.

First Brian ("a strawman in the grandest sense"), now you ("king of the strawmen argument").

Do you guys understand the difference between inquiries of clarification and strawman arguments?

You might want to read up on it.

A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

So first, I would have to attribute a restatement of what someone else said to them, and then refute it.

Restating what someone said, for clarification, including asking them if that's what they meant, is not setting up a strawman. And absent a refutation of the restatement, it's not an argument, much less a strawman argument.

Now, if I had simply stated this is what Brian's argument is, without asking for verification, and just went ahead and refuted it, that would be a strawman argument (but even then, only if the restatement misrepresented his argument).

Same with this Diane thing. She didn't even have an argument. She simple provided a suggestion, the relevance of which I did not understand.

I hate it when our discussions degenerate to this kind of nonsense. Let's keep it real, okay?

[Brian Ratliff]

What I don't understand is why you don't come out and say it: what you want is a separate system for cyclists, separate and out-of-the-way of motorists as much as is reasonably possibly, much like the pedestrian system is separate and out-of-the-way of motorists as much as is reasonably possible. And the fact that you can't envision exactly how that would evolve is immaterial to you, because that will come with time, one step at a time. And the first step is bike lanes, but we still have a long way to go.

Isn't that right?

Oddly enough, it isn't. There is no good way to segregate cyclists, as you, yourself argue. MUPs are the best we can do and they are not very good. But you and I have different takes on integration and segregation. By your account, different lanes on a highway are not integrated. You have this concept that a bike lane is simply another word for gutter, and a bike lane is somehow fundamentally different from other lanes on the road.

We also differ on how we see the disadvantages of bike lanes. You see them as a threat to your rights. I see them as a tool - like any tool, it can be badly design and misused. All the real disadvantages are secondary in nature - such as the debris problem, the intersection issues, the drifting issue, the "driver passes as if the cyclist is not even there" issue. Your wide outside lane doesn't actually solve these issues, it simply gives a cyclist explicit carte blanche to ride how he or she feels best, which is all you want anyway; regardless of the detriment of other road users or other cyclists. You have turned your defenselessness into a weapon, but you need the situation to remain unclear in order to continue your exploits. This is the beauty of vehicular cycling, but it is a terrible beauty based in weakness and it is unsustainable for the future.

You also misinterpret, willfully perhaps, the statements about the evolution of bike lanes to include the idea that they need to evolve to make them adequate for the present state. Fear not, the state of the art bike lanes are actually better in many regards than the equivelent WOL designs, and they work adequately for the current traffic situation. Now, better is a relative term, but the advantages of bike lanes are real and are fundamental, while the disadvantages are transitory and secondary effects. Contrast this to WOL's where the advantages are transitory and secondary, while the disadvantages are fundamental. Read my posts earlier in this thread and some of the first of my posts in the Bike Lanes thread if you need these effects to be enumerated. That bike lanes will evolve is simply to say that they have room to evolve without having to be funamentally altered. WOL's, as a cycling facility, won't evolve while keeping their fundamental aspects, not because they won't need to, but because they cannot.

I value protection of my right of way in higher regard than any other protection because it is fundamental to our road system. Vehicular cycling works because it complicates the situation for drivers enough to slow them down and give more space when cycling on suboptimal roads. Right of way cycling simplifies the situation for drivers and cyclists alike and allows more precise integration between cars and bicycles.

[genec]

I hate it when our discussions degenerate to this kind of nonsense. Let's keep it real, okay?

Hey you drew the "conclusion" that oxens will rule the street... not her. She was simply pointing to the fact that in an uncontrolled system chaos rules... along with size. In such a system... yes, it is quite possible for the oxen to rule.

[Roody]

The hot trend in traffic engineering these days is traffic calming. How will bikes fit into this brave new world? It seems like we could be great traffic calming dievices if our numbers were a little higher?

[Brian Ratliff]

Give me a break. I wasn't trying to create a strawman. What would be the point?
A good way to clarify communication between A and B is for B to restate in his own words what he understood A to mean. That's all I was doing. I was close enough for Gene to think I got it right. You sure get all huffy pretty easily. "A strawman in the grandest sense"? LOL.

