Okay, let's try to do this one differently. Let's try to do it right. Here are the guidelines.
If you're not interested in an honest and serious debate/discussion about bike lanes, please go to another thread.
Every post must fall into one of these categories, and must start by identifying which category the poster intends:
Presenting an argument for or against why a certain assertion should be accepted as a given premise in other arguments.
Presenting an argument for or against bike lanes, formulated such that the conclusion is either that bike lanes provide more signficant advantages than signficant disadvantages to cyclists, or that they provide more significant disadvantages than significant advantages to cyclists, or that it's pretty much a wash.
Presenting a rebuttal to an argument presented in this thread that falls under one of the two previous categories. Specifying how a given argument contains a logical fallacy is a way to do this.
If an argument for why a certain assertion should be accepted as a given premise in other arguments is presented, and not refuted, then it's fair to use that assertion in other arguments as a given, at least until an argument refuting it is presented.
When one poster uses an assertion in his argument, another poster using that same assertion in another argument as a premise cannot be disputed by the first poster. However, context and meaning matters. The original poster's meaning and intent for that assertion must be maintained in order for its application in another argument to be valid.
Show respect for each other.
Try to present your arguments clearly. What are your key premises? What is your conclusion? Is the conclusion supported by the premises?
Please, no snide remarks or frivolous comments. Let's focus on substance here.
Copying/pasting/repackaging arguments made in other threads is perfectly fine. If you want your pro or con BL argument to be given serious consideration, this is where to present it as best as you can.
I'm probably (I reserve the right to change my mind!) going to let others go at it here for a few days before I give it a go. Good luck, and please abide by the guidelines.
Note: to rebut an argument presented here (or any argument anywhere) one may take one of two main approaches:
Show that the argument is invalid by arguing that the conclusion is not fully supported by the premises, that the argument contains logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy), etc.
Argue that it is unreasonable to assume that one or more of the premises are true (whether they are stated explicitly or not) and thus the argument is not persuasive. Such an argument would identify the premises being questioned (if they are implied - not stated explicitly in the argument being challenged - then demonstrating that the questioned premise is implicit to that argument may have to be presented as an argument in and of itself) and demonstrate why it is unreasonable to assume that they are true.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Bike lanes make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
But seriously, I ride as close to VC as you're going to get here in Los Angeles without getting myself shot. And all the BS about well designed facilities, door zones, merge zones, debris, blah, blah, blah. I seriously miss riding in Seatle's bike lane equipped streets. You can argue and pontificate until the trolls crawl back under the Aurora bridge, but it's just nicer to ride in a big wide bike lane. Maybe it's just the extra pavement. Who knows. It's not about fear. After more hours in the saddle than I care to count I just prefer one over the other. But since I'm not going to advocate for anymore paving in Los Angeles this is a pretty moot point. So even though no one's asked I would be happy with some nice sharrows.
Happy bike lane debating to the rest of you. I have to go ride home.
Fred Smedley
http://home.nycap.rr.com/richboat/BSwarning.jpg
I second your asertion , I suppose that makes it a premise.
Brian Ratliff
I'll pass on this pickup game. I've already spoken enough words on the subject of bike lanes. Unless something truly original comes up, I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch.
bikingshearer
Assertion: Good biking skills are more important than good bike lanes since at some point every biker will be required to leave the lane (blockages, end of lane striping, left turns, etc.).
Whole-heartedly agree. This does not mean there is no place for bike lanes or bike paths - there cerainly is a place for them. Let's just say that good bike skills will get you through no bike lanes a lot better than bike lanes will get through no bike skills (with apologies to "The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers," a fun part of my ill-spent youth).
Cyclaholic
Assertion : It is phisically impossible for a cyclist and a motor vehichle to collide if the two are physically segregated therefore anything that promotes segregation is a positive step towards a safer cycling environment.
sbhikes
Going to another thread...
galen_52657
Assertion : It is phisically impossible for a cyclist and a motor vehichle to collide if the two are physically segregated therefore anything that promotes segregation is a positive step towards a safer cycling environment.
Assertion: Physical segregation would require a barrier impenetrable by motor vehicles - a Jersey barrier or other such device. Secondary Assertion: To propose installing Jersey barriers along both sides of every road in every city and town in the US is preposterous on it's face for reasons to obvious to state.
Cyclaholic
Assertion: Physical segregation would require a barrier impenetrable by motor vehicles - a Jersey barrier or other such device. Secondary Assertion: To propose installing Jersey barriers along both sides of every road in every city and town in the US is preposterous on it's face for reasons to obvious to state.
Physical segregation only requires physical segregation, if you can't see possibilities beyond a proposal as lame as a jersey barrier along both sider of every road then just leave it to those that have vision and imagination.
galen_52657
Physical segregation only requires physical segregation, if you can't see possibilities beyond a proposal as lame as a jersey barrier along both sider of every road then just leave it to those that have vision and imagination.
Vision and imagination are all well and good. But the currency of the day is real estate. No amount of vision and imagination are going to buy you real estate. No real estate = no segregated facilities.
