To be VC means riding in bike lanes.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Funny how those guys seem to be able to ride check-to-jowl at breakneck pace through mud and over wet cobbles in the rain on 23c some place in the north of France. Then there is that multi-day contest in Italy over gravel roads a 9000' in the snow...also on 23c tires...

Maybe it's the rider's ability...hmmmmmm
The above comment is in the same league of relevance with the comment about the equipment choices of the other "pros" - the messengers.

Hmmm yourself. How representative is the cycling world and everyday cycling requirements of "those guys" of anything being discussed on the A&S Forum? Rider's ability; my donkey!

[duane041]

you don't have to be so defensive about your poor choice of tires, Sggodri.....

Haven't you ever heard the phrase "the right tool for the job."?
I don't take a 23c bike off road, and I wouldn't commute on one either.

Bike lane stripes or not, a skinny tired road bike isn't well suited for much except racing and getting flats. Diane said it well just above, "Remind me never to purchase anything so useless."

Oh, they're good for making you avoid minimal road grit and pine needles, and giving ill-prepared cyclists on the wrong equipment a poor excuse to complain about road conditions. I don't think bike lanes are your problem, Sgoodri, it might be your tires!
I commute all spring, summer and fall on 25's. (winter in chicago has too much salt on the roads for me to ride and therefore ruin my bikes). I haven't had a problem yet, and what I saw pictured in those photos doesn't seem to me to be a problem. It's a light dusting of sand and some other weird stuff. I ride through that all the time, as I have about a 4 inch shoulder to ride in. It's got bottles, and wrappers, and rocks, sometimes an errant squirrel or shoe that I don't expect. I am constantly scanning what's up ahead, and plan in advance. If I see a pile of ****, I slow down, and just hold the bars straight ahead and go. I ride in mostly suburban areas, with many long, straight, flat (i.e. boring) roads. I have never even seen a bike lane, let alone ridden in one. Must be nice, even if it is 1/2 full of garbage.
Also, although I understand Bek's argument, I don't know for sure if 32's pumped up to 90 psi will give you a much larger contact patch than 25's pumped to 100 psi. I think the difference would be minimal, but I have been wrong many times before.

[Helmet Head]

Whether I'm riding my 700x23s or my mountain bike knobbies, riding through the rubble and staying up right is not the issue.

The issues are:

flats. the mountain bike tires seem just as susceptible to glass and staple-particle (for example) punctures as 23s.
braking. If you suddenly have to brake, regardless of type of tires/equipment being used, being on pavement covered in sand, pine needles etc greatly increases stopping distance, especially if the slope is downhill.


If you think the problem with debris accumulation in bike lanes can be solved with equipment, you don't understand the problem.

[chipcom]

If you think the problem with debris accumulation in bike lanes can be solved with equipment, you don't understand the problem.

Well in all fairness it can be solved with equipment - broom, shovel, street sweeper, etc. :D

[buzzman]

The marvels of modern technology (the airplane) swept me on a work related tour of the US for the past two weeks and I took my one day off, which was in San Francisco, to rent a good quality road bike and do a fast 50 miler that took me through downtown, past the Presidio over the bridge to Sausalito, through Tiburon, Mill Valley, (the Paradise Loop?). I managed to link up with a good strong local rider who led me through bike paths, bike lanes, WOL's, and the variety of options available to many of you California cyclists.

Now, having tried on another man's mocassin's- uh, cycling shoes- (and this is by no means my first time riding in this area but it's been a while) definitely gives one a new perspective. Absolutely- riding in bike lanes is VC. I have to say some of you Californians doth protest too much. Please come ride with me in Boston and much of New England through the snow and the ice on narrow, bumpy, pothole strewn roads (we get ice, which kills pavement). We have no bicycle lanes to speak of in comparison and we would welcome the smooth pavement with a touch of sand and a few pinecones that I see in these photos compared to 90% of our regular road surfaces- no matter what time of year. We are dodging serious road hazards as a matter of course here in the Northeast and really fight for every inch of space on the road in comparison to any of those roads, streets, BL's, BP's or MUP's that I rode on in the San Francisco area.

The fact that there were times where I actually had the option of a very wide MUP by the side of a road that also contained a bike lane on a smooth road with a nice wide lane blew my mind and I took advantage of every one of those options and thought they were all great. It's hard in Boston to maintain speed in city traffic due to pavement conditions. It was strange to ride around with nary a pot hole or frostheave. Though the facilities I rode on could be arguably improved the comparison to riding in a city like Boston without them is almost laughable. BTW, I met and saw some terrific riders that day, all of whom rode strong, fast and competently using all the facilities available in what I would describe as a very VC manner. I also managed to get down to Santa Barbara and, though I had no time to ride there, was most impressed with the plethora of bike facilities.

[sbhikes]

^^^I guess that's why making blanket statements that something is ALWAYS bad or ALWAYS good isn't such a good thing to do. There really are regional differences.

[Bekologist]

Yes, I think it is abundantly clear, even a maxim, that

a vehicular cyclist will use and take advantage of a well placed bike lane.

