I disagree entirely. The vast majority of car-bike collisions occur at junctions, and bike lanes don't reduce these, and in fact likely make them worse. Similarly, falls from poor pavement conditions and doorings are not helped by bike lane stripes, and may be made worse.
The vast majority of all traffic accidents, I suspect, happen at junctions. Bike lanes can help by notifying cars of where cyclists are likely to be and guiding cyclists correctly across and intersection. Falls from debris is a matter of cyclist skill, like not going round a curve too quickly in a car. Doorings are a matter of engineering. If you have door zone bike lanes, you should do something about that. It is a problem easily solved.
As I see it, bike lane striping takes my safety out of my hands and puts it in the hands of the drivers turning or crossing in front of me. Bike lane stripes might reduce certain types of overtaking-type collisions. But these collision types are so rare (and are mostly found on high-speed rural roads and fast arterials with few junctions) that this potential benefit needs to be kept in perspective. I'm far more concerned about right-hook, left-cross and drive-out hazards when I ride with my son to the ice cream store downtown than I am about overtaking collisions, which is why I take the lane through intersections on the way. I take as much control of the situation as I can by riding more visibly and assertively at these locations; by contrast, a striped bike lane puts me in a position of less visibility, maneuvering room, and control over the situation, and thus puts me at the mercy of drivers' competence at actions they perform less reliably than slowing behind me when they cannot pass me at junctions.
A bike lane need not be used at minor intersections. A cyclist can move out of it, or the bike lane can be engineered in such a way to minimize conflicts. A properly designed bike lane will not have right turn vulnerabilities at major intersections, and will possibly lend more protection against a left cross or hook, as there is more time to react from cars coming from the left.
Lastly, my environment is mostly rural highways and high speed arterials with relatively few interesections. Overtaking cars are very much of my concern. I can control how I present myself, if you will, to cars in front of me. Overtaking cars are a wildcard. Just being out of their direct travel path is extremely helpful to me. As for WOLs as an alternative, I've outlined elsewhere why I don't think they are sustainable in the long run.
I've researched the police reports of car-bike collisions in Cary and the rest of Wake County including Raleigh. There is a lot of bike traffic on the roads I ride with my son, and no reports of overtaking-type car-bike collisions, just a lot of intersection-type collisions. There's no way a bike lane stripe is going to reduce my risk of collision on these roads, and I think a great disservice is done to cyclists when striping proponents claim that these roads are unreasonably dangerous without striping or that striping needs to be shoe-horned in any way that can be managed.
Misleading the public about what makes cycling safe, i.e. over-selling segregation striping and stencils, particularly on low-speed and city streets with lots of junctions, is no way to improve cycling safety.
Misleading and overselling anything are dangerous tactics everywhere. Here, on this forum, I think vehicular cycling and anti-bike lane sentiment has been misleading and oversold as the panacea of cycling. In a different forum, I'd be on the other side, as I make good use of vehicular cycling techniques when I bicycle.
the answer is neither one or the other
there is a paradox to every paradigm.
sggoodri
10-27-06, 02:47 PM
So, when you advocate for only one type of facility--the non-facility--you advocate for the smallest subset of cyclists (actual and potential) than if you advocate for many kinds of facilities.
I really like to encourage novices to try cycling, and to enjoy it, so hear me out....
I see vehicular operation, with unsegregated wide outside through lanes on somewhat faster roads (and perhaps special slow-vehicle lanes on roads with very few junctions) as accommodating the widest variety of drivers of low-energy vehicles.
This includes operators of mopeds, golf cars, neighborhood electric vehicles, electric bicycles, Segways, trikes, bikes with child trailers, and Lance Armstrong.
I believe the future will bring greater diversity of low-energy vehicle use, and that the "bike lane" type-segregation concept fails to properly address this continuous range of vehicle types with a continous range of speed capabilities and sizes. I see speed positioning and destination positioning handling this diversity of vehicles and destinations more effectively than binary type segregation.
-Steve Goodridge
sggoodri
10-27-06, 02:59 PM
Lastly, my environment is mostly rural highways and high speed arterials with relatively few interesections. Overtaking cars are very much of my concern. I can control how I present myself, if you will, to cars in front of me. Overtaking cars are a wildcard. Just being out of their direct travel path is extremely helpful to me. As for WOLs as an alternative, I've outlined elsewhere why I don't think they are sustainable in the long run.
By contrast, most of my cycling is on either low-traffic neighborhood streets or busy urban streets with narrow lanes. I can't see the former improved with striping, and I don't want to see door-zone and substandard-width bike lanes added to the latter.
When I ride on high-speed high-volume roads with few junctions, I appreciate more space, and if a clean, wide bike lane were present, I think I would enjoy having it. I enjoy wide paved shoulders on busy roads when they are reasonably clean and away from junctions.
But a combination of local factors make it unlikely that clean, wide bike lanes will ever be found on the arterials on my routes, while door-zone lanes, silly debris lanes through quiet neighborhoods, and substandard lane striping to shoe-horn lanes into too-narrow an urban street are more likely to happen here.
rando
10-27-06, 03:13 PM
And the fallacy continues....
Demarcation of a portion of the roadway by paint stripe alone fails to add any protection to the cyclist. These painted lines have not been proven to prevent motor vehicles from striking cyclists.
this is true, it's not the stripe, it's what it represents, a lane specifically for bicycle traffic that cars are supposed to stay out of. it's not a magic sheild, it's a roadway accomodation for cyclists.
patc
10-27-06, 03:25 PM
I believe the future will bring greater diversity of low-energy vehicle use, and that the "bike lane" type-segregation concept fails to properly address this continuous range of vehicle types with a continous range of speed capabilities and sizes. I see speed positioning and destination positioning handling this diversity of vehicles and destinations more effectively than binary type segregation.
Interesting distinction, Steve. A while back I mentioned I preferred HPV lanes (human-powered vehicle) instead of bike lanes. For example, we have many in-line skaters here who travel fair distances on skates... yet legally can not use our sidewalks or our roads.
The trend locally, for the past several decades and in the official plan, is to consider special-use lanes wherever we have (a) a specific type of vehicle using that road in significant numbers and (b) there is an argument to prioritize that type of vehicle's use on the road. I'm not saying that the perceived safety of bike lanes is not used as an argument, but clearly that is used as part of a package of needs (faster, more comfortable, more convenient and safe travel). So we have a city with bike lanes, and bus lanes, and taxi lanes, and HOV lanes, etc. We also have a lot of exception signs, some time/date specific: no trough traffic except busses and bikes; no right turns on red 8:00am - 10:00am, etc.
