To be VC means riding in bike lanes.

[chipcom]

I also had a very slow speed crash in a small patch of sand.

You had to remind me. It was like it all happened in slow motion. One second I am gliding along at about 15mph, then I hit the sand and slow down to almost a stop in the blink of an eye. Pedaling does no good, the rear wheel just spins, so I am desperately trying to unclip from the pedal as I feel the bike tilting, tilting - crap, another 'experienced cyclist' does an Arte Johnson Laugh-in trike tumble. :o

[Bekologist]

I hit some sand in the middle of a travel lane once, and went down going about 20 around a corner at night. Actually, more than once,both slow and fast speed crashes, both in main traffic lanes. I woke up in the hospital 3 days later one of those times. (Ah, the days of riding before helmets!)

Damn travel lanes!

[galen_52657]

I hit some sand in the middle of a travel lane once, and went down going about 20 around a corner at night. Actually, more than once,both slow and fast speed crashes, both in main traffic lanes. I woke up in the hospital 3 days later one of those times. (Ah, the days of riding before helmets!)

Damn travel lanes!

Maybe these incidents have something to do with your bike-lane zealotry. Your riding skills are poor and you banged your head too many times???

[LittleBigMan]

I hit some sand in the middle of a travel lane once...
Ya, mine wasn't in a bike lane, either...

[oldguy52]

"The pictures that you posted earlier in the thread look like heaven to me - what I see is wide lanes, 25MPH speed limits, no potholes, no broken glass, no cracks in the pavement, no manhole covers 6" below the pavement and no bicycle traps (sewer grates with openings that run parallel to the direction of travel), all things I see almost daily. But I digress. My point is that I wouldn't be complaining a whole lot about roads like the ones in the pictures. Yea, there's a little sand and, yea, there might be more useable pavement if there weren't a bike lane but, all in all, those roads look pretty good to me. I think I could deal with it.
"

Hear Hear ...... Well said.

It seems to me that one needs to set his bike up to deal with the conditions he should expect to see on a regular basis, Not set his bike up for ideal conditions and then complain that said conditions are less than ideal. If the conditions are less than ideal now, they probably were less than ideal when he bought the bike, or those skinny tires.

Years back I used to drool over those fancy road bike like all the other kids. Once I finally got one, I found that I now couldn't go to half the places I had gone before with my old balloon tires Schwinn, 'cause most of the places we went outside of our small town were on gravel or sand roads. The road bike was absolutely useless on these. One lesson learned the hard way ......

In the real world, one adapts to his conditions, not the other way around.

[noisebeam]

In in typical style, he includes several misconceptions and potentially dangerous advice! :rolleyes:
I don't believe it contains misconception, nor outright dangerous advice. I do think that the advice could have been better explained that when one rides as if the stripe is not there one must be very aware of same direction passing traffic.
Al

[Helmet Head]

I have only two comments.

1) The OP is a strawman, starting out with his primary premise: "Many VC advocates in this forum like to rail against bike lanes and go out of their way NOT to ride in a bike lane if one is available and safe." Al (noisebeam) already pointed out this is addressed in the Wiki article. Chipcom once again displays his inability to counter an argument without resorting to using a strawman.

2) Speaking of the Wiki article, it's not mine. While I wrote much of it, others have contributed. You can't assume, as Al and Pat incorrectly did, that every word is mine. While I wrote the original section on misconceptions, and the original version of the "VC means not riding in bike lanes" misconception, others have modified it. The not "part of the travelled way" in particular is not mine, and is based on someone else's interpretation.


Actually, I'll take back the "several part", its only one serious misconception. He clearly defines bike lanes as not "part of the travelled way", which is complete BS conceptually, and in most jurisdictions legally wrong as well. .
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have corrected it.

"VC means not riding in bicycle lanes"
Another misconception about VC -- that riding in a [[bicycle lane]] is contrary to the principles of VC -- probably stems from a misunderstanding of [[John Forester]]'s teachings about [[bicycle lane]]s. Forester has written that [[Effective Cycling]] does not train a cyclist to avoid riding in a [[bicycle lane]], but rather to choose their [[lateral]] position ''as if the [[bicycle lane]] stripe is not there''. Cyclists who end up in a [[bicycle lane]] should be extra cautious with regard to drivers who are only looking for traffic in the regular lanes, the road debris that tends to accumulate there, and avoiding crossing the solid stripe without first [[yielding]] to other [[traffic]].


My comment regarding the edit: "traveled way" language is U.S. trivia that actually has no legal applicability.

