Google sponsored links
Do you believe bike lanes cause motorists to be more likely to look for cyclists to any significant degree?
Edit: What prompted this poll was the following assertion that was made in a post in another thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2938172&postcount=210).
if there was a bike lane, the driver would have been MORE likely to look for a bicyclist ...
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I voted other, mainly because upon thinking about it I decided it depends a lot on the specifics. Just a line by the side of the road generally does very little. Those lanes where the lines change from solid to dashed at intersections and move the cyclist away from the curb draw my attention as a driver and I think it does so for others.
I also find those in remote open areas may have some use. I'm thinking of country back roads where there is little traffic and also few distractions. Here just a line with pictures of bikes may alert a significant number of drivers. Not all mind you, the jerks will still be jerks, but basic decent people who might otherwise never thought that a bike might be there get some warning. That may be most significant where there is a combination of open areas and more twisty areas. It may only provide a split secons or a couple of MPH in those almost blind corners, but either of those can be the difference between a close call and an accident.
In city on busy streets where the pictures of bikes end up under parked cars I doubt bike lanes make any difference at all.
NO. This is kind of a silly question. A line on the road isn't going to make a driver see a cyclist any better. But bike lanes do give cyclists a place to ride apart from cars, which makes it less likely that they'll be struck by a car. However, as we've seen, it still happens.
Do you believe bike lanes cause motorists to be more likely to look for cyclists to any significant degree?Wrong question.
Do bike lanes separate bicycles from larger, faster vehicles traveling the same road?
That's the real question, but you probably knew that. :roflmao:
I live in a suburb of Atlanta. Declared the worst place to ride a bike, but also the place with the friendliest drivers. It's an odd mix. Only about 3 or 4 miles of my daily route has a bike lane, but the drivers seem to pay attention to it. Entering the turning lanes at the dashed lines, riding futher away from the shoulder. On the parts without a bike lane they ride closer to the edge and seems to resent me more. Although, 90%+ of them will drive into the other lane to give me room.
I just wish there wasn't so much crap in the bike lane. Let's pick one day a week and have the cars drive ONLY in the bike lane. That should sweep out a bunch of the debris.
NO. This is kind of a silly question. A line on the road isn't going to make a driver see a cyclist any better. But bike lanes do give cyclists a place to ride apart from cars, which makes it less likely that they'll be struck by a car. However, as we've seen, it still happens.
Wrong question
See Edit in OP for explanation of why I asked this question.
Oilfree - Yes, bike lanes do give cyclists a place to ride apart from cars that are going in the same direction. As intuitively obvious as it may seem, there is no evidence that doing so makes them less likely to be hit by cars that are going in the same direction. We can only speculate as to why, for no study has explained it. My personal belief is that all motorists look ahead and check their path enough to notice a cyclist in front of them, and, if anything, riding to the right of a stripe makes a motorist less likely to consciously notice the cyclist, and, therefore, more likely to inadvertently drift into the cyclist, or pass him and turn right in front of him.
In any case, a cyclist hit from behind in broad daylight between intersections is a very rare type of collision.
The vast majority of car-bike collisions are at intersections, and do not involve a same-direction vehicle, or involves a right hook. In all those cases (crash with crossing traffic, or with same-direction right hook), riding too far to the right, as guided to do by most bike lanes, is more likely to be a factor causing the crash, than a preventative.
I figure if the BL has all them cute little bicycle symbols painted in it, then of course it might cause a light bulb to go on in the heads of some drivers that there may be wabbits...errr...bikes afoot.
here's a pic similar to the roadway being discussed in the other thread....the context was a bicyclist complaining about getting merged into from the right turn lane by a car while the bike was travelling in the center thru lane.....so, YES, WITHOUT A DOUBT,
this type of velotransit accomodation, with a lane specifically noted as a bike lane, with signage stating 'cars yield to bikes' , compared to NO specific velo accomodations, would make it more likely a bicyclist would be
a)looked for, and
b)cognified as a bicyclist in the road.