I think we have the right mindset in place, we as a city just have not yet taken that extra step to consider the needs of the many vehicle types likely to be using our roads over the next few decades. Considering the province is finally moving on considering electric-assist bikes and Segways, there is hope for the future.
genec
10-27-06, 03:25 PM
I believe that 100 years from now, most of the traffic on roads will be cars of some sort, with human and electric-powered cycles a minority part of the mixture. Bicyclists will still mix with traffic on most roads, operating according to essentially the same vehicular rules that we have now. More important high-speed arterial roads will likely have wide outside lanes or bike lanes depending on junction density.
Future cars will have sensors and artificial intelligence that either helps the driver avoid collisions with slower traffic ahead, including bicyclists, or that will report on the drivers' performance to their insurance company. This will be adopted en-masse by the public because of the cost savings it will afford to motorists by reducing insurance claims (and thus premiums) and reducing the public costs of crashes.
-Steve Goodridge, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering
(Graduate research in computer vision and autonomous vehicles)
Steve, you don't believe that autonomous self drive vehicles will be in use in 100 years or less?
genec
10-27-06, 03:52 PM
I really like to encourage novices to try cycling, and to enjoy it, so hear me out....
I see vehicular operation, with unsegregated wide outside through lanes on somewhat faster roads (and perhaps special slow-vehicle lanes on roads with very few junctions) as accommodating the widest variety of drivers of low-energy vehicles.
This includes operators of mopeds, golf cars, neighborhood electric vehicles, electric bicycles, Segways, trikes, bikes with child trailers, and Lance Armstrong.
I believe the future will bring greater diversity of low-energy vehicle use, and that the "bike lane" type-segregation concept fails to properly address this continuous range of vehicle types with a continous range of speed capabilities and sizes. I see speed positioning and destination positioning handling this diversity of vehicles and destinations more effectively than binary type segregation.
-Steve Goodridge
I too envision something like this... and the funny thing is I see a loose approximation on local arterials with high speeds. Two of the local roads I travel often are marked at 50MPH, however the outer lanes never move at 50MPH due to the driveways and other intersections and the motorists merging on and off and looking for particular businesses. The outer lanes tend to move at about 35MPH.
galen_52657
10-27-06, 04:56 PM
One thing struck me about your response. The sentence: The only advantage a motorist would have is the fact that they are piloting essentially, an armored vehicle. is a big lie.
There are at least three advantages a car driver in car traffic has over a cyclist:
1) you mentioned this, the "armored car" part
2) faster acceleration, both increasing and decreasing speed
3) matching speed with other traffic.
All these makes for a level playing field between cars, and a slanted playing field against cyclists. On the level playing field, driver skills are highlighted. On a slanted playing field, accidents are less connected to the cyclist's skill level. (notice I didn't say "disconnected.")
Your response is all about the big hole in the ground where you've stuck your head. Like the bird, if only you don't acknowledge some obvious characteristics, they don't exist for you. It should be pretty obvious to everyone that when a car plays with other cars, there is a much more level playing field than when a single bike mixes it up with hundreds of cars. Only when we are honest about this and address the issue, can we make cycling popular for the masses.
The "sticking the head in the sand" response of VC advocates is indicative of their difficulty in getting the masses to enjoy their technique. Any time you find someone needing to paint a particularly rosy picture when trying to "sell" something, you can assume that they are having a difficult time with the sale. By denying what is pretty obvious, we do transportational cycling, and vehicular cycling, a particular disfavor. We need to acknowledge the difficulties associated with cycling on the street, and then emphasis that there are techniques to lower the risk to acceptable levels.
Moreover, we need to acknowledge that even the very successful VC techniques don't make the risks go away. It will always be safer to drive amongst a mass of cars than it will be to bike amongst them. This has to be acknowledged and dealt with through engineering and road design. VC is a bridge technique, allowing early adopters of transportational cycling to travel on unaccomodated roads. Eventually thought, transportational cycling needs to move beyond the early adopter stage and toward more general acceptance. While VC will remain an important technique, it will by no means be the path to general acceptance of transportational cycling. General acceptance will only come around when roads are built specifically to handle bicycles.
Bike lanes on wider roads and sharrows on narrower roads will be the first step. Eventually, as cycling grows more popular, bike lanes will get wider to accomodate more cyclists, and roads with sharrows will be taken over by bicyclists. Ultimately, I can see a society which uses a car to travel distances over 5 miles, a bike from 5 to 10 miles down to one mile, and by foot for lesser distances. This has to be direction to move - every other direction is unsustainable in the long run.
Some say mass transit will be a salvation. I don't see is happening. Americans are all about flexibility. Cars travel long distances, and bikes will follow which can fit into these cars. Once in the vicinity of the destination, the car is parked, and bike is used.
If my head is in the sand, yours is up your arse.
The onus is on bike lane proponents to prove that bike lanes improve the lot of cyclists. All evidence points the other way. Wide lanes and/or sharrows and signage make the same notification to motorists that cyclists are/will be present as a dedicated bike lane stripe. But, they don't imply any segregation. A wide lane with signage or a sharrow - wide enough and far enough away from parked cars - are far better then the pathetic bike lanes foisted on 'the masses', for they promote paying attention on both parts - the motorist and the cyclist - and allow for the fluidity and dynamics necessary to travel by bike efficiently through an urban setting.
sbhikes
10-27-06, 04:59 PM
What's the evidence, galen, oh master of critical thinking? I see just as much "evidence" pointing toward on-street facilities improving the lot of cyclists.
Brian Ratliff
10-27-06, 05:22 PM
Galen,
I agree with sbhikes. I can quote evidence that bike lanes and other cycling facilities correlate to both increased numbers of cyclists and increased safety of those cyclists. Portland does a cycling survey every couple years; these surveys display the trend going back 10 years or so.
What can you quote as your evidence when you use the phrase "All evidence points the other way."? Cite chapter and verse for us. Inquiring minds want to know.
I-Like-To-Bike
10-27-06, 05:31 PM
I believe the future will bring greater diversity of low-energy vehicle use, and that the "bike lane" type-segregation concept fails to properly address this continuous range of vehicle types with a continous range of speed capabilities and sizes. I see speed positioning and destination positioning handling this diversity of vehicles and destinations more effectively than binary type segregation.
