Gnats

[LittleBigMan]

Should bike lane debates be at the heart of cycling advocacy issues? I think not. I think endlessly debating bike lanes in general is like arguing over whether or not you swallow a gnat, or spit it out.

But people who visit Bikeforums Advocacy & Safety would think bike lane issues are at the heart of cycling advocacy by the sheer amount of webspace given to the discussions. Is this a true representation of what we really care about, or is it just proof that we don't have our shick together, yet?

Really, I can ride with or without a bike lane. It's not a deal-breaker, to me. Is it a deal-breaker to you?

[DCCommuter]

Bike lanes serve as a convenient proxy for the bigger issue of what is the place of bicycles in traffic (and society), which is harder to get around.

[Brian Ratliff]

Bike lanes serve as a convenient proxy for the bigger issue of what is the place of bicycles in traffic (and society), which is harder to get around.

They don't have to... Dealing with those issues directly seems to be a better way to go.

[ken cummings]

. I think endlessly debating bike lanes in general is like arguing over whether or not you swallow a gnat, or spit it out.

Really, I can ride with or without a bike lane. It's not a deal-breaker, to me. Is it a deal-breaker to you?

A: with or without, Not a deal breaker. I like the 'bike lanes' on the Interstates where they are open. 5 to 8 feet all to yourself and a beautiful tailwind generated by the traffic :D

B: Swallow the gnat, protein yes? :rolleyes:

[I-Like-To-Bike]

B: Swallow the gnat, protein yes? :rolleyes:
Maybe this thread will evolve from bike lanes into a far more interesting subject. One can only hope.

[Roody]

Bike lanes per se are probably not a deal breaker for most riders, including myself.

But what about advocating for bike lanes? What if the local advocacy group in your area is totally hung up on bike lanes, that's almost all they work for, and you think BLs are either unimportant or a detriment? Would that be a dealbreaker to your joining that advocacy group?

[Roody]

Maybe this thread will evolve from bike lanes into a far more interesting subject. One can only hope.Speaking of gnats. . . .

Or one could contribute a post that would help the thread become more interesting. Or one could exit the thread and move along to one that one found to be more interesting, couldn't one?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Or one could contribute a post that would help the thread become more interesting. Or one could exit the thread and move along to one that one found to be more interesting, couldn't one?
Or perhaps you could provide your take on the value of debating bike lanes vs. swallowing or spitting out (gnats) as asked by the OP?

[Roody]

Or perhaps you could provide your take on the value of debating bike lanes vs. swallowing or spitting out (gnats) as asked by the OP?
Oh goody. Another homophobic comment form ILTB. I love you too babe!

[HiYoSilver]

The only value of "bike lanes" is the lack of MUP and bike lanes are understood as an inhibitor to people cycling more.

More valuable topics might be:
-- how to find a good local bike group to be involved with
-- where is the best one site resource evaluating plus and minuses of national groups
-- what are the BF members key ideas to increasing bike safety and advocating more biking
[ I still like the direct 1040 tax credit for cyclocommuting ]
-- BF "official" liason with national groups reporting latest pos/neg action by that group

Bike lane discussion is interesting, sometimes, but don't think forum comments have any correlation to any govt decision that effects bike usage.

[buzzman]

Since even the most virulent of the VC posters seem to admit to occasionally making use of bike lanes and since most responsible advocacy groups I know of by no means put all their eggs into the bike lane basket maybe we could occasionally contribute to a discussion that draws a consensus among us as to when a bike lane is appropriate and what constitutes a well designed lane. It seems many countless attempts have been made to do this but they are clogged with endless diatribes against all bike lanes and accusations that those of us who see their usefulness see them as a panacea, which is simply untrue.

So, yes, we do not have our shick together yet. And though it is in a slightly grotesque exaggeration in Bike Forums it does reflect a real dysfunction among bicycling advocates, which has paralyzed all of us in making real improvements on any front.

As for me, some days I eat the gnat and some days I spit it out.

[becnal]

The bike lane argument will disappear as soon as American bicyclists accept the fact that the US will always be bike phobic, and will always hate bicyclists as well. Just accept it and move to Europe. =)

[oilfreeandhappy]

I will ride with or without a bike lane, but I absolutely do prefer a bike lane. I think it's more relaxing. I also must disagree - I think it's safer.

[SamHouston]

I've always been a strong proponent of shades because of gnats and other eyesores. There should be a law against gnats in general, or one that requires a faring on all bikes. You know whats worse than gnats are those elephant aphids, those are really annoying.

