Helmet Head
05-23-06, 11:01 AM
Ease of riding in a bike lane??? Behold the (dangerous!) false sense of security evoked by bike lanes!
View Full Version : They just dont know.
chipcom
05-23-06, 11:08 AM
The VC revolution is just beginning. The only question is whether you want to be in on the ground floor, or whether you're going to wait until ILTB finally concedes.
VC revolution? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
How does your hero Forrester feel about the lack of progress over the last 25 years? Then we can always mention AGAIN the FACT that VC is nothing but you and your hero's branding of a riding philosophy that predates the term by decades. Have fun at your revolution...let us all know how it turns out...in the meantime I'll continue riding as I always have, since before you and your hero decided to pursue fame and profit as cycling 'advocates'.
VC revolution? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
How does your hero Forrester feel about the lack of progress over the last 25 years? Then we can always mention AGAIN the FACT that VC is nothing but you and your hero's branding of a riding philosophy that predates the term by decades. Have fun at your revolution...let us all know how it turns out...in the meantime I'll continue riding as I always have, since before you and your hero decided to pursue fame and profit as cycling 'advocates'.
chipcom
05-23-06, 11:09 AM
Ease of riding in a bike lane??? Behold the (dangerous!) false sense of security evoked by bike lanes!
Behold the arrogance of a zealot filled with wacky theories!
Behold the arrogance of a zealot filled with wacky theories!
chipcom
05-23-06, 11:19 AM
So, instead of "educating motorists," doesn't it make more sense to get those cyclists on the road, where they really belong? I
Good luck with that. Tell me how mommy and daddy react to your dragging their kids into the street. :eek:
When are you folks gonna get a clue...right or wrong, the perception of the MAJORITY of the population is that the roads are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on. Until that perception is changed, the MAJORITY of the population is going to support seperate facilities and sidewalk riding. A bunch of zealots blaming and trying to educate the cyclists is not going to change that. If you want to change the perception, you need to do something about the root cause - how people drive - you gotta slow them down and make them more courteous and anything else you can do to change the perception that the roadways are dangerous. Good luck with that too...if you have a workable idea how to accomplish that, I am all ears.
http://www.alamut.com/images/2001_misc/dumbo.gif
Good luck with that. Tell me how mommy and daddy react to your dragging their kids into the street. :eek:
When are you folks gonna get a clue...right or wrong, the perception of the MAJORITY of the population is that the roads are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on. Until that perception is changed, the MAJORITY of the population is going to support seperate facilities and sidewalk riding. A bunch of zealots blaming and trying to educate the cyclists is not going to change that. If you want to change the perception, you need to do something about the root cause - how people drive - you gotta slow them down and make them more courteous and anything else you can do to change the perception that the roadways are dangerous. Good luck with that too...if you have a workable idea how to accomplish that, I am all ears.
http://www.alamut.com/images/2001_misc/dumbo.gif
noisebeam
05-23-06, 11:33 AM
I witnessed my neighbor who lives across the street teach their young kid how to ride a bike (the step or two after being able to stay upright and steer)
The little girl turned of driveway and started riding down the sidewalk (on a quiet 25mph residential street) and her mother started yelling after her "ride on the road, it is dangerous on the sidewalk" or some similar language, and "check if any cars are coming and get on the road"
It was both heartwarming and bizzare at the same time. This family is certainly not a 'cycling' family, but for some reason this mother had very strong ideas about where it is safest for her daugher to ride.
Al
The little girl turned of driveway and started riding down the sidewalk (on a quiet 25mph residential street) and her mother started yelling after her "ride on the road, it is dangerous on the sidewalk" or some similar language, and "check if any cars are coming and get on the road"
It was both heartwarming and bizzare at the same time. This family is certainly not a 'cycling' family, but for some reason this mother had very strong ideas about where it is safest for her daugher to ride.
Al
Helmet Head
05-23-06, 11:48 AM
Good luck with that. Tell me how mommy and daddy react to your dragging their kids into the street. :eek:
When are you folks gonna get a clue...right or wrong, the perception of the MAJORITY of the population is that the roads are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on. Until that perception is changed, the MAJORITY of the population is going to support seperate facilities and sidewalk riding. A bunch of zealots blaming and trying to educate the cyclists is not going to change that. If you want to change the perception, you need to do something about the root cause - how people drive - you gotta slow them down and make them more courteous and anything else you can do to change the perception that the roadways are dangerous. Good luck with that too...if you have a workable idea how to accomplish that, I am all ears.
http://www.alamut.com/images/2001_misc/dumbo.gif
The image you selected is a perfect match to your rhetoric.
You claim the root cause of the perception that roads are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on is how people drive, and, the only way to change that perception, is to change... how people drive. There is a lot of cause and effect implied in that statement, Chip. What is your source?
How, by the way, do you explain cultures like those of Britain, Italy and France (note that I did not pick Germany, Austria or The Netherlands where segregated cycle faciliites have done their number on perceptions...), where this perception generally does not exist, but how people drive is not all that different?
When are you folks gonna get a clue...right or wrong, the perception of the MAJORITY of the population is that the roads are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on. Until that perception is changed, the MAJORITY of the population is going to support seperate facilities and sidewalk riding. A bunch of zealots blaming and trying to educate the cyclists is not going to change that. If you want to change the perception, you need to do something about the root cause - how people drive - you gotta slow them down and make them more courteous and anything else you can do to change the perception that the roadways are dangerous. Good luck with that too...if you have a workable idea how to accomplish that, I am all ears.
http://www.alamut.com/images/2001_misc/dumbo.gif
The image you selected is a perfect match to your rhetoric.
You claim the root cause of the perception that roads are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on is how people drive, and, the only way to change that perception, is to change... how people drive. There is a lot of cause and effect implied in that statement, Chip. What is your source?
How, by the way, do you explain cultures like those of Britain, Italy and France (note that I did not pick Germany, Austria or The Netherlands where segregated cycle faciliites have done their number on perceptions...), where this perception generally does not exist, but how people drive is not all that different?
Helmet Head
05-23-06, 11:59 AM
VC revolution? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
How does your hero Forrester [sic] feel about the lack of progress over the last 25 years?
John Forester is still feeling pretty pessimistic, but we're working to try to convince him otherwise. The "Interesting LA Times article" thread Gene started is one example. In particular, check out the quotes of Dan Gutierrez (though the article got one thing wrong, Dan never said the most dangerous hazard is door zones).
Then we can always mention AGAIN the FACT that VC is nothing but you and your hero's branding of a riding philosophy that predates the term by decades.
And we can say AGAIN that that fact is in dispute. The problem is that almost no one applies this 100 year old riding philosophy any more. So while it's not new to most British or French cyclists, it is "new" to most modern American cyclists. Most of them think it's nuts.
Have fun at your revolution...let us all know how it turns out...in the meantime I'll continue riding as I always have, since before you and your hero decided to pursue fame and profit as cycling 'advocates'.
I, for one, am not seeking fame and profit. I am seeking to popularize the method by which you ride, so that it becomes more acceptable in our culture, and practiced by more cyclists.
How does your hero Forrester [sic] feel about the lack of progress over the last 25 years?
John Forester is still feeling pretty pessimistic, but we're working to try to convince him otherwise. The "Interesting LA Times article" thread Gene started is one example. In particular, check out the quotes of Dan Gutierrez (though the article got one thing wrong, Dan never said the most dangerous hazard is door zones).
Then we can always mention AGAIN the FACT that VC is nothing but you and your hero's branding of a riding philosophy that predates the term by decades.
And we can say AGAIN that that fact is in dispute. The problem is that almost no one applies this 100 year old riding philosophy any more. So while it's not new to most British or French cyclists, it is "new" to most modern American cyclists. Most of them think it's nuts.
Have fun at your revolution...let us all know how it turns out...in the meantime I'll continue riding as I always have, since before you and your hero decided to pursue fame and profit as cycling 'advocates'.
I, for one, am not seeking fame and profit. I am seeking to popularize the method by which you ride, so that it becomes more acceptable in our culture, and practiced by more cyclists.
genec
05-23-06, 12:01 PM
You claim the root cause of the perception that roads are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on is how people drive, and, the only way to change that perception, is to change... how people drive. There is a lot of cause and effect implied in that statement, Chip. What is your source?
How, by the way, do you explain cultures like those of Britain, Italy and France (note that I did not pick Germany, Austria or The Netherlands where segregated cycle faciliites have done their number on perceptions...), where this perception generally does not exist, but how people drive is not all that different?
Interesting that you chose both France and Italy, where how people drive is not all that different, but the differences, however slight, tend to be quite a bit more accepting toward cyclists. So is this due to the number of cyclists on the road, the existance of bike lanes (I know they exist in France) or the training of motorists. I don't know... do you?
How, by the way, do you explain cultures like those of Britain, Italy and France (note that I did not pick Germany, Austria or The Netherlands where segregated cycle faciliites have done their number on perceptions...), where this perception generally does not exist, but how people drive is not all that different?
Interesting that you chose both France and Italy, where how people drive is not all that different, but the differences, however slight, tend to be quite a bit more accepting toward cyclists. So is this due to the number of cyclists on the road, the existance of bike lanes (I know they exist in France) or the training of motorists. I don't know... do you?
chipcom
05-23-06, 12:11 PM
The image you selected is a perfect match to your rhetoric.
You claim the root cause of the perception that roads are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on is how people drive, and, the only way to change that perception, is to change... how people drive. There is a lot of cause and effect implied in that statement, Chip. What is your source?
How, by the way, do you explain cultures like those of Britain, Italy and France (note that I did not pick Germany, Austria or The Netherlands where segregated cycle faciliites have done their number on perceptions...), where this perception generally does not exist, but how people drive is not all that different?
