Advocacy & Safety - Time for another exercise

Admit it. There are times when the bike lane is your refuge.

Would you use the bike lane on Highway 101? The speed limit is 65 mph, two lanes in each direction in these photos, and 3 lanes in some spots where the bike lane exists.

Would you ride further to the right than the bike lane in the first picture? Lots of people do.

Would you ride in the right turn lane in the second picture? I certainly would, all the way to the right of it.

What do you think of picture 3? Can you honestly say you would not feel safer in the bike lane?

Would you try Powerweave/DLLP/Peek-a-boo on the 101?

Here's a satillite image (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=15&ll=34.3648,-119.447393&spn=0.019129,0.044203&t=k&om=1).

Here are some pictures.

Oh, and let me add: the traffic appears light but that is only because it's going very fast (probably 85) and there are large gaps between cars at that high rate of speed. If only the ones with the giant tractor-trailers came out I would have posted those.

Looks like the interstate. But, if it has at-grade intersections, than I guess it isn't. Nothing I can think of roughly comparable here in MD. If it has traffic lights, in MD the speed limit would be 55 MPH or lower.

In the first photo, is that a merge lane to the right of the bike lane? Or, a shoulder. Either way does not look like a good design for a bike lane. The last photo with no bike lane markings I am assuming is a shoulder and that's were I would ride if using this road.

In the first photo, the area to the right is for parking. The middle between the bike lane and the parking, there's some paint you can't read that actually says "No Parking". The right portion is for parking. People often surf here. It's the Rincon, from the song by the Beach Boys.

In the third photo, that shoulder is actually marked as the bike lane, just like the first picture, but there's no parking on that side.

If that's the section of the 101 north of La Conchita, we rode that on the Cool Breeze century. In your first photo, we rode the bike lane...definitely an adrenaline rush. Going south to the end of the century route, we made really good time because I just wanted to get off of the 101!

Man that looks harry!! The 101 is a Freeway. U wouldn't catch me taking a lane there. I'd be looking to bail into the ocean! The 18 to Lake Arrowhead is technically a freeway but the speed limit there is 55. I stayed as far right as possible. Parts of PCH r probably as dangerous.

Is there a minimum posted speed limit on this roadway?

These are getting old...


-D

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Is there a minimum posted speed limit on this roadway?
I don't believe I have ever seen a posted minimum speed in the State of California. On the day these pictures were taken, it would appear that 65 was the minimum.

I ask because if there is a minimum posted limit, in most jurisdictions unless traffic can maintain the minimum posted limit they are not to be on the roadway. If a vehicle is having trouble then that is a legitimate reason to not go the min. limit. but a vehicle that can not maintain the min. limit before it enters the roadway are not to do so.

Well, this is the official Pacific Coast bike route and it is marked as a bike lane.

OK, now imagine the same thing on a local surface street... yup, 60 MPH on a city surface street with a bike lane.

What I don't understand is that a freeway runs right next to this surface street... are they just trying to add another lane or what?

It has a bike lane so the traffic engineers apparently did not see the speed differential as a problem. Don't know if the accident stats support this. Never seen minimum speeds posted but there are signs forbibbing certain types of transportation, see http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21960.htm for details

Nice toes

This is a case - like all freeway shoulders that are designated as bike lanes - where even I would ride in the shoulder.

Rural spotty 50-60 mph is significantly different from 60-80 mph busy freeway traffic.

Diane,

How does painting a bike lane figure and line in picture #1 make it safer than picture #3?

Especially when it was painted to force cyclist into the door zone of parked cars!

I prefer picture #3. Yes I would use a potion of the right turn lane in picture #2 until I got to the end of it and could safely move straight from it onto the shoulder ahead of it.

This is a case - like all freeway shoulders that are designated as bike lanes - where even I would ride in the shoulder.

Rural spotty 50-60 mph is significantly different from 60-80 mph busy freeway traffic.

Uh, just for grins, compare and contrast riding on 101 where Diane pictured it verses riding on 1 near Dana Point.

CH HI, there are bike lane markings on both picture #1 and picture #3. I just didn't take the picture at the place where they were marked on picture #3. There is no parking on the side of the road in picture #3.

Now to address those who normally scoff at bike lanes but seem approving of this one... Here's what I don't understand then. Given the following:
- There is parking
- There is cross traffic
- There are intersections

Why is this bike lane any more legit than the shoulder on the logging trucker road that Bek showed, or on any other road for that matter?

