Advocacy & Safety - Here's a location where a bike lane makes a lot of sense...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060731/images/met_bridge2.jpg

This is supposed to be a 45MPH road... but every afternoon it backs up just like the picture shows. Look close enough and you will see the cyclist climbing the hill in the BL. That cyclist will beat the motor traffic every time. (I take a particular joy in doing that BTW) ;)

The delay on this road at "rush hour" can be upwards of 45 minutes... (for a motorist to move from where this picture was taken to the top of the hill) while motorists use this "shortcut" to gain access to a freeway on ramp another mile down the road.

There is only one intersection on this particular stretch of road.

This is all from a story about adding a bridge to relieve this traffic (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060731/news_1m31bridge.html) situation... Some of the locals do not want to add a bridge... as where they now live is quite traffic free and quiet... even though the bridge has always been planned.

This reminds me of Bear Valley Road at the onramps to the I-15 in Victorville between 5AM and 11PM.
Traffic just crawls along, while I bust right through it.

Yep perfect road for a BL. Few intersections heavy traffic Cant realy tell if theres a sidewalk or not. Sidewalk next to a bike lane = raised curb so - a few points if theres a side walk/curb. Bls with soft shoulders off to the side mean no trash gets piled up.

Just looks like a nice shoulder to me. Or am I missing something.

-D

Just looks like a nice shoulder to me. Or am I missing something.

-D

Na is bike lane note the dashed line down the middle.

Look at the photo closely. In particular, focus on the section where the cyclist can be seen climbing the hill. Now, imagine that the bike lane stripe is not there. Consider how wide that WOL would be compared to the width of the cars around the cyclist. No matter where the cars were, there would be plenty of room for cyclists to get around them. And, during most of the day when there is no congestion, the traffic would be sweeping clean that section which now accumulates rubble and debris because the bike lane stripe keeps motor traffic out of if round-the-clock whether or not cyclists are present.

What makes sense here is not a bike lane, but width, which we would have with or with the bike lane stripe.

derath - it's not a shoulder. Shoulders are on roads without curbs. This road has a curb.



Na is bike lane note the dashed line down the middle.
Nova - what does "Na is bike lane" mean? As others have suggested, please proofread your posts before posting. Also, what "dashed line down the middle" are you referring to? Down the middle of what? The only dashed line I see is the one separating the two lanes of motor traffic.

Look at the photo closely. In particular, focus on the section where the cyclist can be seen climbing the hill. Now, imagine that the bike lane stripe is not there. Consider how wide that WOL would be compared to the width of the cars around the cyclist. No matter where the cars were, there would be plenty of room for cyclists to get around them. And, during most of the day when there is no congestion, the traffic would be sweeping clean that section which now accumulates rubble and debris because the bike lane stripe keeps motor traffic out of if round-the-clock whether or not cyclists are present.

What makes sense here is not a bike lane, but width, which we would have with or with the bike lane stripe.

derath - it's not a shoulder. Shoulders are on roads without curbs. This road has a curb.



Nova - what does "Na is bike lane" mean? As others have suggested, please proofread your posts before posting. Also, what "dashed line down the middle" are you referring to? Down the middle of what? The only dashed line I see is the one separating the two lanes of motor traffic.


Hmm lets see down the supposed shoulder
NA is no just like many people say a for is bike lane i simply missed the a.

On that road above if not for the striping cars would be staggered all over it making it impossible and down right dangerous to travel it. Also many states do not allow passing of vehicals on the right.

Like OP said this is a perfect or near perfect location for a bike lane. Notice how not a single car is over in the BL and notice how staggered their path is and where they stay. They are staying between the lane to the left and the bike lane.

Its very obvious that the bike lane is a huge help to cyclists on this road.

As for your picking apart my post i really don't see how you could not understand what i was talking about. Seems more a way to divert attention from my posts content more than any thing else.

As for your picking apart my post i really don't see how you could not understand what i was talking about. Seems more a way to divert attention from my posts content more than any thing else.
Nova, I honestly had no idea what you meant by these words:



Na is bike lane note the dashed line down the middle.
Did you mean to write, "No, it is a bike lane. Note the dashed line down the middle of the road."?
Even if that's what you meant, I still don't know what dashed line you're talking about, and what it has to do with the question of whether the solid line designates a shoulder or a bike lane.

There is only one intersection on this particular stretch of road.

And the bike lane coupled with that "only one intersection" is responsible for putting the chairman of our coalition into the hospital for the better part of a week a few years ago when he was northbound and was right hooked by someone turning into the high school (across the street from the cyclist in the OP photo).