As usual you miss the point. I'll put it in all caps, maybe you'll be able to pick it out:
UNTIL YOU CHANGE THE PERCEPTION THAT THE ROADWAYS ARE DANGEROUS, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A VISIBLE IMPACT ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE RIDING ON THE ROADWAYS.
But alas, I figure you still won't get it and you'll continue chasing windmills from your ivory tower.
You claim the root cause of the perception that roads are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on is how people drive, and, the only way to change that perception, is to change... how people drive. There is a lot of cause and effect implied in that statement, Chip. What is your source?
How, by the way, do you explain cultures like those of Britain, Italy and France (note that I did not pick Germany, Austria or The Netherlands where segregated cycle faciliites have done their number on perceptions...), where this perception generally does not exist, but how people drive is not all that different?
As usual you miss the point. I'll put it in all caps, maybe you'll be able to pick it out:
UNTIL YOU CHANGE THE PERCEPTION THAT THE ROADWAYS ARE DANGEROUS, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A VISIBLE IMPACT ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE RIDING ON THE ROADWAYS.
But alas, I figure you still won't get it and you'll continue chasing windmills from your ivory tower.
patc
05-23-06, 01:09 PM
This one puzzles me. What is easier about a BL vs. a WOL? What is meant by ease? Comfort? Feeling secure? No need to pedal as hard?
Asked and answered many, many times already.
Asked and answered many, many times already.
noisebeam
05-23-06, 02:04 PM
Asked and answered many, many times already.
So in a nutshell what makes riding in a BL easier than a WOL on an intersectionless road?
I really don't recall us having a discussion on what 'easier' means in this context.
I was also curious what nme had to say.
Al
So in a nutshell what makes riding in a BL easier than a WOL on an intersectionless road?
I really don't recall us having a discussion on what 'easier' means in this context.
I was also curious what nme had to say.
Al
JohnBrooking
05-23-06, 03:19 PM
I haven't read this whole thread, but to answer the poster's original point that there is nothing to tell uninformed motorists otherwise, take a look here (http://www.bikemaine.org/share_the_road.htm) at what our state bike organization (in coorperation with the State DOT) is doing. There have been newspaper ads, and radio and TV spots, running all week. While I was not involved in this effort, I'm proud that I am at least a member of this member-supported organization.
So if you are wondering what you can do - find advocacy organizations in your state or region, and support them with your membership, if not your personal involvement!
So if you are wondering what you can do - find advocacy organizations in your state or region, and support them with your membership, if not your personal involvement!
genec
05-23-06, 03:25 PM
I haven't read this whole thread, but to answer the poster's original point that there is nothing to tell uninformed motorists otherwise, take a look here (http://www.bikemaine.org/share_the_road.htm) at what our state bike organization (in coorperation with the State DOT) is doing. There have been newspaper ads, and radio and TV spots, running all week. While I was not involved in this effort, I'm proud that I am at least a member of this member-supported organization.
So if you are wondering what you can do - find advocacy organizations in your state or region, and support them with your membership, if not your personal involvement!
Beautiful... especially that TV piece for motorists... This is EXACTLY what a good start looks like. Great job.
:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:
Now if they can only run everywhere and especially during Super Bowl.
So if you are wondering what you can do - find advocacy organizations in your state or region, and support them with your membership, if not your personal involvement!
Beautiful... especially that TV piece for motorists... This is EXACTLY what a good start looks like. Great job.
:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:
Now if they can only run everywhere and especially during Super Bowl.
Helmet Head
05-23-06, 03:39 PM
UNTIL YOU CHANGE THE PERCEPTION THAT THE ROADWAYS ARE DANGEROUS, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A VISIBLE IMPACT ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE RIDING ON THE ROADWAYS.
Well, if you put it like that, that's different (and I'm not referring to the caps).
Originally, you wrote that the perception is "that the roads are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on. "
Now you're saying that the perception is that roadways are dangerous, period, not just to ride a bicycle on, but (if I understand you correctly) to use at all. What follows from that is the perception that roads are especially dangerous to ride a bicycle on due to the cageless factor. Are we on the same page now?
To address this you would first have to ascertain whether the root problem - the perception - is correct or not. Are roads significantly dangerous, and thus, "too dangerous" to ride a bicycle on, or not? In other words, the way we address this is different depending on whether the roads are actually too dangerous or whether they are mistakenly perceived to be too dangerous. It they really are too dangerous, then we need to make them safer (see Gene for some ideas). But if they really are not too dangerous, and are actually much safer for cycling than most people realize, then we should probably take a different tack. In particular, we probably should not feed the misperception that they are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on.
In order to move on, we have to decide. So, which is it? Is the "too dangerous" perception reasonable or irrational?
Well, if you put it like that, that's different (and I'm not referring to the caps).
Originally, you wrote that the perception is "that the roads are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on. "
Now you're saying that the perception is that roadways are dangerous, period, not just to ride a bicycle on, but (if I understand you correctly) to use at all. What follows from that is the perception that roads are especially dangerous to ride a bicycle on due to the cageless factor. Are we on the same page now?
To address this you would first have to ascertain whether the root problem - the perception - is correct or not. Are roads significantly dangerous, and thus, "too dangerous" to ride a bicycle on, or not? In other words, the way we address this is different depending on whether the roads are actually too dangerous or whether they are mistakenly perceived to be too dangerous. It they really are too dangerous, then we need to make them safer (see Gene for some ideas). But if they really are not too dangerous, and are actually much safer for cycling than most people realize, then we should probably take a different tack. In particular, we probably should not feed the misperception that they are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on.
In order to move on, we have to decide. So, which is it? Is the "too dangerous" perception reasonable or irrational?
patc
05-23-06, 03:47 PM
So in a nutshell what makes riding in a BL easier than a WOL on an intersectionless road?
I really don't recall us having a discussion on what 'easier' means in this context.
I was also curious what nme had to say.
Al
In hindsight I probably should have marked "all as read" as I do most days on A&S, instead of posting, and the question wasn't addressed to me anyway. However, having put my foot in the door, you deserve an answer.
In my experience, and that of most other local cyclists I have spoken with, a WOL means having to negotiate your space on the road with every last vehicle, they bounce all over the place. It means close pases, unsafe passes, and getting clipped. One guy I know keeps a count of how many times a week his handlebar mirror gets knocked! In a proper width bike lane the cyclist controls passing distance, drivers stay on their side of the line, and the trip involves less stress, fewer course changes to avoid an aggressive driver, and fewer dangerous incidents overall - thus it is easier. In heavy traffic and gridlock the "easier" bit is obvious: a cyclist can just bypass the traffic (the width of a WOL not permitting this thanks to drivers being all over the place). Finally the BL is sometimes cleaner and usually has better pavement than the rest of the road, which can make cycling "easier".
I know that others have a different experience (and that a few would just tell me I don't cycle the "right" way). I don't expect everyone here to agree or understand each other's views, but we do need to learn to except them.
Now, having said the above, I don't find most roads to be problematic, I can't recall the last time I was clipped, and I rarely feel a pass was dangerous, although "yikes, that was close" is common. However there is enough difference, on similar roads, for me to find bike lanes clearly an "easier" trip. All else being equal, I will use the road with a bike lane when available, but usually things are not equal so the presence or absence of a bike lane ends of being low on the list of priorities.
I really don't recall us having a discussion on what 'easier' means in this context.
I was also curious what nme had to say.
Al
In hindsight I probably should have marked "all as read" as I do most days on A&S, instead of posting, and the question wasn't addressed to me anyway. However, having put my foot in the door, you deserve an answer.
In my experience, and that of most other local cyclists I have spoken with, a WOL means having to negotiate your space on the road with every last vehicle, they bounce all over the place. It means close pases, unsafe passes, and getting clipped. One guy I know keeps a count of how many times a week his handlebar mirror gets knocked! In a proper width bike lane the cyclist controls passing distance, drivers stay on their side of the line, and the trip involves less stress, fewer course changes to avoid an aggressive driver, and fewer dangerous incidents overall - thus it is easier. In heavy traffic and gridlock the "easier" bit is obvious: a cyclist can just bypass the traffic (the width of a WOL not permitting this thanks to drivers being all over the place). Finally the BL is sometimes cleaner and usually has better pavement than the rest of the road, which can make cycling "easier".
I know that others have a different experience (and that a few would just tell me I don't cycle the "right" way). I don't expect everyone here to agree or understand each other's views, but we do need to learn to except them.
Now, having said the above, I don't find most roads to be problematic, I can't recall the last time I was clipped, and I rarely feel a pass was dangerous, although "yikes, that was close" is common. However there is enough difference, on similar roads, for me to find bike lanes clearly an "easier" trip. All else being equal, I will use the road with a bike lane when available, but usually things are not equal so the presence or absence of a bike lane ends of being low on the list of priorities.
rando
05-23-06, 03:56 PM
at first, I was scared S***less at the idea of going on a major 4-5 lane 45 MPH limit arterial in my area. I did it once just to see what I really did think of it, after a couple of months of riding, and I wasn't scared, but I did get honked at a couple of times and it was not as pleasant as my neighborhood streets route that is largely BL and sidewalks and quiet residential streetswith little to no traffic. my perception is that it is indeed MORE potentially dangerous for me to ride on the arterial than on the back streets, simply because of the volume of traffic and the speeds involved, and not because the major street itself is inherently dangerous.
noisebeam
05-23-06, 04:02 PM
In hindsight I probably should have marked "all as read" as I do most days on A&S, instead of posting, and the question wasn't addressed to me anyway. However, having put my foot in the door, you deserve an answer.
