sbhikes
Which do you prefer?
Which do you prefer?
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
CommuterRun
Prefer A.
Will use B if traffic is backed up mutiple light cycles, if the bike lane or paved shoulder is well maintained and free of debris, if the BL or PS continues so that vehicles I pass can pass me later without changing their line, etc. I will also use B to allow faster traffic to pass if the bike lane or paved shoulder is well maintained and free of debris.
My meaning of well maintained is as good or better than the road surface in the traffic lane.
Will use B if traffic is backed up mutiple light cycles, if the bike lane or paved shoulder is well maintained and free of debris, if the BL or PS continues so that vehicles I pass can pass me later without changing their line, etc. I will also use B to allow faster traffic to pass if the bike lane or paved shoulder is well maintained and free of debris.
My meaning of well maintained is as good or better than the road surface in the traffic lane.
UmneyDurak
I'm assuming cars are stopped at the light. I do the second option. With first one by the time light turns green there will be cars behind you. They already will be on age that some light dares to stop their motion, now there is a cyclist that is in front of them and how dare he/she can't accelerate to 50mph in 3 seconds. Just inviting Road Rage attack. With option 2, you can get up to speed without interfering with traffic, then take the lane if necessary.
rando
B. of course. (for me)
-=Łem in Pa=-
Option B.
It facilitates filtering to the front and abreviating
stop lite time.
It facilitates filtering to the front and abreviating
stop lite time.
donnamb
Either is fine with me, and I have both on my work commute route. I do not like B at all when there is a right turn lane to the right of the bike lane, or if the right car lane has a bunch of cars waiting to make a right turn. Then I ignore the bike lane and go with the A approach.
Helmet Head
Not enough information to answer.
Is traffic stopped, or moving? If moving, how fast? Is the terrain flat, uphill, or downhill? Is there a gap behind the yellow car? Are there any intersections (including driveways or alleys) within the 500' in front of the red car?
I could prefer either, depending on the answers to these questions.
Assuming traffic is moving 25 mph or faster (but below 40), and there are no intersections, and there are no gaps, I would prefer being to the right, as pictured in the diagram on the right.
But if traffic is moving slower than 25, and the terrain is flat, OR
there is a gap behind the last car, OR
we're approaching an intersection, I would prefer the diagram on the left.
If traffic is moving above 40 mph, my answer is the same as above, except if there are no gaps, I would not merge left even if approaching a intersection unless I noticed in my mirror that someone behind was preparing to turn right at the intersection. As soon as I see someone signal right, or slow down, in a situation like this, I signal left, negotiate if necessary, and merge left. I only keep to the right at intersection approaches and as I cross them if I'm being passed by a constant/gapless stream of 40+ mph traffic.
I think both of your threads today are very revealing about how you think of traffic situations. Apparently, you believe that, in general, there is one correct place for a particular type of cyclist on any given stretch of road. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to discount the factors I've pointed out here as being irrelevant in the positioning decisiion process (this is implied by the fact that you did not specify any of these conditions). As long as you continue to think this way, you will never understand, much less appreciate, the arguments of the integrated vehicular cyclist.
By the way, I've been thinking about our big difference, our two views of vehicular cycling. Your interpretation seems to be, "as long as you're not disobeying the law, you're cycling vehicularly". That's a much broader definition than Forester's, who calls for behing visible and predictable as well as being leter-of-the-law legal. In fact, behing visible and predictable trumps being legal in his version.
Perhaps the two flavors of vc can be differentiated by the terms integrated vehicular cycling (what Forester, John S. Allen, John Franklin, Roody, Al (noisebeam), I and a few others BF members use and promote) and segregated vehicular cycling (what you, Brian R, Beck and many others promote).
Is traffic stopped, or moving? If moving, how fast? Is the terrain flat, uphill, or downhill? Is there a gap behind the yellow car? Are there any intersections (including driveways or alleys) within the 500' in front of the red car?
I could prefer either, depending on the answers to these questions.
