BL vs. WOL, revisited [Archive]

Brian Ratliff

05-23-06, 03:36 PM

Al (noisebeam) asked a good question. Here's my reply.

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

Ask yourself why we have paint on intersectionless freeways and rural highways and you will discover my answer to why bike only diamond lanes are better than WOL's on a US road. It might not, in fact, be better to have lines on the road at all. But if you have lines, best to be consistent.

One vehicle to a lane (lateral position, of course) is an important concept to the road system in the US. It clarifies overtaking rules and allows a smooth flow of traffic. Bike only diamond lanes are a good way of keeping to this principle while facilitating bicycle traffic, provided that intersections are properly dealt with. Here, in Oregon, I've generally had good experience with bike only diamond lanes. In Az, if you have troubles with overtaking and intersections, then your bike only diamond lanes are not designed properly. If you have trouble with disallowed vehicles using the lane, then the "bike only" status of the diamond lane is not enforced properly.

Do WOL's work? Sure they do. It works the same way as a highway would if it lacked lines on the road to separate columns of cars. Cars, in a WOL, have to move out of their line to pass a cyclist since the overtaking rules are unclear and have to be clarified with "tack-on" laws requiring 3 foot clearence and instructions for a ROW conflict. This may make the cyclist feel more comfortable, but ultimately, it is a selfish and false comfort as the cyclist is actually in more danger since the flow of traffic is disrupted for all road users for the sake of the cyclist alone. Honking; consistent, agressive passing; tiresquealing; these are not signs of a healthy cycling environment.

How do I think roads should be designed? In areas of slow, dense traffic, multiple narrow lanes (downtowns) should be used to allow either a car or a bicycle to occupy the full lane without compromise. In areas of fast, dense traffic (arterials), a bicycle only diamond lane should be used to facilitate traffic flow of all vehicles. Areas of fast, light traffic (rural) can make due with the current standard of the two lane rural highway. A narrow shoulder can be used to facilitate passing during any occasional medium traffic times. Areas of slow, light traffic (residential) are a non-issue and don't need lines at all for anyone.

The above is exactly how Portland and surrounding areas treat roads. In cycling in these areas (on newer roads which are up to the current standards), I have no complaints. I recieve no threats. I recieve little agression. Drivers and cyclists get along together smoothly with little conflict. In my mind, this is good; and perhaps worth emulating.

noisebeam

05-23-06, 04:20 PM

..my answer to why bike only diamond lanes are better than WOL's on a US road. ...
Do WOL's work? Sure they do. It works the same way as a highway would if it lacked lines on the road to separate columns of cars. Cars, in a WOL, have to move out of their line to pass a cyclist since the overtaking rules are unclear and have to be clarified with "tack-on" laws requiring 3 foot clearence and instructions for a ROW conflict. This may make the cyclist feel more comfortable, but ultimately, it is a selfish and false comfort as the cyclist is actually in more danger since the flow of traffic is disrupted for all road users for the sake of the cyclist alone. Honking; consistent, agressive passing; tiresquealing; these are not signs of a healthy cycling environment.

I was more focused on what does 'easier' mean - and specifically what makes riding 'easier' in a BL vs. a WOL for a cylist. Similarly what does 'better' mean. Safer?

As to the other paragraph I quoted. WOL do not cause any disruption in traffic flow - they may cause change in flow within lane, but I would not call it a disruption which implies a 'bottleneck' type situation. Motor vehciles can safely pass a cyclist without merging out of WOL. I have never once been honked at, had tires squealed, had agressive passing while cycling in a WOL. Never. I have by far the lowest negative interactions with motorists when riding in a WOL compared to NOL or road with BL and lots of intersections.

Al

CommuterRun

05-23-06, 04:31 PM

LCI_Brian recently brought up another option in another thread. Something I have been thinking about for a few weeks that would work in this area.

Multiple narrow lanes. This would give the cyclist the entire right most lane and allow motor vehicles to pass without moving into the on-coming lane. When a cyclist is not present, the motor vehicles could use both lanes.

notfred

05-23-06, 04:31 PM

sbhikes

05-23-06, 04:39 PM

noisebeam

05-23-06, 04:44 PM

Easier:
(1) I don't have to look behind me all the time
(2) I never have to get out of anybody's way--I can simply hold my line as I drift off to sleep
(3) I have a reasonable expectation (which is largely fulfilled) that the only people who'll be in my lane are other cyclists
(3) I know that the road was designed with me in mind
1. You don't have to with a WOL either, the requirement is not more or less than with a BL stripe.
2. Can do the same riding 2-3' from curb in a WOL.
3. I find I need to pass busses, garbage trucks, post trucks, stalled cars, police cars with stopped vehicles just as much when riding a WOL or a BL.
4. WOL are designed for cyclists.

Al

Hawkear

05-23-06, 04:57 PM

One vehicle to a lane (lateral position, of course) is an important concept to the road system in the US. This is patently false, and negates the foundation of your argument.

Motorcycles typically are allowed to ride two abreast in a lane, and allowed to split traffic lanes in some states. If the concept were important, then why is the opposite legal?

noisebeam

05-23-06, 05:03 PM

One vehicle to a lane (lateral position, of course) is an important concept to the road system in the US.
There are a number of intersections here where two same direction lanes divided by a dashed white line turn into three unmarked lanes at intersections. Drivers still know how to line up in an orderly way.

Al

Brian Ratliff

05-23-06, 06:02 PM

This is patently false, and negates the foundation of your argument.