In my experience, and that of most other local cyclists I have spoken with, a WOL means having to negotiate your space on the road with every last vehicle, they bounce all over the place. It means close pases, unsafe passes, and getting clipped. One guy I know keeps a count of how many times a week his handlebar mirror gets knocked! In a proper width bike lane the cyclist controls passing distance, drivers stay on their side of the line, and the trip involves less stress, fewer course changes to avoid an aggressive driver, and fewer dangerous incidents overall - thus it is easier. In heavy traffic and gridlock the "easier" bit is obvious: a cyclist can just bypass the traffic (the width of a WOL not permitting this thanks to drivers being all over the place). Finally the BL is sometimes cleaner and usually has better pavement than the rest of the road, which can make cycling "easier".
I know that others have a different experience (and that a few would just tell me I don't cycle the "right" way). I don't expect everyone here to agree or understand each other's views, but we do need to learn to except them.
Now, having said the above, I don't find most roads to be problematic, I can't recall the last time I was clipped, and I rarely feel a pass was dangerous, although "yikes, that was close" is common. However there is enough difference, on similar roads, for me to find bike lanes clearly an "easier" trip. All else being equal, I will use the road with a bike lane when available, but usually things are not equal so the presence or absence of a bike lane ends of being low on the list of priorities.
Thats cool. Thanks for the detailed response.
Its really gotta be regional (we've said this over and over again over the past year(s)). I never see drivers all over the place in a WOL. Never, not even close. Sure at intersections in WOL right turning drivers bias toward curb, straight going bias toward left line, just like I do on bike.
Before I had a mirror I rode in WOL ~3' from curb and never paid attention to same direction traffic except when I needed to merge for destination positioning at intersections, then I did a shoulder check and merge BL or WOL. Did this for thousands of miles with no significant close passes. Also rode in BLs on same type of road with similar lack dangerous of close passes (although higher frequency of closer than 3' passes relative to unstriped WOL) So for me riding on these 45mph multilane roads with WOL stripped for BL or not was equally easy. Essentially the same. Oh as to passing cars on right, with a WOL or BL I never do unless I pass on left so that is equally the same for me as well.
Now with a mirror I tend to interact with same direction traffic even in the intersectionless sections and I actually find it easier with a WOL as I get the feedback from every passig driver that they see me and move a bit to the left. With a BL I don't get this feedback and instead feel like I am riding like I am invisible. Again, just as 'easy' but less comfortable with the BL stripe.
Al
In my experience, and that of most other local cyclists I have spoken with, a WOL means having to negotiate your space on the road with every last vehicle, they bounce all over the place. It means close pases, unsafe passes, and getting clipped. One guy I know keeps a count of how many times a week his handlebar mirror gets knocked! In a proper width bike lane the cyclist controls passing distance, drivers stay on their side of the line, and the trip involves less stress, fewer course changes to avoid an aggressive driver, and fewer dangerous incidents overall - thus it is easier. In heavy traffic and gridlock the "easier" bit is obvious: a cyclist can just bypass the traffic (the width of a WOL not permitting this thanks to drivers being all over the place). Finally the BL is sometimes cleaner and usually has better pavement than the rest of the road, which can make cycling "easier".
I know that others have a different experience (and that a few would just tell me I don't cycle the "right" way). I don't expect everyone here to agree or understand each other's views, but we do need to learn to except them.
Now, having said the above, I don't find most roads to be problematic, I can't recall the last time I was clipped, and I rarely feel a pass was dangerous, although "yikes, that was close" is common. However there is enough difference, on similar roads, for me to find bike lanes clearly an "easier" trip. All else being equal, I will use the road with a bike lane when available, but usually things are not equal so the presence or absence of a bike lane ends of being low on the list of priorities.
Thats cool. Thanks for the detailed response.
Its really gotta be regional (we've said this over and over again over the past year(s)). I never see drivers all over the place in a WOL. Never, not even close. Sure at intersections in WOL right turning drivers bias toward curb, straight going bias toward left line, just like I do on bike.
Before I had a mirror I rode in WOL ~3' from curb and never paid attention to same direction traffic except when I needed to merge for destination positioning at intersections, then I did a shoulder check and merge BL or WOL. Did this for thousands of miles with no significant close passes. Also rode in BLs on same type of road with similar lack dangerous of close passes (although higher frequency of closer than 3' passes relative to unstriped WOL) So for me riding on these 45mph multilane roads with WOL stripped for BL or not was equally easy. Essentially the same. Oh as to passing cars on right, with a WOL or BL I never do unless I pass on left so that is equally the same for me as well.
Now with a mirror I tend to interact with same direction traffic even in the intersectionless sections and I actually find it easier with a WOL as I get the feedback from every passig driver that they see me and move a bit to the left. With a BL I don't get this feedback and instead feel like I am riding like I am invisible. Again, just as 'easy' but less comfortable with the BL stripe.
Al
noisebeam
05-23-06, 04:06 PM
at first, I was scared S***less at the idea of going on a major 4-5 lane 45 MPH limit arterial in my area. I did it once just to see what I really did think of it, after a couple of months of riding, and I wasn't scared, but I did get honked at a couple of times and it was not as pleasant as my neighborhood streets route that is largely BL and sidewalks and quiet residential streetswith little to no traffic. my perception is that it is indeed MORE potentially dangerous for me to ride on the arterial than on the back streets, simply because of the volume of traffic and the speeds involved, and not because the major street itself is inherently dangerous.
Watch out on those quiet residential streets. This morning I was a little to comfortable cruising at ~20mph, no cars behind me, riding in center of lane, double yellow center line, enjoying the relatively cool weather. There were two opposing direction cars I noticed, but didn't take much notice of, one tailgating the other, them blamo, just as I was about to pass by them the tailgaiting car gunned it and overtook the lead car. Overtaking of course meant pulling out directly into my path, so I had to swerve into the gutter to not get hit head on. All on a quiet nearly untraveled 25mph residential street.
Al
Watch out on those quiet residential streets. This morning I was a little to comfortable cruising at ~20mph, no cars behind me, riding in center of lane, double yellow center line, enjoying the relatively cool weather. There were two opposing direction cars I noticed, but didn't take much notice of, one tailgating the other, them blamo, just as I was about to pass by them the tailgaiting car gunned it and overtook the lead car. Overtaking of course meant pulling out directly into my path, so I had to swerve into the gutter to not get hit head on. All on a quiet nearly untraveled 25mph residential street.
Al
genec
05-23-06, 04:14 PM
Watch out on those quiet residential streets. This morning I was a little to comfortable cruising at ~20mph, no cars behind me, riding in center of lane, double yellow center line, enjoying the relatively cool weather. There were two opposing direction cars I noticed, but didn't take much notice of, one tailgating the other, them blamo, just as I was about to pass by them the tailgaiting car gunned it and overtook the lead car. Overtaking of course meant pulling out directly into my path, so I had to swerve into the gutter to not get hit head on. All on a quiet nearly untraveled 25mph residential street.
Al
Yeah I am finding they are not so friendly also... have taken a different route the past couple of commutes.... just the last mile or so where I do have a choice, and I am finding that motorists do not look and can actually be hard to see around corners... everybody just kinda slides right into their neighborhood just like coming home and jumping on the couch.
I think I am going back to the 35MPH boulevard, where I have to take a lane... at least it is fast and predictable.
Al
Yeah I am finding they are not so friendly also... have taken a different route the past couple of commutes.... just the last mile or so where I do have a choice, and I am finding that motorists do not look and can actually be hard to see around corners... everybody just kinda slides right into their neighborhood just like coming home and jumping on the couch.
I think I am going back to the 35MPH boulevard, where I have to take a lane... at least it is fast and predictable.
Helmet Head
05-23-06, 04:16 PM
Now with a mirror I tend to interact with same direction traffic even in the intersectionless sections and I actually find it easier with a WOL as I get the feedback from every passig driver that they see me and move a bit to the left. With a BL I don't get this feedback and instead feel like I am riding like I am invisible. Again, just as 'easy' but less comfortable with the BL stripe.
:beer:
I'm almost convinced that rearview mirrors are essential to effective traffic cycling. Hearing does not work nearly as well. Mirrors allow for much more connectivity between cyclist and driver. Which, by the way, is exactly what bike lane stripes sever.
:beer:
I'm almost convinced that rearview mirrors are essential to effective traffic cycling. Hearing does not work nearly as well. Mirrors allow for much more connectivity between cyclist and driver. Which, by the way, is exactly what bike lane stripes sever.
patc
05-23-06, 04:22 PM
Thats cool. Thanks for the detailed response.
Its really gotta be regional (we've said this over and over again over the past year(s)).
A thought - and this is pure speculation at this point. How common are real WOL in your area? Bike lanes? We have a lot of bike lanes, but few really WOL (or WCLs are they are called here). Sure, its common for the outer lane to be a bit wider, but it is still within the guidelines for a normal lane, not a wide lane and nowhere close to being the equivalent width of a normal lane plus a 2m bike lane.
Does this make a difference? Are Ottawa drivers not trained to see the extra width? Certainly the Queen Elizabeth Driveway has true wide lanes (only one lane in each direction, actually, not counting turn lanes) and I see no need or use for bike lanes there. I go out of my way to ride on the QED.
With a BL I don't get this feedback and instead feel like I am riding like I am invisible. Again, just as 'easy' but less comfortable with the BL stripe.
Al
One of the differences between us - I don't feel a need to know that a driver in another lane has seen me, I am perfectly comfortable assuming he has not. If the bike lane is properly designed, it makes absolutely no difference to me, none at all, if the driver passing me in another lane has seen me or not. By definition the bike lane, like all lanes, ensures sufficient separation between us. While visibility and safe buffer spaces are not mutually exclusive, if I had to pick one I would pick the safe buffer space. I'd rather have both, of course.