Assuming traffic is moving 25 mph or faster (but below 40), and there are no intersections, and there are no gaps, I would prefer being to the right, as pictured in the diagram on the right.
But if traffic is moving slower than 25, and the terrain is flat, OR
there is a gap behind the last car, OR
we're approaching an intersection, I would prefer the diagram on the left.
If traffic is moving above 40 mph, my answer is the same as above, except if there are no gaps, I would not merge left even if approaching a intersection unless I noticed in my mirror that someone behind was preparing to turn right at the intersection. As soon as I see someone signal right, or slow down, in a situation like this, I signal left, negotiate if necessary, and merge left. I only keep to the right at intersection approaches and as I cross them if I'm being passed by a constant/gapless stream of 40+ mph traffic.
I think both of your threads today are very revealing about how you think of traffic situations. Apparently, you believe that, in general, there is one correct place for a particular type of cyclist on any given stretch of road. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to discount the factors I've pointed out here as being irrelevant in the positioning decisiion process (this is implied by the fact that you did not specify any of these conditions). As long as you continue to think this way, you will never understand, much less appreciate, the arguments of the integrated vehicular cyclist.
By the way, I've been thinking about our big difference, our two views of vehicular cycling. Your interpretation seems to be, "as long as you're not disobeying the law, you're cycling vehicularly". That's a much broader definition than Forester's, who calls for behing visible and predictable as well as being leter-of-the-law legal. In fact, behing visible and predictable trumps being legal in his version.
Perhaps the two flavors of vc can be differentiated by the terms integrated vehicular cycling (what Forester, John S. Allen, John Franklin, Roody, Al (noisebeam), I and a few others BF members use and promote) and segregated vehicular cycling (what you, Brian R, Beck and many others promote).
Bekologist
it's FROGGER!
what is this jibberjabberish segregationism I'm purported to endorse? i believe velotransit makes for more bikeable communities. that is different from my riding style.none of it is by any means 'segregationist'. are there some kind of jim crow law overtones from using a bike lane?
how's grandma going to prefer riding her trike to the walmart- at 8 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour narrow traffic lane, or in an integrated velotransit lane?
Mixed bike friendly systems that enable and encourage more bicyclists is the goal; bike lanes, sharrows, wide outside lanes, bike racks on buses, driver education, etc, all comprise a mixed approach to encouraging more bicyclists to be, well, biking.
i consider notions to get cyclists to ignore velotransit to make a obligatory statement about vehicular parity delusional.
parity ain't nothing in front of the meth addled soccer mom missing her alimony payment for two months straight- or the logger on the evil jag, with a poorly chained overloaded trailer of mixed sticks.
it is terribly presumptous to demand a certain style of riding from all riders.
A mixed system of velotransit accomodations appropriate to the municipality IS the anwser. And generally using these systems, while not being required to use them, is the way to endorse veloaccomodation, not ignoring velotrans to make some kind of poorly understood statement-
a poorly understood statement more likely to convince drivers even further that bicyclists have no clue what we are doing.
some of the car training 'rvs as bikes' advocats here think over %99 percent of bicyclists are riding 'incorrectly;'
I would never endorse requiring the %99 percent of cyclists that to take tests or something until they pass the L. Ron Helmet test.
In this puzzler, I prefer option B, of course, because i have no way of knowing which way anyone is travelling.in option B I am in my own lane on a bike.
...generally not in conflict with automobile traffic, that makes for an 'easier' negotiation of roadway space than being in constant potential conflict of the petrol traffic. Option B.
what is this jibberjabberish segregationism I'm purported to endorse? i believe velotransit makes for more bikeable communities. that is different from my riding style.none of it is by any means 'segregationist'. are there some kind of jim crow law overtones from using a bike lane?
how's grandma going to prefer riding her trike to the walmart- at 8 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour narrow traffic lane, or in an integrated velotransit lane?