Motorcycles typically are allowed to ride two abreast in a lane, and allowed to split traffic lanes in some states. If the concept were important, then why is the opposite legal?

Two abreast is only if the other motorcyclist consents, not in overtaking situations; essentially the two motorcyclists act as one vehicle. Splitting lanes is applicable only when traffic is at a standstill and is irrelevent in this line of argument.

There are no examples I know of of two non-coordinated vehicles sharing a single lane as traffic is flowing... except for cyclists and cars.

Brian Ratliff

05-23-06, 06:07 PM

There are a number of intersections here where two same direction lanes divided by a dashed white line turn into three unmarked lanes at intersections. Drivers still know how to line up in an orderly way.

Al

This only occurs at intersections, and only when at least one of the lanes will always slow for a turn. Besides that your example was for a intersectionless section of street, I am talking about general traffic flow. Intersections are a special case where lanes frequently divide or change shape, but even with this observation, it is becoming common practice to assign one vehicle per lane.

Brian Ratliff

05-23-06, 06:12 PM

What the heck is a WOL? Why does everyone in every different forum on this site have to use a different set of acronyms? I can't even go from the mountain biking forum to the fixed-gear forum, to the safety and advocacy forum without learning a new language each time.

Common acronyms:

WOL = Wide Outside Lane: the outer lane of a multilane road is widened to accomodate lane sharing by cyclists and motorized vehicles.

NOL = Narrow Outside Lane: the outer lane of a multilane road without the WOL feature.

BL = Bike Lane: a bicycle only lane, typically narrower than multipurpose lanes

Helmet Head

05-23-06, 07:01 PM

What the heck is a WOL?
Try googling it (or any other acronym you run into), or checking at en.wikipedia.org.

Two abreast is only if the other motorcyclist consents, not in overtaking situations;
Two abreast (car and bike) is also only if the cyclist consents. Two motorcyclists abreast does happen in overtaking situations (where one motorcyclist has yielded one part of his lane by keep to the other side).

One of the points of lane positioning in a WOL is to indicate whether you are consenting to sharing/overtaking or not.

If you're riding slowly on a motorcycle on the right side of a lane, don't be surprised if another motorcycle overtakes you within the same lane. And motor scooter and moped riders are certainly accustomed to be being passed within a wide lane - just like a bicyclist, and just as vehicularly - by cars and trucks as well as motorcycles. The only requirement is to pass with a safe passing distance that does not interfere with the safe operation of the slower vehicle, not to necessarily be in a separate lane when overtaking.

This only occurs at intersections,
So what? If it happens, it happens. It doesn't happen elsewhere because there is no point to it, not because "one vehicle to a lane" is an important concept.

Like Hawear pointed out, your main premise, One vehicle to a lane (lateral position, of course) is an important concept to the road system in the US, "is patently false, and negates the foundation of your argument."

I would agree that the ability for a driver to choose not to share his lane (assuming it is wide enough to be shared) is an important concept. It just so happens that standard width and even wider lanes are not sharable by the most common users of the roads: car and truck drivers, so the ability happens to be moot much of the time. As car drivers, we're simply not accustomed to sharing lanes.

More importantly, except on long stretches of roadway without any intersections (including without driveway intersections), which excludes almost all urban and suburban situations, we're talking about a destination positioning environment, not a speed positioning environment. In a destination positioning environment, the WOL provides much clearer and more flexible options to the cyclist as well as the right turning motorist, than does a standard lane + a segregated BL at the outside edge.

Hawkear

05-23-06, 07:40 PM

Two abreast is only if the other motorcyclist consents, not in overtaking situations; essentially the two motorcyclists act as one vehicle. Splitting lanes is applicable only when traffic is at a standstill and is irrelevent in this line of argument.

There are no examples I know of of two non-coordinated vehicles sharing a single lane as traffic is flowing... except for cyclists and cars.HH already pointed out the situations where two-abreast occurs naturally.

Splitting lanes happens more than just when traffic is at a standstill. Come down to California and observe behaviors in the freeways. Lane splitting happens quite a bit, and it's not a big problem.

Do you have any other assertions on which to base your argument? This one is treading on thin ice.

Brian Ratliff

05-23-06, 07:42 PM

HH, noisebeam: tell me one thing before giving the dismissal out of hand. Why are there painted lines on an interstate? All traffic is moving at an even pace, in the same direction. Apparently cars tend to know how to form lines so this isn't an issue. So, why?

Where is the line drawn between an acceptable shared lane system and one which is unacceptable? With your arguments, do you advocate for absolutely no painted lines on all roads? Is the determination of acceptable shared lane situations speed or speed differential related? Expediency related? Safety related? How does this differ for bicycles? Give me a guideline for designing a road for all vehicle users. When do you segregate traffic streams and why?

And here is an exercise for both the BL proponents and the WOL proponents. Design a road which is able to carry equal amounts car and bicycle traffic in an orderly, US style manner (by this, I mean, not like many 3rd world road systems with the free-for-all system and no lines). How would a car on the inside make a right turn? How would a cyclist on the outside make a left turn? How would diffusion of the two streams of traffic (one fast and the other slow) affect how efficiently traffic flows?

Brian Ratliff

05-23-06, 07:47 PM

HH already pointed out the situations where two-abreast occurs naturally.

Splitting lanes happens more than just when traffic is at a standstill. Come down to California and observe behaviors in the freeways. Lane splitting happens quite a bit, and it's not a big problem.