No, the paint is not a magic forcefield. Drivers drift, lose control, have mechanical problems, and drive while drunk. Those things all happen with or without bike lanes, however. Some would argue that a WOL gives just as much buffer space as a bike lane, but as I said that's not my experience. More to the point, a WOL is no guarantee of such a space ever being given, while at least a bike lane demarcates space using the same system road users are already accustomed to.
Of course, if I had my way we would ban cars from urban cores entirely. The resulting traffic (buses, taxis, delivery) would be so low that bike lanes and WOL would become quaint reminders of more wasteful days.
Its really gotta be regional (we've said this over and over again over the past year(s)).
A thought - and this is pure speculation at this point. How common are real WOL in your area? Bike lanes? We have a lot of bike lanes, but few really WOL (or WCLs are they are called here). Sure, its common for the outer lane to be a bit wider, but it is still within the guidelines for a normal lane, not a wide lane and nowhere close to being the equivalent width of a normal lane plus a 2m bike lane.
Does this make a difference? Are Ottawa drivers not trained to see the extra width? Certainly the Queen Elizabeth Driveway has true wide lanes (only one lane in each direction, actually, not counting turn lanes) and I see no need or use for bike lanes there. I go out of my way to ride on the QED.
With a BL I don't get this feedback and instead feel like I am riding like I am invisible. Again, just as 'easy' but less comfortable with the BL stripe.
Al
One of the differences between us - I don't feel a need to know that a driver in another lane has seen me, I am perfectly comfortable assuming he has not. If the bike lane is properly designed, it makes absolutely no difference to me, none at all, if the driver passing me in another lane has seen me or not. By definition the bike lane, like all lanes, ensures sufficient separation between us. While visibility and safe buffer spaces are not mutually exclusive, if I had to pick one I would pick the safe buffer space. I'd rather have both, of course.
No, the paint is not a magic forcefield. Drivers drift, lose control, have mechanical problems, and drive while drunk. Those things all happen with or without bike lanes, however. Some would argue that a WOL gives just as much buffer space as a bike lane, but as I said that's not my experience. More to the point, a WOL is no guarantee of such a space ever being given, while at least a bike lane demarcates space using the same system road users are already accustomed to.
Of course, if I had my way we would ban cars from urban cores entirely. The resulting traffic (buses, taxis, delivery) would be so low that bike lanes and WOL would become quaint reminders of more wasteful days.
noisebeam
05-23-06, 04:31 PM
A thought - and this is pure speculation at this point. How common are real WOL in your area? Bike lanes? We have a lot of bike lanes, but few really WOL (or WCLs are they are called here). Sure, its common for the outer lane to be a bit wider, but it is still within the guidelines for a normal lane, not a wide lane and nowhere close to being the equivalent width of a normal lane plus a 2m bike lane.
Does this make a difference? Are Ottawa drivers not trained to see the extra width? Certainly the Queen Elizabeth Driveway has true wide lanes (only one lane in each direction, actually, not counting turn lanes) and I see no need or use for bike lanes there. I go out of my way to ride on the QED.
One of the differences between us - I don't feel a need to know that a driver in another lane has seen me, I am perfectly comfortable assuming he has not. If the bike lane is properly designed, it makes absolutely no difference to me, none at all, if the driver passing me in another lane has seen me or not. By definition the bike lane, like all lanes, ensures sufficient separation between us. While visibility and safe buffer spaces are not mutually exclusive, if I had to pick one I would pick the safe buffer space. I'd rather have both, of course.
No, the paint is not a magic forcefield. Drivers drift, lose control, have mechanical problems, and drive while drunk. Those things all happen with or without bike lanes, however. Some would argue that a WOL gives just as much buffer space as a bike lane, but as I said that's not my experience. More to the point, a WOL is no guarantee of such a space ever being given, while at least a bike lane demarcates space using the same system road users are already accustomed to.
Of course, if I had my way we would ban cars from urban cores entirely. The resulting traffic (buses, taxis, delivery) would be so low that bike lanes and WOL would become quaint reminders of more wasteful days.
BLs are quite common here - a silver level Bike Friendly city, but none come close to the 2m you got - 5' is max generally. Official marked on bike map arterial WOL are not common, but unofficial ones are here and there - most residential streets are WOL also. Yes WOL means lanes that are >15' in width.
Do I understand you right that QED has a WOL and you quite enjoy riding on it?
As to checking behind me and watching passing motorists. I will perhaps get some flak for saying this, but a good part of the reason I check behind me is for entertainment purposes, to see what drivers are doing, not because of any fear from the rear. As I said I rode for a long time without a mirror and felt comfortable as well WOL or BL. I do check rear when riding in BL to enable me to ride left biased in BL and move right if a vehicle is close to line. I like to ride left biased to avoid debis and to give more visibility. Interestingly the majority of cyclist I observe tend to ride close to the BL stripe as well, perhaps for similar reasons as me, so its not some kooky noisebeam habit.
Al
Does this make a difference? Are Ottawa drivers not trained to see the extra width? Certainly the Queen Elizabeth Driveway has true wide lanes (only one lane in each direction, actually, not counting turn lanes) and I see no need or use for bike lanes there. I go out of my way to ride on the QED.
One of the differences between us - I don't feel a need to know that a driver in another lane has seen me, I am perfectly comfortable assuming he has not. If the bike lane is properly designed, it makes absolutely no difference to me, none at all, if the driver passing me in another lane has seen me or not. By definition the bike lane, like all lanes, ensures sufficient separation between us. While visibility and safe buffer spaces are not mutually exclusive, if I had to pick one I would pick the safe buffer space. I'd rather have both, of course.
No, the paint is not a magic forcefield. Drivers drift, lose control, have mechanical problems, and drive while drunk. Those things all happen with or without bike lanes, however. Some would argue that a WOL gives just as much buffer space as a bike lane, but as I said that's not my experience. More to the point, a WOL is no guarantee of such a space ever being given, while at least a bike lane demarcates space using the same system road users are already accustomed to.
Of course, if I had my way we would ban cars from urban cores entirely. The resulting traffic (buses, taxis, delivery) would be so low that bike lanes and WOL would become quaint reminders of more wasteful days.
BLs are quite common here - a silver level Bike Friendly city, but none come close to the 2m you got - 5' is max generally. Official marked on bike map arterial WOL are not common, but unofficial ones are here and there - most residential streets are WOL also. Yes WOL means lanes that are >15' in width.
Do I understand you right that QED has a WOL and you quite enjoy riding on it?
As to checking behind me and watching passing motorists. I will perhaps get some flak for saying this, but a good part of the reason I check behind me is for entertainment purposes, to see what drivers are doing, not because of any fear from the rear. As I said I rode for a long time without a mirror and felt comfortable as well WOL or BL. I do check rear when riding in BL to enable me to ride left biased in BL and move right if a vehicle is close to line. I like to ride left biased to avoid debis and to give more visibility. Interestingly the majority of cyclist I observe tend to ride close to the BL stripe as well, perhaps for similar reasons as me, so its not some kooky noisebeam habit.
Al
noisebeam
05-23-06, 04:59 PM
: Hearing does not work nearly as well.
I hear folks say they don't need a mirror cause they can hear same direction vehicles. I'd guess these folks have never cycled on multilane roads where there is always a car passing you and one needs the mirror (or head turn) to know which lane they are in.
Al
I hear folks say they don't need a mirror cause they can hear same direction vehicles. I'd guess these folks have never cycled on multilane roads where there is always a car passing you and one needs the mirror (or head turn) to know which lane they are in.
Al
Roody
05-23-06, 06:07 PM
Interesting that you chose both France and Italy, where how people drive is not all that different, but the differences, however slight, tend to be quite a bit more accepting toward cyclists. So is this due to the number of cyclists on the road, the existance of bike lanes (I know they exist in France) or the training of motorists. I don't know... do you?
In both France and Italy, professional cycling races held on the roads are very popular sports. I imagine this has something to do with the acceptance of road cycling in general. I wonder if it's similar in Belgium and Spain, the other countries where the sport is wildly popular.
In both France and Italy, professional cycling races held on the roads are very popular sports. I imagine this has something to do with the acceptance of road cycling in general. I wonder if it's similar in Belgium and Spain, the other countries where the sport is wildly popular.
I-Like-To-Bike
05-23-06, 07:21 PM
In both France and Italy, professional cycling races held on the roads are very popular sports. I imagine this has something to do with the acceptance of road cycling in general. I wonder if it's similar in Belgium and Spain, the other countries where the sport is wildly popular.
What do you know rather than imagine about the acceptance of "road cycling" in France or Italy, in general or specifically in comparison with other Northern European Countries such as the Netherlands, Germany or any of the Scandinavian countries?
What do you know rather than imagine about the acceptance of "road cycling" in France or Italy, in general or specifically in comparison with other Northern European Countries such as the Netherlands, Germany or any of the Scandinavian countries?
patc
05-23-06, 07:36 PM
BLs are quite common here - a silver level Bike Friendly city, but none come close to the 2m you got - 5' is max generally. Official marked on bike map arterial WOL are not common, but unofficial ones are here and there - most residential streets are WOL also. Yes WOL means lanes that are >15' in width.
Do I understand you right that QED has a WOL and you quite enjoy riding on it?