Mixed bike friendly systems that enable and encourage more bicyclists is the goal; bike lanes, sharrows, wide outside lanes, bike racks on buses, driver education, etc, all comprise a mixed approach to encouraging more bicyclists to be, well, biking.
i consider notions to get cyclists to ignore velotransit to make a obligatory statement about vehicular parity delusional.
parity ain't nothing in front of the meth addled soccer mom missing her alimony payment for two months straight- or the logger on the evil jag, with a poorly chained overloaded trailer of mixed sticks.
it is terribly presumptous to demand a certain style of riding from all riders.
A mixed system of velotransit accomodations appropriate to the municipality IS the anwser. And generally using these systems, while not being required to use them, is the way to endorse veloaccomodation, not ignoring velotrans to make some kind of poorly understood statement-
a poorly understood statement more likely to convince drivers even further that bicyclists have no clue what we are doing.
some of the car training 'rvs as bikes' advocats here think over %99 percent of bicyclists are riding 'incorrectly;'
I would never endorse requiring the %99 percent of cyclists that to take tests or something until they pass the L. Ron Helmet test.
In this puzzler, I prefer option B, of course, because i have no way of knowing which way anyone is travelling.in option B I am in my own lane on a bike.
...generally not in conflict with automobile traffic, that makes for an 'easier' negotiation of roadway space than being in constant potential conflict of the petrol traffic. Option B.
sgtsmile
Not enough information to answer.
Is traffic stopped, or moving? If moving, how fast? Is the terrain flat, uphill, or downhill? Is there a gap behind the yellow car? Are there any intersections (including driveways or alleys) within the 500' in front of the red car?
I could prefer either, depending on the answers to these questions.
Assuming traffic is moving 25 mph or faster (but below 40), and there are no intersections, and there are no gaps, I would prefer being to the right, as pictured in the diagram on the right.
But if traffic is moving slower than 25, and the terrain is flat, OR
there is a gap behind the last car, OR
we're approaching an intersection, I would prefer the diagram on the left.
If traffic is moving above 40 mph, my answer is the same as above, except if there are no gaps, I would not merge left even if approaching a intersection unless I noticed in my mirror that someone behind was preparing to turn right at the intersection. As soon as I see someone signal right, or slow down, in a situation like this, I signal left, negotiate if necessary, and merge left. I only keep to the right at intersection approaches and as I cross them if I'm being passed by a constant/gapless stream of 40+ mph traffic.
I think both of your threads today are very revealing about how you think of traffic situations. Apparently, you believe that, in general, there is one correct place for a particular type of cyclist on any given stretch of road. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to discount the factors I've pointed out here as being irrelevant in the positioning decisiion process (this is implied by the fact that you did not specify any of these conditions). As long as you continue to think this way, you will never understand, much less appreciate, the arguments of the integrated vehicular cyclist.
By the way, I've been thinking about our big difference, our two views of vehicular cycling. Your interpretation seems to be, "as long as you're not disobeying the law, you're cycling vehicularly". That's a much broader definition than Forester's, who calls for behing visible and predictable as well as being leter-of-the-law legal. In fact, behing visible and predictable trumps being legal in his version.
Perhaps the two flavors of vc can be differentiated by the terms integrated vehicular cycling (what Forester, John S. Allen, John Franklin, Roody, Al (noisebeam), I and a few others BF members use and promote) and segregated vehicular cycling (what you, Brian R, Beck and many others promote).
I agree with you until we hit the end of the bold text. You were doing so well until you started telling people what they think!!! Up until then, it was excellent practical advice. Sadly, it then turned to a discussion of what vc means, as if that actually matters in traffic. What matters, I think, is people having good traffic survival skill sets and being flexible enough to adapt to the situation (which is what the bold text promotes....)
To the OP: I agree with most posters on the thread - which position to be in depends on traffic volume and speed and what I need/intend to do (just like what lane I drive in while in the car depends on what I need and what traffic around me is doing). I dont think that there is any kind of hard and fast method of driving in traffic that works every time. Many techniques and options is what works best I think.
Is traffic stopped, or moving? If moving, how fast? Is the terrain flat, uphill, or downhill? Is there a gap behind the yellow car? Are there any intersections (including driveways or alleys) within the 500' in front of the red car?
