Bike Lane Debate

[patc]

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.


Your posts are always a breath of (well reasoned and rational) fresh air in this stale forum.

One of the results, for me, of both experience and discussion of bike lanes is very much what you describe above. In fact, for me to consider a bike lane as properly designed it must be wide enough that, when riding roughly centred in the bike lane, I have comfortable passing clearance from any vehicle even if that vehicle is on the lane line. In other words if a vehicle is so right-biased that the bumper and/or side mirror is on the bike lane line, it shouldn't bother me at all. For that to be the case the lane must have a usable width of at least 2m/6' (give or take, depending a bit on typical traffic speeds). "Usable width" does not include gutter, gravel, or an area so dirty or poorly maintained as to be uncomfortable to ride on.

Presenting it this way has the advantage of being clear to people, particularly non-cyclists. I used it a few weeks ago when speaking to a city councillor (she is not a cyclist). I told her to imagine she was walking down the bike lane, and that cars, tucks, and buses are speeding buy. Generally they won't cross the lane line. I asked her how much space she would need between her elbow and the vehicles to feel safe and comfortable. She immediately grasped the image and understood what I wanted to explain. I just filled out the thought by pointing out that as I cyclist I may have to move about a bit to avoid dirt, grates, potholes etc. just as she might on a sidewalk and to allow me to do that I needed to be roughly in the middle of the lane, not at the extreme right. I left the chat feeling certain that she now understood the "why" of bike lane width requirements in a way that no engineering spec could have illustrated. She also understood why I, and several other cyclists present, said we supported bike lanes but that the road under discussion did not have room for them and thus [i]we didn't want them on that specific road[i].

[LCI_Brian]

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.
My experiences with passing distances for BL versus WOL are consistent with Al's. I think that's partially because some motorists treat the BL stripe like an edge stripe, unlike when they're between a pair of striped lane lines, where they usually center themselves in between.

I could ride further right in the BL, but my experience is that by doing so I'm more susceptible to driveway pullouts and right hooks.

One thing to note is that both me and Al ride on the higher speed roads in the sunbelt during commute hours. That might give us a different point of view than those in other parts of the country.

[patc]

One thing to note is that both me and Al ride on the higher speed roads in the sunbelt during commute hours. That might give us a different point of view than those in other parts of the country.

Al and I had a discussion a while back about drivers confusing bike lanes and shoulders, and that would also have an impact on drivers respecting the bike lane. Where I live we seldom have fog lines/edge lines*, a line is a lane line period. Most streets are "urban cross section" as well, meaning the road has a raised concrete curb. Restricted lanes on the road are hardly uncommon either.

Its unlikely a driver would mistake the bike lane stripe as anything but a lane stripe here, because that's imply not how most of our roads are built.

*(The only places I can think of consistently seeing edge lines are provincial highways.)

[LCI_Brian]

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.
I couldn't disagree more. It sounds like you don't do a lot of cycling on higher speed roads. The chance of being blown over is much greater with a higher speed differential. Also, the extra passing distance provides margin in case the motorist misjudges the passing distance. The greater the number of close passes, the greater the chance that one of them will go wrong for the cyclist.

[Daily Commute]

Your posts are always a breath of (well reasoned and rational) fresh air in this stale forum.

One of the results, for me, of both experience and discussion of bike lanes is very much what you describe above. In fact, for me to consider a bike lane as properly designed it must be wide enough that, when riding roughly centred in the bike lane, I have comfortable passing clearance from any vehicle even if that vehicle is on the lane line. In other words if a vehicle is so right-biased that the bumper and/or side mirror is on the bike lane line, it shouldn't bother me at all. For that to be the case the lane must have a usable width of at least 2m/6' (give or take, depending a bit on typical traffic speeds). "Usable width" does not include gutter, gravel, or an area so dirty or poorly maintained as to be uncomfortable to ride on.

Presenting it this way has the advantage of being clear to people, particularly non-cyclists. I used it a few weeks ago when speaking to a city councillor (she is not a cyclist). I told her to imagine she was walking down the bike lane, and that cars, tucks, and buses are speeding buy. Generally they won't cross the lane line. I asked her how much space she would need between her elbow and the vehicles to feel safe and comfortable. She immediately grasped the image and understood what I wanted to explain. I just filled out the thought by pointing out that as I cyclist I may have to move about a bit to avoid dirt, grates, potholes etc. just as she might on a sidewalk and to allow me to do that I needed to be roughly in the middle of the lane, not at the extreme right. I left the chat feeling certain that she now understood the "why" of bike lane width requirements in a way that no engineering spec could have illustrated. She also understood why I, and several other cyclists present, said we supported bike lanes but that the road under discussion did not have room for them and thus [i]we didn't want them on that specific road[i].
I think I agree with everything in this post. Part of the problem in Columbus is that the city (and our so-called "bike advocacy" group) plans to decide which streets to put lanes on, and then do whatever they have to do to stripe a lane, even if that means a 4' wide door-zone lane. This is the way the Thunderhead Alliance teaches local groups to use.