According to the study recently posted here ( http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2562846&postcount=3) Ottawa has more bike lanes and paths (based on pop.) than most other cities in North America. In the US, only Portland comes close. Unfortunately that's a combined figure, it doesn't indicate bike lanes alone. According to the draft Ottawa Cycling Plan (http://www.cycleontario.ca/OttawaCyclingPlan/March_2005_DRAFT/Ottawa%20Cycling%20Plan%20(Draft%20March%202005)/I%20-%20OCP%20Draft%20Report%20(Assembled)-.pdf) we have 95km of bike lanes vs. 17km of WOLs.
And yes, I love cycling on the QED, however it can not be considered a typical road. The lanes are wide, haven't measured them but they are wide enough that the road width stays the same when a division is formed for a RTL at intersections. However this is a parkway: it had few intersections, is not a direct line from anywhere to anywhere, does not allow commercial vehicles, and has light traffic. Even at peak hour there is no competition for pavement simply because there isn't that much traffic.
Our bike lanes are not all 2m or wider, BTW. Most of the new ones are, but many of the old ones are very narrow. The new guideline recommends 2m, with 1.5m acceptable in some cases.
Do I understand you right that QED has a WOL and you quite enjoy riding on it?
According to the study recently posted here ( http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2562846&postcount=3) Ottawa has more bike lanes and paths (based on pop.) than most other cities in North America. In the US, only Portland comes close. Unfortunately that's a combined figure, it doesn't indicate bike lanes alone. According to the draft Ottawa Cycling Plan (http://www.cycleontario.ca/OttawaCyclingPlan/March_2005_DRAFT/Ottawa%20Cycling%20Plan%20(Draft%20March%202005)/I%20-%20OCP%20Draft%20Report%20(Assembled)-.pdf) we have 95km of bike lanes vs. 17km of WOLs.
And yes, I love cycling on the QED, however it can not be considered a typical road. The lanes are wide, haven't measured them but they are wide enough that the road width stays the same when a division is formed for a RTL at intersections. However this is a parkway: it had few intersections, is not a direct line from anywhere to anywhere, does not allow commercial vehicles, and has light traffic. Even at peak hour there is no competition for pavement simply because there isn't that much traffic.
Our bike lanes are not all 2m or wider, BTW. Most of the new ones are, but many of the old ones are very narrow. The new guideline recommends 2m, with 1.5m acceptable in some cases.
powerhouse
05-23-06, 08:06 PM
I think one possibility that many drivers think bicyclists belong on sidewalks or bike lanes is of the popular notion that they might be reducing bicycles to nothing but children's toys.
It's a good idea that bicyclists should let it be known that they have the same rights as motorists do. The Bicycle Coalition of Maine (BCM), a bicycle club of which I'm a member, is currently running TV ads which tell the average person this and what the specific rights are. At the end of each ad, they remind the viewer, "Same roads, same rules, same rights". Perhaps at long last something is being done right.
It's a good idea that bicyclists should let it be known that they have the same rights as motorists do. The Bicycle Coalition of Maine (BCM), a bicycle club of which I'm a member, is currently running TV ads which tell the average person this and what the specific rights are. At the end of each ad, they remind the viewer, "Same roads, same rules, same rights". Perhaps at long last something is being done right.
noisebeam
05-24-06, 10:28 AM
And yes, I love cycling on the QED, however it can not be considered a typical road. The lanes are wide, haven't measured them but they are wide enough that the road width stays the same when a division is formed for a RTL at intersections. However this is a parkway: it had few intersections, is not a direct line from anywhere to anywhere, does not allow commercial vehicles, and has light traffic. Even at peak hour there is no competition for pavement simply because there isn't that much traffic.
Just curious what you would think if a group of cycling advocates where you live managed successfully to get BLs striped on this road. Would it make it worse? Unchanged? Better?
To be very clear: This is not a sly underhanded test of your BL stance, but intended as a question about a specific road - what you say it only about this road and won't be mis-represented or twisted into something you don't believe. Related to this, I would never fight BL additions to major arterials round here (eve though I'd personally be happier with a WOL), but would be (and have been) against addting BL striping to already pleasant 'residential' type low speed roads with WOLs.'
Oh, Tempe, AZ has population of 160k (in 2000) and >165mi of 'dedicated bikeways'
Al
Just curious what you would think if a group of cycling advocates where you live managed successfully to get BLs striped on this road. Would it make it worse? Unchanged? Better?
To be very clear: This is not a sly underhanded test of your BL stance, but intended as a question about a specific road - what you say it only about this road and won't be mis-represented or twisted into something you don't believe. Related to this, I would never fight BL additions to major arterials round here (eve though I'd personally be happier with a WOL), but would be (and have been) against addting BL striping to already pleasant 'residential' type low speed roads with WOLs.'
Oh, Tempe, AZ has population of 160k (in 2000) and >165mi of 'dedicated bikeways'
Al
Helmet Head
05-24-06, 12:29 PM
I think one possibility that many drivers think bicyclists belong on sidewalks or bike lanes is of the popular notion that they might be reducing bicycles to nothing but children's toys.
Indeed, in many ways a "toy lane" is a fair characterization of a bike lane.
It's a good idea that bicyclists should let it be known that they have the same rights as motorists do. The Bicycle Coalition of Maine (BCM), a bicycle club of which I'm a member, is currently running TV ads which tell the average person this and what the specific rights are. At the end of each ad, they remind the viewer, "Same roads, same rules, same rights". Perhaps at long last something is being done right.
I'm glad the BCM is informing the general public in your area about "Same roads, same rules, same rights".. Now if we could just get some of the members here, like Pat (patc), Diane (sbhikes), Brian (Ratliff) and Beck (Bekologist) to understand and endorse it. For their PnP view, which is contrary to this notion, see the "I am not a slow moving vehicle" thread.
Indeed, in many ways a "toy lane" is a fair characterization of a bike lane.
It's a good idea that bicyclists should let it be known that they have the same rights as motorists do. The Bicycle Coalition of Maine (BCM), a bicycle club of which I'm a member, is currently running TV ads which tell the average person this and what the specific rights are. At the end of each ad, they remind the viewer, "Same roads, same rules, same rights". Perhaps at long last something is being done right.
I'm glad the BCM is informing the general public in your area about "Same roads, same rules, same rights".. Now if we could just get some of the members here, like Pat (patc), Diane (sbhikes), Brian (Ratliff) and Beck (Bekologist) to understand and endorse it. For their PnP view, which is contrary to this notion, see the "I am not a slow moving vehicle" thread.
noisebeam
05-24-06, 12:34 PM
Indeed, in many ways a "toy lane" is a fair characterization of a bike lane.
Thats a little bit snide. Kinda like if I called a BL a PPZ (Produce Protective Zone) where the stripe not only prevents drivers from drifting into the lane, but also stops dropped watermellons from rolling out of it.
Al
Thats a little bit snide. Kinda like if I called a BL a PPZ (Produce Protective Zone) where the stripe not only prevents drivers from drifting into the lane, but also stops dropped watermellons from rolling out of it.
Al
Helmet Head
05-24-06, 12:42 PM
Well, you'll have to pardon me for feeling snide about ideas like bike lanes that are contrary to "same rights, same roads, same rules".
noisebeam
05-24-06, 12:50 PM
Well, you'll have to pardon me for feeling snide about ideas like bike lanes that are contrary to "same rights, same roads, same rules".
You are pardoned.
Al
You are pardoned.
Al
patc
05-24-06, 03:23 PM
Just curious what you would think if a group of cycling advocates where you live managed successfully to get BLs striped on this road. Would it make it worse? Unchanged? Better?
To be very clear: This is not a sly underhanded test of your BL stance, but intended as a question about a specific road - what you say it only about this road and won't be mis-represented or twisted into something you don't believe.
Al, you don't need the disclaimer, I'm not concerned about you twisting my words! I think we sometimes look at each other funny (is in, "WTF is he thinking?") but treat each other with respect.
I read your question this morning, but left off a replying 'til now. Having given it some thought, the answer is still, "I don't know". I would somewhat oppose the addition of a bike lane on the QED as a waste of resources, but I'm really not sure what difference it would make, if any. Its a parkway... by definition no one uses it to get anywhere fast, it's all about the scenery. About all I can say is that currently cars bias left, right, or centrer seemingly at random (but make nice wide passes around bikes). If a bike lane was painted, I assume the cards would no longer drive on the right edge of the roadway at all, since that would be the bike lane. I doubt it would many any practical difference to motorists or cyclists.
BTW- this and other parkways are closed to motor vehicles and are bikes-only every Sunday morning from Victoria Day (last Monday of May) until Labour Day each summer.
To be very clear: This is not a sly underhanded test of your BL stance, but intended as a question about a specific road - what you say it only about this road and won't be mis-represented or twisted into something you don't believe.
Al, you don't need the disclaimer, I'm not concerned about you twisting my words! I think we sometimes look at each other funny (is in, "WTF is he thinking?") but treat each other with respect.
I read your question this morning, but left off a replying 'til now. Having given it some thought, the answer is still, "I don't know". I would somewhat oppose the addition of a bike lane on the QED as a waste of resources, but I'm really not sure what difference it would make, if any. Its a parkway... by definition no one uses it to get anywhere fast, it's all about the scenery. About all I can say is that currently cars bias left, right, or centrer seemingly at random (but make nice wide passes around bikes). If a bike lane was painted, I assume the cards would no longer drive on the right edge of the roadway at all, since that would be the bike lane. I doubt it would many any practical difference to motorists or cyclists.
BTW- this and other parkways are closed to motor vehicles and are bikes-only every Sunday morning from Victoria Day (last Monday of May) until Labour Day each summer.
Brian Ratliff
05-24-06, 04:13 PM
Indeed, in many ways a "toy lane" is a fair characterization of a bike lane.