ABSOLUTELY YES. WITHOUT A DOUBT.
I voted the second option, "at least a bit more likely", but I have caveats:
(1) I think that the extent to which BL's are effective at increasing driver awareness (sticking just to the question at hand) varies by geography, probably mostly in proportion to how many of them there are. We don't have very many around here, so in my experience as a car driver, I tend to notice them where they do exist. I can imagine (but haven't experienced) that in other areas where they are more plentiful, it is more common for drivers to filter them out after a while.
(2) This advantage (and others they may have) must still be weighed against some of the possible disadvantages which we have all seen debated in other threads on this board (which I see no need to get into on this one).
For the specific site show in the picture, a bike lane should result in motorists allowing cyclists more consideration on the road, provided, of course, the motorists actually read the signs.
In my area, bike lanes are rare, well done, well maintained bike lanes rarer still. I have a higher rate of close passes by motorists when I am riding in the bike lanes here than when I am riding 'open' roads. Having said that, I will admit that I am often riding in the left, or outer part of the bike lane due to drain gratings, gravel, glass, and other trash swept there from the motor lanes.
Motorists will look where they expect to see traffic, where they perceive sources of potential conflicts to be. If that includes the bike lane, then lanes help cyclists on the road.
Edit: What prompted this poll was the following assertion that was made in a post in another thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2938172&postcount=210).
Are your sure it was'nt PCD (Poll compulsive disorder)?
Seriously, this is about the 100th poll i've seen made by you...
Anyone who said yes has obviously never biked in NYC. I have considerably more close calls when there is a bike lane that I am forced to stay in. Cars see the empty space as a) somewhere to double park or b) an empty turn lane.
Cars notice bikes more when the bikes are a part of traffic, not "seperated" from it by a painted line on the pavement.
I would like to enter two answers to this question, both 2 and 5 because they are in a sense both valid. Really the answer depends very much on the mentality of the driver and environment to which they are used to.
I've opted for number two because as a European the context of driving is very different to that in North America. Most importantly this is because of the onus on drivers to pay attention to their surroudings and to react accordingly rather than to act oblivious until instructed otherwise.
A european bike lane, particularly in the UK, is a deliniation that is habitually observered, even when not obligatory, where conditions do not demand otherwise. Furthermore it is often radically different in appearance to the rest of the roadway and adheres to the principles of communication beyond the concious. Given the culture of driving here it is evident that bike lanes are a useful and practical tool in civic and road design and a measure worth investing in.
Alas HH has some merit in his objection to bike lanes as a measure before proper education of cyclists in road behaviour and usage in North America. This is something that will undoubtedly last until North America univerally adopts a principal of teaching drivers to be aware and make cognitive reactions to conditions instead of informing on mechanical necessity and requiring obedience of poorly thought out but continuous instruction.
Anyone who said yes has obviously never biked in NYC. I have considerably more close calls when there is a bike lane that I am forced to stay in. Cars see the empty space as a) somewhere to double park or b) an empty turn lane.
Cars notice bikes more when the bikes are a part of traffic, not "seperated" from it by a painted line on the pavement.
:beer:
I live in boston, I recently was in the car with my girlfriend and pointed out to her that she was driving in the bike lane, as were all of the cars in front of her and several behind her. her comment (oh wow, bikes get their own lanes? that must be new.) This is the same road she has driven for close to 2 years, with the same bike lane. When I asked several of her friends (most of mine ride bikes), none of them realized that any of the roads i mentioned had bike lanes, they just thought of bike lanes as space for parked cars to open their doors (what!) and assumed that bikes rode with traffic. I was amazed and since then have not ridden in any bike lanes (in fact I avoid riding my bike in boston in general, insane drivers, bus works for me.)