[noisebeam]

2) Speaking of the Wiki article, it's not mine. While I wrote much of it, others have contributed. You can't assume, as Al and Pat incorrectly did, that every word is mine. While I wrote the original section on misconceptions, and the original version of the "VC means not riding in bike lanes" misconception, others have modified it. The not "part of the travelled way" in particular is not mine, and is based on someone else's interpretation.



I didn't flat out assume you wrote it, I wrote:
"he has already supported (or likely written) the response to this in the VC wiki "
For the very reason that there was a possibiity the words were not all or fully yours. I also know(ok assume) that if you (strongly) disagreed with what was written in the wiki, you would not have let it stand.

Al

[sggoodri]

It seems to me that one needs to set his bike up to deal with the conditions he should expect to see on a regular basis, Not set his bike up for ideal conditions and then complain that said conditions are less than ideal. If the conditions are less than ideal now, they probably were less than ideal when he bought the bike, or those skinny tires.

In this case, I had been riding energy-efficient road bikes for 20 years when the city added bike lane striping to existing, pleasant wide-lane roads, resulting in an increase in debris, and forcing me to ride farther to the left, often left of the stripe, to safely avoid the debris, and resulted in an increase in close passes and yells from motorists.

Please try to understand the experienced road cyclist's perspective in this situation. Can we really expect the road cyclist to blame his old road bike for the new debris problem? Or isn't it more likely that he will blame the new stripe?

Just as I don't think it's constructive to marginalize cyclists for having a fear of traffic, I also don't think it's constructive to marginalize road cyclists, including commuters, for having chosen a bicycle design that optimizes their efficiency and allows them to go farther or faster with a given amount of energy. After all, motorists use the same narrow-minded arguments to marginalize cyclists for not using cars, and none of us likes to hear that.

-Steve Goodridge

[patc]

2) Speaking of the Wiki article, it's not mine. While I wrote much of it, others have contributed. You can't assume, as Al and Pat incorrectly did, that every word is mine.

Actually I didn't assume it was yours, but I did assume the words to be a quote or paraphrase from Forester. In hindsight that was one of two mistakes in that post. Long day.


My comment regarding the edit: "traveled way" language is U.S. trivia that actually has no legal applicability.

It's far from trivia, wording like this wins political debates. Even someone who keeps a sharp eye out for it can easily be fooled and taken along for the ride.

[patc]

Why did you remove the quotes, made no effort to indictate I was quoting the wiki with the result to make it look like I wrote it? Can you please correct. After you do I'll erase this post. Thanks.

It's called messing up after a long day, sorry! All references to you have been removed.


Anyway, I don't believe it contains misconception, nor outright dangerous advice.

Something we strongly disagree on! Very, very strongly. That's ok, we have disagreed before, I still like you
;)

[noisebeam]

Something we strongly disagree on! Very, very strongly. That's ok, we have disagreed before, I still like you
;)

I didn't read traveled way as a legal definition, so I understand that disagreement. But what it the strong disagreement otherwise?
-cyclists merging left to avoid debris
-signal and yield before merging

What is the problem?

Al

[patc]

Post #36 still looks the same.

WTF? Maybe I clicked "preview" instead of submit. Good thing I'm taking the day off, I would hate to see how business correspondence would turn out at this rate. (3 typos corrected in preceding sentence!)

I didn't read traveled way as a legal definition, so I understand that disagreement. But what it the strong disagreement otherwise?
-cyclists merging left to avoid debris
-signal and yield before merging

What is the problem?

Read my post #40. I don't see much point in re-phrasing it, and if I tried today it would probably come out worse.

[noisebeam]

Read my post #40. I don't see much point in re-phrasing it, and if I tried today it would probably come out worse.
OK I read #40 again, so its not a big disagrement. 'pretenting the line isn't there' to me means don't let the line dicate where one rides on the roadway, but it still means one must signal and yield to cross the line.
As to the usage of 'traveled way' - No disagreement here, BL is traveled way for me, but its usage didn't bother me in the wiki quote as it seemed more political than practical and I only care about the practical of BL vs. WOL.

Thanks for fixing post #36, we all have rough days sometimes.

Al

[genec]

Such behavior is not vehicular. Motor vehicles are expected to drive within the lines, not define their own lines. If you are in a marked lane, it's perfectly acceptable to change lanes when the need arises, but it is NOT acceptable to disregard the lane markings as if they do not exist. If riding as if the stripe is not there is acceptable to cyclists, then the same goes for motor vehicles, meaning they can straddle the lines into the adjacent lanes, including the bike lane. I don't think any of us would subscribe to such chaos. Would you?