That makes sense if you really want bike lanes. There are few roads in Columbus on which you can find 12' of space (6' on both sides) for bike lanes. If you want to stripe 6' lanes, you need to eliminate left turn lanes (the fire department will oppose that), eliminate a traffic lane (only works if you have one to spare), eliminate on-street parking (neighbors and businesses get mad), or stripe a much narrower lane in the door zone or gutter.

And the kicker--city taxpayers are paying more than $250K so that a bike lane design company can study whether we need bike lanes. I'll give you one guess what their answer will be.

[Brian Ratliff]

I couldn't disagree more. It sounds like you don't do a lot of cycling on higher speed roads. The chance of being blown over is much greater with a higher speed differential. Also, the extra passing distance provides margin in case the motorist misjudges the passing distance. The greater the number of close passes, the greater the chance that one of them will go wrong for the cyclist.

I regularly ride on 55 mph rural highways during rush hour. I also ride on busy arterials with 45 mph traffic. But no, you are right, I don't ride on freeways or pseudo freeways; actually only once, but I was offset from traffic by a good 10 feet by a fog line. But you miss my point.

With a bike lane, the cyclist controls the passing distance because the driver is unlikely to follow the cyclist across the bike lane line. The bike lane also alleviates the risk of a moterist misjudging passing distance by providing a point of reference on the road. It remains the case that if the motorist and the cyclist both keep to their lane, then a collision is nearly impossible.

On the subject of being blown over, I suppose that this is a risk, but I have never come close to being blown over on my bike. Have you? Is your supposition theoretical, or does it come from experience. I would suppose that this would only occur with very high speed passing traffic, i.e. >60 mph, and very close passing distance, <2 feet, coupled with a very small space to operate the bike, <1 foot free space to the right of the bike. Does this happen often? Are you often in danger of being blown over? We are all captive to our experiences. If your experiences differ from mine, then perhaps that explains our divergent opinions.

[sbhikes]

Personally the only time I have ever come close to being blown over was on the freeway when riding my Vespa with a very large windshield attached. A big semi pulling a trailer went by and I was nearly blown over because of his size and my windshield.

I have never experienced anything remotely close to that on a bicycle, even when riding it on the very same freeway.

[patc]

And the kicker--city taxpayers are paying more than $250K so that a bike lane design company can study whether we need bike lanes. I'll give you one guess what their answer will be.

Why do governments always do things the hard way? If you want to know if a certain street could use a bike lane, stick a few people on that street and ask cyclists - the ones who actually use that street. Might cost you a few thousand to pay the canvassers and number crunchers.

Ottawa doesn't seem to believe in commissioning studies. We just hold public consultations (a good thing) and then have the issue debated first in committee and then by city council forever (usually a bad thing). A running issue/joke in the current mayoral race is passing city budgets in less than six months! The draft cycling plan was completed a year ago, and may actually get to council this spring.

[Helmet Head]

Brian, let's try to do this in small bites, starting where we left off in Diane's thread. You stated:


HH- Actually, no, removing a bike lane does not result in a WOL, it results in a narrow outside lane. Removing the bike lane strip might result in a WOL. However, if it weren't for cyclists, roads would have narrow outside lanes with no shoulder. Roads do not naturally come in the WOL variety unless someone asks for it. Same with bike lanes.
Differentiating a bike lane stripe (not strip) from a bike lane is like differentating a circle from its perimeter... it's moot. Remove the line forming the boundary of a circle, and you've removed the circle. The boundary of a circle forms the circle. Without it, it does not exist. Remove the boundary of a bike lane - the stripe - and you've removed the bike lane. The boundary of a bike lane - the stripe - forms the bike lane. Without it, it does not exist.

Take an envelope and pencil, and draw a circle in the upper right hand corner about 1" in diameter. Note that this circle demarcates where you can apply a stamp to the envelope. Now, erase the circle. Has your ability to apply the stamp been diminished in any way? Of course not. The circle does not enable the means to apply a stamp to the envelope, just like a bike lane stripe does not enable a cyclist to integrate with traffic. You can apply the stamp just as easily and efficiently without the circle as with it. You can integrate with traffic just as easily and efficiently without the bike lane stripe as with it. In fact, the circle tends to limit where you can place the stamp. Sure, you can choose to ignore the circle, but there it is, practically announcing, "place the stamp here". Similarly, the bike lane tends to limit where you can ride your bike. Sure, you can choose to ignore the bike lane stripe, but there it is, practically announcing, "ride your bike here".

The idea that WOLs would not exist without cyclists is absurd. If you really believe this, that could explain much of our difference too. A WOL is simply an outside lane that happens to be wide enough to be safely shared by a motor vehicle and bicycle traveling side-by-side. Many streets are painted with outside lanes sufficiently wide to do this (and, thus, have WOLs), and have been so long before cyclists ever started advocating for them (which is a relatively recent phenomenon).