I could prefer either, depending on the answers to these questions.
Assuming traffic is moving 25 mph or faster (but below 40), and there are no intersections, and there are no gaps, I would prefer being to the right, as pictured in the diagram on the right.
But if traffic is moving slower than 25, and the terrain is flat, OR
there is a gap behind the last car, OR
we're approaching an intersection, I would prefer the diagram on the left.
If traffic is moving above 40 mph, my answer is the same as above, except if there are no gaps, I would not merge left even if approaching a intersection unless I noticed in my mirror that someone behind was preparing to turn right at the intersection. As soon as I see someone signal right, or slow down, in a situation like this, I signal left, negotiate if necessary, and merge left. I only keep to the right at intersection approaches and as I cross them if I'm being passed by a constant/gapless stream of 40+ mph traffic.
I think both of your threads today are very revealing about how you think of traffic situations. Apparently, you believe that, in general, there is one correct place for a particular type of cyclist on any given stretch of road. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to discount the factors I've pointed out here as being irrelevant in the positioning decisiion process (this is implied by the fact that you did not specify any of these conditions). As long as you continue to think this way, you will never understand, much less appreciate, the arguments of the integrated vehicular cyclist.
By the way, I've been thinking about our big difference, our two views of vehicular cycling. Your interpretation seems to be, "as long as you're not disobeying the law, you're cycling vehicularly". That's a much broader definition than Forester's, who calls for behing visible and predictable as well as being leter-of-the-law legal. In fact, behing visible and predictable trumps being legal in his version.
Perhaps the two flavors of vc can be differentiated by the terms integrated vehicular cycling (what Forester, John S. Allen, John Franklin, Roody, Al (noisebeam), I and a few others BF members use and promote) and segregated vehicular cycling (what you, Brian R, Beck and many others promote).
I agree with you until we hit the end of the bold text. You were doing so well until you started telling people what they think!!! Up until then, it was excellent practical advice. Sadly, it then turned to a discussion of what vc means, as if that actually matters in traffic. What matters, I think, is people having good traffic survival skill sets and being flexible enough to adapt to the situation (which is what the bold text promotes....)
To the OP: I agree with most posters on the thread - which position to be in depends on traffic volume and speed and what I need/intend to do (just like what lane I drive in while in the car depends on what I need and what traffic around me is doing). I dont think that there is any kind of hard and fast method of driving in traffic that works every time. Many techniques and options is what works best I think.
LandLuger
This thread interests me because I just recently discovered bike lanes in the city that I'm visiting; it's a true country hick goes to the big city situation. Initially I was thrilled to discover pavement devoted solely to my beloved bicycle, but I quickly found that "B" situations have hazards all their own. I was almost run down by a soccer mom in a black Tahoe--complete with bicycle racks on the trailer hitch--who pulled out from a side driveway on top of me. I was ready and escaped to the main lane. I also don't like riding the fast street tires across all the glass and debris. So now I practice "A" until overtaking traffic approaches and I "feel" safe yielding to the bicycle lane.
LandLuger
This thread interests me because I just recently discovered bike lanes in the city that I'm visiting; it's a true country hick goes to the big city situation. Initially I was thrilled to discover pavement devoted solely to my beloved bicycle, but I quickly found that "B" situations have hazards all their own. I was almost run down by a soccer mom in a black Tahoe--complete with bicycle racks on the trailer hitch--who pulled out from a side driveway on top of me. I was ready and escaped to the main lane. I also don't like riding the fast street tires across all the glass and debris. So now I practice "A" until overtaking traffic approaches and I "feel" safe yielding to the bicycle lane.
BTW, I was on my 3spd folding DF not my lowracer.
BTW, I was on my 3spd folding DF not my lowracer.
sbhikes
Transit:
transportation system: a facility consisting of the means and equipment necessary for the movement of passengers or goods
Is a system that moves more passengers or goods better than one that moves less?
Assuming a typical scenario of one person per car, situation B seems to be moving more passengers more quickly than A and using less space to do it. The cyclist in A seems to be taking up as much space as the motorists in A. He's really just one more car, not one less car.