He's lucky to be alive. "Only one" is all it takes. And "only one" ignores the intersection with the driveway into the condos on the southbound side half-way up the hill.

Nova, I honestly had no idea what you meant by these words:



Did you mean to write, "No, it is a bike lane. Note the dashed line down the middle of the road."?
Even if that's what you meant, I still don't know what dashed line you're talking about, and what it has to do with the question of whether the solid line designates a shoulder or a bike lane.

Ahead of the cyclist, if the photo is looked at very closely, one can make out an arrow indicating it's a bike lane. There is a similar indicator on the opposite side of the road pointing in the correction direction of traffic.

And the bike lane coupled with that "only one intersection" is responsible for putting the chairman of our coalition into the hospital for the better part of a week a few years ago when he was northbound and was right hooked by someone turning into the high school (across the street from the cyclist in the OP photo).

He's lucky to be alive. "Only one" is all it takes. And "only one" ignores the intersection with the driveway into the condos on the southbound side half-way up the hill.

My god you must really live in your own little world.

I did not mean no i meant exactly what i typed na which means no same as no means no

Ive talked to people all over the us and canada both on line and on the phone and one thing in common is the use of na as a informal no.


I have a hard time believing that you have not at the very least heard it used.

NA (see also nic spoken to day as nix) goes back to old english meaning no and is the origin of the word no. Both na and nic pronounced nix in todays slang are both used for the word no.

I know of no one else on line who has not heard na or who do not use it them self.

It's usually a good idea to write more formally than you speak. For what it's worth, "Nah" followed by a comma seperating it from the rest of your sentence probably would have been understood (I've never seen that particular word spelled "na").

We shouldn't have to read the internet aloud, trying different pronounciations for everything, until we figure out what sounds someone was trying to spell. :)

It's usually a good idea to write more formally than you speak. For what it's worth, "Nah" (followed by a comma seperating it from the rest of your sentence) probably would have been understood. We shouldn't have to read the internet aloud, trying different pronounciations for everything, until we figure out what sounds someone was trying to spell. :)


What ever

Funny how no one ive ever met other than zealots and grammar nazis have any trouble at all understanding na to mean no. Just those who want to hijack or divert a thread from the real issue at hand have this singular trouble.

Sense some seem to be trying to say its not common and ever so hard to understand
do a google search for this single little phrase
"na not really"
Results 1 - 10 of about 870 for "na not really". (0.23 seconds)


And oh yeh (oh wait bet you don't know what yeh yah or any of the other common internet slang means or how about brb afk lmao lol rofl dotn know them then look them up) i wont reply to any more of this nonsense so don't bother posting how didn't know or its not common or any of the other attempts to changes the subject. All because you can not come up with a good argument against it

To get back to the point, I think I would agree with the OP on this one, due to the possibility of cars being staggered anywhere in the width of the road if there were no line of any kind. As to the turn, I can't tell what kind of signage there is, but something like "Right turn yield to bike" or "Watch for bikes" might help.

I'm sorry to hear about your aquaintence, HH, but following advice you have pointed out elsewhere on these boards (and with which I agree), I wonder if he could have avoided the accident by checking what was going on behind him, and if clear, moving out into the travel lane to go continue straight through the intersection. And as you also point out, and with which I also agree, I'm not saying he deserved to be hit or that he was legally at fault, but could he have avoided the "accident" had he done these things?

But I'm obviously glad he's okay, which I am assuming since he was released from the hospital after a week. I hope he's back in the saddle, or will be soon.

Looks like a good bike lane to me.

And the bike lane coupled with that "only one intersection" is responsible for putting the chairman of our coalition into the hospital for the better part of a week a few years ago when he was northbound and was right hooked by someone turning into the high school (across the street from the cyclist in the OP photo).

He's lucky to be alive. "Only one" is all it takes. And "only one" ignores the intersection with the driveway into the condos on the southbound side half-way up the hill.

That only is is the "only one." There are no other intersections on that road going south. Otherwise it is unbroken curb the entire way.

To get back to the point, I think I would agree with the OP on this one, due to the possibility of cars being staggered anywhere in the width of the road if there were no line of any kind. As to the turn, I can't tell what kind of signage there is, but something like "Right turn yield to bike" or "Watch for bikes" might help.

