Google sponsored links
Im for bike lanes but someone might be interested in this pictorial
and organization. Apologies if its been posted prevously.
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/carystripes.htm
I see BL's as just an augmentation to our safe passage.
Not to be used exclusivley if you choose not to but nice to know they
are there if you need them.
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
Im for bike lanes but someone might be interested in this pictorial
and organization. Apologies if its been posted prevously.
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/carystripes.htm
That's Dr. Stephen Goodridge's website. He posts here. Great stuff.
I see BL's as just an augmentation to our safe passage.
Not to be used exclusivley if you choose not to but nice to know they
are there if you need them.
So do I. The problem isn't with how you and I see it, however. The problem is that most cyclists, law enforcement and motorists don't see it that way - they see it as the space where cyclists are supposed to ride, and the space outside of the bike lane as space where cyclists are not supposed to ride, period.
Now, if you don't think about this issue very deeply, the issue may appear to be a matter for education, not eliminating bike lanes. But, when you consider how natural and logical is the widely held perspective, it becomes obvious that education is no solution for this. When you paint a solid stripe along the outside edge of a road, and label it BIKE LANE, it is only logical to conclude that the purpose for that BIKE LANE is to designate the place where bikes are supposed to be ridden. But that conclusion is diametrically opposed to the notion that BLs are "just an augmentation to our safe passage" - it makes them a narrow restriction to our safe passage. Worse, the existence of some BIKE LANEs enables the "bikes are supposed to be out of the way" thinking even to roads where there are no bike lanes. But, like I said, it requires deeper than surface level thinking to realize this and its implications, and few cyclists appear willing to do that.
I've always wondered how much trouble I'd be in for moving piles of debris out of the bike lane and into the lane to it's left.
Regardless of where you stand on the semantics of bicycle travel,
I believe BL's to be our Pandora's Box to getting people to take us
seriously if ever a time might come. Strange...I know they(BL's) appear to
'put us in our place' but I beleive they are a place to start a serious
dialog that could concievably go into more fruitive territory.
The public doenst see things like we do but they do understand
BL's. It could be our 'Gateway' issue. What I just do dont get is that
they take away what little they give us then complain we are in their way ?
I admit I am a little non-sypathetic however, to people who need to park us out
to save 500 ft. of walking because they have 'had a hard day' after I am at mile
10 of my commute.....
[QUOTE=-=£em in Pa=-]Im for bike lanes but someone might be interested in this pictorial
and organization. Apologies if its been posted prevously.
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/carystripes.htm
[/quote[
That's Dr. Stephen Goodridge's website. He posts here. Great stuff.
So do I. The problem is that most cyclists, law enforcement and motorists don't see it that way - they see it as the space where cyclists are supposed to ride, and the space outside of the bike lane as space where cyclists are not supposed to ride, period.
Now, if you don't think about this issue very deeply, the issue may appear to be a matter for education, not eliminating bike lanes. But, when you consider how natural and logical is the widely held perspective, it becomes obvious that education is no solution for this. When you paint a solid stripe along the outside edge of a road, and label it BIKE LANE, it is only logical to conclude that the purpose for that BIKE LANE is to designate the place where bikes are supposed to be ridden. But that conclusion is diametrically opposed to the notion that BLs are "just an augmentation to our safe passage" - it makes them a narrow restriction to our safe passage. Worse, the existence of some BIKE LANEs enables the "bikes are supposed to be out of the way" thinking even to roads where there are no bike lanes. But, like I said, it requires deeper than surface level thinking to realize this and its implications, and few cyclists appear willing to do that.
Perhaps it's a local issue with where you live HH, or maybe its' an American perception, but here in downtown Toronto I don't think motorists have the impression that bicycles belong in bike lanes exclusively. Nor have I encountered that attitude anywhere else I have travelled in Canada. It's common knowledge to most motorists...(but not all, unforrtunately)...that cyclists are supposed to be on the road and are entitled to the road, even if many or most don't respect the space they are supposed to afford a cyclist. Only once in recent memory have I ever heard a motorist suggest I should be on the sidewalk.
I don't believe education has been any more extensive here than in other succesfully bicycle-integrated city in the US, nor are Canadians any more or less conscientious, respectful or accomodating of cyclists. Canadian motorists and pedestrians constantly complain about the exact same issues as American motorists do. And they behave just as thoughtlessly, reckless and outright dangerously as any other motorist. So, what could explain the apparent difference in attitude? Unless, perhaps the attitude is not such a prevalent attitude as you think it is and remains a misconception on your part.
It strikes me that you should be delivering your message to motorists, not cyclists, perhaps on a motorist forum where you might educate the uneducated or misguided. I doubt there's many in these forums, pro-BL or otherwise, that would disagree with your view that bicycles belong on any and all roads (excluding freeways, perhaps) whether they have a bike lane or not or that bicycles are not required to use bike lanes; so while there may be differences of opinion regarding how, where and when bike lanes should be implemented and used, the crux of your position would receive a consensus from almost everyone, I would imagine. While I appreciate your well thought-out arguments, it seems to me to be the epitome of preaching to the choir and directing the message where it will do the least good.
