"In The Gutter" - link to Beeb article re. bike lanes

[Wil Davis]

Interesting article re. bike lanes found on the Beeb web-site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4789146.stm

(mods: if this has already been posted, feel free to delete/move)

- Wil

[LittleBigMan]

Great article, Wil.

I like posting on-topic in a virgin thread, before it becomes another angry theoretical debate, complete with insults traded back-and-forth. Bad bike lanes should never be built, and nobody should be forced to use them.

If you're going to paint a bike stencil on the road, you have the moral responsibility to provide a safe, continuous route that follows the normal rules for road traffic.

[Helmet Head]

If you're going to paint a bike stencil on the road, you have the moral responsibility to provide a safe, continuous route that follows the normal rules for road traffic.
I agree.

Do you agree that there are very few places in the urban/suburban environment where that is even possible?

For those who don't agree, consider why HOV lanes in the urban/suburban environment would not work. For the sake of discussion, assume road width is not an issue.

[Hawkear]

I agree.

Do you agree that there are very few places in the urban/suburban environment where that is even possible?

For those who don't agree, consider why HOV lanes in the urban/suburban environment would not work. For the sake of discussion, assume road width is not an issue.
HOV lanes around are normally on controlled-access freeways with limited entrance/exit sections. What doesn't work about them? They usually (not on the 55/5 in OC during rush hour) help you get somewhere faster, and very slightly reduce congestion (or at least reward carpoolers with less congestion).

[Helmet Head]

That's the point, Hawkear, they are actually exclusively on controlled-access freeways with no at grade intersections.

What I'm asking is consider why we can't have HOV lanes on normal urban/suburban non-freeway roads. Then, consider why those reasons don't apply to bike lanes on the same roads (again, hypothetically speaking, ignoring the practical width issue).

[Cycliste]

Great read, thanks! We need more awareness info like this!

Note that BBC invites readers to send photos of questionable bike lanes for a gallery publication on Monday and to post comments.

[Wil Davis]

Some of the pics posted on the Warrington (http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/) site mentioned in the Beeb article, are quite funny and could easily be mistaken for something out of "Monty Python" - the sad thing is that they're not joking…

- Wil

[wsexson]

For those who don't agree, consider why HOV lanes in the urban/suburban environment would not work.
Please explain why you think that a HOV lane on a non-access controlled roadway is comparable to a bike lane.

[randya]

This photo says it all!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41420000/jpg/_41420118_bikelane3.jpg

[Hawkear]

Please explain why you think that a HOV lane on a non-access controlled roadway is comparable to a bike lane.
Especially since they're fictional.

[Helmet Head]

Please explain why you think that a HOV lane on a non-access controlled roadway is comparable to a bike lane.
What they have in common is that they are a type/use specific lane on a non-access controlled roadway.
What's different is that one is on the right and the other is on the left, and also width, of course.

Bike lane defenders often cite HOV lanes as examples of type/use specific lanes - if they're legit, why shouldn't bike lanes be?

My point is that at-grade intersections make dedicated lanes unworkable.
The same problems that would apply to HOV lanes on such roads do apply to bike lanes.

Does that answer your question?

[Hawkear]

What they have in common is that they are a type/use specific lane on a non-access controlled roadway.
What's different is that one is on the right and the other is on the left, and also width, of course.

Bike lane defenders often cite HOV lanes as examples of type/use specific lanes - if they're legit, why shouldn't bike lanes be?

My point is that at-grade intersections make dedicated lanes unworkable.
The same problems that would apply to HOV lanes on such roads do apply to bike lanes.

Does that answer your question?
1. HOV lanes on non-access-controlled roadways don't exist (or are extremely rare). We don't have any real-world examples to look at, so it kind of makes it difficult to discuss them.
2. At least in CA, it is legal to leave the bike lanes at any time. This is not the case with most HOV lanes. It makes a big difference in how they are used.