Roads naturally come in the WOL variety all the time without anyone asking for it (least of all, cyclists). WOLs are preferable in and of themselves to keep traffic away from the edge of the roadway.

The point is, the way you convert between WOL and BL is by adding and removing the BL stripe, and I don't see what disadvantage the cyclist has when riding in the portion of the WOL that would be demarcated by the BL stripe if it were there that is eliminated by the BL stripe. Motorists have no more need to adjust lateral lane position in a WOL w/o BL stripe than in the same WOL w/ BL stripe, and the cyclist certainly has no more need to negotiate with passing motorists when the BL stripe is not there. You talk about all these burdens, but you seem to be referring to outside lanes too narrow to be safely shared (and too narrow to have a bike lane added), not WOLs. That's not apples to apples.

Somewhere Pat mentioned that ideally a bike lane should be at last 6 feet wide, with good swept-clean pavement. Assuming an adjacent 10 foot wide traffic lane, you're talking a WOL with 10 + 6 feet in width. 16 feet! Wow! What an awesome WOL that would make! What on earth would a bike lane stripe buy you in such a wide lane?

Now consider a narrower bike lane, say 5 feet. Where do you ride in such a lane? You say a cyclist in a bike lane controlls the passing distance of motorists, even those riding along the edge of the bike lane stripe. Okay, say the distance you want to have is 3 feet. How do you control that? Well, your left shoulder needs to be about 3 feet from the bl stripe, which means your wheels have to be another foot in , or 4 feet from the stripe. Now you have one foot left from your wheel to the edge of the road on your right - your shoulder is even with the curb. Great. And that's in a 5 foot lane. Care to do the numbers for a 4 foot bike lane? Some control. That's like saying POW prisoners have control over their diets - by being able to choose not to eat. Some control.

This, by the way, is why most cyclists don't treat bike lanes like lanes and ride in the center, but choose to ride near the stripe. Riding close to the curb, besides the greater accumulation of rubble the further right you are, is, well, too close to the curb. A balanced device like a bicycle requires a safety buffer margin to use, just in case. When you're up against the curb, you have no safety buffer.

Motorists also don't treat bike lanes like lanes, for good reason. When real lanes are occupied, motorists generally (no, not always) leave a safety margin when passing. When bike lanes are occupied, motorists don't care. They seem to treat the bike lane stripe like the edge stripe of the road, regardless of whether the bike lane is occupied. Why? Because it looks like an edge stripe! It's 6" wide, and painted solid. It doesn't look like a lane stripe, because a bike lane stripe is not a lane stripe (and a bike lane is not a lane). It's the same stripe they use to demarcate painted islands and other areas where traffic is not supposed to travel beyond on the road.

A bike lane is a lane in name only. Cyclists don't treat it like a lane. Motorists don't treat it like a lane. Traffic engineers don't treat it like a lane. It's not a lane. It's a portion of the roadway separated from traffic to be used by cyclists segregated from traffic. It's not about integration. It's about segregation. That's why they call a bike lane a segregated (not my word) cycle facility.

[Bekologist]

Segregation is an innacurate adjective; bike lanes are preferential travel lanes integrated into the existing roadway network. Bike paths and MUP's seperate from roadways would be considered segregated facilities. I don't care 'who' you state classify them that way, Helmet, it is innacurate.

[Helmet Head]

Bek, whether you like it or not, for better or for worse, the purpose of a bike lane is to separate, or segregate, the lines of travel of cyclists from the lines of travel of motor traffic. Even bike lane supporters typically do not dispute this rather obvious purpose of bike lanes.

[Bekologist]

but some will dispute your semantic choice of baggage laden, innacurate adjectives.

Some would say the purpose of a bike lane is to provide a preferential travel lane integrated with the existing roadway.

[TRaffic Jammer]

I can tell where my bike lanes are.... the road is brown from streetwasher filth, and glistening with the remanents of car safety glass. Oddly this colour change starts right at the BL line. Pretty much like the foot and a half on the side of non-BL'd roads that people want me to ride in.

[Brian Ratliff]

HH- Are you saying that a new road that did not take into account cyclists would automatically have a WOL? If so, then this is definitely a regional difference which colors our debate. No new roads which were made without taking cyclists into account (before 1970'ish, this was legal; now it is required by law to take cyclists into account) had any sort of WOL or other bicycling facility. But Oregon is space limited due to geography and land use laws.

Here, if a bike lane is added, either the road needs to be widened (and there is plenty of this) or other traffic lanes need to be eliminated. A road without a bike lane many times does not even have a shoulder.

[galen_52657]

Here in Towson we have a few major roadways with an outside lane wider than 12'. I don't think this was done with cyclists in mind. The county had the right-of-way and for whatever reason, paved the outside lane of a 6-lane road about 14' wide. Unfortunately, it's only for a short distance then it's back to lane widths from 10' to 12'.