Yes, but when you do that, you twist my argument into something you have already refuted. This is a strawman. That you did it as a retorical effect is even more telling. You do this a lot: accuse others of strawmen, then use one yourself, then when called on it, claim you were simply asking for clarification. Oh, then when someone calls you on that, you demand proof in your own words from posts buried 4 or 5 pages deep. Perhaps we should both quite complaining about "rules of debate." It is kind of stupid really; a kind of childish thing to do.

Why would they have to change lanes to pass a cyclist or cyclists traveling along the right side of a WOL any more than they would have to pass him or them traveling in the same space but demarcated by a bike lane stripe?

If they don't change lanes, how do they give you more space? Are you saying you are actually riding further to the right than you would in a bike lane? If they are passing you without changing their line, then how are they giving you more space than in a bike lane? Are you sure you simply aren't drifting a bit right as they pass?

What I mean by this is that motorists don't treat bike lane stripes as lane stripes; they treat them as edge stripes. Let's just say that if I'm riding near the left edge of a regular lane, perhaps in the process of moving left across the road to get into a left turn lane, and I'm passed by cars, they are much less likely to drive near the right edge of their lane than when I'm riding along the left edge of a bike "lane". The treatment of a cyclist in a bike lane is more like the treatment of a cyclist off the roadway in the shoulder or on the sidewalk, than like someone in an adjacent lane. That's what I mean by "as if he is not even there".

That is not surprising. A cyclist riding in a full sized lane nearing an intersection is likely to keep moving left. A cyclist in the bike lane is more likely to keep moving straight unless he signals intent. Are they actually moving toward you in the bike lane? Or is it simply that they are not shying away? Do they pass a cyclist in a bike lane any differently than a car in a separate lane? In my experience, it is No, Yes, and No. If this is the case, then they are, in fact, treating the bike lane as any other lane line. They simply are not giving you extra space and extra consideration.

Well, we're after the same thing. I like the "casual awareness" concept. That's exactly what I'm after, and what I feel I get when I'm on the right side of WOL, but that I feel I often don't get when I'm in a bike lane.

As far as my centerish position and then move aside technique, that's something else again, and has to do with achieving casual awareness early in order to reduce the possibility of the driver choosing to attend to a distraction before he passes me. But that's beside the point, since I do that during gaps whether there is a BL or just a WOL.

Good, but if the motorist is forced to slow or alter their line, then they have extraordinary awareness of you, or feel like the must use extraordinary caution. If they hold their line to pass, then that is casual awareness. Again, the center bias is simply using defenselessness as a weapon; causing notice by putting yourself in their way, which is fine for the current situation. In fact, for non-bike facility roads, this is our only option, and it works.

[Brian Ratliff]

The hot trend in traffic engineering these days is traffic calming. How will bikes fit into this brave new world? It seems like we could be great traffic calming dievices if our numbers were a little higher?

Yea, but the idea is to keep us from having to carry this burden.

[Helmet Head]

By your account, different lanes on a highway are not integrated.
False. Different lanes segregated by vehicle type are not integrated. Different lanes on a highway that can be freely used interchangably by road users (given ROW rules) are integrated.


You have this concept that a bike lane is simply another word for gutter,
False. I've never said this, nor implied it. Do you have me confused with someone else?


and a bike lane is somehow fundamentally different from other lanes on the road.
Yes, I believe a bike "lane" is fundamentally different from other lanes on the road. Do you disagree? How many ways does it have to be different before the difference becomes fundamental?


bike lanes are typically less than half the width of real lanes.
bike lanes are usually separated from real anes by a 6 inch wide solid roadway edge stripe - real lanes are normally separated from other real lanes by dashed lines.
Right turning motorists are clearly allowed and usually required (only not required in double/triple turn lane situations) to enter the rightmost real lane when turning right. But when the rightmost lane is not real, but a bike lane, what motorists are supposed to do is much less clear, at best. Different states, including OR and CA, have laws that are diametically opposed regarding the appropriate behavior in this situation. Bike lane treatment at right turns is fundamentally different from real lanes.
Motorists tend to look for traffic in real lanes; motorists tend to overlook looking for traffic in bike lanes.
Real lanes are regularly and continually swept clean of debris by motor traffic; bike lanes tend to accumulate debris.

Need I go on? Bike lanes are fundamentally different from other lanes on the road. In fact, bike lanes have very little in common with other lanes.