LittleBigMan
After a few examples, I think I can give this a try:
Assertion: it is not necessary to position oneself as either pro- or anti-bike lane in order to successfully use vehicular cycling principles on roads either with or without bike lanes.
Assertion: the concept of vehicular cycling is needlessly tangled up with the issue of bike lanes, so much so that cyclists who otherwise might be open to vehicular cycling become skeptical due to the unnecessary association between vehicular cycling and anti-bike lane political postions.
noisebeam
Assertion:[/b] Only physical barriers or separation can approximately guarantee the safety of a biker from automotive vehicles. (MS-07)
Physical barrier/separation is only possible if the bike path has over/underpasses at every intersection.
Al
Bekologist
Assertion: what a pathetic joke of a thread.
Helmet Head
This post is of type 2a: Presenting an argument for or against why a certain assertion should be accepted as a given premise in other arguments.
The conclusion (assertion of which the truth is being demonstrated) of the argument presented in this post is: None of the posts in this thread so far, until this one, are in accordance with the guidelines stated in the OP
Premises:
An assertion alone does not an argument make. In order to present an argument, you also need premises and logic that leads to the concluding assertion from those premises, thus demonstrating the truth of that conclusion (by definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument)).
Any post in this thread that does not present an argument is not in accordance with the OP guidelines since Guideline 2 clearly requests that every post in this thread be an argument (not just an assertion).
Any post in this thread that does not present an argument clearly, a conclusion supported by the premises, is not in accordance with the OP guidelines since Guideline 6 clearly requests that arguments be presented clearly.
Posts 2 and 4 are frivolous comments violating guidelines 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7.
Posts 5, 13 and 22 are frivolous comments violating guidelines 1, 2, 6 and 7.
Posts 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 19 are mere statements of assertion, not arguments that attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion, and thus violate Guideline 2 (follows from premises a, b and c).
Posts 10, 15, 17 and 21 are simply comments about other mere statements of assertion, and thus also violate Guideline 2.
Posts 3, 17 and 20 go beyond mere statements of assertion, but violate guideline 6 (argument is not presented clearly) if not Guideline 2 (post must be an argument). Also, #3 appears to violate guideline 1 (poster appears to lack interest in an honest and serious debate about bike lanes). Thus, these posts also are not in accordance with the guidelines (again, relying on premises a, b and c).
This post does not violate any of the guidelines.
Since posts 2-22 violate the guidelines, and this one (#23) does not, this argument demonstrates that none of the posts in this thread so far, until this one, are in accordance with the guidelines stated in the OP.
Jalopy
This post is of type 2a: Presenting an argument for or against why a certain assertion should be accepted as a given premise in other arguments.
Assertion: Post #23* is one of the funniest posts I have read on this board.
Argument: I laughed harder, upon reading the post in question, than I have laughed at any other post prior. I was not being tickled nor was I remembering something funny that had been told to me the other day. All of my laughter was due to the humour I found in post #23*.
I ask that this assertion be accepted as a given premise.
Jalopy
*Now post #15
I-Like-To-Bike
Assertion: Post #23 is one of the funniest posts I have read on this board.
I ask that this assertion be accepted as a given premise.
You are correct, the OP and Post # 23 are doozies.
"Funny" isn't the operative term though, I assert that one of the following terms is more accurate; take your pick, they all fit the bill for describing the OP's intent, message, and delivery of same.
Perhaps a poll is in order to pick the best term to describe the ranting of the Messenger.
Helmet Head
2a
To be clear, the stilted format of #23 is not required to post in this thread.
The guidelines only require that each post be comprised of an argument. So you do have to have premises, and a conclusion, and logic that ties that conclusion to those premises. This post is an example of such an informal logical argument, since it has premises, logic and a conclusion. A reason to use a more formal structure is because some members have demonstrated difficulty in differentiating premises from conclusions, however doing so is not a requirement to be within the guidelines of the OP. Thus, the stilted format of #23, where the premises are noted explicitly in a separate section, and the conclusion emboldened, etc., is not required.
TRaffic Jammer
Oh please......
Just learn to ride safely and be aware of what the hell is going on around you.
If it's your time you're dead, if it's not you're time you live.
MarkS
Posts 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 19 are mere statements of assertion, not arguments that attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion, and thus violate Guideline 2 (follows from premises a, b and c).
Premise: All of these posts (numbering now wrong), were meant to be of type 2a. Argument: That should have been obvious from context. The argument was implicit, but apparently you had a particular format or particular turn of phrase that you were expecting.
Conclusion 1: Perhaps you should have given an example or two of what you had in mind.
Conclusion 2: There won't be much of a debate if you nit-pick about forms of expressions from the first person who tries to give it a serious shot.
Note: to rebut an argument presented here (or any argument anywhere) one may take one of two main approaches:
Show that the argument is invalid by arguing that the conclusion is not fully supported by the premises, that the argument contains logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy), etc.
