TRaffic Jammer
03-03-06, 03:08 PM
Main streets of Toronto Downtown.50kms Lake Shore...arterial at the bottom of the city... 60km limit but we all drive 70-80 kms. Now on the highways, we are wicked quick, but there are no bikes there at all.
View Full Version : Bike Lane Debate
noisebeam
03-03-06, 03:17 PM
Main streets of Toronto Downtown.50kms Lake Shore...arterial at the bottom of the city... 60km limit but we all drive 70-80 kms. Now on the highways, we are wicked quick, but there are no bikes there at all.
Of course posted speed limits here are read as minimums by most drivers. 45mph means go 55mph. Even during denser rush traffic, it still moves at 45mph, but bumper to bumper.
Freeways here are 75mph (120kph) out of city limits, 65mph in city limits.
Al
Of course posted speed limits here are read as minimums by most drivers. 45mph means go 55mph. Even during denser rush traffic, it still moves at 45mph, but bumper to bumper.
Freeways here are 75mph (120kph) out of city limits, 65mph in city limits.
Al
genec
03-03-06, 03:53 PM
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?
Answered in post 83. Whether a "Notion" exists or not, the reality is the physical characteristics of the different modes of transportation will cause a natural separation... anything that attempts to force all users together will result in the all users operating at the lowest common denominator.
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?
Answered in post 83. Whether a "Notion" exists or not, the reality is the physical characteristics of the different modes of transportation will cause a natural separation... anything that attempts to force all users together will result in the all users operating at the lowest common denominator.
Helmet Head
03-03-06, 04:32 PM
Whether a "Notion" exists or not, the reality is the physical characteristics of the different modes of transportation will cause a natural separation...
That's not answering the question. That's saying what you want to say regarding the topic.
I'm asking whether you agree that:
1) The Notion that cyclists SHOULD be separated (beyond the natural separation that tends to occur between slow and faster traffic) is prevalent in our culture
2a) This Notion is the biggest hinderance to cycling advocacy and we should be figuring out how to fight it, OR
2b) cycling advocacy should accept The Notion and try to work with it rather than try to fight it?
Thank you, Al, by the way, for answering the question!
That's not answering the question. That's saying what you want to say regarding the topic.
I'm asking whether you agree that:
1) The Notion that cyclists SHOULD be separated (beyond the natural separation that tends to occur between slow and faster traffic) is prevalent in our culture
2a) This Notion is the biggest hinderance to cycling advocacy and we should be figuring out how to fight it, OR
2b) cycling advocacy should accept The Notion and try to work with it rather than try to fight it?
Thank you, Al, by the way, for answering the question!
Helmet Head
03-03-06, 04:59 PM
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.
I'm asking your opinion, not what the facts are. I'm asking what you believe. Honestly. Are you saying all of your opinions are exclusively based on data? Can you do me a favor? Gather a little of your own data. Ask around. Your family, co-workers, friends, friends of your folks, bike shop employees. You're a smart guy. You should be able to choose a reasonably fair random sample. Figure out what questions you need to ask for you to determine for yourself how prevalent is the notion that cyclists should be separated from motorists as much as possible, the more the better, with some being better than none. Then let us know. Thanks.
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.
There is no trap. I'm not hiding any cards up my sleeve. You all see what I'm doing and where this is going. The fact is, either The Notion is as prevalent as I say it is, or it's not. But even if it is, that does not necessarily mean cycling advocates should be opposing bike lanes. So I don't understand why there is all this resistance (you, LBM, Gene) to answer the question.
I mean, if you honestly have no idea, fine. But if you're pretty sure you've heard enough people yell "get out of the road!", "get out of my way!", "get on the sidewalk!" and "get in the bikelane!", along with stories about cops lecturing cyclists about their obligation to stay out of the way of cars, regardless of what the law says, plus countless people making all kinds of statements in letters to the editor and elsewhere consistent with believing cyclists should be out of the way of cars for all kinds of reasons, etc., for you to believe that the Notion is quite prevalent, but are just refusing to admit it to avoid "falling in a trap", come on... don't be so lame! If your positions are solid, you should not be vulnerable to the "traps" you say I'm setting. And if your positions are not solid, don't you want to find out, and alter them as necessary in order to make them solid?
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.
You lost me here. I know social thought does not stand still. But just because it changes, doesn't mean we can't talk about what it was, what it is, and what we want it to be. In fact, that's what enables such discussions. And that's the basis for caring about the prevalence of The Notion in our culture today. I want to change that. I want The Notion to not be nearly as prevalent five years from now as it is today. Don't you? The question is how do we get there (in particular, whether eliminating bike lanes is an important part of it)? But we can't even address that until you guys concede that it is prevalent today. And as far as thinking I can change one thing and have everything else remain constant, what are you talking about? What is the one thing you think I'm trying to change? Well, I can tell you what it is... social thought about cycling in our culture! Don't you want to change it too?
I'm asking your opinion, not what the facts are. I'm asking what you believe. Honestly. Are you saying all of your opinions are exclusively based on data? Can you do me a favor? Gather a little of your own data. Ask around. Your family, co-workers, friends, friends of your folks, bike shop employees. You're a smart guy. You should be able to choose a reasonably fair random sample. Figure out what questions you need to ask for you to determine for yourself how prevalent is the notion that cyclists should be separated from motorists as much as possible, the more the better, with some being better than none. Then let us know. Thanks.
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.
There is no trap. I'm not hiding any cards up my sleeve. You all see what I'm doing and where this is going. The fact is, either The Notion is as prevalent as I say it is, or it's not. But even if it is, that does not necessarily mean cycling advocates should be opposing bike lanes. So I don't understand why there is all this resistance (you, LBM, Gene) to answer the question.
I mean, if you honestly have no idea, fine. But if you're pretty sure you've heard enough people yell "get out of the road!", "get out of my way!", "get on the sidewalk!" and "get in the bikelane!", along with stories about cops lecturing cyclists about their obligation to stay out of the way of cars, regardless of what the law says, plus countless people making all kinds of statements in letters to the editor and elsewhere consistent with believing cyclists should be out of the way of cars for all kinds of reasons, etc., for you to believe that the Notion is quite prevalent, but are just refusing to admit it to avoid "falling in a trap", come on... don't be so lame! If your positions are solid, you should not be vulnerable to the "traps" you say I'm setting. And if your positions are not solid, don't you want to find out, and alter them as necessary in order to make them solid?
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.
You lost me here. I know social thought does not stand still. But just because it changes, doesn't mean we can't talk about what it was, what it is, and what we want it to be. In fact, that's what enables such discussions. And that's the basis for caring about the prevalence of The Notion in our culture today. I want to change that. I want The Notion to not be nearly as prevalent five years from now as it is today. Don't you? The question is how do we get there (in particular, whether eliminating bike lanes is an important part of it)? But we can't even address that until you guys concede that it is prevalent today. And as far as thinking I can change one thing and have everything else remain constant, what are you talking about? What is the one thing you think I'm trying to change? Well, I can tell you what it is... social thought about cycling in our culture! Don't you want to change it too?
genec
03-03-06, 05:17 PM
That's not answering the question. That's saying what you want to say regarding the topic.
I'm asking whether you agree that:
1) The Notion that cyclists SHOULD be separated (beyond the natural separation that tends to occur between slow and faster traffic) is prevalent in our culture
2a) This Notion is the biggest hinderance to cycling advocacy and we should be figuring out how to fight it, OR
2b) cycling advocacy should accept The Notion and try to work with it rather than try to fight it?
Thank you, Al, by the way, for answering the question!
1. Yes. The Notion exists because it will occur by nature, therefore it is prevalent in our culture. Also prevalent in our culture is "might makes right" which totally screws up the laws that give cyclists rights. (no matter what your "rights" are, the cyclist loses in any direct conflict with a motor vehicle)
2a. It is a problem... by fighting the Notion, one is fighting the natural order of things. Now I cannot answer yes or no, as "cycling advocacy" means different things to differerent people... to some it is getting more bodies on bikes, to you it is the elimination of bike lanes and full equality with motor vehicles for cyclists on the road (inspite of the natural order).
2b. Yes. To accept the natural occurance and work with it will eventually lead to less conflicts. (again this depends on the definition of "cycling advocacy").
You can swim against the tide, but eventually the tide will win.
I'm asking whether you agree that:
1) The Notion that cyclists SHOULD be separated (beyond the natural separation that tends to occur between slow and faster traffic) is prevalent in our culture
2a) This Notion is the biggest hinderance to cycling advocacy and we should be figuring out how to fight it, OR
2b) cycling advocacy should accept The Notion and try to work with it rather than try to fight it?
Thank you, Al, by the way, for answering the question!
1. Yes. The Notion exists because it will occur by nature, therefore it is prevalent in our culture. Also prevalent in our culture is "might makes right" which totally screws up the laws that give cyclists rights. (no matter what your "rights" are, the cyclist loses in any direct conflict with a motor vehicle)
2a. It is a problem... by fighting the Notion, one is fighting the natural order of things. Now I cannot answer yes or no, as "cycling advocacy" means different things to differerent people... to some it is getting more bodies on bikes, to you it is the elimination of bike lanes and full equality with motor vehicles for cyclists on the road (inspite of the natural order).
2b. Yes. To accept the natural occurance and work with it will eventually lead to less conflicts. (again this depends on the definition of "cycling advocacy").
You can swim against the tide, but eventually the tide will win.
Brian Ratliff
03-03-06, 05:56 PM
HH- "The Notion" as you call it, is not a real thing; it is simply the result of people acting irrationally to a subject they have given very little thought to. Forester brings it up in his book with the "cyclist inferiority syndrome," but he gives nothing to support that his suppositions are real and actually affect how people act. But that is beside the point.
The reason your question makes no sense to ask is that it is irrelevant in determining policy. Whether the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars is prevailant or not is irrelevent to the subject of whether bike lanes should be embraced or rejected. Bike lanes are simply a tool for a competent cyclist to use to get around on the city streets on a bike. Tools do not, or should not, have moral or social baggage surrounding their use. If the tools are misused, then the solution is to teach the users how to use them, not to take it out of their hands.
As for the question of whether I think that your notion is correct; I've already answered in that I have no way of knowing. Neither do you, I suspect. The difference between you and I is that you seem to think that your opinion is somehow relevant to the debate, while I know that my opinion matters not a twit.
Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that there is even a way to obtain the information you seek. An opinion poll is a rushed snapshot of public opinion which is highly dependent on the wording of the question. Go ahead. Ask your friend out of the blue if they are able to notice a cyclist on the very far right side of the road. Bet they answer "of course." But do they? Now ask them if they believe that a cyclist should be out in the lane. Bet they answer "no way, too dangerous." Now take a drive with them and see how easily they skirt around a cyclist in the lane on a country road without a second thought.
So what do you do in the face of such uncertainty? Well, we still sell chainsaws in the hardware store, despite the risk that someone could off their leg. We simply give them instructions on how to avoid this and trust that they will read and comprehend the instructions. In other words, we give the people the tool, along with an instruction booklet, instead of keeping the tool away from them and only allowing them access to hand saws.
As for bike lanes, I say keep them, but give cyclists instructions of possible problem areas and what to do about it. Don't just eliminate the bike lane and tell a beginner to "stick to quiet roads." Give them the tool, give them the instruction booklet, and trust that they will be mature enough to figure it out.
The reason your question makes no sense to ask is that it is irrelevant in determining policy. Whether the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars is prevailant or not is irrelevent to the subject of whether bike lanes should be embraced or rejected. Bike lanes are simply a tool for a competent cyclist to use to get around on the city streets on a bike. Tools do not, or should not, have moral or social baggage surrounding their use. If the tools are misused, then the solution is to teach the users how to use them, not to take it out of their hands.
As for the question of whether I think that your notion is correct; I've already answered in that I have no way of knowing. Neither do you, I suspect. The difference between you and I is that you seem to think that your opinion is somehow relevant to the debate, while I know that my opinion matters not a twit.
Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that there is even a way to obtain the information you seek. An opinion poll is a rushed snapshot of public opinion which is highly dependent on the wording of the question. Go ahead. Ask your friend out of the blue if they are able to notice a cyclist on the very far right side of the road. Bet they answer "of course." But do they? Now ask them if they believe that a cyclist should be out in the lane. Bet they answer "no way, too dangerous." Now take a drive with them and see how easily they skirt around a cyclist in the lane on a country road without a second thought.
So what do you do in the face of such uncertainty? Well, we still sell chainsaws in the hardware store, despite the risk that someone could off their leg. We simply give them instructions on how to avoid this and trust that they will read and comprehend the instructions. In other words, we give the people the tool, along with an instruction booklet, instead of keeping the tool away from them and only allowing them access to hand saws.
As for bike lanes, I say keep them, but give cyclists instructions of possible problem areas and what to do about it. Don't just eliminate the bike lane and tell a beginner to "stick to quiet roads." Give them the tool, give them the instruction booklet, and trust that they will be mature enough to figure it out.
Helmet Head
03-05-06, 12:47 AM
The reason your question makes no sense to ask is that it is irrelevant in determining policy. Whether the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars is prevailant or not is irrelevent to the subject of whether bike lanes should be embraced or rejected.
The relevancy of The Notion in determining policy goes far beyond bike lanes. See my thread on opposing 21202.
The relevancy of The Notion in determining policy goes far beyond bike lanes. See my thread on opposing 21202.
Bekologist
03-05-06, 07:43 AM
I rather like well designed, preferential, dedicated lanes for bicyclists integrated with the existing roadways.
LittleBigMan
03-06-06, 08:15 AM
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. You keep trying to nail me down to your narrow interpretation of "separation" by insisting I answer your questions "yes" or "no." Rather, I interpret separation differently and weight it's impact far differently also. You interpret that as evading your questions.
I have already pointed out that there are different types of separation, and that each must be measured on it's own merits or demerits, and that separation itself is not the important factor determining 1) safety, 2) right to the road, or 3) convenience. For you to continue to dwell on separation instead of the above three aspects of cycling indicates your undue attention given to the matter of separation. Hence, I avoided answering your narrowly-defined questions for this reason and the reason given in the previous paragraph.
Yes. You keep trying to nail me down to your narrow interpretation of "separation" by insisting I answer your questions "yes" or "no." Rather, I interpret separation differently and weight it's impact far differently also. You interpret that as evading your questions.
I have already pointed out that there are different types of separation, and that each must be measured on it's own merits or demerits, and that separation itself is not the important factor determining 1) safety, 2) right to the road, or 3) convenience. For you to continue to dwell on separation instead of the above three aspects of cycling indicates your undue attention given to the matter of separation. Hence, I avoided answering your narrowly-defined questions for this reason and the reason given in the previous paragraph.
SDRider
03-06-06, 05:09 PM
Having grown up riding on narrow roads with little or no shoulder in New England and now riding the many many roads in San Diego with bike lanes I much prefer bike lanes. I honestly have no idea why this is even being debated. Cars don't have to worry about passing a cyclist and cyclists don't have to worry about cars misjudging the amount of room they need to give a cyclist.
Bike lanes should be planned into all communities IMO. Best idea ever!
Bike lanes should be planned into all communities IMO. Best idea ever!
genec
03-06-06, 05:22 PM
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
Sure, because with a NOL you have to take the lane, effectively giving yourself the widest BL possible...
Nice, unless the traffic behind you starts to get real aggressive and starts pulling the "how close to the handle bars can I get as I swoop past the idiot biker" routine. Of course in AZ you have a three foot law, CA doesn't, so legally they can do just that sort of thing, and will.
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
Sure, because with a NOL you have to take the lane, effectively giving yourself the widest BL possible...
Nice, unless the traffic behind you starts to get real aggressive and starts pulling the "how close to the handle bars can I get as I swoop past the idiot biker" routine. Of course in AZ you have a three foot law, CA doesn't, so legally they can do just that sort of thing, and will.
noisebeam
03-06-06, 05:44 PM
Nice, unless the traffic behind you starts to get real aggressive and starts pulling the "how close to the handle bars can I get as I swoop past the idiot biker" routine. Of course in AZ you have a three foot law, CA doesn't, so legally they can do just that sort of thing, and will.
Legal or not I would bet that passing closer than 3ft occurs no more or less in CA vs. AZ. Not a single motorist I have ever talked to knew about the law (I even didn't before I took up cycling again). Even if folks did know the law I doubt many would seriously worry about violating it, just like the disregard for speed limits. I have never known it to be enforced and unenforced laws are basically worthless. The benefit it does provide is post-accident citation.