Now, where in this thread, or in the article, have any bike lane defenders brought up HOV lanes as examples of special use lanes being legit? Why bother derailling this thread, when you could have easily put this topic in your Bike Lane Debate thread, or in the Bike Lanes thread (or made your own thread)? What purpose does it serve, other than distracting people from discussing the article?

[DCCommuter]

What's amazing about that article is the lack of anti-cyclist rhetoric in the reader postings. If an article like that ran in the US, half the feedback would be rantings about how cyclists are lawless, immoral, unpatriotic, and of lycra-influenced sexual proclivity.

[Helmet Head]

1. HOV lanes on non-access-controlled roadways don't exist (or are extremely rare). We don't have any real-world examples to look at, so it kind of makes it difficult to discuss them.
The idea was not to discuss HOV lanes on non-access-controlled roadways (which I know we don't have); it was to discuss the reasons we don't have them.


2. At least in CA, it is legal to leave the bike lanes at any time.
Only if one of the exceptions in 21208 applies.


This is not the case with most HOV lanes. It makes a big difference in how they are used.
Which brings up another point. Why do you think access to HOV lanes is restricted in this way? Why does limited access points make sense for HOV lanes, but not for bike lanes?


Now, where in this thread, or in the article, have any bike lane defenders brought up HOV lanes as examples of special use lanes being legit? Why bother derailling this thread, when you could have easily put this topic in your Bike Lane Debate thread, or in the Bike Lanes thread (or made your own thread)? What purpose does it serve, other than distracting people from discussing the article?
I believe the issues underlying why HOV lanes are not workable on non-freeway roads are closely related to some of the issues raised in the article about why bike lanes are often not workable.

[Hawkear]

Why don't you share some of those reasons, instead of making us guess?

[derath]

Hmm,

Here is an interesting thought. Since we are talking theoretically anyhow.

Helmet Head. I know you are against Bike lanes, at least when they make no sense (If I an inferring correctly).

SO here would an interesting thought discussion. What if everyone there were in fact HOV lanes on non-access restricted roads? And in addition the law stated HOV drivers HAD to use these lanes unless certain exceptions applied.

Imagine, first off how many drivers wouldn't use them (or how many would start driving solo so they didn't have to use them).

Also imagine all those drivers who had to quickly merge right to make a right turn (if the HOV lane was on the left), or reverse it for a left turn etc)

I am sure there are other examples of the chaos that could ensue.

-D

[LittleBigMan]

Bad bike lanes should never be built, and nobody should be forced to use them.

If you're going to paint a bike stencil on the road, you have the moral responsibility to provide a safe, continuous route that follows the normal rules for road traffic.



I agree.

Do you agree that there are very few places in the urban/suburban environment where that is even possible?


No, but that is clear from previous discussions. Asking that question can only stimulate an argument of which we already know the outcome.

Saying there are "bad" bike lanes implies there are also "good" bike lanes. In your terminology, "good" bike lanes do not exist. End of argument--let's agree to disagree.

[galen_52657]

It just goes to show that all the feeble bike-lanes are not foisted solely upon Americans.

[Daily Commute]

Why don't you share some of those reasons, instead of making us guess?
The point is that you won't be able to come up with a scheme for HOV lanes on downtown streets. I think that bike lanes work well on the kind of roads that HOV lanes work well on--high speed, low intersection roads.

Back to the thread, I agree that it's good to see so little anti-cyclist rhetoric in the comments. Remember the Randy Albright story in Portland? Almost without dissent, the people of Portland (a supposedly "bicycle-friendly" city) argued that cyclists should only use bike lanes, and where the lanes weren't ridable, we cyclists should walk our bikes on the sidewalk.

Unfortunately, the story also helps prove the point of some of us bike lane skeptics--striping lanes can be the first step toward banning cyclists from the road.

[patc]

The point is that you won't be able to come up with a scheme for HOV lanes on downtown streets. I think that bike lanes work well on the kind of roads that HOV lanes work well on--high speed, low intersection roads.