[Helmet Head]

Yes, I think it is abundantly clear, even a maxim, that

a vehicular cyclist will use and take advantage of a well placed bike lane.
Duh.

[Bekologist]

woah. Did everyone catch that?

[Helmet Head]

Hopefully everyone "caught that" when I said it back in #57. :rolleyes:

BFD

[Bekologist]

Naw, you were way too obtuse in post #57, Serge.

I don't know if the rest of the A&S regulars in here caught this, but

Helmet Head, the most vocal critic of using bicycle facilities, just agreed with the statement

"a vehicular cyclist will use and take advantage of a well placed bike lane."

So, even though this contradicts Helmet's primary message of bike lane 'dangers',

maybe there is hope for Helmet Head yet.

Let's not go into debate on these photos because that's already been done, each scenario has it's own A&S puzzler if anyone wants to dissect these traffic accomodations, but here's a couple of bike lanes recently NOT endorsed by Helmet Head in some A&S puzzlers. I see Helmet as being a little confused on the issue.

[sbhikes]

Bek, I believe that HH probably uses bike lanes as much as anybody, and that he'd probably use those in your two pictures.

It's just that he wants to create a belief that only inferior cyclists, wimpy, fraidy-cat, uneducated, incompetent, impotent cyclists use bike lanes. With that belief in place he can create an aura of manly, super-human power about him and lord it over everybody else.

And it works, too because while he's giggling happily down the bike lane, he knows the rest of us are trying his silly techniques, getting run off the road, and now feeling like the powerless wimps he wants us to feel like back in the bike lane. It's a ploy.

[patc]

And it works, too because while he's giggling happily down the bike lane, he knows the rest of us are trying his silly techniques, getting run off the road, and now feeling like the powerless wimps he wants us to feel like back in the bike lane. It's a ploy.

Don't worry, he'll find a way of twisting out of that simple statement next time he wants to paint bike lanes as "death traps". He's just here to disrupt the forums, and unfortunately he's able to get away with it.

[Helmet Head]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? So many, that I created a wiki page from which I can just copy/paste.

Common Misconceptions About VC
...
"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 lanes. 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 people who look for vehicles only in the traffic lanes, the road debris that tends to accumulate there, and avoiding crossing the solid stripe without first yielding to other traffic.

VC misconceptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling#.22VC_means_not_riding_in_bicycle_lanes.22)

I do ride in well-designed/well-placed bike lanes. But, when I do, I am "extra cautious with regard to people who look for vehicles only in the traffic lanes, the road debris that tends to accumulate there, and avoiding crossing the solid stripe without first yielding to other traffic." That's what I call, "use and take advantage of a well placed bike lane."

[Brian Ratliff]

So HH, are you saying that you volunarily ride in death traps? (your characterization from the Sherwood bicycle accident thread) I would never do such a thing. Why would you? You take the opposite stance with door zones. Why is this? Could it be that while door zones are an actual death trap, bike lanes might not be such a threat?

You set yourself up when you resort to retoric. Don't complain when people call you on it. We are simply pointing out that your own recent recommendations and illustrations of your own riding style belie your own hard line message that you keep pounding here on this forum. If bike lanes were really as dangerous as you and some others portray, it stands to reason that you yourself would avoid them and the roads where they reside.

[patc]

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Until you get as tired of repeating yourself as we are of you?

[Helmet Head]

So HH, are you saying that you volunarily ride in death traps? (your characterization from the Sherwood bicycle accident thread) I would never do such a thing. Why would you? You take the opposite stance with door zones. Why is this? Could it be that while door zones are an actual death trap, bike lanes might not be such a threat?

You set yourself up when you resort to retoric. Don't complain when people call you on it. We are simply pointing out that your own recent recommendations and illustrations of your own riding style belie your own hard line message that you keep pounding here on this forum. If bike lanes were really as dangerous as you and some others portray, it stands to reason that you yourself would avoid them and the roads where they reside.
Actually, I do sometimes ride in door zones too (but only when going at near ped speeds and being extra vigilant...).

The "death trap" rhetoric is meant to counter the seductively dangerous false "out of the way of cars" safety aura of door zones and bike lanes. I would think that is obvious, especially to someone with your intelligence.

If you or anyone else read more into what I say than what I actually say, that's on you. But it also explains why you can never seem to find an actual quote of mine consistent with what you say I write.

My main complaints about bike lanes have nothing to do with how they affect me directly: they have to do with how they affect others who don't know better, particularly motorists, law enforcement, and cyclists who are not aware of the dangers of bike lanes. To those cyclists, they are death traps. To those of us who understand their dangers, they're not that dangerous (just like poisons, knives and matches are not nearly as dangerous to adults as they are to children). Similarly, to those of us who understand their dangers, we are also aware of their impotence.

Bike lanes are dangerous death traps to those cyclists who don't understand and appreciate their dangers, and they are impotent stripes that cause more problems than they solve for those cyclists who do understand and appreciate their dangers. What's the up side?

[Bekologist]

ummm, well placed bike lanes provide bicycles a preferential lane of travel on congested roadways and allow safe, fast and efficient travel for bicyclists.

Helmet Head's death trap mischaracterization is so melodramatic, it reeks of dishonesty.