Al
Legal or not I would bet that passing closer than 3ft occurs no more or less in CA vs. AZ. Not a single motorist I have ever talked to knew about the law (I even didn't before I took up cycling again). Even if folks did know the law I doubt many would seriously worry about violating it, just like the disregard for speed limits. I have never known it to be enforced and unenforced laws are basically worthless. The benefit it does provide is post-accident citation.
Al
genec
03-06-06, 05:59 PM
Legal or not I would bet that passing closer than 3ft occurs no more or less in CA vs. AZ. Not a single motorist I have ever talked to knew about the law (I even didn't before I took up cycling again). Even if folks did know the law I doubt many would seriously worry about violating it, just like the disregard for speed limits. I have never known it to be enforced and unenforced laws are basically worthless. The benefit it does provide is post-accident citation.
Al
Oh, so you get the handle bar swoopers too... I would think so on a crowded 45MPH boulevard... the nut that it always looking to squeeze in one more pass so he can get home .0001 seconds faster than any one else. Sheesh!
Al
Oh, so you get the handle bar swoopers too... I would think so on a crowded 45MPH boulevard... the nut that it always looking to squeeze in one more pass so he can get home .0001 seconds faster than any one else. Sheesh!
Helmet Head
03-07-06, 12:30 AM
Having grown up riding on narrow roads with little or no shoulder in New England and now riding the many many roads in San Diego with bike lanes I much prefer bike lanes. I honestly have no idea why this is even being debated. Cars don't have to worry about passing a cyclist and cyclists don't have to worry about cars misjudging the amount of room they need to give a cyclist.
Bike lanes should be planned into all communities IMO. Best idea ever!
You're comparing apples with oranges.
If you take away the bike lane stripes in San Diego, you don't get the narrow roads you grew up with, you get roads with wide outside lanes which have just as much room for motorists to pass cyclists and for cyclists to be out of the way of faster traffic.
Bike lanes should be planned into all communities IMO. Best idea ever!
You're comparing apples with oranges.
If you take away the bike lane stripes in San Diego, you don't get the narrow roads you grew up with, you get roads with wide outside lanes which have just as much room for motorists to pass cyclists and for cyclists to be out of the way of faster traffic.
Helmet Head
03-07-06, 12:38 AM
Yes. You keep trying to nail me down to your narrow interpretation of "separation" by insisting I answer your questions "yes" or "no." Rather, I interpret separation differently and weight it's impact far differently also. You interpret that as evading your questions.
I have already pointed out that there are different types of separation, and that each must be measured on it's own merits or demerits, and that separation itself is not the important factor determining 1) safety, 2) right to the road, or 3) convenience. For you to continue to dwell on separation instead of the above three aspects of cycling indicates your undue attention given to the matter of separation. Hence, I avoided answering your narrowly-defined questions for this reason and the reason given in the previous paragraph.
I didn't miss any of that. I'm looking at this a little differently right now, that's all. Ultimately, it's still about safety, rights and convenience, of course. But paradigms matter, and that's what I'm trying to address right now.
Let's forget about what you and I think about the relevance and meaning of separateness. Please. Let's just not use that word at all, since it's causing some kind of semantic dissonance between us.
Regardless of where you think this may or may not be going, and the relevance of going there, please, humor me.
I would like to ask you about what you think other people mean when they think and say things like "bikes and cars don't mix", "the spirit of the law is that bikes should stay out of the way of cars", "it is unsafe for bikes to be on roads with cars and trucks", and "I feel safer riding on sidewalks". Surely, you've heard these kinds of opinions expressed. What, in your words, do they mean? How prevalent or widespread do you believe the thinking exemplifed by these kinds of sentiments is in our culture or society, in the general population, among cyclists, and among cycling advocates? Do you believe this kind of thinking makes cycling in traffic less comfortable and stressful than it would be with less of this kind of thinking? Do you think believing things like "cars and bike's don't mix" might prevent some people from taking up cycling on roadways?
I have already pointed out that there are different types of separation, and that each must be measured on it's own merits or demerits, and that separation itself is not the important factor determining 1) safety, 2) right to the road, or 3) convenience. For you to continue to dwell on separation instead of the above three aspects of cycling indicates your undue attention given to the matter of separation. Hence, I avoided answering your narrowly-defined questions for this reason and the reason given in the previous paragraph.
I didn't miss any of that. I'm looking at this a little differently right now, that's all. Ultimately, it's still about safety, rights and convenience, of course. But paradigms matter, and that's what I'm trying to address right now.
Let's forget about what you and I think about the relevance and meaning of separateness. Please. Let's just not use that word at all, since it's causing some kind of semantic dissonance between us.
Regardless of where you think this may or may not be going, and the relevance of going there, please, humor me.
I would like to ask you about what you think other people mean when they think and say things like "bikes and cars don't mix", "the spirit of the law is that bikes should stay out of the way of cars", "it is unsafe for bikes to be on roads with cars and trucks", and "I feel safer riding on sidewalks". Surely, you've heard these kinds of opinions expressed. What, in your words, do they mean? How prevalent or widespread do you believe the thinking exemplifed by these kinds of sentiments is in our culture or society, in the general population, among cyclists, and among cycling advocates? Do you believe this kind of thinking makes cycling in traffic less comfortable and stressful than it would be with less of this kind of thinking? Do you think believing things like "cars and bike's don't mix" might prevent some people from taking up cycling on roadways?
Bekologist
03-07-06, 07:26 AM
I honestly have no idea why this is even being debated.
Bike lanes should be planned into all communities IMO. Best idea ever!
Yep. Makes sense, doesn't it? Cars and bikes 'mixing it up' on the roads, with a system of well designed, integrated bike lanes, sharrows, and MUPs, any community can become a better community for bicycling!
Bike lanes should be planned into all communities IMO. Best idea ever!
Yep. Makes sense, doesn't it? Cars and bikes 'mixing it up' on the roads, with a system of well designed, integrated bike lanes, sharrows, and MUPs, any community can become a better community for bicycling!
LittleBigMan
03-07-06, 08:49 AM
I would like to ask you about what you think other people mean when they think and say things like "bikes and cars don't mix", "the spirit of the law is that bikes should stay out of the way of cars", "it is unsafe for bikes to be on roads with cars and trucks", and "I feel safer riding on sidewalks". Surely, you've heard these kinds of opinions expressed. What, in your words, do they mean? How prevalent or widespread do you believe the thinking exemplifed by these kinds of sentiments is in our culture or society, in the general population, among cyclists, and among cycling advocates? Do you believe this kind of thinking makes cycling in traffic less comfortable and stressful than it would be with less of this kind of thinking? Do you think believing things like "cars and bike's don't mix" might prevent some people from taking up cycling on roadways?
From what I've seen and heard from people firsthand, the attitude that bicycles don't belong on the road with cars seems to be the dominant mindset. This mindset makes cycling on the road (which for me is the only practical kind of cycling) an activity that calls for going against the cultural mindset.
I have talked to many people about this topic, and the overall consensus seems to support "the Notion," as you call it. The overwhelming majority of these people are motorists and their experience with other motorists reinforces their fear of other drivers. They just wouldn't be caught dead riding a bike in traffic (no pun intended.) They can hardly get their minds around the idea that anyone would actually ride a bike from where I live to where I work.
Yet despite this, when I encounter the average motorist on my bike, it is they who seem to be afraid of me! The aggressive driving I sometimes see while driving my car seems almost absent when I'm on my bike. I guess the perception that road cycling is too dangerous results in an almost overly benevolent attitude toward me, as if I'm a little old lady trying to cross the street. Maybe this also contributes to the idea that a separate facility for cyclists is doing them a favor, which is also echoed by many cyclists themselves.
I really think the idea that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, although it's lawful, is completely incompatible with the overwhelming attitude of the majority of motorists, which seems to be that cyclists are somehow "lesser" road users that don't really belong. Somehow, the "same rights, same rules, same responsiblities" attitude has to win out.
I also think the conflicting notion that cyclists don't belong on the road does make it harder for people to begin road cycling. Nevertheless, with the prevalence of this faulty attitude, cyclists must resign themselves to riding in spite of it. This is the only way the attitude will ever change.
This is one reason I like BikeForums. I am immersed in a non-cycling culture, and these forums give me "fresh air."
From what I've seen and heard from people firsthand, the attitude that bicycles don't belong on the road with cars seems to be the dominant mindset. This mindset makes cycling on the road (which for me is the only practical kind of cycling) an activity that calls for going against the cultural mindset.
I have talked to many people about this topic, and the overall consensus seems to support "the Notion," as you call it. The overwhelming majority of these people are motorists and their experience with other motorists reinforces their fear of other drivers. They just wouldn't be caught dead riding a bike in traffic (no pun intended.) They can hardly get their minds around the idea that anyone would actually ride a bike from where I live to where I work.
Yet despite this, when I encounter the average motorist on my bike, it is they who seem to be afraid of me! The aggressive driving I sometimes see while driving my car seems almost absent when I'm on my bike. I guess the perception that road cycling is too dangerous results in an almost overly benevolent attitude toward me, as if I'm a little old lady trying to cross the street. Maybe this also contributes to the idea that a separate facility for cyclists is doing them a favor, which is also echoed by many cyclists themselves.
I really think the idea that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, although it's lawful, is completely incompatible with the overwhelming attitude of the majority of motorists, which seems to be that cyclists are somehow "lesser" road users that don't really belong. Somehow, the "same rights, same rules, same responsiblities" attitude has to win out.
I also think the conflicting notion that cyclists don't belong on the road does make it harder for people to begin road cycling. Nevertheless, with the prevalence of this faulty attitude, cyclists must resign themselves to riding in spite of it. This is the only way the attitude will ever change.
This is one reason I like BikeForums. I am immersed in a non-cycling culture, and these forums give me "fresh air."
Helmet Head
03-07-06, 12:06 PM
From what I've seen and heard from people firsthand, the attitude that bicycles don't belong on the road with cars seems to be the dominant mindset. This mindset makes cycling on the road (which for me is the only practical kind of cycling) an activity that calls for going against the cultural mindset.
I have talked to many people about this topic, and the overall consensus seems to support "the Notion," as you call it. The overwhelming majority of these people are motorists and their experience with other motorists reinforces their fear of other drivers. They just wouldn't be caught dead riding a bike in traffic (no pun intended.) They can hardly get their minds around the idea that anyone would actually ride a bike from where I live to where I work.
Yet despite this, when I encounter the average motorist on my bike, it is they who seem to be afraid of me! The aggressive driving I sometimes see while driving my car seems almost absent when I'm on my bike. I guess the perception that road cycling is too dangerous results in an almost overly benevolent attitude toward me, as if I'm a little old lady trying to cross the street. Maybe this also contributes to the idea that a separate facility for cyclists is doing them a favor, which is also echoed by many cyclists themselves.
I really think the idea that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, although it's lawful, is completely incompatible with the overwhelming attitude of the majority of motorists, which seems to be that cyclists are somehow "lesser" road users that don't really belong. Somehow, the "same rights, same rules, same responsiblities" attitude has to win out.
I also think the conflicting notion that cyclists don't belong on the road does make it harder for people to begin road cycling. Nevertheless, with the prevalence of this faulty attitude, cyclists must resign themselves to riding in spite of it. This is the only way the attitude will ever change.
Thank you. Your experiences match mine perfectly. I've read it three times and everything is consistent with what I see and experience too. I believe we have achieved common ground on this issue!
We have established that we agree that cyclists must resign to riding in traffic despite the conflicting notion, and that this is the only way the attitude will ever change. But besides having cyclists ride who already ride, what else can we do?
In particular, is a cyclist riding in a narrow lane at the side of the road separated from the remainder of the roadway used by same-direction motor traffic by a 6" wide solid stripe help change the attitude? Or does the existence of this separating stripe reinforce the attitude?
I have talked to many people about this topic, and the overall consensus seems to support "the Notion," as you call it. The overwhelming majority of these people are motorists and their experience with other motorists reinforces their fear of other drivers. They just wouldn't be caught dead riding a bike in traffic (no pun intended.) They can hardly get their minds around the idea that anyone would actually ride a bike from where I live to where I work.
Yet despite this, when I encounter the average motorist on my bike, it is they who seem to be afraid of me! The aggressive driving I sometimes see while driving my car seems almost absent when I'm on my bike. I guess the perception that road cycling is too dangerous results in an almost overly benevolent attitude toward me, as if I'm a little old lady trying to cross the street. Maybe this also contributes to the idea that a separate facility for cyclists is doing them a favor, which is also echoed by many cyclists themselves.
I really think the idea that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, although it's lawful, is completely incompatible with the overwhelming attitude of the majority of motorists, which seems to be that cyclists are somehow "lesser" road users that don't really belong. Somehow, the "same rights, same rules, same responsiblities" attitude has to win out.
I also think the conflicting notion that cyclists don't belong on the road does make it harder for people to begin road cycling. Nevertheless, with the prevalence of this faulty attitude, cyclists must resign themselves to riding in spite of it. This is the only way the attitude will ever change.
Thank you. Your experiences match mine perfectly. I've read it three times and everything is consistent with what I see and experience too. I believe we have achieved common ground on this issue!
We have established that we agree that cyclists must resign to riding in traffic despite the conflicting notion, and that this is the only way the attitude will ever change. But besides having cyclists ride who already ride, what else can we do?
In particular, is a cyclist riding in a narrow lane at the side of the road separated from the remainder of the roadway used by same-direction motor traffic by a 6" wide solid stripe help change the attitude? Or does the existence of this separating stripe reinforce the attitude?
Bekologist
03-07-06, 02:49 PM
In particular, is a cyclist riding in a narrow lane at the side of the road separated from the remainder of the roadway used by same-direction motor traffic by a 6" wide solid stripe help change the attitude? Or does the existence of this separating stripe reinforce the attitude?
If that stripe increases the number of bikes on that roadway, then YES.
it reinforces that 'universal traffic rule' slower traffic keep right, and increases the visibility of cyclists, possibly changing motorist's attitudes about bikes in general, and dedicated roadway space to bicyclists.
A preferential lane system dedicated to multimodal transportation, I think those are sweet.
If that stripe increases the number of bikes on that roadway, then YES.
it reinforces that 'universal traffic rule' slower traffic keep right, and increases the visibility of cyclists, possibly changing motorist's attitudes about bikes in general, and dedicated roadway space to bicyclists.
A preferential lane system dedicated to multimodal transportation, I think those are sweet.
Helmet Head
03-07-06, 11:40 PM
[the bike lane] reinforces that 'universal traffic rule' slower traffic keep right
Does it? You seem to be equating slower traffic with bike traffic.
Doesn't the bike lane reinforce the prejudicial anti-cycling rule that bike traffic keeps right, rather than slower traffic keeps right?
Is slower traffic and bike traffic one and the same to you?
Does it? You seem to be equating slower traffic with bike traffic.
Doesn't the bike lane reinforce the prejudicial anti-cycling rule that bike traffic keeps right, rather than slower traffic keeps right?
Is slower traffic and bike traffic one and the same to you?
LittleBigMan
03-08-06, 09:11 AM
In particular, is a cyclist riding in a narrow lane at the side of the road separated from the remainder of the roadway used by same-direction motor traffic by a 6" wide solid stripe help change the attitude? Or does the existence of this separating stripe reinforce the attitude?
It really depends on who you ask. Some people see the addition of a bike lane as an official sanction that bikes belong on the road with cars. Others see the bike lane as an official sanction that bikes should be separated from motorists. Motorists probably also have varying opinions, ranging from "bike lanes make cycling on the road safer" to "bike lanes unnecessarily take up valuable space on the road."
So the bike lane could elicit different reactions from different people, even though the cultural bias, or lack of it, might cut across the dividing lines among these groups.
It really depends on who you ask. Some people see the addition of a bike lane as an official sanction that bikes belong on the road with cars. Others see the bike lane as an official sanction that bikes should be separated from motorists. Motorists probably also have varying opinions, ranging from "bike lanes make cycling on the road safer" to "bike lanes unnecessarily take up valuable space on the road."
So the bike lane could elicit different reactions from different people, even though the cultural bias, or lack of it, might cut across the dividing lines among these groups.
Helmet Head
03-08-06, 09:53 AM
It really depends on who you ask.
I'm asking you.
Some people see the addition of a bike lane as an official sanction that bikes belong on the road with cars.
Indeed, there is a pro-facilities organization called "Bikes Belong" whose name is based on this very notion. But don't you agree that there are (at least) two conceptions of what "bikes belong" (or "share the road", for that matter) means?
Bikes belong on the road, but out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right.
Bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so.
Do you recognize a signficant distinction between these two conceptions? If so, which do you favor, and why?
Does the addition of a bike lane reinforce one of the above conceptions more than the other? If so, which one?
I'm asking you.
Some people see the addition of a bike lane as an official sanction that bikes belong on the road with cars.