I live in boston, I recently was in the car with my girlfriend and pointed out to her that she was driving in the bike lane, as were all of the cars in front of her and several behind her. her comment (oh wow, bikes get their own lanes? that must be new.) This is the same road she has driven for close to 2 years, with the same bike lane. When I asked several of her friends (most of mine ride bikes), none of them realized that any of the roads i mentioned had bike lanes, they just thought of bike lanes as space for parked cars to open their doors (what!) and assumed that bikes rode with traffic. I was amazed and since then have not ridden in any bike lanes (in fact I avoid riding my bike in boston in general, insane drivers, bus works for me.)
:beer:
Oh wow, bikes get their own lanes?. Exactly. Unless you take a person like this and explicitly point out this fact like you did, they are going to remain oblivious to it, because it is of no relevance to them.
:beer:
Oh wow, bikes get their own lanes?. Exactly. Unless you take a person like this and explicitly point out this fact like you did, they are going to remain oblivious to it, because it is of no relevance to them.Traffic regulations are of no relevance to motorists? That's an interesting assertion....
Traffic regulations are of no relevance to motorists? That's an interesting assertion....
Interesting?
There should be nothing interesting or surprising about the assertion that some traffic regulations are of no relevance to some motorists.
Of course, the assertion that all traffic regulations are of no relevance to motorists would be patently absurd.
Interesting?
There should be nothing interesting or surprising about the assertion that some traffic regulations are of no relevance to some motorists.
Of course, the assertion that all traffic regulations are of no relevance to motorists would be patently absurd.Any traffic regulation that applies to a motorist is, by definition, of relevance to that motorist. And likewise, any traffic regulation that does not apply to that motorist, and does not otherwise affect that motorist, is by definition, of no relevance to that motorist.
Because bike lane regulations apply to motorists, they are of relevance to motorists.
To assert that relevance to the motorist is based on what the motorist is personally interested in is patently absurd.
Any traffic regulation that applies to a motorist is, by definition, of relevance to that motorist. And likewise, any traffic regulation that does not apply to that motorist, and does not otherwise affect that motorist, is by definition, of no relevance to that motorist.
Because bike lane regulations apply to motorists, they are of relevance to motorists.
To assert that relevance to the motorist is based on what the motorist is personally interested in is patently absurd.
I'm sorry, but I cycle in the real world, not in the ideal world. How about you?
In the ideal world, yes, all traffic regulations would be relevant to all motorists.
However, in the real world where I cycle, the reality is that many motorists are oblivious to many regulations: to them, some (many? most?) regulations are not relevant. That's the reality, BO. I'm sorry to disappoint you.
I'm sorry, but I cycle in the real world, not in the ideal world. How about you?
In the ideal world, yes, all traffic regulations would be relevant to all motorists.
However, in the real world where I cycle, the reality is that many motorists are oblivious to many regulations: to them, some (many? most?) regulations are not relevant. That's the reality, BO. I'm sorry to disappoint you.Nonsense, no matter how many times repeated, is still nonsense.
You are equating what these drivers are personally interested in with what is relevant to them. They are not the same thing. If a traffic regulation, such as the requirement not to drive in the bike lane, applies to a motorist, that traffic regulation is relevant to that motorist, regardless of whether or not that motorist cares-- or even knows about-- that regulation. They may be oblivious to a regulation, but that regulation still applies to them, and thus, is relevant.
Fine BO, when I originally wrote "because it is of no relevance to them" I should have written "because they do not perceive it to be relevant to them". Looking back at #17, I would think that clarification would not be required, but whatever, here it is:
Unless you take a person like this and explicitly point out this fact like you did, they are going to remain oblivious to it, because they do not perceive it to be relevant to them.
Fine BO, when I originally wrote "because it is of no relevance to them" I should have written "because they do not perceive it to be relevant to them". Looking back at #17, I would think that clarification would not be required, but whatever, here it is:
Unless you take a person like this and explicitly point out this fact like you did, they are going to remain oblivious to it, because they do not perceive it to be relevant to them.I understand that. However, the possibility that a motorist might not perceive the relevance of the law is of no relevance to the law. As I'm sure you've heard, ignorance of the law is no excuse. It's because the law doesn't care about what each of us personally perceives-- the statutes are in effect, and we are required to know them, and presumed to know them when we undertake to operate a vehicle. Whether we actually do know them or actually do care about them is of no relevance to the court.