[Helmet Head]

Bike lanes are dangerous death traps to those cyclists who don't understand and appreciate their dangers, and they are impotent stripes that cause more problems than they solve for those cyclists who do understand and appreciate their dangers. What's the up side?

ummm, well placed bike lanes provide bicycles a preferential lane of travel on congested roadways and allow safe, fast and efficient travel for bicyclists.

Helmet Head's death trap mischaracterization is so melodramatic, it reeks of dishonesty.
The preferential lane of travel provided by well placed bike lanes is a problem that bike lanes solve, but this is a relatively minor problem, and is countered by the plethora of problems that these same "well placed" bike lanes (not to mention the "ill-placed" ones) cause for cyclists, not the least of which is to entice cyclists to pass congested traffic on the right too quickly.

[Brian Ratliff]

Bike lanes are dangerous death traps to those cyclists who don't understand and appreciate their dangers, and they are impotent stripes that cause more problems than they solve for those cyclists who do understand and appreciate their dangers. What's the up side?

We've been through this already. Here is an example of one of your resets, when you cannot think of any more arguments, so you start the game over. Reread our many discussions, particularly in the Bike Lane thread to find my answer to your assertion.

At least you've acknowledged that the "death trap" terminology is simply retoric.

[TarmacRider]

Not being contrary or anything, but I'd ride in those bike lanes.

In NE Ohio we have some bike lanes, a fair amount of them are through our metro park areas and comparing your pics to what our lanes look like, those look great. Our winters tear up the roads.

I agree if the are available use them, but only if they are safe and you feel safe riding in them. Obviously what I consider safe another rider may not. It's too easy to say it's a "black and white" "clear cut definition of the law" issue, pot holes, broken glass and some other larger debris are what I consider dangerous/unsafe, while someone else might consider twigs and pine cones unsafe.

What VC should really come down to is riding safely and obeying the laws, all too often I see cyclist blow through stop signs use improper signalling and then get all pissy when a car doesn't use a signal; IMO we can't complain when we do the same stuff.




http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/debris3.jpg

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/debris10.jpg

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/debris7.jpg[/QUOTE]

[Helmet Head]

Bike lanes are dangerous death traps to those cyclists who don't understand and appreciate their dangers, and they are impotent stripes that cause more problems than they solve for those cyclists who do understand and appreciate their dangers. What's the up side?

We've been through this already.
No, we haven't. All you've ever done is rationalized some theoretical advantages of bike lanes, as if that counters my main argument (summarized above). What you keep missing is that my argument does not depend on the assertion that bike lanes have no disadvantages. So pontificating about how bike lane stripes make cyclists more predictable (so what?), and that's an advantage, is not even a refutation of the argument, much less an effective one. In order to counter my argument, you have to address the problems that bike lanes cause, which you haven't done, other than pointing out that many (if not all) of them are "indirect", as if that somehow make them less significant.


Here is an example of one of your resets, when you cannot think of any more arguments, so you start the game over.
I don't need to think of a new argument. My original one stands unrefuted: bike lanes cause many more significant problem for cyclists than they solve.


Reread our many discussions, particularly in the Bike Lane thread to find my answer to your assertion.
It's not there. My argument is hardly addressed, much less refuted.


At least you've acknowledged that the "death trap" terminology is simply retoric.
What do you mean by simply rhetoric? I acknowledge that it is language designed to have a persuasive impact on an audience, that makes it rhetoric. So what? It's honest and sincere rhetoric.

[Fred Smedley]

You guys crack me up, bike lanes, no bike lanes I don't really care just give me something other than a narrow two lane highway with speed limit set above 35 and I'll work it out.

[Brian Ratliff]

No, we haven't. All you've ever done is rationalized some theoretical advantages of bike lanes, as if that counters my main argument (summarized above). What you keep missing is that my argument does not depend on the assertion that bike lanes have no disadvantages. So pontificating about how bike lane stripes make cyclists more predictable (so what?), and that's an advantage, is not even a refutation of the argument, much less an effective one. In order to counter my argument, you have to address the problems that bike lanes cause, which you haven't done, other than pointing out that many (if not all) of them are "indirect", as if that somehow make them less significant.

Another example of how you keep your argument alive. We've discuss this issue frequently. You call my arguments "rationalizations", "pontificating", and "theoretical." And that's just in the above paragraph. These are the last words I waste on this discussion.

I don't need to think of a new argument. My original one stands unrefuted: bike lanes cause many more significant problem for cyclists than they solve.

There is no refuting an assertion to the asserter. If the asserter needs to resort to assertion to make the point, then nothing is going to change his mind. I've made arguments and have stated my opinion. Nothing more or less than what you have done and what you continue to do.

It's not there. My argument is hardly addressed, much less refuted.

Of course it isn't in your eyes, but then, you are hardly impartial.

What do you mean by simply rhetoric? I acknowledge that it is language designed to have a persuasive impact on an audience, that makes it rhetoric. So what? It's honest and sincere rhetoric.

It's just words. Nothing more, nothing less. And too many of them have been said.