Well on one hand I tend to agree with your overall premise... as indeed staying between the lines does make both us and motorists more predictable.

On the other hand I also am a realist and know that some BL are really poorly designed... and in the case of those "less then perfect" designs, I simply do ignore the stripes... just as I do when driving and enter a construction zone, or a congested area on the freeway where the traffic situations just do not allow for use of the lines (merging areas are prone to this).

Yes, ideally the road engineers have designed the roads and merges such that we should flow well... but reality is that sometimes one simply has to think on their own.

Now along with all the above for "excuses," may I also point out that I did say in my original reply that bit was the only "poor advice..."


He say to ride as if the strip is not there... OK, so what. That is probably the only poor advice.

[genec]

It seems to me that one needs to set his bike up to deal with the conditions he should expect to see on a regular basis, Not set his bike up for ideal conditions and then complain that said conditions are less than ideal. If the conditions are less than ideal now, they probably were less than ideal when he bought the bike, or those skinny tires.

Years back I used to drool over those fancy road bike like all the other kids. Once I finally got one, I found that I now couldn't go to half the places I had gone before with my old balloon tires Schwinn, 'cause most of the places we went outside of our small town were on gravel or sand roads. The road bike was absolutely useless on these. One lesson learned the hard way ......

In the real world, one adapts to his conditions, not the other way around.

I fully agree... which is why my commuting bike has fat tires (to meet various road conditions), flat bars (to allow me better visibility), thumb shifters (keeping my hands on the bars), multiple lights, mirrors, and fenders... It is a real world bike. It also has racks and a triple chain ring to allow me to carry real world loads.

I do also own a "sports bike" with drop bars, downtube shifters, and very skinny tires. I don't commute with it, but it is still a blast to ride in the proper places.

[Roody]

Why should he have to cite studies if the other guy doesn't... just puts up his own premise and assumptions and then comes to his own wild conclusions.
It doesn't seem fair to demand studies from somebody else but exempt yourself from the same requirement.

[Roody]

Such behavior is not vehicular. Motor vehicles are expected to drive within the lines, not define their own lines. If you are in a marked lane, it's perfectly acceptable to change lanes when the need arises, but it is NOT acceptable to disregard the lane markings as if they do not exist. If riding as if the stripe is not there is acceptable to cyclists, then the same goes for motor vehicles, meaning they can straddle the lines into the adjacent lanes, including the bike lane. I don't think any of us would subscribe to such chaos. Would you?
Don't we often see cars passing us by partially straddling the lane? this seems to expedite traffic flow without endangering anybody. Or do you think cagers should always have to leave the lane completely to overtake a bike?

[genec]

It doesn't seem fair to demand studies from somebody else but exempt yourself from the same requirement.


Exactly... if one cites studies, fine, but if someone is just shooting from the hip, then there shouldn't be a demand by that person for others to provide studies.

By the same token, if a study is provided, then a debator cannot refute that study as not fitting their criteria or standard simply because they deny the conclusions of the study. Counter studies must be provided, not opinions.

For instance (and being quite blunt here), say a city did a study of bike lane designs, and concluded that some bike lanes are better than others, and that ridership was promoted by their use... should the results of that study be denied simply because a self proclaimed expert such as John Forester says that all bike lanes are crap... without providing any study results himself?

[galen_52657]

It's true that it is not wise to commute on high-pressure light weight racing tires and tubes.

However, that does not mean that cyclist should be relegated to riding through debris. You never know what is hiding under that sand or pile of leaves! Even when sporting 700cx38 touring tires with tuffys installed I would refrain from riding over stuff that could hide other stuff. Potholes - no problem!

[Roody]

Exactly... if one cites studies, fine, but if someone is just shooting from the hip, then there shouldn't be a demand by that person for others to provide studies.

By the same token, if a study is provided, then a debator cannot refute that study as not fitting their criteria or standard simply because they deny the conclusions of the study. Counter studies must be provided, not opinions.

For instance (and being quite blunt here), say a city did a study of bike lane designs, and concluded that some bike lanes are better than others, and that ridership was promoted by their use... should the results of that study be denied simply because a self proclaimed expert such as John Forester says that all bike lanes are crap... without providing any study results himself?
Well, I still think it's unfair, but I don't have any studies to prove it. :) Actually, since I'm the only one who thought this, I'm probaly wrong.