[Helmet Head]

HH- Are you saying that a new road that did not take into account cyclists would automatically have a WOL?
Prior to the 1970s when the concept of "take into account cyclists" in traffic engineering first surfaced ALL roads with WOLs were so built without taking into account cyclists. Even after that, many roads were continued to be built, and still are built, without "taking into account cyclists", and many of those in many areas have WOLs. While many roads have been built since the 1970s, most roads were built prior to then, and many roads since then were built without taking cyclists into account, including many with WOLs, and it is still true that most roads with WOLs were so built without taking into account cyclists.


If so, then this is definitely a regional difference which colors our debate. No new roads which were made without taking cyclists into account (before 1970'ish, this was legal; now it is required by law to take cyclists into account) had any sort of WOL or other bicycling facility. But Oregon is space limited due to geography and land use laws.
Are you saying the only roads with lanes wide enough to be safely shared in Oregon were all built specifically by taking cyclists into account? That prior to the 1970s, no roads were built in Oregon with WOLs?

In any case, I often prefer roads with NOLs (while you advocate for 4 foot wide bike lane, I prefer 10 foot wide lanes, thank you very much, that I use all for myself).
If there is space for bike lanes, there is space for WOLs. Whether it's more politically expedient to get widening for WOLs with BLs than for WOLs w/o BLs is tangential to our disagreement of whether WOLs with BLs have real practical real-time on-the-road advantages to cyclists over the same WOLs w/o BLs.


Here, if a bike lane is added, either the road needs to be widened (and there is plenty of this) or other traffic lanes need to be eliminated. A road without a bike lane many times does not even have a shoulder.
Like I said, 10 feet all for the cyclist! How is reducing that to 4 or 5 feet off to the side an improvement?

Back to the main point of #159... are we now in agreement that WOLs with BLs provide no more means for cyclists to integrate with traffic than the same WOLs without BLs?

[Brian Ratliff]

...
Motorists also don't treat bike lanes like lanes, for good reason. When real lanes are occupied, motorists generally (no, not always) leave a safety margin when passing. When bike lanes are occupied, motorists don't care. They seem to treat the bike lane stripe like the edge stripe of the road, regardless of whether the bike lane is occupied. Why? Because it looks like an edge stripe! It's 6" wide, and painted solid. It doesn't look like a lane stripe, because a bike lane stripe is not a lane stripe (and a bike lane is not a lane). It's the same stripe they use to demarcate painted islands and other areas where traffic is not supposed to travel beyond on the road.

A bike lane is a lane in name only. Cyclists don't treat it like a lane. Motorists don't treat it like a lane. Traffic engineers don't treat it like a lane. It's not a lane. It's a portion of the roadway separated from traffic to be used by cyclists segregated from traffic. It's not about integration. It's about segregation. That's why they call a bike lane a segregated (not my word) cycle facility.

Perhaps our experiences differ. In Portland, cyclists do treat the bike lane as a lane. Motorists do treat the bike lane as a lane, and most (but not all) give the same amount of space to a cyclist as they would a car in an adjacent lane. Traffic engineers treat the bike lane as a lane. In fact, the bike lane is signed as a "right lane" and only then "for bikes only."

So, you give anecdotal evidence that bike lanes are not lanes, and I give anecdotal evidence that they are and are treated as such. Who is right? We are all captives of our experiences. Different cities have different characters, and those characteristics sometimes makes one option more convenient or more effective than another. I cannot speak of your area of the world, because I have never been to San Diego, much less spent time to regularly ride my bicycle there. I suspect that you have never lived in the Northwest either, and cannot speak to our culture.

It really is time to recognize things for what they are. To say that one cycling facility is better than another is like saying a Windows computer is better than a Mac, irrespective of context. California evolved along a different path then did the Northwest; starting at about the same time. It is no accident that John Forester and the VC movement came from Southern California. Southern California is vastly different from the Northwest, where bike lanes took off; both have unique problems, and both evolved different solutions for those problems. Bike lanes and wide outside lanes both have their advantages and disadvantages. What more is there to debate if both sides highlight the advantages of their respective facility while arguing that the disadvantages are outweighed, and there is no data?

BTW, you talk about how this is not a game to you; even if it is a mere exercise to me. This is because Oregon and the NW in general has made it's decision back in the 70's to go with bike lanes. The implementations keep getting better and bike lanes keep becoming more prevalent, and there is no reason to change. The bicycling advocacy here is a strong force, mostly because, I get the impression, there is little infighting. We chose a facility in the beginning to get behind and won the bicycle bill, and now we focus on other things, such as enforcement, laws, and direct advocacy. I get the impression that in other places, this debate keeps roiling the landscape.

[Bekologist]

?

In any case, I often prefer roads with NOLs ..... I prefer 10 foot wide lanes, thank you very much, that I use all for myself.

You must ride on streets of gold in lala land, if that's your take on bicycling, Helmet Head. I was just out for a five day tour into the land of big timber, narrow shoulders, double dump and logging trucks, and would have to say a highway with a shoulder, or a main arterial with a bike lane, is MUCH preferable to a 10 foot NOL you so incredulously claim you "use all for myself."

