Bike Lane Debate

[MarkS]

No one seems to have mentioned the possibility that bike lanes actually may make bikers safer. Its true that cars *could* cross the line, but are there statistics showing that this is a frequent occurrence?

What anyone knows from any amount of biking, is that drivers certainly do recognize and respect the center line. Even when its a dashed line on a multi-laned road, they seem unwilling to cross it to pass a bicyclist in front of them. If they respect the center line, why do we expect that that they would not respect the right-hand line? I use a mirror as I bike, and have rarely noted anyone casually drifting across the right-hand stripe. Yes, a drunk or cell-phone user could drift, but that kind of driver would be dangerous with or without a bike lane. The line appears to provide spatial separation from sober drivers, which are hopefully the dominant type.

[noisebeam]

No one seems to have mentioned the possibility that bike lanes actually may make bikers safer. Its true that cars *could* cross the line, but are there statistics showing that this is a frequent occurrence?

What anyone knows from any amount of biking, is that drivers certainly do recognize and respect the center line. Even when its a dashed line on a multi-laned road, they seem unwilling to cross it to pass a bicyclist in front of them. If they respect the center line, why do we expect that that they would not respect the right-hand line? I use a mirror as I bike, and have rarely noted anyone casually drifting across the right-hand stripe. Yes, a drunk or cell-phone user could drift, but that kind of driver would be dangerous with or without a bike lane. The line appears to provide spatial separation from sober drivers, which are hopefully the dominant type.
1. I don't really know (nor care that much) if BLs vs. WOL are safer on staight intersectionless roads. But I do know that BL enourage the majority of cyclist to ride to the right of traffic at intersections that may be turning right and I have witnessed a dozen or so close calls and two cyclist being hit by right turning cars when they were in the BL at an intersection. No data here, just anecdote, but from what I have seen I strongly believe that BLs enourage cyclists to be in an unsafe position at intersections - and intersections are where accidents happen.

2. I see drivers go over the solid rightmost white line, whether a fog line or a BL. Especially on corners. Drivers respect the line to their left as there is far more danger to them if they drift over it vs. drifting toward the curb/shoulder where there are no several thousand pound vehicles traveling >40mph.

Al

[MarkS]

But I do know that BL enourage the majority of cyclist to ride to the right of traffic at intersections that may be turning right and I have witnessed a dozen or so close calls and two cyclist being hit by right turning cars when they were in the BL at an intersection.

This sounds more like a problem with poorly designed BL's than with BL's themselves. Agreed, a poorly designed BL is worse than none at all. Many of the BL's where I travel put a BL to the right of thru traffic and to the left of right-turning traffic. In these cases, the BL encourages proper positioning of the rider.

In most bike lanes that I have seen that are not striped for correct positioning, the bike lane disappears just before the intersection. This leaves it up to the biker to decide proper positioning. If the biker is a novice rider, he will probably put himself at the far right with or without BL's.

[Helmet Head]

No, that assumption is improperly based upon your continued use of the water fountain/bike lane analogy, which I clearly stated I did not accept. Your use of this analogy to improperly characterize me as believing in racial segregation because I don't accept your radical anti-bike lane stance amounts once again to an emotionally appealing argument which is not logically sound.
I'm sorry that's how you interpreted it; that's not how I meant it and have added an Edit clarifying this.

My question stands. I assume you would not support racist water fountain signs even if there was no law enforcing them, and that the reason you would not support them is because of the cultural bias they would enforce. Please confirm/deny this, and clarify as necessary. Thank you.


If you desire more reasoning supporting the lack of soundness to your analogy, I would add that African Americans during the decades of racial segregation in America, who were subjected to using separate facilities such as bathrooms, water fountains and schools, did not advocate such segregation nor seek to have it established by governing authorities, on the contrary, fought them at great personal peril and cost. But such is not the case with bike lanes today, since there is a significantly large group of cyclists who are pushing to having bike lanes implemented. You may argue that these cyclists are not "real cyclists" or that they do not posess "proper cycling skills," as has previously been argued unrealistically, but negatively characterizing bike lane advocate cyclists in this way, or claiming they are not true cycling advocates, amounts to the most brazen form of prejudice and discrimination on your part, which quality you presume to be an ardent opponent of.
No analogy is perfect, or it wouldn't be an analogy. Of course there are differences. That does not make the analogy invalid.

My question (above) stands. With the obvious follow-up question assuming you answer the above affirmatively... If reinforcing segregationist cultural bias is reason enough to oppose segregationary water fountain signs, why is reinforcing segregationist cultural bias not reason enough to oppose segregationary bike lanes? Or are you conceding now that bike lanes do reinforce this segregationist cultural bias, and you just don't think that's something bicycling advocates should oppose?

[noisebeam]

This sounds more like a problem with poorly designed BL's than with BL's themselves. Agreed, a poorly designed BL is worse than none at all. Many of the BL's where I travel put a BL to the right of thru traffic and to the left of right-turning traffic. In these cases, the BL encourages proper positioning of the rider.

In most bike lanes that I have seen that are not striped for correct positioning, the bike lane disappears just before the intersection. This leaves it up to the biker to decide proper positioning. If the biker is a novice rider, he will probably put himself at the far right with or without BL's.
I am not talking about BL to the right of RTOLs, but to the right of shared thru/right turn lanes. Shared turn/thru lanes are more common (especially in older cities and for side streets) than intersections with RTOLs.
I agree that disapearing striping 100-300ft before each and every intersection is a good idea. Some localities do this, but it is by no means univerally done. Of course novice riders will still ride to the right, but firstly they will not be 'instructed' to stay in right due to lack of stripes and some may take the time to learn why the stripe ends.
Also for those that don't stay right, they find it easier to negotiate with motorists into a center lane position when the stripe is not there, there is more resistance from drivers to let a cyclist out of a BL than merging left within a lane, in my experience.