I'm glad the BCM is informing the general public in your area about "Same roads, same rules, same rights".. Now if we could just get some of the members here, like Pat (patc), Diane (sbhikes), Brian (Ratliff) and Beck (Bekologist) to understand and endorse it. For their PnP view, which is contrary to this notion, see the "I am not a slow moving vehicle" thread.
Funny. I didn't even post on that thread.
Tell me again why a bike only lane is contrary to "Same roads, same rules, same rights"? Or are you making the same tired canard that BL = loss of rights to the rest of the road. I'm not sure where you get that. From what I've seen, it seems you fabricated it from the dark place opposite your head. Or, you live in a crappy place to bicycle and seem to think that every other place is like where you live.
And what about your favorite, the WOL? I could say that in many ways, an "enlarged gutter" is a fair characterization of your WOL, but that would be a little underhanded and snide, wouldn't it? But it is a facility, made specifically (from your own mouth) to get bicycles out of the way of cars so traffic can flow more efficiently. Same roads, same rules, same rights? Hardly.
I'm seeing now why you removed your comment about respectful debate from your sig. Too bad. You've allowed your arguments to fall from overzealous retoric to premeditated sophistry.
I'm glad the BCM is informing the general public in your area about "Same roads, same rules, same rights".. Now if we could just get some of the members here, like Pat (patc), Diane (sbhikes), Brian (Ratliff) and Beck (Bekologist) to understand and endorse it. For their PnP view, which is contrary to this notion, see the "I am not a slow moving vehicle" thread.
Funny. I didn't even post on that thread.
Tell me again why a bike only lane is contrary to "Same roads, same rules, same rights"? Or are you making the same tired canard that BL = loss of rights to the rest of the road. I'm not sure where you get that. From what I've seen, it seems you fabricated it from the dark place opposite your head. Or, you live in a crappy place to bicycle and seem to think that every other place is like where you live.
And what about your favorite, the WOL? I could say that in many ways, an "enlarged gutter" is a fair characterization of your WOL, but that would be a little underhanded and snide, wouldn't it? But it is a facility, made specifically (from your own mouth) to get bicycles out of the way of cars so traffic can flow more efficiently. Same roads, same rules, same rights? Hardly.
I'm seeing now why you removed your comment about respectful debate from your sig. Too bad. You've allowed your arguments to fall from overzealous retoric to premeditated sophistry.
patc
05-24-06, 04:34 PM
Funny. I didn't even post on that thread.
Tell me again why a bike only lane is contrary to "Same roads, same rules, same rights"? Or are you making the same tired canard that BL = loss of rights to the rest of the road. I'm not sure where you get that. From what I've seen, it seems you fabricated it from the dark place opposite your head. Or, you live in a crappy place to bicycle and seem to think that every other place is like where you live.
Funny, I also feel that "Same roads, same rules, same rights" sums up my views very well, and is fully consistent with my support of bike lanes. (I also find it funny that HH still make statements about me, when he knows I have him on my ignore list and only occasionally read his text quoted by others, as happened here.)
Tell me again why a bike only lane is contrary to "Same roads, same rules, same rights"? Or are you making the same tired canard that BL = loss of rights to the rest of the road. I'm not sure where you get that. From what I've seen, it seems you fabricated it from the dark place opposite your head. Or, you live in a crappy place to bicycle and seem to think that every other place is like where you live.
Funny, I also feel that "Same roads, same rules, same rights" sums up my views very well, and is fully consistent with my support of bike lanes. (I also find it funny that HH still make statements about me, when he knows I have him on my ignore list and only occasionally read his text quoted by others, as happened here.)
Helmet Head
05-24-06, 04:45 PM
Funny. I didn't even post on that thread.
I didn't say you did. Never-the-less, your position, the PnP argument, is expressed there.
Tell me again why a bike only lane is contrary to "Same roads, same rules, same rights"?
Let's try this approach... Let's say, hypothetically, that they restriped every road in Portland to remove all bike lanes and paint only narrow and standard width lanes, and demarcate the rightmost (narrow) lane to be an SUV lane. Forgetting bikes for the moment in this hypothetical example, further assume that only SUVs are allowed to travel in the SUV lane, and that SUVs are restricted from leaving the SUV lane except for "good reason" like to make a left turn, etc. Finally, let's ban SUVs from the freeways and add some recreational and transportational "SUV-only paths", which are essentially narrow one-lane roads that SUV drivers have to share with joggers and roller skaters. Would you say under this scenario that drivers of SUVs would have the "same roads, same rules, same rights" as drivers of other vehicles?
But [a WOL] is a facility, made specifically (from your own mouth) to get bicycles out of the way of cars so traffic can flow more efficiently.
Not quite, a WOL is a facility that provides space for drivers of slower vehicles to move aside to allow faster traffic to pass, when safe and reasonable to do so.
Same roads, same rules, same rights?
With WOLs? Absolutely same roads, same rules, same rights. The rights of a cyclist within a WOL are no different from any other driver of a vehicle. The same rules apply, equally, and of course on the same road (bike lanes, on the other hand, are part of the highway, but not part of the roadway).
I'm seeing now why you removed your comment about respectful debate from your sig. Too bad. You've allowed your arguments to fall from overzealous retoric to premeditated sophistry.
That's uncalled for, Brian. First, it's still in my sig. Perhaps it gets cut off based on what kind of font you're using?
I didn't say you did. Never-the-less, your position, the PnP argument, is expressed there.
Tell me again why a bike only lane is contrary to "Same roads, same rules, same rights"?
Let's try this approach... Let's say, hypothetically, that they restriped every road in Portland to remove all bike lanes and paint only narrow and standard width lanes, and demarcate the rightmost (narrow) lane to be an SUV lane. Forgetting bikes for the moment in this hypothetical example, further assume that only SUVs are allowed to travel in the SUV lane, and that SUVs are restricted from leaving the SUV lane except for "good reason" like to make a left turn, etc. Finally, let's ban SUVs from the freeways and add some recreational and transportational "SUV-only paths", which are essentially narrow one-lane roads that SUV drivers have to share with joggers and roller skaters. Would you say under this scenario that drivers of SUVs would have the "same roads, same rules, same rights" as drivers of other vehicles?
But [a WOL] is a facility, made specifically (from your own mouth) to get bicycles out of the way of cars so traffic can flow more efficiently.
Not quite, a WOL is a facility that provides space for drivers of slower vehicles to move aside to allow faster traffic to pass, when safe and reasonable to do so.
Same roads, same rules, same rights?
With WOLs? Absolutely same roads, same rules, same rights. The rights of a cyclist within a WOL are no different from any other driver of a vehicle. The same rules apply, equally, and of course on the same road (bike lanes, on the other hand, are part of the highway, but not part of the roadway).
I'm seeing now why you removed your comment about respectful debate from your sig. Too bad. You've allowed your arguments to fall from overzealous retoric to premeditated sophistry.
That's uncalled for, Brian. First, it's still in my sig. Perhaps it gets cut off based on what kind of font you're using?
Brian Ratliff
05-24-06, 05:04 PM
I didn't say you did. Never-the-less, your position, the PnP argument, is expressed there.
Is it? Isn't it you who constantly complains about people misrepresenting your views? My views cannot be represented there because none of my words are.
Let's try this approach... Let's say, hypothetically, that they restriped every road in Portland to remove all bike lanes and paint only narrow and standard width lanes, and demarcate the rightmost (narrow) lane to be an SUV lane. Forgetting bikes for the moment in this hypothetical example, further assume that only SUVs are allowed to travel in the SUV lane, and that SUVs are restricted from leaving the SUV lane except for "good reason" like to make a left turn, etc. Finally, let's ban SUVs from the freeways and add some recreational and transportational "SUV-only paths", which are essentially narrow one-lane roads that SUV drivers have to share with joggers and roller skaters. Would you say under this scenario that drivers of SUVs would have the "same roads, same rules, same rights" as drivers of other vehicles?
Not applicable. An SUV is not a bike. The different properties of an SUV (compared to a bicycle) make the road a different environment for each vehicle. Because of the different environments, these "same rules and rights" are executed differently on a bicycle than in a car. In answering the perception that "riding VC is to ride your bike like you drive a car," it would seem that you should be agreeing with me on this point.
Actually, your example seems like what is common practice for big rig trucks on the highway. They are disallowed from the left lane except with good reason. They are excluded from certain roads and have special rules applied to how fast they can drive. For good reason too. The different properties of trucks (compared to cars) make the road a different environment for each vehicle.
Is it? Isn't it you who constantly complains about people misrepresenting your views? My views cannot be represented there because none of my words are.
Let's try this approach... Let's say, hypothetically, that they restriped every road in Portland to remove all bike lanes and paint only narrow and standard width lanes, and demarcate the rightmost (narrow) lane to be an SUV lane. Forgetting bikes for the moment in this hypothetical example, further assume that only SUVs are allowed to travel in the SUV lane, and that SUVs are restricted from leaving the SUV lane except for "good reason" like to make a left turn, etc. Finally, let's ban SUVs from the freeways and add some recreational and transportational "SUV-only paths", which are essentially narrow one-lane roads that SUV drivers have to share with joggers and roller skaters. Would you say under this scenario that drivers of SUVs would have the "same roads, same rules, same rights" as drivers of other vehicles?
Not applicable. An SUV is not a bike. The different properties of an SUV (compared to a bicycle) make the road a different environment for each vehicle. Because of the different environments, these "same rules and rights" are executed differently on a bicycle than in a car. In answering the perception that "riding VC is to ride your bike like you drive a car," it would seem that you should be agreeing with me on this point.