Please be more specific about "greater diversity of low-energy vehicle use." Are you still of the belief that golf cars and Segways are the future anywhere beyond a few isolated locations/scenarios? And that bicycling advocates need to get on board with these trend setters?
genec
10-27-06, 05:38 PM
Even if there is no direct correlation to increased safety through the use of BL, it is readily accepted that more cyclists riding in an area tend to increase driver's awareness of cyclists... and cyclists tend to like bike lanes, so bike lanes can increase ridership, which will increase motorist awareness, which can lead to safer streets.
Yeah circular thinking... But both the Portland studies and the National pedestrian study tend to point in these directions.
On the other hand, bike lanes in 25MPH zones are a waste of paint. And bad bike lanes still suck.
sbhikes
10-27-06, 05:39 PM
Here's some evidence to support my opinion. Please note that these are legitimate sources based on actual studies, not Internet rants from Internet cranks:
http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/cdd/et/bike/bike_safety.html
In summary, bike lanes do the following:
* support and encourage bicycling as a means of transportation;
* help define road space;
* promote a more orderly flow of traffic;
* encourage bicyclists to ride in the correct direction, with the flow of traffic;
* give bicyclists a clear place to be so they are not tempted to ride on the sidewalk;
* remind motorists to look for cyclists when turning or opening car doors;
* signal motorists that cyclists have a right to the road;
* reduce the chance that motorists will stray into cyclists’ path of travel;
* make it less likely that passing motorists swerve toward opposing traffic;
* decrease the stress level of bicyclists riding in traffic.
Well-designed facilities encourage proper behavior and decrease the likelihood of crashes. Numerous studies have shown that bicycle lanes improve safety and promote proper riding behavior.5
* In 1996, over 2000 League of American Bicyclist members were surveyed about the crashes (accidents) they were involved in over the course of the previous year. From the information, a relative danger index was calculated which shows that streets with bike lanes were the safest places to ride, having a significantly lower crash rate then either major or minor streets without any bicycle facilities; moreover, they are safer than trails and sidewalks as well.6
* The addition of bicycle lanes in Davis, California reduced crashes by 31 percent.7
* Bicycle lanes on a major avenue in Eugene, Oregon resulted in an increase in bicycle use and a substantial reduction in the bicycle crash rate. The crash rate per 100,000 bike miles fell by almost half and the motor vehicle crash rate also fell significantly.8
* When the city of Corvallis, OR installed 13 miles of bicycle lanes in one year, the number of bicycle crashes fell from 40 in the year prior to the installation to just 16 in the year afterwards, and of the 5 crashes that occurred on streets with bike lanes, all involved bicyclists riding at night with no lights.9
* In Chicago, Illinois, crash severity was reduced in one study of marking bike lanes in a narrow cross section where 5 foot bike lanes were marked next to 7 foot parking lanes.10
* In Denmark, bicycle lanes reduced the number of bicycle crashes by 35 percent.11 Some of the bike lanes reached risk reductions of 70 to 80 percent.12
* A comparison of crash rates of all types in major cities has shown that cities with higher bicycle use have lower traffic crash rates of all types than cities with lower bicycle use.13
* In a national study comparing streets with bike lanes and those without, several important observations were made:14
* Wrong-way riding was significantly lower on the streets with bike lanes.
* In approaching intersections, 15% of cyclists on streets without bike lanes rode on the sidewalks, vs. 3% on the streets with bike lanes.
* On streets with bike lanes, 81% of cyclists obeyed stop signs, vs. 55% on streets without.
* In Cambridge, sidewalk bicycling was cut in half after the installation of bicycle lanes on Mass. Ave. in Central Square.15
* Corvallis and Eugene, Oregon, cities with good bikeway networks, have the highest number of riders and rider behavior is the best: wrong-way riding is minimal, fewer ride on the sidewalk than in other Oregon cities.
* In looking at comparable streets with and without bicycle lanes in Davis and Santa Barbara, California, the number of cyclists riding on the wrong side of the street was one third as much on streets with bicycle lanes.
Communities lead the way. In some California communities, bicycling has an especially profound impact on transportation choices and air pollution reduction. The City of Davis, for example, has the highest rate of bicycling in the nation. Among its 64,000 residents, 17 percent travel to work by bicycle, and 41 percent consider the bicycle their primary mode of transportation.2 City officials place strong emphasis on provision of adequate, safe facilities for cyclists -- both travel lanes and properly configured traffic signals. With over 100 miles of on-street and Class 1 bicycle lanes, the City of Davis provides bicyclists and pedestrians safe access to and from school, thereby eliminating the need for the school district to provide school buses, combating child obesity, encouraging a healthier lifestyle, and promoting a community atmosphere.
...
On-street bike lanes along principal roads raise bicycle usage by providing official accommodation for the needs of cyclists and addressing concerns about their safety. Nationally, cities with at least one mile of bike lane for every three miles of arterial roadway have 3 to 10 times higher average bicycle commuting rates than cities with lesser ratios.10 Count data from Santa Barbara indicate that bicycling has increased by 19 percent above the rate of population growth over a twenty year period, with almost all of the increase on streets with striped bicycle lanes.11 Data collected in Oregon link bike lane striping to reduced accidents, corresponding with increased use.12
This report presents operational and safety findings and countermeasure recommendations from a comparative analysis of bicycle lanes versus wide curb lanes. The primary analysis was based on videotape of almost 4,600 bicyclists in Santa Barbara, CA, Gainesville, FL, and Austin, TX. The videotapes were coded to evaluate operational characteristics and conflicts with motorists, other bicyclists, or pedestrians.
Significant differences in operational behavior and conflicts were found between bike lanes and wide curb lanes but varied depending on the behavior being analyzed. Wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding were much more prevalent at WCL sites compared with BL sites. Significantly more motor vehicles passing bicycles on the left encroached into the adjacent traffic lane from WCL situations compared with BL situations. Proportionally more bicyclists obeyed stop signs at BL sites; however, when a stop sign was disobeyed, the proportion of bicyclists with both "somewhat unsafe" and "definitely unsafe" movements was higher at BL sites. The vast majority of observed bicycle-motor vehicle conflicts were minor, and there were no differences in the conflict severity by type of bicycle facility. Bicyclists in WCLs experienced more bike/pedestrian conflicts while bicyclists in BLs experienced more bike/bike conflicts. An initial model fitted to the intersection conflicts showed no differences in the conflict rate by type of bicycle facility, but showed higher conflict rates for left turn movements.