Indeed, there is a pro-facilities organization called "Bikes Belong" whose name is based on this very notion. But don't you agree that there are (at least) two conceptions of what "bikes belong" (or "share the road", for that matter) means?
Bikes belong on the road, but out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right.
Bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so.
Do you recognize a signficant distinction between these two conceptions? If so, which do you favor, and why?
Does the addition of a bike lane reinforce one of the above conceptions more than the other? If so, which one?
Helmet Head
03-09-06, 05:22 PM
I'm moving what has become a bike lane debate from the "bikes belong" thread to here.
Are you contending that bike lanes make sense from the VC paradigm, which is based on the assumption that bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so?
Sure, why not? In fact, I will go one further and say that using WOL's as a cycling facility is contrary to the above stated notion that you refer to as the "VC paradigm" in the following ways:
1) WOL's show that bikes do not belong on the road because the differences in the top speed, acceleration, and size of bicycles vs. cars are not respected.
On non-freeway roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited, top speeds are irrelevant. On these roads, all kinds of interruptions to traffic flow are normal, and include but are not limited to traffic slowing and even stopping for turns or for parking, bus stops, pedestrians crossing, stop signs, stop lights, mechanical problems, crashes, emergency vehicles, and, yes, slow moving vehicles, including bicycles. Top speed matters on freeways where all of these factors are essentially removed, but we're not talking about freeways. Claiming top speed is an issue is introducing freeway mentality to non-freeway roads.
Acceleration varies among all kinds of vehicles . In fact, many cyclists are able to out-accelerate many motorized vehicles (e.g., 1963 VW bus). Acceleration is not even relevant in theory, much less in practice.
With respect to size, bikes fit just fine in any sized lane, include a WOL, where they are no more disprespected than are motorcycles.
Your assertion that WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road and that bikes are not respected in WOLs is entirely based on false assertions.
2) In a WOLs, cyclists have fewer rights in terms of right of way, since a passing car in the same lane now has right of way over the cyclist.
Whether the stripe is there or not, the driver of the passing car has the right of way to pass, if he can pass safely without interfering with the operation of the bicycle. If anything, the stripe allows the motorist to pass the cyclist even closer. In any case, neither has the ROW "over" the other, since each of their ROW's does not conflict with the other.
3) WOL's require cyclists to have extraordinary obligations in planning out their maneuvers in the shared lane and keeping track of motorized vehicles passing from behind in the same lane.
I'm here to tell you that the obligations are no different with or without the stripe, and, if anything, are only made more difficult by the presence of the stripe. In any case, the obligations are never close to "extraordinary".
If you have the impression that bike lanes somehow alleviate the cyclist from having to take a more assertive and centerish position from time to time, you're wrong. To the extent that the stripe takes the cyclist out of the approaching motorist's "zone of awareness" (his lane), the stripe increases the need for the cyclist to move left to make sure he is in the motorists "zone of awareness" as he approaches, so that the motorist is aware of the cyclist by the time the cyclist moves aside so the motorist can pass. We can agree to disagree that doing all of that constitutes "extraordinary obligations in planning out their maneuvers", but don't you think that whatever advantages result from such planning in WOLs are at least as applicable when the BL stripe is present? As one who regularly employs these techniques, I can assure you they are.
Bike lanes, on the other hand, are perfectly consistent with your "VC paradigm" because:
1) Bike lane respect differences in the performance of two vehicles which have equal rights to the road and provide for the vehicle with a lower top speed and slower acceleration.
Lots of vehicles have differences in performances. Usually those differences are irrelevant. What is relevant, between intersections, is actual speed (not potential speed). The standard rules of the road already handle this case: between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so.
What bike lanes ignore and do not respect is:
The rule of slower traffic keeping right only applies between intersections. The presence of bike lanes across (usually minor) intersections implies the opposite.
The rule of slower traffic keeping right only applies to bikes when faster same-direction traffic is present. The static nature of bike lanes, which requires them to be there regardless of the presence of faster same direction (s.d.) traffic, implies the opposite (that bikes should keep to the right even when traveling the same speed or faster than s.d. traffic, even when there is no faster s.d. traffic).
The rule of slower traffic keeping right only applies only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so. The static nature of bike lanes, which requires them to be there regardless of whether keeping right is safe, reasonable and practicable to do so, implies the opposite.
2) Bike lanes add rights to the road for cyclists by outlining strict right of way provisions for overtaking traffic and keeps within well defined rules for lane changes and destination lane positionioning, as well as the principle of "slower traffic to the right." No longer does a cyclist have to relinquish right of way to an overtaking vehicle in a shared lane.
When there is sufficient room in the outside lane to add a bike lane and stripe, a cyclist already never has to relinquish ROW to an overtaking vehicle in that lane, as long as he is riding in the same position as he would be if the stripe were there. Plus, without the stripe, the cyclist can usually command the ROW even further to the left than he can when the stripe is there (and of course, anywhere to the right of that). If a BL stripe does anything to affect how much space a cyclist can command for ROW purposes, it reduces it.
3) Bike lanes allow cyclists to maintain only the obligations assigned to every other vehicle on the road by being freed of the obligation of directing overtaking traffic around them.
You're talking about an obligation that exists in narrow lanes. No such obligation exists in WOLs wide enough to accomodate a bike lane and stripe when the cyclist is riding in the space where the bike lane would if one was there.
Bike lanes also free motorists of the obligation to find a way around cyclists at the cost of disturbing other traffic flowing around them.
True. Bike lanes make passing cyclists less of an issue for motorists, which is not necessarily a good thing for the cyclists being passed (it makes them easier to ignore and not pay attention to).
4) Bike lanes give more rights to cyclists by allow a cyclist to take up a full width traffic lane without the risk of vehicles passing on the right in a shared lane.
Are you contending a bike lane is a "full width traffic lane"? Perhaps you're saying a bike lane allows a cyclist to have his own lane (as if that has some inherent value), which he can never do with what I would call a "full width traffic lane", since no matter where he is positioned in such a lane, there is room for someone else in that lane. You seem to be implying that there is some kind of obvious advantage, in terms of reduced risk, when this is the case? If so, I reject that notion, as it contradicts everything I know from studies and my own experience. For what reason(s) do you believe this assertion to be true?
Are you contending that bike lanes make sense from the VC paradigm, which is based on the assumption that bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so?
Sure, why not? In fact, I will go one further and say that using WOL's as a cycling facility is contrary to the above stated notion that you refer to as the "VC paradigm" in the following ways:
1) WOL's show that bikes do not belong on the road because the differences in the top speed, acceleration, and size of bicycles vs. cars are not respected.
On non-freeway roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited, top speeds are irrelevant. On these roads, all kinds of interruptions to traffic flow are normal, and include but are not limited to traffic slowing and even stopping for turns or for parking, bus stops, pedestrians crossing, stop signs, stop lights, mechanical problems, crashes, emergency vehicles, and, yes, slow moving vehicles, including bicycles. Top speed matters on freeways where all of these factors are essentially removed, but we're not talking about freeways. Claiming top speed is an issue is introducing freeway mentality to non-freeway roads.
Acceleration varies among all kinds of vehicles . In fact, many cyclists are able to out-accelerate many motorized vehicles (e.g., 1963 VW bus). Acceleration is not even relevant in theory, much less in practice.
With respect to size, bikes fit just fine in any sized lane, include a WOL, where they are no more disprespected than are motorcycles.
Your assertion that WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road and that bikes are not respected in WOLs is entirely based on false assertions.
2) In a WOLs, cyclists have fewer rights in terms of right of way, since a passing car in the same lane now has right of way over the cyclist.
Whether the stripe is there or not, the driver of the passing car has the right of way to pass, if he can pass safely without interfering with the operation of the bicycle. If anything, the stripe allows the motorist to pass the cyclist even closer. In any case, neither has the ROW "over" the other, since each of their ROW's does not conflict with the other.
3) WOL's require cyclists to have extraordinary obligations in planning out their maneuvers in the shared lane and keeping track of motorized vehicles passing from behind in the same lane.
I'm here to tell you that the obligations are no different with or without the stripe, and, if anything, are only made more difficult by the presence of the stripe. In any case, the obligations are never close to "extraordinary".
If you have the impression that bike lanes somehow alleviate the cyclist from having to take a more assertive and centerish position from time to time, you're wrong. To the extent that the stripe takes the cyclist out of the approaching motorist's "zone of awareness" (his lane), the stripe increases the need for the cyclist to move left to make sure he is in the motorists "zone of awareness" as he approaches, so that the motorist is aware of the cyclist by the time the cyclist moves aside so the motorist can pass. We can agree to disagree that doing all of that constitutes "extraordinary obligations in planning out their maneuvers", but don't you think that whatever advantages result from such planning in WOLs are at least as applicable when the BL stripe is present? As one who regularly employs these techniques, I can assure you they are.
Bike lanes, on the other hand, are perfectly consistent with your "VC paradigm" because:
1) Bike lane respect differences in the performance of two vehicles which have equal rights to the road and provide for the vehicle with a lower top speed and slower acceleration.
Lots of vehicles have differences in performances. Usually those differences are irrelevant. What is relevant, between intersections, is actual speed (not potential speed). The standard rules of the road already handle this case: between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so.
What bike lanes ignore and do not respect is:
The rule of slower traffic keeping right only applies between intersections. The presence of bike lanes across (usually minor) intersections implies the opposite.
The rule of slower traffic keeping right only applies to bikes when faster same-direction traffic is present. The static nature of bike lanes, which requires them to be there regardless of the presence of faster same direction (s.d.) traffic, implies the opposite (that bikes should keep to the right even when traveling the same speed or faster than s.d. traffic, even when there is no faster s.d. traffic).
The rule of slower traffic keeping right only applies only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so. The static nature of bike lanes, which requires them to be there regardless of whether keeping right is safe, reasonable and practicable to do so, implies the opposite.
2) Bike lanes add rights to the road for cyclists by outlining strict right of way provisions for overtaking traffic and keeps within well defined rules for lane changes and destination lane positionioning, as well as the principle of "slower traffic to the right." No longer does a cyclist have to relinquish right of way to an overtaking vehicle in a shared lane.
When there is sufficient room in the outside lane to add a bike lane and stripe, a cyclist already never has to relinquish ROW to an overtaking vehicle in that lane, as long as he is riding in the same position as he would be if the stripe were there. Plus, without the stripe, the cyclist can usually command the ROW even further to the left than he can when the stripe is there (and of course, anywhere to the right of that). If a BL stripe does anything to affect how much space a cyclist can command for ROW purposes, it reduces it.
3) Bike lanes allow cyclists to maintain only the obligations assigned to every other vehicle on the road by being freed of the obligation of directing overtaking traffic around them.
You're talking about an obligation that exists in narrow lanes. No such obligation exists in WOLs wide enough to accomodate a bike lane and stripe when the cyclist is riding in the space where the bike lane would if one was there.
Bike lanes also free motorists of the obligation to find a way around cyclists at the cost of disturbing other traffic flowing around them.
True. Bike lanes make passing cyclists less of an issue for motorists, which is not necessarily a good thing for the cyclists being passed (it makes them easier to ignore and not pay attention to).
4) Bike lanes give more rights to cyclists by allow a cyclist to take up a full width traffic lane without the risk of vehicles passing on the right in a shared lane.
Are you contending a bike lane is a "full width traffic lane"? Perhaps you're saying a bike lane allows a cyclist to have his own lane (as if that has some inherent value), which he can never do with what I would call a "full width traffic lane", since no matter where he is positioned in such a lane, there is room for someone else in that lane. You seem to be implying that there is some kind of obvious advantage, in terms of reduced risk, when this is the case? If so, I reject that notion, as it contradicts everything I know from studies and my own experience. For what reason(s) do you believe this assertion to be true?
Helmet Head
03-09-06, 05:54 PM
I'll repeat myself:
Bike lanes make sense from the VC paradigm. It is only you (and your disciples) who confuses VC with riding down the center of the lane and only pulling to the right when necessary rather than the reverse of that (staying to the right and moving left when necessary.) Center lane biasing is not VC. That is your own spin on VC.
VC is the part about having the same rights, obligations and responsibilities as any other driver of a vehicle. Just because we disagree on how far to the right is practicable and safe at any moment in time does not mean that what we do is not adhering to vehicular cycling practices.
This was moved from the bike lane follies thread which we're trying to devote to discussion about particularly bad bike lanes.
First, I have never claimed that right biased VC is not VC. Center-biased is the style of VC that I advocate, true, but I have never claimed that it is required to be VC.
Whether you're right or centered biased, the point is, to be VC, you have to be away from the right side frequently and regularly, which is why bike lanes don't make sense from the VC paradigm. Bike lanes imply, by their very existence, that there, in the bike lane, is where the cyclist should be riding. While it happens to be true some or even much of the time, depending on various factors and conditions, the static and ever-present guidance provided by bike lanes is contrary to the VC paradigm, of either flavor.
Bike lanes make sense from the VC paradigm. It is only you (and your disciples) who confuses VC with riding down the center of the lane and only pulling to the right when necessary rather than the reverse of that (staying to the right and moving left when necessary.) Center lane biasing is not VC. That is your own spin on VC.
VC is the part about having the same rights, obligations and responsibilities as any other driver of a vehicle. Just because we disagree on how far to the right is practicable and safe at any moment in time does not mean that what we do is not adhering to vehicular cycling practices.
This was moved from the bike lane follies thread which we're trying to devote to discussion about particularly bad bike lanes.
First, I have never claimed that right biased VC is not VC. Center-biased is the style of VC that I advocate, true, but I have never claimed that it is required to be VC.
Whether you're right or centered biased, the point is, to be VC, you have to be away from the right side frequently and regularly, which is why bike lanes don't make sense from the VC paradigm. Bike lanes imply, by their very existence, that there, in the bike lane, is where the cyclist should be riding. While it happens to be true some or even much of the time, depending on various factors and conditions, the static and ever-present guidance provided by bike lanes is contrary to the VC paradigm, of either flavor.
Helmet Head
03-09-06, 05:58 PM
{{Moved from the bike lane follies thread}}
Bek, the "bad" qualifier in front of "bike lanes" is redundant from the perspective of the VC paradigm which is based on the assumption that you reject, which is: bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so...
You can only have a "good" bike lane from the perspective of the PnP paradigm, which is based on the assumption which many of your posts make it appear that you believe, namely that while bikes belong on the road, they should get and stay out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right... Bike lanes facilitate exactly that, so they make sense from that paradigm.
what the heck you talking about, Helmet Head, putting words in my mouth???
Those are NOT my beliefs about well designed, multimodal accomodations, integrated with the existing roadways.
I didn't say those were your words, Bek. I said that your posts make it appear that you believe that while bikes belong on the road, they should get and stay out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right.... That's not a belief about any kind of accomodations, so denying that they're not your beliefs about accomodations is meaningless.
Tell me Bek, a simple yes or no. Do you believe while bikes belong on the road, they should get and stay out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right....
Yes or no?
Or (and?) do you believe: bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so...
Yes or no?
There are no right answers. Only the truth about what you believe.
Bek, the "bad" qualifier in front of "bike lanes" is redundant from the perspective of the VC paradigm which is based on the assumption that you reject, which is: bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so...
You can only have a "good" bike lane from the perspective of the PnP paradigm, which is based on the assumption which many of your posts make it appear that you believe, namely that while bikes belong on the road, they should get and stay out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right... Bike lanes facilitate exactly that, so they make sense from that paradigm.
what the heck you talking about, Helmet Head, putting words in my mouth???
Those are NOT my beliefs about well designed, multimodal accomodations, integrated with the existing roadways.
I didn't say those were your words, Bek. I said that your posts make it appear that you believe that while bikes belong on the road, they should get and stay out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right.... That's not a belief about any kind of accomodations, so denying that they're not your beliefs about accomodations is meaningless.
Tell me Bek, a simple yes or no. Do you believe while bikes belong on the road, they should get and stay out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right....
Yes or no?
Or (and?) do you believe: bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so...
Yes or no?
There are no right answers. Only the truth about what you believe.
Brian Ratliff
03-09-06, 06:47 PM
I'm moving what has become a bike lane debate from the "bikes belong" thread to here.
Sigh. This time, you are in the position of rebutting my arguments. These are simply counter assertions.
1) Explain to me why speed and acceleration differences are irrelevant. This is not intuitive. Speed and acceleration differences make it more difficult to time maneuvers and make the consequenses of mistakes greater.