Argue that it is unreasonable to assume that one or more of the premises are true (whether they are stated explicitly or not) and thus the argument is not persuasive. Such an argument would identify the premises being questioned (if they are implied - not stated explicitly in the argument being challenged - then demonstrating that the questioned premise is implicit to that argument may have to be presented as an argument in and of itself) and demonstrate why it is unreasonable to assume that they are true.
Dude, what is with you? Even if I wanted to debate this, adhering to your guidelines is about much fun as, wait, it isn't any fun! And since you endeavoured to insult everyone's intelligence, why should anyone even bother with this mess?
Since I have clearly violated guideline# 1, I'm off to another thread... :crash:
Fred Smedley
You are correct, the OP and Post # 23 are doozies.
"Funny" isn't the operative term though, I assert that one of the following terms is more accurate; take your pick, they all fit the bill for describing the OP's intent, message, and delivery of same.
Perhaps a poll is in order to pick the best term to describe the ranting of the Messenger.
I would like to pick "ridiculous", this is my fourteen year old sons favorite word, is thereby socially acceptable (depending on your perspective I suppose) and I would deem it a fitting description.
HiYoSilver
2a. This is too hard to figure out.
Why not just have a summary/outline of logic every 15-20 posts and ignoring junk comments in posts?
Bike lane comment- not assertion, but question. Why is a semi physical barrier like bots dots between the traffic lane and the bike lane never used? Or rumble strips. Either would work to tell drivers they are over their allotted space on the road.
TRaffic Jammer
^^lol^^ Isn't ALL road, driver's road? It's that perception that causes us bikers all the grief. BUT to the credit of the drivers of Toronto during last night's ice storm I rode home occupying the entirety of the curb lane for safety reasons and not once was I hassled or even honked at. With 80km gusts of wind this morning I did the same thing again and again no problem I was given a lovely berth. So thanks to the drivers the last couple days.
I-Like-To-Bike
I would like to pick "ridiculous", this is my fourteen year old sons favorite word, is thereby socially acceptable (depending on your perspective I suppose) and I would deem it a fitting description.
I narrowed down the list to just those that apply to the OP:
foolish, silly, idiotic, imbecile, asinine, nonsensical, senseless, fatuous, inane, absurd
ludicrous, laughable, risible, ridiculous, ignorant, goofy, dopey,mindless, witless, brainless, unintelligent, shallow-minded, shallow-headed, superficial, frivolous, birdbrained, scatterbrained, harebrained, nutty, daft, crazy.
Probably the best choice is all of the above.
CommuterRun
........Let's just say that good bike skills will get you through no bike lanes a lot better than bike lanes will get through no bike skills (with apologies to "The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers," a fun part of my ill-spent youth).
Assertion: it is not necessary to position oneself as either pro- or anti-bike lane in order to successfully use vehicular cycling principles on roads either with or without bike lanes.
Assertion: the concept of vehicular cycling is needlessly tangled up with the issue of bike lanes, so much so that cyclists who otherwise might be open to vehicular cycling become skeptical due to the unnecessary association between vehicular cycling and anti-bike lane political postions.
It includes this list of bike lane pros from Mike Dahmus, to which I wish to respond:
1. Bike lanes attract new cyclists; wide curb lanes do not. I think this is self-evident. Patrick agreed, and so do most people who actually work in the field (not the people who commute and criticize; but the people who are paid to try to increase cycling in their particular city).
2. No amount of education so far has been able to match up against the bike lane stripe as a way to get people out on their bikes. Of course, this may be a good thing if you think we don't need more uneducated cyclists out there.
3. You can't attract new cyclists to a road like Jollyville without a bike lane stripe. Period. The automobile traffic moves too fast. A wide curb lane simply doesn't provide the space that new cyclists think they need in a way which makes sense to them, coming from the world of the automobile. (We don't make the right-hand lane up a hill twice as wide so trucks can pull to the side; we stripe another lane).
4. If you accept riding on shoulders on 360, you should accept riding in bike lanes on Jollyville. The argumentative convulsions some Forsterites go through to defend shoulders from the same logic they use against bike lanes are breathtaking. (They do this, I think, because they know that even most Forsterites don't want to share a lane at 65; the same anti-bike-lane reasoning with a few exceptions would logically apply to shoulder-riding).
5. Most cyclists for whom bike facilities are built are not the expert cyclists that you and I might be. They are instead the novice cyclist that I used to be (and presumably you used to be).
6. Even on low-speed roadways, utility for the population AS A WHOLE sometimes demands the channelization of low-speed traffic. For instance, Speedway and Duval north of UT - car speeds are 25-30; bike speeds are 10; this isn't normally enough speed differential to justify separation, but the volumes of cars and bikes are both high, and the corridor's thoroughput for both cars AND bikes is thus improved by partial separation of the modes.
7. (this is from the link I gave a few days ago) - it is possible to have a better average passing distance on a roadway with a wide curb lane, but still have a better overall level of safety in passing distance with a bike lane. Whether this happens in practice is debatable - but it is a fact that you shouldn't use "average passing distance" to compare the facilities.