Is it the high rate of speed that legitimizes this bike lane? Well, then, isn't speed relative? If I go half as fast as you do, shouldn't I feel as much a refuge in the bike lane on a 35 mph road as you do on this road?

Is it the heaviness of the traffic? Would things be different for you if traffic were lighter? What if it were more congested and traffic was slowed to a crawl?

Is it simply the words "Highway 101"? This isn't a limited use road. It's not the freeway. There are intersections and cross traffic. Bikes are not prohibited. Indeed it is a bike route. There is no alternative route.

What makes this bike lane legitimate and others not? And if you argue your way out of legitimizing this bike lane, are you willing to come ride this road and ride outside the bike lane?

But #3 is no safer than a shoulder without the little funny man painted on it.

I contend #1 is not safe since it tells cyclist that they must ride in the door zone. Why do some cyclist like being ordered by the state or city to ride in the unsafe door zone?

I content #1 is not safe since it tells cyclist that they must ride in the door zone. Why do some cyclist like being ordered by the state or city to ride in the unsafe door zone?
R U required by law to ride in the bike lane even when unsafe?
Can u point to the code that says this?
On this road if what I read is correct your choice is to ride in the door zone or in a lane where car traffic is moving at 80+ mph. Is that correct?
When I look at the map link provided and switch to hybrid it calls it the Ventura Freeway and I see no intercections. If I remember right isn't State street the first intersection?

Looks like the interstate. But, if it has at-grade intersections, than I guess it isn't. Nothing I can think of roughly comparable here in MD. If it has traffic lights, in MD the speed limit would be 55 MPH or lower.

MD has been busy designating shoulders as bike routes and we have over 100 miles of similar designs (though I can’t recall if we have speed limits greater then 55mph on these roads.) And we don’t have adjacent parking to a high speed road but we have tons of right turn lanes that over take the shoulder where we have to ride. MD24 (Bel Air) is probably the most similar as well as is MD50 (Easton.) As well as MD450 (Annapolis) but it is a 50mph road but it has a lot of residential turn offs that overlay the wide shoulder. What’s interesting on MD450 (and I think it’s the only one) we have a sign that says “Begin right turn yield to bikes.”
http://www.marylandroads.com/businesswithsha/bizStdsSpecs/desManualStdPub/publicationsonline/oots/pdf/R4-4.pdf

Because technically MD law requires cyclists going straight to stay out of the right hand turn lane and this sign is required so we can stay off to the side of lot faster traffic.

-=Barry=-

MD has been busy designating shoulders as bike routes and we have over 100 miles of similar designs (though I can’t recall if we have speed limits greater then 55mph on these roads.) And we don’t have adjacent parking to a high speed road but we have tons of right turn lanes that over take the shoulder where we have to ride. MD24 (Bel Air) is probably the most similar as well as is MD50 (Easton.) As well as MD450 (Annapolis) but it is a 50mph road but it has a lot of residential turn offs that overlay the wide shoulder. What’s interesting on MD450 (and I think it’s the only one) we have a sign that says “Begin right turn yield to bikes.”
http://www.marylandroads.com/businesswithsha/bizStdsSpecs/desManualStdPub/publicationsonline/oots/pdf/R4-4.pdf

Because technically MD law requires cyclists going straight to stay out of the right hand turn lane and this sign is required so we can stay off to the side of lot faster traffic.

-=Barry=-

And you trust people to actually read and understand that sign? DE likes to draw bike stencils in shoulders too and even puts arrows telling cyclists to go straight from the right turn lane (and sometimes a sign saying to yield to bikes). I've found it easier to use the traffic lane (which I'm usually in to begin with) instead of worrying about people merging into me from my left or turning into me from my right (off the cross street). I'll take honks over hits :)

R U required by law to ride in the bike lane even when unsafe?
Can u point to the code that says this?
On this road if what I read is correct your choice is to ride in the door zone or in a lane where car traffic is moving at 80+ mph. Is that correct?
When I look at the map link provided and switch to hybrid it calls it the Ventura Freeway and I see no intercections. If I remember right isn't State street the first intersection?
Again, how does the funny little man painted on the road make it safer?

If you get hit outside the bike lane (or even harrassed), the burden of proof will shift to the cyclist to prove they had a legal reason to be out of the bike lane. Reason enough for not having any bike lanes.

