I just realized I'm not really against bike lanes per se.

I'm opposed to the widespread notion that cycling in traffic is inherently unsafe.

I disagree with the idea that "bad drivers" is what makes cycling "so dangerous" (to the extent that cycling is dangerous, it's the bad cyclists that make it so, not the bad drivers).

I'm against claims that bike lanes make cycling safer.

I'm against the idea that cyclists need to be segregated to be safe on the roads.

I'm against the promotion of bike lanes for these reasons.

I'm opposed to the advocacy of bikes lanes for these reasons.

I'm against anything that reinforces the notion that cycling in traffic is much more dangerous than it really is.

But it's hard to do all that without appearing to be against bike lanes. But really, I'm not.

Uhuh suuuuuuure your not .... heheh
Na im guessing this has to do with my deleted post in the other topic. I mis read yourpost so deleted imy reply as it made zero sence.

I personaly would love to see south clevemass's wide shoulder finished from one end to the other and turned into a official bike lane. I dont think that theres a more perfect road to have a bike lane. Few intersections fast trafic but curtious drivers who obviously know cclists are there even when your on that shoulder i often get friendly horn taps and waves. Its just one of those roads where i personaly dont want to even bother slowing trafic down in the least as theres realy no point to.

Now johnson road would be a hidious road for one. Lots of driveways a few roads and in odd alingment speed that varies alot its just a bad choice for a bike lane.

odd... So what reasons would you give in support of bike lanes? Even if your are agnostic, surely there must be something balancing your speculation that bike lanes do not increase safety. Are you saying that bike lanes are harmless? You've contradicted this statement several times. And what of your concept that bike lanes are death traps and the cause of many accidents? Are you having an epiphany? You've said many a strong word against bike lanes for many reasons, only some of them having to do with safety issues.

I've said all along that bike lanes are a traffic flow and right of way issue; clearing these up, I believe, intrinsically makes cycling safer. As for the "bad driver" argument, when the cyclist is competent, then the main threat is the bad or neglegent driver. There is nothing else; except, perhaps, for a lapse in judgement. If the cyclist is incompetent, then bad drivers are but one threat amongst many. Danger is relative.

HH are you sure your name isn't Sam Singer and you're not the new spokesperson for Wendy McCaw, owner of the Santa Barbara News-Press?

I'm not against bike lanes. I'm against unmaintained bike lanes while the road gets resurfaced every five years or so, the bike lane can be once every 20 years. Even in a moderate climate like Los Angeles (no freeze thaw cycle), the asphalt buckles, water gets into cracks and seeds start to sprout.

Bike lanes should be no worse condition than the roads they are next to (yeah that may not be much of an improvement)

Brian, I have nothing to say in support of bike lanes, which are essentially stripes of paint with no utility (as opposed to a real traffic lane stripe which has real utility).

Again, I'm not against bike lanes per se, I'm against what they represent. Not to me, I'm against what they represent to others (see the list in the OP).

I'm against the idea that cyclists need "our own space" on the roadway to be safe or comfortable (which many cyclists feel bike lanes facilitate for them).

I'm against the idea that cyclists need "their own space" to get and stay out of the way of motorists (which many motorists believe bike lanes are for).

I abhor the proliferation of "freeway mentality" ("keep that traffic flowing unobstructed by anyone or anything!") on non-freeway roads (which bike lanes on non-freeway roads reinforce).

If bike lanes did not represent all these anti-cycling notions to others, I'd be okay with them.

Brian, I have nothing to say in support of bike lanes, which are essentially stripes of paint with no utility (as opposed to a real traffic lane stripe which has real utility).

Again, I'm not against bike lanes per se, I'm against what they represent. Not to me, I'm against what they represent to others (see the list in the OP).

I'm against the idea that cyclists need "our own space" on the roadway to be safe or comfortable (which many cyclists feel bike lanes facilitate for them).

I'm against the idea that cyclists need "their own space" to get and stay out of the way of motorists (which many motorists believe bike lanes are for).

I abhor the proliferation of "freeway mentality" ("keep that traffic flowing unobstructed by anyone or anything!") on non-freeway roads (which bike lanes on non-freeway roads reinforce).

If bike lanes did not represent all these anti-cycling notions to others, I'd be okay with them.
Great. So you are against all these things. Please don't equate your personal biases with bicycle advocacy.

You are parcing some thin hairs here. What's your point? For all practical purposes (and you yourself have made this point before) you are against bike lanes in all their incarnations.

You have simply narrowed your protestations against bike lanes to something which is a matter of opinion and personal preference. Your arguments about safety of bike lanes, though I don't agree with your assessments, are valid though overly entwined with the "intrinsic safety" of bike lanes, disregarding that none of the road symbols are perfect and many of what you list as "intrinsic safety issues" are attributable to motorist ignorance, which has a relatively easy solution. What you are now saying, trying to separate the "essense" of bike lanes from their practical implimentation and symbolic meaning is a bit theatrical.

Bike lanes are what they are. Their utility to a cyclist is largely a matter of a particular cyclist. Any notions about "what bike lanes represent" is completely fluid and cannot be used as justification for or against bike lanes. Just as there is no such thing as the "zen" of a stop sign, there is no such thing about the "zen" of a bike lane. It is a traffic control symbol just like any other line of paint on the road. If the symbol is not respected by road users, then the symbol is "with no utility" like you say. If it is respected, then there is an obvious utility. This, unfortunately, can vary from road to road depending on how well the stripes are layed; just as any other traffic symbol. Some work, some don't. The solution for a traffic symbol which is not respected is not to tear it out, but to make it work and enforce the rules regarding it.

So you have now boiled all your arguments down to personal preference. Each of the bullet points in your last post are subjective and are merely indicative of your opinion. There is not a concrete fact or argument amongst them. I take this as a concession on your part. In the end, each of our preference is our own. I support bike lanes because it evens out traffic flow (if the street is already fraught with "freeway mentality," I have no wish to be the "human speed bump" to enforce surface street behavior). Other cyclists (and myself, for that matter) enjoy having the delineated space and the city is willing to provide it. I have the experience and judgement to know when a bike lane is well provided or not, and the skill to deal when the bike lane is misdesigned.