When & where there is a BL is it required that cyclists use them? Or can they use the travel lane on the roadway? Are there laws or ordinances stating cyclist must use the BL?
Or does the ordinance that states a cyclist has to ride as far to the right as is practicable or safe cover it? If this is the case then when a BL is not safe to ride on because of the problems shown in the photo's on this BL then the safest place to ride is in the travel lane of the roadway, right?
When & where there is a BL is it required that cyclists use them? Or can they use the travel lane on the roadway? Are there laws or ordinances stating cyclist must use the BL?
Or does the ordinance that states a cyclist has to ride as far to the right as is practicable or safe cover it? If this is the case then when a BL is not safe to ride on because of the problems shown in the photo's on this BL then the safest place to ride is in the travel lane of the roadway, right?
In state such as Oregon, cyclists are required to use a bike lane if provided unless making a left hand turn or avoiding hazards. In a recent thread discussing a "crackdown" on cyclists in Portland, cyclists were given citations for leaving the bike lane when they were simply trying to make a vehicular left hand turn. If cyclists are given citations for this obviously legal action, how can you expect fair treatment if you leave a bike lane for a non-obvious reason such as sand, possible car doors, rough pavement, avoiding a right/left hook, etc.? The "as far right as practicable" law should cover everything but bike lanes seem to give the lawmakers an excuse to restrict cyclists above and beyond that.
I've always wondered how much trouble I'd be in for moving piles of debris out of the bike lane and into the lane to it's left.
As car passed though, all the crap would end up back in the bike lane. :(
[QUOTE=Helmet Head]
Perhaps it's a local issue with where you live HH, or maybe its' an American perception, but here in downtown Toronto I don't think motorists have the impression that bicycles belong in bike lanes exclusively. Nor have I encountered that attitude anywhere else I have travelled in Canada. It's common knowledge to most motorists...(but not all, unforrtunately)...that cyclists are supposed to be on the road and are entitled to the road, even if many or most don't respect the space they are supposed to afford a cyclist. Only once in recent memory have I ever heard a motorist suggest I should be on the sidewalk.
I don't believe education has been any more extensive here than in other succesfully bicycle-integrated city in the US, nor are Canadians any more or less conscientious, respectful or accomodating of cyclists. Canadian motorists and pedestrians constantly complain about the exact same issues as American motorists do. And they behave just as thoughtlessly, reckless and outright dangerously as any other motorist. So, what could explain the apparent difference in attitude? Unless, perhaps the attitude is not such a prevalent attitude as you think it is and remains a misconception on your part.
It strikes me that you should be delivering your message to motorists, not cyclists, perhaps on a motorist forum where you might educate the uneducated or misguided. I doubt there's many in these forums, pro-BL or otherwise, that would disagree with your view that bicycles belong on any and all roads (excluding freeways, perhaps) whether they have a bike lane or not or that bicycles are not required to use bike lanes; so while there may be differences of opinion regarding how, where and when bike lanes should be implemented and used, the crux of your position would receive a consensus from almost everyone, I would imagine. While I appreciate your well thought-out arguments, it seems to me to be the epitome of preaching to the choir and directing the message where it will do the least good.
+1
Although HH has probably already been banned for spamming up 85% of motorist's forums... :)
In state such as Oregon, cyclists are required to use a bike lane if provided unless making a left hand turn or avoiding hazards. In a recent thread discussing a "crackdown" on cyclists in Portland, cyclists were given citations for leaving the bike lane when they were simply trying to make a vehicular left hand turn. If cyclists are given citations for this obviously legal action, how can you expect fair treatment if you leave a bike lane for a non-obvious reason such as sand, possible car doors, rough pavement, avoiding a right/left hook, etc.? The "as far right as practicable" law should cover everything but bike lanes seem to give the lawmakers an excuse to restrict cyclists above and beyond that.
I think that bicycles should stay in the bike lane, just as cars should stay in their lanes. They go into two-way left turn lanes to turn, as we do; they go into other lanes to avoid obstacles, as we do; we should just get along. I think the citations would drop down if we had more mutual respect for traffic laws from both cyclists and motorists.
I think that bicycles should stay in the bike lane, just as cars should stay in their lanes. They go into two-way left turn lanes to turn, as we do; they go into other lanes to avoid obstacles, as we do; we should just get along. I think the citations would drop down if we had more mutual respect for traffic laws from both cyclists and motorists.
The reasons why anyone would want to leave a bike lane, or never be in one at all, have been addressed ad nauseum on this forum. Unless you haven't read any of the threads with those reasons, I'll refrain from reposting them.
What does a cyclist leaving a bike lane for a legitimate reason have to do with disrespecting traffic laws (aside from ones that are complete BS like mandatory bike lane use)?