2) Explain to me why you think that, while speed and acceleration differences are irrelevant, you are, at the same time, worried about a car passing a foot closer to you. There is nothing but psycology at work here. Once you know a car has passed too close, it is in no position to harm you. So what are you worried about? The car didn't hit you. What a bike lane does is it allows a cyclist and a car to slide past each other with confidence. If this means it passes with 3 feet to spare instead of 4; what's the bother?
3) Tell me why you are persistent in the belief that the only difference between the bike lane and the WOL is a strip. Here in the west Portland area, we sign our bike lanes simply as "right lane" with the diamond symbol for special use and the words and picture indicating it is special use for bikes. It is exactly the same sign in smaller version that we place over the HOV lane on the freeway, replacing the bit about bikes with a bit about passengers. I will show a picture in the near future. The difference is that there is no concept of right of way when vehicles are overtaking in a separate lane. The only reason ROW enters the picture in a shared lane is because, well, the lane is shared. You protest that the bike lane line is simply a line of paint, but that line has legal and practical significance, just as the median line (which is also simply a line of paint) does to keep opposite direction traffic separated.
4) You protest the "static position" of a bike lane. However, there is nothing keeping you from riding outside of it in a different traffic lane if your destination requires you to be at a different place on the road. This freedom makes your protest irrelevant.
5) Your "zone of awareness" theory has been contested many times. Motorists are generally aware of what is going on around them, and take great pains to avoid hitting anything. This is, of course, the reason why vehicular cycling works in the first place. Right hooks and other crossing collisions are not so much a "zone of awareness" problem as they are a miscalculation issue. Even I, early in my driving career and already a cyclist, managed to cut a cyclist off at an intersection due to a speed miscalculation. Only taking the lane, or requiring the motorist to merge into the bike lane, can alleviate this danger. WOL's are no help.
6) "I'm here to tell you..." is to say that you are teacher and I am student. This is not the case. In fact, I have heard about Forester, bought his book, and started practicing vehicular cycling long before you did, and I am still in my twenties. If anything, the roles are reversed. But for now, we are equals discussing a topic which is truly controversial.
Sigh. This time, you are in the position of rebutting my arguments. These are simply counter assertions.
1) Explain to me why speed and acceleration differences are irrelevant. This is not intuitive. Speed and acceleration differences make it more difficult to time maneuvers and make the consequenses of mistakes greater.
2) Explain to me why you think that, while speed and acceleration differences are irrelevant, you are, at the same time, worried about a car passing a foot closer to you. There is nothing but psycology at work here. Once you know a car has passed too close, it is in no position to harm you. So what are you worried about? The car didn't hit you. What a bike lane does is it allows a cyclist and a car to slide past each other with confidence. If this means it passes with 3 feet to spare instead of 4; what's the bother?
3) Tell me why you are persistent in the belief that the only difference between the bike lane and the WOL is a strip. Here in the west Portland area, we sign our bike lanes simply as "right lane" with the diamond symbol for special use and the words and picture indicating it is special use for bikes. It is exactly the same sign in smaller version that we place over the HOV lane on the freeway, replacing the bit about bikes with a bit about passengers. I will show a picture in the near future. The difference is that there is no concept of right of way when vehicles are overtaking in a separate lane. The only reason ROW enters the picture in a shared lane is because, well, the lane is shared. You protest that the bike lane line is simply a line of paint, but that line has legal and practical significance, just as the median line (which is also simply a line of paint) does to keep opposite direction traffic separated.
4) You protest the "static position" of a bike lane. However, there is nothing keeping you from riding outside of it in a different traffic lane if your destination requires you to be at a different place on the road. This freedom makes your protest irrelevant.
5) Your "zone of awareness" theory has been contested many times. Motorists are generally aware of what is going on around them, and take great pains to avoid hitting anything. This is, of course, the reason why vehicular cycling works in the first place. Right hooks and other crossing collisions are not so much a "zone of awareness" problem as they are a miscalculation issue. Even I, early in my driving career and already a cyclist, managed to cut a cyclist off at an intersection due to a speed miscalculation. Only taking the lane, or requiring the motorist to merge into the bike lane, can alleviate this danger. WOL's are no help.
6) "I'm here to tell you..." is to say that you are teacher and I am student. This is not the case. In fact, I have heard about Forester, bought his book, and started practicing vehicular cycling long before you did, and I am still in my twenties. If anything, the roles are reversed. But for now, we are equals discussing a topic which is truly controversial.
Helmet Head
03-09-06, 11:41 PM
First, I would like to say that this is not just a chess game for me. As a minimum, I am making an honest effort to understand your position better, the basis for it, and to make mine more clear to you, as best as I can. Success for me would be to find common ground, the more the better. I hope you feel the same, for this effort will be much more productive if we have compatible goals. So if you're just trying to play tit for tat, and not really trying to understand me, or explain yourself, this is a huge waste of time.
What I think would help, for context, is if you reviewed your original numbered statements, then consider my first response, your reponse to that, and finally this one, and see where we are on each point. If you feel your original point still stands, then please make that clear, along with explaining why you think my rebuttals did not refute it. In other words, at each instance, let's try to uncover the root point of disagreement, and why you think/feel one way and I think/feel another. At least as importantly, if you have been convinced that one of your original points is not true, then perhaps we could both agree that the inverse of it is true, or something like that, and present it as a candidate for an agreed-upon commonly held assertion.
Context:
You're arguing that using WOLs as a cycling facility is contrary to the notion that cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so, and that this is shown in a number of ways, that you've outlined in your argument.
1) WOL's show that bikes do not belong on the road because the differences in the top speed, acceleration, and size of bicycles vs. cars are not respected.
On non-freeway roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited, top speeds are irrelevant. On these roads, all kinds of interruptions to traffic flow are normal, and include but are not limited to traffic slowing and even stopping for turns or for parking, bus stops, pedestrians crossing, stop signs, stop lights, mechanical problems, crashes, emergency vehicles, and, yes, slow moving vehicles, including bicycles. Top speed matters on freeways where all of these factors are essentially removed, but we're not talking about freeways. Claiming top speed is an issue is introducing freeway mentality to non-freeway roads.
Acceleration varies among all kinds of vehicles . In fact, many cyclists are able to out-accelerate many motorized vehicles (e.g., 1963 VW bus). Acceleration is not even relevant in theory, much less in practice.
With respect to size, bikes fit just fine in any sized lane, include a WOL, where they are no more disprespected than are motorcycles.
Your assertion that WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road and that bikes are not respected in WOLs is entirely based on false assertions.
These are simply counter assertions.
There are two possible interpretations of what you mean by "simply counter assertions". You can mean any assertion that effectively refutes another. "all birds fly". "ostriches are birds and they don't fly". Or you can mean pointless assertions that simply deny the first. "all birds fly". "all birds don't fly".
I am going to assume you mean the latter, because you seemed to mean it as a criticism, and that would not apply to the former, which is basic debate and logic argument.
If I had simply written, WOL's DO NOT show that bikes do not belong on the road because the differences in the top speed, acceleration, and size of bicycles vs. cars are not respected., and nothing else, that would simply be a counter assertion. But I didn't do that. I took it to the next level. I broke down your assertion into three separate components, and I addressed each one. And I didn't simply counter-assert each sub-component, I provided an argument supporting each sub-component counter-assertion. You ignored all of that, and simply declared (incorrectly), "These are simply counter assertions". Now, that is simply a counter assertion.
It's like you contend that "all birds fly", I respond with "ostriches don't fly", and you complain that that's simply a counter assertion.
For example, one of the assertions your original statement is based on can be paraphrased as: "WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road partly because the differences in size of bicycles vs. cars are not respected". Now a simple counter-assertion to that would be something like, "No WOLs don't show that". But what did I do? I challenged your assertion, to be sure, but I provided the reason why: "With respect to size, bikes fit just fine in any sized lane, include a WOL, where they are no more disrespected than are motorcycles." That's not simply a counter-assertion. That's a separate assertion that, if true, refutes your assertion. What you need to do now is make clear whether you accept or reject my assertion, and, if you do reject it, hopefully provide an argument, or at least another assertion that you feel reasonably likely to be accepted by me as true, that refutes my assertion. Or, you can argue that my assertion being true does not necessarily refute yours, and explain why.
The difference between "simple counter-assertions" and refuting assertions is that there is no progress with counter assertions - they simply deny the truth of what the other person contends is true. " It's true." "No it's not." "yes it is." That's different from what's going on here. Refuting one assertion with another assertion is not necessarily a simple counter-assertion. It's debate. It's logical argument. It's what we should be doing, to uncover the truth, and common ground, as best we can. But if each assertion is simply a denial of the truth of the other's assertion, then, yeah, that's simply pointless counter-assertions.
1) Explain to me why speed and acceleration differences are irrelevant.
Don't forget the context! The issue is whether your assertion that WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road because the differences in the top speed, acceleration and size are not respected is true. It's in your court now to explain to me why you find the explanations I provided (see above) for why speed and acceleration differences are irrelevant to the issue of whether WOLS show that bikes do not belong on the road to be unpersuasive.
This is not intuitive.
What is not intuitive?
Speed and acceleration differences make it more difficult to time maneuvers and make the consequenses of mistakes greater.
This is a new assertion that, by the way, is not germaine to any of my argument, no part of which is based on the assumption that speed and acceleration differences do not make it more difficult to time maneuvers and make the consequenses of mistakes greater. Of course speed and acceleration differences do that. What does any of this have to do with the issue of whether your assertion that WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road is true?
Differences in speed and acceleration, and their consequences, are a norm on non-freeway roads.
2) Explain to me why you think that, while speed and acceleration differences are irrelevant,
(they are not irrelevant in general, they are irrelevant to the question of whether WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road)
you are, at the same time, worried about a car passing a foot closer to you.
I'm not worried about that car in particular, I'm worried about close passes in general. Close passes reduce safety margins.
There is nothing but psycology at work here. Once you know a car has passed too close, it is in no position to harm you. So what are you worried about? The car didn't hit you.
See above.
What a bike lane does is it allows a cyclist and a car to slide past each other with confidence.
Any confidence that stems from paint is unfounded. False confidence is dangerous. There is no reason for either the driver or cyclist to assume that just because there is paint there, that the cyclist is less likely to suddenly and unexpectedly swerve left for some reason, or that the driver is less likely to inadvertently drift, or need to swerve, to the right. The same minimum safety passing margin (at least 3') should be maintained regardless of whether there is a stripe of paint separating them. A separating 10' high bulletproof wall of glass would impact the need for safety margins when overtaking. But a 6" wide/2 mm high painted stripe? I don't see how.
If this means it passes with 3 feet to spare instead of 4; what's the bother?
Unrealistic example. I don't mind 3 foot passes. I mind consistent passes of 1 foot, instead of 3 or more.
3) Tell me why you are persistent in the belief that the only difference between the bike lane and the WOL is a strip.
Because how you get from a WOL to a BL is by adding a 6" wide stripe of white paint.
Here in the west Portland area, we sign our bike lanes simply as "right lane" with the diamond symbol for special use and the words and picture indicating it is special use for bikes.
Are you contending that Portland bike lanes are not demarcated by a 6" wide stripe of white paint?
It is exactly the same sign in smaller version that we place over the HOV lane on the freeway, replacing the bit about bikes with a bit about passengers.
Since you brought up HOVs, I have an idea to illustrate the difference between HOV lanes and BLs. How about this. Say a motorcycling advocacy group is sick of motorcyclists being stuck in congested traffic, and starts advocating for road widening and restriping to add narrow motorcycle HOV lanes on roads. This would be the leftmost same-direction lane, much like freeway HOV lanes, except they would be in towns with all of the same intersections that bike lanes have to cross. How good is your imagination? Start with the street you live on? How would it be handled there? Now consider, just for the sake of exercise, that on every street you ride on with bike lanes, the stripes were repainted to remove the bike lane on the right and add a motorbike lane (MBL?) on the left. Can you see it? Now imagine driving on this road, and dealing with the occasional motorcyclist passing you on the left, except when he has to merge across all the "car" lanes to make a right turn, and when you have to somehow deal with the narrow MBL on your left, and potential motorcycle traffic in it, before you make any left turn. It would be such a bloodbath they would discontinue them within a month. Comparing HOV lanes on freeways with BLs is missing the whole point. I think these hypothetical MBLs make for a much better example.
For that matter, why do you think there are no HOV lanes in town along the same streets where you have bike lanes. In SD, we have plenty of 6 lane boulevards. Why not convert the leftmost lane in each direction to be an HOV lane? While we're at it, why not convert all rightmost lanes on such roads to be semi-exclusive (like BLs) truck lanes? Can you imagine the utter chaos? The carnage?
Now (getting back to your point), let's say they tried MBLs, HOV lanes, and truck lanes in some city. Do you really think that dressing them up with symbols and signs would make any significant difference in reducing the chaos, confusion and carnage?
I will show a picture in the near future. The difference is that there is no concept of right of way when vehicles are overtaking in a separate lane.
You keep saying this like it might magically become true if you say it enough times. What part of everyone has the ROW to continue following their line of travel, as long as they don't run into slower traffic in front of them or as they pass, do you not comprehend? It's fundamental to all traffic movement. It is the basis upon which lane stripes are based. When vehicle A in lane a is passing vehicle B in lane b, vehicle A has the ROW to continue traveling along its line of travel within lane a, and vehicle B has the ROW to continue traveling along its line of travel within lane b. Neither has the ROW to make any sudden significant lateral changes from that line of travel, whether they remain in their respective lanes or not, without first making sure that doing so will not conflict with anyone else's ROW.
The only reason ROW enters the picture in a shared lane is because, well, the lane is shared.
ROW is in the picture whenever there are two operators close enough to each other to interfere with each other's way, period.
You protest that the bike lane line is simply a line of paint, but that line has legal and practical significance, just as the median line (which is also simply a line of paint) does to keep opposite direction traffic separated.
I never denied that lane stripes help ascertain ROW. But lane lines are not required to ascertain ROW among same-direction traffic. Lanes exist with or without actual painted stripes. Consider streets with even two direction traffic, but no stripes, not even a center stripe. Yet somehow drivers are able to ascertain ROW without those stripes. By the way, if you want to speed up traffic on such a road, the first thing you should do is add a center stripe to clearly demarcate the two opposite-direction lanes from each other. By helping ascertain ROW, lane lines allow for higher speeds of traffic. In the case of helping high speed motor traffic pass slower bike traffic, faster, that's "help" that I, for one, don't want. So while I don't deny that bike lane lines, like all lane lines, help ascertain ROW, my argument is that in the case of bike lanes, greater ROW clarity is undesirable, primarily because it facilitates closer and faster passing.
4) You protest the "static position" of a bike lane. However, there is nothing keeping you from riding outside of it in a different traffic lane if your destination requires you to be at a different place on the road. This freedom makes your protest irrelevant.
Maybe there's nothing to prevent a cyclist from riding outside of a bike lane, but there is plenty to discourage him from doing so, starting with the law. But probably more importantly, the expectation of motorists, regardless of what the law says. Motorists expect BIKEs to be in the BIKE lane, just like they expect taxis in taxi lanes, buses in bus lanes, and trucks in truck lanes. Beyond that, cyclists expect BIKEs to be in the BIKE lane, often regardless of whether it is safe, reasonable and practicable to be riding in the space demarcated by the static bike lane stripe for the current factors and conditions. All of these factors conspire to discourage cyclsits from riding outside of bike lanes, and therefore makes my protest about the static characteristic of bike lanes to be quite relevant, thank you very much.
5) Your "zone of awareness" theory has been contested many times. Motorists are generally aware of what is going on around them, and take great pains to avoid hitting anything. This is, of course, the reason why vehicular cycling works in the first place. Right hooks and other crossing collisions are not so much a "zone of awareness" problem as they are a miscalculation issue. Even I, early in my driving career and already a cyclist, managed to cut a cyclist off at an intersection due to a speed miscalculation. Only taking the lane, or requiring the motorist to merge into the bike lane, can alleviate this danger. WOL's are no help.
I believe the "zone of awareness" is much more applicable to the problem of inadvertent drift than to right hooks and the like, which I agree is more of a miscalculation issue. But no matter, we can to agree to disagree on this point, since my argument certainly does not depend on it. It's a fringe issue, at best. I only brought it up in response to your assertion that "WOLs require cyclists to have extraordinary obligations in planning out their maneuvers in the shared lane and keeping track of motorized vehicles passing from behind in the same lane", perhaps mistakenly assuming that what you were referring to by "extraordinary obligations" is related to the technique I advocate involving using a mirror to use a centerish position by default. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by this assertion, and why you believe it to be true, so we can explore this aspect of your argument.
6) "I'm here to tell you..." is to say that you are teacher and I am student. This is not the case. In fact, I have heard about Forester, bought his book, and started practicing vehicular cycling long before you did, and I am still in my twenties. If anything, the roles are reversed. But for now, we are equals discussing a topic which is truly controversial.