I am an enthusiast. By definition, I do not cycle for true utility, as I have a perfectly good car sitting in my driveway. But I have experience in transportational cycling and can give guidance to other cyclists and pave the way for less experienced cyclists to enjoy cycling more. The needs of "ordinary" cyclists, the ones who cycle out of utility and not ethusiasm, are different than mine. They are the ones who want accomodation; if they want it, I'm cool with that.

The safety thing is a red herring. Safety on the road is a fluid concept which depend on many variables, all of which can be tweaked to produce a desired outcome. Bike lanes have advantages and disadvantages, but people want them. They want bike paths. They want bike boulevards. All traffic facilities, whether the main traffic lanes, bike lanes, stop signs, red lights... everything; these just dictate the environment. How this environment is dealt with by road users depends on the rules; and these rules are fluid as well. Safety is a function of the specific road at a specific place in a specific time.

Finally, the only way for bike lanes to "not represent all these anti-cycling notions to others..." is to build them and teach the population how to use them to their fullest extent. Right? The only way to reach the top of the mountain is to climb it. If this is your only complaint of bike lanes, then it is simply an argument from the position of laziness.

I just realized I'm not really against bike lanes per se.

I'm opposed to the widespread notion that cycling in traffic is inherently unsafe.

I disagree with the idea that "bad drivers" is what makes cycling "so dangerous" (to the extent that cycling is dangerous, it's the bad cyclists that make it so, not the bad drivers).

I'm against claims that bike lanes make cycling safer.

I'm against the idea that cyclists need to be segregated to be safe on the roads.

I'm against the promotion of bike lanes for these reasons.

I'm opposed to the advocacy of bikes lanes for these reasons.

I'm against anything that reinforces the notion that cycling in traffic is much more dangerous than it really is.

But it's hard to do all that without appearing to be against bike lanes. But really, I'm not.


Bike lanes are a solution to a problem that should not exist. However they are often only considered in places where they really are not needed, low traffic streets with wide curb lanes..... Where they could be of service, is the high speed, high traffic arterials, where the lanes are fairly narrow, and the speed differential between the average person on bike and idiot in SUV, can cause safety issues.

However I think that motorized traffic going faster then should be acceptable on city streets, for example if the speed limit was 20MPH instead of 45MPH then not only would it be safer for cyclists, but safer for drivers as well.

Signage could also do wonders, for example right turn out lane signs could have an extra phrase like through cyclists keep left. This not only reminds the cyclist to avoid the turn out lane, but car drivers intending to use the turn out, to check for the cyclist. An overhead sign with a lane going left, two lanes going through and a lane going right to a freeway, could put a cyclist icon over the left and one of the through lanes, to indicate the preferred lanes for cyclists. Again, it also reminds drivers to have a look for cyclists making the appropriate lane changes.

I ride the same road every day. It has a bike lane on it. Day before yesterday they oiled over the street, obscuring the bike lane line. Today there was a lot of congestion on the road so traffic was backed up. And now that you can't see the line, there were a lot of cars stopped in their big line of congestion right over where the line would be, blocking my way. That wouldn't happen if the line was visible, and I know because I ride that road all the time and today isn't the first day there was that kind of congestion.

Bike lanes facilitate my movement through congestion. I find that very useful. When they are gone, it's more dangerous for me to pass on the right. You can't be certain whether the car drivers will hold their line or not.

And in case you are wondering, intersections are few and far between on this road and the speed limit is 35 or 45. Can't remember exactly.

You have simply narrowed your protestations against bike lanes to something which is a matter of opinion and personal preference. Your arguments about safety of bike lanes, though I don't agree with your assessments, are valid though overly entwined with the "intrinsic safety" of bike lanes, disregarding that none of the road symbols are perfect and many of what you list as "intrinsic safety issues" are attributable to motorist ignorance, which has a relatively easy solution. What you are now saying, trying to separate the "essense" of bike lanes from their practical implimentation and symbolic meaning is a bit theatrical.
Two days ago I came upon a right hook that had just happened. The cyclist was wailing in pain on the street as paramedics were trying to get him strapped to a stretcher. You can wax philosophical about motorist ignorance, but in the mean time cyclists like this one was doing are riding along in bike lanes minding their own business, and, like Diane says, often day dreaming in their false sense of bike lane comfort, when a driver oblivious to the existence of the bike lane and potential ramifications they are passing on the right suddenly turns right. This time it was into a hotel driveway entrance. Squash.

That's the grim reality of bike lane induced traffic behavior, Brian. Spilled blood. Injury. Death. You'd think we've discussed enough examples from Portland alone on this forum. Get your head out of the clouds.

I can daydream behind the wheel of a car or on my bike. Which would you prefer?

At least I have more time for it between intersections on my bike.

I'll pick up the bad drivers one: If not bad drivers, what makes driving dangerous? Excluding the usual personal habits which would only result in a single-vehicle accident; one involving no other person or property. Sure, a lane-centered bike is very noticeable to drivers in fast moving traffic as a source of great annoyance for some, or just an unusual obstacle for others, but you can't annoy everyone that much. No, not even you.

:eek:

Wait a minute, is it really that simple?....

Epiphany!

THAT'S IT!!!!!! I finally understand HH's obsession with VC! It's like forum trolling, but in the real world! (at least the way he describes it, it is)

If not bad drivers, what makes driving dangerous?
Driving is not dangerous. Bad driving is dangerous. If you don't drive badly, then driving is very safe.

It's a subtle but sadly underappreciated distinction in our culture.

This distinction is also the hallmark of defensive driving.

i thought you could dispell bad drivers by simple lane positioning tricks, helelmemt..... isn't that an assertion of yours from last week? "I can make bad drivers disapeer by how i drive my bike?"

Yes, Bek, but "bad drivers" in quotes - meaning they're not really bad drivers in the first place, but they seem to be "bad drivers" to the cyclist who is positioning himself with more of an emphasis on being out of the way rather than on being visible and predictable.

When you position yourself to be visible and predictable, the "bad drivers" all but disappear.

yeah, right. all those angry drivers honking at all the respondents to all the threads about getting harassed by drivers. they just disappear by how a cyclist rides their bike.


dude. get a grip on reality. stop riding the armchair, stop driving your RV as if it were a bicycle (your words) and go smell the gashuffers' roadway animosity.

Driving is not dangerous. Bad driving is dangerous. If you don't drive badly, then driving is very safe.

It's a subtle but sadly underappreciated distinction in our culture.