We have both bike lanes and transit-only lanes on our downtown streets. Works just fine. All this hyperbole about the difficulties of having special-use lanes on streets with frequent intersections really falls apart in the real world.

[cooker]

For those who don't agree, consider why HOV lanes in the urban/suburban environment would not work. For the sake of discussion, assume road width is not an issue.
How many points is this essay worth towards my final mark?

[Daily Commute]

We have both bike lanes and transit-only lanes on our downtown streets. Works just fine. All this hyperbole about the difficulties of having special-use lanes on streets with frequent intersections really falls apart in the real world.
The transit-only lanes work because busses go on specific, panned-in-advance routes. Also, busses can leave the lanes whenever its inconvenient. In many cities, convenience isn't good enough. Cyclists must prove to a cop, judge and jury of non-cyclists that the lane was unridable. Remember the public reaction in Portland to a cyclist leaving the lane? Almost unanimously, they said that we cyclists should walk our bikes on the sidewalk if the lane was not ridable. Those are the jurors who would decide the case.

If cyclists were confined to specific routes like busses, and if cyclists had complete discretion to leave the lanes for any reason or no reason, downtown bike-only lanes would be less problematic.

[patc]

The transit-only lanes work because busses go on specific, panned-in-advance routes. Also, busses can leave the lanes whenever its inconvenient. In many cities, convenience isn't good enough. Cyclists must prove to a cop, judge and jury of non-cyclists that the lane was unridable.

That old bugaboo :rolleyes: . Yeah, that may be a problem in some places, but its hardly universal nor are mandatory use laws synonymous with bike lanes.

The point I was making is that having restricted lanes - HOV, bike lanes, bus lanes, etc. - on the right-hand side in a downtown setting (i.e. with many intersections) has been done and it can work. Sure, there are theoretical problems with it, but in practise it works.

[Roody]

That old bugaboo :rolleyes: . Yeah, that may be a problem in some places, but its hardly universal nor are mandatory use laws synonymous with bike lanes.

The point I was making is that having restricted lanes - HOV, bike lanes, bus lanes, etc. - on the right-hand side in a downtown setting (i.e. with many intersections) has been done and it can work. Sure, there are theoretical problems with it, but in practise it works.
I have never ridden in Ottawa, but from your descriptions, I suspect that one reason the many special lanes work is that there are a lot of them, they are difficult to figure out, and they act as traffic calming devices, in effect. In other words, these elaborate and complex lanes might slow down all the traffic, and consequently make streets safer for cyclists. You would have to confirm or deny this, since I'm not going to be in Ottawa any time soon.

BTW, if my hypothesis is true, that bikes and special lanes serve as elaborate calming devices, I think it's great. I would enjoy living and riding in a city where every lane is either a bike lane, a bus lane, or a HOV lane. And damn few of the latter! Like you, I don't think cars belong in city centers, at all. It's evident to me that cars are the cause of congestion, not bikes and busses.

However, where I live, any bike lane or other special use lane that might slow traffic is strenuously opposed by the motorists, who are obviously in the majority. The city council doesn't dare approve these projects. Bike lanes, in the few places where they exist, are tacked on, obviously designed to "keep bikes out of the way so they don't slow down the cars." It seems pretty obvious that this was also the case in London, inferring from the BBC article.

It's going to be a long time before cagers lose their political dominance and give somebody else a chance for a change. In the meantime, our best option as cyclists is to ride with the rest of the traffic, and zealously guard our right to continue doing so.

[genec]

It is absolutly amazing how well lines work on the rest of the road, especially those dual stripes at the center of the road.

And yet bike lanes at the side of the road are a dismal failure according to some.

Obviously some road engineers don't seem to apply the same caution and good design methodology to the lines along the edge of the road as they do those that go down the center of the road.

[Brian Ratliff]

It is absolutly amazing how well lines work on the rest of the road, especially those dual stripes at the center of the road.