Do you have any other assertions on which to base your argument? This one is treading on thin ice.

I aim the question at you as well then. Why have lanes at all?

Brian Ratliff

05-23-06, 07:51 PM

I should add: all the freeflow examples of lane sharing involve a narrow vehicle. Is it vehicle width, rather than speed which determines when lanes can be safely shared? Are there any instances of a high speed, single, wide car lane where cars share lanes? Seems like it would entail many of the advantages such as passing distance and flexibility which you folks cite as WOL benefits for narrow vehicles.

chipcom

05-23-06, 07:54 PM

HH already pointed out the situations where two-abreast occurs naturally.

Splitting lanes happens more than just when traffic is at a standstill. Come down to California and observe behaviors in the freeways. Lane splitting happens quite a bit, and it's not a big problem.

Do you have any other assertions on which to base your argument? This one is treading on thin ice.

Only in the world of you, HH and his anti-BL minions. Indeed, it is your attempts to refute the one lane, one vehicle premise that is on thin ice. Care to come up with something that someone other than an anti-BL zealot will buy?

DCCommuter

05-23-06, 08:10 PM

Ease of use is an important concept that is largely overlooked in the bike lane debate. For the most part, the debate revolves around safety, and the reality is that no one really knows if bike lanes are safer than unstriped roadways -- the difference if any is so small, and bike accidents in general are so rare, and there are so many miles of roads, that any effect is statistically undetectable. (See this thread for a discussion of the mathematics: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=189167 )

Absent any meaningful safety difference, ease of use becomes an important consideration. After all, the purpose of roads is to convey goods and people. Changes to a road to make it more pleasant, more convenient, or faster advance that purpose. I would argue that well-designed bike lanes do little to make a road safer, but can make traveling on that road more pleasant for both drivers and cyclists. Similarly, a poorly designed bike lane is not so much a safety hazard as it is just unpleasant to use.

rando

05-23-06, 08:26 PM

DC speaks truth. me like DC.

derath

05-23-06, 09:12 PM

Easier:
I don't have to look behind me all the time
I never have to get out of anybody's way--I can simply hold my line as I drift off to sleep
I have a reasonable expectation (which is largely fulfilled) that the only people who'll be in my lane are other cyclists
I know that the road was designed with me in mind

Are you serious Diane?

1. You should always be in the habit of looking behind you. At least with traffic, I can hear it as well. I have been passed on a bike path by other cyclists and they were near silent.

2. sleeping on a bike is a great idea! Otherwise you can hold a line on a WOL or BL and stay out of anyone's way.

3. Good and bad. A WOL that is devoid of cyclists may have cars drifting over to the right. In a way their actions help to sweep the area clean. Otherwise I have not seen any real problems with a WOL

4. A shoulder with a bike picture doesn't tell me they designed the road for me any more than a WOL.

-D

mac

05-23-06, 09:36 PM

Two abreast is only if the other motorcyclist consents, not in overtaking situations; essentially the two motorcyclists act as one vehicle. Splitting lanes is applicable only when traffic is at a standstill and is irrelevent in this line of argument.

There are no examples I know of of two non-coordinated vehicles sharing a single lane as traffic is flowing... except for cyclists and cars.
Here in CA, you can split lanes down the freeway as traffic is flowing. I've done it many times and it's a rush! Gotta be very alert, though, as cars, trucks, SUVs, and 18-wheelers can close the gap pretty quickly or dart over into another lane.

LCI_Brian

05-23-06, 11:12 PM

One vehicle to a lane (lateral position, of course) is an important concept to the road system in the US.
If this were the case, then why do traffic laws in most states require cyclists to share wide outside lanes with faster traffic?

Helmet Head

05-24-06, 01:42 AM

Why are there painted lines on an interstate? All traffic is moving at an even pace, in the same direction. Apparently cars tend to know how to form lines so this isn't an issue. So, why?
Lanes, real lanes, are a good thing. They organize traffic and make it more efficient, allowing for higher volumes at higher speeds.

Lanes, real normal lanes, are good. They are good for all types of vehicles, including bicycles.

Bike lanes, on the other hand, are something else. They are lanes in name only.

Real lanes allow for speed positioning between intersections, and destination positioning at intersections and their approaches, for all intersections, including mid-block driveways and alleys, for drivers of all vehicles.

Car pool lanes on freeways work because they are designated on a portion of the roadway, on the inside, where others never travel or cross. Bike lanes, on the other hand, are on the outside of the roadway, where others need to travel and/or cross any time they enter or leave the roadway to or from the right. Worse, the narrowness of bike lanes means normal width vehicles cannot even fit in them - they can't use them as lanes, yet they must travel in them and cross them! Regardless of what the law says, because most vehicles cannot fit into bike lanes, most drivers don't treat or think about bike lanes as if they are lanes. Ask someone, anyone, how many lanes some street with bike lanes has. How much do you want to bet that they won't count the bike lanes? For good reason... Everyone knows bike lanes are not lanes. Calling a bike lane a lane is actually very silly.

A much better system allows cyclists to use all lanes, real lanes, as regular lanes, for all the good reasons we have lanes, including moving aside within the lane when safe and reasonable to do so, just as any good driver of any slow moving vehicle would do, to help faster traffic pass.