Hopefully, we are here to tell each other all kinds of stuff. In this case, I only used those words in the context of how the Franklin primary riding position technique that I advocate is just as useful on WOLs with BL stripes as WOLs without BL stripes. It has nothing to do with Forester (not sure why you brought that up).
What I think would help, for context, is if you reviewed your original numbered statements, then consider my first response, your reponse to that, and finally this one, and see where we are on each point. If you feel your original point still stands, then please make that clear, along with explaining why you think my rebuttals did not refute it. In other words, at each instance, let's try to uncover the root point of disagreement, and why you think/feel one way and I think/feel another. At least as importantly, if you have been convinced that one of your original points is not true, then perhaps we could both agree that the inverse of it is true, or something like that, and present it as a candidate for an agreed-upon commonly held assertion.
Context:
You're arguing that using WOLs as a cycling facility is contrary to the notion that cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so, and that this is shown in a number of ways, that you've outlined in your argument.
1) WOL's show that bikes do not belong on the road because the differences in the top speed, acceleration, and size of bicycles vs. cars are not respected.
On non-freeway roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited, top speeds are irrelevant. On these roads, all kinds of interruptions to traffic flow are normal, and include but are not limited to traffic slowing and even stopping for turns or for parking, bus stops, pedestrians crossing, stop signs, stop lights, mechanical problems, crashes, emergency vehicles, and, yes, slow moving vehicles, including bicycles. Top speed matters on freeways where all of these factors are essentially removed, but we're not talking about freeways. Claiming top speed is an issue is introducing freeway mentality to non-freeway roads.
Acceleration varies among all kinds of vehicles . In fact, many cyclists are able to out-accelerate many motorized vehicles (e.g., 1963 VW bus). Acceleration is not even relevant in theory, much less in practice.
With respect to size, bikes fit just fine in any sized lane, include a WOL, where they are no more disprespected than are motorcycles.
Your assertion that WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road and that bikes are not respected in WOLs is entirely based on false assertions.
These are simply counter assertions.
There are two possible interpretations of what you mean by "simply counter assertions". You can mean any assertion that effectively refutes another. "all birds fly". "ostriches are birds and they don't fly". Or you can mean pointless assertions that simply deny the first. "all birds fly". "all birds don't fly".
I am going to assume you mean the latter, because you seemed to mean it as a criticism, and that would not apply to the former, which is basic debate and logic argument.
If I had simply written, WOL's DO NOT show that bikes do not belong on the road because the differences in the top speed, acceleration, and size of bicycles vs. cars are not respected., and nothing else, that would simply be a counter assertion. But I didn't do that. I took it to the next level. I broke down your assertion into three separate components, and I addressed each one. And I didn't simply counter-assert each sub-component, I provided an argument supporting each sub-component counter-assertion. You ignored all of that, and simply declared (incorrectly), "These are simply counter assertions". Now, that is simply a counter assertion.
It's like you contend that "all birds fly", I respond with "ostriches don't fly", and you complain that that's simply a counter assertion.
For example, one of the assertions your original statement is based on can be paraphrased as: "WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road partly because the differences in size of bicycles vs. cars are not respected". Now a simple counter-assertion to that would be something like, "No WOLs don't show that". But what did I do? I challenged your assertion, to be sure, but I provided the reason why: "With respect to size, bikes fit just fine in any sized lane, include a WOL, where they are no more disrespected than are motorcycles." That's not simply a counter-assertion. That's a separate assertion that, if true, refutes your assertion. What you need to do now is make clear whether you accept or reject my assertion, and, if you do reject it, hopefully provide an argument, or at least another assertion that you feel reasonably likely to be accepted by me as true, that refutes my assertion. Or, you can argue that my assertion being true does not necessarily refute yours, and explain why.
The difference between "simple counter-assertions" and refuting assertions is that there is no progress with counter assertions - they simply deny the truth of what the other person contends is true. " It's true." "No it's not." "yes it is." That's different from what's going on here. Refuting one assertion with another assertion is not necessarily a simple counter-assertion. It's debate. It's logical argument. It's what we should be doing, to uncover the truth, and common ground, as best we can. But if each assertion is simply a denial of the truth of the other's assertion, then, yeah, that's simply pointless counter-assertions.
1) Explain to me why speed and acceleration differences are irrelevant.
Don't forget the context! The issue is whether your assertion that WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road because the differences in the top speed, acceleration and size are not respected is true. It's in your court now to explain to me why you find the explanations I provided (see above) for why speed and acceleration differences are irrelevant to the issue of whether WOLS show that bikes do not belong on the road to be unpersuasive.
This is not intuitive.
What is not intuitive?
Speed and acceleration differences make it more difficult to time maneuvers and make the consequenses of mistakes greater.
This is a new assertion that, by the way, is not germaine to any of my argument, no part of which is based on the assumption that speed and acceleration differences do not make it more difficult to time maneuvers and make the consequenses of mistakes greater. Of course speed and acceleration differences do that. What does any of this have to do with the issue of whether your assertion that WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road is true?
Differences in speed and acceleration, and their consequences, are a norm on non-freeway roads.
2) Explain to me why you think that, while speed and acceleration differences are irrelevant,
(they are not irrelevant in general, they are irrelevant to the question of whether WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road)
you are, at the same time, worried about a car passing a foot closer to you.
I'm not worried about that car in particular, I'm worried about close passes in general. Close passes reduce safety margins.
There is nothing but psycology at work here. Once you know a car has passed too close, it is in no position to harm you. So what are you worried about? The car didn't hit you.
See above.
What a bike lane does is it allows a cyclist and a car to slide past each other with confidence.
Any confidence that stems from paint is unfounded. False confidence is dangerous. There is no reason for either the driver or cyclist to assume that just because there is paint there, that the cyclist is less likely to suddenly and unexpectedly swerve left for some reason, or that the driver is less likely to inadvertently drift, or need to swerve, to the right. The same minimum safety passing margin (at least 3') should be maintained regardless of whether there is a stripe of paint separating them. A separating 10' high bulletproof wall of glass would impact the need for safety margins when overtaking. But a 6" wide/2 mm high painted stripe? I don't see how.
If this means it passes with 3 feet to spare instead of 4; what's the bother?
Unrealistic example. I don't mind 3 foot passes. I mind consistent passes of 1 foot, instead of 3 or more.
3) Tell me why you are persistent in the belief that the only difference between the bike lane and the WOL is a strip.
Because how you get from a WOL to a BL is by adding a 6" wide stripe of white paint.
Here in the west Portland area, we sign our bike lanes simply as "right lane" with the diamond symbol for special use and the words and picture indicating it is special use for bikes.
Are you contending that Portland bike lanes are not demarcated by a 6" wide stripe of white paint?
It is exactly the same sign in smaller version that we place over the HOV lane on the freeway, replacing the bit about bikes with a bit about passengers.
Since you brought up HOVs, I have an idea to illustrate the difference between HOV lanes and BLs. How about this. Say a motorcycling advocacy group is sick of motorcyclists being stuck in congested traffic, and starts advocating for road widening and restriping to add narrow motorcycle HOV lanes on roads. This would be the leftmost same-direction lane, much like freeway HOV lanes, except they would be in towns with all of the same intersections that bike lanes have to cross. How good is your imagination? Start with the street you live on? How would it be handled there? Now consider, just for the sake of exercise, that on every street you ride on with bike lanes, the stripes were repainted to remove the bike lane on the right and add a motorbike lane (MBL?) on the left. Can you see it? Now imagine driving on this road, and dealing with the occasional motorcyclist passing you on the left, except when he has to merge across all the "car" lanes to make a right turn, and when you have to somehow deal with the narrow MBL on your left, and potential motorcycle traffic in it, before you make any left turn. It would be such a bloodbath they would discontinue them within a month. Comparing HOV lanes on freeways with BLs is missing the whole point. I think these hypothetical MBLs make for a much better example.
For that matter, why do you think there are no HOV lanes in town along the same streets where you have bike lanes. In SD, we have plenty of 6 lane boulevards. Why not convert the leftmost lane in each direction to be an HOV lane? While we're at it, why not convert all rightmost lanes on such roads to be semi-exclusive (like BLs) truck lanes? Can you imagine the utter chaos? The carnage?
Now (getting back to your point), let's say they tried MBLs, HOV lanes, and truck lanes in some city. Do you really think that dressing them up with symbols and signs would make any significant difference in reducing the chaos, confusion and carnage?
I will show a picture in the near future. The difference is that there is no concept of right of way when vehicles are overtaking in a separate lane.
You keep saying this like it might magically become true if you say it enough times. What part of everyone has the ROW to continue following their line of travel, as long as they don't run into slower traffic in front of them or as they pass, do you not comprehend? It's fundamental to all traffic movement. It is the basis upon which lane stripes are based. When vehicle A in lane a is passing vehicle B in lane b, vehicle A has the ROW to continue traveling along its line of travel within lane a, and vehicle B has the ROW to continue traveling along its line of travel within lane b. Neither has the ROW to make any sudden significant lateral changes from that line of travel, whether they remain in their respective lanes or not, without first making sure that doing so will not conflict with anyone else's ROW.
The only reason ROW enters the picture in a shared lane is because, well, the lane is shared.
ROW is in the picture whenever there are two operators close enough to each other to interfere with each other's way, period.
You protest that the bike lane line is simply a line of paint, but that line has legal and practical significance, just as the median line (which is also simply a line of paint) does to keep opposite direction traffic separated.
I never denied that lane stripes help ascertain ROW. But lane lines are not required to ascertain ROW among same-direction traffic. Lanes exist with or without actual painted stripes. Consider streets with even two direction traffic, but no stripes, not even a center stripe. Yet somehow drivers are able to ascertain ROW without those stripes. By the way, if you want to speed up traffic on such a road, the first thing you should do is add a center stripe to clearly demarcate the two opposite-direction lanes from each other. By helping ascertain ROW, lane lines allow for higher speeds of traffic. In the case of helping high speed motor traffic pass slower bike traffic, faster, that's "help" that I, for one, don't want. So while I don't deny that bike lane lines, like all lane lines, help ascertain ROW, my argument is that in the case of bike lanes, greater ROW clarity is undesirable, primarily because it facilitates closer and faster passing.
4) You protest the "static position" of a bike lane. However, there is nothing keeping you from riding outside of it in a different traffic lane if your destination requires you to be at a different place on the road. This freedom makes your protest irrelevant.
Maybe there's nothing to prevent a cyclist from riding outside of a bike lane, but there is plenty to discourage him from doing so, starting with the law. But probably more importantly, the expectation of motorists, regardless of what the law says. Motorists expect BIKEs to be in the BIKE lane, just like they expect taxis in taxi lanes, buses in bus lanes, and trucks in truck lanes. Beyond that, cyclists expect BIKEs to be in the BIKE lane, often regardless of whether it is safe, reasonable and practicable to be riding in the space demarcated by the static bike lane stripe for the current factors and conditions. All of these factors conspire to discourage cyclsits from riding outside of bike lanes, and therefore makes my protest about the static characteristic of bike lanes to be quite relevant, thank you very much.
5) Your "zone of awareness" theory has been contested many times. Motorists are generally aware of what is going on around them, and take great pains to avoid hitting anything. This is, of course, the reason why vehicular cycling works in the first place. Right hooks and other crossing collisions are not so much a "zone of awareness" problem as they are a miscalculation issue. Even I, early in my driving career and already a cyclist, managed to cut a cyclist off at an intersection due to a speed miscalculation. Only taking the lane, or requiring the motorist to merge into the bike lane, can alleviate this danger. WOL's are no help.
I believe the "zone of awareness" is much more applicable to the problem of inadvertent drift than to right hooks and the like, which I agree is more of a miscalculation issue. But no matter, we can to agree to disagree on this point, since my argument certainly does not depend on it. It's a fringe issue, at best. I only brought it up in response to your assertion that "WOLs require cyclists to have extraordinary obligations in planning out their maneuvers in the shared lane and keeping track of motorized vehicles passing from behind in the same lane", perhaps mistakenly assuming that what you were referring to by "extraordinary obligations" is related to the technique I advocate involving using a mirror to use a centerish position by default. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by this assertion, and why you believe it to be true, so we can explore this aspect of your argument.
6) "I'm here to tell you..." is to say that you are teacher and I am student. This is not the case. In fact, I have heard about Forester, bought his book, and started practicing vehicular cycling long before you did, and I am still in my twenties. If anything, the roles are reversed. But for now, we are equals discussing a topic which is truly controversial.
Hopefully, we are here to tell each other all kinds of stuff. In this case, I only used those words in the context of how the Franklin primary riding position technique that I advocate is just as useful on WOLs with BL stripes as WOLs without BL stripes. It has nothing to do with Forester (not sure why you brought that up).
Bekologist
03-09-06, 11:57 PM
Lanes exist with or without actual painted stripes.
Well, THAT'S a stretch!
Well, THAT'S a stretch!
Helmet Head
03-10-06, 12:12 AM
Lanes exist with or without actual painted stripes.
Well, THAT'S a stretch!
For all intents and purposes... consider a newly paved road, that will have say 6 lanes painted on it, but no lane stripes have been painted on it. It still has lanes of traffic, does it not?
ROW can be ascertained even though there are no lane stripes. The exact location AND ROW of each lane of traffic is just not quite as obvious when there are no actual painted lane lines, which has a calming effect on traffic. But lanes, or "lanes", if you will, still exist...
If you're driving down a 2-way road that does not have a center/median stripe, and someone coming the other way is on your side, would it be "a stretch" to yell, "hey, you're in my lane!"?
Well, THAT'S a stretch!
For all intents and purposes... consider a newly paved road, that will have say 6 lanes painted on it, but no lane stripes have been painted on it. It still has lanes of traffic, does it not?
ROW can be ascertained even though there are no lane stripes. The exact location AND ROW of each lane of traffic is just not quite as obvious when there are no actual painted lane lines, which has a calming effect on traffic. But lanes, or "lanes", if you will, still exist...
If you're driving down a 2-way road that does not have a center/median stripe, and someone coming the other way is on your side, would it be "a stretch" to yell, "hey, you're in my lane!"?
Helmet Head
03-10-06, 01:11 AM
Tell me Bek, a simple yes or no. Do you believe that bikes belong on the road, they should get and stay out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right....
Yes or no?
Or (and?) do you believe: bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so...
Yes or no?
Yes or no?
Or (and?) do you believe: bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so...
Yes or no?
Bekologist
03-10-06, 06:42 AM
Yes. No. Maybe.
None of the above.
One thing I do believe, Helmet Head, is that you have no idea how to use multimodal accomodated roadways.
You should stop misinforming people about them until you learn how to use them to your advantage as a bicyclist.
Anything less is dishonest.
Bike 101 classes available thru your local advocacy group, Helmet.
None of the above.
One thing I do believe, Helmet Head, is that you have no idea how to use multimodal accomodated roadways.
You should stop misinforming people about them until you learn how to use them to your advantage as a bicyclist.
Anything less is dishonest.
Bike 101 classes available thru your local advocacy group, Helmet.
galen_52657
03-10-06, 07:51 AM
Bek is going to play(?) dumb and not answer the question. If Bek had his way, cyclist would have to stop and turn around when the reached the end of the bike lane...
Brian Ratliff
03-10-06, 09:59 AM
HH- I have no time to decipher your retoric. Condense your ideas and respond to my numbered points as a whole instead of atomizing my sentences. If you want to explore this issue; then it is time to delve into the details. I even numbered my individual points for your reading and responding convenience. Instead, I get the impression that you are simply trying to get me to go away by using a random selection of arguements from the VC handbook.
I've made an assertion. You have opened the argument using counterassertions. Now it is time to get into the details and risk one of us changing our views. This is a discussion. If it turns into a sales pitch, as you have already tried, I will hang up. If I write a paragraph (and especially if I number it), assume that there whatever is written in it is linked to the rest of the words in the paragraph and cannot be broken up. Nothing annoys me more than someone who breaks things up sentence by sentence, and sometimes even word by word.
I've made an assertion. You have opened the argument using counterassertions. Now it is time to get into the details and risk one of us changing our views. This is a discussion. If it turns into a sales pitch, as you have already tried, I will hang up. If I write a paragraph (and especially if I number it), assume that there whatever is written in it is linked to the rest of the words in the paragraph and cannot be broken up. Nothing annoys me more than someone who breaks things up sentence by sentence, and sometimes even word by word.