And yet bike lanes at the side of the road are a dismal failure according to some.

Obviously some road engineers don't seem to apply the same caution and good design methodology to the lines along the edge of the road as they do those that go down the center of the road.

It's all in the quality of the paint, you know. :D Since we are "just cyclists," we get the inferior paint, while the motorists' lanes get the good stuff.

[patc]

I have never ridden in Ottawa, but from your descriptions, I suspect that one reason the many special lanes work is that there are a lot of them, they are difficult to figure out, and they act as traffic calming devices, in effect. In other words, these elaborate and complex lanes might slow down all the traffic, and consequently make streets safer for cyclists. You would have to confirm or deny this, since I'm not going to be in Ottawa any time soon.

I really don't think the restricted lanes are hard to figure out, but I haven't really taken so much as an informal survey. Certainly the exception signs get to be a bit much. Even at the often more sedate pace of a cyclist I sometimes look around in confusion wondering if I'm allowed to get there from here at this time of day, day of the week, and phase of the moon. It's one style of handling traffic management, and I'm sure it has its advantages, but it can also be a bit much.


BTW, if my hypothesis is true, that bikes and special lanes serve as elaborate calming devices, I think it's great. I would enjoy living and riding in a city where every lane is either a bike lane, a bus lane, or a HOV lane. And damn few of the latter! Like you, I don't think cars belong in city centers, at all. It's evident to me that cars are the cause of congestion, not bikes and busses.


We're on the same wavelength here! I don't know is special use lanes slow down traffic, but one thing they do well is channel it. For example if you look at downtown Ottawa there are fewer car/bus conflicts on Albert and Slater then on Bank, because Albert/Slater have dedicated bus lanes and bus bays at the stops.

The fewer cars in urban centres the better. None would be best.


However, where I live, any bike lane or other special use lane that might slow traffic is strenuously opposed by the motorists, who are obviously in the majority. The city council doesn't dare approve these projects. Bike lanes, in the few places where they exist, are tacked on, obviously designed to "keep bikes out of the way so they don't slow down the cars." It seems pretty obvious that this was also the case in London, inferring from the BBC article.

One of the common themes in these discussion is the importance of locality. Restricted lanes are one example. I am sure that our 5% or so of bike commuters in the urban core creates a very different cycling environment than a city with 0.5%. I try to keep this difference in mind during these debates, and realist that (for example) bike lanes can be good here but may not be good in all cities. I am sure in some places they are a way to shut up "those annoying cyclist." Here they are part of an official plan to decrease car use. Our city council has actually sent road plans back to the transportation department with notes asking for bike lanes, HOV lanes, and bus lanes to be considered in the design. Politics being what it is the priorities change from day to day and some really poor decisions are made, but the general environment is very pro-cyclist.

I don't think its possible, or even desirable, to completely separate our own experiences from our discussion on various cycling issues, but it certainly is desirable to remember that our little part of the world may differ greatly from the part next door.

[Daily Commute]

It is absolutly amazing how well lines work on the rest of the road, especially those dual stripes at the center of the road.

And yet bike lanes at the side of the road are a dismal failure according to some.

Obviously some road engineers don't seem to apply the same caution and good design methodology to the lines along the edge of the road as they do those that go down the center of the road.
Yeah, but with the exception of transit-only lanes, those lines don't separate one one kind of traffic from another. Those lines work when you have busses who aren't allowed to deviate from a fixed route. That's not the model we should follow for cyclists.

[genec]

Yeah, but with the exception of transit-only lanes, those lines don't separate one one kind of traffic from another. Those lines work when you have busses who aren't allowed to deviate from a fixed route. That's not the model we should follow for cyclists.

Why not? Why should we try to "mix" 12-20MPH, two wheeled, ~200 pound, human powered devices, with 45+MPH, 4 wheeled, 3000+ pound, fossil fueled vehicles.