[N_C]

I have some questions about bike lanes. In communities that have the lanes, with or with out a parking lane to the right, are there ordinaces or laws that require the cyclist to use the lane? If not then why complain about? Or it safety issue that a bike lane is only on one side of the street & if cyclists are forced to use the lane it could cause problems for riders going against motor vehicle traffic when they have to exit the lane? Or is it a matter of going against everything that a VCer believes in & is working to promote?

[patc]

I have some questions about bike lanes. In communities that have the lanes, with or with out a parking lane to the right, are there ordinaces or laws that require the cyclist to use the lane?

In some cases yes, but generally no. Certainly there is no inherent reason in bike lanes to require a mandatory use law. Where such laws do exist, they often allow reasonable exceptions.


If not then why complain about? Or it safety issue that a bike lane is only on one side of the street & if cyclists are forced to use the lane it could cause problems for riders going against motor vehicle traffic when they have to exit the lane? Or is it a matter of going against everything that a VCer believes in & is working to promote?

Your last sentence pretty much sums it up.

[Roody]

I have some questions about bike lanes. In communities that have the lanes, with or with out a parking lane to the right, are there ordinaces or laws that require the cyclist to use the lane? If not then why complain about? Or it safety issue that a bike lane is only on one side of the street & if cyclists are forced to use the lane it could cause problems for riders going against motor vehicle traffic when they have to exit the lane? Or is it a matter of going against everything that a VCer believes in & is working to promote?
Not all VCers are against bike lanes. Some like 'em, others don't care. John Forester, one of the most well known VCers is very opposed to bike lanes. My growing impression is that this issue is more divsive than it ought to be! I'm moving more and more to the "VCers who don't care" camp.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Or is it a matter of going against everything that a VCer believes in & is working to promote?

Your last sentence pretty much sums it up.
Especially if the term VCer is qualified to mean those VCers who espouse the Effective Cycling Gospel of John Forester and proseltyze for implementing/mandatory variants of his training programs. These jokers feel that bike lanes are an impediment to their proposed solutions for alleged cycling problems that they rant about hysterically.

[sbhikes]

Personally I have decided that when my newsletter/email list comes if there's anything interesting advocacy-wise I will post it here. I did that with the Assemblyman Nava email I got about a proposed 3-feet passing law for California, and with the Complete Streets web site that was included in one of the articles of my newsletter.

I guess that's what I thought the advocacy and safety forum would be about in the beginning. That and also answering questions like about how one might negotiate a difficult traffic situation. But then the gnats came out and I got a bit caught in the cloud, swatted them for a while, like everybody else.

The fact is the whole VC/anti-bike lane thing is irrelevant to answering questions about how to negotiate difficult traffic (certainly vc techniques are in the answer, but VC/anti-bike lane BS is not. After the gnats clear, the difficult traffic situation remains.) And the whole VC/anti-bike lane thing is also irrelevant to most of what I see in my advocacy group newsletter. Here's a sample:

- "Tax opportunity window shuts in April. How do you want your tax money spent?"
- "County, Carpinteria and UCSB get bicyclist funding"
- "Feb 24-25th the Tour of California comes to us/Cycing teams train in Santa Ynez Valley"
- "Santa Maria to buy open space for BMX/Mountain bike park"
- "Memorial service for bicyclist killed in accident/should we seek a 3-feet passing law?"
- "Trail volunteers do trail maintenance"

Swatting at gnats endlessly doesn't have a whole lot of forward momentum.

[buzzman]

Personally I have decided that when my newsletter/email list comes if there's anything interesting advocacy-wise I will post it here. I did that with the Assemblyman Nava email I got about a proposed 3-feet passing law for California, and with the Complete Streets web site that was included in one of the articles of my newsletter.

I guess that's what I thought the advocacy and safety forum would be about in the beginning. That and also answering questions like about how one might negotiate a difficult traffic situation. But then the gnats came out and I got a bit caught in the cloud, swatted them for a while, like everybody else...Swatting at gnats endlessly doesn't have a whole lot of forward momentum

me too. Though having been away from bicycle advocacy for years (though still riding my bike) and having been working for years instead on arts advocacy I thought coming back to bike advocacy I would be fighting the same old local government ignorance regarding alternative transportation we were encountering in the 70's but instead discovered more enlightened polticians, though not well informed or creative in their solutions, and a stymied bicycle advocacy community internally bickering over cyclist education taking precedence over working for bicycle facilities of any kind. And now our local politicians are only too happy to work with the "bike path ride on the weekend" crowd who increases property values and they hold up crosses, mirrors and cloves of garlic when the "I want to ride on the road" group comes anywhere near them. Since I fall into both camps as a cyclist as well as wanting to see our cities more livable for pedestrians, wheelchair users, elderly, users of public transport I'll work with anybody looking for open minded, dare I say compromises?, that may not always be perfect but move us in the right direction toward a less auto-centric urban culture.