Helmet Head
03-10-06, 10:02 AM
Noisebeam made a post to the Bike Lane Follies thred that supports an assertion in my argument, so I thought I would post it here, in case anyone was wondering about this one (it has been challenged in the past):
There is no reason for either the driver or cyclist to assume that just because there is paint there, that the cyclist is less likely to suddenly and unexpectedly swerve left for some reason, ...
And this is the incident that Al described, which is an example of what I'm talking about (for a photo of the situation, see post #40 in the Bike Lane Follies thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2279127&postcount=40):
Here is a temporary follie due to construction. They should put up a sign well in advance to let cyclist know to merge left and to let motorist know cyclist will be doing so. It caught me off guard and I didn't have time to move into main travel lane earlier enough. In the video you can see me my shadow and me signaling left and looking over my shoulder twice. The sun was right behind me and I couldn't see very well (not at all in mirror). I need to make a left turn shortly after so I moved into center of lane and stayed there after the truck passed.
Video (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/060310-0709.10896-plate.avi) (420kb, right click, save target as..., open from local drive)
Now of course one could argue I should ride over it, but when approaching at speed one can often not tell how bad it is until too late. The real danger is the tire swallowing crack to the left of the plate.
If, prior to getting to this hazard, the cyclist is in his bike lane, since the ROW is clearly demarcated, motorists are likely to be overtaking him with less of a passing margin, and less likely to be slowing down, than if there was no bike lane clearly demarcating the ROW.
If there was no bike lane stripe, and the cyclist is riding in the exact same position, overtaking motorists are more likely to be adjusting left and even slowing down as they pass, and the cyclist suddenly and unexpected swerving left to avoid the hazard is less likely to go down as yet another "motorist overtaking cyclist" collision type.
Also, from a legal perspective, as soon as the cyclist crosses that bl stripe, even if doing so requires only a foot of lateral change to avoid a hazard as it would in this case, any collision that results is his fault, because it's "an unsafe lane change". But if there is no stripe, then the motorist is required to pass with a safe distance (in AZ, a minimum of 3 feet is actually specified in law), and if a collision occurs because the cyclist adjusted laterally only 1 foot (which could probably proven when the cyclist is shooting video like Al does), then it's the motorist's fault.
There is no reason for either the driver or cyclist to assume that just because there is paint there, that the cyclist is less likely to suddenly and unexpectedly swerve left for some reason, ...
And this is the incident that Al described, which is an example of what I'm talking about (for a photo of the situation, see post #40 in the Bike Lane Follies thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2279127&postcount=40):
Here is a temporary follie due to construction. They should put up a sign well in advance to let cyclist know to merge left and to let motorist know cyclist will be doing so. It caught me off guard and I didn't have time to move into main travel lane earlier enough. In the video you can see me my shadow and me signaling left and looking over my shoulder twice. The sun was right behind me and I couldn't see very well (not at all in mirror). I need to make a left turn shortly after so I moved into center of lane and stayed there after the truck passed.
Video (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/060310-0709.10896-plate.avi) (420kb, right click, save target as..., open from local drive)
Now of course one could argue I should ride over it, but when approaching at speed one can often not tell how bad it is until too late. The real danger is the tire swallowing crack to the left of the plate.
If, prior to getting to this hazard, the cyclist is in his bike lane, since the ROW is clearly demarcated, motorists are likely to be overtaking him with less of a passing margin, and less likely to be slowing down, than if there was no bike lane clearly demarcating the ROW.
If there was no bike lane stripe, and the cyclist is riding in the exact same position, overtaking motorists are more likely to be adjusting left and even slowing down as they pass, and the cyclist suddenly and unexpected swerving left to avoid the hazard is less likely to go down as yet another "motorist overtaking cyclist" collision type.
Also, from a legal perspective, as soon as the cyclist crosses that bl stripe, even if doing so requires only a foot of lateral change to avoid a hazard as it would in this case, any collision that results is his fault, because it's "an unsafe lane change". But if there is no stripe, then the motorist is required to pass with a safe distance (in AZ, a minimum of 3 feet is actually specified in law), and if a collision occurs because the cyclist adjusted laterally only 1 foot (which could probably proven when the cyclist is shooting video like Al does), then it's the motorist's fault.
Helmet Head
03-10-06, 10:11 AM
HH- I have no time to decipher your retoric. Condense your ideas and respond to my numbered points as a whole instead of atomizing my sentences. If you want to explore this issue; then it is time to delve into the details. I even numbered my individual points for your reading and responding convenience. Instead, I get the impression that you are simply trying to get me to go away by using a random selection of arguements from the VC handbook.
I've made an assertion. You have opened the argument using counterassertions. Now it is time to get into the details and risk one of us changing our views. This is a discussion. If it turns into a sales pitch, as you have already tried, I will hang up. If I write a paragraph (and especially if I number it), assume that there whatever is written in it is linked to the rest of the words in the paragraph and cannot be broken up. Nothing annoys me more than someone who breaks things up sentence by sentence, and sometimes even word by word.
I spent two hours writing that post last night, Brian, the least you could is take 10 or 20 minutes to read and think about it.
I've made an assertion. You have opened the argument using counterassertions. Now it is time to get into the details and risk one of us changing our views. This is a discussion. If it turns into a sales pitch, as you have already tried, I will hang up. If I write a paragraph (and especially if I number it), assume that there whatever is written in it is linked to the rest of the words in the paragraph and cannot be broken up. Nothing annoys me more than someone who breaks things up sentence by sentence, and sometimes even word by word.
I spent two hours writing that post last night, Brian, the least you could is take 10 or 20 minutes to read and think about it.
I-Like-To-Bike
03-10-06, 10:35 AM
I spent two hours writing that post last night, Brian, the least you could is take 10 or 20 minutes to read and think about it.
The least I can do is just grin.
The least I can do is just grin.
noisebeam
03-10-06, 10:50 AM
The cyclist is in his bike lane, since the ROW is clearly demarcated, motorists are likely to be overtaking him with less of a passing margin, and less likely to be slowing down,
You mean like this dump truck than passed me at ~50mph?
Al
You mean like this dump truck than passed me at ~50mph?
Al
Helmet Head
03-10-06, 11:03 AM
Exactly, and that's a great example, showing the diamond symbol just like HOV lanes, what Brian was talking about.
Brian is right, the bl stripe "allows a cyclist and a car to slide past each other with confidence". The problem is that the confidence is usually there even when there is too little passing safety margin. That's misplaced confidence.
Brian is right, the bl stripe "allows a cyclist and a car to slide past each other with confidence". The problem is that the confidence is usually there even when there is too little passing safety margin. That's misplaced confidence.
Helmet Head
03-10-06, 11:08 AM
I'm running into all kinds of supporting evidence for my assertion today.
One of the complaints about cycle lanes is that motorists no longer notice bikes. Drivers will typically give a cyclist a wide berth, or give way at intersections; where there's a bike lane, the motorist will drive close to the line (as with any road marking), squeezing the cyclist into the gutter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4789146.stm
One of the complaints about cycle lanes is that motorists no longer notice bikes. Drivers will typically give a cyclist a wide berth, or give way at intersections; where there's a bike lane, the motorist will drive close to the line (as with any road marking), squeezing the cyclist into the gutter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4789146.stm
noisebeam
03-10-06, 11:15 AM
I'm running into all kinds of supporting evidence for my assertion today.
Excellent passing clearance with no stripe!
Al
Excellent passing clearance with no stripe!
Al
Brian Ratliff
03-10-06, 12:32 PM
You mean like this dump truck than passed me at ~50mph?
Al
Why do you expect a dump truck to change lanes? He's got problems too, one of which is that he cannot maneuver very well. You can facilitate safer passing by moving over a foot to the right as you hear him pass; I am pretty sure the truck won't follow you across the bike lane line. One of the advantages of bike lanes is that the cyclist, not the driver, controls the passing distance.
On the second post, notice that the other vehicle is a passenger vehicle, not a dump truck, meaning that the car itself is narrower. The dump truck takes up the entire lane width. Evidently, a jeep does not.
Al
Why do you expect a dump truck to change lanes? He's got problems too, one of which is that he cannot maneuver very well. You can facilitate safer passing by moving over a foot to the right as you hear him pass; I am pretty sure the truck won't follow you across the bike lane line. One of the advantages of bike lanes is that the cyclist, not the driver, controls the passing distance.
On the second post, notice that the other vehicle is a passenger vehicle, not a dump truck, meaning that the car itself is narrower. The dump truck takes up the entire lane width. Evidently, a jeep does not.
Brian Ratliff
03-10-06, 12:43 PM
Exactly, and that's a great example, showing the diamond symbol just like HOV lanes, what Brian was talking about.
Brian is right, the bl stripe "allows a cyclist and a car to slide past each other with confidence". The problem is that the confidence is usually there even when there is too little passing safety margin. That's misplaced confidence.
I'll get to your other post when I have time. Tell me: do you think a car will follow you across the bike lane line if you move over a foot to the right to facilitate this "passing safety margin"? Cars are not in the habit of crossing lines, which is why they are on the road. This means that in a bike lane, if there is too little passing margin, it is partially the fault of the cyclist for riding too close to the adjacent lane.
Why would I want the car coming from behind to be responsible for maintaining my safety margin? For instance, if there is a large truck coming from behind, I move over to the right in my lane to maintain my safety margin. When the truck is passed, I move back to the left side of my lane, to facilitate my being noticed from side streets. In normal travel, my handle bar end is near the left most edge of the bike lane, which is perfectly fine for normal car traffic. As car speeds increase, I center myself more, again to increase my safety margin.
Do you think that cars habitually cross bike lane lines if they see a cyclist in them? This is not my experience.
Brian is right, the bl stripe "allows a cyclist and a car to slide past each other with confidence". The problem is that the confidence is usually there even when there is too little passing safety margin. That's misplaced confidence.
I'll get to your other post when I have time. Tell me: do you think a car will follow you across the bike lane line if you move over a foot to the right to facilitate this "passing safety margin"? Cars are not in the habit of crossing lines, which is why they are on the road. This means that in a bike lane, if there is too little passing margin, it is partially the fault of the cyclist for riding too close to the adjacent lane.
Why would I want the car coming from behind to be responsible for maintaining my safety margin? For instance, if there is a large truck coming from behind, I move over to the right in my lane to maintain my safety margin. When the truck is passed, I move back to the left side of my lane, to facilitate my being noticed from side streets. In normal travel, my handle bar end is near the left most edge of the bike lane, which is perfectly fine for normal car traffic. As car speeds increase, I center myself more, again to increase my safety margin.
Do you think that cars habitually cross bike lane lines if they see a cyclist in them? This is not my experience.
Brian Ratliff
03-10-06, 12:58 PM
You mean like this dump truck than passed me at ~50mph?
Al
One more point to reinforce the notion that the cyclist controls passing space in a bike lane. Notice the SUV to the left of the dump truck. He is positioned in the very leftmost position of his lane; again, to improve his safety margin when passing (or being passed) by the truck.
In a well designed clock, the gears run close together with little slop. Close passing has little to do with safety, increasing or decreasing it; it has to do with comfort. I know I can hold my line. I know the car can hold theirs. The real threat on the road is uncertainty. Greater uncertainty leads to larger passing distance at slower speed which increases comfort, much like sidewalk riding increases comfort by separation from traffic. However, it decreases safety, because the general flow of traffic is disturbed unnecessarily. On rural roads I see this all the time: a car will give me wide berth to give me more comfort, and barely miss the car coming the opposite direction around a corner. Now, because it is a rural road, we both learn to deal with the uncertainties; but it is certainly less than ideal.
Close passes with a bike lane is like learning to take a lane. Safety is increased because uncertainty is lessened; it is just less comfortable. I can deal with the discomfort of taking the lane (which incidentally, carries all the small margins of error of a close pass; if I slip down, there is a decent chance of me getting run over by a following car), and I can deal with the discomfort of being passed with small margin, as long as the situational uncertainties are lessened in the process. The least safe is in a shared lane with a teenager who passes close because he can; gambling that the uncertainties are in his favor.
Al
One more point to reinforce the notion that the cyclist controls passing space in a bike lane. Notice the SUV to the left of the dump truck. He is positioned in the very leftmost position of his lane; again, to improve his safety margin when passing (or being passed) by the truck.
In a well designed clock, the gears run close together with little slop. Close passing has little to do with safety, increasing or decreasing it; it has to do with comfort. I know I can hold my line. I know the car can hold theirs. The real threat on the road is uncertainty. Greater uncertainty leads to larger passing distance at slower speed which increases comfort, much like sidewalk riding increases comfort by separation from traffic. However, it decreases safety, because the general flow of traffic is disturbed unnecessarily. On rural roads I see this all the time: a car will give me wide berth to give me more comfort, and barely miss the car coming the opposite direction around a corner. Now, because it is a rural road, we both learn to deal with the uncertainties; but it is certainly less than ideal.
Close passes with a bike lane is like learning to take a lane. Safety is increased because uncertainty is lessened; it is just less comfortable. I can deal with the discomfort of taking the lane (which incidentally, carries all the small margins of error of a close pass; if I slip down, there is a decent chance of me getting run over by a following car), and I can deal with the discomfort of being passed with small margin, as long as the situational uncertainties are lessened in the process. The least safe is in a shared lane with a teenager who passes close because he can; gambling that the uncertainties are in his favor.
Helmet Head
03-10-06, 01:01 PM
I'll get to your other post when I have time.
No hurry. I would appreciate it if you spent the time reading it, and identifying as best as you can what the key points of disagreement now are, and focusing on that.
Tell me: do you think a car will follow you across the bike lane line if you move over a foot to the right to facilitate this "passing safety margin"?
No, but if it did, it would not be facilitating a passing safety margin, but doing quite the opposite.
This means that in a bike lane, if there is too little passing margin, it is partially the fault of the cyclist for riding too close to the adjacent lane.
You would think so, but considering the natural propensity for bike lanes to collect rubble, I, for one, cannot fault a cyclist for riding near the stripe, or even on it.
Worse, even centered in a standard 5 foot wide bike lane, a 2 foot wide cyclist is only 1.5 feet from the stripe, and only 1.5 foot from the curb or gutter pan (assuming the gutter pan is not included in the bike lane width, which it's not supposed to be, but often is). A 4 foot wide bike lane reduces the margins further by 6 inches on each side.
Given these factors, I don't think it's fair to fault the cyclist for too little passing margins. However, I can't fault the motorist either, for he is simply treating his lane like any other lane. The fault lies with the fundamental design of the bike lane itself.
If you remove the stripe, then you can start faulting either the cyclist or the motorist (mostly the motorist) for close passing margins, depending on the particular circumstances.
Why would I want the car coming from behind to be responsible for maintaining my safety margin?
It's not a matter of wanting it, it's a matter of recognizing that it is so, and avoiding designs (i.e., bike lanes) that make it seem otherwise.
Do you think that cars habitually cross bike lane lines if they see a cyclist in them? This is not my experience.
Not habitually, but drivers do inadvertently drift right, and are more apt to do so if they are not aware of hazard up ahead. A bike lane or shoulder stripe typically does not constitute such a hazard, but a cyclist off to the right does, but only if he is noticed. Since motorists tend to pay more attention to what is in their lane up ahead than what is outside of their lane, if the cyclist up ahead is in the motorists WOL (but off to the side), he is more likely to be noticed than is a cyclist up ahead in his own bike lane.
But the main concern is not habitual or occasional motorists drifting right across the bike lane stripe, it's the occasional unexpected need for the cyclist to suddenly adjust lateral lane position by a foot or two to the left, across the stripe, coupled with a close pass.
Collisions are usually caused by more than one unexpected event happening simultaneously.
A motorist driving too close to the bike lane stripe alone is rarely going to cause a motorist overtaking cyclist collision.
A cyclist suddenly swerving left to avoid something, moving laterally a foot or two across the bike lane stripe, is rarely going to cause a motorist overtaking cyclist collision.
But when both events happen to occur simultaneously, that's the problem.
No hurry. I would appreciate it if you spent the time reading it, and identifying as best as you can what the key points of disagreement now are, and focusing on that.
Tell me: do you think a car will follow you across the bike lane line if you move over a foot to the right to facilitate this "passing safety margin"?
No, but if it did, it would not be facilitating a passing safety margin, but doing quite the opposite.
This means that in a bike lane, if there is too little passing margin, it is partially the fault of the cyclist for riding too close to the adjacent lane.
You would think so, but considering the natural propensity for bike lanes to collect rubble, I, for one, cannot fault a cyclist for riding near the stripe, or even on it.
Worse, even centered in a standard 5 foot wide bike lane, a 2 foot wide cyclist is only 1.5 feet from the stripe, and only 1.5 foot from the curb or gutter pan (assuming the gutter pan is not included in the bike lane width, which it's not supposed to be, but often is). A 4 foot wide bike lane reduces the margins further by 6 inches on each side.