Seems like that mix is just asking for trouble... there is nothing about the various forms of transportation that is the same, except for the desire of the users to get to similar locations. Other than that, we are truly mixing apple and oranges.

Of course the answers I will get will all allude to the "rights" of cyclists, but none will touch on the futility of mixing such diverse "traffic."

Meanwhile, many cyclists continue to complain about the mixing of bicycles and pedestrians on MUPs, yet don't see the parallel similarity of bicycles and autos mixing on the paved roads.

[patc]

Yeah, but with the exception of transit-only lanes, those lines don't separate one one kind of traffic from another. Those lines work when you have busses who aren't allowed to deviate from a fixed route. That's not the model we should follow for cyclists.

Actually, bus lanes follow a very similar traffic pattern to bike lanes. A dedicated bus lane does mean that buses use that lane when travelling down that street, but some will still turn left or right - not every bus will run down the entire length of the bus-only lane. This is similar to the pattern of bikes when a bike lane is present - while most cyclists will follow the bike lane for some distance, from time to time one will make a right turn or merge left for a left turn.

In the small image below the thin purple lines are bus-only lanes on two streets in Ottawa's downtown core (they lead to thick purple lines of the Transitway, a but-only freeway). You'll note buses turning off at Bronson, Bay, Lyon, Kent, and Elgin. The red and green lines indicate peak-hour only routes, so much of this turning out of bus lanes is happening at rush hour. This situation is simplified some because Albert and Slater are paired one-way streets but it still illustrates the point in a very dense and high-traffic area.

http://clients.patcroteau.com/pat/map1.gif
Google map of area (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Albert+St+%26+Bank+St,+Ottawa,+ON&ll=45.420082,-75.701401&spn=0.011416,0.027122&t=h)

[Roody]

Of course the answers I will get will all allude to the "rights" of cyclists, but none will touch on the futility of mixing such diverse "traffic."

Sorry to disappoint you, but I rarely allude to the rights of cyclists when I talk about bike lanes. Why do you think it is "futile" to mix traffic? I understood from other posts that you are a very successful urban cyclist and commuter.

I celebrate the success of mixing diverse traffic. I think it's just fine that cars and bikes are together in the same lanes. The safety risks for cyclists are acceptable, in line with other forms of transportation. The speed and convenience of bike travel on unstriped streets is superb, in line with busses and only a little behind cars.

I'm sorry, I just don't see any advantage to the lanes. Most cities in Michigan are very strapped for cash right now. Why should they spend millions of dollars to paint stripes when those stripes have such limited utility, even for those they are supposed to serve?

[genec]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I rarely allude to the rights of cyclists when I talk about bike lanes. Why do you think it is "futile" to mix traffic? I understood from other posts that you are a very successful urban cyclist and commuter.

I celebrate the success of mixing diverse traffic. I think it's just fine that cars and bikes are together in the same lanes. The safety risks for cyclists are acceptable, in line with other forms of transportation. The speed and convenience of bike travel on unstriped streets is superb, in line with busses and only a little behind cars.

I'm sorry, I just don't see any advantage to the lanes. Most cities in Michigan are very strapped for cash right now. Why should they spend millions of dollars to paint stripes when those stripes have such limited utility, even for those they are supposed to serve?


Since strips have such limited utility, perhaps we should remove them from all roads.

[Helmet Head]

Since strips have such limited utility, perhaps we should remove them from all roads.
It's not strips, it's stripes. And it's not stripes in general that have such limited utility, it's bike lane stripes in particular.

Bike lane stripes are a peculiar breed of stripe. If nothing else they look and are treated much more like a roadway edge stripe than a normal lane stripe. For example, this is why motorists tend to drive nearer to bike lane stripes, even when the bike lane is occupied, than they drive near real lane stripes, when the adjacent lane is occupied by a motor vehicle.

[genec]

It's not strips, it's stripes. And it's not stripes in general that have such limited utility, it's bike lane stripes in particular.