The overall conclusion is that both BL and WCL facilities can and should be used to improve riding conditions for bicyclists. The identified differences in operations and conflicts appeared to be related to the specific destination patterns of bicyclists riding through the intersection areas studied and not to the characteristics of the bicycle facilities.
In addition to this implementation, there is a final report (FHWA-RD-99-034) containing a complete discussion of the research method, data collection procedures, and data analysis, as well as a guidebook (FHWA-RD-99-036) about innovative bicycle accommodations.
Brian Ratliff
10-27-06, 07:16 PM
And there we have it. Diane laid down the gauntlet. Now its up to the anti-bikelane people to provide support for their pet theories. Please, the above are all the result of studies in real life, of real life. I invite everyone to support their point with actual first hand data. No more hand waving.
Time to put up or shut up.
LCI_Brian
10-27-06, 09:21 PM
Brief comments to Diane's citations:
In #1, we don't know if the comparisons were BL vs. WOL, or BL vs. NOL.
#2 is "if you build it they will come". Another hypothesis that supports the data is that officials started providing bike lanes in response to the large numbers of cyclists.
Critque of #3: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/critique_blvswcl.pdf
So how is this thread supposed to be different from the bike lane thread?
gcl8a
10-27-06, 11:26 PM
And there we have it. Diane laid down the gauntlet. Now its up to the anti-bikelane people to provide support for their pet theories. Please, the above are all the result of studies in real life, of real life. I invite everyone to support their point with actual first hand data. No more hand waving.
Time to put up or shut up.
This is interesting: "In Denmark, bicycle lanes reduced the number of bicycle crashes by 35 percent.11 Some of the bike lanes reached risk reductions of 70 to 80 percent."
I am _not_ anti-bikelane (and only sometimes a raving 'internutter'), but in my previous post I cited a Danish study that showed a 35% increase in bike lane accidents (deaths and ambulance calls) after the installation of bike lanes. It also cited others studies that showed similar conclusions.
Well, now I have a bunch more source to read. At least most are in English.
EDIT -- remove "bike lane" in the second paragraph. Otherwise, as patc points out, it's an absurd statement.
Bekologist
10-28-06, 07:19 AM
the sundry advantages of bicycle accomodations in a community are so manifest as to support their development.
the evidence overwhelmingly supports bike transportation accomodations in the urban architecture, and their advantages for bicyclists and communities as well.
sbhikes
10-28-06, 07:57 AM
Brief comments to Diane's citations:
In #1, we don't know if the comparisons were BL vs. WOL, or BL vs. NOL.
#2 is "if you build it they will come". Another hypothesis that supports the data is that officials started providing bike lanes in response to the large numbers of cyclists.
Critque of #3: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/critique_blvswcl.pdf
So how is this thread supposed to be different from the bike lane thread?
Why don't you go read the citations in the articles I cited. They are footnoted. Then you can find the answers to your questions. I don't think your question number one is all that terribly important anyway. In one of the three I posted they said that BL and WOL are both needed and each as its place.
This thread is different by the way because I provided pictures of interesting bike lanes done differently from any I have seen in America. If everybody wished to ignore this and turn it into yet another bike lane argument that wasn't my fault nor my intention.
patc
10-28-06, 11:00 AM
in my previous post I cited a Danish study that showed a 35% increase in bike lane accidents (deaths and ambulance calls) after the installation of bike lanes.
I assume you mis-worded that. An increase in bike lane accidents with more bike lanes... that's like saying more people will shop at the mall after the mall expands (and some will trip), or more people will use the roads if more roads exist (and some will have accidents). I assume your reference was to data that showed more cycling accidents overall after bike lane installations, with the same cyclign rate? Otherwise its meaningless.
gcl8a
10-28-06, 11:53 AM
I assume your reference was to data that showed more cycling accidents overall after bike lane installations, with the same cyclign rate? Otherwise its meaningless.
Oops. Of course. In my defense, the doorbell rang before I previewed my post ;)
Anyway, they measured accidents before/after installation of bike lanes (although my Danish isn't good enough to tell if they mean striped lanes, or separated paths -- I will put more effort into it later).
They found an increase in accidents both between and at intersections, and cited several studies which found the same (in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Holland).
But I'm skeptical myself. I need to dig deeper to see more of what/how they measured.
patc
10-28-06, 01:52 PM
They found an increase in accidents both between and at intersections, and cited several studies which found the same (in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Holland).
But I'm skeptical myself. I need to dig deeper to see more of what/how they measured.
If you do and reach any conclusions (or just observations), please let me know. Post or PM is fine. While I am a proponent of bike lanes and other restricted lanes (and do not think safety is the only issue of note) I do think that all road designs have pros and cons, and the more I know the better.
I-Like-To-Bike
10-28-06, 02:15 PM
I do think that all road designs have pros and cons, and the more I know the better.
Where did you ever come up with such a weird concept? Certainly not from the crusading experts on this list!;)
Daily Commute
10-28-06, 02:15 PM
sbhikes,
Can you explain how the studies you cite reached their conclusions? If you cite a study, you should be able to explain defend its methodology.
. . . A bike lane need not be used at minor intersections. A cyclist can move out of it, or the bike lane can be engineered in such a way to minimize conflicts. . . .
If the cyclist is supposed to move out of the bike lane at minor intersections, why should we have a bike lane at minor intersections?
joejack951
10-28-06, 02:36 PM
Here's some evidence to support my opinion. Please note that these are legitimate sources based on actual studies, not Internet rants from Internet cranks:
http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/cdd/et/bike/bike_safety.html
* In Chicago, Illinois, crash severity was reduced in one study of marking bike lanes in a narrow cross section where 5 foot bike lanes were marked next to 7 foot parking lanes.
I find it next to impossible to take any study seriously which cites a door zone bike lane on a city street as an improvement over existing conditions. Isn't this study advocating the type of bike lane which almost all bike lane proponents are against? Are you convinced that door zone bike lanes are good too as it seems apparent that this study has proven to you that bike lanes are all good?
gcl8a
10-28-06, 02:42 PM
This thread is different by the way because I provided pictures of interesting bike lanes done differently from any I have seen in America. If everybody wished to ignore this and turn it into yet another bike lane argument that wasn't my fault nor my intention.