This distinction is also the hallmark of defensive driving.

This is disgusting. Maybe 43,000 families a year might disagree? Maybe my neighbor's family, he was T-boned by a driver distracted by the radio who missed a stop sign. Maybe that classmate from high school's family; he was taking it easy around a corner, but was hit head on by an 80mph Camaro that drifted into the oncoming lane.

Don't get me wrong, it's good that you drive safely. It keeps others safer with one less bad driver on the road.

Bike lanes are inherently less safe than riding in the traffic lane, moving the cyclist to the periphery of the road and driver's sight lines, road debris tends to collect there and they give cyclists and drivers a false sense of security.

To use them safely actually requires more caution on the part of the cyclist than riding in the traffic lane.

Diane is right, they do facilitate passing clogged traffic, but extreme care must be used when passing on the right.

The only thing bike lanes really do is give cyclists a designated lane, moving them out of the way of cars.

And moving the cars out of my way, too. Let's not forget that the cars get in the way as much as we might get in their way.


Epiphany!

THAT'S IT!!!!!! I finally understand HH's obsession with VC! It's like forum trolling, but in the real world! (at least the way he describes it, it is)
:roflmao:

Two days ago I came upon a right hook that had just happened. The cyclist was wailing in pain on the street as paramedics were trying to get him strapped to a stretcher. You can wax philosophical about motorist ignorance, but in the mean time cyclists like this one was doing are riding along in bike lanes minding their own business, and, like Diane says, often day dreaming in their false sense of bike lane comfort, when a driver oblivious to the existence of the bike lane and potential ramifications they are passing on the right suddenly turns right. This time it was into a hotel driveway entrance. Squash.

That's the grim reality of bike lane induced traffic behavior, Brian. Spilled blood. Injury. Death. You'd think we've discussed enough examples from Portland alone on this forum. Get your head out of the clouds.

The reason the cyclist got hit was two fold. one, they driver failed to notice them moving up the lane legitimately where they may ride if they choose, and two, the cyclist failed to safely "ground view" (old driver training term refering to repeatedly checking relative road placement of every car passed by scanning tire location vs a fixed marker like a lane) the cars as he passed. If the driver had assumed a bike and had checked, and the biker had assumed movement right and had checked, there would have been no collision. Legally, one may be at fault, in fact though, both contributed to it.

Bike lanes can be used safely IF the cyclist chooses to do so. If they cruise along in lala land, they can be bad. However, riding central in a lane for a cyclist can have the same effect. That can be done safely BUT if the cyclist is in lala land, it is not safe. The onus is on the cyclist to use what is there safely. Face it folks, as much as we dream of utopia, you CANNOT train the driver; what you can do is accept reality and modify your approach to on road cycling accordingly. This is not a road design flaw we are dealing with, but rather a poor (sorry, cannot think of another word to use) approach by road users, including cyclists.

Bike lanes are inherently less safe than riding in the traffic lane, moving the cyclist to the periphery of the road and driver's sight lines, road debris tends to collect there and they give cyclists and drivers a false sense of security.

To use them safely actually requires more caution on the part of the cyclist than riding in the traffic lane.

Diane is right, they do facilitate passing clogged traffic, but extreme care must be used when passing on the right.

The only thing bike lanes really do is give cyclists a designated lane, moving them out of the way of cars.

This is true. See what I posted above for why. I would however argue that they are not inherently less safe, but are merely different and need a different set of survival skills than riding mid lane on a busy road. Handled rightly, I cannot see how they are less safe. Different, yes, but less safe? I wonder.

This is disgusting. Maybe 43,000 families a year might disagree? Maybe my neighbor's family, he was T-boned by a driver distracted by the radio who missed a stop sign. Maybe that classmate from high school's family; he was taking it easy around a corner, but was hit head on by an 80mph Camaro that drifted into the oncoming lane.

Don't get me wrong, it's good that you drive safely. It keeps others safer with one less bad driver on the road.


Driving is VERY dangerous, we are, however, so used to it that the risk is not as clear as it would be otherwise. Remember this about risk: you do a risky thing often, and it becomes less risky in your mind, but in reality, the risk level does not drop. Your skill at doing the activity goes up with practice yes, but your exposure to risk does not drop significantly.

Dealing with the two tragic crashes you listed above, let me kindly (and I hope not in a manner that causes offence) suggest some ideas that might have prevented them so you can avoid them yourself.

Dealing with the t-bone crash first: as you approach any intersection (while driving a car or a bike) check Left Center and Right BEFORE you get there. This gives you a chance to spot the car which is failing to stop before you are in collision with it. Hand in hand with this is the notion of keeping space so you have room to manouver, but without this scan, you wont even see the problem.

The head on crash is actually easier to avoid than you might think. Most roads have wide shoulders on them, or at least something you can bang a car down (even if you hurt the suspension doing so). Look up 3 posts to where I describe "groundviewing" and apply that notion to every oncoming car. By doing this, you make it so you can see a car coming over the median towards you. Your escape route is the shoulder. If you keep your left wheels about 6 inches onthe pavement, and hold your speed steady, you can scoot by on the shoulder and avoid the oncoming car. I have done this in simulation over 3000 times, and for real about 4 times. It works.

groundviewing... I like it.

...
I disagree with the idea that "bad drivers" is what makes cycling "so dangerous" (to the extent that cycling is dangerous, it's the bad cyclists that make it so, not the bad drivers). ...

This is the most significant point of contention between HH and me. Yes, a bad cyclist, such as the bozo who made a (fortunately aborted) wrong-side left turn into my path this morning on n/b Vulcan Av., is a threat to my personal safety, but an inattentive or inebriated motorist is a far greater potential threat. I actually do accept HH's argument that I am more visible in the travel lane than in the bike lane, but a 17-year-old bozo playing with his text message system while piloting a lethal weapon (car, truck, SUV, whatever) in public is a threat, either way.

One of HH's greatest contributions to this forum is his spot-on contention that bike lanes and road shoulder cycling have their own special dangers, to which far too many cyclists are oblivious. Just as "risk compensation" is the one cogent argument against helmets, i.e., do not wear one if it makes you feel invincible, "bike lane overconfidence" is a huge threat to cycling safety.