It's talk like this, Helmet Head, that makes me wonder how much biking you actually do, in between conjuring up anti bike lane sophistry for the internet.

[Helmet Head]

Brian, do you agree with the following?

Pavement that happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe may or may not be used while vehicular cycling, depending on various factors and conditions, including personal preference. Whether the pavement happens to be so demarcated plays no role in the vehicular cyclists's decision of whether to use it in a given situation. If the bike lane stripe (and, hence, the bike lane) was not there, it would make no difference to the vehicular cyclist.

[Helmet Head]

You must ride on streets of gold in lala land, if that's your take on bicycling, Helmet Head. I was just out for a five day tour into the land of big timber, narrow shoulders, double dump and logging trucks, and would have to say a highway with a shoulder, or a main arterial with a bike lane, is MUCH preferable to a 10 foot NOL you so incredulously claim you "use all for myself."

It's talk like this, Helmet Head, that makes me wonder how much biking you actually do, in between conjuring up anti bike lane sophistry for the internet.
OK, Bek, so on 2-lane logging roads with NOLs and narrow shoulders, where and how did you ride?

Did you position yourself in a way that required the truck drivers to slow and change lanes to pass?

By the way, SD County has plenty of rural roads like this, but populated not with logging trucks, but with idiots headed for the casinos (I support gambling as a system to transfer wealth from lower -- the gamblers -- to higher IQ -- the casino owners).

By the way, I said I often (not always) prefer NOLs to WOLs. The circumstances you describe may very well be where even I would prefer more width.

[Bekologist]

My personal riding style of 'caveman biking' leaves me remarkably dynamic in my lane choice, Helmet. However, I don't see how my lane positioning relates to your incredulous view expressed just above about NOL's.




However, regarding bike lanes,

I personally think a well designed bike lane, providing a preferential travel lane for bicyclists, would weight the lane choice towards the bike lane, all other things being equal.
Disqualifyiers about bikelanes not appling like 'pine needles' or 'road grit'; if a well acccomodated bike lane is there, it provides a preferential travel lane for cyclists, and therefore must be given more weight as a lane choice.

[Brian Ratliff]

Prior to the 1970s when the concept of "take into account cyclists" in traffic engineering first surfaced ALL roads with WOLs were so built without taking into account cyclists. Even after that, many roads were continued to be built, and still are built, without "taking into account cyclists", and many of those in many areas have WOLs. While many roads have been built since the 1970s, most roads were built prior to then, and many roads since then were built without taking cyclists into account, including many with WOLs, and it is still true that most roads with WOLs were so built without taking into account cyclists.

Are you saying the only roads with lanes wide enough to be safely shared in Oregon were all built specifically by taking cyclists into account? That prior to the 1970s, no roads were built in Oregon with WOLs?

In any case, I often prefer roads with NOLs (while you advocate for 4 foot wide bike lane, I prefer 10 foot wide lanes, thank you very much, that I use all for myself).
If there is space for bike lanes, there is space for WOLs. Whether it's more politically expedient to get widening for WOLs with BLs than for WOLs w/o BLs is tangential to our disagreement of whether WOLs with BLs have real practical real-time on-the-road advantages to cyclists over the same WOLs w/o BLs.

Like I said, 10 feet all for the cyclist! How is reducing that to 4 or 5 feet off to the side an improvement?

Back to the main point of #159... are we now in agreement that WOLs with BLs provide no more means for cyclists to integrate with traffic than the same WOLs without BLs?

We have vastly different environments. Yes, roads here end on the shoulder and there is little of what you call a wide outside lane. Most roads here are a single lane in each directions, so holding that lane with a bicycle significantly holds up traffic. We have chosen to make bike lanes the standard on our roads, instead of wide outside lanes, for all the reasons I have given you in the past.

In the NOL vs. BL, you are again slipping back to old arguments. Yes, 10 feet is nice for the cyclist, but not so nice for a car, expecially on a road with a single lane in each direction. A 4 or 5 foot bike lane is adequate for a cyclist in normal, straight ahead travel, and if we need the full 10 feet, we are free to take it. So the debate is not over 4 feet of space vs. 10 feet of space. It is between having the option of sharing the road while having a 4 or 5 foot lane all to ourselves while having the option of taking the lane and having the full 10 feet to ourselves when we need it; or not being able to share the road without sharing lanes and force trailing cars to change lanes (one of the more dangerous maneuvers in a car, expecially when they have to change lanes into oncoming traffic) while hogging 10 feet of roadway.

And on the last point, I'm not sure where you got the impression that I agree to your premise that "...WOLs with BLs provide no more means for cyclists to integrate with traffic than the same WOLs without BLs..." since I fundamentally disagree that a bike lane is simply a WOL with a line. A bike laned road has a NOL, with a restricted use lane for bicycles to the right. The cyclist has the option of using any lane on the road. If we cannot get past this fundamental disagreement, then there is no point in continuing. I will not yield in this matter. If you will not come to this position, then we simply recognize the differences in our fundamental arguments and walk away.

[Brian Ratliff]

Brian, do you agree with the following?