In a recent thread discussing a "crackdown" on cyclists in Portland, cyclists were given citations for leaving the bike lane when they were simply trying to make a vehicular left hand turn. If cyclists are given citations for this obviously legal action, how can you expect fair treatment if you leave a bike lane for a non-obvious reason such as sand, possible car doors, rough pavement, avoiding a right/left hook, etc.? The "as far right as practicable" law should cover everything but bike lanes seem to give the lawmakers an excuse to restrict cyclists above and beyond that.
Blaming a bike lane for that sort of anti-cyclist sentiment is like saying gay-bashings are caused by two guys holding hands.
(Perhaps bike lane discussion would not degenerate into uselessness if only those of us in pro-cycling environments contributed. That way we would be pestered with fewer misconceptions.)
The reasons why anyone would want to leave a bike lane, or never be in one at all, have been addressed ad nauseum on this forum. Unless you haven't read any of the threads with those reasons, I'll refrain from reposting them.
What does a cyclist leaving a bike lane for a legitimate reason have to do with disrespecting traffic laws (aside from ones that are complete BS like mandatory bike lane use)?
In a recent thread discussing a "crackdown" on cyclists in Portland, cyclists were given citations for leaving the bike lane when they were simply trying to make a vehicular left hand turn.
That's what.
I'm just saying that I think bike lanes are a swell way of keeping cyclists out of motorists' ways. However, I feel that both cyclists and motorists need to have mutual respect for eachother. They need to respect the fact that we may need to dodge out of the lane frequently to avoid debris, and we need to respect their needs.
If this mutual respect existed, it wouldn't matter whether we had bike lanes or not.
Blaming a bike lane for that sort of anti-cyclist sentiment is like saying gay-bashings are caused by two guys holding hands.
(Perhaps bike lane discussion would not degenerate into uselessness if only those of us in pro-cycling environments contributed. That way we would be pestered with fewer misconceptions.)
Ok, so I'll blame the law which confines cyclists to bike lanes. But one wouldn't exist without the other so I think it's fair to blame the bike lane. Portland is supposed to be all "cyclists are great" yet their own law enforcement doesn't understand the intent of the law, perhaps because the implications of a bike lane so strongly suggest that cyclists should always be there, out of the motorists way.
Staying out of the motorists way is not high on my priority list while cycling.
Ok, so I'll blame the law which confines cyclists to bike lanes. But one wouldn't exist without the other so I think it's fair to blame the bike lane. Portland is supposed to be all "cyclists are great" yet their own law enforcement doesn't understand the intent of the law, perhaps because the implications of a bike lane so strongly suggest that cyclists should always be there, out of the motorists way.
Staying out of the motorists way is not high on my priority list while cycling.
From what I learned in Driver's Ed. about 8 years ago, the "object of driving is to get from one point to another without impeding the flow of traffic."
I follow this idea while in two wheels or four, as impeding the flow of traffic can be lethal.
Portland has a few bad apples which gave out citations to cyclists obeying the law. You're making a mountain out of a molehill with this bike lane stuff.
Looking at the pictures, I really wonder why anyone felt the need to paint the bike lanes. The lanes are incredibly wide -- most look like you could put three cars side by side, never mind a car and a bike. And maybe it's the time of day, but there doesn't seem to be much traffic either.
It's common knowledge to most motorists...(but not all, unforrtunately)...that cyclists are supposed to be on the road and are entitled to the road, even if many or most don't respect the space they are supposed to afford a cyclist. Only once in recent memory have I ever heard a motorist suggest I should be on the sidewalk. Do we live in different Torontos?..
At any rate, their knowing that we're supposed to be on the road is just BARELY A START! A lot of motorists seem to think that cyclists are ok with about a foot of space in which to operate the bike, and are willing to generously share about as much. :rolleyes:
Ok, so I'll blame the law which confines cyclists to bike lanes. But one wouldn't exist without the other so I think it's fair to blame the bike lane. Portland is supposed to be all "cyclists are great" yet their own law enforcement doesn't understand the intent of the law, perhaps because the implications of a bike lane so strongly suggest that cyclists should always be there, out of the motorists way
I think you're missing the point, and it has NOTHING to do with the bike lane. If it did, wouldn't you expect bike lanes to have have the same impact elsewhere? I think your mind is set on this, so probably no point in my continuing the discussion.
Do we live in different Torontos?..
Well, I ride primarily downtown and there is a different culture down here in comparison with anywhere north of Eglinton, west of Lansdowne or east of Main.
Also remember that I stated it is common knowledge that most motorists are aware that cyclists belong on the road even if most don't respect the space they are supposed to afford us.
I firmly believe most motorists are well aware of our legal right to the road, but are ignorant of the fact that we are entitled to the entire right lane if we need it. It wouldn't matter if they understood that fact either when we are an inconvenience or hazard to them. Legal rights and priveleges be damned: we are forcing them to slow down and possibly encroach on the left lane. Aware or not of our rights, most motorists would prefer we weren't there at all.