Perhaps the biggest difference between WOLs and BLs is that with WOLs, by default, the entire wide lane belongs to the cyclist (an equal co-owner of the road). When safe and reasonable to do so, the cyclist owner of the lane may choose to move aside to yield the remainder of the lane for others to use to pass him. But it's still his lane; he's just choosing to temporarily share it. With a BL, he has no ROW to the adjacent lane, and yet must watch out for motorists entering and exiting the roadway across the bike lane, while he is riding in the most vulnerable position on the roadway - on the outside where many are not looking for or expecting to see traffic. And, again, the WOL is simply much more flexible and provides better clarity for the destination positioning environments which dominate the urban and suburban areas in which bike lanes are typically painted.

Does that answer your question?

Bekologist

05-24-06, 04:43 AM

no.

mr don quixoteheads false implications about velotransit are negatively colored assessments of roadway accomodations for bicyclists.

to rebut mr heads dismissals of these velotransit lanes, hahahahahahahahaha, you are grasping at inconsequental straws, buddy.

debris is not an issue on well maintained roadways, vehicles entering or merging into roads from stops or parking are required to yield to all traffic before entering travel lanes, which includes bicycles on roadways, wether striped for velotransit or not. traffic is also required to yield to bicyclists in velotransit lanes when transiting across them.

As to mr heads' complaint of bicyclists being unable to avoid head on bike to bike collisions, what textbook did you glean that one anyway, mr head?

Helmet Head

05-24-06, 10:09 AM

Numbering Beck's photos left to right, top to bottom...
1) 2-way bike traffic in the same lane? Say two cyclists are going 25 mph and collide at a closing speed of 50 mph. Yikes!
2) BL between LTO lane and thru lane. So left turning traffic must cross the path of cyclists in the BL without merging into it? Accident waiting to happen...
3) door zone bike lane on the outside edge of traffic, about 50% of which was enter or exit crossing this bike lane, without first merging into it.
4) BL to the left of a RTOL - particularly prone to debris collection. Reinforces the notion that cyclists have an their obligation to stay out of the way of motorists, even at intersection stops.
5) See #3.
6) Again, conflict with traffic entering and exiting the road to/from the right. They have to cross this "lane", rather than merge in and out of it like a real lane.

Horrible designs, all of them.

noisebeam

05-24-06, 10:15 AM

And here is an exercise for both the BL proponents and the WOL proponents. Design a road which is able to carry equal amounts car and bicycle traffic in an orderly, US style manner (by this, I mean, not like many 3rd world road systems with the free-for-all system and no lines). How would a car on the inside make a right turn? How would a cyclist on the outside make a left turn? How would diffusion of the two streams of traffic (one fast and the other slow) affect how efficiently traffic flows?
A quick off the cuff response to this: Have the outside lane either wide enough to share side by side with narrow and wide vehicles OR have the lane wide enough so that wide vehicles can use it also for turning, etc. and narrow vehicles can ride in its center for visibility. The problem with a BL is that a wide vehicle can not fit into it, causing problems for turning and merges and also that it is narrow and places cyclist too far to the right.
It there outside lane was 9' and motor vehicles where allowed to use it (required to use it when turning) then that would work

Al

noisebeam

05-24-06, 10:16 AM

This only occurs at intersections, and only when at least one of the lanes will always slow for a turn. Besides that your example was for a intersectionless section of street, I am talking about general traffic flow. Intersections are a special case where lanes frequently divide or change shape, but even with this observation, it is becoming common practice to assign one vehicle per lane.
It does and actually I was remembering this in regard to discussion with patc (where we see things differently in regard to ROW in a WOL at intersections) more than the topic at hand.
Al

Brian Ratliff

05-24-06, 10:39 AM

Lanes, real lanes, are a good thing. They organize traffic and make it more efficient, allowing for higher volumes at higher speeds.

Lanes, real normal lanes, are good. They are good for all types of vehicles, including bicycles.

Bike lanes, on the other hand, are something else. They are lanes in name only.

Real lanes allow for speed positioning between intersections, and destination positioning at intersections and their approaches, for all intersections, including mid-block driveways and alleys, for drivers of all vehicles.

Car pool lanes on freeways work because they are designated on a portion of the roadway, on the inside, where others never travel or cross. Bike lanes, on the other hand, are on the outside of the roadway, where others need to travel and/or cross any time they enter or leave the roadway to or from the right. Worse, the narrowness of bike lanes means normal width vehicles cannot even fit in them - they can't use them as lanes, yet they must travel in them and cross them! Regardless of what the law says, because most vehicles cannot fit into bike lanes, most drivers don't treat or think about bike lanes as if they are lanes. Ask someone, anyone, how many lanes some street with bike lanes has. How much do you want to bet that they won't count the bike lanes? For good reason... Everyone knows bike lanes are not lanes. Calling a bike lane a lane is actually very silly.

A much better system allows cyclists to use all lanes, real lanes, as regular lanes, for all the good reasons we have lanes, including moving aside within the lane when safe and reasonable to do so, just as any good driver of any slow moving vehicle would do, to help faster traffic pass.

Perhaps the biggest difference between WOLs and BLs is that with WOLs, by default, the entire wide lane belongs to the cyclist (an equal co-owner of the road). When safe and reasonable to do so, the cyclist owner of the lane may choose to move aside to yield the remainder of the lane for others to use to pass him. But it's still his lane; he's just choosing to temporarily share it. With a BL, he has no ROW to the adjacent lane, and yet must watch out for motorists entering and exiting the roadway across the bike lane, while he is riding in the most vulnerable position on the roadway - on the outside where many are not looking for or expecting to see traffic. And, again, the WOL is simply much more flexible and provides better clarity for the destination positioning environments which dominate the urban and suburban areas in which bike lanes are typically painted.