Al

[Helmet Head]

This sounds more like a problem with poorly designed BL's than with BL's themselves. Agreed, a poorly designed BL is worse than none at all. Many of the BL's where I travel put a BL to the right of thru traffic and to the left of right-turning traffic. In these cases, the BL encourages proper positioning of the rider.

In most bike lanes that I have seen that are not striped for correct positioning, the bike lane disappears just before the intersection. This leaves it up to the biker to decide proper positioning. If the biker is a novice rider, he will probably put himself at the far right with or without BL's.
Any bike lane in any intersection or its approach, including any intersection with any driveway, alley or midblock mall entrance, is a poorly designed bike lane. You might argue that the bl to the left of a rtol is an exception to this, except it it's at best a "good design" only for those cyclists who happen to be going straight at that intersection. By accomodating them, and not accomodating the left and right turning cyclists, it is arguably a poor design. The left and right turners would arguably be better off if there were no bike lanes at all.

But let's not get hung up on bls to the left of rtols. I will concede that of all bls-at-intersections, they are probably the least bad. And they are definitely good for one thing: accumulating rubble.

The main point: given the prevalence of intersections (including intersections with driveways, alleys, etc.) on most urban and suburban streets, the vast majority of which do not have rtols, and never will, the places where a "good" bl design can even exist are extremely rare.

So most examples of "poor" bl design are not really that, they are examples of places where there is no way to design a bl well, and so no bl is better, period. And that applies to the vast majority of miles of existing bike lanes that I've ever seen.

The next time you ride in a bike lane for, say, a mile, count how many intersections it crosses (including intersections with driveways, alleys; any place vehicular traffic can enter or exit) positioning the cyclist improperly as if he is turning right into it, even though he is going straight, setting him up to be hit from any number of directions (right hook from behind, left hook from ahead, left cross from the left, right cross from the right). Now consider that the only practical way to fix this at each one of those intersections is to eliminate the bike lane stripe at least 100 feet (more on roads with speed limits above 25 mph) prior to each one of those intersections. Now consider how discontinuous and useless the remaining bike lane sections would be.

The only good bike lane design (on urban/suburban streets where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited) is no bike lane.

Freeways, long bridges and tunnels, where slow moving vehicles are prohibited, that's a different story. But for the vast majority of urban/suburban streets where there is some kind of intersection every few dozen feet, there just is no way to effectively route one type of vehicle separately from other types of vehicles, which is what bike lanes attempt to do.

[noisebeam]

Any bike lane in any intersection or its approach,...
Just as an aside it is curious that in places I ride daily the WOL are mostly on arterials with only 2-3 intersections of any kind every mile (Rural in Chandler) or where there is a BL but with far more intersections (Guadalupe in Tempe) - the opposite of 'how it should be'

There is also an arterial (Chandler in Chandler) that seems to have a RTOL for every type of intersection, to the extent that the BL ends up to the left a right turn lane for a very large portion of the distance. This later is experiencing new development with lots of roadway ROW already in place so these RTOLs can be added easily as new strip malls, housing developments, etc are put in place.

Al

[LittleBigMan]

My question stands. I assume you would not support racist water fountain signs even if there was no law enforcing them, and that the reason you would not support them is because of the cultural bias they would enforce. Please confirm/deny this, and clarify as necessary. Thank you.

If reinforcing segregationist cultural bias is reason enough to oppose segregationary water fountain signs, why is reinforcing segregationist cultural bias not reason enough to oppose segregationary bike lanes? Or are you conceding now that bike lanes do reinforce this segregationist cultural bias, and you just don't think that's something bicycling advocates should oppose?

Let me readdress this without using the water fountain analogy.

You say that bike lanes reinforce the cultural bias that cyclists should stay out of the way of motorists. If so, shouldn't that logically mean opposing bike lanes?

Opposing bike lanes means opposing bike lane advocates. Bike lane advocates include a large number of cyclists. To achieve your goal of eliminating bike lanes, these cyclists must be convinced that they do not want bike lanes. To this end, you have already devoted a great deal of time and energy, in part on this website.

My questions to you are, how many bike lane advocates among cyclists have you convinced out of their pro-bike lane stance? Do any of them publicly admit that your efforts to change their minds have succeeded? If not, when do you think they will change their minds? Will your efforts eventually succeed? If not, what is your strategy to remove all bike lanes without their support?

[Helmet Head]

LittleBigMan, I will happily answer your questions, but please answer mine (I asked first!). If the fountain thing is such a problem, I'll reword accordingly.

1) Do you support, oppose or are neutral about promoting the notion that cyclists should be separated from motorized traffic as much as possible?
2) Although there are many factors that explain the existence of the notion that cyclists should be separated in our culture, and even eliminating all bike lanes would certainly not eliminate the existence of the notion, do you agree that the existence of bike lanes never-the-less promotes the notion that cyclists should be separated from motorized traffic as much as possible?


You say that bike lanes reinforce the cultural bias that cyclists should stay out of the way of motorists. If so, shouldn't that logically mean opposing bike lanes?
Yes.


Opposing bike lanes means opposing bike lane advocates. Bike lane advocates include a large number of cyclists. To achieve your goal of eliminating bike lanes, these cyclists must be convinced that they do not want bike lanes. To this end, you have already devoted a great deal of time and energy, in part on this website.

My questions to you are, how many bike lane advocates among cyclists have you convinced out of their pro-bike lane stance?
I don't know. I suppose we could have a poll... Of course, if a BF member's opinion about BLs changed, is it because of my posts? How would he know?


Do any of them publicly admit that your efforts to change their minds have succeeded? If not, when do you think they will change their minds?
When I find an effective way to present my argument.