MD has been busy designating shoulders as bike routes and we have over 100 miles of similar designs (though I can’t recall if we have speed limits greater then 55mph on these roads.) And we don’t have adjacent parking to a high speed road but we have tons of right turn lanes that over take the shoulder where we have to ride. MD24 (Bel Air) is probably the most similar as well as is MD50 (Easton.) As well as MD450 (Annapolis) but it is a 50mph road but it has a lot of residential turn offs that overlay the wide shoulder. What’s interesting on MD450 (and I think it’s the only one) we have a sign that says “Begin right turn yield to bikes.”
http://www.marylandroads.com/businesswithsha/bizStdsSpecs/desManualStdPub/publicationsonline/oots/pdf/R4-4.pdf

Because technically MD law requires cyclists going straight to stay out of the right hand turn lane and this sign is required so we can stay off to the side of lot faster traffic.

-=Barry=-

Most of the work I have seen in MD regarding BL's is a joke. I'm sorry, but a shoulder is a shoulder. Painting a picture of a cyclist on it doesn't change anything. Cars aren't supposed to drive in the shoulder to begin with, so calling it a bike lane doesn't really change anything. As far as I am concerned, it it only done so that the politicians can say "and we have added X miles of Bike lanes in the state", yadda yadda.

Don't even get me started on BL's in MD.

But this gets off topic to Diane's thread.

Quite frankly Diane, if you have to ask
Why is this bike lane any more legit than the shoulder on the logging trucker road that Bek showed, or on any other road for that matter?

Then you missed the points that the VC advocates were getting at in the first place. And the most important thing, in my opinion, that came out of that thread which is.

"None of us can accurately say what we would do on any given road until we are there on that road to experience it firsthand"

-D

If you recall, the VC wack-jobs were advocating riding in the center of the lane on the logging truck road because they felt the shoulder made them too "irrelevant".

I'm failing to see this mysterious door zone you speak of. Are you incapable of seeing the buffer zone between the parking and the bike lane? I actually passed a tow-truck on the side of the road at one point, with myself still well-into the bike lane.

Are you against this bike lane? Are you willing to ride in it? Do you believe you will be irrelevant and invisible when you are in it? Would you ride in it if traffic was congested and moving at a crawl?

Are you against this bike lane? Are you willing to ride in it? Do you believe you will be irrelevant and invisible when you are in it? Would you ride in it if traffic was congested and moving at a crawl?

Some folks feel irrelevant and invisible everywhere they go. To overcome this, some run with the bulls, others go into show biz, others commit spectacular crimes and others play peek-a-boo in traffic. Peek-a-boo, HH, we see you!

I'm failing to see this mysterious door zone you speak of. Are you incapable of seeing the buffer zone between the parking and the bike lane? I actually passed a tow-truck on the side of the road at one point, with myself still well-into the bike lane.
Yes, I did miss where you explained there was a buffer zone between the parking and the bike lane. I still do not see that explanation from you, even after rereading your post. It is also not obvious from your picture, since the picture does not have any parked cars in it and with the shadow from the wall, it is very hard to gauge the width of the parking lane. In the picture, it looks like a parked car would take up the entire parking lane and what you are calling the buffer zone.

Is the buffer zone 5 feet wide (so as to be a safe distance from a SUV fully opened door)? Is the parking lane wide enough for a large SUV?

And again, how does the funny little man painted on the road make it safer?

In the first photo, the area to the right is for parking. The middle between the bike lane and the parking, there's some paint you can't read that actually says "No Parking". The right portion is for parking. People often surf here. It's the Rincon, from the song by the Beach Boys.

In the third photo, that shoulder is actually marked as the bike lane, just like the first picture, but there's no parking on that side.
I suppose this is where you were trying to note the buffer zone, but it was not clear to me and possibly others reading it.

CH HI, there are bike lane markings on both picture #1 and picture #3. I just didn't take the picture at the place where they were marked on picture #3. There is no parking on the side of the road in picture #3.

Now to address those who normally scoff at bike lanes but seem approving of this one... Here's what I don't understand then. Given the following:
- There is parking
- There is cross traffic
- There are intersections

Why is this bike lane any more legit than the shoulder on the logging trucker road that Bek showed, or on any other road for that matter?