Bike lane stripes are a peculiar breed of stripe. If nothing else they look and are treated much more like a roadway edge stripe than a normal lane stripe. For example, this is why motorists tend to drive nearer to bike lane stripes, even when the bike lane is occupied, than they drive near real lane stripes, when the adjacent lane is occupied by a motor vehicle.

Can you prove that motorists drive closer to a bike lane stripe than "real lane" stripes under the conditions you mention?

[Roody]

Can you prove that motorists drive closer to a bike lane stripe than "real lane" stripes under the conditions you mention?
Well they sure ride a lot closer to me when there's a bike lane stripe!
I'm constantly buzzed when I'm riding in the bike lane; only rarely when I ride in a real lane.

[patc]

Well they sure ride a lot closer to me when there's a bike lane stripe!
I'm constantly buzzed when I'm riding in the bike lane; only rarely when I ride in a real lane.

You're not the only person to say that, and its contrary to my experience. I have a few questions, if you don't mind. Not trying to second guess you, just gathering data.

1- How wide are your bike lanes (at least the ones you are willing to use).
2- What is your typical riding position in the bike lane?
3- How close do motor vehicles have to be for you to consider it a "buzz"?
4- How fast do motor vehicles have to go for you to consider it a "buzz"?
5- How much you expect or need motor vehicles to slow down and/or shift position when passing you, if you are in a bike lane?

I tried to keep those relatively neutral.

[genec]

Well they sure ride a lot closer to me when there's a bike lane stripe!
I'm constantly buzzed when I'm riding in the bike lane; only rarely when I ride in a real lane.

OK, and if I say I see motorists driving centered in their lane next to BL stripes does that mean that our two statements effectively cancel each other out?

Now beyond unverified personal experience, is there any proof that motorists tend toward the right side of a lane when a BL is present?

[Helmet Head]

Can you prove that motorists drive closer to a bike lane stripe than "real lane" stripes under the conditions you mention?
When I ride near the left edge of a bike lane, I am often passed by motorists who are closer, sometimes much closer, than 3 feet.

When I ride near the left edge of traffic lane (which I often do, in the process of merging left across multiple lanes to a make a left turn), I am virtually never passed by anyone that closely.

But I don't know of any studies that have looked into this.

Is your experience contrary to this?

[Helmet Head]

OK, and if I say I see motorists driving centered in their lane next to BL stripes does that mean that our two statements effectively cancel each other out?
No. What would counter what Roody and I are saying is if your experience was that motorists NEVER buzz you (pass with less than 3 feet of clearance) when you are riding near the left edge of a bike lane. The fact that they sometimes or even often drive centered in their lane is irrelevant and not disputed.

[Brian Ratliff]

HH- you still haven't addressed my point in the debate thread about the relevance of close passing. When uncertainty exists, I certainly would like 3 feet of passing clearance. In a bike lane, where space is well defined, I don't mind closer passes, since the safety margin need not be so large.

I contend it is more of a comfort issue at stake. The reality is that once a car buzzes you, there is no danger. Close passes within 3 feet are only a concern if there is a large chance of miscalculation, such as in a referenceless wide outside lane. If the cyclist is in a different lane than overtaking traffic, then the chance of miscalculation by the passing motorist is very low, and passes of less than 3 feet is just something to get used to, like merging across traffic lanes to get to a left turn lane.

I also contend that on a well maintained bike lane between intersections, it is almost never necessary to ride at the very left edge of the lane. Yes, there is debris which occasionally can force the cyclist to move within their lane, and sometimes requires a temporary abandonment of the lane, but in my experience, this is never as much of an issue as you make it. Perhaps regional differences again?

[Helmet Head]

Brian, I have addressed it multiple times. You're ignoring what I'm saying.


Close passes within 3 feet are only a concern if there is a large chance of miscalculation, such as in a referenceless wide outside lane.
No, close passes within 3 feet should always be a concern, because you never know when you might suddenly need some if not all of that 3 feet for an emergency avoidance maneuver. The presence of a stripe has no effect on whether such a maneuver might be necessary.