We all keep thinking about this from an individual point of view. What is best for me. How about a systemic point of view, where the issues at stake are congestion relief, pollution, resource management, and even global warming? Is there a difference now in these two pictures? If you don't like B, could a better system be devised, that moves even more passengers and goods? What would it look like?
transportation system: a facility consisting of the means and equipment necessary for the movement of passengers or goods
Is a system that moves more passengers or goods better than one that moves less?
Assuming a typical scenario of one person per car, situation B seems to be moving more passengers more quickly than A and using less space to do it. The cyclist in A seems to be taking up as much space as the motorists in A. He's really just one more car, not one less car.
We all keep thinking about this from an individual point of view. What is best for me. How about a systemic point of view, where the issues at stake are congestion relief, pollution, resource management, and even global warming? Is there a difference now in these two pictures? If you don't like B, could a better system be devised, that moves even more passengers and goods? What would it look like?
Roody
Transit:
transportation system: a facility consisting of the means and equipment necessary for the movement of passengers or goods
Is a system that moves more passengers or goods better than one that moves less?
Assuming a typical scenario of one person per car, situation B seems to be moving more passengers more quickly than A and using less space to do it. The cyclist in A seems to be taking up as much space as the motorists in A. He's really just one more car, not one less car.
We all keep thinking about this from an individual point of view. What is best for me. How about a systemic point of view, where the issues at stake are congestion relief, pollution, resource management, and even global warming? Is there a difference now in these two pictures? If you don't like B, could a better system be devised, that moves even more passengers and goods? What would it look like?Forget about bikes for a second.
From a systemic point of view, you are totally contradicting yourself. If we make roads move faster for single occupant motor vehicles, then we are only encouraging more and faster single occupant motor vehicles. That does not jibe with your own goal of reducing congestion, pollution, inefficient resource management and global warming.
Instead, you should work toward traffic designs that slow down cars and discourage driving. If we now bring bikes back into the equation, I could picture traffic-slowing being done with either bike lanes that steal space from motor vehicles, or with large numbers of bikes ridden vehicularly in regular traffic lanes.
transportation system: a facility consisting of the means and equipment necessary for the movement of passengers or goods
Is a system that moves more passengers or goods better than one that moves less?
Assuming a typical scenario of one person per car, situation B seems to be moving more passengers more quickly than A and using less space to do it. The cyclist in A seems to be taking up as much space as the motorists in A. He's really just one more car, not one less car.
We all keep thinking about this from an individual point of view. What is best for me. How about a systemic point of view, where the issues at stake are congestion relief, pollution, resource management, and even global warming? Is there a difference now in these two pictures? If you don't like B, could a better system be devised, that moves even more passengers and goods? What would it look like?Forget about bikes for a second.
From a systemic point of view, you are totally contradicting yourself. If we make roads move faster for single occupant motor vehicles, then we are only encouraging more and faster single occupant motor vehicles. That does not jibe with your own goal of reducing congestion, pollution, inefficient resource management and global warming.
Instead, you should work toward traffic designs that slow down cars and discourage driving. If we now bring bikes back into the equation, I could picture traffic-slowing being done with either bike lanes that steal space from motor vehicles, or with large numbers of bikes ridden vehicularly in regular traffic lanes.
sbhikes
Instead, you should work toward traffic designs that slow down cars and discourage driving. If we now bring bikes back into the equation, I could picture traffic-slowing being done with either bike lanes that steal space from motor vehicles, or with large numbers of bikes ridden vehicularly in regular traffic lanes.
Ok, how about we make half the lanes really skinny--take one lane away and turn it into 3 tiny lanes perhaps--and then say those lanes can be used by bicycles or little tiny cars that fit only one person, but not full-sized autos.
Without some way of preventing the bigger cars from getting in there and taking up all the space, it might be hard to get them out of the way.
Ok, how about we make half the lanes really skinny--take one lane away and turn it into 3 tiny lanes perhaps--and then say those lanes can be used by bicycles or little tiny cars that fit only one person, but not full-sized autos.