Is it the high rate of speed that legitimizes this bike lane? Well, then, isn't speed relative? If I go half as fast as you do, shouldn't I feel as much a refuge in the bike lane on a 35 mph road as you do on this road?

Is it the heaviness of the traffic? Would things be different for you if traffic were lighter? What if it were more congested and traffic was slowed to a crawl?

Is it simply the words "Highway 101"? This isn't a limited use road. It's not the freeway. There are intersections and cross traffic. Bikes are not prohibited. Indeed it is a bike route. There is no alternative route.

What makes this bike lane legitimate and others not? And if you argue your way out of legitimizing this bike lane, are you willing to come ride this road and ride outside the bike lane?
What part of "Rural spotty 50-60 mph is significantly different from 60-80 mph busy freeway traffic." do you not understand?

Uh, just for grins, compare and contrast riding on 101 where Diane pictured it verses riding on 1 near Dana Point.
Diane's 101 is a freeway with 60-80 mph traffic that does not expect to be slowed or stopped.
The Dana Point stretch of 1 is just a short stretch of highway with 45-60 mph traffic between two traffic signals.

A posted 65mph/105kph speed limit is fundamentally incompatible with a road on which parking is permitted. This is yet another reinforcement of my vehement objection to California's 85th percentile rule for setting enforceable speed limits.

how does the funny little man keep it 'safe?', CBHI???

it keeps the cars out of the bicyclists' lane, generally. and a buffered bike lane on a high speed road IS safer than riding in the traffic lanes, generally, CBHI.

Id definetly be riding as far left as safe and as far right as practical, which would put me in the bike lanes or further right, UNLESS some specific roadway hazard would require me, at some point in time, to take the main travel lane.

So, helemt head, on this road, keeping to the shoulder is the best placement for a bike? is it a result of the traffic speeds? the density? the safety zone?

A posted 65mph/105kph speed limit is fundamentally incompatible with a road on which parking is permitted. This is yet another reinforcement of my vehement objection to California's 85th percentile rule for setting enforceable speed limits.
But thats what the BL and DZ buffer is for... To permit safe parallel parking with 65mph+ traffic whizzing by. ;)

Al

I've argued that bike lanes can work very well on long stretches of road with high speeds and few intersections. For the same reasons, they make no sense on 25 mph downtown or residential streets (and, to use shbikes' term, only "wack jobs" would stripe lanes).

how does the funny little man keep it 'safe?', CBHI???

it keeps the cars out of the bicyclists' lane, generally. and a buffered bike lane on a high speed road IS safer than riding in the traffic lanes, generally, CBHI.

The white line demarking a shoulder does the same thing. So no need for the funny little man!

striping on low speed roadways does make sense, daily commute. They make sense if you want to reclaim space from the automobile in designs for livable communities, daily commute. htey make sense to provide preferential lanes for bikes excluding other users. they work to allow bikes to bypass traffic jams on low speed, congested roads.

reclaiming public space away from automobiles for all users including peds, rollerbladers, low speed mobility devices and bicyclists. similar to closing down entire downtowns to motorized traffic, just not as total.

striping on low speed roads does make sense, just not to 'seasoned' riders. but bike lanes can benefit all riders regardless of ability. velotransit is not 'beginners only' lanes.

But thats what the BL and DZ buffer is for... To permit safe parallel parking with 65mph+ traffic whizzing by. ;)

Al
We should call them the Bike Lane/Door Zone Buffer/Slow Down Lanes. :)

I've argued that bike lanes can work very well on long stretches of road with high speeds and few intersections. For the same reasons, they make no sense on 25 mph downtown or residential streets (and, to use shbikes' term, only "wack jobs" would stripe lanes). I concur, but the parallel parking effectively makes this a street of MANY intersections. We have the same problem on Coast Highway 101 in northern San Diego County, and the only saving grace is the 30 to 45mph speed limit, instead of this ridiculous and dangerous 65mph limit.

I believe the "little man" painted on the ground does make it safer by making it clear to motorists that there will likely be cyclists here. It's not usual to see bicycling on the 101. There are signs posted marking this as the bike lane, and the "little man" has been painted over so many times the paint is about half and inch high. Additionally, the clubs and events will post neon pink or orange signs at the onramps where bicycles enter warning "bikes ahead."

I think all these markings and signs help keep the motorists alert. It also probably helps the boneheads who would otherwise try to honk and intimidate cyclists, assuming that they are not where they belong. Fact is, bikes normally don't belong on the 101, so I believe that plenty of markings indicating that they are welcome here is a good thing.