However, the possibility that a motorist might not perceive the relevance of the law is of no relevance to the law.
I don't disagree, but the motorist's perception of the relevance of the law is all that matters to me in the context of figuring out whether bike lanes help or hinder the noticing of cyclists by motorists.
The only time I have know motorists to be aware of bike lanes is when they yell at me for not being in one.
This is yet another post by HH to try to link vehicular cycling with anti-bike lane zealotry.
+1 sbhikes.
The question is completely moot. Bike lanes don't cause drivers to notice cyclists. At best, imho, they put cyclists at a predicable location (to the rightmost part of the road) so they are not in as much inherent danger to normal traffic. By "normal" please realize that I mean traffic which is not turning in either direction.
What causes motorists to look for and/or notice cyclists is a completely different thing than a stripe on the road. Motorists will look for cyclists when they are competant and knowledgable about traffic and cycling. Motorists will notice cyclists when cyclists and motorists work together to present conditions and attitudes which bring mutual roadway respect, visibility, and compassion.
We cannot hope to have motorists respect us if we do not have compassion for what a car requires, and they cannot hope to have cyclists respect them if they do not have compassion for what we require. It's a two-way road. Two-way...get it?
Serge has an endless supply of rhetoric to support his fantasy world, most of which is nothing but smoke and mirrors, devoid of actual experience. Has he ever personally cycled in either NYC or Boston? Of course not!
here's two velo lanes that are NOT at the 'rightmost part of the lane' AND place a bicyclist in a MORE VISIBLE position in the roadbed. Additionally, the signage, sharrows and positoning make the bicyclist MORE likely they WILL be noticed..
i disagree with singing sabre and definetly disagree with helmet herad;
A well positioned velo lane integrated with the roadway - one with bike symbols, arrows, signage, properly bufferred from parked cars and edge of road WILL make bicyclists more likely to be a) looked for and b) noticed.
Do you believe bike lanes cause motorists to be more likely to look for cyclists to any significant degree?
Edit: What prompted this poll was the following assertion that was made in a post in another thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2938172&postcount=210).
It's an interesting question. But I'd rather see controlled studies to shed light on the question than an opinion poll.
I chose the 2nd option "a bit more likely" based upon the numerous times a motorist has stopped in their lane when preparing to turn right (or move right into a right turn lane) then waited for me to (cautiously) pass them in the bike lane. I found it just results in a standoff if I stop & try to wave them thru ahead of me but at least it is better than a right hook and hasn't ever happened when there was no bike lane. Don
I think bike lanes do make cyclists safer. Not necessarily because it helps drivers to notice the cyclists, but because it reduces the times when an agressive driver messes with a cyclist. I've had several run-ins with motorists who didn't think I belonged on 'their' road. One SUV not only passed very close, they swerved into my lane in front of me and slammed their brakes, and when I moved closer to the curb to go around them, they drove ONTO the sidewalk in front of me. I've never had anything even close happen to me while I was in a bike lane.
There really isn't that much you can do about some of the drivers.... there are a few out there that it doesn't matter if you're on a bike, in a car, or in a semi.... they're distracted by whatever and not paying attention.
Personally, I think the best answer is a simple white line painted with room on the other side, and signage stating to 'Share the Road' ... There are a few roads around here like that, and I've never had ANY issues at all on them. If I'm to the right of the line, I'm out of the lane, and the drivers are courteous, and since it's not marked as a bicycle lane, when I have to leave it, I don't have people screaming at me to "Use the bike lane!" You still have to watch out for the drivers that aren't paying attention, but it removes some of the aggression that I occassionally have to endure.
I've found roads where there is simply a white line with space to the right of it to be THE worst roads to try and ride on. AsI've said before, I don't have too many bike lanes around the areas I normally ride. This setup is much more common. My reasons for my displeasure with this design:
1. Regardless of how much space is to the right, only the first 2-3 feet are usable because of debris.
2. That space is generally not maintained to the same quality as the roadway itself. Often times, there'll be a significant crack right along the white stripe where the road has cracked from traffic driving along the stripe and/or repaving that only included the roadway.