I'm sorry to hear about your aquaintence, HH, but following advice you have pointed out elsewhere on these boards (and with which I agree), I wonder if he could have avoided the accident by checking what was going on behind him, and if clear, moving out into the travel lane to go continue straight through the intersection. And as you also point out, and with which I also agree, I'm not saying he deserved to be hit or that he was legally at fault, but could he have avoided the "accident" had he done these things?

But I'm obviously glad he's okay, which I am assuming since he was released from the hospital after a week. I hope he's back in the saddle, or will be soon.
He's an LCI now, though I don't know if he was one back when this happened. As he describes it, it was a dicey situation, and he made the wrong call. As I recall, he was passed while in the bike lane, the driver slowed, but did not merge into the bike lane, the cyclist started catching up with the car, and was reluctant to slow down (because it would mean losing his momentum from the hill he just came down, and needed for the climb in front of him). The driver seemed to be waiting to be passed by the cyclist, as the cyclist started to pass (still in the bike lane, on the right), the driver suddenly turned right and hit him.

That only is is the "only one." There are no other intersections on that road going south. Otherwise it is unbroken curb the entire way.

The curb if thats what it is hard to tell from the pic is the only thing that takes away from it being a perfect bike lane imo. It almost looks like a cement gutter in the pic. If thats the case thats even better than soft shoulder they make great waste collectors.

Looks like plenty of room to split lanes even if there wasn't the extra 10 feet of blacktop. [edit] My eyes really aren't that bad. It looks more like 5 feet now that I actually used the cyclist for reference instead of just guessing. [edit]

I did not mean no i meant exactly what i typed na which means no same as no means no
...
Funny how no one ive ever met other than zealots and grammar nazis have any trouble at all understanding na to mean no. Just those who want to hijack or divert a thread from the real issue at hand have this singular trouble.
This is unbelievable. That you meant "no", or, rather, "nah", by "na" is one of the few things I did understand about your original statement. Here it is again:



Na is bike lane note the dashed line down the middle.
Again, is the following what you meant?

Nah, it is a bike lane. Note the dashed line down the middle.
If it is what you mean, what dashed line are you talking about, and, if it's the one between the two vehicular traffic lanes, what does that have to do with the question of whether the solid edge stripe designates a bike lane or shoulder? I'm not trying to highjack this thread. I'm truly trying to figure out what the heck you meant when you wrote these words.



That only is is the "only one." There are no other intersections on that road going south. Otherwise it is unbroken curb the entire way.
Everything I said is consistent with this. Why are you pointing this out and ignoring the points I did make?

He's an LCI now, though I don't know if he was one back when this happened. As he describes it, it was a dicey situation, and he made the wrong call. As I recall, he was passed while in the bike lane, the driver slowed, but did not merge into the bike lane, the cyclist started catching up with the car, and was reluctant to slow down (because it would mean losing his momentum from the hill he just came down, and needed for the climb in front of him). The driver seemed to be waiting to be passed by the cyclist, as the cyclist started to pass (still in the bike lane, on the right), the driver suddenly turned right and hit him.


Its quite possible the driver planned to hit the cyclist in question or at least to scare him. These types of morons do exist. Ive met 2 out on the road in the last 2 years one guy who cut me off trying to make me crash 3 times in 3 days another who pulled past the stop blocking most of both lanes (rural road 2 lanes 1 each way).

Its quite possible the driver planned to hit the cyclist in question or at least to scare him.
Yeah, that's what happened. :rolleyes:

Everything I said is consistent with this. Why are you pointing this out and ignoring the points I did make?

I have not found the limited access requirements to this one housing block to be an issue... the few motorists that need access to this apartment complex are so infrequent as to be almost dismissable on an daily ride of this street as to be nearly ignorable (to HH standards of motorists that must be responded to). I can only suspect that your friend hit this intersection at a period quite unsimilar to the picture I posted... or really had a difficult time figuring out the motorist themselves... which is quite consistant with my saying of: "traffic is predictable, but individual motorists are not."

This is unbelievable. That you meant "no", or, rather, "nah", by "na" is one of the few things I did understand about your original statement. Here it is again:



Again, is the following what you meant?

Nah, it is a bike lane. Note the dashed line down the middle.
If it is what you mean, what dashed line are you talking about, and, if it's the one between the two vehicular traffic lanes, what does that have to do with the question of whether the solid edge stripe designates a bike lane or shoulder? I'm not trying to highjack this thread. I'm truly trying to figure out what the heck you meant when you wrote these words.



Everything I said is consistent with this. Why are you pointing this out and ignoring the points I did make?