Does that answer your question?

No, actually. Basically your argument is that "real" lanes are good because... get this... they are lanes. Completely tautological. And your argument that bike only diamond lanes do none of this is because... get this... they are not lanes. Another circular argument. You a priori define a "real" lane as one which are made for cars, excluding bike lanes in the definition. Then you use this definition as a given to make your argument that bike lanes are bad because they are not lanes.

How do lanes aid in organizing traffic and making traffic flow more efficiently and faster? What makes a lane a lane and why would you use them at all? Why doesn't this "flexibility" you refer to (which a line of paint in no way impedes as you still have to yield ROW to a car coming from behind in a WOL, according to you, which means that you are not "equal co-owner" of the lane, again your own argument with the "implicit lanes" and all that) apply to the entire road system.

We need to get down to how you defined a "real" lane. After all, in your rejection of bike lanes, you cite traits of bike lanes as allowing cars to flow (overly) efficiently and faster past a bike lane; and here you cite traffic lanes as being good for having these very same traits. What is the difference?

Imagine a trucker who feels like a section of road is too narrow to share. With no lane markings, that trucker is free to claim the entire roadway and keep irresponsible cars from passing at an inopportune time. Or imagine a grandmother in an oldsmobile who feels like she cannot deal with cars passing to her left with only 3 feet to spare. With a markingless road, she is free to take the whole thing to keep people from passing until she is comfortable.

I used to drive on the freeway a lot between Seattle and Portland. The scariest thing I ever encountered was seeing a driver straddling the lane line, doing the slow weave between the two lanes, and making predictable passing impossible because I could not give him a wide bearth due to road width. Bicycles in WOLs are like this driver. It only works because a bicycle is narrow, allowing drivers to give wide bearth when passing. But this runs contrary to why a "real" lane is considered good (increasing efficiency and speed).

Or consider this: why is it we always want a driver to move all the way into the other lane to pass when we "take the lane"? It cannot just be wanting 3 feet. We want more distance. And we want to be assured of this distance by making the motorist cross a line. Otherwise, in a WOL, if we rode three feet from the centerline, drivers would pass on the right.

sbhikes

05-24-06, 11:02 AM

noisebeam

05-24-06, 11:14 AM

If cyclists were truly equal to other road users then we wouldn't have to ride in lanes designed for cars looking over our shoulders always on the ready to pull over for people behind us. Bike lanes remove that nonsense and let me ride like any other vehicle--making it the responsibility of the people behind me to figure out how to pass me, not the other way around.
Firstly if one wants to ride in the center of a lane (wide or otherwise) one doesn't have to pull over for faster drivers - one does it out of courtesy. Alternately one can ride 2-3' from curb in WOL and ignore passing traffic, just like one can choose to do in a BL.
Secondly, if in a BL one (or at least me) still must be vigillant of all other vehicles same direction, x-traffic and opposing direction (who may left turn), but with added nonsense of watching for right hooks.
Finally, the responsibility for passing safely when riding in WOL or BL is on the driver passing. Perhaps even more so when sharing a WOL.

It is intersting to me how when there are no BLs I feel much more of the freedom to cycle like a vehicle and when there is a BL I feel more restricted. (certainly I am not as I am free to ride where I want), but it seems you feel the opposite.

Al

Helmet Head

05-24-06, 01:45 PM

Basically your argument is that "real" lanes are good because... get this... they are lanes. Completely tautological.
Huh? If you asked me what's good about bowls, and I answered, "because they hold stuff effectively", would you call that tautological too? What part of, "They organize traffic and make it more efficient, allowing for higher volumes at higher speeds" do you not understand?

And your argument that bike only diamond lanes do none of this is because... get this... they are not lanes. Another circular argument.
I did not argue that bike lanes do none of that. Did you even read my post? I did argue that bike lanes do not organize traffic well (like real lanes do) because they do not allow traffic that needs to cross them (when entering or exiting the roadway) to travel in them. There is nothing tautological or circular about any of my argument.

How do lanes aid in organizing traffic and making traffic flow more efficiently and faster?
By allowing for efficient speed and destination positioning as appropriate for all traffic.

What makes a lane a lane and why would you use them at all?
The painted stripes and well-defined movements allowed regarding it make a lane a lane. I use them to delineate lateral right of way.

Why doesn't this "flexibility" you refer to (which a line of paint in no way impedes as you still have to yield ROW to a car coming from behind in a WOL, according to you, which means that you are not "equal co-owner" of the lane, again your own argument with the "implicit lanes" and all that) apply to the entire road system.
I don't get it. What makes you think the flexibility does not apply to the entire road system? It does, as long as there are no areas on the road where certain members of traffic are not allowed to travel even though they must cross it (which is a what a bike lane is).

What is the difference?
See above.

magine a trucker who feels like a section of road is too narrow to share. With no lane markings, that trucker is free to claim the entire roadway and keep irresponsible cars from passing at an inopportune time. Or imagine a grandmother in an oldsmobile who feels like she cannot deal with cars passing to her left with only 3 feet to spare. With a markingless road, she is free to take the whole thing to keep people from passing until she is comfortable.
You are confusing lanes vs no lanes with bike lanes vs no bike lanes. In other words, you are confusing lanes with bike lanes. With no bike lanes, the worst that can happen is that a cyclist can take up an entire wide lane, just like any driver of a standard width slow moving vehicle. Big deal. A hypothetical concern that has no basis in reality in term of being a real practical concern.