Well, I ride primarily downtown and there is a different culture down here in comparison with anywhere north of Eglinton, west of Lansdowne or east of Main. Yes, that probably makes a difference. Most of my "Get on the sidewalk!" comments (some even, apparently, meant well and were made out of concern for my safety) came from cagers on Bathurst between Eglinton and Wilson, and Keele between Finch and Steeles.
I firmly believe most motorists are well aware of our legal right to the road, but are ignorant of the fact that we are entitled to the entire right lane if we need it. It wouldn't matter if they understood that fact either when we are an inconvenience or hazard to them. Legal rights and priveleges be damned: we are forcing them to slow down and possibly encroach on the left lane. Aware or not of our rights, most motorists would prefer we weren't there at all. Yes, the part about knowing the legalities might be true, and the part about their not wanting us on the road - is definitely true.
But then - so many other things slow them down and make them change lanes: buses, garbage trucks, parked cars... Why do they respect their space and legal rights and priviliges?..
Sand is commonly applied to the roads during icy or snowy conditions here. These pictures were undoubtedly taken in the deep Winter months, as evidenced by the leaveless trees.
I don't have a problem with that, because in the Winter, I use my Mountain Bike for commuting, just in case we get a Winter storm. The Mountain Bike handles the sand just fine. I don't leave the bike lane unless I'm forced to. I've had no problems for 17 years, riding in this fashion.
I don't have a problem with that, because in the Winter, I use my Mountain Bike for commuting, just in case we get a Winter storm. The Mountain Bike handles the sand just fine. I don't leave the bike lane unless I'm forced to. I've had no problems for 17 years, riding in this fashion. What works for you doesn't have to work for everybody. Lots of people never leave the sidewalk and never have problems.... :rolleyes:
P.S. I saw a very sandy bike lane in Toronto in the middle of June this year. I also know of a bike lane that seems to always be full of gravel: there must be trucks spilling it there all the time, and it gets sweeped from the street into the bike lane. ;)
Yes, that probably makes a difference. Most of my "Get on the sidewalk!" comments (some even, apparently, meant well and were made out of concern for my safety) came from cagers on Bathurst between Eglinton and Wilson, and Keele between Finch and Steeles.
Yes, the part about knowing the legalities might be true, and the part about their not wanting us on the road - is definitely true.
But then - so many other things slow them down and make them change lanes: buses, garbage trucks, parked cars... Why do they respect their space and legal rights and priviliges?..
Interesting question. However, I think motorists see buses and garbage trucks and construction vehicles as fellow-motorists, necessary inconveniences, etc., but licensed vehicles who still observe the same rules they do, for the most part; whereas they perceive cyclists as unemployed or punks or severe lefties or undeserving of the privelege to be on the road (like most of us don't have licenses or jobs, etc.--- sheesh). It sort of reminds of how society perceived motorcycle gangs back in the 50's and 60's.
Im for bike lanes but someone might be interested in this pictorial
and organization. Apologies if its been posted prevously.
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/carystripes.htm
I see BL's as just an augmentation to our safe passage.
Not to be used exclusivley if you choose not to but nice to know they
are there if you need them.
Great pics. Tells me two things. Motorists DO stay out of the Bike Lanes, and the area needs more cyclists who by riding in the BL would also keep some of the clutter out... just like cars.
So apparently NC has some facilities, but few cyclists.
Of course the other issue may be that none of those roads should have had BL in the first place. I wonder what the posted speed limit is on those roads?
I saw at least one 25MPH sign, and a lot of residential area... hardly worth striping at all. But I have noticed that a lot of east coast cities stripe even these streets... which are quite perfect for cyclists without BL. I can understand why no cyclist rides in these BL... no reason to...
Many of those pictures show bike lanes in places where they aren't needed with poor paving and insufficient width. Perhaps the road planners of this region need some training on how to plan good bike lanes and how to know where one isn't needed. I'd love to hear the opinion of someone who lives and rides in the area.
I will say this about the tickets for leaving the bike lane in Portland: it was one bike lane on one stretch of street. This bike lane is a highly controversial one. About 75% of people I know who travel on it think it should be removed in select blocks, but it seems the city bike planners are convinced it should remain. It doesn't make me want to see all bike lanes removed and I think that the majority of bike lanes in the area work well.
I think you're missing the point, and it has NOTHING to do with the bike lane. If it did, wouldn't you expect bike lanes to have have the same impact elsewhere? I think your mind is set on this, so probably no point in my continuing the discussion.
As much as I can sometimes sound like I do not have an open mind, I do. I came into this forum thinking bike lanes were the answer to many issues and I was convinced otherwise. If your argument is persuasive enough, I'm sure I'll have no problems accepting it.
As to bike lanes not having the same impact elsewhere, just like the reasons for fighting any ban on bicycles on the roadway, I think if let go for long enough, a precedent could be set by Oregon (and Portland specifically) which could cause other cities to follow.