We also differ on how we see the disadvantages of bike lanes. You see them as a threat to your rights.
That's only part of it, of course. See post #45.


You have turned your defenselessness into a weapon, but you need the situation to remain unclear in order to continue your exploits.
What defenselessness? What is unclear? I think you put entirely too much emphasis on the relevance of stripes to ROW. Clarity in ROW can be established very easily without lane stripes, particularly at the edge of the road, and particularly when at least one relatively slow vehicle is involved.


This is the beauty of vehicular cycling, but it is a terrible beauty based in weakness and it is unsustainable for the future.
If slow cyclists need to cross the paths of fast motorists in order to make a left turn, the motorists are going to be delayed. The WOL vs. BL issue has no bearing on this, or sustainability. If they're just going straight, then their effect on faster traffic is no different whether the BL stripe is there or not. Again, the WOL vs BL issue has no bearing on this, or sustainability. The whole sustainability concept is a red herring in the WOL vs BL debate. If sustainability is a problem with WOLs due to increasing numbers of cyclists, then painting BL stripes is not going to solve a thing.


the state of the art bike lanes are actually better in many regards than the equivelent WOL designs,
How so?


the advantages of bike lanes are real and are fundamental, while the disadvantages are transitory and secondary effects. Contrast this to WOL's where the advantages are transitory and secondary, while the disadvantages are fundamental.
You have yet to state what the advantages of bike lanes are, much less argue why they are real and fundamental, and how the disadvantages I listed in #45 are "transitory" and "secondary".


That bike lanes will evolve is simply to say that they have room to evolve without having to be funamentally altered.
This is a meaningless statement to me. What does it mean to you?


WOL's, as a cycling facility, won't evolve while keeping their fundamental aspects, not because they won't need to, but because they cannot.
This is almost as meaningless. Anyway, you say this like there is a problem with them not evolving. Why is that a problem? How is it that BLs have room to evolve, but WOLs don't? I don't get it.

And what are the "fundamental aspects" of BLs and WOLs anyway? It would be helpful if you would specify what you mean by the terms "primary", "secondary", "fundamental", "transitory" etc. in the context of BLs and WOLs.


Vehicular cycling works because it complicates the situation for drivers enough to slow them down...
What? Where did you get this?


Right of way cycling simplifies the situation for drivers and cyclists alike and allows more precise integration between cars and bicycles.
How does putting a stripe along the rightmost third (or so) of a WOL simplify "the situation for drivers and cyclists alike and allows more precise integration between cars and bicycles."?

[Bekologist]

Check out THIS integrated roadway striping I saw today on a ride south of Seattle to buy some camera memory....

traffic lane, bike lane, ped lane, no parking, no curb, signs explaining the roadway accomodations every 150 feet or so....

This went for several miles, tucked in along a major residential area and a rework of an old, industrial road past sawmills and vague commercial buildings down by Boeing. A flux of recent condo development along the road.

I bet this is jam packed on hot summer nights after work and on the weekends. Even with the weather foul as it was, I saw several joggers, dog walkers and a woman in a motorized wheelchair using the ped lane, and several bikers as well. maybe more peds even....

nice integrated roadway accomodations for bikes and peds both and clearly serving the community well. I was on the middle of the bike/ped stripe, and look at how much room the driver gave me!

[genec]

Check out THIS integrated roadway striping I saw today on a ride south of Seattle to buy some camera memory....

traffic lane, bike lane, ped lane, no parking, no curb, signs explaining the roadway accomodations every 150 feet or so....

This went for several miles, tucked in along a major residential area and a rework of an old, industrial road past sawmills and vague commercial buildings down by Boeing. A flux of recent condo development along the road.

I bet this is jam packed on hot summer nights after work and on the weekends. Even with the weather foul as it was, I saw several joggers, dog walkers and a woman in a motorized wheelchair using the ped lane, and several bikers as well. maybe more peds even....

nice integrated roadway accomodations for bikes and peds both and clearly serving the community well. I was on the middle of the bike/ped stripe, and look at how much room the driver gave me!


Quit a nice setup actually... the only objection I have to it is that it is on a 25MPH road... hardly needed. But since it exists, perhaps they should raise the speed limit to 35... then it will make far more sense.