To get back on topic...maybe. I'll give you my impression of riding in Denmark. I moved to Odense (ca. 150,000 people) in April from Charlottesville, VA (ca. 100,000). Charlottesville has a few token bike lanes, most are too narrow. Odense is practically overflowing with bikes, and there are bike lanes -- many like the ones you showed -- everywhere.
Observations:
Most 'busy' roads have fully separated bike paths, either with a curb up from the road, or separated by grass. Some have curbs up to the sidewalk, as well. The only time I have ever crashed (twice now) is by getting caught on one of these curbs when I wasn't paying attention (looking down at a flat, looking at my bars to see if they were 'straight' -- bad idea). The paths are wide (we often ride 'to og to' -- 'two and two' -- on them), and usually one-way (although there are two-ways here and there).
Some streets have bike lanes separated by a stripe, but this is rare on 'busy' streets. Most residential and some collector streets have no bike lanes, as you would expect. Cars are rarely parked (illegally) on bike paths, but often they park _to the left_ of them (legally, between flowing traffic and the bike lane). Dooring is rare (don't know anyone who has been doored), but riding between cars and the curb (even with lots of room) is stressful.
There are also several multi-use paths that lead from downtown to points out-of-town (10km in various directions). These are so populated with bikes that bike/pedestrian interactions are rarely a problem (the pedestrians are well-aware of cyclists). You still can't go too fast, but you can get in and out of the city easily. The other roads out-of-town have separated bike paths; I can ride all the way to Kertiminde (20 km away) on a single bike path along-side a four-lane road.
You have to get used to passing on the right. Cars will wait for you at intersections (bikes going straight have the right-of-way to cars turning right), and get impatient if you wait for them. There are some places where the paths dump you into the right-turn-only lane; others you have your own 'blue striped' lane. It can get awkward after a red light turns green if you're not _at the light_ when it changes. If you're already there, everyone sees you; if you come up to the intersection after traffic starts moving, you have to be careful that you're seen. This often involves drivers turning their heads completely around to look for you (as an occasional driver, let me say that turning right can be stressful).
At really busy intersections, bikes have their own lights, which in some cases are green when cars have a red, and at other times turn green a couple of seconds before the lights for cars do, to get the bikes into the intersection first. You cannot, however, make a left turn directly. You must go straight across and then stop and wait for a green light in the direction you want to go. I find this the most frustrating aspect of cycling here.
Mopeds ride the bike paths (legally). I hate them. (OK, I hate the drivers who go way too fast, but then sometimes I probably pass other cyclists too fast). Sometimes I draft them for entertainment (I once drafted a quite fast (25kmh) motorized-wheel-chair-like-vehicle into a stiff headwind for 3 km or so while warming up).
Practically no one wears a helmet, and people commute in all styles of clothing: jeans, skirts, high-heeled boots, suits and ties, you name it (it's quite fascinating, really). The vast majority of cyclists obey the traffic laws -- many will not turn right on red from bike path to bike path, almost no one runs red lights straight across.
You can see pictures and comments at http://www.mip.sdu.dk/~glewin/cykling.html. I should point out that I wrote that when I was still star-struck by the biking facilities. I will probably update it soon with some of the negative comments above. I am also thinking of going around and taking pictures of case studies, but don't hold your breath.
You can read more (English and Danish pages) about Odense and its attempts to increase cycling at http://www.cykelby.dk ('cykelby' = 'cycle city').
Comments and questions welcome. I am not an activist for any position in the bike-lane wars (although, I will admit, I like the system here), so please don't attack me.
I don't need to explain how anybody's study reached its conclusions. I'm not publishing an article here, just posting some existing studies for your information. We're all still waiting for some equivalent studies in support of the other side. Please share them.
Meanwhile, more interesting bike lanes today. I rode my bike in the Valley today. We road down Balboa Ave. The right lane had cars parked in it. Apparently that is allowed only on Saturday and Sunday. If you are not aware of it as a driver you can find yourself stuck behind a car parked in the lane. But it made for a nice bike-only lane for us cyclists today.
After Balboa, we turned to another street that had a very interesting bike lane. It was almost as if this street (I didn't see what the name was) could have been made as a 6 lane (3 in each direction) road, but instead it was two lanes (1 in each direction) with a landscaped median, then a bike path/pedestrian facility in the center, then another landscaping median with an impenetrable wire fence, then a two-lane road only for the orange line Metro buses. I can just imagine how beautiful it is during rush hour when all the single occupant vehicles are stuck in traffic and the bikes and buses are passing them all in plain view. I know the configuration sounds awkward but it actually was not awkward at all, even at intersections.
Then we turned and took another couple of busy, 6 lane streets and simply took over the right lane when there was no bike lane, and used the bike lane when there was one.
There is room for many kinds of systems. The anti-bike lane people only want to force a single system thinking it's one-size-fits-all. That system favors single occupancy driving the most, which is the least sustainable system in the long run. It doesn't fit all.
I have to tell you the bike path street was the most pleasant, the bike lane street was second-most pleasant, taking the lane was the third most pleasant, and taking the lane that had parked cars was the least pleasant of all 4 options we did today.
Thanks for posting your experiences, gcl8a. My original post wasn't to say look at how perfect all these bike facilities are, but simply to show some ideas that are new to us over here. It is good to hear some first-hand experience with them.
chephy
10-28-06, 08:48 PM
Very interesting post, gcl8a. Confirms that I probably wouldn't want to ride a bike on those Denmark streets. Give me Toronto any day over it, with all its gridlock and bad drivers and, and, and etc...
After all, if I find traffic really bad, there is always a sidewalk, which seems to be about as safe and efficient as the bike lanes you are describing.
I do believe in well-engineered bike lanes in some places, as long as drivers are as abysmal as they are anyway, but not this sort of attempt at total segregation of bikes from traffic flow that is simply confusing and frustrating.
Daily Commute
10-29-06, 03:00 AM
I don't need to explain how anybody's study reached its conclusions. . . .
"Don't need to" or "don't know"? Time after time, studies that claim to show that bike lanes make cyclists safer show only that the lane stipes make cyclists feel safer. Or they compare bike lanes on low-traffic wide roads to high-traffic narrow roads. Or they otherwise fail to isolate the effects of bike lanes from other traffic condictions.