Will your efforts eventually succeed?
I believe they will. Logic and reason is on my side. Given sufficient time, I believe others will eventually figure it out.


If not, what is your strategy to remove all bike lanes without their support?
I know others who are taking other approaches. If addressing cycling advocates fails, perhaps one of the other approaches will succeed. The other approaches include addressing law enforcement and courts, and, hopefully, eventually influence law makers. But I personally am spending my time trying to convince cycling advocates, at least for now, despite the many folks who tell me I'm beating my head against a wall.

Law enforcement representatives, by the way, from what I hear, seem much more receptive to the anti-bl arguments than are cycling advocates, perhaps because they are not emotionally attached to them.

[genec]

But for the vast majority of urban/suburban streets where there is some kind of intersection every few dozen feet, there just is no way to effectively route one type of vehicle separately from other types of vehicles, which is what bike lanes attempt to do.

Is that really what Bike Lanes do... are they really for the full routing of a different vehicle... or are they simply a sanctioned alternative travel lane for a "human powered device" with vastly different operating charateristics than most of the other vehicles on the road?

Other examples of similar travel lanes are truck lanes on mountain passing grades, or the new bus lanes on the freeways... both providing exclusive alternative travel lanes for "other types of vehicles."

[Helmet Head]

But for the vast majority of urban/suburban streets where there is some kind of intersection every few dozen feet, there just is no way to effectively route one type of vehicle separately from other types of vehicles, which is what bike lanes attempt to do.

Is that really what Bike Lanes do...
Yes, that is what they do.


or are they really for the full routing of a different vehicle... or are they simply a sanctioned alternative travel lane for a "human powered device" with vastly different operating charateristics than most of the other vehicles on the road?
Same thing. Routing a certain type of vehicle separately from other vehicles is routing one type of vehicle separately from other types of vehicles, regardless of what characteristics differentiate that type of vehicle from the others.


Other examples of similar travel lanes are truck lanes on mountain passing grades, or the new bus lanes on the freeways... both providing exclusive alternative travel lanes for "other types of vehicles."
These examples are only analogous to bike lanes on roads with no intersections (i.e., mostly only freeways, bridges and tunnels), or ideal-world bike lanes with completely separate infrastructure including separate bridges for left turns (into every driveway on the other side of the road, etc.).

If bike lanes were limited to the appropriate but extremely rare applications that are analogous to truck lanes, then we would not be having this debate.

[TRaffic Jammer]

true true .... it's the constant in and out of the BL by the cars that keep me from the lanes.

[patc]

You say that bike lanes reinforce the cultural bias that cyclists should stay out of the way of motorists. If so, shouldn't that logically mean opposing bike lanes?

No, it should mean opposing the "cultural bias".

[LittleBigMan]

1) Do you support, oppose or are neutral about promoting the notion that cyclists should be separated from motorized traffic as much as possible?

2) Although there are many factors that explain the existence of the notion that cyclists should be separated in our culture, and even eliminating all bike lanes would certainly not eliminate the existence of the notion, do you agree that the existence of bike lanes never-the-less promotes the notion that cyclists should be separated from motorized traffic as much as possible?
These questions are too vague, because there are too many degrees of separation from motor traffic that are possible. For example:

1) Separation by means of an off-road path far removed from most roads with minimal intersections with streets would be almost complete separation, and closest to your wording, "as much as possible."

2) Separation by means of a sidepath (adjacent to the road,) such as one that runs alongside a railroad track or limited access highway, yet also has minimal interaction with motor traffic and comes almost as close to your wording, "as much as possible."

3) Separation by means of a sidepath riddled with driveways and intersections with roads, which amounts to a glorified sidewalk, would be considered an attempt at separation, but in actuality, engages the cyclist with far more frequent and problematic interactions with traffic (and pedestrians) than the actual travel lane does; such separation provides the best evidence for the contention that our culture is more concerned with separating cyclists from motor traffic than separating motor traffic from cyclists.

4) Separation by means of an on-road stripe, or bike lane, is perhaps the lowest degree of separation. I would argue that this form of separation is so slight that it's almost non-existant, and is really no separation at all. For brevity, I will not break down bike lanes and shoulders into sub-groups, but will leave that for a different discussion.

The only issues about separateness that are of importance to me are 1) safety, 2) right to the road, and 3) convenience. As long as none of these is compromised, separateness is a non-issue to me. In addition, the fact is that many, many cyclists enjoy separate facilities of many types, so to fight against these is not in my conscience, nor in my desire, to do.

It is interesting for me to note that in examples 1) and 2) above, where separation is nearly complete, and therefore according to your specifications most objectionable, the facilities described are among the most desireable type, given that they serve the cyclist's chosen destinations.

I would conclude by saying that the relative safety or usefulness of each of these types of bike facilities has little to do with the concept of separateness, but are more correctly assessed on an individual basis.

[uprightbent]

I like how bike lanes give me the extra room to wander while driving my Hummer. I can't drive straight while reaching for that french fry lost between the seats. Sometimes its hard to eat a burrito and reach over to get that incoming fax. Bike lanes are good.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Some of the bike lanes near my house were sold to the city as a way of slowing down the traffic..... scary. Two lanes down to one plus BL each direction. I still think BLs create a false sense of security for the rider. If it's there I'll ride it but it runs to the left of the parked cars....now the cars park using the BL as a place to practice parallel parking. Right hand turns abound in our residential city area. So now when traffic is slowed during rush hour....(read locked), I now have cars driving in the BL to get to the next block to turn off Dundas and escape the lockup. Drivers here are waaaaay more pissed off than they ever were. One block below on Queen... two lanes each direction two centres have streetcars, much less agro.

[Helmet Head]

These questions are too vague, because there are too many degrees of separation from motor traffic that are possible.
You're right. Allow me to clarify and rephrase accordingly.