[CB HI]

Exactly... if one cites studies, fine, but if someone is just shooting from the hip, then there shouldn't be a demand by that person for others to provide studies.

By the same token, if a study is provided, then a debator cannot refute that study as not fitting their criteria or standard simply because they deny the conclusions of the study. Counter studies must be provided, not opinions.

For instance (and being quite blunt here), say a city did a study of bike lane designs, and concluded that some bike lanes are better than others, and that ridership was promoted by their use... should the results of that study be denied simply because a self proclaimed expert such as John Forester says that all bike lanes are crap... without providing any study results himself?

So, if I take a look at 2 roads in my city without bike lanes and figure out which road most cyclist ride on. I then paint a bike lane on the low cyclist volume road. I then commision a study which proves that cyclist do not like bike lanes because in my study I took 2 roads and most of the cyclist stayed on the road without the bike lane. You of course would simply accept my results and not complain about how I did my study; RIGHT.

[CB HI]

Now take a look at most bike lane studies. The bike lane was put on the road that most cyclist traveled on before the bike lane. A bike lane study was then performed which ignred this fact, and OH MY, the city found most cyclist perferred bike lanes.

That seems to be the standard methodology of most bike lane studies.

[genec]

Now take a look at most bike lane studies. The bike lane was put on the road that most cyclist traveled on before the bike lane. A bike lane study was then performed which ignred this fact, and OH MY, the city found most cyclist perferred bike lanes.

That seems to be the standard methodology of most bike lane studies.

So obviously all bike lane studies are biased and really mean nothing. Must be some sort of bike lane paint manufactures conspiracy eh?

How do they get the cameras to show the same data too... Such as the study that looked at lanes verses sharrows verses the "house markings." Do you think they move the cameras slightly to show motor vehicle traffic appearing to be different average distances from the cyclists?


Must be the answer.... RIGHT?

[CB HI]

So obviously all bike lane studies are biased and really mean nothing. Must be some sort of bike lane paint manufactures conspiracy eh?

How do they get the cameras to show the same data too... Such as the study that looked at lanes verses sharrows verses the "house markings." Do you think they move the cameras slightly to show motor vehicle traffic appearing to be different average distances from the cyclists?


Must be the answer.... RIGHT?
Funny, I though that study was to determine average distances from cyclist rather than "if bike lanes created more cyclist". Apples vs oranges my friend.

Please also read the word "most" in my post. :rolleyes:

[genec]

Funny, I though that study was to determine average distances from cyclist rather than "if bike lanes created more cyclist". Apples vs oranges my friend.

Please also read the word "most" in my post. :rolleyes:

Funny, I never really said what the studies were for, just that certain self proclaimed experts seem to deny any data from any of them... my example mentioned "more cyclists," but that was only an example.

The self proclaimed expert never offers any counter studies and only has his own somewhat skewed old data to fall back on. Not like traffic patterns have changed much since his book was written some 30 years ago, eh?


:rolleyes: back to ya.

[Bekologist]

wow, no real groundbreaking stuff in this thread,

except some bicyclists are riding under the assumption you 'wear black tie to the barnyard', and that isn't the case. Steve, I'm glad you think you should be able to ride a race bike with skinny tires anywhere you want, but drivers don't get ultra smooth pavement, or no cracks or potholes either. To ride in your real world, you should ride a real world bike.

All this fantasy world riding stuff is kind of entertaining in A&S sometimes. Like armchair quarterbikers telling everyone to ride down the middle of a travel lane when there is 20 feet of good pavement to the right to ride on....

love this wacky, wacky stuff.

Again, for those doubting thomases out there,

bike lanes are part of vehicular cycling.

can we all accept that, and move on? no conditions, no caveats. Just a basic premise.

bike lanes are part of vehicular cycling.

[LCI_Brian]

In the US, the roadways are seperated into lanes and vehicles are expected to travel within those lanes. It's not acceptable to straddle the lane stripe and the it should only be crossed when merging into another lane, making a turn, passing, or avoiding an obstacle.
Actually, in California, lane splitting is allowed: http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html

Given that, if the rightmost straight through lane and a right turn only lane were both stacked up with a line of cars, would you consider it vehicular or non-vehicular to filter forward between the two rows of cars?