John - I didn't say bad drivers pose absolutely no risk. Of course it's possible that some "inattentive or inebriated" motorist will do something so outrageous and unpredictable that the best and most defensive driver/cyclist cannot avoid a collision. But what I'm saying is that the likelihood of encountering someone like that is so low that that it is completely unreasonable to characterize the activity of cycling in traffic as being "dangerous" because of it. In other words, bad drivers don't make cycling dangerous.

Driving is VERY dangerous,
If driving is "VERY dangerous", what is playing a round of Russian Roulette?
What about drinking a quart of vodka and then riding a motorcycle 110 mph down a residential street?
How about engaging in a battle with insurgents in Iraq?
How about free climbing El Capitan?
How about swimming in waters infested with great whites?
How about running with scissors?
A 3 year old playing with matches?
Leaving a non-swimming youngster unattended with access to a swimming pool?

I believe your assessment of driving as being "VERY dangerous", or even "dangerous", is a little off the mark.

I have 1 (and so far only 1) good thing to say about bike lanes. in kentucky there's a bad tendency to leave those tracks made by the paving machines on the shoulders...I'd rather have a bike lane than have to deal with that $#!T!

that said...in my limited span of biking around here...I've still seen more issues and questions caused by them than solved by them (how do i make a left from one, nearly hit a wrong-way-cyclist cause he was riding one, they end abrubtly w/NO warning, when the road widens to make a right, the bike lane doesn't follow the curve of the road, which seems to encourage people to honk at me when I go straight and they need to get over...yada yada yada)

when making lefts...I seem to have better luck on wider roads than roads with bike paths...I just wait till the traffic's clear, get in the turning lane, take up space like a car and NOBODY complains.

Bike lanes can be used safely IF the cyclist chooses to do so. If they cruise along in lala land, they can be bad. However, riding central in a lane for a cyclist can have the same effect. That can be done safely BUT if the cyclist is in lala land, it is not safe. The onus is on the cyclist to use what is there safely. Face it folks, as much as we dream of utopia, you CANNOT train the driver; what you can do is accept reality and modify your approach to on road cycling accordingly. This is not a road design flaw we are dealing with, but rather a poor (sorry, cannot think of another word to use) approach by road users, including cyclists.
I generally agree with you that bike lanes and traffic lanes are no more or less dangerous from an ivory tower theoretical point of view.

In reality, it's only true for the select few cycling enthusiasts who take the time to learn, one way or the other. For the rest, where human nature meets the pavement, the reality is much different. The problem is that the very concept of a bike lane induces a false of security to the cyclist traveling in it. This is normal and natural. Many people, including many cyclists, don't differentiate between bike lanes and bike paths either in terminology, or in concept in their minds. To many it's all one and the same, what Beck, for example, calls "velotransit". When they ride in either type of facility, many do not differentiate. They are all too often feeling themselves to be in "velotransit" la la land, and acting accordingly. It's dangerous enough to be in la la land on a bike path (and not paying appropriate attention at the occasional intersection), but in a bike lane on the roadway just as much vigilance is required a if the stripe were not there. Most just don't get that.

It is much less likely for a cyclist to venture into la la land when riding in a regular traffic lane. Doing so induces a natural sense of vulnerability that encourages vigilance. Much of that is missing, especially for the uninitiated, when riding in a bike lane which represents a safe sanctuary on the otherwise "very dangerous" roadway for all too many.

We can wax philosophically with Brian R. about this being a knowledge/education problem, but the reality is that the very concept of a bike lane carries with it so much false sense of security baggage it is probably impossible to overcome it to any significant degree.

In this sense (among others), the design of any bike lane is inherently flawed, due to its incompatibility with human nature. Yes, some people can learn to ignore the stripe and ride safely in bike lanes. And some can juggle flame sticks while swallowing swords. Others can win the Tour de France. Others can run multi billion dollar corporations. But the vast majority can do none of these things, and designs based on the assumption that we can are inherently flawed, by definition.

It is simply unreasonable to put a bike lane on any road and expect cyclists riding in it to remain as vigilant as they would if that stripe were not there, and to expect motorists to remain as careful as they would without the stripe when passing the cyclists. This is not a problem that can be surmounted with education. It can only be solved with the elimination of bike lanes.

If driving is "VERY dangerous", what is playing a round of Russian Roulette?
What about drinking a quart of vodka and then riding a motorcycle 110 mph down a residential street?
How about engaging in a battle with insurgents in Iraq?
How about free climbing El Capitan?
How about swimming in waters infested with great whites?
How about running with scissors?
A 3 year old playing with matches?
Leaving a non-swimming youngster unattended with access to a swimming pool?

I believe your assessment of driving as being "VERY dangerous", or even "dangerous", is a little off the mark.


Heh, and I believe you just proved my point for me. The examples you listed are all something that the average person would agree are dangerous, and are all something that we are not, as a society, exposed to much. The thing is, driving is something we all do (more or less) and are all exposed to, and it is something that is inherently dangerous. Because of this, our exposure to the risk is so common that the risk becomes common, and therefore, our brains minimize this. Either that happens, or our minds become unhinged.

Let me illustrate. I spent years doing a LOT of off road biking. A number of years ago, I spent a winter in a local health club doing spin classes. While there, I met and trained with some really nice triatheletes. None of them had ever been off road. During that summer, we did a lot of road riding together. As is normal, there would be patches of grit and gravel on the road which would create slippery conditions. The one rider we rode with in particular would freak out at the risk this gravel represented to her, while I would just bomb through it at speed (on a road bike with 700cx23 slicks) and ignore it. Both of us were at risk, but I ignored the risk due to exposure to this risk to a level where I could see it as "normal". Yes, my chances of crashing were lowered due to more skill in the dirt than my friend, BUT I was still at a lot more risk of a crash than my "exposed to this particular risk" addled brain would consciously admit.

The same is true of driving: the risk is there, dont kid yourself, but the sense of risk is muted by exposure and experience.

I generally agree with you that bike lanes and traffic lanes are no more or less dangerous from an ivory tower theoretical point of view.

In reality, it's only true for the select few cycling enthusiasts who take the time to learn, one way or the other. For the rest, where human nature meets the pavement, the reality is much different. The problem is that the very concept of a bike lane induces a false of security to the cyclist traveling in it. This is normal and natural. Many people, including many cyclists, don't differentiate between bike lanes and bike paths either in terminology, or in concept in their minds. To many it's all one and the same, what Beck, for example, calls "velotransit". When they ride in either type of facility, many do not differentiate. They are all too often feeling themselves to be in "velotransit" la la land, and acting accordingly. It's dangerous enough to be in la la land on a bike path (and not paying appropriate attention at the occasional intersection), but in a bike lane on the roadway just as much vigilance is required a if the stripe were not there. Most just don't get that.