Actually, your example seems like what is common practice for big rig trucks on the highway. They are disallowed from the left lane except with good reason. They are excluded from certain roads and have special rules applied to how fast they can drive. For good reason too. The different properties of trucks (compared to cars) make the road a different environment for each vehicle.
Brian Ratliff
05-24-06, 05:21 PM
Not quite, a WOL is a facility that provides space for drivers of slower vehicles to move aside to allow faster traffic to pass, when safe and reasonable to do so.
...for slow moving bicycles to move aside. WOLs, I believe, are purposely made narrow enough to keep two cars from driving abreast, at least at speed. Are there really WOLs which are a full 20 feet wide? I thought they were closer to 13-15 feet wide.
With WOLs? Absolutely same roads, same rules, same rights. The rights of a cyclist within a WOL are no different from any other driver of a vehicle. The same rules apply, equally, and of course on the same road (bike lanes, on the other hand, are part of the highway, but not part of the roadway).
Fair enough. I guess we can trade assertions. But shared lane overtaking is not part of a natural set of vehicular rules I know of. You really should answer my post on the "BL vs. WOL revisited" thread about the special overtaking rules which apply only to bicycles in WOLs if you are serious about continuing to use this particular assertion.
That's uncalled for, Brian. First, it's still in my sig. Perhaps it gets cut off based on what kind of font you're using?
When you poison a debate by ridiculing the opposing position, it is called sophistry. Mischaracterizing bike lanes as "toy lanes" (with the obvious connotations) and mischaracterizing bike only lane proponents as "paint'n path" (as if my position can be tidily summed up by some cute cartoon slogan you slap on me) can only be to avoid arguing on the merits.
I cannot help it if you choose to undermine your own "high standards" by arguing in this manner. You placed yourself in this position. I am simply calling you on it.
...for slow moving bicycles to move aside. WOLs, I believe, are purposely made narrow enough to keep two cars from driving abreast, at least at speed. Are there really WOLs which are a full 20 feet wide? I thought they were closer to 13-15 feet wide.
With WOLs? Absolutely same roads, same rules, same rights. The rights of a cyclist within a WOL are no different from any other driver of a vehicle. The same rules apply, equally, and of course on the same road (bike lanes, on the other hand, are part of the highway, but not part of the roadway).
Fair enough. I guess we can trade assertions. But shared lane overtaking is not part of a natural set of vehicular rules I know of. You really should answer my post on the "BL vs. WOL revisited" thread about the special overtaking rules which apply only to bicycles in WOLs if you are serious about continuing to use this particular assertion.
That's uncalled for, Brian. First, it's still in my sig. Perhaps it gets cut off based on what kind of font you're using?
When you poison a debate by ridiculing the opposing position, it is called sophistry. Mischaracterizing bike lanes as "toy lanes" (with the obvious connotations) and mischaracterizing bike only lane proponents as "paint'n path" (as if my position can be tidily summed up by some cute cartoon slogan you slap on me) can only be to avoid arguing on the merits.
I cannot help it if you choose to undermine your own "high standards" by arguing in this manner. You placed yourself in this position. I am simply calling you on it.
webist
05-24-06, 05:25 PM
The high-speed (45 and 55 mph) multi-lane, seperated highway, bypass roads around my town have car-width shoulders clearly marked "Bike Lane" in painted words on the lane surface. Additionally, slightly off the road are federally funded, 10 foot wide, attractively landscaped lightly used Multi-Use Paths.
I have difficulty accepting that anyone would want to routinely ride a bicycle centered in a motor vehicle lane on these highways. Why would one want to do that? Simply because of a belief that one is on a vehicle?
I have difficulty accepting that anyone would want to routinely ride a bicycle centered in a motor vehicle lane on these highways. Why would one want to do that? Simply because of a belief that one is on a vehicle?
Helmet Head
05-24-06, 05:27 PM
My views cannot be represented there because none of my words are.
Is it your contention that no one else shares your views about traffic cycling and facilities?
Not applicable. An SUV is not a bike.
That an SUV is not a bike is irrelevant to my point, which is that an "X-only lane" which is subject to similar treatment as a bike lane except with respect to vehicles of type "X" is contrary to "same rules, roads, rights for drivers of vehicle type X, for any vehicle type X. My use of SUVs as a specific example to illustrate this general point is perfectly appropriate. If you can't get your mind around such a simple analogy, that explains much.
Actually, your example seems like what is common practice for big rig trucks on the highway.
I assume you mean limited access freeway, and not highway. The point you keep ignoring (which I addressed in the WOL revisted thread) and you've ignored so far is the relevance of vehicle type restrictions by vehicle type in a lane across which other vehicle types have no need to cross (like trucks restricted from the fast lane, or non car poolers restricted from the inside lane) to vehicle type restrictions on an outside lane where drivers of all other vehicle types need to cross in order to enter or exit the road from the road, but are not allowed to travel in that lane. That's the characteristic that makes a bike lane be not a real lane.
Is it your contention that no one else shares your views about traffic cycling and facilities?
Not applicable. An SUV is not a bike.
That an SUV is not a bike is irrelevant to my point, which is that an "X-only lane" which is subject to similar treatment as a bike lane except with respect to vehicles of type "X" is contrary to "same rules, roads, rights for drivers of vehicle type X, for any vehicle type X. My use of SUVs as a specific example to illustrate this general point is perfectly appropriate. If you can't get your mind around such a simple analogy, that explains much.
Actually, your example seems like what is common practice for big rig trucks on the highway.
I assume you mean limited access freeway, and not highway. The point you keep ignoring (which I addressed in the WOL revisted thread) and you've ignored so far is the relevance of vehicle type restrictions by vehicle type in a lane across which other vehicle types have no need to cross (like trucks restricted from the fast lane, or non car poolers restricted from the inside lane) to vehicle type restrictions on an outside lane where drivers of all other vehicle types need to cross in order to enter or exit the road from the road, but are not allowed to travel in that lane. That's the characteristic that makes a bike lane be not a real lane.
Helmet Head
05-24-06, 05:39 PM
I have difficulty accepting that anyone would want to routinely ride a bicycle centered in a motor vehicle lane on these highways. Why would one want to do that?
To be more conspicuous at intersections, including intersections with minor roads, even driveways.
To be more conspicuous to traffic approaching from behind.
To improve sight line lengths to and from the cyclist.
To avoid the debris that tends to collect off to the side of the vehicular lanes.
To model acting like a vehicle driver to others, rather than modeling acting like a toy operator.
To expect to be treated like a vehicle driver one must act like a vehicle drivers. Driving in the shoulders, except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so, is not acting like a vehicle driver. Using the shoulder only to allow faster traffic to pass, and only when it is safe and reasonable to do so, is acting like a vehicle driver.
Does that answer you question?
Simply because of a belief that one is on a vehicle?
No.
To be more conspicuous at intersections, including intersections with minor roads, even driveways.
To be more conspicuous to traffic approaching from behind.
To improve sight line lengths to and from the cyclist.
To avoid the debris that tends to collect off to the side of the vehicular lanes.
To model acting like a vehicle driver to others, rather than modeling acting like a toy operator.
To expect to be treated like a vehicle driver one must act like a vehicle drivers. Driving in the shoulders, except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so, is not acting like a vehicle driver. Using the shoulder only to allow faster traffic to pass, and only when it is safe and reasonable to do so, is acting like a vehicle driver.
Does that answer you question?
Simply because of a belief that one is on a vehicle?
No.
Brian Ratliff
05-24-06, 05:41 PM
HH: start with my statement about differing environments. Your words spilled here are irrelevent until you address this very obvious difference between bicycles and SUVs. An analogy cannot give you an answer until you prove the analogy relevent.
As for the second paragraph, I've already addressed this by noting that at major intersections where a significant number of cars need to turn right, motorists are, indeed, allowed to merge into the bike only lane. Locations where this is allowed are denoted by a dotted lane line. Of course, your argument is an argument for NOLs on arterials, taking into account your "implicit" bike lanes you say separate streams of traffic in a WOL. Bicycles are always on the right of the road in between-intersection travel. The problems this cause are from speed differentials, not painted lines on the road.
As for the second paragraph, I've already addressed this by noting that at major intersections where a significant number of cars need to turn right, motorists are, indeed, allowed to merge into the bike only lane. Locations where this is allowed are denoted by a dotted lane line. Of course, your argument is an argument for NOLs on arterials, taking into account your "implicit" bike lanes you say separate streams of traffic in a WOL. Bicycles are always on the right of the road in between-intersection travel. The problems this cause are from speed differentials, not painted lines on the road.
Brian Ratliff
05-24-06, 05:43 PM
Is it your contention that no one else shares your views about traffic cycling and facilities?
I thought this would be self-evident. I do not homogenize my views with others.
I thought this would be self-evident. I do not homogenize my views with others.
webist
05-25-06, 11:34 AM
To be more conspicuous at intersections, including intersections with minor roads, even driveways.
To be more conspicuous to traffic approaching from behind.
To improve sight line lengths to and from the cyclist.
To avoid the debris that tends to collect off to the side of the vehicular lanes.
To model acting like a vehicle driver to others, rather than modeling acting like a toy operator.
To expect to be treated like a vehicle driver one must act like a vehicle drivers. Driving in the shoulders, except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so, is not acting like a vehicle driver. Using the shoulder only to allow faster traffic to pass, and only when it is safe and reasonable to do so, is acting like a vehicle driver.
Does that answer you question?
Your response may be effective as a regurgitation of VC dogma. It does not, however, apply to the roads I described.
To be more conspicuous to traffic approaching from behind.
To improve sight line lengths to and from the cyclist.
To avoid the debris that tends to collect off to the side of the vehicular lanes.