From what I learned in Driver's Ed. about 8 years ago, the "object of driving is to get from one point to another without impeding the flow of traffic."
I follow this idea while in two wheels or four, as impeding the flow of traffic can be lethal.
Portland has a few bad apples which gave out citations to cyclists obeying the law. You're making a mountain out of a molehill with this bike lane stuff.
Truly impeding the flow of traffic and causing traffic to slow to ensure your own safe travel on the roadways are two different things. I, too, strive to not impede traffic and I will pull over like the law requires when I feel I am doing so. However, I'll intentionally do what it takes to slow down traffic when I feel it's necessary for my safety. I feel a mandatory bike lane law attempts to take that ability away from me.
I think you're downplaying the long term effects of bike lanes on cyclists use of the roadways.
Great pics. Tells me two things. Motorists DO stay out of the Bike Lanes, and the area needs more cyclists who by riding in the BL would also keep some of the clutter out... just like cars.
So apparently NC has some facilities, but few cyclists.
Cyclists will have little sweeping effect on the roadways. Cars and trucks move a lot more air than a cyclist and I believe this air is what actually sweeps the roadway of small, lightweight debris like sand, not the tires. Hence why the first few feet of the shoulder can often be debris free even if motorists never actually drive there.
This past weekend a storm dumped a lot of heavy debris (tree limbs and wet leaves) along many of the local roads. You could see exactly where the roads had been used by motorists (right over to the white line on the right) because this area was clean while the rest was covered in debris.
As much as I can sometimes sound like I do not have an open mind, I do. I came into this forum thinking bike lanes were the answer to many issues and I was convinced otherwise. If your argument is persuasive enough, I'm sure I'll have no problems accepting it.
You are completely missing the point. This has NOTHING to do with bike lanes! Think about the example I gave in post#11.
You are completely missing the point. This has NOTHING to do with bike lanes! Think about the example I gave in post#11.
The proximity of my comment about bike lanes in my last post was not meant to imply that I am only able to see the bike lane as being the issue here. It was simply meant to state that I am open minded and willing to change my opinion. Sorry if I mislead you by that (re-reading it, I can see how that could happen). I really would like to hear your side of the argument.
I'm having a tough time relating your example in post #11 to this issue with bike lanes. Is your point that there are people in this world who have such strong predjudices that they will act out against others in unlawful ways?
I'm all for bike lanes, quite a few roads I ride are pretty dangerous, Wilson ave. used to be called suicide run, it was bad, they have since widened it out some and painted the stripes a good 6 feet from the shoulder, plenty good for me.
I know I am entitled to use the lane if I need it, I don't need it. I want to educate motorists that bikes have the same rights on the road as them, but I don't expect the city/state to dump a LOT of money into a bike lane or major changes in the law, motorists pay too much in highway taxes for fuel and tires etc, don't want the state to start looking at bicycles as an income source, I like being able to cruise essentialy free, get too high a profile and you'll get licenses etc required for bikes along with all the regulations that go along with them.
Also, many people I've talked with about bike routes, bike trails, and road use will essentialy take the same arguement, that bikes are entitled to the lane as much as a car is, but in the same breath, next sentance at most, rail on against joggers or pedestrians on trails, "why the **** can't they stay out of the way and off the trails?"
same prejudice? motorist against non-motorized traffic, bicyclist against non-wheeled traffic, joggers against pedestrians, pedestrians against what?
ken.
I know I am entitled to use the lane if I need it, I don't need it. I want to educate motorists that bikes have the same rights on the road as them, but I don't expect the city/state to dump a LOT of money into a bike lane or major changes in the law, motorists pay too much in highway taxes for fuel and tires etc, don't want the state to start looking at bicycles as an income source, I like being able to cruise essentialy free, get too high a profile and you'll get licenses etc required for bikes along with all the regulations that go along with them.
Along with that education take with you the idea that motorists do not pay for the roads... especially with "highway taxes for fuel and tires etc." That is a very common misconception that cyclists and especially motorists should not have.
Most roadways are payed for out of developer fees, and general funds... the latter are often generated from property taxes. If anything, "homeowners" are the primary funders of streets... not motorists.
But then - so many other things slow them down and make them change lanes: buses, garbage trucks, parked cars... Why do they respect their space and legal rights and priviliges?..
Because a garbage truck is bigger and heavier than a bike. A garbage truck still pisses some drivers off, but it's hard to sound convincing when you yell "Get on the sidewalk, a**hole!" at a Teamster holding a trash can. Motorists who treat bicyclists badly (and they are a minority) are simply bullies; they try to push us around because they think they can get by with it.
The problem is that most cyclists, law enforcement and motorists don't see it that way - they see it as the space where cyclists are supposed to ride, and the space outside of the bike lane as space where cyclists are not supposed to ride, period.
You can also reverse this. A bikelane is the place where cars are not supposed to ride. Period.