I agree, most dont get it. I have seen people using bike lanes as a bike path - going the wrong way, being eratic, etc. However, is this a flaw of the road design or is it a flaw in the effectiveness of bicycle advocacy? Thing is, most (dare I use that loaded word! YES I dare!!) cyclists as they restart biking as adults tend to think of bikes as toys and NOT as vehicles. This is, I think, the thing that advocates need to overcome.

It is much less likely for a cyclist to venture into la la land when riding in a regular traffic lane. Doing so induces a natural sense of vulnerability that encourages vigilance. Much of that is missing, especially for the uninitiated, when riding in a bike lane which represents a safe sanctuary on the otherwise "very dangerous" roadway for all too many.

We can wax philosophically with Brian R. about this being a knowledge/education problem, but the reality is that the very concept of a bike lane carries with it so much false sense of security baggage it is probably impossible to overcome it to any significant degree.

If this is the case, we must hang up our advocacy hats and give up. Teachers might as well stop teaching. Driving instructors might as well quit. You see, I honestly think that people CAN be taught, and CAN change behaviours. Waterloo Region just introduced round abouts in its traffic plan. In Ontario, these traffic control devices are not that common, but are becoming much more so. After initial whining, people are figuring them out, are learning to handle them well, and are changing. This has taken a huge effort by the Region to promote them, and to educate the public (radio ads, ads at the ministry of transportation, newspaper ads, individual mailings to EACH house in the area, etc). I dont think I remember such emphasis being placed on the introduction of bike lanes when the region started to paint them on the road. Education is the key. You wont reach everyone, but you will reach many.


In this sense (among others), the design of any bike lane is inherently flawed, due to its incompatibility with human nature. Yes, some people can learn to ignore the stripe and ride safely in bike lanes. And some can juggle flame sticks while swallowing swords. Others can win the Tour de France. Others can run multi billion dollar corporations. But the vast majority can do none of these things, and designs based on the assumption that we can are inherently flawed, by definition.

It is simply unreasonable to put a bike lane on any road and expect cyclists riding in it to remain as vigilant as they would if that stripe were not there, and to expect motorists to remain as careful as they would without the stripe when passing the cyclists. This is not a problem that can be surmounted with education. It can only be solved with the elimination of bike lanes.

Cannot agree with you. If we cannot make people use bike lanes safely, how can we make them use the street safely? All the stunned behaviours I have seen in bike lanes I have seen in main traffic flow. All of it. The thing for bike advocates to remember is that education is a firm part of our resources. Yes, lobbying for changes to roadways, laws, etc is important, but if we do all that and then say that educating the public about our changes is useless, we are wasting our time and effort.

The same is true of driving: the risk is there, dont kid yourself, but the sense of risk is muted by exposure and experience.
I am not denying that there is some risk in driving. I disagree though that the inherent risk induced by "bad driving" makes the risk so high that it warrants driving in general to be characterized as "VERY dangerous".

The fact that whatever risk is there we might downplay because of our high exposure rates is a separate issue from the one that I'm disputing. In other words, just because we do have high exposure to driving, and because of that the sense of risk is muted, does not mean driving is necessarily "VERY dangerous".

The odds of collision for anyone driving defensively are far too low to say that driving is "VERY dangerous".

I agree, most dont get it. I have seen people using bike lanes as a bike path - going the wrong way, being eratic, etc. However, is this a flaw of the road design or is it a flaw in the effectiveness of bicycle advocacy? Thing is, most (dare I use that loaded word! YES I dare!!) cyclists as they restart biking as adults tend to think of bikes as toys and NOT as vehicles. This is, I think, the thing that advocates need to overcome.
The cyclists who are blatant about their use of bike lanes as bike paths - going the wrong way, being erratic, etc. - is only the tip of the iceberg problem. The ones who are riding along minding their own business while their minds are in la la land are much harder to identify, until, for example, someone in oncoming traffic decides to turn left across their path in the bike lane, or into them, to enter a midblock driveway or alley...

Maybe it is a problem with bicycling advocacy. For if bicycling advocates help cyclists understand how useless bike lanes really are, then we probably wouldn't have so much demand for them. Yes, sometimes they can be helpful to pass slow or stopped congested traffic on the right, but even this is a marginal benefit since bike lanes encourage cyclists to pass on the right to quickly, and, again, in "la la land" as they do it, typically oblivious to all the potential dangers.


If this is the case, we must hang up our advocacy hats and give up. Teachers might as well stop teaching. Driving instructors might as well quit. You see, I honestly think that people CAN be taught, and CAN change behaviours.
The fact that logical/rational/natural concepts like roundabouts can be taught and learned does not mean that illogical/irrational and unnatural concepts like bike lanes can be taught with any kind of widespread effectivity. Bike lanes require usage that is contrary to normal traffic rules. Round-a-bouts are different, but they don't require violating normal rules. Using bike lanes does require violation of traffic norms, and they are counter-intuitive. In particular, they require through traffic to travel to the right of right turning traffic. There is no way to get around this.

Even the often praised "bike lane to the left of the right turn only lane" is very problematic. Where else in traffic do we ever have a lane marking disappear and require those in it to cross another same-direction lane of traffic? No where, that's where... Why? Because if they used such an insane "lane" design in a context with more traffic, the carnage would be horrific and intolerable. The only reason they've gotten away with it with bike lanes is because there are so few cyclists that the carnage is limited.

Bike lanes are often compared with HOV lanes or trucks lanes, but they are totally different by one critical characteristic: HOV and truck lanes do not have crossing traffic problems; bike lanes are riddled with them. No one who does not belong in an HOV lane or truck lane ever has to cross one; no one in a truck or HOV lane is ever required to travel in lanes where he does not belong. If there is a truck lane, then truck drivers know that's where they belong. They don't belong in the other lanes. If there is a bike lane, everyone assumes that's where cyclists belong, even though they often are required to leave (e.g., to make a left turn). Those who do not belong in bike lanes are required to cross them all the time. There is a very good reason that they don't have truck lanes crossing even offramp entrances... (think about it).