8. The idea (stolen from a semi-Forsterite) that we can easily get roads restriped with wide curb lanes is in reality not true. If you want space for bikes to be taken from car lanes, it generally has to be a bike lane. (I don't know why this is, but it seems to be true, although Austin has an exception or two here).
FWIW, I will stipulate 1 & 2. That is, bike lanes do make cycling, at least on some roads, more attractive to some cyclists, particularly inexperienced cyclists. Also, at least so far, bike ed has not been very successful at making cycling significantly more attractive. Having said that, the effect that bike lanes have actually had on making cycling more popular is negligible. That is, bike lanes seem to make cycling more attractive in theory, but in terms of actually getting butts on bikes, the effect is marginal, at best.
And while #2 makes a valid assertion, the fact that bike ed has not been very effective at making cycling more popular to any significant degree has nothing to do with bike lanes, much less is an advantage of bike lanes. It's like saying that since bike lanes are more effective at getting people to ride bikes than is, I don't know, salt, that that's an advantage of bike lanes. The fact that A is more effective than B does not necessarily mean A is significant.
#3 is meaningless. Even if it's true that you can't attract significant numbers of new cyclists to some street without bike lanes, doesn't mean you can attract them with a bike lane stripe.
#4 is a red herring. I don't see much difference between riding in shoulders and riding in bike lanes. I do both, as appropriate. But that doesn't mean that either provides an advantage that would not exist in the absence of the relevant stripe.
#5 is not an advantage of bike lanes. Whether facilities are generally more intended for novices is irrelevant. What matters is whether they actually provide a useful function for novices, and, if so, how useful that purpose is as compared to the cons. If the only useful purpose is #1 (making cycling more attractive to them), then the only advantage is #1. At best, #5 is a rehash of #1.
#6 is a true advantage of bike lanes - they make dealing with cyclists easier for motorists. That is, it allows them to ignore the cyclists. But this is an advantage of bike lanes to motorists, not an advantage to cyclists. In fact, considering the number of cyclists who are hit and killed in bike lanes, it is arguably one of the biggest disadvantages of bike lanes.
#7 is not an advantage of bike lanes. It is an assertion that is perhaps useful in addressing a certain anti-bl argument (dealing with passing distance), but is not an advantage of bls in and of itself.
#8 is the political pro-bl argument. Bike lanes are often the only practical political means advocates have to getting roads restriped, or onstreet parking eliminated. I know this is true, but question how significant an advantage it really is. It is true that eliminating onstreet parking is advantageous to novice cyclists who don't know the importance of avoiding the door zone. But on how many miles of streets in a given city is this tactic actually applicable, compared to the miles of streets where it is not? That's what I mean about questioning the significance. I'm not denying that it is helpful at times. I'm just saying its usefulness is so relatively rare that it cannot be a significant advantage, by any measure, when you look at the big picture.
I have shown that many of the alleged "pros" of bike lanes in Dahmus' list are not really advantages of bls (2, 3, 4, 5, 7). Of those that are advantages, they either do not apply to cyclists (#6), or are not very significant (1, 8).
If bike lanes had no disadvantages, then the advantages, however insignificant, would outweigh the non-existent disadvantages. That is why the crux of the anti-bl argument is not that bike lanes have no advantages, but that they are dwarfed by the disadvantages. But I will get to that argument later.
So the actual pros/advantages of bike lanes to cyclists from his list seem to be:
Bike lanes make cycling seem more attractive to some cyclists on some streets (but the effect they have on actually getting more cyclists to ride is insignificant, at best)
Bike lanes are sometimes useful politically as a tool to persuade others to remove onstreet parking or to restripe streets to widen the outside lane (but the relative numbers of miles of streets where this is actually applicable is negligible compared to the miles of streets where it is not).
TRaffic Jammer
I had an idea on the island on Montreal to cover the bike path for weather protection. and then run wind (windmill electric generator) in through access ports so that commuters could have a tail wind regardless of the direction of travel. Separate lanes are ok for slower bikers, but I go too fast for the lanes, generally finding me taking the curb lane as much as possible. Offer up more safe bike classes for people wanting to get into biking on our streets.
John E
Assertion: it is not necessary to position oneself as either pro- or anti-bike lane in order to successfully use vehicular cycling principles on roads either with or without bike lanes.
Assertion: the concept of vehicular cycling is needlessly tangled up with the issue of bike lanes, so much so that cyclists who otherwise might be open to vehicular cycling become skeptical due to the unnecessary association between vehicular cycling and anti-bike lane political postions.
I concur.
I have consistently asserted that there are good bike lanes, bad bike lanes, and irrelevant bike lanes. Instead of crusading against all bike lanes, Serge, Forester, et al. should focus on the bad bike lanes, such as those in door zones or to the right of right-turn-only lanes, where they will find near-universal support for their position within the bicycling community.
Personally, instead of endless bike lane debates, I am much more interested in the issues of: 1) motorist accountability and education; 2) safe intersection design (e.g., no high-speed free merges or diverges on heavily traveled roads); and 3) bicyclist education (basic vehicular road positioning, defensive cycling, use of lights, etc.).