Pavement that happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe may or may not be used while vehicular cycling, depending on various factors and conditions, including personal preference. Whether the pavement happens to be so demarcated plays no role in the vehicular cyclists's decision of whether to use it in a given situation. If the bike lane stripe (and, hence, the bike lane) was not there, it would make no difference to the vehicular cyclist.

No. If you want my argument, read what I have written. Rewriting what I have written in the manner that you have is simply a way subtly changing my argument for your own ends.

What you have written above does not respect the bike lane as a lane.

[genec]

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.

This sudden swerve thing gets me... if I am in a WOL and a motorist is passing me on my left, I still can't do a sudden swerve... the danger is the same either for a WOL or a BL, so why even bring this up? Any lateral movement whether in a BL or not, still requires one to verify that I have the clearance to do so.

If anything, within a BL I have more room to freely laterally move then in a WOL, where your established position also establishes your "virtual lane" and thus the passing position for any other vehicle (especially here in CA, where there is no "3 foot law.")

[Helmet Head]

This sudden swerve thing gets me... if I am in a WOL and a motorist is passing me on my left, I still can't do a sudden swerve... the danger is the same either for a WOL or a BL, so why even bring this up?
This is brought up in the context of the pro-BL argument that bike lanes enable motorists to pass cyclists closer safely, because the dividing stripe gives each the confidence that the other will not interfere with the other. When the stripe is absent (thus converting the NOL+BL into a WOL), motorists tend to pass with a wider margin, because the confidence conveyed by the stripe is not there when the stripe is not there. This effect is implied by bike lane supporters who criticize WOLs for requiring faster traffic and cyclists to have to "negotiate" with each other, which is not required when the bike lane stripe (and thus bike lane) is present.

What I'm saying is, that GIVEN that motorists tend to pass cyclists with a wider margin when there is no BL stripe than when there is a BL stripe, should the cyclist have to suddenly merge left, he is less likely to be hit if he is being passed with relatively wide margins in a WOL than if he is being passed with relatively narrow margins while in a bike lane.

Does that make sense?

[genec]

This is brought up in the context of the pro-BL argument that bike lanes enable motorists to pass cyclists closer safely, because the dividing stripe gives each the confidence that the other will not interfere with the other. When the stripe is absent (thus converting the NOL+BL into a WOL), motorists tend to pass with a wider margin, because the confidence conveyed by the stripe is not there when the stripe is not there. This effect is implied by bike lane supporters who criticize WOLs for requiring faster traffic and cyclists to have to "negotiate" with each other, which is not required when the bike lane stripe (and thus bike lane) is present.

What I'm saying is, that GIVEN that motorists tend to pass cyclists with a wider margin when there is no BL stripe than when there is a BL stripe, should the cyclist have to suddenly merge left, he is less likely to be hit if he is being passed with relatively wide margins in a WOL than if he is being passed with relatively narrow margins while in a bike lane.

Does that make sense?


Oh your logic makes sense, based on your unproven premise: "GIVEN that motorists tend to pass cyclists with a wider margin when there is no BL stripe." But your premise is not consistent; not all motorists give wider margins when passing on WOL, and a cyclist should not depend on any such premise when making any sort of lateral movement.

I contend on the other hand that individual motorists are not predictable when passing on a WOL, and therefore your premise fails.

Motorists are however trained to respect lines in the control of traffic, therefore they tend not to cross the BL stripe, thus giving cyclists more consistent space than that which might be found on a similar road without the BL stripe.

[Keith99]

This is brought up in the context of the pro-BL argument that bike lanes enable motorists to pass cyclists closer safely, because the dividing stripe gives each the confidence that the other will not interfere with the other. When the stripe is absent (thus converting the NOL+BL into a WOL), motorists tend to pass with a wider margin, because the confidence conveyed by the stripe is not there when the stripe is not there. This effect is implied by bike lane supporters who criticize WOLs for requiring faster traffic and cyclists to have to "negotiate" with each other, which is not required when the bike lane stripe (and thus bike lane) is present.

What I'm saying is, that GIVEN that motorists tend to pass cyclists with a wider margin when there is no BL stripe than when there is a BL stripe, should the cyclist have to suddenly merge left, he is less likely to be hit if he is being passed with relatively wide margins in a WOL than if he is being passed with relatively narrow margins while in a bike lane.

Does that make sense?

Makes sense to me. But I would modify it a bit. When there is a bike lane the line serves to define how close 'safe', rather than anything else. In the fairly rare situation where the bike lane is wide this gets the bike rider more space.

Hmm, thinking about it this lane defines things might mean the bike rider gets more space when being passed by the drivers who would otherwise pass closest. E.g. all but the very worst of jerks stay on 'their side' of the line when driving. Taken to an extreme, if you get passed by 100 cars which is better. All 100 between 6" and a foot away or 99 3 feet away and one sideswiping you? (Admitted both are pretty bad, they were ment to be).