3. Merging out of that space is next to impossible as most drivers do not notice you and hence do not respond to hand signals. On top of that, merging across the aforementioned crack while riding one handed can be a bit scary.
4. When you do need to merge out of that space, I've found that drivers are much more likely to harass you or make dangerous swerving manuevers to get around you as you have now invaded THEIR space (and where did that cyclist come from anyway?)
5. Drivers are much more likely to close pass you as they use that outer line as a guideline and disregard anything to the right of it. As you are forced to either flat every 10 miles or right further left, you are often at the mercy of the driver who usually does not think to move left in their lane (you are out of their way so why bother?)
I'd much prefer the shoulder to be removed and have a NOL with a center turn lane that can also be used for passing or where the roadway is wide enough to have two through lanes. I've found these types of roads to be much easier to ride and the motorists more pleasant to interact with even when I need to slow them down to my speed.
The only time I have know motorists to be aware of bike lanes is when they yell at me for not being in one.
:beer:
not exactly an unbiased pollster, areyanow, mr hed?
Gallup wouldn't keep you on to take the pulse of the nation, too biased.
I suggest a quick trip around your living room in the armchair, and a quick skim of bike magazine.
Velolanes as described in the post this thread was inspired by, would, without a doubt, get drivers to
a) recognize the possible presence of bicyclists to the left of a car in the right turn only lane, and
b) allow the cars to notice the bicyclists more readily.
you are so skewed with your misinformation campaign in here.....
Interesting bimodal distribution.
No, Bike lanes do not make motorists more aware that there may be cyclists on the road. What bike lanes do, one of the things, is move the cyclist so far to the right that the bike lane removes the cyclist from the effective sight lines of the motorists. Sure, the motorist may see the cyclist, but the cylist is so far to the right the motorist will often disregard the cyclist as being inconsequential.
For this reason bike lanes often encourage close passing and left and right hooks. This goes along the lines of my position that bike lanes do next to nothing to contribute to the safety of cyclists. What bike lanes primarily do is move cyclists out of the traffic lanes for the convience of motorists.
Far better to have two narrow traffic lanes in each direction.
bull. none of what you say is true of well engineered, up to the minimum AASHTO standard roadways with velo accmodations, comuter run. if a community wants to make a lane even more accomodating, that is the community's right, but your false statements about how damaging velo lanes are is malicious in your lies and smoke. "removed from the effective lines of sight".... my arse! what a bunch of hooey! tunnel vision, that is all that is required of drivers to operate a vehicle on the roadways what a crock of bullshizzle....
here's a photo of conditions similar to what prompted heds skewed polls....
a rider was complaining about being swooped by a driver in a right turn lane, when he was in the thru lane (No velotransit)
I SAID, a velo lane would have a) made it more likely a driver would have looked for a bike to his left before the swoop, and b) cognified a biker there.
its a lane, its downright almost in the middle of the road, it is for bikes, it is signed, there are "cars yield to bikes" signs every 200 yards, AND it is almost as wide as a full traffic lane.
how in the HECk this does any of those things you so dismissively and wrongfully claim about velo transit accomdations integrated into a regional roadway grid is a sign of your seriously skewed perspective.
yeah, it must suck for you to live where there are inadequate, improperly designed and poorly placed roadway accomodations for bicyclists. commuter run, YOU might prefer two narrow lanes, but i bet the DRIVERS behind you sure don't.
Neither do many people that would consider riding in your area, but think just two narrow lanes is a bit too little buffer for their sensibilities.
not everyone rides in traffic the same way you do, commuter run, and it is a DISSERVICE to your community if you predicate your riding style onto all the other bicyclists in your area. WAKULLA COUNTY? that rural backwater?
when i lived in Pensacola, Tallie (South of the airport, heading right towards Wakulla on 319), and Ft Walton Beach, i used to ride a lot and never saw much issue, except a bunch of close passing cars becasue there WEREN'T many bike lanes.