[Helmet Head]

Yes, but when you do that, you twist my argument into something you have already refuted. This is a strawman
Not necessarily. It's not a strawman unless the restatement is a misrepresentation of your argument, and I go ahead and refute it, or at least reference the previous refutation. But if the shoe fits... then it's not a strawman. For the record, I have no interest in refuting anything you haven't actually said. I'm not here to "win" a debate. I could care less. I'm here to learn and to exchange ideas, period. It is an intellectual challenge, yes. But there is no intellectual satisfaction in refuting a strawman. That's why I always clarify whether my restatement is accurate or not. Actually, it's also legitimate, and I have done this in the past, to ask, and then proceed with an explicit "if indeed it is what you meant, then ..." That too is not a strawman, for the refutation that follows is only relevant if the original restatement is later verified to not be a misrepresentation.


You do this a lot: accuse others of strawmen, then use one yourself, then when called on it, claim you were simply asking for clarification.
Well, if I were not asking for a clarification, that's simple enough to see, is it not?

Look, I know we all sometimes honestly misunderstand and honestly mistate what others have said and refute that. It's done to me, and I've done it to others. But that's an honest mistake, and we should be able to recover quickly and go on when that happens. But the blatant strawmen, that's something else again.

Having said that, I know I do try to make every effort to really understand what others are saying, and respond to that.




Why would they have to change lanes to pass a cyclist or cyclists traveling along the right side of a WOL any more than they would have to pass him or them traveling in the same space but demarcated by a bike lane stripe?

If they don't change lanes, how do they give you more space?

By adjusting their line so that there is 3 or more feet between us rather than 1 or 2 feet, or less.


Are you saying you are actually riding further to the right than you would in a bike lane?
No, though that sometimes does happen, when the bike lane debris causes me to ride further left than I would if the BL stripe (and resulting debris) were not there.


If they are passing you without changing their line, then how are they giving you more space than in a bike lane? Are you sure you simply aren't drifting a bit right as they pass?
Some of them do have to change their line. Those that would pass me with too close a distance if they didn't change their line are much more likely to change their line to provide the extra space if I'm on the right side of a WOL than if I'm in a bike lane. I'm sure I'm not drifting right. In fact, sometimes I notice in my mirror that they're not leaving me enough space - and this is almost always when I'm riding near the stripe in a BL, but sometimes when I'm too far right in a WOL - and I'll move LEFT a few inches to the stripe or something, just enough to get their attention, and, sure enough, they immediately adjust their line a foot or two to give me more space.


but if the motorist is forced to slow or alter their line, then they have extraordinary awareness of you, or feel like the must use extraordinary caution.
Well, I wouldn't call that much awareness "extraordinary". But, whatever, I'm not getting into a semantic argument. When a motorist's line will cause him to pass me too close (say closer than 1 meter), and he does not adjust his line, if that's "casual awareness", whether there is a BL stripe separating us or not, I find it to be insufficent. If his awareness of my presence is sufficent to cause him to notice his line will bring him too close to me, and so he does move left to give me more space, call it "extraordinary awareness" if you want. In those terms, I prefer motorists pass me with "extraordinary awareness" rather than "casual awareness", thank you very much.

[Helmet Head]

I was on the middle of the bike/ped stripe, and look at how much room the driver gave me!
You mean he altered his line as he passed you to give you more space? Oh my God! That's terrible! That means he had "extraordinary awareness of you, or felt like he must use extraordinary caution." What a shame. :rolleyes:

Brian - notice the car approaching from the other direction. It looks like it's almost right on the bike lane stripe. If I were in the bike lane coming the other way, I would hope that driver had "extraordinary awareness" (using your term and meaning, I believe) of my presence so that he would adjust his line before he passed me. It is my experience that that is less likely to happen in this case (BL) than if the stripe were not there and it was just a WOL, in which case the motorist would be more likely to notice me and adjust his line accordingly.

To me, that's an advantage of WOLs over BLs. But maybe you could explain what you think the advantage of BLs over WOLs is in terms of casual vs. extraordinary awareness and using this example.

Nice photo, Bek.

[Bekologist]

why all the tit for tat semantics? Can't hardly plow thru the layers of sophistry and masquarade.



Wasn't anything 'extraordinary' about it - the driver was in his lane, and I was in mine.

[Helmet Head]

why all the tit for tat semantics?
It's called coming to terms rather than engaging in a semantic argument, Bek.

You should try it some time.