Without some way of preventing the bigger cars from getting in there and taking up all the space, it might be hard to get them out of the way.
caloso
It depends. (I guess that's the same answer as HH, but with 97% fewer words.)
cudak888
I really shake my head as to why there aren't more cycle highways out there.
Heck, if you want to slow down motorists, place the bike highway in the center of all medians, requiring a re-timing of all street lights to accomodate the "intersection within an intersection." Lights would run around 1/3 slower when all is said and done, due to independent left turns for both bike lane and automobiles.
See picture. I forgot to add the green left turn arrows - will do that when I detail this thing up a tad better.
Take care,
-Kurt
Heck, if you want to slow down motorists, place the bike highway in the center of all medians, requiring a re-timing of all street lights to accomodate the "intersection within an intersection." Lights would run around 1/3 slower when all is said and done, due to independent left turns for both bike lane and automobiles.
See picture. I forgot to add the green left turn arrows - will do that when I detail this thing up a tad better.
Take care,
-Kurt
Helmet Head
You were doing so well until you started telling people what they think!!!
I wasn't telling people (in general) what they think. I was openly surmising ("maybe I'm wrong...") about what one particular person thinks, based on not only this OP, but her other recent OP, and a couple of years of ongoing discussion.
The part you put in bold addresses this OP directly. The part you did not embolden addresses my ongoing discussion with Diane (though this time she's apparently not participating).
Plus, overall we are all discussing issues here about which it is difficult to gather definitive data, yet we hold strong convictions. Why? What assumptions are underlying each of our convictions? What are those assumptions based on? If we dig deep enough, can we find common ground? How are each of our convictions consistent or inconsistent with our shared assumptions? These are the questions, I, for one, am exploring in this forum. How about you?
I wasn't telling people (in general) what they think. I was openly surmising ("maybe I'm wrong...") about what one particular person thinks, based on not only this OP, but her other recent OP, and a couple of years of ongoing discussion.
The part you put in bold addresses this OP directly. The part you did not embolden addresses my ongoing discussion with Diane (though this time she's apparently not participating).
Plus, overall we are all discussing issues here about which it is difficult to gather definitive data, yet we hold strong convictions. Why? What assumptions are underlying each of our convictions? What are those assumptions based on? If we dig deep enough, can we find common ground? How are each of our convictions consistent or inconsistent with our shared assumptions? These are the questions, I, for one, am exploring in this forum. How about you?
billh
A if other traffic is moving <15mph. Otherwise B.
billh
what is this jibberjabberish segregationism I'm purported to endorse?
. . . yeah that was a low blow.
. . . yeah that was a low blow.
Helmet Head
When one promotes "velotransit" facilities that segregate bicycle traffic from other vehicular traffic, then why is it "jibber jabber" or a "low blow" to refer to that as segregationism?
If you have a better name, perhaps you should lobby for a Wikipedia article name change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities
But as long as the internet community is accepting that term as the one that is used to describe what Beck supports, than who am I to start using some other term?
If you have a better name, perhaps you should lobby for a Wikipedia article name change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities
But as long as the internet community is accepting that term as the one that is used to describe what Beck supports, than who am I to start using some other term?
chipcom
I like A - B gets me dodging road kill, trash and right hooks. Besides, I like it when the gals glance in the mirror to check their makeup and see me making monkey faces at them.
JohnBrooking
Stopped at a light, no more than 1 cycle behind, A for sure. More visible to the person behind me, and minimizing worry about having someone beside me and what they will do. I have never experienced any road rage problem in this situation. (As I've surmised before, motorists might be more tolerant here than elsewhere.)
If moving - B, assuming adequate shoulder in adequate shape. If not, probably somewhere in the right-hand third of the lane, depending on the road and its conditions.
If moving - B, assuming adequate shoulder in adequate shape. If not, probably somewhere in the right-hand third of the lane, depending on the road and its conditions.
webist
I use both on occasion though I seem to spend more time as a B.