"None of the above/Other"
It depends. Bike lanes don't exist independent of the road. Some are well designed and draw the eyes that direction, some are no more than remarked shoulders, overgrown with brush or covered in gravel.
This poll is like asking if dedicated right and left turn lanes at intersections make intersections more or less confusing. Again, it depends...
HH, I'd recommend you post a picture of a specific bike laned road and then take a poll or ask the question you asked above. Right now, you haven't recieved the answer to your question because it lacked specificity - hence the bi-modal distribution based on one's preconcieved notions on bike lanes in general. You'd get the same distribution if you simply asked "are you for or against bike lanes." Also realize that a poll is the wrong medium to get an answer to this question in the first place. As LittleBigMan previously pointed out, if you want the answer to this question, you'd have to reference scientific studies. As it is, you are simply polling about preconcieved notions - this poll, by definition, will tell you nothing about the actual safety of bike lanes.
...but I'd bet you already know this and are just trying to make a retorical point. It's all about the retoric with you - you know the answer coming in, and just frequent this forum to install the rationale. Kind of like the philosophers before the scientific method and experimentation were established as a field separate from philosophy. Problem is, you get the wrong answers that way - like Aristotal and his flawed theory of gravity dictating that lighter objects fall slower than heavier ones. Perfectly logical, but exactly wrong.
None of the above. Around here, bike lanes are just convenient passing lanes for motorists.
here's two velo lanes that are NOT at the 'rightmost part of the lane' AND place a bicyclist in a MORE VISIBLE position in the roadbed. Additionally, the signage, sharrows and positoning make the bicyclist MORE likely they WILL be noticed..
i disagree with singing sabre and definetly disagree with helmet herad;
A well positioned velo lane integrated with the roadway - one with bike symbols, arrows, signage, properly bufferred from parked cars and edge of road WILL make bicyclists more likely to be a) looked for and b) noticed.
That has to be one of the best points someone has made. :)
I'm wondering, though, are those bike lanes the norm for bike lanes in your area, or are those special ones for peculiar traffic?
Good bike lanes like that are the norm around here. We don't have as complicated of streets as Bek does, so our bike lanes aren't as complex, but they are as usually well-placed. Our bike lanes are part of a comprehensive bicycle transportation network that also includes bikeways, bridges, and bikepaths. They are designed not to put cyclists out of the way but to facilitate them getting to and from the destinations that people need to go.
The only people against bike facilities in my area are people who want all bikes off the road and roads to be for cars only. They call themselves "Cars are Basic."
This goes along the lines of my position that bike lanes do next to nothing to contribute to the safety of cyclists. What bike lanes primarily do is move cyclists out of the traffic lanes for the convience of motorists.
yeah, it must suck for you to live where there are inadequate, improperly designed and poorly placed roadway accomodations for bicyclists. commuter run, YOU might prefer two narrow lanes, but i bet the DRIVERS behind you sure don't.
Why thank you, Bek, for proving my point.:)
A second narrow traffic lane would give anyone who wants to pass another lane in the same direction in which to do so. Which would negate them having to wait behind me until the on-coming lane is clear, as they currently do on a two-lane NOL. Effective as a BL with the added plus of motorists being able to use it when there is not a slower vehicle ahead.
when i lived in Pensacola, Tallie (South of the airport, heading right towards Wakulla on 319), and Ft Walton Beach, i used to ride a lot and never saw much issue, except a bunch of close passing cars becasue there WEREN'T many bike lanes.
Uhm, Hwy 319 goes to Crawfordville. Wakulla is on the other side of the county on Woodville Hwy (363). Or maybe you meant Bloxham Cutoff (267), that goes from kind of the direction of the airport to Wakulla.