Ack look very carefully the bike lane in the pic. I have better than 20 20 vision (also a higher than normal quality monitor) so some may not see it. But in the pic is a hint of a dashed or solid line down the middle of the bike lane.

As for the spelling of Na both forms are correct nah is a bit older than na as it was in use during the transition from old enlgish to what is now called middle english. Nah if i recall is still used in some germanic languages.

Looks like a good bike lane to me.
All bike lanes look good to you.

Sense some seem to be trying to say its not common and ever so hard to understand
do a google search for this single little phrase
"na not really"
Results 1 - 10 of about 870 for "na not really". (0.23 seconds)

You are honestly the first person I have ever seen spell it with no "h".

If we are using google as a grammar checker then 870 isn't a very high score:
Results 1 - 10 of about 139,000 for "nah not really". (0.27 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 20,800 for "naw not really". (0.27 seconds)

Ack look very carefully the bike lane in the pic. I have better than 20 20 vision (also a higher than normal quality monitor) so some may not see it. But in the pic is a hint of a dashed or solid line down the middle of the bike lane.



There is a dashed section about 6 bike lengths ahead of the cyclist, who is in the upper right section of the pic. At that point there is a condo or apartment complex that requires infrequent access. Otherwise what you see is solid bike lane from the foreground of the pic almost all the way to the top.

For HH in particular... note the density of the traffic approaching in the left lanes... note the lack of a real gap for which one may use the "powerweave." This is typical of traffic on this road... and in this case, while "rush hour," it is not the heavily used direction.

Yeah, that's what happened. :rolleyes:

Trust me you never know with some drivers. You don't think we are targets of driers. There are people out there who think its fun to run people down esp when they can make it seem like a accident. "but officer i never even seen him he just came out of no where"

I feel quite confident had i pulled around the bozo blocking the road (after he ran a stop sign) he would have hit me and it would not have been accidental. To him i was little more than a toy to play with. I doubt he would have hit me hard enough to do more than trash my bike and give me some bruises. But fact is it would have been done on purpose. His excuse would have been "he was riding with out watching where he was going" Or i turned left in front of him as i ran a stop sign. Interesting thing is i was on the road with out a stop sign he had one.

In the case yo mention no way of knowing for sure. Sure the driver might not have seen him or he may have and did it on purpose. You know if you want to murder some one and get away with it a car is your best weapon. You can claim all sorts of things they ran in to the street the sun was in my eyes they had on to dark of clothing at night and you didn't see them etc.

Ack look very carefully the bike lane in the pic. I have better than 20 20 vision (also a higher than normal quality monitor) so some may not see it. But in the pic is a hint of a dashed or solid line down the middle of the bike lane.
Gene, can you post a higher res image? Nova, I assure you, there is no stripe, dashed or solid, down the middle of this bike lane. That would imply two-way bike lane traffic and would be insane on this 45 mph road (not to mention a gross violation of every standard/guidelines for bike lanes I've ever seen). What you're seeing is the edge of the gutter pan.



As for the spelling of Na both forms are correct nah is a bit older than na as it was in use during the transition from old enlgish to what is now called middle english. Nah if i recall is still used in some germanic languages.
Do you just make this stuff up, or do you have an online source/reference for the spelling of nah to be acceptable as na? I checked m-w.com and dictionary.com and all I can find for na is Na, the symbol for sodium.

Anyway, the spelling of nah was never an issue in trying to understand your post. It was the missing words and the run-on sentences, plus the reference to this phantom striped line that made it so difficult to comprehend.

There is a dashed section about 6 bike lengths ahead of the cyclist, who is in the upper right section of the pic. At that point there is a condo or apartment complex that requires infrequent access. Otherwise what you see is solid bike lane from the foreground of the pic almost all the way to the top.

For HH in particular... note the density of the traffic approaching in the left lanes... note the lack of a real gap for which one may use the "powerweave." This is typical of traffic on this road... and in this case, while "rush hour," it is not the heavily used direction.

Yeh even for me its hard to tell if its all dashed or just part. Theres just that hint there of a dashed line.

And where would old Helmet Head be riding in that picture? In the bike lane of course. Ignore him, everybody. He's nuts.

Nova, with your "better than 20/20 vision", can you see the bike lane solid stripe, the bike lane, the gutter pan, the curb, and the sidewalk? Were you thinking the sidewalk was part of the bike lane and the gutter pan was a striped line separating the two halves???