So, keeping potential violence down and keeping alertness up helps cyclists negotiate this road. (It is quite hair-raising, let me tell you.)

The thing I'm still wondering, though, is why is it ok to ride in the shoulder (with or without a little man) on this road but not on others? And if lane markings for bicyclists can help them here, why can't they help them elsewhere?

The thing I'm still wondering, though, is why is it ok to ride in the shoulder (with or without a little man) on this road but not on others? And if lane markings for bicyclists can help them here, why can't they help them elsewhere?

And where has anyone said it is not ok to ride on a shoulder?

Heck if I had shoulders like that I'd use them all the time. Unfortunately I don't where I live. No big shoulders. No bike lanes. Sometimes no shoulder. I would almost guarantee you would be taking the lane around my neck of the woods, if you rode on my roads at all.

-D

Again, how does the funny little man painted on the road make it safer?

If you get hit outside the bike lane (or even harrassed), the burden of proof will shift to the cyclist to prove they had a legal reason to be out of the bike lane. Reason enough for not having any bike lanes.

I have a strong feeling that if there were a burden of proof issue on a road like that the rider wouldn't be around for the court battle.
Do the painted lines make me feel safer? After all the cars I see violating it, absolutely not. It's the width of the road that makes me feel safer. I have no idea weather or not the lines and symbols painted on the road increase the awareness of drivers. maybe if they put the cell phone down and turn off the TV and put down the book they might be more aware.
I was under the impression that the lane did increase the sense that liability for the driver increased, but then there are too many examples that murder is legal if the weapon is a car.

I believe the "little man" painted on the ground does make it safer by making it clear to motorists that there will likely be cyclists here. It's not usual to see bicycling on the 101. There are signs posted marking this as the bike lane, and the "little man" has been painted over so many times the paint is about half and inch high. Additionally, the clubs and events will post neon pink or orange signs at the onramps where bicycles enter warning "bikes ahead."

I think all these markings and signs help keep the motorists alert. It also probably helps the boneheads who would otherwise try to honk and intimidate cyclists, assuming that they are not where they belong. Fact is, bikes normally don't belong on the 101, so I believe that plenty of markings indicating that they are welcome here is a good thing.

So, keeping potential violence down and keeping alertness up helps cyclists negotiate this road. (It is quite hair-raising, let me tell you.)

The thing I'm still wondering, though, is why is it ok to ride in the shoulder (with or without a little man) on this road but not on others? And if lane markings for bicyclists can help them here, why can't they help them elsewhere?

To answer your riding on the shoulder question, in this situation, a cyclist attempting to use the traffic lane on this road would cause an unnecessary delay due to their slower speed and the high volume of traffic. That's the difference between this road and a relatively quiet rural logging road with only an occassional logging truck passing. Just because the shoulder is the more reasonable place to ride on this road does not make it the preferred location to cycle on roads that have nothing in common with this freeway.

You answer your own question about the usefulness of lane markings in the shoulder of the freeway. They are useful in this situation where cyclists normally are not allowed (on a restricted access freeway). If it is legal for cyclists to use this road that would normally be off limits, then the markings are worthwhile in my opinion (although a simple sign at the on-ramps would accomplish the same thing). You are still riding in the shoulder of the freeway. Painting a cyclist stencil there doesn't make it anything special. It's still the spot that people will pull over into the change a tire or if they break down. It's still the area ambulances might use to access the road in an emergency. It's still the area people will drift into when they take their eyes off the road to tend to a distraction. It should be treated as such.

Now, when you put cyclist stencils on the shoulder of roads where cyclists have always been allowed and where their mixing with the normal flow of the traffic on the road does not cause any unreasonable delay and is often the only way to safely travel on the road, can you see how that might give the wrong impression to other road users who aren't quite as up on cyclists' rights as cyclists tend to be?

Would you ride in this bike lane if the traffic were bumper-to-bumper?