1) Do you support, oppose or are neutral about promoting the notion that cyclists riding on roads should be separated from same-direction motorized traffic as much as possible (i.e. with a sidepath or at least a stripe)?

2) Although there are many factors that explain the existence of the notion that cyclists riding on roadways should be separated in our culture, and even eliminating all bike lanes would certainly not eliminate the existence of the notion, do you agree that the existence of bike lanes never-the-less promotes the notion that cyclists riding on roadways should be separated from same-direction motorized traffic as much as possible (i.e. with a sidepath or at least a stripe)?

[Helmet Head]

These questions are too vague, because there are too many degrees of separation from motor traffic that are possible. For example:

1) Separation by means of an off-road path far removed from most roads with minimal intersections with streets would be almost complete separation, and closest to your wording, "as much as possible."

2) Separation by means of a sidepath (adjacent to the road,) such as one that runs alongside a railroad track or limited access highway, yet also has minimal interaction with motor traffic and comes almost as close to your wording, "as much as possible."

3) Separation by means of a sidepath riddled with driveways and intersections with roads, which amounts to a glorified sidewalk, would be considered an attempt at separation, but in actuality, engages the cyclist with far more frequent and problematic interactions with traffic (and pedestrians) than the actual travel lane does; such separation provides the best evidence for the contention that our culture is more concerned with separating cyclists from motor traffic than separating motor traffic from cyclists.

4) Separation by means of an on-road stripe, or bike lane, is perhaps the lowest degree of separation. I would argue that this form of separation is so slight that it's almost non-existant, and is really no separation at all. For brevity, I will not break down bike lanes and shoulders into sub-groups, but will leave that for a different discussion.

The only issues about separateness that are of importance to me are 1) safety, 2) right to the road, and 3) convenience. As long as none of these is compromised, separateness is a non-issue to me. In addition, the fact is that many, many cyclists enjoy separate facilities of many types, so to fight against these is not in my conscience, nor in my desire, to do.

It is interesting for me to note that in examples 1) and 2) above, where separation is nearly complete, and therefore according to your specifications most objectionable, the facilities described are among the most desireable type, given that they serve the cyclist's chosen destinations.

I would conclude by saying that the relative safety or usefulness of each of these types of bike facilities has little to do with the concept of separateness, but are more correctly assessed on an individual basis.
My previous clarification/rewording not withstanding, allow me to expand a bit on what I mean by "The Notion". In short, it's simply, "cyclists should be separated from motor traffic as much as possible".

The reasons for holding the notion are irrelevant to our discussion, but they usually involve beliefs that cycling integrated with motor traffic is inherently dangerous, or that it causes problems to traffic flow, or that it inconveniences motorists, or that it's unpleasant to ride in traffic, or that it discourages people from taking up cycling, or that it's impolite, etc., or some combination of these reasons. Those who hold this notion almost universally would ideally support a completely separate infrastructure for cyclists, but realize that is not practically possible. When possible, most holding this notion would prefer to route cyclists on a totally separated bike path or sidepath, and many would even ban cyclists from the roadways whenever possible. But this is also not practical or possible most of the time for various reasons, as you know. Often, the most one can do, practically, in terms of separating cyclists from motor traffic, is separating cyclists from same-direction motor traffic with a bike lane stripe. For those who hold the notion that cyclists should be separated from motor traffic as much as possible, a bike lane stripe, is better than no separation at all.

The Notion is an all-or-nothing concept. Either you believe some separation, any separation, even very compromised separation as is accomplished by bike lanes, is better than no separation, or you don't. All I'm asking you is whether you believe that, or not.

I'm also asking you whether you agree that the existence of bike lanes officially sanctions and reinforces the notion that some separation, any separation, even very compromised separation as is accomplished by bike lanes, is better (for whatever reasons) than no separation.

[LittleBigMan]

1) Do you support, oppose or are neutral about promoting the notion that cyclists riding on roads should be separated from same-direction motorized traffic as much as possible (i.e. with a sidepath or at least a stripe)?
Serge, I'm not sure you are reading my answers thoroughly. In spite of the fact that you have not clarified what you mean by separation "as much as possible," leaving that definition completely vague, I gave the most detailed and exhaustive response I had time for. In order for me to "support, oppose or [be] neutral about promoting [that] notion," each case would have to be laid out specifically by type of facility. I took the liberty of breaking your question down by type of facility in order to more clearly answer your question. I also stated my opinion that separation was not the main issue to me, but the issues of 1) safety, 2) right to the road, and 3) convenience were what concerned me most. Yet you are still focused on the issue of separation as a general concept, something I've already stated is of little or no importance to me. Therefore, your question 2) below I would consider moot, as well.



2) Although there are many factors that explain the existence of the notion that cyclists riding on roadways should be separated in our culture, and even eliminating all bike lanes would certainly not eliminate the existence of the notion, do you agree that the existence of bike lanes never-the-less promotes the notion that cyclists riding on roadways should be separated from same-direction motorized traffic as much as possible (i.e. with a sidepath or at least a stripe)?


If separation is the crux of the issue, then all of your questions would be relevant to me. But since I don't agree that separation is the main issue, and have said exactly why I think so, your continued efforts to get me to answer amount to a lack of desire on your part to take in my point of view for consideration. If you would like to reconsider my point of view as you re-read my posts, and you decide that you do not agree with me, I can live with that. I hope you can live with the fact that I do not agree with you that bike facilities are always bad because of their separateness. You'll just have to live and let live, my friend.

Since I believe we have more in common than this little disagreement might suggest, let me say to you that I generally oppose any effort to interfere with my privilege to use the public roads for transportation on my bicycle, since in my opinion they offer me the best and most convenient way to travel to the maximum number of destinations with as little inconvenience as possible. I believe that no other system can replace the roads, and that my best opportunity to maintain freedom of travel lies in maintaining my status as an equally legitimate road user with motorists.