Helmet Head
Transit:
transportation system: a facility consisting of the means and equipment necessary for the movement of passengers or goods
Is a system that moves more passengers or goods better than one that moves less?
Assuming a typical scenario of one person per car, situation B seems to be moving more passengers more quickly than A and using less space to do it. The cyclist in A seems to be taking up as much space as the motorists in A. He's really just one more car, not one less car.
We all keep thinking about this from an individual point of view. What is best for me.
Perhaps this is true when you are speaking for yourself. In case you're not aware, one of Forester's book is called Bicycle Transportation Engineering. I'm quite certain you have not read it, even if you are aware of it. Anyway, It addresses how bicycle traffic is best handled from a systemic transportation engineering point of view. Such is the perspective of intergrated vehicular cycling advocacy. Various papers on John Franklin's website also address these issues from this perspective.
How about a systemic point of view, where the issues at stake are congestion relief, pollution, resource management, and even global warming? Is there a difference now in these two pictures? If you don't like B, could a better system be devised, that moves even more passengers and goods? What would it look like?
The only system that might be better is one that is truly segregated. My personal preference would be to underground all motor traffic, and leave surface transportation to peds and cyclists. But barring total segregation like that, the only realistic alternatives are integration or partial segregation.
I support segregation like "bike highways", but only if our rights to integrate with vehicular traffic are not compromised in return for getting these limited highways.
But the idea that segregating cycle traffic on the road as suggested by B in your diagram is somehow more efficient is only true on particularly long stretches of intersectionless roadway that are virtually non-existent in the urban and suburban environments we're mostly talking about here.
transportation system: a facility consisting of the means and equipment necessary for the movement of passengers or goods
Is a system that moves more passengers or goods better than one that moves less?
Assuming a typical scenario of one person per car, situation B seems to be moving more passengers more quickly than A and using less space to do it. The cyclist in A seems to be taking up as much space as the motorists in A. He's really just one more car, not one less car.
We all keep thinking about this from an individual point of view. What is best for me.
Perhaps this is true when you are speaking for yourself. In case you're not aware, one of Forester's book is called Bicycle Transportation Engineering. I'm quite certain you have not read it, even if you are aware of it. Anyway, It addresses how bicycle traffic is best handled from a systemic transportation engineering point of view. Such is the perspective of intergrated vehicular cycling advocacy. Various papers on John Franklin's website also address these issues from this perspective.
How about a systemic point of view, where the issues at stake are congestion relief, pollution, resource management, and even global warming? Is there a difference now in these two pictures? If you don't like B, could a better system be devised, that moves even more passengers and goods? What would it look like?
The only system that might be better is one that is truly segregated. My personal preference would be to underground all motor traffic, and leave surface transportation to peds and cyclists. But barring total segregation like that, the only realistic alternatives are integration or partial segregation.
I support segregation like "bike highways", but only if our rights to integrate with vehicular traffic are not compromised in return for getting these limited highways.
But the idea that segregating cycle traffic on the road as suggested by B in your diagram is somehow more efficient is only true on particularly long stretches of intersectionless roadway that are virtually non-existent in the urban and suburban environments we're mostly talking about here.
genec
I really shake my head as to why there aren't more cycle highways out there.
Heck, if you want to slow down motorists, place the bike highway in the center of all medians, requiring a re-timing of all street lights to accomodate the "intersection within an intersection." Lights would run around 1/3 slower when all is said and done, due to independent left turns for both bike lane and automobiles.
See picture. I forgot to add the green left turn arrows - will do that when I detail this thing up a tad better.
Take care,
-Kurt
Interesting concept, and something that is somewhat like that exists on the bridges up around Portland. But then there is no need to leave the bridge... one's intent is to cross the bridge.
Which brings up my question... so what if I need to make a left turn mid block from one of those bike lanes... across the green belt and the other road?
Heck, if you want to slow down motorists, place the bike highway in the center of all medians, requiring a re-timing of all street lights to accomodate the "intersection within an intersection." Lights would run around 1/3 slower when all is said and done, due to independent left turns for both bike lane and automobiles.