Given these factors, I don't think it's fair to fault the cyclist for too little passing margins. However, I can't fault the motorist either, for he is simply treating his lane like any other lane. The fault lies with the fundamental design of the bike lane itself.
If you remove the stripe, then you can start faulting either the cyclist or the motorist (mostly the motorist) for close passing margins, depending on the particular circumstances.
Why would I want the car coming from behind to be responsible for maintaining my safety margin?
It's not a matter of wanting it, it's a matter of recognizing that it is so, and avoiding designs (i.e., bike lanes) that make it seem otherwise.
Do you think that cars habitually cross bike lane lines if they see a cyclist in them? This is not my experience.
Not habitually, but drivers do inadvertently drift right, and are more apt to do so if they are not aware of hazard up ahead. A bike lane or shoulder stripe typically does not constitute such a hazard, but a cyclist off to the right does, but only if he is noticed. Since motorists tend to pay more attention to what is in their lane up ahead than what is outside of their lane, if the cyclist up ahead is in the motorists WOL (but off to the side), he is more likely to be noticed than is a cyclist up ahead in his own bike lane.
But the main concern is not habitual or occasional motorists drifting right across the bike lane stripe, it's the occasional unexpected need for the cyclist to suddenly adjust lateral lane position by a foot or two to the left, across the stripe, coupled with a close pass.
Collisions are usually caused by more than one unexpected event happening simultaneously.
A motorist driving too close to the bike lane stripe alone is rarely going to cause a motorist overtaking cyclist collision.
A cyclist suddenly swerving left to avoid something, moving laterally a foot or two across the bike lane stripe, is rarely going to cause a motorist overtaking cyclist collision.
But when both events happen to occur simultaneously, that's the problem.
noisebeam
03-10-06, 01:06 PM
Why do you expect a dump truck to change lanes? He's got problems too, one of which is that he cannot maneuver very well. You can facilitate safer passing by moving over a foot to the right as you hear him pass; I am pretty sure the truck won't follow you across the bike lane line. One of the advantages of bike lanes is that the cyclist, not the driver, controls the passing distance.
On the second post, notice that the other vehicle is a passenger vehicle, not a dump truck, meaning that the car itself is narrower. The dump truck takes up the entire lane width. Evidently, a jeep does not.
The dump truck left more space on his left than his right (that is between sides of truck and lane lines) He was much closer to me than the adjacent suburban. I didn't hear this truck coming until just before it passed (actually I though it was going to be a city bus from the shadow and noise) and didn't see it cause the sun was directly behind me and all I can see in my rear view mirror is sun. Finally if I have a dedicated lane, why should I have to watch behind me and make lateral moves for my safety, I thought the whole benefit of BL being touted is that you have a dedicated lane and don't need to negotiate with same direction traffic.
Anyway, the passing clearance didn't bother me frankly, but mainly cause I'm used to it. It met my comfort and safety criteria.
As to jeep vs. d-truck, over time I'll get more shots and show examples of how I consisently get closer passed in BL vs. WOL independent of vehicle type.
Oh, finally, for the record, I really don't mind the BL here. Its near intersections where they are unhelpful to even more trouble.
Al
On the second post, notice that the other vehicle is a passenger vehicle, not a dump truck, meaning that the car itself is narrower. The dump truck takes up the entire lane width. Evidently, a jeep does not.
The dump truck left more space on his left than his right (that is between sides of truck and lane lines) He was much closer to me than the adjacent suburban. I didn't hear this truck coming until just before it passed (actually I though it was going to be a city bus from the shadow and noise) and didn't see it cause the sun was directly behind me and all I can see in my rear view mirror is sun. Finally if I have a dedicated lane, why should I have to watch behind me and make lateral moves for my safety, I thought the whole benefit of BL being touted is that you have a dedicated lane and don't need to negotiate with same direction traffic.
Anyway, the passing clearance didn't bother me frankly, but mainly cause I'm used to it. It met my comfort and safety criteria.
As to jeep vs. d-truck, over time I'll get more shots and show examples of how I consisently get closer passed in BL vs. WOL independent of vehicle type.
Oh, finally, for the record, I really don't mind the BL here. Its near intersections where they are unhelpful to even more trouble.
Al
Helmet Head
03-10-06, 01:12 PM
Anyway, the passing clearance didn't bother me frankly, but mainly cause I'm used to it. It met my comfort and safety criteria.
Luckily, a metal plate or some other obstacle requiring a sudden left swerve a foot or so out of the bike lane that you didn't notice until the last second did not happen to be there right as the dump truck was passing you.
Luckily, a metal plate or some other obstacle requiring a sudden left swerve a foot or so out of the bike lane that you didn't notice until the last second did not happen to be there right as the dump truck was passing you.
Brian Ratliff
03-10-06, 03:15 PM
Don't forget the context! The issue is whether your assertion that WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road because the differences in the top speed, acceleration and size are not respected is true. It's in your court now to explain to me why you find the explanations I provided (see above) for why speed and acceleration differences are irrelevant to the issue of whether WOLS show that bikes do not belong on the road to be unpersuasive.
...
This is a new assertion that, by the way, is not germaine to any of my argument, no part of which is based on the assumption that speed and acceleration differences do not make it more difficult to time maneuvers and make the consequenses of mistakes greater. Of course speed and acceleration differences do that. What does any of this have to do with the issue of whether your assertion that WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road is true?
Differences in speed and acceleration, and their consequences, are a norm on non-freeway roads.
Differences in speed are relevent in a shared lane because the lane is shared and the overtaking vehicle must make a maneuver in the process of the overtaking. A motorist in a shared lane approaching a cyclist with a closing speed of 30 or 40 mph has a much more difficult time timing the passing maneuver (which requires a lane position change in a shared lane) than one where the closing speed is 10 or 20 mph. Bike lanes do not share this problem because the cyclist's postion is precisely defined relative to the bike lane line. If the cyclist is to the right of the lane line and is not maneuvering toward it, then the driver is relieved of making a lateral maneuver to pass the cyclist.
While differences in speed and acceleration are the norm between cars, the magnitude of that difference between cars and bikes is a special case. Cars only infrequently come to a complete stop in the middle of the road, but from the perspective of an overtaking car, the bicyclist is nearly stationary, even under full acceleration.
Differences in speed and acceleration also make timing of much greater importance in a shared lane. In a shared lane, every passing maneuver by an overtaking motorist is an exercise in timing. The faster the approach speed, the more finely the maneuver has to be timed.
I'm not worried about that car in particular, I'm worried about close passes in general. Close passes reduce safety margins.
Any confidence that stems from paint is unfounded. False confidence is dangerous. There is no reason for either the driver or cyclist to assume that just because there is paint there, that the cyclist is less likely to suddenly and unexpectedly swerve left for some reason, or that the driver is less likely to inadvertently drift, or need to swerve, to the right. The same minimum safety passing margin (at least 3') should be maintained regardless of whether there is a stripe of paint separating them. A separating 10' high bulletproof wall of glass would impact the need for safety margins when overtaking. But a 6" wide/2 mm high painted stripe? I don't see how.
Unrealistic example. I don't mind 3 foot passes. I mind consistent passes of 1 foot, instead of 3 or more.
To say that paint inspires false confidence is to say that our entire road system is founded on false confidence. Perhaps you take this view; it is certainly valid and there are good arguments for eliminating road striping completely from the road. But currently, road striping is the norm.
The reason a cyclist can assume that a car will not suddenly swerve across the line is the most of the drivers on the road respect lines. The reason that a car can expect that a cyclist will not swerve across the line is that the cyclist is on the road. Part of the deal with cyclists being part of the traffic system has to be the predictable and deliberate operation of the bicycle on the part of the cyclist. It is the cyclist's responsibility to stay in their lanes, just as it is the driver's responsibility to keep their car from inadvertantly drifting into an adjacent lane. If you eliminate bicycle lane strips on the basis that they do not affect the operation of a vehicle on the road, then you will be forced to advocate the elimination of all roadway markings on the same basis. If a car passes another car on the highway, there has to be some reasonable expectation that the overtaken car will not suddenly swerve. Due diligence takes care of the infrequent, uncontrolled drift or swerve.
As for the passing distance: in a bike lane, the cyclist determines the safe passing distance. If cars are passing you with a foot of clearance, and you feel you need more, then you can simply move over a foot. Because there is a bike lane line to act as a stationary point of reference, the car will not follow you.
Moreover, I would argue that passing distance is more a function of comfort than safety. Close passing has nothing to do with safety; after all, the car missed. There is a slight threat of being blown over, and there is the pucker factor, but there is no substantial difference between a pass at 3 feet vs. a pass at 1 foot.
Uncertainty is the larger threat on the road. Cars give wide berths to cyclists in a WOL because they are unable to predict the cyclist's actions because there is no point of reference to judge the cyclist's exact position and direction; thus no way of predicting the cyclist's intent. This wide berth may give a cyclist more comfort in the same way that riding on the sidewalk away from traffic can give a cyclist comfort, but it decreases safety overall because it is the result of responding to uncertainties on the road.
Because how you get from a WOL to a BL is by adding a 6" wide stripe of white paint.
Are you contending that Portland bike lanes are not demarcated by a 6" wide stripe of white paint?
Since you brought up HOVs, I have an idea to illustrate the difference between HOV lanes and BLs. How about this. Say a motorcycling advocacy group is sick of motorcyclists being stuck in congested traffic, and starts advocating for road widening and restriping to add narrow motorcycle HOV lanes on roads. This would be the leftmost same-direction lane, much like freeway HOV lanes, except they would be in towns with all of the same intersections that bike lanes have to cross. How good is your imagination? Start with the street you live on? How would it be handled there? Now consider, just for the sake of exercise, that on every street you ride on with bike lanes, the stripes were repainted to remove the bike lane on the right and add a motorbike lane (MBL?) on the left. Can you see it? Now imagine driving on this road, and dealing with the occasional motorcyclist passing you on the left, except when he has to merge across all the "car" lanes to make a right turn, and when you have to somehow deal with the narrow MBL on your left, and potential motorcycle traffic in it, before you make any left turn. It would be such a bloodbath they would discontinue them within a month. Comparing HOV lanes on freeways with BLs is missing the whole point. I think these hypothetical MBLs make for a much better example.
For that matter, why do you think there are no HOV lanes in town along the same streets where you have bike lanes. In SD, we have plenty of 6 lane boulevards. Why not convert the leftmost lane in each direction to be an HOV lane? While we're at it, why not convert all rightmost lanes on such roads to be semi-exclusive (like BLs) truck lanes? Can you imagine the utter chaos? The carnage?
Now (getting back to your point), let's say they tried MBLs, HOV lanes, and truck lanes in some city. Do you really think that dressing them up with symbols and signs would make any significant difference in reducing the chaos, confusion and carnage?
You keep saying this like it might magically become true if you say it enough times. What part of everyone has the ROW to continue following their line of travel, as long as they don't run into slower traffic in front of them or as they pass, do you not comprehend? It's fundamental to all traffic movement. It is the basis upon which lane stripes are based. When vehicle A in lane a is passing vehicle B in lane b, vehicle A has the ROW to continue traveling along its line of travel within lane a, and vehicle B has the ROW to continue traveling along its line of travel within lane b. Neither has the ROW to make any sudden significant lateral changes from that line of travel, whether they remain in their respective lanes or not, without first making sure that doing so will not conflict with anyone else's ROW.
ROW is in the picture whenever there are two operators close enough to each other to interfere with each other's way, period.
I never denied that lane stripes help ascertain ROW. But lane lines are not required to ascertain ROW among same-direction traffic. Lanes exist with or without actual painted stripes. Consider streets with even two direction traffic, but no stripes, not even a center stripe. Yet somehow drivers are able to ascertain ROW without those stripes. By the way, if you want to speed up traffic on such a road, the first thing you should do is add a center stripe to clearly demarcate the two opposite-direction lanes from each other. By helping ascertain ROW, lane lines allow for higher speeds of traffic. In the case of helping high speed motor traffic pass slower bike traffic, faster, that's "help" that I, for one, don't want. So while I don't deny that bike lane lines, like all lane lines, help ascertain ROW, my argument is that in the case of bike lanes, greater ROW clarity is undesirable, primarily because it facilitates closer and faster passing.
I suppose if you don't ride a bike lane like a lane, then it is not a lane. Perhaps this is what you are seeing. Other lanes on the road are denoted by stripes; are you saying that these stripes are irrelevant as well?
When I talk of ROW in the context of passing, I am referring to maneuvers the two vehicles must partake when one is overtaking another. In a bike lane, if the cyclist is in the lane, there is no maneuver necessary, so ROW is not taken or surrendered. In a WOL, the trailing vehicle must maneuver to the left side of the lane and the cyclist is, and some point, obligated to keep his line with respect to a distant curb. The obligation to keep a line without an immediate point of reference is the surrender of ROW I am talking about. In a bike lane, the cyclist and overtaking driver only need to stay within their respective lanes, irrespective of the line they follow within those lanes. In a WOL, the cyclist must keep a line as she is being passed, and does not have a clear margin of lateral movement to avoid debris or potholes.
For instance, if a motorist is in the process of overtaking a cyclist in a WOL and the cyclist encounters a field of debris, is it safe for her to swerve to avoid it? If so, how much space is there to swerve? If the cyclist misjudges and gets hit, it is her fault for having violated the ROW of the vehicle coming up from behind? How is it possible to know when a leading vehicle must surrender ROW to a trailing vehicle?
On the other hand, if the cyclist has ROW at all times as the leading vehicle on the grounds that the cyclist cannot judge her maneuvers on the basis of what is going on behind her, how is a car to pass in a shared lane? What happens when a passing maneuver (within the shared lane) is instigated and the cyclist swerves into the path of the car quickly enough that the motorist does not have time to react?
If the overtaking vehicle must change lanes to have a sure path around the cyclist, then what is the point of a WOL?
Maybe there's nothing to prevent a cyclist from riding outside of a bike lane, but there is plenty to discourage him from doing so, starting with the law. But probably more importantly, the expectation of motorists, regardless of what the law says. Motorists expect BIKEs to be in the BIKE lane, just like they expect taxis in taxi lanes, buses in bus lanes, and trucks in truck lanes. Beyond that, cyclists expect BIKEs to be in the BIKE lane, often regardless of whether it is safe, reasonable and practicable to be riding in the space demarcated by the static bike lane stripe for the current factors and conditions. All of these factors conspire to discourage cyclsits from riding outside of bike lanes, and therefore makes my protest about the static characteristic of bike lanes to be quite relevant, thank you very much.
There are social and legal pressures which keep people off bikes period, bike lane or no. But laws change, and so do social pressures. It is more acceptable now for a cyclist in Portland to be out of the bike lane than it was 5 years ago. This is because we have lots of bicyclists, and not all of them are in bike lanes all the time. The fact that it is outlined in the drivers manual (even before the exceptions law was passed) that cyclists might be outside the bike lane helps as well.
WOL's, coupled with laws requiring a "stay to the right as much as possible/practical" also conspire to keep cyclists out of the way of cars, only these facilities also work to keep cyclists off the road. I suspect the public perception that bikes belong to the bike lane or to the side of the road have little to do with bicycle facilities and have more to do with the numbers of cyclists on the road (exposure) and the driver's manual (teaching) then it has to do with any sort of bicycling facility.
In any case, I am looking at the actual affect of a bicycle facility; not some percieved notion of how society views cycling in general. I will not be slinking around like some second rate user of the road asking permission to change lanes or even be on the road in the first place. I have a right to the road, and I exercise this right, regardless of what people around me think.
I believe the "zone of awareness" is much more applicable to the problem of inadvertent drift than to right hooks and the like, which I agree is more of a miscalculation issue. But no matter, we can to agree to disagree on this point, since my argument certainly does not depend on it. It's a fringe issue, at best. I only brought it up in response to your assertion that "WOLs require cyclists to have extraordinary obligations in planning out their maneuvers in the shared lane and keeping track of motorized vehicles passing from behind in the same lane", perhaps mistakenly assuming that what you were referring to by "extraordinary obligations" is related to the technique I advocate involving using a mirror to use a centerish position by default. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by this assertion, and why you believe it to be true, so we can explore this aspect of your argument.
Extraordinary obligation is explained above when I talk about the need for an overtaking cyclist to hold a line within the lane of traffic he is already in. No other vehicle on the road needs to respect this obligation, and bike lanes alleviate this responsibility as long as the two vehicles keep to their respective lanes.
...