[genec]

The preferential lane of travel provided by well placed bike lanes is a problem that bike lanes solve, but this is a relatively minor problem, and is countered by the plethora of problems that these same "well placed" bike lanes (not to mention the "ill-placed" ones) cause for cyclists, not the least of which is to entice cyclists to pass congested traffic on the right too quickly.

So here you down weighted the "solution" and upweighted the "problems."

This is the very heart of the whole debate.

Those that like bike lanes, like them because of the perceived "strengths" those riders feel toward bike lanes.

Those that do not like bike lanes dislike them because of the perceived weakness they feel toward Bike Lanes.

This is like the blind men looking at the elephant... everyone "sees" what they want to see... and insists that they are right.

Your "weaknesses" have no more or less validity than Brians "strengths."

Brian however has provided an argument based on the current situation of sustaining traffic flow... which you acknowledge. I hate to say it, but some of your arguments are based on emotion ("segregation" per se). Other minuses are indeed factual... "door zone," "cleanliness," and "intersections."

But the flip side is that you don't provide a sustainable solution to cyclists riding on 55MPH+ roads. (or anything over 35MPH as far as that goes). Lane shareing works, now, but will it work as roads get faster and more congested, and as more cyclists appear on the scene?

So ultimately, a line item by line item examination should be done to compare the honest pluses and minuses... without the emotional tags.

[Helmet Head]

I've made arguments and have stated my opinion. Nothing more or less than what you have done and what you continue to do.

Brian, you have provided arguments, sure enough. But they have not addressed my argument (bike lanes create more problems for cyclists than they solve).

I have addressed, and refuted, all of your arguments.

In particular, you have never even made an assertion that countered my argument, which would be something like, "bike lanes solve more significant problems for cyclists than they create", much less provided an argument as a basis for such an assertion.

[Brian Ratliff]

So pontificating about how bike lane stripes make cyclists more predictable (so what?)

In order to counter my argument, you have to address the problems that bike lanes cause, which you haven't done, other than pointing out that many (if not all) of them are "indirect", as if that somehow make them less significant.

Apparently you do the same. As if my role in all this is to simply counter your arguments, and you get a free pass from responding to mine...

[Helmet Head]

So here you down weighted the "solution" and upweighted the "problems."

Well, duh. But I've done so in great detail in countless posts; most stand unrefuted.


This is the very heart of the whole debate.
Indeed.


Those that like bike lanes, like them because of the perceived "strengths" those riders feel toward bike lanes.
And because they are unaware, or are unaware of the significance of, the problems they cause.


Those that do not like bike lanes dislike them because of the perceived weakness they feel toward Bike Lanes.
Not exactly. Most of us who dislike bike lanes weight the pros and cons, and see that the cons are much heavier.


This is like the blind men looking at the elephant... everyone "sees" what they want to see... and insists that they are right.
Your analogy would apply if both sides were blind to the other side. But in this case, the anti-bike lane side has shown repeatedly that we are not blind to the alleged advantages of bike lanes. We take them into account. It's the defenders who are blind, for they cannot even acknowledge, much less address and account for the bike lane disadvantages.


Your "weaknesses" have no more or less validity than Brians "strengths."
Indeed, they are valid. So we must weight them against each other, not just ignore the other side...


Brian however has provided an argument based on the current situation of sustaining traffic flow... which you acknowledge.
I acknowledge that Brian has identified an advantage of bike lanes. That's seeing his side. And this is me seeing his side. What he hasn't done is acknowledge seeing my side. He dismissed my list of disadvantages as being "indirect", as if that made them any less significant.


I hate to say it, but some of your arguments are based on emotion ("segregation" per se).
Oh, yeah, I'm just making up the existence of the mentality that "cyclists belong in bike lanes (and not outside of bike lanes)" that the mere existence of bike lanes fosters.


Other minuses are indeed factual... "door zone," "cleanliness," and "intersections."
That's a start.


But the flip side is that you don't provide a sustainable solution to cyclists riding on 55MPH+ roads. (or anything over 35MPH as far as that goes).
Using the full lane and WOLs.


Lane shareing works, now, but will it work as roads get faster and more congested, and as more cyclists appear on the scene?
Yes.


So ultimately, a line item by line item examination should be done to compare the honest pluses and minuses... without the emotional tags.
Bingo. This is exactly my point. This is what we anti-bike laners have done in order to reach our position. And this is what bike lane apologists like Brian refuse to do.

[genec]

Not exactly. Most of us who dislike bike lanes weight the pros and cons, and see that the cons are much heavier.



But in some cases the "cons" have had "political" arguments attached to them that really have nothing to do with the reality of the physical aspects. (segregation)



Indeed, they are valid. So we must weight them against each other, not just ignore the other side...



OK provide a simple list... not a wiki or a long statement, just a simple list of the points (for all those that do not care to wade through the long bike lane thread).



Bingo. This is exactly my point.

OK based on this last statement, in reference to "making a list..." do it! Provide the cons.

[Brian Ratliff]

...bike lane apologists like Brian...

Woops: name calling.

"Reason and logic, expressed politely and respectfully, are the currency of productive debate. Thanks."

[Brian Ratliff]

Lane shareing works, now, but will it work as roads get faster and more congested, and as more cyclists appear on the scene?