John E
... Posts 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 19 are mere statements of assertion, not arguments that attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion, and thus violate Guideline 2 (follows from premises a, b and c).
As a strong supporter of Post #12, I observe simply that there are LOTS of folks on this board who happily use bike lanes and consider themselves vehicular or mostly-vehicular cyclists.
noisebeam
... Instead of crusading against all bike lanes, Serge, Forester, et al. should focus on the bad bike lanes, such as those in door zones or to the right of right-turn-only lanes, where they will find near-universal support for their position within the bicycling community.
I agree sort of, but think the boundary of what is bad should be pushed a bit beyond the very obvious examples you give that everyone would agree are bad. For example BLs to the right of combined thru and right turn lanes at intersections, expecially on multilane roads where the majority of motorists using right lane are using because they plan to turn right. Another very specfic example is BLs in 15mph school zones in front of schools with multiple highly used entrances and where the main lane, but not BL has severe speed bumps.
Al
spandexwarrior
Assertion: Physical segregation would require a barrier impenetrable by motor vehicles - a Jersey barrier or other such device. Secondary Assertion: To propose installing Jersey barriers along both sides of every road in every city and town in the US is preposterous on it's face for reasons to obvious to state.
What would be more fun than a Jersey barrier would be some kind of metal tire shredder barrier to keep cars out of bike lanes. And maybe a chainlink fence to keep bottles (hence, glass) away from the bike lane and bike lane occupants. Sure, these ideas are truly out there, but maybe some drunken traffic engineer will read this and put it into practice. It sure would make my life easier.
Helmet Head
One cannot appreciate the anti-bl position without first recognizing the prevalence of the notion that cyclists should not be in the way of motorists in our culture, and the role that bike lanes play in reinforcing this idea. Consider this statement from a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle:
Once on the road, stay wide right. Getting as far away from vehicles approaching from behind is the single most important step you can take to maximize safety. You will still be visible enough to the oncoming driver, but by allowing plenty of space to your left, you will make drivers more comfortable and confident as they pass.
Consider the language... Getting as far away from vehicles approaching from behind puts it in no uncertain terms. And this: is the single most important step you can take to maximize safety.. "Single most important step"?
The point is not this specific editorial. The point is that it's very typical, and that it accurately reflects the sentiments of not only the vast majority of our society, but even perhaps the majority of cyclists, and maybe even the majority of cycling advocates. As another example, just a few weeks ago we had a thread here about a California CHP officer uttering similar notions to a group of cyclists on a rural highway.
Until you see the prevalence of this notion as being the primary enemy of bicycling advocacy, you cannot begin to appreciate the importance of opposing all bike lanes on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited, in the name of bicycling advocacy.
So, for those of you who do not oppose bike lanes on these grounds, is it because you disagree that this notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of motorists is as widely prevalent as I contend that it is, or do you not disagree with the notion itself, or do you disagree that bike lanes reinforce this notion to a significant degree, or do you not believe the prevalence of this notion is a significant issue for bicycling advocacy, or what? And why? Whatever your answer, please try to present a persuasive argument per the guidelines in the OP of this thread. Tossing assertions back and forth is a waste of time.
Helmet Head
Premise: All of these posts (numbering now wrong), were meant to be of type 2a. Argument: That should have been obvious from context. The argument was implicit, but apparently you had a particular format or particular turn of phrase that you were expecting.
Conclusion 1: Perhaps you should have given an example or two of what you had in mind.
Conclusion 2: There won't be much of a debate if you nit-pick about forms of expressions from the first person who tries to give it a serious shot.
An implicit argument is fine, if it's really obvious. But simply making a single assertion that serves as the conclusion of some implied argument is rarely productive. If the argument is so obvious, then so is the conclusion. If it's not, then it should be stated explicitly.
Ignatz
#6 is a true advantage of bike lanes - they make dealing with cyclists easier for motorists. That is, it allows them to ignore the cyclists. But this is an advantage of bike lanes to motorists, not an advantage to cyclists. In fact, considering the number of cyclists who are hit and killed in bike lanes, it is arguably one of the biggest disadvantages of bike lanes.
Questions:
What IS the number of cyclists hit and killed in bike lanes and how does it compare to the number of cyclists hit and killed where there are no bike lanes??
For cyclists hit and killed in bike lanes is the bike lane the cause? Would the "accident" have occurred if the bike lane was not present?
Without the answers to these questions the argument regarding the number of cyclists hit and killed in bike lanes is, I believe, a post hoc fallacy.
LittleBigMan
One cannot appreciate the anti-bl position without first recognizing the prevalence of the notion that cyclists should not be in the way of motorists in our culture, and the role that bike lanes play in reinforcing this idea.
Serge, if you are saying that bike lanes are created because our culture thinks cyclists should be separated from motor traffic, I agree.
But if you're saying that by getting rid of bike lanes we will change we will change our cultural bias, I would disagree. Bike lanes are a symptom of our cultural bias, but not the cause.
If you convince people that cyclists deserve equivalent status with motorists as users of the road, that is a far more effective tool than eliminating bike lanes. You can eliminate bike lanes all day long, but our cultural bias will remain unchanged.
noisebeam
Serge, if you are saying that bike lanes are created because our culture thinks cyclists should be separated from motor traffic, I agree.