For HH in particular... note the density of the traffic approaching in the left lanes... note the lack of a real gap for which one may use the "powerweave." This is typical of traffic on this road... and in this case, while "rush hour," it is not the heavily used direction.
Gene, I've ridden here during afternoon rush hour. The picture was taken while a pack of cars released by the light at Governor was moving north. I wonder how long the gap is front of the first car in this pack? It looks long enough as it is...

I cannot post a higher res image, as I borrowed this from a local newspaper article. The reality is that there are two lanes going in the direction shown that are auto travel lanes, with a dashed line in between. Then there is a solid bike lane for most of the distance shown (in the foreground the bike lane is actually shown... it is solid there) and in the background, at one point, the BL does dash just prior to a driveway into condos or apartments... this is about 6 lengths in front of the cyclist shown in the upper right of the pic. There is also sidewalk along the whole length. There is also a stoplight at the bottom of the hill with a walk path from either side of the road, but little reason to stop as a cyclist as the walk path is rarely used. The walk path feeds into the sidewalk and into a natural canyon.

Gene, can you post a higher res image? Nova, I assure you, there is no dashed stripe down the middle of this bike lane. That would imply two-way bike lane traffic and would be insane on this 45 mph road (not to mention a gross violation of every standard/guidelines for bike lanes I've ever seen). What you're seeing is the edge of the gutter pan.



Do you just make this stuff up, or do you have an online source/reference for the spelling of nah to be acceptable as na? I checked m-w.com and dictionary.com and all I can find for na is Na, the symbol for sodium.

Anyway, the spelling of nah was never an issue in trying to understand your post. It was the missing words and the run-on sentences, plus the reference to this phantom striped line that made it so difficult to comprehend.

The arrows on BOTH sides of the road are very clear to me and I don't even have the best of vision. You simply choose to never see a bike lane because of your irrational opposition to them.

Why must you insist on spoiling for a fight yet again? Give it up already. We all know your game and have heard your rhetoric time and time again. Harping on about the spelling of 'nah' vs 'na' is simply juvenile and a waste of time. Please, stick to the issue or do everyone a favour and stop posting. It's tiresome and you're not winning any support by being so uni-directional and unyielding. Sheesh.

What's an unnatural canyon?

Gene, I've ridden here during afternoon rush hour. The picture was taken while a pack of cars released by the light at Governor was moving north. I wonder how long the gap is front of the first car in this pack? It looks long enough as it is...

I suspect the gap between the lead car (not shown) and the next pack is very similar to the gap seen in this pic between the first cars shown. It looks like about 4 car lengths. This honestly is quite typical for "rush hour" as we discussed previously.... actually "rush hour" usually has gaps similar to that shown by the vehicles higher on the hill.

I recently drove your route to access my swim at the cove, and the distance between lights allows a much longer gap in that traffic flow, than that which usually occurs here.

What's an unnatural canyon?

One filled with streets and housing.

Something of a misnomer here, as this canyon, which the locals are arguing is "natural," contains a railroad track and two dirt access roads... this something less than "natural," but far far less than "developed."

The arrows on BOTH sides of the road are very clear to me and I don't even have the best of vision. You simply choose to never see a bike lane because of your irrational opposition to them.



I am not sure what you think you are seeing... but this is a 4 lane road with single bike lanes on either side that only go in the same direction of motor vehicle travel.

There are no two way bike lanes on this road.

There are bike lanes on either side of the road that go in either direction... corresponding with the motor vehicle traffic.

The arrows on BOTH sides of the road are very clear to me and I don't even have the best of vision. You simply choose to never see a bike lane because of your irrational opposition to them.

WTF? Is everyone nuts today? I KNOW it's a bike lane. I ride on the pavement demarcated by that bike lane. I've said it's a bike lane. Why are you saying I don't see it???

My only beef is with Nova who continues to imagine a stripe down the middle of the bike lane. There is no stripe, solid or dashed, down the middle of this bike lane.

WTF? Is everyone nuts today? I KNOW it's a bike lane. I ride on the pavement demarcated by that bike lane. I've said it's a bike lane. Why are you saying I don't see it???

My only beef is with Nova who continues to imagine a stripe down the middle of the bike lane. There is no stripe, solid or dashed, down the middle of this bike lane.

Sure as hell looks like one right behind the riders wheels. A much lighter collar in the pavement near or in the center of the bike lane.

There is a dashed section about 6 bike lengths ahead of the cyclist, who is in the upper right section of the pic. At that point there is a condo or apartment complex that requires infrequent access. Otherwise what you see is solid bike lane from the foreground of the pic almost all the way to the top.