Yes.

There's argument for you.

[CommuterRun]

OK based on this last statement, in reference to "making a list..." do it! Provide the cons.

Ooh! OOH! Me! Me! Me!
I'll start.
Bike Lanes:
1) put the cyclist too far to the right, not only removing him from the traffic lane, but also removing him from effective sight lines, not only of vehicles approaching from the rear, but particularly of vehicles crossing or turning onto the road from side streets and driveways.

2) are where the road debris collects on roads that have them, requiring the cyclist to periodically travel in the traffic lane.

3) require additional effort and money on the part of local government to properly maintain, if they are maintained.

4) are often seen by motorists as a handy place to park, in order to avoid the door zone the cyclist must, again, take the traffic lane.

5) typically adjoin traffic lanes that are too narrow to share, so the cyclist takes the traffic lane triggering, "He's not riding in the bike lane," complaints.

6) give both the motorist and the cyclist a false sense of security typically encouraging high speed and often close passing by the motorist when traffic is moving and by the cyclist when traffic is stopped as if the painted line were some kind of physical wall that cannot be breached.

7) reinforce the feelings of many motorists that bicycles do not "belong" on the road and must have their own, special, separate facilities.

[chipcom]

My main complaints about bike lanes have nothing to do with how they affect me directly: they have to do with how they affect others who don't know better, particularly motorists, law enforcement, and cyclists who are not aware of the dangers of bike lanes. To those cyclists, they are death traps. To those of us who understand their dangers, they're not that dangerous (just like poisons, knives and matches are not nearly as dangerous to adults as they are to children). Similarly, to those of us who understand their dangers, we are also aware of their impotence.

Ahh yes, more words of wisdom from the all-knowing, all-powerful cycling deity! All hail the best cyclist, not to mention the smartest feller in the world (just ask him)! We mere mortals are not worthy!

You know HH, I don't even have to attempt challenge some of the BS you write anymore, left to your own devices you do a darn fine job of making an okole out of yourself without any help whatsoever.

[chipcom]

Woops: name calling.

"Reason and logic, expressed politely and respectfully, are the currency of productive debate. Thanks."


Unless the reason and logic goes against HH's extremist positions, then we become the extremists and not worthy of honest debate.

[chipcom]

Ooh! OOH! Me! Me! Me!
I'll start.
Bike Lanes:
1) put the cyclist too far to the right, not only removing him from the traffic lane, but also removing him from effective sight lines, not only of vehicles approaching from the rear, but particularly of vehicles crossing or turning onto the road from side streets and driveways.

2) are where the road debris collects on roads that have them, requiring the cyclist to periodically travel in the traffic lane.

3) require additional effort and money on the part of local government to properly maintain, if they are maintained.

4) are often seen by motorists as a handy place to park, in order to avoid the door zone the cyclist must, again, take the traffic lane.

5) typically adjoin traffic lanes that are too narrow to share, so the cyclist takes the traffic lane triggering, "He's not riding in the bike lane," complaints.

6) give both the motorist and the cyclist a false sense of security typically encouraging high speed and often close passing by the motorist when traffic is moving and by the cyclist when traffic is stopped as if the painted line were some kind of physical wall that cannot be breached.

7) reinforce the feelings of many motorists that bicycles do not "belong" on the road and must have their own, special, separate facilities.


I am so disappointed in you...it amazes me how a simple stripe can invoke such fear and superstition. If a BL stripe has that much power, by all means stay away from shoulders, or worse, THE DREADED CENTER STRIPE!!! OMG, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! :eek:

[Bekologist]

all hyperbole. To counter Commuter Run's argumentive opinionated hype:

bike lanes don't ALL do that. If that's the way bike lanes are in your neighborhood, your issue is with city hall, not the bicycle accomodations.

Point by point:

1) A bike in a bike lane (often where a WOL would be ridden) does NOT remove a bicyclist from a driver's line of sight.

2) All bike lanes do not collect debris.

3) Bike lanes integrated with the roadway can be cleaned at the same time as the rest of the roadway and require no additional maintainence scheduling.

4) Bike lane parkers should be ticked and towed, just like any other no parking zone.

5)Social stigma can be changed with effective social education.

6)bike lanes do not give a false sense of security, but an ACTUAL sense of security from each vehicle having its own dedicated lane of travel. Allows vehicles and bikes to pass more closely safely.

7)Social stigma can be countered with education, signage, etc.

Well placed bike lanes provide a vehicular, preferential lane of travel for bicycles that allow faster and safer travel thru congested traffic and along roadways with heavy volumes and/or speeds.

A vehicular cyclist will use a well placed bike lane.

Here are a several different examples of fair, varied bicycle accomodations that a vehicular cyclist would most likely choose. L to R, a bike lane/breakdown lane on a highway speed floating bridge; an integrated bike/ped striping on a shoulderless road with no parking allowed; and an integrated vehicle width bike lane/buffer zone.

No need to debate the pictures, that's been done already. These are just examples of several different kinds of bicycle accomodation ready made for vehicular cycling.