But if you're saying that by getting rid of bike lanes we will change we will change our cultural bias, I would disagree. Bike lanes are a symptom of our cultural bias, but not the cause.
If you convince people that cyclists deserve equivalent status with motorists as users of the road, that is a far more effective tool than eliminating bike lanes. You can eliminate bike lanes all day long, but our cultural bias will remain unchanged.
This 6.1MB video is of riding without BLs and using the center of 3 lanes to pass right turning vehicles and a bus. If a BL was present and I used it I would be stuck to right of right turning vehicles and behind bus. No one, including the police officer(s) seemed to care where I was (of course they had other priorities)
Using center lane of 3 (Indeo 5.1) (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs//060217-1553.xtraffic.avi) (right click, save target as..., open from local drive)
edit: I found a codec that may work for Macs: http://www.3ivx.com/download/index.html
and I re-encoded the above video (minus some extra length) 7.7MB
Using center lane of 3 (3ivx) (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs//060217-1553.xtraffic-3ivx.avi)
Al
TRaffic Jammer
I took the entire curb lane on the ride home yesterday, the police I was pacing for 5 minutes didn't mind either. Nor did the traffic behind me. I wouldn't mind stopping at lights in my position in traffic, if some numb nut didn't always have to try to scare me over to the curb. That just pisses me off. Like the cabbie today that though his bumper was just gonna spook me over as I rode in the middle of the lane. I hear him coming up on me, straddling the lane line, trying to scare me over. I look and pointed at the lane to my left and he instantly dropped back as I wasn't terrified by the big bad cabbie as he had obviously hoped. lol...then his window comes down and he's yellin.... "Sorry... my lane buddy, you want it then pass me in the other lane." Then a few good hard strokes of the pedals leave him behind in city traffic.
No brainer to use the centre lane to avoid the right turning vehicles.
Bugger can't view the video on my MAC .
Helmet Head
Serge, if you are saying that bike lanes are created because our culture thinks cyclists should be separated from motor traffic, I agree.
I am saying that, for sure. But that's not all of it.
But if you're saying that by getting rid of bike lanes we will change we will change our cultural bias, I would disagree. Bike lanes are a symptom of our cultural bias, but not the cause.
I believe there is some feedback effect (manifested perhaps most obviously by the motorist yelling to the cyclist, "get in the bike lane!"), but realize it's impossible to measure how much. I believe the feedback effect of bike lanes reinforcing the notion that cyclists should be separated from motor traffic is comparable to the feedback effect of segregrated water fountains reinforcing racist attitudes. Just because it's impossible to measure the feedback effect does not mean it's not there, in either case.
There is no denying that every bike lane on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited serves as a symbol of the official sanction of the notion that cyclists should be separated from motor traffic, even on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited. Not opposing such anti-cyclist symbolism, much less supporting it, is contrary to the interests of cycling advocacy. That's my main point, and why I believe it's critical for cycling advocates to oppose bike lanes. It's part of the bigger and more important advocacy initiative, which I believe should be our primary goal: to combat the anti-cycling cultural bias that cyclists should be out of the way of motor traffic either to not impede traffic flow, or for their own alleged safety, or both.
If you convince people that cyclists deserve equivalent status with motorists as users of the road, that is a far more effective tool than eliminating bike lanes. You can eliminate bike lanes all day long, but our cultural bias will remain unchanged.
One step at a time. I have never contended that eliminating bike lanes would eliminate the cultural bias. I do believe it is a necessary step in getting the bias to change. Just like eliminating segregated water fountains did not eliminate racial basis was no reason to not eliminate the fountains, the fact that eliminating bike lanes will not eliminate the cultural bias we're talking about here is no reason to not eliminate them.
If you're not opposing bike lanes, then you're not advocating for cycling.
TRaffic Jammer
I shouldn't need to hide my butt away from the scary cars on the most dangerous part of the road period. I will not allow myself to placed in further danger by being in a position of being pushed a little more to the right, has me A: pushed off the road, or B: driven into a pole, tree planter, or mailbox.
I own my house and pay a ****load of taxes...in fact as a city dweller I pay more taxes than many of those driving in from the 'burbs, but I'm not allowed to ride my roads.
genec
There is no denying that every bike lane on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited serves as a symbol of the official sanction of the notion that cyclists should be separated from motor traffic, even on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited. Not opposing such anti-cyclist symbolism, much less supporting it, is contrary to the interests of cycling advocacy. That's my main point, and why I believe it's critical for cycling advocates to oppose bike lanes. It's part of the bigger and more important advocacy initiative, which I believe should be our primary goal: to combat the anti-cycling cultural bias that cyclists should be out of the way of motor traffic either to not impede traffic flow, or for their own alleged safety, or both.
If you're not opposing bike lanes, then you're not advocating for cycling.