I just do not wish to tamper with what tickles other cyclists' fancies.

[TRaffic Jammer]

I'm also asking you whether you agree that the existence of bike lanes officially sanctions and reinforces the notion that some separation, any separation, even very compromised separation as is accomplished by bike lanes, is better (for whatever reasons) than no separation.

Put that way I must toss my vote in as separation is not the way. It reinforces the "you need to be somewhere else" mind set. Sorry drivers, but we all own the road, otherwise I'd be looking for a reduction in my property taxes. It seems that good driver education is an utopian ideal that won't be attempted. So much easier to pay lip service to both camps with BLs, the ineffective solution, but it sure looks like we're doing something. As it is my child won't ride the BL, it terrifies her.

[noisebeam]

In regard to cycling distance from curb and visibilty:

There is one case where being further from the curb makes one less visible to same driection approaching vehicles. This is when there is a string or line of vehicles. The lead vehicle may get more aware of you if you are further left, but all the following vehicles will see you sooner if you are further right.

This is not intended in any way an argument for or against BL or VC, just a (perhaps obvious) observation.

All it means is that one may choose to ride far left, but if one then moves right to let them pass and there are more vehicles following, one should keep as far right as possible without getting dangerously (i.e. no room for manuverig) close to curb/road edge.

On more thought, it actually may be related to the BL vs. WOL arguments. If one move very far right in a WOL for this situation this may encourage close passing. If one moves very far right in a BL, the stripe reduces the chance of close passing. +1 for the pro-BL advocates?

Al

[LittleBigMan]

The Notion is an all-or-nothing concept. Either you believe some separation, any separation, even very compromised separation as is accomplished by bike lanes, is better than no separation, or you don't. All I'm asking you is whether you believe that, or not.
It's never "all-or-nothing." I told you I believe that separation has various manifestations, some are benign and others are not.

As I have said, I am not a big fan of bike lanes. Even my wife will tell you that. But I don't think they accomplish any kind of real separation. Haven't you yourself argued that bike lane stripes offer no real protection from motorists and are therefore superfluous?


I'm also asking you whether you agree that the existence of bike lanes officially sanctions and reinforces the notion that some separation, any separation, even very compromised separation as is accomplished by bike lanes, is better (for whatever reasons) than no separation.
To say that bike lanes amount to an official sanction that cyclists should be moved out of the way of motorists is questionable, since bike lanes do not separate cyclists from motor traffic. In fact, it is cyclists themselves who so often call for bike lanes.

On Edgewood Ave. in Atlanta, between Inman Park and Boulevard, the four-lane 30 mph. residential street was resurfaced and bike lanes installed. Two general traffic lanes were removed to accomodate the bike lanes. I would say that if anything, a motorist would feel that the bike lanes were an official sanction that cyclists should be included with motor traffic, since the motorist sacrificed his beloved extra lane to accomodate cyclists.

[TRaffic Jammer]

What about the cars the routinely carve into the BL as opposed to waiting for the left hand turn of the car in front of them to be completed? I find drivers IMHO respect the "stripe" only as long as it's not inconvenient to do so. Anything that slightly causes drivers to slow down or vary trajectories is met with venom, incl. streetcars, school buses and emergency vehicles. From where I ride I see no respect for the lane whatsoever.

[Helmet Head]

Therefore, your question 2) below I would consider moot, as well.

2) Although there are many factors that explain the existence of the notion that cyclists riding on roadways should be separated in our culture, and even eliminating all bike lanes would certainly not eliminate the existence of the notion, do you agree that the existence of bike lanes never-the-less promotes the notion that cyclists riding on roadways should be separated from same-direction motorized traffic as much as possible (i.e. with a sidepath or at least a stripe)?

If separation is the crux of the issue, then all of your questions would be relevant to me. But since I don't agree that separation is the main issue, ...

OK, I understand. Separateness is not the main issue for you. It's hardly, if any, relevant at all. Got it.

But what I'm trying to get at is what you think about the relevance of the issue of separateness to others. Other cyclists, cycling advocates, motorists, traffic engineers, our culture overall.

Don't you agree that the opinions of others are relevant to cycling advocacy in terms of figuring how best to advocate for cycling? Are you interested in advocating effectively for cycling? If so, then would it also not be relevant to establish whether most of these people believe in The Notion that, in general, the more separation the better, and some separation, even compromised separation such as that accomplished by bike lanes, is better than no separation?

[genec]

The Notion is an all-or-nothing concept. Either you believe some separation, any separation, even very compromised separation as is accomplished by bike lanes, is better than no separation, or you don't. All I'm asking you is whether you believe that, or not.

This is interesting... based on this statement, you seem to imply that "No Separation" is desirable, and achievable, when in fact just riding on a typical higher speed WOL, cyclists will in fact separate themselves from high speed traffic... whether a line exists or not. In fact, slower cyclists on a road closed to motor traffic, will also tend to filter out from faster cyclists. This occurs naturally.

So the concept of separation is not so much based on whether a line exists, but soley on the characteristics of human powered devices and motor vehicles sharing the same roadway.

[TRaffic Jammer]

When I drive I MUST be on the lookout for slower traffic ...if it's a broken car, a bike, or a drunk motherF*cker on his electric scooter out for a spin on the road. I even keep an eye on the sidewalk for jaywalkers, dogs without leashes, and groups of kids that may bolt. I don't what the problem is from a driver point of view. If you are that bad of a driver that you can't pass slower traffic safely you simply shouldn't be driving.

[LittleBigMan]

OK, I understand. Separateness is not the main issue for you. It's hardly, if any, relevant at all. Got it.