The only way you can have that 3 feet to the left of your left shoulder in a 4 foot wide bike lane is by ignoring the rubble issues and riding up against the curb in the gutter, thus eliminating all safety margin to the right. Thanks, but no thanks. The situation is only slightly improved and still unacceptable in a 5 foot wide bike lane.

[genec]

No. What would counter what Roody and I are saying is if your experience was that motorists NEVER buzz you (pass with less than 3 feet of clearance) when you are riding near the left edge of a bike lane. The fact that they sometimes or even often drive centered in their lane is irrelevant and not disputed.

There is nothing to make them pass me with 3 foot of clearance or greater... no law, or any other incentive. If I get 3 feet of clearace, it is a miracle. But certainly I am passed more consistently while in a BL than not, in the latter case where motorists have a choice to pass me with a wider margin, but often do not.

However you opined that with a BL, motorists chose to drive closer to the righthand side of their lane, I disagree, and offer that motorists tend to drive centered in their lanes.

[Brian Ratliff]

I have never needed 3 feet to swerve. Perhaps this is our difficulty. To swerve around debris, I only need a foot at the most. To guard against car hoods from the right, I can either clear myself to leave the bike lane, or use the car which is passing to shield me from a crossing accident. If I do happen to need to swerve, a driver following me can easily see I am swerving toward him because of the point of reference on the road the bike lane line provides. Otherwise, I hold my line within an inch or so.

Moreover, if you are talking bike lanes, swerving and staying inside the lane is easier to judge on the fly than swerving in absence of a point of reference. In swerving where you need to leave the bike lane, the presence of the strip indicates that you need to clear yourself to swerve. Without that reference, any swerve of any distance needs to be cleared first, which can sometimes be hard in an emergency situation.

Just out of curiosity, how did you come up with 3 feet? A random guess? Quoting a law you happen to agree with? Measurement? 3 feet clearance sounds kind of random. Are you unsure enough of your bike handling that you need the full three feet? Finally, since in a WOL, while 3 feet might be slightly more likely, it is not at all guarenteed, so shouldn't you be advocating instead for wider bike lanes to better ensure the clearance you want?

I think what you are actually saying is that you are simply uncomfortable with cars coming close to you for irrational reasons, much like beginner urban cyclists are uncomfortable with taking a lane and making a vehicular left turn. To say you need a 3 foot bumper of space is to say you need the space of a car. This is simply incorrect in my experience.

[Helmet Head]

I have never needed 3 feet to swerve. Perhaps this is our difficulty. To swerve around debris,
I have never need the full 3 feet to swerve either. This is why 3 feet is generally considered a safe passing distance - because cyclists should never need that much to swerve. Any closer is considered unsafe, because cyclists might need that much. Obviously, the more one encroaches on the 3 feet, the more likely he might encroach into space that the cyclist will actually need. Of course, 3 feet is a rough estimate. In Europe, the standard for this measurement is one meter, or about 3 feet 3 inches. That actual space needed depends on, among other things, the cyclist's speed, which motorists are notoriously bad at estimating. When I'm going 40 mph down a hill, 3 feet is way too close.

Noisebeam's example with the steel plate (and photo) was good. In cities that don't pour millions a year down the gutter for sweeping bike lanes, the need to swerve might happen more often.

And my personal ability to avoid the need to swerve is beside the point. And I can hold my own in a tight group of racers, thank you very much. It's much more relevant to less experienced cyclists who are much more prone to suddenly swerve.

[Roody]

OK, and if I say I see motorists driving centered in their lane next to BL stripes does that mean that our two statements effectively cancel each other out?

Now beyond unverified personal experience, is there any proof that motorists tend toward the right side of a lane when a BL is present?
The whole problem is that they do stay centered in their lane when there's a stripe. Absent a stripe, they pull partially or fully into the next lane to pass. That gives me (and them) a lot more room, obviously.