It only works because a bicycle is narrow, allowing drivers to give wide bearth when passing. But this runs contrary to why a "real" lane is considered good (increasing efficiency and speed).
The fact that a bicycle is narrow enough for the cyclist to be able safely move it aside and temporarily yield the remainder of his lane (just like a landlord temporarily yields some of his rights to enter his own property when he rents it out) it what allows it to work (your words). What's the problem?

why is it we always want a driver to move all the way into the other lane to pass when we "take the lane"?
We do? Speak for yourself... All I want is a safe pass, and if moving entirely into the adjacent lane is not required for it to be a safe pass, I'm okay with a within-lane pass.

You're looking at this, sadly, from a very car-centric perspective.

Bottom line, while some of the advantages of lane stripes may appear to apply to bike lanes in theory, in practice, the violations of normal traffic movements that are imposed by bike lanes (in particular disallowing travel in it to most of those who need to cross it) are disadvantages that outweigh the advantages.

It's similar to putting a car pool lane one lane right of the fast lane on a freeway, and allowing non-car poolers to cross (to get to and from the fast lane) but not travel in the car pool lane. In the same sense that a bike lane is not a real lane, such a car pool lane would not be a real lane, and would be a disaster. I hope you can see why.

Perhaps a better analogy would be to put a car pool lane on the left side of a multi-lane suburban or urban arterial, but allow non carpoolers to make left turns across it, but not travel in it. Another not a real lane. Another disaster. Just like a bike "lane".

Brian Ratliff

05-24-06, 02:16 PM

Huh? If you asked me what's good about bowls, and I answered, "because they hold stuff effectively", would you call that tautological too? What part of, "They organize traffic and make it more efficient, allowing for higher volumes at higher speeds" do you not understand?

I did not ask what's good about bowls (or lanes) in general. I asked why the thing the bowl does well is important.

So, again. How are the addition of lanes advantagous to a road? We've established that they're good at organizing traffic. So, now, to peel away the next layer, why is organizing traffic advantagous to the road?

Helmet Head

05-24-06, 02:25 PM

why is organizing traffic advantagous to the road?
Are you having trouble reading?

Again, what part of "allowing for higher volumes at higher speeds" do you not understand?

If you're looking for something else, why not cut to the chase and ask me if I agree? Reduce conflicts in traffic? Sure, that too.

Brian Ratliff

05-24-06, 02:33 PM

Bottom line, while some of the advantages of lane stripes may appear to apply to bike lanes in theory, in practice, the violations of normal traffic movements that are imposed by bike lanes (in particular disallowing travel in it to most of those who need to cross it) are disadvantages that outweigh the advantages.

At major intersections where a significant number of cars need to cross the bike lane, the bike lane widens to allow cars to merge into it. The extention of this is the bike lane to left of RTOL, where the concept is essentially the same, but with the addition of a second line in the road. In practice, this really is not a big deal and results in no "violations of normal traffic movements." It is in your theory where these "violations" become a big deal to you.

In contrast, requiring a car to pass a cyclist sharing a lane at speed is a violation of "normal traffic movements" since you must tack on an additional set of "overtaking" rules to cover all forms of shared lane interaction.

For instance, the 3 foot rule? Not necessary on a street with a bike only lane. The lane markings dictate passing clearance independent of the vehicles involved.

Another: if the cyclist is biased left in the lane (all this at speed), is an overtaking vehicle allowed to pass on the right?

And another: what are the responsibilities for a cyclist to "hold their line" while being overtaken (again, at speed)? In other words, at what point does the responsibility of avoiding an accident shift from the overtaker to the overtakee? There is always some point where the pass is inevitable but the cyclist still has time to swerve in front. Since this is all happening behind the cyclist, who is responsible for avoiding the accident if a cyclist suddenly swerves around a pothole into the path of an overtaking car he didn't see approaching?

Remember, these laws must apply to every cyclist on the road, not just the "correct," skilled, vehicular cyclist. Otherwise, you must throw a cycling license into the mix, to ensure a uniform level of training.

Brian Ratliff

05-24-06, 02:37 PM

Are you having trouble reading?

Again, what part of "allowing for higher volumes at higher speeds" do you not understand?

If you're looking for something else, why not cut to the chase and ask me if I agree? Reduce conflicts in traffic? Sure, that too.

Isn't this your criticism of bike only lanes: allowing motorists to pass a cyclist too efficiently? Why is it okay for motorist to motorist interactions and not for motorist to cyclist interactions?

LCI_Brian

05-24-06, 05:53 PM

In contrast, requiring a car to pass a cyclist sharing a lane at speed is a violation of "normal traffic movements" since you must tack on an additional set of "overtaking" rules to cover all forms of shared lane interaction.
You don't need to tack on an additional set of rules, these have been around since traffic law was first written. Overtaking must be done on the left at a safe distance without interfering with the operation of the overtaken vehicle. The overtakee must not interfere with the overtaking. Check your state's laws for the exact wording.

For instance, the 3 foot rule? Not necessary on a street with a bike only lane.
Not necessary with or without a bike only lane, due to the above laws. (Unless you want to define "safe" as at least 3 feet, but that's another can of worms we don't need to get into here.)

The lane markings dictate passing clearance independent of the vehicles involved.
Lane markings do not relieve drivers from the duty to pass at a safe distance! But it just so happens that on an interstate highway, for example, that the lane widths and speed differentials are such that everybody generally stays centered in lanes and that provides for enough safe passing distance without additional lateral movements.