But what I'm trying to get at is what you think about the relevance of the issue of separateness to others. Other cyclists, cycling advocates, motorists, traffic engineers, our culture overall.

Don't you agree that the opinions of others are relevant to cycling advocacy in terms of figuring how best to advocate for cycling? Are you interested in advocating effectively for cycling? If so, then would it also not be relevant to establish whether most of these people believe in The Notion that, in general, the more separation the better, and some separation, even compromised separation such as that accomplished by bike lanes, is better than no separation?
I think the Notion, as you put it, is fostered by the relative absence of cyclists on the road. I can attest to the success of promoting cycling in the minds of others through personal demonstration. People that used to warn me of the dangers now cheer me on. The prejudices are being destroyed.

People's attitudes can change when they actually see that cyclists on the road is not so bad, and might even be a good thing. I'm not saying we should create more bike lanes to encourage cyclists to get out on the road, as some would, but I am saying that as people see more people cycling on the road, the cultural bias begins to change.

[TRaffic Jammer]

seems to work in Asia....bikes, goats, you name it all share the road. Just get out there and ride.

[Helmet Head]

But I don't think they accomplish any kind of real separation. Haven't you yourself argued that bike lane stripes offer no real protection from motorists and are therefore superfluous?

I have said and do agree that bike lanes offer no real protection. However, all lane stripes do separate lines of traffic, and to that extent, bike lane stripes do separate lines of bike traffic in the bike lane from lines of same-direction vehicular traffic outside of the bike lane.


To say that bike lanes amount to an official sanction that cyclists should be moved out of the way of motorists is questionable, since bike lanes do not separate cyclists from motor traffic. In fact, it is cyclists themselves who so often call for bike lanes.
That cyclists should be moved out of the way of motorists is only of the reasons given in support of bike lanes. That the separation (allegedly) makes cycling safer and more enjoyable to cyclists is another. Your assertion that "bike lanes do not separate cyclists from motor traffic" is unsupported, except by our mutally agreed premise that "bike lane stripes offer no real protection from motorists". But from that premise it does not necessarily follow that "bike lanes do not separate cyclists from motor traffic". In fact, they do, at least to some extent. If they didn't, we'd have nothing to talk about.

Bike lanes do separate cyclists from motor traffic. We can debate about how effective they are at doing it, but that would all be beside the point. Those who support bike lanes certainly believe that bike lanes provide not only separation, but desired separation. Why the separation is desired varies among the various factions of bike lanes supporters, but the one thing they all have in common is belief in The Notion. Perhaps bike lanes do not provide as much separation as they would like, but they do provide some; and, for them, for their various reasons, some separation, even compromised separation, is better than none. And all I'm asking you is whether you agree that the existence of bike lanes serves as an official sanction of that Notion (that separation is good, the more the better, and some is better than none).

[TRaffic Jammer]

As it's the municipality that puts the BL in, I guess it is indicative of the "official sanction" for separation.

[genec]

seems to work in Asia....bikes, goats, you name it all share the road. Just get out there and ride.

Great, I have no problem with this... can we simply slow down the roads in the "first world nations" to the same speed as those in the "developing nations?" Oh yeah and make all the autos the size of small Toyotas instead of giant Surburbans.

Works for me.

[Helmet Head]

Another aspect of The Notion that cyclists should be separated from motorists as much as possible is exemplified by forum member oilfreeandhappy in another thread (post #23 in the I believe... thread):



What's the big hang-up with this topic? If the question is "Should a cyclist ride down the middle of the street?", I say NO. "Should a cyclist stay as far to the right of the road as possible?", I say YES.

To review, according to the The Notion, a completely separate infrastructure is best, but if that can't be accomplished, then some separation is better than no separation, even compromised separation is better than nothing. In the absence of any separate facilities, then the cyclist must resort to implied separation as best as he can, or in oilfreeandhappy's words, "cyclists should stay as far right to the right of the road as is possible".

I contend The Notion is widespread in our culture, among cyclists and even cycling advocates almost as much as among non-cyclists.

What I'm wondering is how many of you (including LittleBigMan) agree with me that:

1) The Notion is indeed widespread in our culture, and
2a) that The Notion is the biggest hinderance to cycling advocacy (for any number of reasons) and we should be figuring out how to fight it.

Or, do you believe that
2b) cycling advocacy should accept The Notion and try to work with it rather than try to fight it?

LittleBigMan has seemed to imply that he agrees with 1 and 2a, or at least that The Notion is a hinderance, and that his issue he has with me is on how to fight The Notion. He suggests that getting more butts on bikes is the best way. For the record, I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I would like to see some confirmed consensus on 2a before we get into how best to deal with it, and whether or not opposing bikelanes is productive or counterproductive with respect to our mission.

[genec]

1) The Notion is indeed widespread in our culture, and
2a) that The Notion is the biggest hinderance to cycling advocacy and we should be figuring out how to fight it.

Or, do you believe that
2b) cycling advocacy should accept The Notion and try to work with it rather than try to fight it?


I already stated that Notion or no... the physical characteristics of the different modes of travel (human powered and motor powered) tend to separate the users naturally anyway... anything that forces them together is not natural. Therefore separation is natural.

Just like different sized rocks get separated on a beach washed with surf. It just happens.

Trying to ride a bike in the middle of a 65MPH road with approaching motor vehicles can be an uncomfortable situation. Separation will occur... it just happens.

[Helmet Head]

Gene, The Notion is not about whether slower traffic should be separated from faster traffic when possible. Of course. The Notion goes well above and beyond that. It holds that cyclists should be separated from motor traffic as much as possible. Period. No qualifications about speed, destination, intersections, nothing. With this clarification about The Notion, please answer the questions. Do you agree that:

1) The Notion is indeed widespread in our culture, and
2a) that The Notion is the biggest hinderance to cycling advocacy and we should be figuring out how to fight it.