[Helmet Head]

Calling a bike lane advocate a bike lane apologist is no more name calling than is calling a VC advocate a VC apologist.

If you don't want to be called a bike lane apologist, then stop offering arguments in defense of them.

apologist |əˈpäləjist| noun
a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial

[Helmet Head]

OK based on this last statement, in reference to "making a list..." do it! Provide the cons.


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


These were originally posted in #45 of the WOLs vs BLS vs NOLs thread, and reposted in #74 of the Sharing Wide Outside Lanes thread.

They remain unaddressed, except for Brian thought he somehow dismissed them by pointing out they're "secondary" or "transitory" in post #210 of the Sharing Wide Outside Lanes thread, as if that somehow made them less significant (he never explained why he thought so).

So, what are the pros? Anyone? Or do I need to list those as well?

[Bekologist]

Bah, here's some simpler facts:

Well placed bike lanes provide a vehicular, preferential lane of travel for bicycles that allows faster and safer travel thru congested traffic and along roadways with heavy volumes and/or speeds.

A vehicular cyclist will use a well placed bike lane.

[sbhikes]

Bek, you'll never get anywhere with such a sound understaning of real world bike lanes and their use.

The problem with HH's "conclusions" is that they are based on some kind of strange logic exercises which only he understands. Not based on real world cycling experience, not based on data or research. Simply based on logic problems. If "a" then "b". Example:

If a: cyclists are on the right edge of the road then b: they must be invisible to car drivers.
a: Cyclists are never seen by anybody in profile. Only from the front or from behind. Therefore it is true that b: there is no need for side reflectors.

It's a ridiculous way to come to conclusions about a 3-Dimensional world full of real human beings.

Add in his superiority complex and you can also say:

Because a: HH is the only one who can be trusted to understand the terribly complex nature of using a bike lane safely in traffic, then b: all bike lanes should be abolished in order to save the ignorant, unwashed masses from their uneducatable selves.

Instead, teach the masses to use Dynamic Lane Positioning with Center Lane Biasing (tm) because it's so much simpler and makes soooo much more sense.

Or better yet, banish them to the parking lots and sidestreets until that time that they have come to the conclusion that yes: HH is the only one qualified to use a bike lane, and yes: bike lanes are death traps made by the Devil himself, and yes: we should therfore go out and spread the gospel of DLPwCLB to everyone.

I can't take him seriously anymore. It's just too ridiculous.

[sbhikes]

Bike lane stripes are often seen by non-cyclists, including law enforcement officers, as an official sanction of the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars, a notion that most cycling advocates find abhorrent (and a notion that goes well beyond the concept that slower traffic should yield to faster traffic when safe and reasonable to do so). The greater the prevalence of bike lane stripes, the greater the societal acceptance (cyclists, cycling advocates, motorists, law enforcement, the press, everybody) of the idea that cyclists always belong "off to the side" and out of the way of motorists, even on roads where there is no bike lane stripe; that if a cyclist is ever in the way of a motorist he is doing something wrong; that if a cyclist is ever hit by a motorist, then it's his fault, unless he is in a bike lane, and even then... In short, bike lanes promote thinking that puts cyclists in a separate inferior class from motorists. In simpler terms, it makes motorists less accustomed to seeing and dealing with cyclists in "their" lanes. Bike lane stripes encourage separationist cycling that discourages motorists from treating cyclists like drivers of vehicles.

Where are your facts to support these supposed truths that because there are bike lanes the cyclists are obligated to stay out of the way? Just because some people think this is so does not make it so.

Where are your data to support that a greater prevalence of bike lanes creates a greater societal acceptance of the idea that cyclists always belong off to the side? We gots lots of bike lanes here and that's not true.

Where are the studies that support any of what you said above? Or was this all concluded out of logic exercises?


Bike lane stripes encourage many drivers to ignore the presence of cyclists, thus reducing drivers' awareness of cyclists' presence, and making the cyclists more vulnerable to collisions.

Where is the proof? Got a study to cite?

Bike lane stripes cause significant increases in puncture-causing and crash-causing debris accumulation in the part of the pavement where even vehicular cyclists ride when accomodating the passing of faster traffic.

I rarely get flats. Again. Where's the beef?

Bike lane stripes inhibit cyclists from using safer (away from the right edge) lane positioning in the absence of faster same-direction traffic that would make them more visible and conspicuous to drivers, thus making them more vulnerable to car-bike collisions.

Got any proof that using a bike lane makes you unacceptably visible and conspicuous? Got any proof that you must position yourself in front of anybody to make them see you? Got any proof that it's even necessary to do so if you have your lane and I have mine?

Bike lane stripes pose a slickness hazard to cyclists when wet.

Where's the beef? Is this because of your 23c tires? I have never slipped on a bike lane strip. Not ever. And I don't know nobody who has.

Bike lane stripes make right-of-way rules so confusing that even neighboring states like CA, OR and AZ have diametrically opposed rules governing their usage by motorists at right turns (CA requires the motorist to merge into the lane, AZ and OR forbid it).
Got any proof that the rules are "so confusing" because of bike lane stripes? Some states allow right turn on red and some do not. Is that also the fault of bike lanes?