In some cases, special lanes are designated for special uses, car pool lanes being one example, truck lanes being another, and yes, our own favorite bike lanes being another. When a bike lane is present, the rules of the road dictate that cyclists use them, unless a reason exists not to - obstacles or other unsafe conditions, passing, merging to another lane to make a turn, etc. Note that this does NOT mean that bicycles are limited to bike lanes only, it merely means that if one is present and there is not a good reason not to use it, the bike lane should be used.
There's only about six states that require bike lane use when one is present. So in the states that do not require bike lane use, being in the bike lane or in the right most travel lane is legal ... but is one or both of these vehicular?


Conclusion: Riding in a bike lane when one is available and safe to use is following the vehicular rules of the road.
No disagreement there.

But it would be helpful to have a discussion on "rules" versus "laws". I use rules to mean the general principles that traffic follows, such as speed positioning (slower traffic on the right) between intersections and destination positioning at intersections. I use laws to mean how the general traffic rules are encoded into statutes.

The reason I make the distinction between rules and laws is that someone could come up with a bad law, such as requiring a bicyclist to use a bike lane or shoulder without exception, which would be in conflict with traffic rules. So if I were to leave the bike lane to pass a slower cyclist or to merge left to prepare for a left turn, that could still be considered vehicular even if it is against the law.

[Bekologist]

i'm down with lane splitting as vehicular. Screw getting stuck in a line of stopped traffic. Cars spilt the lane with bikes all the time bikes can split lanes when it's safe to the bicyclist, and be vehicular for sure.

But a bike lane generally makes that rather dangerous technique less necessary.

[Helmet Head]

i'm down with lane splitting as vehicular. Screw getting stuck in a line of stopped traffic. Cars spilt the lane with bikes all the time bikes can split lanes when it's safe to the bicyclist, and be vehicular for sure.

But a bike lane generally makes that rather dangerous technique less necessary.
Behold the false sense of security problem associated with bike lane stripes.

[Bekologist]

i see none of that. No false security. Are ya bonkers?

Bike lanes let bikes pass congested traffic more easily and more safely than splitting lanes with traffic.

[Helmet Head]

The false sense of security stems from your belief that a stripe of paint allows cyclists to pass congested traffic "more safely" (#81); that doing so without the paint is a "rather dangerous technique" (#79) - implying that with the stripe it is not a "rather dangerous technique".


I see none of that
No worries. I don't think you're capable of seeing it.

[Helmet Head]

It's only "faster" if you're enticed by the bike lane stripe to ride faster passing congested traffic on the right, and, thus, to sacrifice safety. If you think the stripe is going to remind motorists to look for you before they turn into or across the stripe, making it safe for you to ride faster, you might be right, some of the time. The problem (crash, injury, death) happens the one time you're wrong.

It might look safer, but only to one who falls prey to the false sense of security of the bike lane.

[Bekologist]

No, Helmet, you're wrong.

Splitting lanes of stopped traffic IS more dangerous than using a bike lane to bypass the same type of stopped traffic.

How incredibly naive are you about biking, buddy? You are completely clueless.

[Helmet Head]

No, Helmet, you're wrong.

Splitting lanes of stopped traffic IS more dangerous than using a bike lane to bypass the same type of stopped traffic.

How incredibly naive are you about biking, buddy? You are completely clueless.
Behold the false sense of security problem associated with bike lane stripes.

[Bekologist]

I can't believe any bicyclist would say that splitting traffic is safer than a bike lane on the same road.
This is wild and wacky stuff, Helmet Head.

I don't know where you get your material, Helmet. You're loony. And you clearly don't ride much if you think splitting lanes of stopped traffic is in any stretch of reality safer than riding alongside it in a bike lane.


A bike lane is safer AND faster than splitting lanes in congested traffic.

[Helmet Head]

Bek, nobody said that splitting traffic is safer than a bike lane.

I see that you're going to have to learn to read with reasonable comprehension, and to think with clarity, before you will be able to start learning how to improve your traffic cycling skills.

But I know you can do it, if you try.

[Bekologist]

okay, jackstraw,

here's my statement:

riding in a bike lane past congested traffic is both faster AND safer than splitting lanes without a bike lane.

[Helmet Head]

okay, jackstraw,

here's my statement:

riding in a bike lane past congested traffic is both faster AND safer than splitting lanes without a bike lane. A properly laid bike lane provides safe, fast accomodation past congested traffic and delivers bicyclists to their destination more safely and faster than riding directly with congested traffic.

And it is vehicular bicycling.

safer, faster, vehicular. In the bike lane past the traffic.
And I say, for the 3rd and final time: Behold the false sense of security problem associated with bike lane stripes..

[Bekologist]

what ARE you talking about???????


Safer, Faster.