Do any of the studies you cite avoid those problems?
Edit: I have seen many of the "studies" rebutted, but I just picked one at random to research (http://www.bikexprt.com/research/synthesis/synthesi.htm):
The Synthesis places a political agenda ahead of scientific veracity. The fundamental conclusion that the separation vs. integration debate has become "redundant and futile" is one of wishful thinking. The separation vs. integration debate has not become "redundant and futile" and will not, as long as those who advocate and promote separate facilities do so for the wrong reasons, with the wrong expectations, and with too little knowledge of or concern for issues raised by the research literature.
Yes, that's the conclusion, read the rest of the article http://www.bikexprt.com/research/synthesis/synthesi.htm.
Edit 2:
I picked another claim at random:
* In Chicago, Illinois, crash severity was reduced in one study of marking bike lanes in a narrow cross section where 5 foot bike lanes were marked next to 7 foot parking lanes.
The "source" cited in the footnotes was the following conclusory, unsupported statement from a pro-bike lane group's manual (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/pdf/bike_lane.pdf):
As a result, the stripes were permanently installed in 2000 and the cross section (7 foot parking, 5 foot bike lane, 10 foot travel lane) was the starting point for the Chicago Bike Lane Design Manual.
You can't call something scientific if it is willing to rely on unsourced advocacy documents as the basis for its assessments. All you need is five pro-bike lane people to make assertions, then they can all cite themselves. Brilliant science!
Bekologist
10-29-06, 05:56 AM
there is OVERWHELMING evidence as to the efficacy and improvements delivered to a community by accomodating bicycles into the regional transit grid;
ignoring the positive and sundry effects bike accomodations have in communities around the globe is what is unrealistic, daily commute- you're reaching, buddy.
didn't you hear? "VELOTRANSIT WORKS TO MAKE COMMUNITIES MORE BICYCLE FRIENDLY" and "Bike Lanes and paths increase both absolute safety and numbers of bicyclists in a community."
Asserting ones' right to ride like a vehicle down a high speed, high volume roadway does NOT make a community more bikeable.
what I find VERY interesting is how the anti bike facilites zealots are happier than clams that they don't have any accomodations, but their communities by and large sound like there aren't many bicyclists there compared to other communities that accomodate bicyclists in the transportation grid.
THIS reality crosses boarder lines as well causes interstate U.S. differences.
WHY aren't there many bicyclists in Cary? and in Columbus? you think its the bike lane plans that are keeping bikers from riding MORE in your guys' communities? or the lack of bike friendly roads and accomodations?
sure, maybe steely eyed, delusisional riders like Steve Goodrich, who seems okay pulling his kid down some (relatively low speed) unaccomodated roads in his commnunity. why don't more parents ride with kids in trailers in your community, Steve?
i believe a community should be made safe enough for eight year olds to ride across town. i believe communities should reclaim public space from the exclusive domain of the automible and design for more than just cars.
i believe biking in a community should be viewed from absolute useability and the Least Common Denominator of least skilled bicyclist, and NOT the steely eyed traffic cycling standards bandied about by anti facilities blowhards.
Daily Commute
10-29-06, 06:33 AM
there is OVERWHELMING evidence as to the efficacy and improvements delivered to a community by accomodating bicycles into the regional transit grid;
It's funny, when you look at the specifics of the "overwhelming evidence," it doesn't show what it's purported to show. That's why you see peolple like shbikes and bike pedestrian groups citing each other.
Asserting ones' right to ride like a vehicle down a high speed, high volume roadway does NOT make a community more bikeable.
I'm willling to talk about stiped lanes on high speed, high volume roadways (with few intersections). The main problem is when cities stripe lanes on low-speed or high-intersection roads.
Bekologist
10-29-06, 07:24 AM
why is there a problem with that? most 25 and 30 mile per hour streets can benefit from bike accomodations of some order if implemented well.
bike accomodations for the least common denominator and not the 'experienced' steely eyed cyclist.
design for the 8 MPH crowd, and a bike lane on a low speed street can make a difference. there are many effective bike lanes in Seattle on 25 and 30 mile per hour roads.
Diane's original post intent shouldn't get lost, however; there are many different ways of accomodating bikes into communities that have nothing in common with inadequate, antiquated american systems most of you must be hindered with around your communities.
I love what the mayor of La Paz, Bolivia, did in HIS city.
and Tokyo crosswalks are the shizzle.
sbhikes
10-29-06, 08:03 AM
Edit: I have seen many of the "studies" rebutted, but I just picked one at random to research (http://www.bikexprt.com/research/synthesis/synthesi.htm):
Your "studies" are from bike sites with strong biases against bike lanes. I purposefully didn't include any bike sites including those with strong biases for bike lanes.
Please find a study that is not from a bike site.
genec
10-29-06, 09:37 AM
Practically no one wears a helmet, and people commute in all styles of clothing: jeans, skirts, high-heeled boots, suits and ties, you name it (it's quite fascinating, really). The vast majority of cyclists obey the traffic laws -- many will not turn right on red from bike path to bike path, almost no one runs red lights straight across.
Gee this sounds much like the transportational cyclists of China... who also rarely (ever?) wear helmets, ride (on the wide arterials) in their own lane to the left of peds, and the right of motor traffic and wear regular clothes. Although the issues regarding traffic laws are quite different there.
Speeds of these transportational cyclists are slow... Perhaps twice walking speed. There are no "racers" of bright lycra clothing speeding about at 20+MPH.
It sounds as if transportational cycling, where the population readily rides bicycles, tends to involve lots of bikes, moving at speeds that are far less than that of the recreational and club riders in the US.
I want to make an observation here. It seems to me that a certain sect of "fast" riders, who actually represent a minority of cyclists in the US, are the the ones clamoring the most for "no bike lanes" and a strict VC style. Meanwhile riders that are transportational seem to have little problem with moving at a slower pace than the "fast" set, AND seem to enjoy cycling facilities, and tend to represent a greater number than the "fast sect." Go figure.
I know a certain cyclist that constantly complained about how dangerous it was to ride in a bike lane at 20-30MPH, and actually prefered to ride out of the BL with the 50+MPH motor vehicles. The irony is he chose not to slow down himself, but to slow down others instead, as it was "safer". Is this a general reflection of "fast riders?"
genec
10-29-06, 09:43 AM
"Don't need to" or "don't know"? Time after time, studies that claim to show that bike lanes make cyclists safer show only that the lane stipes make cyclists feel safer.