[peregrine]

....
[ I still like the direct 1040 tax credit for cyclocommuting ] ....

There's a tax credit???

[jimmuter]

There's a tax credit???

No, but there should be. If I could write off mileage, I could afford a new bike with my refund. Oh wait, I'm already getting more of a refund than I had money withheld. Thank you kids.

[Dogbait]

Should bike lane debates be at the heart of cycling advocacy issues? I think not. I think endlessly debating bike lanes in general is like arguing over whether or not you swallow a gnat, or spit it out.

But people who visit Bikeforums Advocacy & Safety would think bike lane issues are at the heart of cycling advocacy by the sheer amount of webspace given to the discussions. Is this a true representation of what we really care about, or is it just proof that we don't have our shick together, yet?

Really, I can ride with or without a bike lane. It's not a deal-breaker, to me. Is it a deal-breaker to you?

Unfortunately, Bike Lanes have become the "chain lube debate" of the Advocacy and Safety forum. I would rather discuss something, anything else. I use, appreciate and support the local bike facilities. The opinions of folks a thousand or two miles away is meaningless, in the (local) real world.

Personally I have decided that when my newsletter/email list comes if there's anything interesting advocacy-wise I will post it here. I did that with the Assemblyman Nava email I got about a proposed 3-feet passing law for California, and with the Complete Streets web site that was included in one of the articles of my newsletter.

I have done the same with info that comes my way if I think it will be of interest.

On gnats:
I usually spit them out.... unless I'm really hungry.

Dogbait

[peregrine]

Unfortunately, Bike Lanes have become the "chain lube debate" of the Advocacy and Safety forum. I would rather discuss something, anything else. I use, appreciate and support the local bike facilities. The opinions of folks a thousand or two miles away is meaningless, in the (local) real world.
...
Dogbait


+ a big 1 :]



I suppose one problem with advocacy is that it varies a lot regionally but I think this forum can be very useful in discussing advocacy ideas, ways to get involved, ways to improve bicycling in your community.

[N_C]

I have an idea. Let's all just get along! I mean why can't we on this issue? Let the VC'rs do their thing & believe the way they want to, whether they support bike lanes or not is fine. But if they are or are intending to, they should not try to block a bike lane from being built nor should they try to have them removed from their community simply because they do not like them & they believe in the gospel of J.F.

Let those that support bike lanes do their thing & work toward responsible bike lane usage & construction, no mandatory usage laws & appropriate safety with bike lanes. Have a bike lane on both sides of the street to help prevent some of the safety issues that can occur when there is one only on 1 side with mandatory usage laws. Change the laws or install lanes on both sides.

Maybe the bike lane hating VC'rs can join forces with the supporters to have laws changed or to have a b.l. on boths sides of the streets.

The way I look at this is your imagination on this issue is the sky is the limit. So rather then hinder one another & argue & fight over it, why not ban together & support each other? Why can't we have both & give people a choice? People love choices more then they like being forced into doing only one thing. Everbody just get along for goodness sake!

[Scout!]

[VC-ers] should not try to block a bike lane from being built nor should they try to have them removed from their community simply because they do not like them...

It's not simply a matter of not liking bike lanes. The issue is whether to aim for bicycles to be accepted as a normal part of traffic, or whether to provide seperate facilities (e.g. bike lanes) for there use. Ideally we would have both, but, in terms of political advocacy, those two aims are mutually opposed.

Asking for both in-the-road accomodation and beside-the-road facilities makes for a hard sell.

I think it can be silly to argue about whether to use the existing bike lanes in your home town, but I do see the political issue of whether to support separate facilities as one upon which reasonable people can disagree.

It's unfortunate that the discussion of bike lanes here on bike forums hasn't been more fruitful.

[patc]

It's not simply a matter of not liking bike lanes. The issue is whether to aim for bicycles to be accepted as a normal part of traffic, or whether to provide seperate facilities (e.g. bike lanes) for there use. Ideally we would have both, but, in terms of political advocacy, those two aims are mutually opposed.

Asking for both in-the-road accomodation and beside-the-road facilities makes for a hard sell.

Only if you consider bike lanes to be separate from "normal traffic", as you put it. I consider that model to be inaccurate both in practise and in law. In fact, bike lanes (as opposed to pathwyas) are a part of cycling in traffic.