But according to your argument, we could have truck lanes on urban freeways crossing on and off ramp entrances and exits. After all, we could just teach everyone how to use them properly. Baloney. People in general "know" how to use lanes and stripes, but when they're placed irrationally or unnaturally, they are ignored. Good design takes into natural flow. Bike lanes do not.


If we cannot make people use bike lanes safely, how can we make them use the street safely?
Using the streets safely according to well defined, natural, clear and rational rules is infinitely easier to teach than how to use bike lanes, much less how to use them safely.

That's what you're missing. With regular streets and traffic, there is a natural and rational flow and clear rules that accomodate all kinds of traffic, including cyclists. But when you add bike lanes to the mix, it all goes out the window. And it's not a just a modification to the flow and rules, it's an added insoluble complication that is inherently contradictory to the existing traffic flow and rules.


All the stunned behaviours I have seen in bike lanes I have seen in main traffic flow.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but the fact that bad behavior does happen in regular streets does not mean that the design encourages it.

Just one example: right turns. The rules for how a motorist is supposed to negotiate a right turn in the presence of a bike lane are so unclear that different states have different stated rules. How many people do you think know what the rules are with respect to right turns in their state? Do you? There is just no good way to funnel cyclists separately from other traffic at intersections without resorting to separate grades. That's an insoluble problem (practically speaking) that has no analogy in traffic engineering outside of the realm of bike lanes.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but the fact that bad behavior does happen in regular streets does not mean that the design encourages it.

Just one example: right turns. The rules for how a motorist is supposed to negotiate a right turn in the presence of a bike lane are so unclear that different states have different stated rules. How many people do you think know what the rules are with respect to right turns in their state? Do you? There is just no good way to funnel cyclists separately from other traffic at intersections without resorting to separate grades. That's an insoluble problem (practically speaking) that has no analogy in traffic engineering outside of the realm of bike lanes.

Heh, I will respond to the rest of your post later, I am on the way out for coffee...

In ref to the bolded bits.... I taught ppl them ;p

We shall continue the debate when I have time to fashion a reasonable response.

Cheers.

Please HH, please do enumerate for us once more why you are not against bike lanes.

This is true. See what I posted above for why. I would however argue that they (Bike Lanes) are not inherently less safe, but are merely different and need a different set of survival skills than riding mid lane on a busy road. Handled rightly, I cannot see how they are less safe. Different, yes, but less safe? I wonder.
I have to disagree with you on this point. Using many of the bike lanes in Honolulu make cycling inherently less safe. The following examples are all of bike lanes painted in Honolulu within the last 3 years.

Here is the newest Honolulu Bike Lane. It repeatedly weaves left, is in the door zone, has many blind busy driveways and drivers get angry when I refuse to use it.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2162/picture006ft3.jpg

I like how this bike lane directs cyclist into the raised intersection curbs.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.jpg

This Bike Lane puts you on the wrong side of the exit lane from a main highway, when most riders need to move left, to follow the highway.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7753/dcp03402re4.jpg

Here is a great Bike Lane that narrows from 3 feet wide to 2 feet wide in a right bend of the road.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5348/dcp03400pu8.jpg

And best of all, I am pretty sure it is safer taking the lane rather than using this Bike Lane.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2394/dcp03408vc9.jpg
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6869/dcp03410ca7.jpg

I just realized I'm not really against bike lanes per se.

Oh, bull!

You just realised? What a crock! LMAO.

All you've done is find a slightly more creative way to start a bike lane bashing thread.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. The trickster says something like, "I am not saying such and such". And then proceeds to say such and such.

You title the thread, "I'm not against bike lanes!" (with an exclaimation point, no less) then, in the original post, you list the things you think are fundamentally wrong with bike lanes. And, in post after post that follows, you bash bike lanes. That'd be like me saying I have nothing against the VC ideology except for the patently absurd social and psychological theories of John, not a sociologist or psychologist, Forester on which it is based.

You crack me up.

You're saying that all the thread-hijackings that involed you injecting anti-bike lane tirades in threads that had nothing to do with bike lanes never happened? You're saying that all the attacks you've made on the motives and sanity of those who don't share your obsessive hatred of bike lanes never happended? You're saying that the bike lane bashing you've done in this thread and justabout every other thread is an illusion? Gimme a break!

I'm not saying I have no respect for your opinion; I not saying I think you're full of it; I'm not saying you should seek professional help with your bike lane obsession.

I have to disagree with you on this point. Using many of the bike lanes in Honolulu make cycling inherently less safe. The following examples are all of bike lanes painted in Honolulu within the last 3 years.

Here is the newest Honolulu Bike Lane. It repeatedly weaves left, is in the door zone, has many blind busy driveways and drivers get angry when I refuse to use it.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2162/picture006ft3.jpg

I like how this bike lane directs cyclist into the raised intersection curbs.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.jpg

This Bike Lane puts you on the wrong side of the exit lane from a main highway, when most riders need to move left, to follow the highway.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7753/dcp03402re4.jpg

Here is a great Bike Lane that narrows from 3 feet wide to 2 feet wide in a right bend of the road.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5348/dcp03400pu8.jpg

And best of all, I am pretty sure it is safer taking the lane rather than using this Bike Lane.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2394/dcp03408vc9.jpg
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6869/dcp03410ca7.jpg


One of the joys of the debate over bike lanes is regional differences. In the Waterloo Region, I can think of only ONE bike lane that is hideous and puts people in the door zone (for example). Usually, around here, if there is a door zone, there is no bike lane. In general, the bike lanes here end approaching a right turn lane, and start left of the lane. The only issue with this I have is that it attempts to funnel people to the lane left of the right turn lane too late for my personal comfort. This is a design flaw where it happens, but does not, I think, negate the lane's overall usefulness. Rather, I think it is an area local advocates can address. Overall, bike lanes here are not that bad, and where they are misguided, I have noticed cyclists just ignore them.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. The trickster says something like, "I am not saying such and such". And then proceeds to say such and such.
Well, duh!

Of course, my point is that I'm against all those other things, and being against those other things is what leads to my anti-bike lane position. I'm trying to say that my reasoning does not start with opposing bike lanes, it's just one of the places the reasoning happens to lead.