For HH in particular... note the density of the traffic approaching in the left lanes... note the lack of a real gap for which one may use the "powerweave." This is typical of traffic on this road... and in this case, while "rush hour," it is not the heavily used direction.


Yeh even for me its hard to tell if its all dashed or just part. Theres just that hint there of a dashed line.

Nova, you've got to take it easy with the 'shrooms.

The dashed section that Gene refers to is:

1) The outside stripe of the bike lane going from solid to striped, not a stripe DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE BIKE LANE.
2) Contrary to what Gene said, it's way more than 6 bike lengths ahead of the cyclist visible in the bike lane on the right. In fact, it's up the hill around the bend and is beyond the edge of this photo!

Looney Tunes today!

My only beef is with Nova who continues to imagine a stripe down the middle of the bike lane. There is no stripe, solid or dashed, down the middle of this bike lane.

Sure as hell looks like one right behind the riders wheels. A much lighter collar [sic] in the pavement near or in the center of the bike lane.

The cyclist shown on the right side moving away from us as we look at the photo is riding along the right edge of the bike lane, about 4' to the right of the solid bike lane stripe. Just to his right is a lighter colored gutter pan, probably a foot wide, then a curb, then a light colored sidewalk about 6" above the bike lane. The cyclist is riding along the left edge of the gutter pan.

What you think is a stripe is probably the gutter pan between the bike lane and the sidewalk.

The cyclist shown on the right side moving away from us as we look at the photo is riding along the right edge of the bike lane, about 4' to the right of the solid bike lane stripe. Just to his right is a lighter colored gutter pan, probably a foot wide, then a curb, then a light colored sidewalk about 6" above the bike lane. The cyclist is riding along the left edge of the gutter pan.

What you think is a stripe is probably the gutter pan between the bike lane and the sidewalk.

Possibly or it could just be light and shadow because of the time of day. Is There over head wires there by chance?

HH read your damn priv message .....

Guess I'll have to go out and photograph the thing myself... it is only one BL per side... and HH may be right... the dashed section may be further up than the pic shows.

However... the bottom line is that this illustrates what I consider a good BL situation... and for good reason. The motorists are kept out of the BL by only a stipe, and the cyclist has a good clear path to ride in during this stopped traffic situation that occurs daily.

Without the BL, there is no telling where traffic might bunch up and crowd into... as I also know of situations where motorists DO violate the BL and use it as a third lane. And along at least one of those routes I have also seen the local police work to keep the BL clear.

Guess I'll have to go out and photograph the thing myself... it is only one BL per side... and HH may be right... the dashed section may be further up than the pic shows.

However... the bottom line is that this illustrates what I consider a good BL situation... and for good reason. The motorists are kept out of the BL by only a stipe, and the cyclist has a good clear path to ride in during this stopped traffic situation that occurs daily.

Without the BL, there is no telling where traffic might bunch up and crowd into... as I also know of situations where motorists DO violate the BL and use it as a third lane. And along at least one of those routes I have also seen the local police work to keep the BL clear.


Yeh i agree this is a great bike lane. If there was allot of intersections a WOL would make more sense and be more useful. Just by nature drivers and cyclists tend to put them selves in a lane position for turns far right to turn right and left of or center in the lane for strait. It also allows us to slide over to let the right turning motorist go on through when legal to do so. They will be far right for their turn we will be over to left for going strait.

...right hooked by someone turning into the high school (across the street from the cyclist in the OP photo).
I would put the intersection at the traffic signal, not across the street from the cyclist. And if it's a high school, I would chalk the accident up to a young inexperienced, or improperly trained motorist, not to the presence of the bike lane.

Maybe there are wires, but there is no shadow-from-a-wire that runs along the length of the bike lanes in this photo.

Look at it again, and you'll see, from left to right in the middle of the photo (note, the photo is looking south):
sidewalk, curb, gutter pan, n/b bike lane, bike lane stripe, #2 n/b traffic lane (this #2 lane is so wide the n/b bike lane puts cyclists way too far to the right in this section - I always ride at least a few feet to the left of the bike lane here), traffic lane dividing stripe, #1 n/b traffic lane, gutter pan, curb island with trees, curb, gutter pan, #1 s/b traffic lane, traffic lane dividing stripe, #2 s/b traffic lane, bike lane stripe, s/b bike lane, cyclist in the bike lane, gutter pan, curb, sidewalk.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060731/images/met_bridge2.jpg

HH read your damn priv message .....
I did, Nova. So "Na" is old English.