Or, do you believe that
2b) cycling advocacy should accept The Notion and try to work with it rather than try to fight it?

[LittleBigMan]

Your assertion that "bike lanes do not separate cyclists from motor traffic" is unsupported...
On the contrary, I offered support for that assertion in my initial response, when I said that I can leave the bike lane if I want to. To argue that the bike lane separates me from motor traffic is therefore false, because I can and do merge with motor traffic from the bike lane.

I understand your objection to bike lanes based on the overall cultural prejudice that perceives cyclists as secondary road users who are not as important as motorists, and therefore you see the bike lane as a symbol of an attitude we cyclists want to change. But as long as cyclists are not restricted to using special bike lanes or routes (which I realize they are, which is an attitude we must fight,) there is no compelling reason to oppose them outright since so many cyclists enjoy them. Rather, we should oppose the cultural bias which marginalizes cyclists directly, since most people are not convinced by the argument that bike lanes are the moral equivalent of segregated drinking fountains. If you want to win a battle over attitudes, you have to pick the right strategy. We should fight laws which restrict us, but not bike lanes in general.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Great, I have no problem with this... can we simply slow down the roads in the "first world nations" to the same speed as those in the "developing nations?" Oh yeah and make all the autos the size of small Toyotas instead of giant Surburbans.

Works for me.

And as urban sprawl continues unabated with consumption at an all time high.....
As the population continues to explode exponentially.....
How long do you think it will be before our roads are exactly the same.....minus the goats of course.

Who the hell needs a Surburban anyway? It's this mind set we have in North AMerica that has caused part of the problem to begin with.

[Helmet Head]

On the contrary, I offered support for that assertion in my initial response, when I said that I can leave the bike lane if I want to. To argue that the bike lane separates me from motor traffic is therefore false, because I can and do merge with motor traffic from the bike lane.
Just because you can choose to not be separated does not mean you're not separated by the stripe. Yes, it's not a brick-wall separation, but it is a separation, just like any other lane stripe provides some separation. Denying that it is is dodging the question and issue I'm trying to discuss.


I understand your objection to bike lanes based on the overall cultural prejudice that perceives cyclists as secondary road users who are not as important as motorists, and therefore you see the bike lane as a symbol of an attitude we cyclists want to change. But as long as cyclists are not restricted to using special bike lanes or routes (which I realize they are, which is an attitude we must fight,) there is no compelling reason to oppose them outright since so many cyclists enjoy them. Rather, we should oppose the cultural bias which marginalizes cyclists directly, since most people are not convinced by the argument that bike lanes are the moral equivalent of segregated drinking fountains. If you want to win a battle over attitudes, you have to pick the right strategy. We should fight laws which restrict us, but not bike lanes in general.
The current discussion is not about bike lanes and whether opposing them is counter-productive or not.

[LittleBigMan]

Just because you can choose to not be separated does not mean you're not separated by the stripe. Yes, it's not a brick-wall separation, but it is a separation, just like any other lane stripe provides some separation. Denying that it is is dodging the question and issue I'm trying to discuss.
I've answered your questions with vastly more flexibility than you are showing by repeatedly asking the same question over and over without meditating on the answers given. I can only assume that for me to continue with this discussion will produce the same result.



The current discussion is not about bike lanes and whether opposing them is counter-productive or not.
The title of the thread is, "Bike Lane Debate."

[Brian Ratliff]

HH- are you trying to discuss "separation" or "segregation"? These are two very different concepts. Separation is what lane line stripes do to different traffic streams. Whether this causes any technical difficulties is up for debate, but as far as acceptance goes, all traffic streams are already segregated, sometimes by destination (normal lanes), sometimes by speed (freeway lanes), and sometimes even by vehicle type (bus or truck lanes).

Segregation is the real evil, and consists of building bike lanes and forcing cyclists to use them exclusively while not being allowed on the rest of the road. It indicates that a right is taken away. As long as cyclists are allowed to use the rest of the road, then no rights are taken away by a bike lane. In fact, the right to an extra, exclusive space is a right which has been added. In this fashion, bike lanes, by no means, segregate.

See this definition to see what I mean. The principle component is that something is taken away from a group of people.

segregated

adjective
Excluding or unavailable to certain minorities: restricted. See include/exclude, limited/unlimited.

(from http://opera.answers.com/segregated)

I see no problem with separation, except for some technical issues with intersections with minor streets. I see many problems with segregation. By arguing against bike lanes though, you are arguing against separation from a social point of view. In that, I will have to beg to differ.

[Helmet Head]

LittleBigMan, I'm reading your posts very carefully. I'm sorry you feel I haven't. Is there any point in particular you think I missed?

Yes, the title of this thread is "Bike Lane Debate". But I'm trying to back up a bit, in order to determine whether we have common ground on some underlying issues (in particular, The Notion).


I've answered your questions with vastly more flexibility
Not answering a question based on a declaration that it is moot because separation is not interesting to you even though the question has nothing to do with your opinion about the relevance of separation to you, or by using an extreme interpretation of separation (that I clearly did not intend in my question) in order to deny that bike lanes separate cyclists from motor traffic, is hardly answering my questions, much less with any flexibility. It's dodging them. You don't seem to be interested in answering the questions necessary to clearly establish whether we have common ground or not.

Brian, I'm not talking about segregation. I'm talking about separation. Specifically, I'm talking about The Notion that separation of cyclists from motor traffic is good (regardless of the reasons), the more the better, and some is better than none.


I see no problem with separation, except for some technical issues with intersections with minor streets.
I see no inherent problem with some separation either, when it's the cyclist's choice. But that's not my question. My question is do you see a problem with the notion that cyclists should be separated from motor traffic as much as possible, and that some separation is always, or at least almost always, better than none. My other question is whether you agree that this Notion is widespread in our culture?