As long as road planners continue to design surface roads with speeds higher than 45MPH, there will continue to be a need for bike lanes. This has nothing to do with "water fountains" nor any "perceived passionate allegory" to segregation. But for the same reason that trucks use mountain grade passing lanes, cyclists need bike lanes... BL on high speed roads are simply the realistic acknowledgement of the physical limitations of bicycles verses autos.
Helmet Head
If you're not opposing bike lanes, then you're not advocating for cycling.
As long as road planners continue to design surface roads with speeds higher than 45MPH, there will continue to be a need for bike lanes. This has nothing to do with "water fountains" nor any "perceived passionate allegory" to segregation. But for the same reason that trucks use mountain grade passing lanes, cyclists need bike lanes... BL on high speed roads are simply the realistic acknowledgement of the physical limitations of bicycles verses autos.
As you know, I commute daily on a 6-lane 45 mph (posted, actual is 50-55+) arterial without bike lanes every day.
Trucks cannot share outside lanes with other motor vehicles; cyclists can. We may need width, but we don't need a segregated delineated lane, which buys us very little compared to how much it costs us in terms of perpetuating and reinforcing the notion that cyclists should be separated from motor traffic even on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited.
If the traffic conditions (including speed) warrants a truck or bike lane, then, like on a freeway, slow moving vehicles, including trucks, cyclists as applicable, should be prohibited from the roadway (except in the truck/bike lane).
The very existence of a truck lane implies that trucks should not be operated outside of the truck lane. Similarly, the very existence of a bike lane implies that bikes should not be operated outside of the bike lane.
If you're not opposing bike lanes (on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited), then you're not advocating for cycling.
LittleBigMan
I believe there is some feedback effect (manifested perhaps most obviously by the motorist yelling to the cyclist, "get in the bike lane!"), but realize it's impossible to measure how much.
Where I ride, there are almost no bike lanes. For about 40% of my 14 mile inbound commute, I ride smack-dab in the center of the narrow outside lane. I'm not about to let some goofball squeeze me.
Yet, even without bike lanes, I get the occasional Yahoo that wants to tell me where I belong, and it's usually by a loud, unnecessary honk. I imagine an equal number of drivers of similar ilk would be the ones to tell me to "get in the bike lane" when I'm not in it. The problem is ignorance of the law, laws which also grant me the right to leave the bike lane to avoid hazards or to pass, make turns, etc.
I have never contended that eliminating bike lanes would eliminate the cultural bias. I do believe it is a necessary step in getting the bias to change. Just like eliminating segregated water fountains did not eliminate racial basis was no reason to not eliminate the fountains, the fact that eliminating bike lanes will not eliminate the cultural bias we're talking about here is no reason to not eliminate them.
The water fountain/bike lane analogy is emotionally appealing, but logically flawed. I can drink from the "other fountain" if I want to.
Bike lanes, while not convenient to me due to their inferior condition on average, do not violate the general "slower traffic keep right" concept. I only move to the center of the lane when my safety would be jeapordized by keeping right. Moving right is not a form of submission by an inferior road user, it's simply the general standard of courtesy expected from slower moving vehicles.
You might as well argue that sidewalks are a form of pedestrian discrimination.
If you're not opposing bike lanes, then you're not advocating for cycling.
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard, though I practice most of what you preach.
Helmet Head
The water fountain/bike lane analogy is emotionally appealing, but logically flawed. I can drink from the "other fountain" if I want to.
Are you saying that racially labeled water fountains are acceptable, as long as no law enforces the signs?
Edit: This question was meant to be rhetorical; in no way did I attempt to characterize LittleBigMan (or anyone else) as someone who would accept racially labeled water fountains. Quite the opposite. I was so sure this question would only be interpreted rhetorically that I originally felt no qualifier like this one was necessary. Apparently, I was wrong. Sorry! The assumed answer to this rhetorical question was "of course not, because even without a law enforcing such a sign, it reinforces (in this case racist) cultural bias".
The segregation implied by the signs/bike lanes reinforces the cultural biases. Yes, the laws enforcing the signs make it worse, but the discrimination is unacceptable, even without the laws (in both cases).
You might as well argue that sidewalks are a form of pedestrian discrimination.
Consider it done. Of course sidewalks are a form of pedestrian discrimination. Just like sexually segregated restrooms are a form of sexual discrimination. But these are forms of discrimination that we find acceptable. They're justified.
To deny that bike lanes are discrimination is absurd. Of course they are. Bike lanes discriminate, by definition. The issue is whether this discrimination is, or should be, acceptable. Is it reasonable. In particular, is discrimination of cyclists from other traffic acceptable to bicycling advocates? I, for one, find this particular type of discrimination of cyclists (on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited) to not only be unreasonable and unacceptable, but offensive.
If you're not opposing discriminatory bike lanes (on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited), then you're not advocating for cycling.
merlinextraligh
An argument is more than a simple series of contradictions.... no it isn't.. yes it is...
Oh darn forgot rule #7.