Bike lanes are not beside traffic lanes, they ARE traffic lanes.
Bike lanes are not separated from the travelled way, they are PART of the travelled way.
Bike lanes are not some unprecedented creation, they are restricted lanes functionally identical to bus lanes, HOV lanes, taxi lanes, etc.
In many (most?) jurisdictions in North America bike lanes are governed by local traffic laws and city by-laws, just like the rest of the road.
Bike lanes ARE in-the-road accommodations.

The popular mindset that bike lanes are not part of the road system is a fiction with no basis in fact.

[Scout!]

The popular mindset that bike lanes are not part of the road system is a fiction with no basis in fact.

You make a good point that bike lanes are in fact traffic lanes. I think HOV lanes are a good comparison.

But the "popular mindset" is exactly what concerns me. It is the judgement of the community that will determine how laws are enforced, and which new laws are made.

Here's an anecdote. One day my girlfriend was riding home on a rode without a bike lane, and a passing motorist paused to tell her that there is a bike lane on the next street over. That bike lane, like many in Houston, was in poor condition and situated on a street with many stop signs and a lot of cross traffic. My girlfriend felt safer on the wide, well paved road used by most through-traffic (35mph, if you're curious).

This example illustrates the problem is see: if there are bike lanes, then motorists will be encouraged think bikes don't belong anywhere else.

[sbhikes]

I think your girlfriend is simply experiencing the larger problem of over-protective, nosy, busy-bodies with nothing better to do than to project their fear of traffic on to her. These people who have no bicycling experience, see you out of a protective metal box and they fear for your safety. They're inside a protective shell, probably had 10 people cut them off or otherwise drive like maniacs already today and they think, What's going to happen to poor defenseless you?

Believe me, I get a lot of concerned individuals telling me where it's safer for me to be. I do not listen to them. It's not about the bike lane, it's about the perception of what traffic is like.

[patc]

But the "popular mindset" is exactly what concerns me. It is the judgement of the community that will determine how laws are enforced, and which new laws are made.

If the popular mindset is the problem, then the popular mindset needs to be fixed. I never see the "bike lanes aren't part of the road" attitude locally - but this is a city where people jokingly point out unrestricted lanes, "Oh look, a normal traffic lane, don't see many of those in Ottawa!"

This example illustrates the problem is see: if there are bike lanes, then motorists will be encouraged think bikes don't belong anywhere else.

Then fix the motorists. May I suggest the procedure my dog just went through? (Actually, based on your anecdote, your bike lanes need to be fixed too).

[oilfreeandhappy]

I have some questions about bike lanes. In communities that have the lanes, with or with out a parking lane to the right, are there ordinaces or laws that require the cyclist to use the lane? If not then why complain about? Or it safety issue that a bike lane is only on one side of the street & if cyclists are forced to use the lane it could cause problems for riders going against motor vehicle traffic when they have to exit the lane? Or is it a matter of going against everything that a VCer believes in & is working to promote?

The bike lanes in our area are on both sides of the street, and you're supposed to ride with the flow of the traffic.

[Scout!]

I think your girlfriend is simply experiencing the larger problem of over-protective, nosy, busy-bodies with nothing better to do than to project their fear of traffic on to her.

That's quite possibly so...but I still stand by the point I'm trying to make. There are some motorists who think bikes should stay in bike lanes, just like there are some who think you ought to be on the sidewalk.


Then fix the motorists.

Yes, the motorists need to be fixed, and the bike lanes (in Houston, at least) do too. I'm not trying to argue against bike lanes here.

I'm saying that the presence of bike lanes can play a role in hindering acceptance of bicycles as traffic. The question is whether they play a large role or a small role. To be honest, I suspect it's a small one. But I'm not confident that it can be safely ignored.

[patc]

I'm saying that the presence of bike lanes can play a role in hindering acceptance of bicycles as traffic. The question is whether they play a large role or a small role. To be honest, I suspect it's a small one. But I'm not confident that it can be safely ignored.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the effect your comment on isn't a factor in some places or that it should be ignored. Rather, I believe in solving the real cause of a problem. So, if bike lanes in a certain place cause drivers to misunderstand the place of bikes, that should not be used as an argument for or against bike lanes, but rather an argument for driver education in addition to other advocacy efforts.

Mind you, I sometimes think some cyclists spend way to much time worrying about what drivers think.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Mind you, I sometimes think some cyclists spend way to much time worrying about what drivers think.
And some place WAY TOO MUCH value on opinions that are shouted out of car windows by the type of people who scream out "advice" at strangers.