See picture. I forgot to add the green left turn arrows - will do that when I detail this thing up a tad better.
Take care,
-Kurt
Interesting concept, and something that is somewhat like that exists on the bridges up around Portland. But then there is no need to leave the bridge... one's intent is to cross the bridge.
Which brings up my question... so what if I need to make a left turn mid block from one of those bike lanes... across the green belt and the other road?
Roody
Which brings up my question... so what if I need to make a left turn mid block from one of those bike lanes... across the green belt and the other road?
Or even a right turn, for that matter?
Or even a right turn, for that matter?
Bekologist
velotransit can be built quite effectively into an existing urban grid, head.
no need for vast stretches of intersectionless roadways, the engineers have figured out how to design velotransit bike lanes integrated with the roadway, intersections and all.
no need for vast stretches of intersectionless roadways, the engineers have figured out how to design velotransit bike lanes integrated with the roadway, intersections and all.
Roody
Yes bek, it's lovely. i'm glad you've posted that picture about 42 times. :D
Bekologist
i dont take pictures of every bike lane, rood boy. this is a recent example and a good example as well.
isn't it pretty though?
isn't it pretty though?
Helmet Head
BFD - an ultra-narrow toy lane strip of pavement allocated to cyclists (gee, thanks :rolleyes:) forcing cyclists to the right of where through traffic is actually expected. Way to go. Cyclists would be much better off with the left stripe erased so that we would have a nice wide through lane that each cyclist can choose to control or share as he deems fit for the current factors, conditions and circumstances.
But noooooooo, let's gunbarrel this road so motorists can race down it as if the cyclists are not even there (god forbid they have to slow down or adjust laterally for a bonehead cyclist) and nannify the cyclists - they're all a bunch of incompetent boobs anyway - by telling them exactly where they need to go to stay out of the way of the real users of the road.
Yeah, that's cyclist advocacy. :rolleyes:
But noooooooo, let's gunbarrel this road so motorists can race down it as if the cyclists are not even there (god forbid they have to slow down or adjust laterally for a bonehead cyclist) and nannify the cyclists - they're all a bunch of incompetent boobs anyway - by telling them exactly where they need to go to stay out of the way of the real users of the road.
Yeah, that's cyclist advocacy. :rolleyes:
ken cummings
I prefer software that would let me see more of the attached images. But not to spend the $150.00+ the family Sysop says it would take to see them.
Brian Ratliff
Good job Bek. You've gotten the old man into a child's argument!
Bekologist
bicyclists are not nannyified in the face of 45 mile per hour traffic by having a preferential lane that a) grants buffered, visible, physical roadway space to cyclists and b) works to flow cyclists past congested, jammed, and stop and go traffic, better than a wide outside lane will.
oh, thats right, i forgot, head thinks %99 percent of bicyclists are riding incorrectly....
I disagree a wide outside lane is better in every case. two types of drivers come to mind, much less the angry ones that want to show the bike "who's boss".... everyday, plain jane 'corner crowders' and 'lane lookers' make wide outside lanes in congested traffic more trouble to a cyclists versus a properly bike laned roadway.
however, bike lanes and wide outside lanes are both aspects of velotransit networks integrated into a street grid.
oh, thats right, i forgot, head thinks %99 percent of bicyclists are riding incorrectly....
I disagree a wide outside lane is better in every case. two types of drivers come to mind, much less the angry ones that want to show the bike "who's boss".... everyday, plain jane 'corner crowders' and 'lane lookers' make wide outside lanes in congested traffic more trouble to a cyclists versus a properly bike laned roadway.
however, bike lanes and wide outside lanes are both aspects of velotransit networks integrated into a street grid.
sggoodri
I prefer (A). If I want drivers to pass me without them having to change lanes, (A) is wide enough that I can move to the right, and I effectively get (B) without the stripe. Also, the cars in (A) sweep the whole lane, so the road is cleaner where I ride to the right.
Previous - Top - Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007 BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.