Overall, bike lanes here are not that bad, and where they are misguided, I have noticed cyclists just ignore them.
And here in Hawaii, ignoring a Bike Lane is against the law. Sgtsmile, are you advocating that cyclist should violate the LAW?

As for advocacy, the Hawaii Bicycling League (HBL) is a good cyclist advocacy group that fund raises and runs the Hawaii Bike Ed program for our school kids. Imagine teaching VC to school kids. http://www.hbl.org/bikeEd_general.html

HBL worked extremely hard with the former Honolulu Mayor and the City Council on a street redesign for Young Street. A favorite route of cyclist even though it has many hazards.
Search http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&tab=wl&q= for “Young Street, Honolulu, HI”
The HBL/City Council plan included a center parking lane (no curb parking), good sight distances from driveways and intersections, wider travel lanes, and yes (sadly) it included bike lanes (HBLs only major flaw). At least the bike lanes were the least dangerous ones, because of the overall design. The City Council and Mayor agreed to fund the plan, yea and a huge victory for HBL.

Then Honolulu had an election, and the new mayor changed the plan. So for all their hard work, HBL only got the new Bike Lane on Young Street between Pensacola Street and Victoria Street pictured below:

“Here is the newest Honolulu Bike Lane. It repeatedly weaves left, is in the door zone, has many blind busy driveways and drivers get angry when I refuse to use it.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2162/picture006ft3.jpg ”

Oh my, did I just admit to breaking the law, oh my.
Some how, I think we cyclist would have been better off without our brand new bike lanes.

John - I didn't say bad drivers pose absolutely no risk. Of course it's possible that some "inattentive or inebriated" motorist will do something so outrageous and unpredictable that the best and most defensive driver/cyclist cannot avoid a collision. But what I'm saying is that the likelihood of encountering someone like that is so low that that it is completely unreasonable to characterize the activity of cycling in traffic as being "dangerous" because of it. In other words, bad drivers don't make cycling dangerous.

Actually, the likelihood of meeting a distracted driver is quite high. Take a look at this study:

http://www.aaafoundation.org/projects/index.cfm?button=distraction

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Driver inattention is a major contributor to highway crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that at least 25% of police-reported crashes involve some form of driver inattention. Driver distraction is one form of inattention and is a factor in over half of these crashes. Distraction occurs when a driver “is delayed in the recognition of information needed to safely accomplish the driving task because some event, activity, object, or person within or outside the vehicle compels or induces the driver’s shifting attention away from the driving task.” The presence of a triggering event distinguishes a distracted driver from one who is simply inattentive or “lost in thought.”...
...For the overall 1995-1999 CDS data, 48.6% of the drivers were identified as attentive at the time of their crash; 8.3% were identified as distracted, 5.4% as “looked but did not see,” and 1.8% as sleepy or asleep. The remaining 35.9% were coded either as unknown or no driver present. This high percentage of drivers with unknown attention status has the effect of diluting the percentages in the other categories. Without the unknowns, the percentage of drivers identified as distracted increases to 12.9%. The percentage of actual crashes involving driver distraction would be still higher.

The specific sources of distraction among distracted drivers were, in order of frequency:
Specific Distraction
% of Drivers
Outside person, object, or event
29.4%
Adjusting radio/cassette/CD
11.4%
Other occupant
10.9%
Moving object in vehicle
4.3%
Other device/object
2.9%
Adjusting vehicle/climate controls
2.8%
Eating and/or drinking
1.7%
Using/dialing cell phone
1.5%
Smoking related
0.9%
Other distractions
25.6%
Unknown distraction
8.6%

This coorelates to my own observations of cars going through intersections, where i can count the distracted drivers. Usually, on a busy day on 185th and Evergreen Parkway in Hillsboro, Oregon, I can count between one and three distracted drivers per light change. Usually, this has to do with cell phones, but sometimes it is someone in the other seat (like the lady flinging her arms as she drove to drive home a point to the male companion in the right seat, and looking at him rather than at the road).

If you count the number of cars which pass you during a day, and look at some figure (say one in 10,000) where a seriously impared or distracted driver may be at the wheel when they pass you, that number will add up quickly. If you are passed by 250 cars per day, for instance, your chance (at 10,000:1) of being passed by a seriously impared driver is once every 40 days.

John

John - I didn't say bad drivers pose absolutely no risk. Of course it's possible that some "inattentive or inebriated" motorist will do something so outrageous and unpredictable that the best and most defensive driver/cyclist cannot avoid a collision. But what I'm saying is that the likelihood of encountering someone like that is so low that that it is completely unreasonable to characterize the activity of cycling in traffic as being "dangerous" because of it. In other words, bad drivers don't make cycling dangerous.

Actually, the likelihood of meeting a distracted driver is quite high. Take a look at this study:

Are you equating a "'inattentive or inebriated' motorist [who] will do something so outrageous and unpredictable that the best and most defensive driver/cyclist cannot avoid a collision" with any distracted driver?

Of course the likelihood of encountering a distracted driver is high! That's why we drive and ride defensively, and do not do anything that depends on anyone around us paying 100% attention to everything around them (which is impossible anyway), in order to avoid collisions.

I'm not talking about your general run-of-the-mill inattentive or distracted driver with which our roads are riddled, and with whom it is is quite easy to avoid collision. I'm talking about the very rare situation for which no amount of defensive driving is enough to avoid collision. The whole premise of defensive driving is that those situations are practically non-existent.

And here in Hawaii, ignoring a Bike Lane is against the law. Sgtsmile, are you advocating that cyclist should violate the LAW?

errr, no?

In Ontario, a bike lane is a "diamond" lane, which means only those vehicles listed under the diamond may use that lane (so, a bike lane is a diamond lane with a bike as only listed vehicle.)

There is nothing in Ontario law which says that a vehicle so listed MUST use a diamond lane if it is there. If that were the case, buses in bus lanes would not be allowed to change lanes to turn, if you had more than 3 (is that the number?) in your car, and drove outside a "high occupancy lane" you could get ticketed.... but now I am being silly.

So no, I am not advocating breaking the law, but rather suggesting that people ignore the lane and ride in the regular lane where conditions merit (like a bike lane clogged by illegal parking, a bike lane poorly designed, or the need to turn, or too much glass in the lane - I never use the bike lanes near the universities or in subdivisions with bored teenager since the amount of glass is hideous - this is not a bike lane problem, this glass is on roads in those neighbourhoods which dont have bike lanes as well!)