Where I live there are two types of bikelanes. With a dashed line, and with a solid line. In both cases the lane is out of limits for cars. Only in the case of the solid line is the rest of the roadway out of limits to bicycles.
There is one road along my commute where signs even warn car drivers that despite the presence of a bikepath cyclists are allowed on the road...
(Not all is well ,there is also a bikepath along my commute that I won't use, as it's been designed, and is mostly used by 7 year old kids... )
So apparently NC has some facilities, but few cyclists.
That is correct. The first part is correct in some suburban areas but rarely in the downtown cores. There are exactly TWO roads with bike lanes in Asheville, the second having been added this year. There are almost none in Charlotte and some of the smaller towns on the southern part of the I-85 corridor. The Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area seems to be the most road bike friendly in this state.
This area (state?) does have a guideline that, where possible, the right lane be a few feet wider to accommodate bicycles. Striping not common.
There are certainly few road cyclists, and very few bike commuters in NC.
I respect the views of cyclists who prefer bike lanes.
My feelings about bike lanes are very well illustrated by the pictures the OP posted. As soon as bike lanes are painted where I ride, the width of the road seems to get much narrower because the junk starts to fill up the bike lane. I am often forced to ride outside the trashy bike lane, and it's harder for drivers to pass me.
If bike lanes where I live had the same surface quality of the road, I'd love them. But they don't.
However, I'll intentionally do what it takes to slow down traffic when I feel it's necessary for my safety. I feel a mandatory bike lane law attempts to take that ability away from me.
I think you're downplaying the long term effects of bike lanes on cyclists use of the roadways.
So you'll impede it to a degree and not admit that you're impeding traffic.
Long term effects of bike lanes on cyclists using roadways? This isn't cancer, Jack, this is traffic. If a car straddles a stripe, it gets honked at at one point or another. If a cyclist travels needlessly between lanes, the same thing happens. Needlessly, of course, is a matter of perspective, but don't you want to be friendly to the 45MPH behemoths? I don't take the law for granted, I only move outside the BL when I need to. I do take the lane if there is no BL, but I do not take any lane needlessly.
No one else has touched on why these BL exist on what appear to be quiet (25MPH) residential streets...
Could it be these very unneeded BL are not even used by cyclists who find themselves easily cycling these low speed streets without facilities?
These kind of BL remind me of something that was poorly planned, and placed there for some political excuse, rather than as a traffic need. The roads are wide, slow, and probably not heavily traveled, yet someone was deterimined to paint a stripe.
Meanwhile, is there a narrow multilaned road nearby that just begs for traffic calming?
I'm having a tough time relating your example in post #11 to this issue with bike lanes. Is your point that there are people in this world who have such strong predjudices that they will act out against others in unlawful ways?
My point is that the public misperception, or prejudice, comes first. It is meaningless to say that, "A bike lane makes drivers think bikes DON'T belong on the road," or "A bike lane makes drivers see bikes DO belong on the road." Ditto any comments about sharrows or other bike-specific facilities.
If a the local government and/or public have an anti-bike stance, then cyclists and bike facilities may bring out symptoms of that stance.
If a local government and/or public have a pro-bike stance, then cyclists and bike facilities may bring out symptoms of that stance.
It's all inter-related, of course, but it is ludicrously simplistic (and a gross misunderstanding) to say that any bike-specific facilities "cause" mistreatment of cyclists. At most bike facilities may bring out an underlying trend - and even that should be discussed separately from the practical impacts of that facility.
Along with that education take with you the idea that motorists do not pay for the roads... especially with "highway taxes for fuel and tires etc." That is a very common misconception that cyclists and especially motorists should not have.
Most roadways are payed for out of developer fees, and general funds... the latter are often generated from property taxes. If anything, "homeowners" are the primary funders of streets... not motorists.
That is certainly the case here! Nearly every person I speak with thinks their gas taxes, license costs, etc. pay for the roads. In fact only ONE highway in the city is paid for by the province, and NONE by the federal government. The rest are paid for by the city, from municipal property taxes. I pay just as much as a guy owning multiple cars (if our homes are of comparable worth).
The federal tax on gas, incidently, gets partially transfered to cities now but must be used for public transit only. :p
I took the referenced photos.
All of the streets in the photos were paved as unstriped, wide two-lane roads years before the bike lane striping was added. They were all ideal low-traffic cycling roads before the striping; most of them had 16' or wider lanes (or in some cases 32' of pavement with no centerline at all) and 25 mph speed limits; some are posted 35. The striping was added as a retrofit in an opportunistic effort by the town to create striped bike lanes for the sake of having X miles of striped bike lanes. There was no safety rationale for choosing which streets to stripe except which streets had wide enough pavement and preferences stated by parents and novice cyclists. No overtaking-type collisions were ever recorded by police to have happened on any of these roads. There have, however, been a couple of overtaking-type collisions (cyclists brushed or sideswiped by drivers who overtook too closely) reported by the police on the higher-speed, higher-traffic, narrow-lane (less than 12' wide) arterials in town.