Why do they not pull over to pass when there is a paint stripe? I think it's because motorists, like many cyclists, buy into the silly notion that a stripe of paint magically protects cyclists from bumper chrome. If a car is a foot or two from you, how are you any safer because a paint stripe exists? I guess there are magical paint rays that act the same as invisible 12 inch concrete curbs?

To answer patc, most of the few bike lanes here are about two feet "stolen" from the outer traffic lane, which is already pretty narrow. Like most bike lanes anywhere in the world, they were created to keep cylists off to the side so car traffic would not be inconvenienced by us.

[Roody]

You're not the only person to say that, and its contrary to my experience. I have a few questions, if you don't mind. Not trying to second guess you, just gathering data.

1- How wide are your bike lanes (at least the ones you are willing to use).
2- What is your typical riding position in the bike lane?
3- How close do motor vehicles have to be for you to consider it a "buzz"?
4- How fast do motor vehicles have to go for you to consider it a "buzz"?
5- How much you expect or need motor vehicles to slow down and/or shift position when passing you, if you are in a bike lane?

I tried to keep those relatively neutral.If you are thinking I'm overly nervous about close car traffic, get over yourself. My comfort zone is amazingly small. At slow speeds of < 25 mph (car speed) 18 inches of space does not concern me. At moderately fast speeds (> 35 mph) I prefer 3 feet, and can tolerate a little less if necessary.

[Helmet Head]

The whole problem is that they do stay centered in their lane when there's a stripe. Absent a stripe, they pull partially or fully into the next lane to pass.
+1 Exactly.

A 7 foot wide vehicle centered in a 10 foot lane is only 1.5 feet from the BL stripe. If it's slightly biased to the right, it's easily within a foot. Now combine that with a cyclist riding on the stripe or next to it, to stay 3 feet from the curb and out of the debris, and you have a dangerously close pass. In that situation, drivers should adjust left, but 9/10 times they don't, because of the dang stripe. Remove the stripe, and 99+/100 times they will adjust left.

Brian, Gene, are you following my math? Do you think I'm missing something?

[recursive]

There is nothing to make them pass me with 3 foot of clearance or greater... no law, or any other incentive.

http://www.wnbr.org/bikelaws.htm

In Wisconsin there is a law.

[genec]

+1 Exactly.

A 7 foot wide vehicle centered in a 10 foot lane is only 1.5 feet from the BL stripe. If it's slightly biased to the right, it's easily within a foot. Now combine that with a cyclist riding on the stripe or next to it, to stay 3 feet from the curb and out of the debris, and you have a dangerously close pass. In that situation, drivers should adjust left, but 9/10 times they don't, because of the dang stripe. Remove the stripe, and 99+/100 times they will adjust left.

Brian, Gene, are you following my math? Do you think I'm missing something?

The only thing you are missing is that space no matter how narrow is consistent... where as with a WOL, there is nothing consistent about the space a motorist choses to give you... if they do in fact chose to leave you any space at all.

Funny thing about all this lane centering nonsense... just a little bit ago, during my noon ride, I happened to notice ALL the motorists moving over to the left side of their lane to actually give us (riding single file in a BL) MORE room... it was quite noticible as the motorists went back to a centerish position after passing the 3 of us. This was on El Camino Real for the record... a 45-50MPH 6 lane boulevard with a BL. 3 riders is hardly a huge peloton, so while we were more noticable no doubt, we were not some large lane grabbing pack.

BTW even a huge dump truck did this. :D

So I believe all this stuff boils down to being very situational...

However... motorists ARE trained to "stay between the lines" so lines of any sort do offer some form of conditioned guidance.

[genec]

http://www.wnbr.org/bikelaws.htm

In Wisconsin there is a law.

Yes, and there is one in AZ too. I would really like such a law to exist in CA, along with some form of anti harrasment law.

Currently motorists only have to just miss us... and that is exactly what some do... just miss us.