Bike lanes, like uphill truck lanes, are based on the premise that there is generally one appropriate static roadway position for the target type of vehicle on the section of the road where the specialized lane exists. While this premise holds true for the vast majority of truckers traveling on the uphill stretches of intersectionless roadway where truck lanes are typically found, the premise is usually false for the cyclists traveling in bike lanes, who encounter countless factors and conditions that make roadway positions outside of the bike lane more safe, appropriate, functional and/or effective much more often than is the case for truckers in uphill truck lanes.

The bike lane stripe does not prohibit anybody from crossing the line. It's not a static position unless you make it so. Uphill trucks can leave their truck lanes to pass. And everybody is REQUIRED to avoid hazards, so give me some proof that the evil white line imprisons cyclists against their more appropriate lane positions.

Bike lane stripes induce a dangerous false sense of security in novice cyclists, and even in many experienced cyclists.

The only false sense of security they have is that if they obey the law they won't get hit. That has nothing to do with bike lanes and everything to do with education.

Oh, yeah, but I forgot. The unwashed masses can't be trusted with the superior knowledge that the almighty HH has about how to use a bike lane. DLPwCLB for the Untouchables!

[patc]

well placed bike lanes provide bicycles a preferential lane of travel on congested roadways and allow safe, fast and efficient travel for bicyclists.


Well said! I would add "comfortable/pleasant" to your list, and that on some streets the benefits of a bike lane are very significant.

[patc]

So ultimately, a line item by line item examination should be done to compare the honest pluses and minuses... without the emotional tags.

+ a bunch on the "without the emotional tags" bit!

[patc]

The problem with HH's "conclusions" is that they are based on some kind of strange logic exercises which only he understands. Not based on real world cycling experience, not based on data or research.

It's the organised religion model of debate. First you start with the conclusion you want to support, then you use any means available to support that conclusion while turning a deaf ear to any counter arguments. Come to think of it, it's also the way politicians debate.


I can't take him seriously anymore. It's just too ridiculous.

I take the disruption of these discussions seriously, along with the potentially dangerous advice, but you're right - he is ridiculous.

[Bekologist]

excerpted

I do ride in well-designed/well-placed bike lanes. But, when I do, I .... (qualifing statements).....That's what I call, "use and take advantage of a well placed bike lane."

you know, Helmet Head certainely fesses up logically, then refutes himself with endless rhetoric. Kind of tries to 'muddy the waters' around the base validity of preferential lanes and well designed bicycle accomodations.

To refute the "bikes are invisible in the bike lane" fallacy, take a look at the pic below, and imagine a bicycle out in the distance by the other vehicle. Notice any significant angular difference between a bike in the bike lane, versus 2 feet over in the traffic lane? Thought not.

Stick with the basics like above, and you'll be riding the way the roads were meant to be ridden, bike accomodations and all. Like Helmet head endorses above,

"use and take advantage of a well placed bike lane."

[buzzman]

I cannot communicate how profound a difference it was to return to my regular commute today back in Boston after the ride I described in a previous post in San Francisco. Back on city streets without bike lanes with all the same debris in the roads that would be there regardless of the stripe or not. Unable to ride on the narrow, poorly maintained MUP because it is so pathetically plowed and drained. Subject to thousands of cars between point A and point B on my commute with absolutely no public acknowledgement of the existence of bike commuters with even a "Share the Road" sign or a silohuette of a cyclist on the road once in a while. Those facilities, if nothing else give this cyclist a sense of security because they are a constant reminder to the motorist that I belong. If you think that a bike lane makes motorists think cyclists only belong in the bike lane then I would counter that by saying that no bike lane makes the motorist think I don't belong there at all.

And a well maintained bike path or MUP (a "segregated facility") provides cyclists with a place to congregate and meet and create a sense of community that a city without them does not provide. And we are stronger in our advocacy as a community than we are as separated individuals. I've ridden for 25 years in Boston and it cannot compare with the friendly waves and acknowledgements the local rider I tagged along with got as he did that loop. There were small groups of bike riders sitting by the bike path chatting, stopping at small cafes, meeting up with other riders- this is no small event in terms of advocacy.

And you cannot even fathom the degree of anger I feel when those of you who are riding in areas where such facilities exist have the gall to rail and lobby and advocate so strongly against those facilities that advocacy groups nationwide are locked down in this ridiculous endless debate so that a city like Boston, which shares so much in common with cities like Portland, OR and San Francisco has fallen embarassingly behind in being a livable city for the non-automobile dependent.

I have read nothing in these threads that show any reasonable cyclist is "Anti-VC" when VC is described as simply riding in a vehicular manner and following state and local laws, but the anti-bike lane, anti-bike path, anti-MUP sentiment is intolerable. I don't know what ancient statistics from the 1970's or what warped statistician is interpreting these statistics that you are supposedly backing up your anti-bike lane agenda with but it is so counter to real life experience that I'm astounded we're rehashing the same old arguments again and again and again in here.

[Helmet Head]

Bike lane stripes are often seen by non-cyclists, including law enforcement officers, as an official sanction of the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars,

Where are your facts to support these supposed truths that because there are bike lanes the cyclists are obligated to stay out of the way? Just because some people think this is so does not make it so.