[noisebeam]

My post #71 hasn't been responded to. What do folks think about the idea that a BL is safer vs. WOL in dense (i.e. streams) traffic situations where the cyclist wants to let faster traffic pass as a cyclist very far to the right (2' from curb) is more visible from the rear than if right biased (3-4' from curb) due to sightlines being blocked by leading vehicle.

If one rides 2' from curb in WOL one may be squeezed, if one rides 2' from curb in BL one is much less likely to be squeezed as most drivers will not go over BL stripe.

Or if one rides 3-4' from curb in WOL or a 5' wide BL, following vehicles will see you later and have less time to react than if you were 2' from curb.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Al, I'll get to it later. It's a good question, but I don't want to derail the current discussion about common ground and prevalence of The Notion and whether that's good or bad. BTW, I don't think you've weighed in on that (see #82) either...

What I'm wondering is how many of you agree with me that:

1) The Notion is indeed widespread in our culture, and
2a) that The Notion is the biggest hinderance to cycling advocacy (for any number of reasons) and we should be figuring out how to fight it.

Or, do you believe that
2b) cycling advocacy should accept The Notion and try to work with it rather than try to fight it?

[noisebeam]

What I'm wondering is how many of you (including LittleBigMan) agree with me that:

1) The Notion is indeed widespread in our culture, and
2a) that The Notion is the biggest hinderance to cycling advocacy (for any number of reasons) and we should be figuring out how to fight it.

Or, do you believe that
2b) cycling advocacy should accept The Notion and try to work with it rather than try to fight it?

1. Yes widespread
2a. It is a hinderance
2b. Don't accept it. But it must be considered (i.e. worked with) and also work should be done to change the notion. Motorists must become more aware that cyclist will and should be in front of them for any and at any time. The more separate, the more motorist will not be prepared for and not be accepting of cyclists in front of them.

Al

[TRaffic Jammer]

if you're two feet from the curb you are effectively trapped.

[Brian Ratliff]

Brian, I'm not talking about segregation. I'm talking about separation. Specifically, I'm talking about The Notion that separation of cyclists from motor traffic is good (regardless of the reasons), the more the better, and some is better than none.

I see no inherent problem with some separation either, when it's the cyclist's choice. But that's not my question. My question is do you see a problem with the notion that cyclists should be separated from motor traffic as much as possible, and that some separation is always, or at least almost always, better than none. My other question is whether you agree that this Notion is widespread in our culture?

Separation is a cyclist's choice; that is what I believe and that is why I advocate for bike lanes to facilitate that choice. If a group of people believed that cyclists should be separated and then enforced that belief by making that separation mandatory (by law or by convention), then that would be segregation and I would fight that. Whether separation is technically the best is wholey determinate on my state of fitness that day, the current traffic conditions, the condition and design of the road, and sometimes even the weather.

I favor options that open up more choices to cyclists, hence I favor bike lanes on roads. Options which close off choices, such as advocating the elimination of otherwise safe bike lanes based on social justifications, I don't favor, and in fact, will fight. So the question is not whether I think that cyclists should be separated, and to what degree, but it is whether I think that individual cyclists are competent enough to make a choice about the degree of separation they want and then to offer as many options as possible.

As for the prevailance of "The Notion"; I have no data to answer that question, so I won't answer on the grounds that garbage in will invariably equal garbage out. You are trying to ask the question to try to trap the argument into a certain line of reasoning, and nobody is buying your trap. Your best line of argument against bike lanes is the technical one regarding minor intersection conflicts. The sociological argument invariably fails because social thought does not stand still. What wasn't acceptable five year ago is now perfectly common. If I am too optimistic that the problems of bike lanes can be solved, you are making the mistake in thinking you can change one thing and have everything else remain constant.

[noisebeam]

if you're two feet from the curb you are effectively trapped.
Right, in a WOL you may become trapped, but with a BL you are much more likely to have more space on your left.
But if you ride 4' from curb in a WOL to avoid getting trapped, following vehicles will see you later than if you were 2'

Now all this can be perhaps shown to be a non-issue thru math, calculating sightlines and relative speeds and finding the time difference is negligible. Then again, math may find the time difference to be significant enough to provide a safety margin.

All this came to me when I was driving in line of traffic next to a BL and I noted I didn't even see cyclist in BL until the car right ahead of me was adjacent to them. Many folks drive very close to the vehicle ahead of them meaning they won't see cyclist until they are about 2 car lengths behind them, at 45mph that is very short notice that they are about to pass a cyclist.

Al

[TRaffic Jammer]

That's why I've recently been seeing how society reacts to me taking the entirely of the curb lane when downtown. Can't miss me when I'm directly in front of you. :p

[noisebeam]

That's why I've recently been seeing how society reacts to me taking the entirely of the curb lane when downtown. Can't miss me when I'm directly in front of you. :p
Of course center position is often safest. I do this all the time where there are NOLs. It brings on the honking and tailgaiting.

But these are 45mph roads and if WOL or BL it is polite (and perhaps legally required, certainly if a single lane road) to move right and let faster vehicles pass, especially if there is a long line of cars behind you.

What you see here are the beginings of an arguement that NOLs are safer than WOL or BL. I've heard this from some hard core VC advocates.

Al

[TRaffic Jammer]

Bear in mind I'm doing this in a downtown environment with a speed limit of about 50kms, a very doable bike speed.

[noisebeam]

Bear in mind I'm doing this in a downtown environment with a speed limit of about 50kms, a very doable bike speed.
All the roads I regularly ride on WOL, BL, NOL are 45mph (72kph) posted, with few 40mph and 35mph exceptions for school zones.
50kph arterials would be a dream.

Al