John E
I agree sort of, but think the boundary of what is bad should be pushed a bit beyond the very obvious examples you give that everyone would agree are bad. For example BLs to the right of combined thru and right turn lanes at intersections, expecially on multilane roads where the majority of motorists using right lane are using because they plan to turn right. Another very specfic example is BLs in 15mph school zones in front of schools with multiple highly used entrances and where the main lane, but not BL has severe speed bumps. Al
I concur 100%, Al.
slagjumper
Here is a pro BL--
p1:Some people do not like to ride because of the perception that they might get hit from the rear.
p2:Bike lanes create a dumbo-like magic feather, that makes the fear of getting hit from behind magically vanish. Like an invisable force field, only there is no reason why a driver could not spill some coffe and swerve into you.
conclusion: more people would ride if there where more bike lanes, because they would "feel" safe, regardless as to if they are.
10 years later when they find out that BLs contribute to some bike accidents, there will be more bikers invovled in the debate and that is not a bad thing. So they let the paint fade and spend money on real beariers or bike showers.
So BLs are not about safety at all, just about making people feel better about the dangerous things that they do on two wheels. But that is not bad.
Argument 2
P1: bike lanes take up space on public roads.
P2: This reduces the amount of space that cars can do things.
P3: On busy roads some motorists might think since there are so few bikes in the BL, why dont they just let them ride in traffic. We dont have "tractor lanes".
Conclusion: Using BL on busy roads would irritate some motorists into agreeing that bikes belong on the street and there should be no bike lanes.
Argument 3-- Sometimes there really is no good objections to a bike lane.
condition1: There is a 5 mile, 50 mph, 4 lane road there are no driveways and the road is strait with no intersections or driveways.
P1: Replacing one of the lanes with a 9 foot wide bike lane with the words "bike lane" would do nothing more than alert motorist to the possibility that bikes might be using that lane.
P2: More bicyclists would ride because of the perceived safety.
P3: More motorists would be aware of bikes.
P4: Some of the motorists who see the "bike lane" words, might think more about biking, some of those would take up riding. None would give up riding because of the bike lane's existance. Not even HH.
Conclusion: Better to have the words "bike lane" printed on the street then not.
--
I have not seen any arguments that make bike lanes "necessarily" more dangerous, only that some BLs “might” “contribute” to “some” accidents. But you could say that about rain, snow, drinking, age, cheap bikes, night, bald tires, slower cyclists, or that there was no bike lane in that area and that contributed. Without a necessary relationship all these arguments are weak.
Occasionally a very bad design might come close to “causing” accidents. But if the Bike lane went into a brick wall and you hit the wall because you were “riding in the bike lane” it would be difficult to argue that the BL “caused” your injury.
---All of this anti / pro BL debate sidesteps the issue that there just might be important things to advocate for, like tax breaks for cyclsts, helmets for kids, bike safey pamplets in DMV mailings, or better facilities in general.--
Bekologist
I am saying that, for sure. But that's not all of it.
If you're not opposing bike lanes, then you're not advocating for cycling.
That's utter bullsizz. Plenty of bicycle advocacy includes bike accomodations of all types.
If you think bike lanes aren't part of bike advocacy, you're an idiot.
LittleBigMan
Are you saying that racially labeled water fountains are acceptable, as long as no law enforces the signs?
In particular, is discrimination of cyclists from other traffic acceptable to bicycling advocates? I, for one, find this particular type of discrimination of cyclists (on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited) to not only be unreasonable and unacceptable, but offensive.
If you're not opposing discriminatory bike lanes (on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited), then you're not advocating for cycling.
No, that assumption is improperly based upon your continued use of the water fountain/bike lane analogy, which I clearly stated I did not accept. Your use of this analogy to improperly characterize me as believing in racial segregation because I don't accept your radical anti-bike lane stance amounts once again to an emotionally appealing argument which is not logically sound. If you desire more reasoning supporting the lack of soundness to your analogy, I would add that African Americans during the decades of racial segregation in America, who were subjected to using separate facilities such as bathrooms, water fountains and schools, did not advocate such segregation nor seek to have it established by governing authorities, on the contrary, fought them at great personal peril and cost. But such is not the case with bike lanes today, since there is a significantly large group of cyclists who are pushing to having bike lanes implemented. You may argue that these cyclists are not "real cyclists" or that they do not posess "proper cycling skills," as has previously been argued unrealistically, but negatively characterizing bike lane advocate cyclists in this way, or claiming they are not true cycling advocates, amounts to the most brazen form of prejudice and discrimination on your part, which quality you presume to be an ardent opponent of.
I am not an advocate of bike lanes, a position which many bike lane advocates might find offensive. But I would resist any resulting negative characterization by bike lane advocates to be unfounded, since I am neither a supporter of, nor opposed to bike lanes. In the same fashion, I resist any attempt by bike lane opponents to call me "not a true advocate of cycling" for not joining their ardent opposition to bike lanes. In either case, such politically-motivated rhetoric is not only unfair, it's false and grossly misleading. I trust, however, that most cyclists are clear-headed enough not to fall prey to such propaganda.
My political position on bike lanes is much like my position in the lane for much of my commute: in the middle, just going to work everday, trying to enjoy my love of cycling.