I believe that bike lanes on any road where the speed limit is 35 or more (and in some cases even less than that) is a good thing. I cause an unreasonable delay for most people almost everywhere I go.

striping on low speed roadways does make sense, daily commute. They make sense if you want to reclaim space from the automobile in designs for livable communities, daily commute. htey make sense to provide preferential lanes for bikes excluding other users. they work to allow bikes to bypass traffic jams on low speed, congested roads.

reclaiming public space away from automobiles for all users including peds, rollerbladers, low speed mobility devices and bicyclists. similar to closing down entire downtowns to motorized traffic, just not as total.

striping on low speed roads does make sense, just not to 'seasoned' riders. but bike lanes can benefit all riders regardless of ability. velotransit is not 'beginners only' lanes.

Bike lane striping is ridiculous on the low-speed roads where it has been implemented here in Cary, NC. There is no need to "reclaim space from the automobile" on those roads (1) because the sidewalks are more than adequate for pedestrians, (2) the traffic speeds and volumes are low enough that it is easy for cyclists and pedestrians to negotiate with motorists the space they need (the location of that space changing depending on circumstances) and (3) motor traffic use is more reliable at cleaning off the pavement and ensuring adequate surfaces than any bicycle-specific engineering or program here.

On congested low-speed streets, bike lanes can indeed make cycling more convenient, by making it easier to pass stopped motor traffic, but it comes at the price of reduced safety. Collisions at intersections are more likely, especially right hooks, left crosses and drive-outs, as are collisions with opening car doors. I collided with a pedestrian once while passing to the right of stopped traffic while on the roadway. The pedestrian was crossing the road from the other side and stepped out from in front of a stopped van into the area between the line of stopped traffic and the gutter. That was on a congested college campus; after that collision I chose alternate routes and walked my bike through pedestrian areas rather than passing on the right. Where I live now, I am so rarely delayed by traffic backups that the ability to pass would provide me no significant time savings, whereas right-hooks, left-cross and debris are bigger concerns for me.

As for removing auto travel from roads, Raleigh has recently converted a pedestrianized street into a design that accommodates motor traffic, because the area suffered a huge downturn in activity after it was converted into a pedestrian mall. In that case, motor vehicle access provided the extra customers required to keep the pedestrian destinations viable.

Would you ride in this bike lane if the traffic were bumper-to-bumper?

I believe that bike lanes on any road where the speed limit is 35 or more (and in some cases even less than that) is a good thing. I cause an unreasonable delay for most people almost everywhere I go.

If traffic were stopped, sure, I'd ride in whatever space was available for me to use to bypass said traffic. If it happens to be a bike lane, then I'd be using the bike lane. Why do you ask?

What's an unreasonable delay in your opinion, quantified in seconds/minutes/hours?

Would you ride in this bike lane if the traffic were bumper-to-bumper?

I believe that bike lanes on any road where the speed limit is 35 or more (and in some cases even less than that) is a good thing. I cause an unreasonable delay for most people almost everywhere I go.

I infer that the "unreasonable delay" is related to drivers' inability to pass you due to narrow pavement and oncoming traffic on the roads you are using.

If so, wouldn't wide outside through lanes allow them to pass with negligible delay?

-Steve (who rides a lot with a wide child trailer mostly on roads without bike lane stripes, but hasn't caused anybody "unreasonable delay".

Diane, looks to me like the shoulder/bike lane is clean and wide. I'd use it without a second thought.

must be nice to live in Cary, north carolina, steve goodrich. i took you for a southern cal rider, i see you live in the genteel amerikan smokie foothills.

Reclaiming public space from the automobile is exactly what america needs. more space for private autos? pleaze.

I see hit and run accidents are up 20 percent since 2000. 5,000 peds killed annually, and 1,000 are hit and runs.

great. lets keep moving in that direction. In Seattle, drivers are atrocious. my observations daily is that drivers here treat bicyclists and pedestrians alike with blatant, agressive disregard. the city even wants to remove ped crosswalks at spots because, even with the walk signals, signs, flashing lights, etc, the cars don't stop. they don't care. the cars make signed crosswalks unsafe to use to cross the street.

whats the awnser, remove the crosswalk, or redesign the street to make it safer for peds? bigger, Tokyo-like crosswalks is my thinking, NOT removing crosswalks for safety's sake- more like the city limiting liability.

reclaim public roadway space from the automobile to design complete streets to make usage safer for all users. cars and bikes and peds and rollerbladers and low speed mobility devices....

I say ride in the bike lanes Diane has pictured. I feel all the posters here would do the same.


if Cary doesn't need bike lanes downtown, great. Seattle could sure use some bigadze ones. maybe our own avenues. that would chap the drivers hides, eh?