However, the carpool lanes on freeways here can sometimes be much faster than the other travel lanes. Older designs here had just a lane line separation between the carpool lane and the "fast" lane, but newer designs often have a striped shoulder between them. I believe that's to provide additional passing clearance for when the carpool lane is freeflowing and other traffic lanes are jammed.

You could put a striped shoulder between the rightmost travel lane and the bike lane, but that introduces a whole new set of problems.

Another: if the cyclist is biased left in the lane (all this at speed), is an overtaking vehicle allowed to pass on the right?
Again, this is already defined in traffic law, and is allowed under certain circumstances.

And another: what are the responsibilities for a cyclist to "hold their line" while being overtaken (again, at speed)?
Already defined, see above.

Helmet Head

05-24-06, 06:18 PM

Thanks LCI_Brian. I was running out of time and energy. FWIW, I agree with all of what LCI just wrote.

Bottom line, while some of the advantages of lane stripes may appear to apply to bike lanes in theory, in practice, the violations of normal traffic movements that are imposed by bike lanes (in particular disallowing travel in it to most of those who need to cross it) are disadvantages that outweigh the advantages.

At major intersections where a significant number of cars need to cross the bike lane, the bike lane widens to allow cars to merge into it.

The minor midblock intersections where the occasional but unexpected vehicle needs to enter or exit across the bike lane is the problem, not the major intersections prior to which bike lanes usually end anyway.

It is in your theory where these "violations" become a big deal to you.

On a normal road (without toy lanes) motorists merge into the right most lane before they slow and turn right into a midblock driveway or alley. When they need to go back on, they turn right into the lane, then merge left.

When you add toy lanes to such a road, the normal traffic movements break down. Now the right turner merges into the rightmost real lane, but not in the righmost area of the road that can carry traffic - the toy lane.

Cyclists who ride too far to the right are already particularly prone to these types of collisions. Why sanction this dangerous area officially as the correct place for them to be?

galen_52657

05-24-06, 07:19 PM

derath

05-24-06, 10:40 PM

False and false.

We have virtually no bike lanes in Maryland I never pull over for people behind me. It is the overtaking vehicle's responsibility to figure out when it is safe to pass at all times regardless of bike lanes.

Oh yea, that's why I always have trouble with the BL arguments. I have never gotten to use any. Out where I ride near my house I am happy when I have a shoulder.

-

Bekologist

05-24-06, 10:57 PM

mr head, when you ride in a bike lane, and we all know you do, are they toy lanes then? your insincerity is loathsome.

Helmet Head

05-25-06, 06:21 PM

mr head, when you ride in a bike lane, and we all know you do, are they toy lanes then?
Yes. By the way, I don't "use" bike lanes. If a bike lane happens to demarcate the appropriate space for me to ride in a given situation, then I will use that space, but I have no use for the stripe that demarcates it. Like most cyclists and motorists, I ignore the stripe, and travel as if it does not exist, often on it or right next it, with part of my bike and me straddling the adjacent real lane. If anything, bike lanes are useless.

Yes, bike lanes are not real lanes; they are toy lanes, whether I happen to be riding in it or not.

Bekologist

05-25-06, 11:38 PM

yeah, whatever. you don't recoginize the legitimacy of roadway striping that benefits cyclists, but you benefit from that dedicated roadway space when appropriate to your riding style. regardless of if you legitimize the lanes in your notions or not.

Helmet Head

05-26-06, 09:48 AM

you don't recoginize the legitimacy of roadway striping that benefits cyclists,
Because no one can explain how bike lane striping benefits cyclists.

but you benefit from that dedicated roadway space when appropriate to your riding style. regardless of if you legitimize the lanes in your notions or not.
We don't benefit from that roadway space being dedicated to cyclists by the bike lane stripe; we benefit from the space that is created by the painting of the left lane stripe 14 or more feet from the outside edge of the road - this benefit has nothing to do with dedicated bike lane striping. The same benefit exists regardless of the presence of the bike lane stripe. All the bike lane stripe adds to the situation are disadvantagous for the cyclist. The only advantages are reaped by the motorist - who can now more easily ignore the presence of the cyclist. I don't have a big problem with making driving even more mindless for the motorists, but not when it comes with such a cost for cyclists.

Brian R, is there a key question you still want answered here that I've missed?

SouthTJ

05-26-06, 10:12 AM

Helmet Head, would it be better if the street were the same width but without the BL markings effectively making the right most lane wide enough for a car and a bike to travel on?

Helmet Head

05-26-06, 10:20 AM

Helmet Head, would it be better if the street were the same width but without the BL markings effectively making the right most lane wide enough for a car and a bike to travel on?
I certainly think so. We call those "wide outside lanes", or WOLs, and I find they provide all the advantages of BLs for cyclists, without any of the disadvantages of BLs. That's what this thread is about.

Sometimes the term WCL (Wide Curb Lane) is used as well. Same thing.

Bekologist

05-26-06, 10:27 AM

Because no one can explain how bike lane striping benefits cyclists.