You might want to try riding further to the left in the lane. I have found that the more room I keep on my right, the more I am given on my left when being passed. When I ride the paved shoulder on Hwy 98 I find that I'm not given nearly as much room. On these other highways, two-lane, NOL, no paved shoulder, nearly all drivers that pass me, do so by completely changing lanes when it's safe to do so.
And actually, the velotransit facilities in this area don't suck at all. In fact quite the contrary, the cycling is very good here with the vast majority of the drivers being excellent at sharing the road.:)
The only people against bike facilities in my area are people who want all bikes off the road and roads to be for cars only. They call themselves "Cars are Basic."
I did not find anything on the web about these "Cars are Basic" folks. I am wondering what their idiot agenda is.
I did not find anything on the web about these "Cars are Basic" folks. I am wondering what their idiot agenda is.
I was curious as well. I did a quick search and found this link (look for "bike lane usage"): http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=332
A guy from Cars Are Basic wrote in talking about the new bike lanes installed in SB where they removed traffic lanes to do so. He actually has a very good point about how backwards it is to reduce full size traffic lanes just to accomodate cyclists. Granted, his take on it is probably different from mine but who knows, maybe this guy really is all for the real version of sharing the road. Also interesting to note how while everyone is so happy about the safe new bike lanes, most people are also reporting that motorist speed has increased.
I was curious as well. I did a quick search and found this link (look for "bike lane usage"): http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=332
A guy from Cars Are Basic wrote in talking about the new bike lanes installed in SB where they removed traffic lanes to do so. He actually has a very good point about how backwards it is to reduce full size traffic lanes just to accomodate cyclists. Granted, his take on it is probably different from mine but who knows, maybe this guy really is all for the real version of sharing the road. Also interesting to note how while everyone is so happy about the safe new bike lanes, most people are also reporting that motorist speed has increased.
I just searched for "Cars Are Basic, Inc." the group cited in the article... and found nothing. Interesting article though... pointing out that cycle ridership has been declining, in spite of increased facilities. Of course this was all based on impromptu surveys that the "Cars Are Basic, Inc." folks took... gee, wonder if they are biased?
I had to Google "Cars are basic Santa Barbara" to get any results.
I had to Google "Cars are basic Santa Barbara" to get any results.
Just tried that and came back with more... including this tidbit: "...to fund a host of congestion relief projects, including freeway widening, mass transit, commuter rail, and basic road repairs. Gandrud and Wenz support widening Highway 101 to six lanes..."
Following the leadership of these nuts (Gandrud and Wenz), there would be asphalt everywhere...
Yup that's the solution to congestion... add more pavement... it's obviously helped LA and NYC... sheesh!
Most people here are in favor of widening the 101 to 6 lanes. It is currently 4 and the traffic is very bad. The freeway is 6 lanes from Goleta, the next city over through to Montecito. Then it narrows to 4 lanes until La Conchita where it is back to 6. The traffic between Montecito and La Conchita is horrible. Gadrud is a liberal and Ghallagly (a congressman) is a conservative and that they both support widening the freeway only means they support their constituents. Ghallagly has actually gone outside the regular channels to try and get the freeway widened.
The Cars are Basic organization has this lady named Michael Self as its spokesperson. She's upset because there's a sales tax we have that pays for alternative transportation. This election year the measure is up for renewal and she'd like it to be defeated because she feels that a small group of liberals are trying to cram bus and bike riding down everybody's throats at the expense of driving, which she feels is the ONLY viable form of transportation.
She regularly fills the opinion pages of our compromised (do a google on news-press mess) news paper with her vitriol. She hates traffic calming, hates the bike lane they installed on a residential street because it removed one lane of traffic. That street was a one-way street in the downtown area. We have a number of one-way streets in the downtown area just a block or two over that are just like that street. They are one way, one lane and one bike lane streets. They are a joy to drive on. The street they added the bike lane to is just like those streets only there is less reason to drive on them than the other streets. Even that Michael Self lady doesn't use that street nor does she live there. The residents are happy with the change. The only reason that traffic is faster is because prior to the bike lane the street was cracked 60 year old concrete. Now it's smooth as butter asphalt.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.