This logic would mean a bike lane is better as far as the riding between intersections etc. goes, provided the bike lane is wide enough to have decent seperation and it is reasonable clean and clear. (OK one BIG provided).

However wide, clean well marked bike lanes cost money. I would still be better served if if that money were used to keep streets in better repair.

[Brian Ratliff]

Keith- Reasonably clean and clear is what I expect with the taxes I pay. I drive more than I bike, but when I bike, I am making no impact on a facility for which I still pay for the upkeep. Because I pay taxes toward road maintainance, I expect that the city pay to maintain the portion of the road I use.

Wide, clean, and clear bike lanes are the norm on many of our city streets. Portland, and Oregon in general, has made this a commitment, for which they mostly keep.

[Bekologist]

Metropolitian Seattle and King County bike accomodations are for the most part wide, clean, clear and well engineered; miles of well provided, preferential travel lanes for bicycles amidst the clamor and din of modern big city gridlock.

[Helmet Head]

Reasonably clean and clear is what I expect with the taxes I pay.
But the point is, that normal traffic lanes are kept reasonably clean and clear for little to no cost, for they are constantly swept clean by traffic.

Even in WOLs, enough traffic occasionally uses enough of the right part of the lane to keep that part of the road swept clean for cyclists too. But when you put an edge stripe, or a bike lane stripe, 5 feet from the curb, all of a sudden that portion of the road becomes a rubble collection area that needs costly regular sweeping and cleaning.

All industries have their trade rags, and the street sweeping industry is no different. You should look around for some of their magazines and see how much these folks love bike lanes. What do you think that is about?

http://www.worldsweeper.com/Street/Operations/v9n1bikelanes.html

[Brian Ratliff]

But the point is, that normal traffic lanes are kept reasonably clean and clear for little to no cost, for they are constantly swept clean by traffic.

Even in WOLs, enough traffic occasionally uses enough of the right part of the lane to keep that part of the road swept clean for cyclists too. But when you put an edge stripe, or a bike lane stripe, 5 feet from the curb, all of a sudden that portion of the road becomes a rubble collection area that needs costly regular sweeping and cleaning.

All industries have their trade rags, and the street sweeping industry is no different. You should look around for some of their magazines and see how much these folks love bike lanes. What do you think that is about?

http://www.worldsweeper.com/Street/Operations/v9n1bikelanes.html

No doubt that bike lanes require sweeping. But I expect my tax dollars to go to this activity so I can ride my bicycle safely. When I ride, I don't contribute to wear and tear on the road; so I expect that upkeep of the bike lanes be a priority. For the most part, in the Portland area, it is.

Second point you conveniently forgot. While the main roads don't require as much sweeping (center turn lanes and intersections still require sweeping, as well as the far edge of a WOL road), they need other things such as frequent repainting, fixing pot holes, and repairing cracks in the road; all the exculsive result of drivers driving on the road. These activities happen less frequently, but at a very much higher cost.

[Helmet Head]

Cost is cost. Sweeping is a real cost. If you remove the stripe, you don't need to pay the cost of the sweeping anymore. What's the downside?

[Brian Ratliff]

Cost is cost. Sweeping is a real cost. If you remove the stripe, you don't need to pay the cost of the sweeping anymore. What's the downside?

Well, I've listed the downside to cyclists. Obviously, this is a boon to the government if they can get cyclists to feel this way. However, I pay taxes, so I am entitled to have the lane of the road I use be maintained on a regular basis. If I am in a car, I expect potholes to be filled. If I am on a bike, I expect the bike lanes to be swept. Basic government functions, these are.

[sbhikes]

HH you have a real bicycle insecurity complex to allow yourself to believe that a portion of the roadway that you may need to use is too expensive to keep clean and usable. Even roads without bike lanes need the edges kept clean and safe for bicycles, because we all must pull over for faster traffic. The less upkeep on any road the narrower it will become.

[Helmet Head]

HH you have a real bicycle insecurity complex to allow yourself to believe that a portion of the roadway that you may need to use is too expensive to keep clean and usable
All I'm saying is, why pay for something that you can get for free?

I don't want my taxes going for something that the government can get done for free, and whether or not I directly benefit from that something makes no difference.

I don't want them wasting money sweeping bike lanes for the same reason I don't want them wasting money on $1,000 hammers.

[patc]

No doubt that bike lanes require sweeping. But I expect my tax dollars to go to this activity so I can ride my bicycle safely. When I ride, I don't contribute to wear and tear on the road; so I expect that upkeep of the bike lanes be a priority. For the most part, in the Portland area, it is.

Wow, bike lane opposition has reached new lows. I guess I am missing stuff with my ignore list ;)

As to sweeping bike lanes.... Well, around here we have this thing called "winter". That involves dumping tonnes of salt, sand, and fine gravel on the roads (sometimes, it seems, this is an 1:1 ratio with snowfall!). Every April each street must be swept - usually twice - to remove all this crap. Usually the pavement marking need to be re-painted too. Some streets get a wash as well. This is all done again in October to pick up after this thing we call "autumn" which involves trees dumping leaves all over. Given that clean-up cost, cleaning a few extra feet for bike lanes is negligible.