We don't benefit from that roadway space being dedicated to cyclists by the bike lane stripe

sounds like a broad faced denial of the facts, head.....

public roads and buffer zones are valuable public space and should be designed for all users to share without conflict.

well accomodated roadways with wheels on the ground striping that benefits cyclists has more actual and physical presense than methods or techniques alone will provide.

velotransit accomodations provide speed and destination appropriate positioning for all roadway users and provide for mixing when necessary. velotransit lanes demarcate the a priori default 'sweet spot' for cyclists, buffered from the door zone, edge of roadway or egresses. velotransit provides preferential lanes of travel in the presence of heavy petrol congestion, and demarcates the sweet spot on the roadway in the absense of petrol traffic.

as is the limitiations with all lanes, a cyclist should be free to modify their lane positions and free movement between all lanes, as their unique-in time-situations require.

just because critics don't like velotransit accomodations isn't a compelling enough reason to fail to design public space for all users.

in addition to the above mentioned advantages, velotransit in a community encourages destination positioning by bicyclists and drivers' recognition of bicyclists in destination positions, even on roadways velotransit accomodations are absent.

Velotransit encourages more cyclists to try vehicular cycling, increases quality of life and property values, and provides for greater visibility of cyclists in a community.

just because a certain, very small segment of bicyclists chestbeat and testosteronize their pledge they are tough enough and strong enough to never actually need a painted stripe on the road to help them out is not a compelling enough reason to illegitimize velotransit.

Heck, i've read in A&S some of the rightous critics think over %99 percent of bicyclists are riding incorrectly anyways, maybe some roadway stripes that benefit bicyclists would be a good thing.

SouthTJ

05-26-06, 12:00 PM

I certainly think so. We call those "wide outside lanes", or WOLs, and I find they provide all the advantages of BLs for cyclists, without any of the disadvantages of BLs. That's what this thread is about.

Sometimes the term WCL (Wide Curb Lane) is used as well. Same thing.

Thanks, I wondered what that stood for.

Helmet Head

05-26-06, 01:03 PM

sounds like a broad faced denial of the facts, head.....

public roads and buffer zones are valuable public space and should be designed for all users to share without conflict.

Assertion without basis. Frankly, I'm not even sure what it means.

well accomodated roadways with wheels on the ground striping that benefits cyclists has more actual and physical presense than methods or techniques alone will provide.

Asserting that "well accomodated roadways with wheels on the ground striping" benefits cyclists doe snot make it so. Claiming that a segregated-from-vehicular-traffic facility where motorists have little to no reason to pay attention "has more actual and physical presense than methods or techniques [that a cyclist can use to be conspicuous to motorists while integrated with traffic] alone will provide" is dubious at best.

velotransit accomodations provide speed and destination appropriate positioning for all roadway users and provide for mixing when necessary.

Depending on your definition of "destination appropriate positioning". Positioning that is segregated from space used by all other traffic for the particular destination is by definition inappropriate as far as I'm concerned, for it puts the cyclist in an inherently inconspicuous space that is contrarty to predictability because traffic headed for that destination is expected to be elsewhere. It makes cyclists an exception, and that can make their positioning a surprise. In traffic, surprises are not good things.

velotransit lanes demarcate the a priori default 'sweet spot' for cyclists, buffered from the door zone, edge of roadway or egresses. velotransit provides preferential lanes of travel in the presence of heavy petrol congestion, and demarcates the sweet spot on the roadway in the absense of petrol traffic.

Yeah, bike lanes put the cyclist into the "sweet spot" for being inconspicuous and unnoticed.

as is the limitiations with all lanes, a cyclist should be free to modify their lane positions and free movement between all lanes, as their unique-in time-situations require.
The presence of a BIKE lane naturally often makes anyone on a BIKE who is not in the BIKE lane feel and look like he is doing something wrong. If you're not supposed to be in the BIKE lane, why would you call it a BIKE lane?

just because critics don't like velotransit accomodations isn't a compelling enough reason to fail to design public space for all users.
Agreed. But the REASONS why critics don't like bike lanes IS plenty of reason for anyone who can think clearly to oppose bike lanes.

in addition to the above mentioned advantages,
Sorry, I, for one, didn't see ANY advantages mentioned.

velotransit in a community encourages destination positioning by bicyclists and drivers' recognition of bicyclists in destination positions, even on roadways velotransit accomodations are absent.

I'll give you this one. Bike lanes to the left of RTO lanes in particular do indicate to the biggest morons out there that cyclists do not necessarily belong in the gutter or on the sidewalk. If we had just a few of these sprinkled around here and there, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. But this tiny little political advantage hardly addresses the LONG, LONG list of serious problems associated with bike lanes, some of which were noted above.

Velotransit encourages more cyclists to try vehicular cycling, increases quality of life and property values, and provides for greater visibility of cyclists in a community.
The lanes actually encourage deferential cycling, if anything, not vehicular cycling. The fairly widely held idea that cyclists should not be on roads without bike lanes would not exist if it were not for bike lanes. There is no evidence that bike lanes increase cycling. Separate bikeways, maybe. But not bike lanes on the street.

just because a certain, very small segment of bicyclists chestbeat and testosteronize their pledge they are tough enough and strong enough to never actually need a painted stripe on the road to help them out is not a compelling enough reason to illegitimize velotransit.
Agreed. But the compelling reasons that form the basis for their views is plenty of reason to oppose bike lanes for anyone who thinks clearly about this topic. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about this.

Heck, i've read in A&S some of the rightous critics think over %99 percent of bicyclists are riding incorrectly anyways, maybe some roadway stripes that benefit bicyclists would be a good thing.
If only bike lanes would actually benefit cyclists rather than reinforce their style of unsafe positioning and mindless approach to cycling on roads, maybe you would be on to something. But they don't, and you're not.