Dumb question... if the perception of the cyclists is that bike lanes make them feel safer, then aren't more cyclists liable to take to the road in these BL... and if there are more cyclists on the road, doesn't that increase our visibility to motorists, who then become more aware of cyclists and tend look out for them.
It has been stated time and time again that more cyclists on the road increases the over all safety for all cyclists, because motorists become more aware of cyclists.
So if BL are nothing more than a physicological ploy to make cyclist feel safer and increase ridership, then aren't BL then a good thing?
And in reality aren't all the stripes on the road, especially the one in the middle, just there to make us feel safer... the reality being that anybody can cross any line at any time?
gcl8a
10-29-06, 12:07 PM
Speeds of these transportational cyclists are slow... Perhaps twice walking speed. There are no "racers" of bright lycra clothing speeding about at 20+MPH.
It sounds as if transportational cycling, where the population readily rides bicycles, tends to involve lots of bikes, moving at speeds that are far less than that of the recreational and club riders in the US.
Good insight. The vast majority of cyclists are commuters, just getting from A to B, taking their kids to school, sometimes chatting with their friends or on their cell phones. When my riding group are riding the paths to get out of town (in our bright lycra ;), we'll pass several other cyclists, but, unlike in the US, when you announce your presence (bell, whistle, holler), people always move to the right and passing (although not at top speed) is easy. Often in the smaller towns, we'll avoid the cycle path and ride the road, but we're usually going 35+ kph.
On my commute, some days I go slowly (slower than the median speed), and some days I go relatively fast (I pass many, get passed rarely), and the paths are not a problem. Sure, I get slowed down occasionally (some paths are too narrow), but you can't do a training ride in town anyway because of the traffic lights.
Sometime this week I'll take my camera on my commute with me and take pictures of the variety of cycle paths. I'm sure there will be plenty of good, bad, and ugly to comment about. I'll start a new thread, so keep an eye out.
chephy
10-29-06, 12:15 PM
Meanwhile riders that are transportational seem to have little problem with moving at a slower pace than the "fast" set, AND seem to enjoy cycling facilities, and tend to represent a greater number than the "fast sect." Go figure. I am not a club rider, nor a recreational rider really. The vast majority of the miles I put on the bike are transportational. And I wouldn't appreciate it if I had to be confined to some "facilities" that only permitted me to do twice the walking speeds.
The irony is he chose not to slow down himself, but to slow down others instead, as it was "safer".He is doing everything legally, which is much better than what most drivers do around here: they break the law and sacrifice everyone's safety just for their speed.
Cars on those roads are provided with adequate facilities to drive at the speed limit, while bicycle facilities aren't safe even way below the speed limit. So because he is a cyclist he's treated like a second-class user who's just supposed to slow down and let the cagers zip by merrily? Well, screw that!
genec
10-29-06, 12:35 PM
I am not a club rider, nor a recreational rider really. The vast majority of the miles I put on the bike are transportational. And I wouldn't appreciate it if I had to be confined to some "facilities" that only permitted me to do twice the walking speeds.
Yet strangely enough this is what occurs in countries that have a large commuting public... they do not race about like the lycra clad cyclists of racing fame. They ride slow, and dress in normal clothing.
He is doing everything legally, which is much better than what most drivers do around here: they break the law and sacrifice everyone's safety just for their speed.
Legal sure, but can you understand the frustration of any group of motorists who are following the "legal," albeit slower, cycist who himself cannot slowdown? Do you not see the irony of one slow cyclist who decides to slow several others instead, so the cyclist can go fast? (do the needs of one outweight the needs of many?)
Cars on those roads are provided with adequate facilities to drive at the speed limit, while bicycle facilities aren't safe even way below the speed limit. So because he is a cyclist he's treated like a second-class user who's just supposed to slow down and let the cagers zip by merrily? Well, screw that!
Define "adequate facilities... " because I would venture a guess that motorists feel quite the other way, and wonder why that hardly ever used strip of pavement for bikes can't be used for another lane for motorists.
joejack951
10-29-06, 12:56 PM
Dumb question... if the perception of the cyclists is that bike lanes make them feel safer, then aren't more cyclists liable to take to the road in these BL... and if there are more cyclists on the road, doesn't that increase our visibility to motorists, who then become more aware of cyclists and tend look out for them.
It has been stated time and time again that more cyclists on the road increases the over all safety for all cyclists, because motorists become more aware of cyclists.
So if BL are nothing more than a physicological ploy to make cyclist feel safer and increase ridership, then aren't BL then a good thing?
And in reality aren't all the stripes on the road, especially the one in the middle, just there to make us feel safer... the reality being that anybody can cross any line at any time?
In my opinion, having more cyclists in the streets would make the already rare overtaking collision even rarer. Motorists would be more likely to pay attention to the bike lane/shoulder if more cyclists used it.
At intersections, motorists are looking for cars because another car endangers them. They also look where traffic is normally coming from because if they had to do a 360 degree check at every turn, they'd have to turn very slowly. They'll also be likely to forget to do that 360 degree check every once in a while (or often for newer drivers) so counting on that check to improve your saety is still a bad bet. It's still a bad idea to ride somewhere that the normal (car) traffic is not coming from.
Question: How many cyclist deaths in your immediate area would it take for many cyclists to decide cycling is too dangerous? How many would it take before the local government decided the streets were not safe for cyclists (Dana Point)?
patc
10-29-06, 01:48 PM
Dumb question... if the perception of the cyclists is that bike lanes make them feel safer, then aren't more cyclists liable to take to the road in these BL... and if there are more cyclists on the road, doesn't that increase our visibility to motorists, who then become more aware of cyclists and tend look out for them.
I cut text to save space, but feel it was all worth quoting.
Many assume that a feeling of safety implies a lack (or decrease) of real safety. That's not necessarily the case: it is possible to both feel safer and be safer, and it is possible to feel safer with no change in actual safety. If you look around bike lane debates, they tend to snag on the safety issue (or on idealogical "segregation" themes) and never explore other issues.
If we assume, (as I believe), that bike lanes are generally neutral in actual safety, or that actual safety involves too many other factors for the mere presence/absence of a bike lane to be the deciding factor, then what are we left with?