The busier, faster roads in Cary do not feature striped bike lanes because (1) the existing and planned arterial road cross sections do not provide wide enough pavement to add them according to state standards, (2) the state DOT discourages provision of striped bike lanes on busy high-speed arterials, and (3) the arterials are maintained by the state, not the town, and would never get swept. The current and future town standard is to employ 14' outside through lanes on arterials instead of the older narrow lane design.
The photos clearly show the edge of the debris line respecitve to the bike lane stripe position. The location of this debris edgeline is fairly constant over time whether there is heavy sand or just a little broken glass. I chose to take these photos at a time of heaveier debris in order to make the lateral position of the debris line as clear as possible in photos covering a distance.
My feelings on bike lane stripes are that (1) they provide no safety benefit on the roads on which they have been installed in Cary, (2) they accumulate debris that requries me to stay out of the bike lane to avoid, (3) they increase harassment from motorists and police who are upset that I don't stay in my special lane.
I don't have an opinion on well-maintained, regularly striped bike lanes on busy high-speed roads with few junctions because I haven't had the opportunity to use such, as there are few to none of this type of bike lane near where I live.
-Steven Goodridge
I took the referenced photos.
All of the streets in the photos were paved as unstriped, wide two-lane roads years before the bike lane striping was added. They were all ideal low-traffic cycling roads before the striping; most of them had 16' or wider lanes (or in some cases 32' of pavement with no centerline at all) and 25 mph speed limits; some are posted 35. The striping was added as a retrofit in an opportunistic effort by the town to create striped bike lanes for the sake of having X miles of striped bike lanes. There was no safety rationale for choosing which streets to stripe except which streets had wide enough pavement and preferences stated by parents and novice cyclists. No overtaking-type collisions were ever recorded by police to have happened on any of these roads. There have, however, been a couple of overtaking-type collisions (cyclists brushed or sideswiped by drivers who overtook too closely) reported by the police on the higher-speed, higher-traffic, narrow-lane (less than 12' wide) arterials in town.
The busier, faster roads in Cary do not feature striped bike lanes because (1) the existing and planned arterial road cross sections do not provide wide enough pavement to add them according to state standards, (2) the state DOT discourages provision of striped bike lanes on busy high-speed arterials, and (3) the arterials are maintained by the state, not the town, and would never get swept. The current and future town standard is to employ 14' outside through lanes on arterials instead of the older narrow lane design.
The photos clearly show the edge of the debris line respecitve to the bike lane stripe position. The location of this debris edgeline is fairly constant over time whether there is heavy sand or just a little broken glass. I chose to take these photos at a time of heaveier debris in order to make the lateral position of the debris line as clear as possible in photos covering a distance.
My feelings on bike lane stripes are that (1) they provide no safety benefit on the roads on which they have been installed in Cary, (2) they accumulate debris that requries me to stay out of the bike lane to avoid, (3) they increase harassment from motorists and police who are upset that I don't stay in my special lane.
I don't have an opinion on well-maintained, regularly striped bike lanes on busy high-speed roads with few junctions because I haven't had the opportunity to use such, as there are few to none of this type of bike lane near where I live.
-Steven Goodridge
Thanks for the reply... and the confirmation that these roads were striped not for any traffic reason, but to satisfy politics. Sad... as everyone of these roads appears in the photos to be a fine road for cycling... WITHOUT stripes.
Along with that education take with you the idea that motorists do not pay for the roads... especially with "highway taxes for fuel and tires etc." That is a very common misconception that cyclists and especially motorists should not have.
Most roadways are payed for out of developer fees, and general funds... the latter are often generated from property taxes. If anything, "homeowners" are the primary funders of streets... not motorists.
Ok, maybe should rephrase that, people who drive buy gasoline, so they pay sales tax, included in the price of fuel is the FET, and a state taxe, the fet is supposed to be used for interstate highway etc, state taxes are supposed to be used for roads, same with oil etc, sales tax/gas tax normally goes into the states general fund. As with any tax, nothing is used exclusively for what it's listed as supporting. Point was that I only buy things for my bike when I want something better, or get crazy and break it, not because I need to fuel it up to go down the road, and for the fuel taxes disposition, reference here:
http://www.crcmich.org/TaxOutline/Transportation/gas.html
http://www.detnews.com/2005/specialreport/0510/18/A01-352693.htm
No matter what I or any of the cyclists in the state of michigan buy over the course of a year, it is nowhere near the money dropped into the state's pocket in a single day by gasoline sales.
If you could get a million cyclists to ride around the capitol in lansing in support of bicycling, odds are 99% of them would have driven to get there.
Ken.
Edited, I dropped the trailing 'L' in a url KTB
There are certainly few road cyclists, and very few bike commuters in NC.
Hmmmm.......Scary. There is a possibility we might be moving to NC this summer.