To model acting like a vehicle driver to others, rather than modeling acting like a toy operator.
To expect to be treated like a vehicle driver one must act like a vehicle drivers. Driving in the shoulders, except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so, is not acting like a vehicle driver. Using the shoulder only to allow faster traffic to pass, and only when it is safe and reasonable to do so, is acting like a vehicle driver.
Does that answer you question?
Your response may be effective as a regurgitation of VC dogma. It does not, however, apply to the roads I described.
remsav
05-25-06, 11:49 AM
Just have faith that getting rid of BL is answer to all your problems. By destroying the ideals and notions and deep rooted causes of misunderstanding, prejudice, beliefs held by the driving public by removing BL and other bike facilities, we'll have a kingdom of biking utopia.
"This is a *student, doctor, father, mother etc), biking to workr".
"this is a biker on the hood of a car", "Be safe and courteus, share the road"
"This is a *student, doctor, father, mother etc), biking to workr".
"this is a biker on the hood of a car", "Be safe and courteus, share the road"
Helmet Head
05-25-06, 12:18 PM
Not quite, a WOL is a facility that provides space for drivers of slower vehicles to move aside to allow faster traffic to pass, when safe and reasonable to do so.
...for slow moving bicycles to move aside. WOLs, I believe, are purposely made narrow enough to keep two cars from driving abreast, at least at speed. Are there really WOLs which are a full 20 feet wide? I thought they were closer to 13-15 feet wide.
They are closer to 13-15 feet wide. Never-the-less, WOLs are designed to allow slow moving vehicles to move aside. Whether they allow the slow moving vehicle to move all the way aside enough such that the passing vehicle can fit within the lane is a function of the width of both vehicles. For example, if the slow vehicle is narrow (like a bike) and the passing vehicle is wide like a car, of if the slow vehicle is wide (like a bull dozer), and the passing vehicle is narrow, like a motorcycle, the WOL is often wide enough to allow for within-lane passing. But the point is speed positioning is a general principle and has been around since vehicular rules were invented. It's application within WOLs is perfectly normal and natural, and very predictable.
Your words spilled here are irrelevent until you address this very obvious difference between bicycles and SUVs. An analogy cannot give you an answer until you prove the analogy relevent.
That bikes and SUVs are different is the point. I don't know how to explain to you the relevance of the analogy. Let me try this: Assume you're designing anew out in the desert with no roadway width issues, would you considering putting car pool lanes (only car pools allowed in the leftmost lane) and truck lanes (trucks not allowed to leave the rightmost lane, except for the standard exceptions; non-trucks not allowed in the truck lane, except for the standard exceptions) on your urban and suburban roads? If not, why not? In order to understand the relevance of my analogy, you have to think about and answer this question. Otherwise, it is impossible to comprehend, much less appreciate.
I think I've addressed all your concerns, but let me know if I missed something.
...for slow moving bicycles to move aside. WOLs, I believe, are purposely made narrow enough to keep two cars from driving abreast, at least at speed. Are there really WOLs which are a full 20 feet wide? I thought they were closer to 13-15 feet wide.
They are closer to 13-15 feet wide. Never-the-less, WOLs are designed to allow slow moving vehicles to move aside. Whether they allow the slow moving vehicle to move all the way aside enough such that the passing vehicle can fit within the lane is a function of the width of both vehicles. For example, if the slow vehicle is narrow (like a bike) and the passing vehicle is wide like a car, of if the slow vehicle is wide (like a bull dozer), and the passing vehicle is narrow, like a motorcycle, the WOL is often wide enough to allow for within-lane passing. But the point is speed positioning is a general principle and has been around since vehicular rules were invented. It's application within WOLs is perfectly normal and natural, and very predictable.
Your words spilled here are irrelevent until you address this very obvious difference between bicycles and SUVs. An analogy cannot give you an answer until you prove the analogy relevent.
That bikes and SUVs are different is the point. I don't know how to explain to you the relevance of the analogy. Let me try this: Assume you're designing anew out in the desert with no roadway width issues, would you considering putting car pool lanes (only car pools allowed in the leftmost lane) and truck lanes (trucks not allowed to leave the rightmost lane, except for the standard exceptions; non-trucks not allowed in the truck lane, except for the standard exceptions) on your urban and suburban roads? If not, why not? In order to understand the relevance of my analogy, you have to think about and answer this question. Otherwise, it is impossible to comprehend, much less appreciate.
I think I've addressed all your concerns, but let me know if I missed something.
Helmet Head
05-25-06, 12:19 PM
It does not, however, apply to the roads I described.
That's curious, because it applies to all the roads that I've ever encountered.
Why does it not apply to the roads you described?
That's curious, because it applies to all the roads that I've ever encountered.
Why does it not apply to the roads you described?
Helmet Head
05-25-06, 12:30 PM
HEY CHIPCOM
I never saw an answer to this (from you or anyone else). It's from Page 2 of this thread, Number 64.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2573717&postcount=64
If [the roads] really are too dangerous, then we need to make them safer (see Gene for some ideas). But if they really are not too dangerous, and are actually much safer for cycling than most people realize, then we should probably take a different tack. In particular, we probably should not feed the misperception that they are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on.
In order to move on, we have to decide. So, which is it? Is the "too dangerous" perception reasonable or irrational?
I never saw an answer to this (from you or anyone else). It's from Page 2 of this thread, Number 64.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2573717&postcount=64
If [the roads] really are too dangerous, then we need to make them safer (see Gene for some ideas). But if they really are not too dangerous, and are actually much safer for cycling than most people realize, then we should probably take a different tack. In particular, we probably should not feed the misperception that they are too dangerous to ride a bicycle on.
In order to move on, we have to decide. So, which is it? Is the "too dangerous" perception reasonable or irrational?
noisebeam
05-25-06, 12:45 PM
That's curious, because it applies to all the roads that I've ever encountered.
Why does it not apply to the roads you described?
I can see webist's point here.
He described a divided multilane highway with a BL as wide as a primary travel lane. I will assume there are very few if any intersections (bypass road around town).
To be more conspicuous at intersections, including intersections with minor roads, even driveways.
(not applicable)
To be more conspicuous to traffic approaching from behind.
(but riding in this car width BL is no different than riding in the rightmost NOL of a multilane road that is not used by motor vehicles)
To improve sight line lengths to and from the cyclist.
(same as line above)
To avoid the debris that tends to collect off to the side of the vehicular lanes.
(I am sure webist can decide if the debris level is ridable or not and would choose the next lane over if it wasn't)
To model acting like a vehicle driver to others, rather than modeling acting like a toy operator.
(this is politics, not practicality/safety)
To expect to be treated like a vehicle driver one must act like a vehicle drivers. Driving in the shoulders, except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so, is not acting like a vehicle driver. Using the shoulder only to allow faster traffic to pass, and only when it is safe and reasonable to do so, is acting like a vehicle driver.
(so the problem is calling this a shoulder, not a travel lane)
I thought HH, that you didn't have an issue with BLs on relatively flat intersectionless highway like roads.
Al
Why does it not apply to the roads you described?
I can see webist's point here.
He described a divided multilane highway with a BL as wide as a primary travel lane. I will assume there are very few if any intersections (bypass road around town).
To be more conspicuous at intersections, including intersections with minor roads, even driveways.
(not applicable)
To be more conspicuous to traffic approaching from behind.
(but riding in this car width BL is no different than riding in the rightmost NOL of a multilane road that is not used by motor vehicles)
To improve sight line lengths to and from the cyclist.
(same as line above)
To avoid the debris that tends to collect off to the side of the vehicular lanes.
(I am sure webist can decide if the debris level is ridable or not and would choose the next lane over if it wasn't)
To model acting like a vehicle driver to others, rather than modeling acting like a toy operator.
(this is politics, not practicality/safety)
To expect to be treated like a vehicle driver one must act like a vehicle drivers. Driving in the shoulders, except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so, is not acting like a vehicle driver. Using the shoulder only to allow faster traffic to pass, and only when it is safe and reasonable to do so, is acting like a vehicle driver.
(so the problem is calling this a shoulder, not a travel lane)
I thought HH, that you didn't have an issue with BLs on relatively flat intersectionless highway like roads.
Al
webist
05-25-06, 02:06 PM
)
To expect to be treated like a vehicle driver one must act like a vehicle drivers. Driving in the shoulders, except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so, is not acting like a vehicle driver. Using the shoulder only to allow faster traffic to pass, and only when it is safe and reasonable to do so, is acting like a vehicle driver.
(so the problem is calling this a shoulder, not a travel lane)
I thought HH, that you didn't have an issue with BLs on relatively flat intersectionless highway like roads.
Al
Except on my very best days, speeds of 45 - 55+ are indeed faster than my average speed on the bike:)
Thus all traffic is faster than I. To take the lane would involve weaving in and out of traffic, and near continuous attention to the rear. I just can't imagine why anyone would want to do that with other clearly safer and more practical options available, unless of course political obstinance is the objective.
To expect to be treated like a vehicle driver one must act like a vehicle drivers. Driving in the shoulders, except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so, is not acting like a vehicle driver. Using the shoulder only to allow faster traffic to pass, and only when it is safe and reasonable to do so, is acting like a vehicle driver.
(so the problem is calling this a shoulder, not a travel lane)
I thought HH, that you didn't have an issue with BLs on relatively flat intersectionless highway like roads.
Al
Except on my very best days, speeds of 45 - 55+ are indeed faster than my average speed on the bike:)
Thus all traffic is faster than I. To take the lane would involve weaving in and out of traffic, and near continuous attention to the rear. I just can't imagine why anyone would want to do that with other clearly safer and more practical options available, unless of course political obstinance is the objective.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.