“Here is the newest Honolulu Bike Lane. It repeatedly weaves left, is in the door zone, has many blind busy driveways and drivers get angry when I refuse to use it.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2162/picture006ft3.jpg ”



Mr Toyota Corolla S (JFX 919) is the one who needs the ticket... So does the minivan moron in front of him:) At the risk of sounding like a holligan, dont you wish sometimes you could get away with and had the skills to "freeride" right over the parked cars? :p

Once again, Helmie builds a whole argument against something (BLs) based on a guess, a false assumption, something he made up in his own driving-my-RV-as-if-it-were-a bicycle-head.

Helmie:"The cyclists who are blatant about their use of bike lanes as bike paths - going the wrong way, being erratic, etc. - is only the tip of the iceberg problem. The ones who are riding along minding their own business while their minds are in la la land are much harder to identify, until, for example, someone in oncoming traffic decides to turn left across their path in the bike lane, or into them, to enter a midblock driveway or alley...

Maybe it is a problem with bicycling advocacy. For if bicycling advocates help cyclists understand how useless bike lanes really are, then we probably wouldn't have so much demand for them. Yes, sometimes they can be helpful to pass slow or stopped congested traffic on the right, but even this is a marginal benefit since bike lanes encourage cyclists to pass on the right to quickly, and, again, in "la la land" as they do it, typically oblivious to all the potential dangers." (Helmie)

Bike lanes are not useless, and people who ride in them are not zombies.

Helmie believes that Bike lanes cause otherwise healthy minds to turn to mush. what kind of wierdness is this?

it is scary that so many think you are a bicycle advocate, Head. I think you're out of your friggin' mind.

Once again, Helmie builds a whole argument against something (BLs) based on a guess, a false assumption, something he made up in his own driving-my-RV-as-if-it-were-a bicycle-head.

Helmie:"The cyclists who are blatant about their use of bike lanes as bike paths - going the wrong way, being erratic, etc. - is only the tip of the iceberg problem. The ones who are riding along minding their own business while their minds are in la la land are much harder to identify, until, for example, someone in oncoming traffic decides to turn left across their path in the bike lane, or into them, to enter a midblock driveway or alley...

Maybe it is a problem with bicycling advocacy. For if bicycling advocates help cyclists understand how useless bike lanes really are, then we probably wouldn't have so much demand for them. Yes, sometimes they can be helpful to pass slow or stopped congested traffic on the right, but even this is a marginal benefit since bike lanes encourage cyclists to pass on the right to quickly, and, again, in "la la land" as they do it, typically oblivious to all the potential dangers." (Helmie)

Bike lanes are not useless, and people who ride in them are not zombies.

Helmie believes that Bike lanes cause otherwise healthy minds to turn to mush. what kind of wierdness is this?

it is scary that so many think you are a bicycle advocate, Head. I think you're out of your friggin' mind.
I never said or meant to imply that people who ride in bike lanes are zombies. Or that they "cause otherwise healthy minds to turn to mush". I ride in bike lanes, and I don't believe I'm a zombie.

I never said or meant to imply that bike lanes are completely useless. My argument is that whatever benefits bike lanes may have, their drawbacks are much greater. Only in that sense are they "useless".

I'd be happy to give your argument some thought, Rando, if you would kindly let us know what it is... without creating a strawman.

Helmie, you said it!
"if bicycling advocates help cyclists understand how useless bike lanes really are, then we probably wouldn't have so much demand for them." you went on to say that bike lanes can be "helpful" in limited situations.... but basically useless.....???

and you have continually asserted that bike lanes somehow lull riders into a sense of false security so that they are in "la-la land" and more likely to have accidents. out of whose butt are you pulling this misinformation? another theory with no basis in fact or reality.

No basis in fact or reality? How about all the cyclists who are startled to be overlooked and hit in bike lanes, as reported here, and whom I personally encounter all too often?

It seems to me that the driver inattention factor could argue either way. Riding further into the driving lane instead of the bike lane will usually increase your chances of being seen, and seen sooner, by even inattentive motorists. On the other hand, of course, it increases the consequences of still not being seen at all. Which factor is dominant probably is very situational.

It seems to me that the driver inattention factor could argue either way. Riding further into the driving lane instead of the bike lane will usually increase your chances of being seen, and seen sooner, by even inattentive motorists. On the other hand, of course, it increases the consequences of still not being seen at all. Which factor is dominant probably is very situational.
That's why I use and promote a method that harnesses the best of both approaches:


By default, ride in the traffic lane (outside of the bike lane) during gaps in traffic.
As faster traffic approaches from behind (this requires periodic rear-view mirror monitoring), and it is safe and reasonable to do so, move right into the bike lane before they reach you, but only after you've greatly increased your chances of being seen. Continue monitoring in the rear-view mirror.
After a batch of car passes, and the gap to the next batch is long enough, move back to your primary position in the traffic lane. Continue monitoring in the rear-view mirror.

In short, ride in the bike lane only when safe, reasonable and necessary to allow faster traffic to pass. Any time faster same-direction is absent, you're approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, there is debris in the lane, or any other reason applies to avoiding the bike lane, merge left and stay in the traffic lane.

This way, you're no more vulnerable to being hit than if you had been riding in the bike lane the entire time, plus, drivers are much more likely to be aware of your presence as they approach and pass you.

I like "tradeoffs" like that: all pluses; no minuses.

There is nothing in Ontario law which says that a vehicle so listed MUST use a diamond lane if it is there. If that were the case, buses in bus lanes would not be allowed to change lanes to turn, if you had more than 3 (is that the number?) in your car, and drove outside a "high occupancy lane" you could get ticketed.... but now I am being silly.
"being silly" - not really, since that is exactly what we cyclist here are expected to do when there is a Bike Lane painted on the road here.
Maybe now you are starting to get an understanding of why some of us hate Bike Lanes here, so much.
Granted, our attitudes might be different if we had the system Ontario does.

By the way, that spec you see to the right of the shade tree is a cop that just drove by all the illegally parked cars to get to his shade tree for a little rest time.

"And best of all, I am pretty sure it is safer taking the lane rather than using this Bike Lane.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2394/dcp03408vc9.jpg
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6869/dcp03410ca7.jpg "