Simple Stuff.

Are you drunk?

[Jalopy]

what ARE you talking about???????


Safer, Faster.

Simple Stuff.

Are you drunk?
To be fair, your first post on the subject (#79) suggests that splitting lanes is dangerous while splitting while in a bike lane is not. It is clear from your following posts that you simply meant splitting is more dangerous than being in a bike lane (something I'm sure most of us would agree with) but HH is focusing on #79.

Jalopy

[CommuterRun]

Splitting lanes is dangerous. Passing slower, or stopped, motor vehicles on the right, such as in a bike lane, WOL, or paved shoulder is also dangerous. Bike lanes do nothing to mitigate this danger.

This doesn't mean no one should ever do these things. Just proceed with caution.

[LittleBigMan]

Again, for those doubting thomases out there,

bike lanes are part of vehicular cycling.

can we all accept that, and move on? no conditions, no caveats. Just a basic premise.

bike lanes are part of vehicular cycling.
Exactly. And as such, they should be free of debris. There is nothing unusual about avoiding debris, in a bike lane or anywhere else.

The odd thing is that when bike lanes are mentioned as having too much debris, instead of rallying to insist bike lanes be debris-free, too often they are defended like an over-protective parent does a child. Suddenly, common sense is abandoned and people who insist on clean pavement are criticized as unrealistic.

On the other side, bike lane opponents too often cite the debris problem as a reason not to create bike lanes, instead of admitting the obvious solution of maintaining them properly.

Why is it we hold our positions even against logic? There is plenty of room for compromise.

[galen_52657]

Bek, nobody said that splitting traffic is safer than a bike lane.

I see that you're going to have to learn to read with reasonable comprehension, and to think with clarity, before you will be able to start learning how to improve your traffic cycling skills.

But I know you can do it, if you try.

Helmet: He fell and hit his head twice...give him a break will ya?

[galen_52657]

Exactly. And as such, they should be free of debris. There is nothing unusual about avoiding debris, in a bike lane or anywhere else.

The odd thing is that when bike lanes are mentioned as having too much debris, instead of rallying to insist bike lanes be debris-free, too often they are defended like an over-protective parent does a child. Suddenly, common sense is abandoned and people who insist on clean pavement are criticized as unrealistic.

On the other side, bike lane opponents too often cite the debris problem as a reason not to create bike lanes, instead of admitting the obvious solution of maintaining them properly.

Why is it we hold our positions even against logic? There is plenty of room for compromise.

You seem to be operating under the false assumption that municipalities clean anything ever.....

[Bekologist]

actually, Galen, i've crashed a lot more than twice in 3 and a half decades of riding, you jackstraw. What do head injuries have to do with my bike riding style? nothing.

but I'm not the one with the faulty logic about splitting lanes of congested traffic.
Helmet Head's statements make it sound like he has never ridden a bike in traffic OR split lanes leading up to a light. I can understand, if you've never actually split lanes, it might sound just as easy, fast, and safe as using a dedicated travel lane dedicated to bicyclists, but in reality, most cyclists would agree splitting lanes is generally slower and more dangerous.

[galen_52657]

What do head injuries have to do with my bike riding style? nothing.

The head injuries have nothing to do with your riding style. They may in fact have something to do with your riding ability. Head injuries may very well have a lot to do with your mental acuity (or lack thereof), inability to read and understand logical arguments, and your militant, emotional and irrational stand regarding bike lanes and their impact on cyclist's safety.

[Bekologist]

hmmm....caveman biker think.... :D

my point of view in this thread is:

bike lanes are part of vehicular cyling

and since splitting lanes was brought up, that in congested traffic,

"splitting the lane" as bicyclists commonly refer to it, is generally more dangerous than using a bike lane enabled roadway to move up alongside congested traffic. but its still vehicular if no bike lane is available.

If this is a result of my diminshed mental faculties, I'll have to talk to my doctor. Thanks for your concern about my health, Galen. :)

[galen_52657]

Thanks for your concern about my health, Galen. :)

No problem Bekologists. Consider it my personal 'advocacy and safety' on your behalf. It's the least I can do.

[noisebeam]

Would it be VC to ride in this BL concept?
http://www.glendaleaz.com/transportation/majorprojects-59thave.cfm
"The new roadway will feature a paved shoulder that will provide separation between the travel lane and the bike lane, as well as provide an area for emergency stops and to enable police officers to conduct traffic enforcement."

Is the BL no longer a travel lane since it is separated by a shoulder?

Al