I found this link researching bicycling there. Asheville is at the top of that list right
now. The commuting is that bad ?? This factors heavily into the living situation :eek:
No one else has touched on why these BL exist on what appear to be quiet (25MPH) residential streets...
Bikelanes on quiet residential streets are a wast of paint. True. You want bikelanes where competition between cars and bikes for roadspace is fierce (as it is on our downtown), to allow bicycle traffic to move at higher speeds than car traffic...
Ok, maybe should rephrase that, people who drive buy gasoline, so they pay sales tax, included in the price of fuel is the FET, and a state taxe, the fet is supposed to be used for interstate highway etc, state taxes are supposed to be used for roads, same with oil etc, sales tax/gas tax normally goes into the states general fund. As with any tax, nothing is used exclusively for what it's listed as supporting. Point was that I only buy things for my bike when I want something better, or get crazy and break it, not because I need to fuel it up to go down the road, and for the fuel taxes disposition, reference here:
http://www.crcmich.org/TaxOutline/Transportation/gas.html
http://www.detnews.com/2005/specialreport/0510/18/A01-352693.htm
No matter what I or any of the cyclists in the state of michigan buy over the course of a year, it is nowhere near the money dropped into the state's pocket in a single day by gasoline sales.
If you could get a million cyclists to ride around the capitol in lansing in support of bicycling, odds are 99% of them would have driven to get there.
Ken.
Edited, I dropped the trailing 'L' in a url KTB
Right... so sales tax, that everyone pays on everything they buy, is a tax on everyone... not just motorists. FET pays for interstate repair... but bikes don't generally use the interstates... and where they do, use only the shoulder.
The bottom line is that far too many motorists think the various fees associated with driving and owning a car somehow grant them ownership of the road, and that is just plain false.
All the citizens that pay taxes, pay for the Interstates, and homeowners paying first for the price of their home (developer fees) and later, property taxes, pay for local roads.
Go you one further... the first paved roads in the US were paved for bicycling... not motor cars, which came much later.
So you'll impede it to a degree and not admit that you're impeding traffic.
Long term effects of bike lanes on cyclists using roadways? This isn't cancer, Jack, this is traffic. If a car straddles a stripe, it gets honked at at one point or another. If a cyclist travels needlessly between lanes, the same thing happens. Needlessly, of course, is a matter of perspective, but don't you want to be friendly to the 45MPH behemoths? I don't take the law for granted, I only move outside the BL when I need to. I do take the lane if there is no BL, but I do not take any lane needlessly.
I'll "impede" traffic to a necessary point to allow for my safe travel on the roadways. If you've ever used any road with other users at the same time, you've "impeded" someone (at least by your definition). If you rolled past an itnersection where someone was waiting to turn and they had to wait for you to cross, then you "impeded" them, and everyone behind them. If you got in line at a light with other people, you "impeded" someone as they'll have to accelerate at or below your pace now. It's ridiculous to concern yourself with such "impediments." I keep using quotes as I don't see any of these things as truly impeding traffic.
My point is that the public misperception, or prejudice, comes first. It is meaningless to say that, "A bike lane makes drivers think bikes DON'T belong on the road," or "A bike lane makes drivers see bikes DO belong on the road." Ditto any comments about sharrows or other bike-specific facilities.
If a the local government and/or public have an anti-bike stance, then cyclists and bike facilities may bring out symptoms of that stance.
If a local government and/or public have a pro-bike stance, then cyclists and bike facilities may bring out symptoms of that stance.
It's all inter-related, of course, but it is ludicrously simplistic (and a gross misunderstanding) to say that any bike-specific facilities "cause" mistreatment of cyclists. At most bike facilities may bring out an underlying trend - and even that should be discussed separately from the practical impacts of that facility.
So if the public has a misperception or predjudice against something, and then they see it officially reinforced by how the government treats that which they misperceive or are prejudiced against, you don't think they'll feel even more entitled to their misperception or prejudice?
So if the public has a misperception or predjudice against something, and then they see it officially reinforced by how the government treats that which they misperceive or are prejudiced against, you don't think they'll feel even more entitled to their misperception or prejudice?
Yes, to an extent. HOWEVER treating the symptom does nothing for the underlying problem in the long term, or seldom even in the short term.
If the public and/or officials in an area have a prejudice or misperception against cycling, you will do nothing to change that by denying cyclists access to quality facilities (including bike lanes, bike racks, bus racks, textured steel plates at construction, traffic loops that respond to bikes, signage, etc.). While you may, arguably, remove some incentive for the public to act out on their prejudice, you mostly just further the issues cyclists have to deal with.
If there is a problem with prejudice and/or misperceptions against cyclist, tackle that problem.
If there is a problem with access to sufficient velotransit facilities, tackle that problem.
If both problems exist, tackle both, but don't use one as an excuse to avoid working on the second; then you just add a third problem: cyclists working against cycling.
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.