First, as Gene stated, an increased feeling of safety may encourage cycling. Generally a good thing. Arguments that bike lanes encourage people to venture on streets they are not ready for seem a bit weak to me. Bike lanes are traffic lanes, and gaining experience in traffic is a required part of developing traffic skills.
Secondly, the presence of a restricted lane (signage, pavement markings) plus any increase in actual cyclists increased public awareness of cycling. Good all around, even if some people mis-perceive bike lanes as the only place for cyclists (two steps forward, one step back is still one step forward).
Thirdly, the presence of a bike lane may (and often does) make that road easier to use for cyclist. If nothing else it can allow a cyclist to zoom by gridlock. People are basically lazy, and a faster/easier route is more likely to be used. At rush hour it takes me 30mins. to get from my new office to my front door, a friend with a car tried it and took 45 mins. THAT is a strong pro-cycling argument. I could easily shave 5 minutes off my cycling time if a bike lane let me get passed traffic faster at the Billings Bridge bottle-neck.
Finally (or at least that's all which comes to mind right now) bike lanes change the road use paradigm from lane sharing to the normal one vehicle-per-lane system. I see two distinct problems with lane sharing. Most people don't really know the difference between narrow lanes, normal lanes, and wide lanes - causing both drivers and cyclists to have an expectation of lane sharing that exceeds actual road capacities. Lane sharing also complicate every intersection, and merging into traffic at each intersection can be a huge headache.
Now, I'm not saying that bike lanes are a magic solution. At the least the require complex intersections (lights, RTOLs, etc.) at all major crossings (most driveways have too low a traffic volume to be significant risks). A sub-standard bike lane can be worse than none. Drivers have to merge through the bike lane to get to a RTOL, which is a more complex move and covers more distance than a normal lane change. It may be very difficult or impossible to retro-fit an older road to have a bike lane, and the meeting point of new construction to old can result in strange interfaces. However there are bad roads and intersections everywhere, of all types, and for many reasons. To me, the question "are bike lanes good" is meaningless. The question that needs to be answered is, "Would a bike lane be of net benefit to cyclists on Main Street from First Ave. down to Tenth?" Sure, part of the answer to that question must involve safety concerns, but barring clear and significant safety problems there are other considerations to be discussed.
Sorry for the novel, folks.
sbhikes
10-29-06, 06:41 PM
Thanks for the novel, Pat. I appreciate it.
The thing is, you have to ask exactly those types of specific questions like you said: "Would a bike lane be of net benefit to cyclists on ...."
Thinking about my little ride in the Valley yesterday, we rode on some roads that were basically the same as far as traffic goes (for a Saturday morning) and had outside lanes pretty much the same size, with parking allowed.
The problem with just having a wide curb lane without a bike lane is you have to stake a claim to a certain place on the huge football field of asphalt and try to hold it. If the parked cars are far apart, you have to claim a spot way out there. You want to be polite--after all, there is room to share, but you don't want to be forced too close to the next parked car way down there in front of you. Many people will not understand why you are not closer to the curb. And many times the width of the road seems to fluctuate slightly. So you are stuck trying to stake a claim and hold it with a small, slow and easily maneuvered vehicle. It makes no sense from the motorist's point of view why you don't just get out of the way. After all, even in a lane-sharing situation, they want to pass you as far away from you as they can.
On the roads with the bike lanes, the amount of pavement was the same, but with the bike lane there you did not need to stake a claim and be prepared to defend it. You only had to concern yourself with whether or not the bike lane was adequate at any given time, which it was most of the time. It just makes things easier.
So, would a bike lane smooth the way for cyclists on these roads? On the one that allowed parking on the weekend, I don't see how it could help. That's a busy, nasty road and you probably would avoid it as much as possible except for the weekends. But the other road where we took the lane, it would probably help make things clearer.
manboy
10-29-06, 06:41 PM
patc,
I think your post makes the most sense so far.
Here in Richmond, people are already aware of bike traffic due to the blossoming bike culture.
Back in Williamsburg, drivers, both tourists and townies, were generally ignorant of the presence of cyclists and bike-related laws. It was on the low-speed (25 mph) roads with sidewalks and no bike lanes that my wife and I got comments like, "Get off the road," "Get on the sidewalk," or once, "You're holding up traffic for miles!" Drivers tended to pass very close and very fast. On the roads that had "Share the road" signs, bike lanes of any kind, and/or wide shoulders, drivers were much more courteous, even if we weren't actually riding in the bike lane, and even if the speed limit was much greater (45 mph). There were some problems, such as crossing intersections, executing left turns, and dealing with oncoming cyclists going the wrong way. However, I don't think that these problems were any less pronounced on the roads without bike lanes. When I was concerned about debris, grates, car doors, oncoming cyclists, or pedestrian traffic, I simply moved to the left and into the main travel lane after checking behind me. At intersections, I had no problem taking a turn lane when necessary to secure my spot at the light and prevent being hooked.
From my observations, it seems as though innovations and facilites of any sort were a help both to fast recreational cyclists and to slower transportational cyclists.
Regarding the original post, I can't say I'd be comfortable at all in a lane between parked cars and the sidewalk: doors on one side, curb on the other, and people crossing the lane to enter their cars. A wider lane that still discourages automobile travel would likely be a more effective and certainly a more elegant solution, but road width is generally limited. Still, I like the innovative thinking here.
patc
10-29-06, 06:56 PM
Thanks for the novel, Pat. I appreciate it.
patc,
I think your post makes the most sense so far.
Hmm, maybe there is something to be said for posting the day after the "crawl home a 3am" Hallowe'en party.
rando
10-29-06, 06:56 PM
If roadways were ever to morph into something useful for ALL bicyclists, not just the two-wheeled urban warriors and those who want to teach cagers a lesson, there may very well be more people riding bikes to work and to the store. I don't go that fast. I'm not comfortable getting out there on the 40-60 MPH arterial and taking the lane and holding up traffic because it's legal... If there was a bike lane along those arterials, I might be more comfortable doing so. You will never convince me that it is a safe thing to do to get out there and take the lane on busy streets in the areas where I ride, even thought there are those (very few) that do just that. so what about me and those like me ? there are a lot of us and we are out here riding already.
gcl8a
10-30-06, 02:30 AM
Some fool wrote:
"Sometime this week I'll take my camera on my commute with me and take pictures of the variety of cycle paths..."
Well, "sometime this week" was this morning, as I figured if I didn't do it today, inertia would take over.