[Helmet Head]

This thread is dedicated only to the discussion of how bike lanes are similar, and different, from other traffic lanes on the road.

[The BikeForums Team]

This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

[Cycliste]

"No, for one or more of the above reasons", for all above reasons except "bike lane is practically no different than a shoulder": shoulders in general tend to be better than bike lanes and motorists do not travel on shoulders. Bike lanes are drawn on existing road lanes while shoulders tend to come with a widening of the roadway.

[MarkS]

They're shoulders. On some roads, all they do is put up no parking signs and voila -- its a bike lane! Real lanes are regularly maintained. Bike lanes (see BL follies thread) are frequently not. On some other roads, they efface the original shoulder line and paint a new strip. Some shoulders are better than some BLs and vice-versa. I'll believe the government is serious about bike lanes as lanes when they replace the stripe with Bott's dots.

[LittleBigMan]

I said, "Yes, for other reasons." The reason a bike lane is a lane in Georgia is because it is recognized as such by the Department of Transportation. If GDOT recognizes it as a lane, it is legally and practically a lane.

The question, "Is a bike lane a lane" is aimed more at getting opinions and generating discussion rather than actually determining a bike lane's legal status as a lane.

Since a bike lane is legally a lane, using one is in keeping with lawful cycling. However, there are times a cyclist must leave a bike lane to avoid hazards or for other practical reasons.

Truth be told, I usually avoid bike lanes, but only because I am avoiding the debris they so often contain around here.

[HiYoSilver]

What no multiple choice?????????

[geog_dash]

The Oklahoma state drivers' manual ignores bicycle lanes, as do driver education and public service announcements. Signs occassionally indicate the existence of bike lanes, but don't order bikes into them or motor vehicles out. The absence of official guidance leaves the status of a bike lane to the whim of whichever cyclist, motorist, or pedestrian is in the vicinity. That makes bikes lanes pretty arbitrary and irrelevent, IMO.

[MarkS]

The question, "Is a bike lane a lane" is aimed more at getting opinions and generating discussion rather than actually determining a bike lane's legal status as a lane.
I read the question as, "Is a bike lane a lane functionally". There would be no point in asking what a bike lane is legally -- just look it up! Legally, the government should be maintaining the Bike Lanes at least to the (sometimes sad) standard of the accompanying roadway. Functionally, they don't do this.

[LittleBigMan]

Legally, the government should be maintaining the Bike Lanes at least to the (sometimes sad) standard of the accompanying roadway. Functionally, they don't do this.
Yes, Mark, I agree that, at least for my taste, bike lanes are not functionally equal for cycling to regular lanes. I greatly prefer regular lanes over bike lanes, in general. I've always said that if you're going to create a bike lane, maintain it--not only to the standard of the normal lanes, but to a higher standard as is suitable for cycling, since bicycles can't bomb over obstructions like cars do.

[Bekologist]

a bike lane is used while vehicular cycling.

[LittleBigMan]

a bike lane is used while vehicular cycling.
Agreed.

[Helmet Head]

a bike lane is used while vehicular cycling.
Agreed, but, to clarify:

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

[LittleBigMan]

Pavement that happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe may or may not be used while vehicular cycling, depending on various factors and conditions, including personal preference.
+1.


Whether the pavement happens to be so demarcated plays no role in the vehicular cyclists's decision of whether to use it in a given situation. If the bike lane stripe (and, hence, the bike lane) was not there, it would make no difference to the vehicular cyclist.
This statement is conditional upon the vehicular cyclist's personal preferences concerning bike lanes.

Saying that a vehicular cyclist never cares whether or not there is a bike lane is implying that cyclists who prefer bike lanes are not vehicular cyclists. You can't put every vehicular cyclist into one box.

[genec]

Crap, pushed the button before I finished reading all the choices...

Well, the closest thing is a combination of two of the yes choices:
"Yes, a bike lane is just like any other lane, except narrower, and meant only for bikes," and " Yes, at least between intersections, it's like any other lane, except narrower."

Now why is it not quite like those choice and bit like something else?

First it is not a dashed lane... so immediately that causes confusion for everyone on the road... Second, it is not just for bikes, it is a narrow lane for all slower moving traffic, such as mopeds and scooters and segways. Third, motorists don't treat it as a lane, but should... but this is not consistently spelled out in all states, so that causes confusion (just like right on red is not consistent for all states). And last, due to the third issue, intersections are a problem.