As a road user, operating a vehicle recognized under the highway traffic act, I demand that the roads be in sufficiently good condition for my use. I have no problems if that means sweeping a somewhat wider road - after all I cause less damage to that road anyway. I also have no problems expecting textured steel plates, sewer grates flush with pavement, and other considerations for bikes. Anyone who sees bikes as legitimate road users should agree that all street maintenance and construction should take the needs of cyclists into account.

[sbhikes]

Anyone who sees bikes as legitimate road users should agree that all street maintenance and construction should take the needs of cyclists into account.
AMEN to that!

To do anything less than that would be the same as saying that cyclists are not legitimate road users.

[genec]

As to sweeping bike lanes.... Well, around here we have this thing called "winter".


We opted to not do winter in Southern California... went for the earthquakes instead... less annual maintence, but higher overall costs, and really hard to schedule. ;)

[patc]

We opted to not do winter in Southern California... went for the earthquakes instead... less annual maintence, but higher overall costs, and really hard to schedule. ;)

Hey, we have earthquakes too! Sorta. Well, the ground rattled a bit. I know a guy who had a dish fall and break. Uhmm... never mind.

The Great Ottawa Earthquake of 2006 (http://www.cbc.ca/ottawa/story/ot-quakes20060227.html)

[genec]

Hey, we have earthquakes too! Sorta. Well, the ground rattled a bit. I know a guy who had a dish fall and break. Uhmm... never mind.

The Great Ottawa Earthquake of 2006 (http://www.cbc.ca/ottawa/story/ot-quakes20060227.html)

Earthquakes and winter... hate to say it, but sounds like you folks in the great frozen north got screwed... ;) eh?

[John C. Ratliff]

I think HH has rather easily forgotten that roads with cars traveling over them, especially around this area, have recurring maintenance problems. Here this involves the use of studded tires, and those tires tear up the roadway, leaving it less desirable to cyclists because of the damage to the asphalt itself. The bike lanes remain relatively immune to this type of damage, and are much nicer to ride on in the Oregon areas. And, these roads still need to be swept by the road maintenance crews due to things like broken glass from auto wrecks, tree limbs that fall onto the roadways during high wind, etc.

Today, I was riding home from work on 173rd from Cornell Road in Beaverton, and had to ride in the tire marks of cars before crossing to the center lane to turn into a bike path (yup, I still use them when possible). I was being bounced around pretty good in a few places due to damaged roadway surfaces from the cars and buses (not many trucks on this road, but school buses do use it).

Another consideration is that on our more rural roads, and even some heavy use roads, the county will use what's called "chip seal" to resurface the roadway. This is putting crushed rock directly onto the road, after applying a tar to the surface. The cars and trucks then drive over this mix of road tar and rock, and drive the crushed rock into the road. For the week after they do this (usually more, actually), the road is simply not ridable by bicycles. To do so risks both a spill and flats. One bicycle race was called off in the Central Oregon area after it started, due to a newly chip sealed road which caused multiple flats and spills making it not ridable for competition bicycles. At least with a roadway with bike lanes, they are more likely to resurface the road with asphalt than chip seal.

In short, simply not painting a stripe on the road for bike lanes does not lessen the maintenance costs at all, and may introduce additional hazards to bicyclists that do not have to be encountered.

John

[patc]

Earthquakes and winter... hate to say it, but sounds like you folks in the great frozen north got screwed... ;) eh?

Yeah, but in a mild half-baked way. Ottawa winters are mild - last winter a friend's father was visiting from St. John's Newfoundland and looked out the window during the worst storm of the year... and asked, "When does the storm start?" We get an earthquake once a decade or so, which might actually break something if you put it really, really close to the edge of a self. Even our local politics are mild and half-baked: our mayor is mildly left, the challengers for mayor are mildly left and mildly right, respectively. The hot fight in the election isn't about light rail expansion as such, but about the bidding process for that expansion!

I think its a natural reaction to the presence of the federal government - with all that hype and angst going on, even the weather is loath to be a drama queen.

[genec]

In short, simply not painting a stripe on the road for bike lanes does not lessen the maintenance costs at all, and may introduce additional hazards to bicyclists that do not have to be encountered.

John

I know around here the older roads are terrible in the traveled way... while the bike lanes may contain debris, at least the road surface is usable and not pitted and cracked in a way that can easily grab your front tire.

These small golf ball sized chunks of broken roadway and the long parallel cracks are the things that worry me the most when I do have to ride in the right tire track... never know when something like that is going to throw you from your bike right in front of the vehicle tailgating behind you.

[Brian Ratliff]

Yea, I was going across a heavily rutted and potholed intersection on Tuesday and managed to lose a blinky to an unexpected pothole. I went back for it but someone had already run over it. The previous Thursday, going the other way, on the approach to the same intersection, I hit a section of rutted pavement out in the middle of the lane and had a pinch flat which I had to fix in the rain.