This is a new assertion that, by the way, is not germaine to any of my argument, no part of which is based on the assumption that speed and acceleration differences do not make it more difficult to time maneuvers and make the consequenses of mistakes greater. Of course speed and acceleration differences do that. What does any of this have to do with the issue of whether your assertion that WOLs show that bikes do not belong on the road is true?
Differences in speed and acceleration, and their consequences, are a norm on non-freeway roads.
Differences in speed are relevent in a shared lane because the lane is shared and the overtaking vehicle must make a maneuver in the process of the overtaking. A motorist in a shared lane approaching a cyclist with a closing speed of 30 or 40 mph has a much more difficult time timing the passing maneuver (which requires a lane position change in a shared lane) than one where the closing speed is 10 or 20 mph. Bike lanes do not share this problem because the cyclist's postion is precisely defined relative to the bike lane line. If the cyclist is to the right of the lane line and is not maneuvering toward it, then the driver is relieved of making a lateral maneuver to pass the cyclist.
While differences in speed and acceleration are the norm between cars, the magnitude of that difference between cars and bikes is a special case. Cars only infrequently come to a complete stop in the middle of the road, but from the perspective of an overtaking car, the bicyclist is nearly stationary, even under full acceleration.
Differences in speed and acceleration also make timing of much greater importance in a shared lane. In a shared lane, every passing maneuver by an overtaking motorist is an exercise in timing. The faster the approach speed, the more finely the maneuver has to be timed.
I'm not worried about that car in particular, I'm worried about close passes in general. Close passes reduce safety margins.
Any confidence that stems from paint is unfounded. False confidence is dangerous. There is no reason for either the driver or cyclist to assume that just because there is paint there, that the cyclist is less likely to suddenly and unexpectedly swerve left for some reason, or that the driver is less likely to inadvertently drift, or need to swerve, to the right. The same minimum safety passing margin (at least 3') should be maintained regardless of whether there is a stripe of paint separating them. A separating 10' high bulletproof wall of glass would impact the need for safety margins when overtaking. But a 6" wide/2 mm high painted stripe? I don't see how.
Unrealistic example. I don't mind 3 foot passes. I mind consistent passes of 1 foot, instead of 3 or more.
To say that paint inspires false confidence is to say that our entire road system is founded on false confidence. Perhaps you take this view; it is certainly valid and there are good arguments for eliminating road striping completely from the road. But currently, road striping is the norm.
The reason a cyclist can assume that a car will not suddenly swerve across the line is the most of the drivers on the road respect lines. The reason that a car can expect that a cyclist will not swerve across the line is that the cyclist is on the road. Part of the deal with cyclists being part of the traffic system has to be the predictable and deliberate operation of the bicycle on the part of the cyclist. It is the cyclist's responsibility to stay in their lanes, just as it is the driver's responsibility to keep their car from inadvertantly drifting into an adjacent lane. If you eliminate bicycle lane strips on the basis that they do not affect the operation of a vehicle on the road, then you will be forced to advocate the elimination of all roadway markings on the same basis. If a car passes another car on the highway, there has to be some reasonable expectation that the overtaken car will not suddenly swerve. Due diligence takes care of the infrequent, uncontrolled drift or swerve.
As for the passing distance: in a bike lane, the cyclist determines the safe passing distance. If cars are passing you with a foot of clearance, and you feel you need more, then you can simply move over a foot. Because there is a bike lane line to act as a stationary point of reference, the car will not follow you.
Moreover, I would argue that passing distance is more a function of comfort than safety. Close passing has nothing to do with safety; after all, the car missed. There is a slight threat of being blown over, and there is the pucker factor, but there is no substantial difference between a pass at 3 feet vs. a pass at 1 foot.
Uncertainty is the larger threat on the road. Cars give wide berths to cyclists in a WOL because they are unable to predict the cyclist's actions because there is no point of reference to judge the cyclist's exact position and direction; thus no way of predicting the cyclist's intent. This wide berth may give a cyclist more comfort in the same way that riding on the sidewalk away from traffic can give a cyclist comfort, but it decreases safety overall because it is the result of responding to uncertainties on the road.
Because how you get from a WOL to a BL is by adding a 6" wide stripe of white paint.
Are you contending that Portland bike lanes are not demarcated by a 6" wide stripe of white paint?
Since you brought up HOVs, I have an idea to illustrate the difference between HOV lanes and BLs. How about this. Say a motorcycling advocacy group is sick of motorcyclists being stuck in congested traffic, and starts advocating for road widening and restriping to add narrow motorcycle HOV lanes on roads. This would be the leftmost same-direction lane, much like freeway HOV lanes, except they would be in towns with all of the same intersections that bike lanes have to cross. How good is your imagination? Start with the street you live on? How would it be handled there? Now consider, just for the sake of exercise, that on every street you ride on with bike lanes, the stripes were repainted to remove the bike lane on the right and add a motorbike lane (MBL?) on the left. Can you see it? Now imagine driving on this road, and dealing with the occasional motorcyclist passing you on the left, except when he has to merge across all the "car" lanes to make a right turn, and when you have to somehow deal with the narrow MBL on your left, and potential motorcycle traffic in it, before you make any left turn. It would be such a bloodbath they would discontinue them within a month. Comparing HOV lanes on freeways with BLs is missing the whole point. I think these hypothetical MBLs make for a much better example.
For that matter, why do you think there are no HOV lanes in town along the same streets where you have bike lanes. In SD, we have plenty of 6 lane boulevards. Why not convert the leftmost lane in each direction to be an HOV lane? While we're at it, why not convert all rightmost lanes on such roads to be semi-exclusive (like BLs) truck lanes? Can you imagine the utter chaos? The carnage?
Now (getting back to your point), let's say they tried MBLs, HOV lanes, and truck lanes in some city. Do you really think that dressing them up with symbols and signs would make any significant difference in reducing the chaos, confusion and carnage?
You keep saying this like it might magically become true if you say it enough times. What part of everyone has the ROW to continue following their line of travel, as long as they don't run into slower traffic in front of them or as they pass, do you not comprehend? It's fundamental to all traffic movement. It is the basis upon which lane stripes are based. When vehicle A in lane a is passing vehicle B in lane b, vehicle A has the ROW to continue traveling along its line of travel within lane a, and vehicle B has the ROW to continue traveling along its line of travel within lane b. Neither has the ROW to make any sudden significant lateral changes from that line of travel, whether they remain in their respective lanes or not, without first making sure that doing so will not conflict with anyone else's ROW.
ROW is in the picture whenever there are two operators close enough to each other to interfere with each other's way, period.
I never denied that lane stripes help ascertain ROW. But lane lines are not required to ascertain ROW among same-direction traffic. Lanes exist with or without actual painted stripes. Consider streets with even two direction traffic, but no stripes, not even a center stripe. Yet somehow drivers are able to ascertain ROW without those stripes. By the way, if you want to speed up traffic on such a road, the first thing you should do is add a center stripe to clearly demarcate the two opposite-direction lanes from each other. By helping ascertain ROW, lane lines allow for higher speeds of traffic. In the case of helping high speed motor traffic pass slower bike traffic, faster, that's "help" that I, for one, don't want. So while I don't deny that bike lane lines, like all lane lines, help ascertain ROW, my argument is that in the case of bike lanes, greater ROW clarity is undesirable, primarily because it facilitates closer and faster passing.
I suppose if you don't ride a bike lane like a lane, then it is not a lane. Perhaps this is what you are seeing. Other lanes on the road are denoted by stripes; are you saying that these stripes are irrelevant as well?
When I talk of ROW in the context of passing, I am referring to maneuvers the two vehicles must partake when one is overtaking another. In a bike lane, if the cyclist is in the lane, there is no maneuver necessary, so ROW is not taken or surrendered. In a WOL, the trailing vehicle must maneuver to the left side of the lane and the cyclist is, and some point, obligated to keep his line with respect to a distant curb. The obligation to keep a line without an immediate point of reference is the surrender of ROW I am talking about. In a bike lane, the cyclist and overtaking driver only need to stay within their respective lanes, irrespective of the line they follow within those lanes. In a WOL, the cyclist must keep a line as she is being passed, and does not have a clear margin of lateral movement to avoid debris or potholes.
For instance, if a motorist is in the process of overtaking a cyclist in a WOL and the cyclist encounters a field of debris, is it safe for her to swerve to avoid it? If so, how much space is there to swerve? If the cyclist misjudges and gets hit, it is her fault for having violated the ROW of the vehicle coming up from behind? How is it possible to know when a leading vehicle must surrender ROW to a trailing vehicle?
On the other hand, if the cyclist has ROW at all times as the leading vehicle on the grounds that the cyclist cannot judge her maneuvers on the basis of what is going on behind her, how is a car to pass in a shared lane? What happens when a passing maneuver (within the shared lane) is instigated and the cyclist swerves into the path of the car quickly enough that the motorist does not have time to react?
If the overtaking vehicle must change lanes to have a sure path around the cyclist, then what is the point of a WOL?
Maybe there's nothing to prevent a cyclist from riding outside of a bike lane, but there is plenty to discourage him from doing so, starting with the law. But probably more importantly, the expectation of motorists, regardless of what the law says. Motorists expect BIKEs to be in the BIKE lane, just like they expect taxis in taxi lanes, buses in bus lanes, and trucks in truck lanes. Beyond that, cyclists expect BIKEs to be in the BIKE lane, often regardless of whether it is safe, reasonable and practicable to be riding in the space demarcated by the static bike lane stripe for the current factors and conditions. All of these factors conspire to discourage cyclsits from riding outside of bike lanes, and therefore makes my protest about the static characteristic of bike lanes to be quite relevant, thank you very much.
There are social and legal pressures which keep people off bikes period, bike lane or no. But laws change, and so do social pressures. It is more acceptable now for a cyclist in Portland to be out of the bike lane than it was 5 years ago. This is because we have lots of bicyclists, and not all of them are in bike lanes all the time. The fact that it is outlined in the drivers manual (even before the exceptions law was passed) that cyclists might be outside the bike lane helps as well.
WOL's, coupled with laws requiring a "stay to the right as much as possible/practical" also conspire to keep cyclists out of the way of cars, only these facilities also work to keep cyclists off the road. I suspect the public perception that bikes belong to the bike lane or to the side of the road have little to do with bicycle facilities and have more to do with the numbers of cyclists on the road (exposure) and the driver's manual (teaching) then it has to do with any sort of bicycling facility.
In any case, I am looking at the actual affect of a bicycle facility; not some percieved notion of how society views cycling in general. I will not be slinking around like some second rate user of the road asking permission to change lanes or even be on the road in the first place. I have a right to the road, and I exercise this right, regardless of what people around me think.
I believe the "zone of awareness" is much more applicable to the problem of inadvertent drift than to right hooks and the like, which I agree is more of a miscalculation issue. But no matter, we can to agree to disagree on this point, since my argument certainly does not depend on it. It's a fringe issue, at best. I only brought it up in response to your assertion that "WOLs require cyclists to have extraordinary obligations in planning out their maneuvers in the shared lane and keeping track of motorized vehicles passing from behind in the same lane", perhaps mistakenly assuming that what you were referring to by "extraordinary obligations" is related to the technique I advocate involving using a mirror to use a centerish position by default. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by this assertion, and why you believe it to be true, so we can explore this aspect of your argument.
Extraordinary obligation is explained above when I talk about the need for an overtaking cyclist to hold a line within the lane of traffic he is already in. No other vehicle on the road needs to respect this obligation, and bike lanes alleviate this responsibility as long as the two vehicles keep to their respective lanes.
Brian Ratliff
03-10-06, 03:26 PM
But the main concern is not habitual or occasional motorists drifting right across the bike lane stripe, it's the occasional unexpected need for the cyclist to suddenly adjust lateral lane position by a foot or two to the left, across the stripe, coupled with a close pass.
Collisions are usually caused by more than one unexpected event happening simultaneously.
A motorist driving too close to the bike lane stripe alone is rarely going to cause a motorist overtaking cyclist collision.
A cyclist suddenly swerving left to avoid something, moving laterally a foot or two across the bike lane stripe, is rarely going to cause a motorist overtaking cyclist collision.
But when both events happen to occur simultaneously, that's the problem.
Most of the above post is already responded to in my last post. However, I want to make the point that you are still not treating the bike lane as a lane in the road, as evidenced by the above statement about the need to swerve across the bike lane line.
If the bike lane is really a lane, then the cyclist must clear himself before making any lane changes. This should be self evident. In your example, the cyclist truly is at fault because he made a lane change without yielding right of way.
By definition, if neither one of the vehicles leaves their lane, there can be no collision. This is the strength of a bike lane. If something happens to force a vehicle from their lane, it is another accident, to be racked up in the statistics of other accidents.
As far as an accidental fall goes, this is a risk we take by cycling vehicularly. If you balk at the risk of getting falling over while being passed, think of a vehicular left turn and the risk of falling in the midst of 45 mph traffic. Vehicular cycling only works if the cyclist does not often fall.
Collisions are usually caused by more than one unexpected event happening simultaneously.
A motorist driving too close to the bike lane stripe alone is rarely going to cause a motorist overtaking cyclist collision.
A cyclist suddenly swerving left to avoid something, moving laterally a foot or two across the bike lane stripe, is rarely going to cause a motorist overtaking cyclist collision.
But when both events happen to occur simultaneously, that's the problem.
Most of the above post is already responded to in my last post. However, I want to make the point that you are still not treating the bike lane as a lane in the road, as evidenced by the above statement about the need to swerve across the bike lane line.
If the bike lane is really a lane, then the cyclist must clear himself before making any lane changes. This should be self evident. In your example, the cyclist truly is at fault because he made a lane change without yielding right of way.
By definition, if neither one of the vehicles leaves their lane, there can be no collision. This is the strength of a bike lane. If something happens to force a vehicle from their lane, it is another accident, to be racked up in the statistics of other accidents.
As far as an accidental fall goes, this is a risk we take by cycling vehicularly. If you balk at the risk of getting falling over while being passed, think of a vehicular left turn and the risk of falling in the midst of 45 mph traffic. Vehicular cycling only works if the cyclist does not often fall.
sbhikes
03-10-06, 08:23 PM
The motorcycle handbook says to discourage lane sharing because it is too dangerous and because motorcycles need the full width of the lane to operate safely. They are, of course, much larger, heavier and faster than a bicycle.
With a bike lane I'm free to take up my whole lane and use my lane positioning within it and outside it as well, to maintain my safe operation. It's a much better system to have a lane that fits my size as well as the use of the rest of the road as needed than to have to figure out how to claim some large piece of turf and defend it in a shared space with my small, slow vehicle.
I have found that an integrated system designed for multiple forms of transportation works much better than one designed solely for one form of transportation.
I would be interested in a count of bicyclists seen on your route. How many total do you see in an hour? How many are using a bike lane (one that is useable) when one is available? How many are avoiding a bike lane that is usable and available and using the center of the traffic lane instead? How many are simply avoiding the roads completely and using the sidewalk?
A working system is one that people will adopt. When it is designed poorly the people will not use it. A system designed only to move large volumes of fast-moving motor vehicles will never be adopted by large volumes of slow-moving non-motorized vehicles because it is not designed for that. All the arguments, premises, conculsions, wherewiths and therefores in the world will not change this simple fact. If simply being "right", "best", and conclusive through logic were enough we'd have had Betamaxes instead of vhs players.
So until you can come up with a better system designed for slow-moving non-motorized vehicles, and design it in such a way that large quantities of people will automatically adopt the system and use it without much effort to learn how it works, you're simply wasting a lot of time.
With a bike lane I'm free to take up my whole lane and use my lane positioning within it and outside it as well, to maintain my safe operation. It's a much better system to have a lane that fits my size as well as the use of the rest of the road as needed than to have to figure out how to claim some large piece of turf and defend it in a shared space with my small, slow vehicle.
I have found that an integrated system designed for multiple forms of transportation works much better than one designed solely for one form of transportation.
I would be interested in a count of bicyclists seen on your route. How many total do you see in an hour? How many are using a bike lane (one that is useable) when one is available? How many are avoiding a bike lane that is usable and available and using the center of the traffic lane instead? How many are simply avoiding the roads completely and using the sidewalk?
A working system is one that people will adopt. When it is designed poorly the people will not use it. A system designed only to move large volumes of fast-moving motor vehicles will never be adopted by large volumes of slow-moving non-motorized vehicles because it is not designed for that. All the arguments, premises, conculsions, wherewiths and therefores in the world will not change this simple fact. If simply being "right", "best", and conclusive through logic were enough we'd have had Betamaxes instead of vhs players.
So until you can come up with a better system designed for slow-moving non-motorized vehicles, and design it in such a way that large quantities of people will automatically adopt the system and use it without much effort to learn how it works, you're simply wasting a lot of time.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.