The only "truth" is that some people think cyclists are obligated to stay out of the way of cars (which you acknowledge) and that bike lanes facilitate cyclists staying out of the way of cars (which is their obvious purpose). The rest is common sense, which apparently you are lacking.

[thelung]

Who cares? Since when is cycling advocacy about winning pointless arguments on messageboards?

[Helmet Head]

Where are your data to support that a greater prevalence of bike lanes creates a greater societal acceptance of the idea that cyclists always belong off to the side? We gots lots of bike lanes here and that's not true.
Where are your data to support that bike lanes in your area do not create a greater societal acceptance of the idea that cyclists always (always? Who said always? oh, sorry, i forgot bike lane apologists are incapable of trying to refute an argument without resorting to strawmen) belong off to the side.

Believe what you want, we can agree to disagree on this one. But one of these days you'll realize I'm right. It's only a matter of time.




Bike lane stripes encourage many drivers to ignore the presence of cyclists, thus reducing drivers' awareness of cyclists' presence, and making the cyclists more vulnerable to collisions.

Where is the proof? Got a study to cite?
No proof. Never-the-less, I believe the evidence is compelling. But if you refuse to recognize that drivers generally see and treat bike lane stripes as roadway edge stripes, I suggest you talk to non-cyclists, and see how many can tell the difference between a shoulder and a bike lane, for example.




Bike lane stripes cause significant increases in puncture-causing and crash-causing debris accumulation in the part of the pavement where even vehicular cyclists ride when accomodating the passing of faster traffic.

I rarely get flats. Again. Where's the beef?

I don't know of any studies, but even some of the more ardent bike lane apologists acknowledge this rather obvious effect of bike lane stripes. Your refusal to even acknowledge this point shows how biased and unobjective is your point of view.




Bike lane stripes inhibit cyclists from using safer (away from the right edge) lane positioning in the absence of faster same-direction traffic that would make them more visible and conspicuous to drivers, thus making them more vulnerable to car-bike collisions.

Got any proof that using a bike lane makes you unacceptably visible and conspicuous?

No. But nothing in my argument rests on the assertion that "a bike lane makes you unacceptably visible and conspicuous." More strawmen, Diane?


Got any proof that you must position yourself in front of anybody to make them see you?

No. But nothing in my argument rests on the assertion that "you must position yourself in front of anybody to make them see you". You're on a roll I see.


Got any proof that it's even necessary to do so if you have your lane and I have mine?
No. But nothing in my argument rests on the assertion that it's necessary to position yourself in front of anybody" ever, including when "you have your lane and I have mine".


I have never slipped on a bike lane strip.
Neither have I. Now we have a sample of two. Oh, that's persuasive. :rolleyes: Apparently, you're now refusing to acknowledge that painted pavement is generally more slick (esp. when wet) than unpainted pavement. Your bias is blatant.


Got any proof that the rules are "so confusing" because of bike lane stripes?
Yes. The contradictory laws governing driver behavior in the presence of bike lane stripes at intersections is the proof.


Some states allow right turn on red and some do not.
Red herring. The difference between whether you can turn right after stopping for red, or whether you have to wait for a green, is subtle compared to the difference between whether you have to enter or whether you are prohibited from entering a bike lane as you approach an intersection where you are turning right. Your refusal to appreciate the significance of the difference again reveals your blatant bias.




Bike lanes, like uphill truck lanes, are based on the premise that there is generally one appropriate static roadway position for the target type of vehicle on the section of the road where the specialized lane exists. While this premise holds true for the vast majority of truckers traveling on the uphill stretches of intersectionless roadway where truck lanes are typically found, the premise is usually false for the cyclists traveling in bike lanes, who encounter countless factors and conditions that make roadway positions outside of the bike lane more safe, appropriate, functional and/or effective much more often than is the case for truckers in uphill truck lanes.

The bike lane stripe does not prohibit anybody from crossing the line.

Whether the bl stripe prohibits anyone from crossing the line is irrelevant to my point: there is generally one appropriate static roadway position for the target type of vehicle on the section of the road where the specialized lane exists. That's the design intent, whether you're willing to recognize and appreciate its significance or not.


The only false sense of security [novice cyclists] have is that if they obey the law they won't get hit.
Your state of denial is obvious now. If you actually talk to novices you will quickly see that the vast majority believes they are safer -- significantly less likely to be hit -- when riding in a bike lane than when not.

[CommuterRun]

A vehicular cyclist will use a well placed bike lane.
Yes, this is true if the bike lane is maintained to the same standard as the vehicle travel lanes. However, the cyclist won't, or more properly, shouldn't, constantly stay in the bike lane to the exclusion of the other travel lanes.

The second and third pictures of post #186 appear to be exceptionally well designed and maintained bike lanes. Although I question the safety of allowing parking in the lane, shown in the third picture. The first picture is a paved shoulder. There's a difference.


So, what are the pros? Anyone? Or do I need to list those as well?
Evidently there aren't any. The BL proponents are grasping at emotional straws. Like a child with a favorite blanket that needs to be washed.