Advocacy & Safety - Community brainstorm: alternative names for bike lanes

Let's say we change bike lanes to be open to anyone, as long as they are traveling, say, 15 mph or slower, and no one is allowed to traveli in them at a speed faster than 15 mph (not even bicyclists). Their purpose would be for all vehicle drivers who are decelerating to park or turn (once they slowed to 15), and for cyclists, scooter operators, etc., who are traveling at 15 mph or slower.

If we did that, then calling them "bike lanes" would no longer make sense. What should they be called instead?

Slow lanes?
Edge lanes?
Slow edge lanes?
Sledge lanes?

What else?

To quote Willie the Shake, "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet".

What's the point? Most motorists don't know the rules of the road as they stand now, why make it more complicated? They still use the bike lane whenever it's advantageous for them, and they still drive slowly in the fast lane. Other than a few bike lane activists, the name change will probably go completely unnoticed.

Az

I prefer "Sharrows", as shown in my avatar.

No speed limits!

Even on a bad day I can beat 15 mph!

To quote Willie the Shake, "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet".

What's the point? Most motorists don't know the rules of the road as they stand now, why make it more complicated? They still use the bike lane whenever it's advantageous for them, and they still drive slowly in the fast lane. Other than a few bike lane activists, the name change will probably go completely unnoticed.

Az

The purpose/function of a 5-6' foot wide dashed lane at the side of the road, with no signs, but 15 mph stenciled in it every 100-200 feet, would be pretty clear to even the biggest doofs out there, I think.

But you're right, maybe they don't need names at all. Just don't call them bike lanes either.

Let's say we change bike lanes to be open to anyone, as long as they are traveling, say, 15 mph or slower, and no one is allowed to traveli in them at a speed faster than 15 mph (not even bicyclists). Their purpose would be for all vehicle drivers who are decelerating to park or turn (once they slowed to 15), and for cyclists, scooter operators, etc., who are traveling at 15 mph or slower.

If we did that, then calling them "bike lanes" would no longer make sense. What should they be called instead?

Slow lanes?
Edge lanes?
Slow edge lanes?
Sledge lanes?

What else?


Make them wider, raise the speed limit to 25MPH and call them SVL. (Slow Vehicle Lane)

Quite a while back one of the regular posters stated pretty much the same thing... Brian, or Bruce... I don't remember.

I prefer "Sharrows", as shown in my avatar.

No speed limits!

Even on a bad day I can beat 15 mph!
So can I, but is it appropriate to be riding faster than 15 mph as close to the edge of a road as a bike lane or sharrow normally positions a cyclist? (hint: NO!)

The point here is to segregate traffic by speed, not by type.

Whether you're a car or bike, if you're going 15 or slower, you should be allowed in the road margin.
Whether you're a car or bike, if you're traveling faster than 15, you should be to the left of the margin.

How about "margin lane"? Or "verge lane"?

Make them wider, raise the speed limit to 25MPH and call them SVL. (Slow Vehicle Lane)

Quite a while back one of the regular posters stated pretty much the same thing... Brian, or Bruce... I don't remember.
Maybe 20 mph?

Anyway, at every major intersection approach, they would also stencil "through traffic merge left" in the margin lanes, which would be right-or-straight lanes at all minor intersections, and right-only at all major intersections.

Maybe 20 mph?

Anyway, at every major intersection approach, they would also stencil "through traffic merge left" in the margin lanes, which would be right-or-straight lanes at all minor intersections, and right-only at all major intersections.

Sure... and really this is a great idea... like I said, this was batted around before in the bike lane discussion... although not so much with a fixed speed limit.

But perhaps a larger issue is getting all the states to implement it in the same fashion, like the right on red rules. (I remember when those were implemented... state by state)

BL in all states are not implemented in the same fashion now, which as you well know, causes some confusion on the part of drivers (who frankly are easily confused anyway ;) ).

How about calling it a shoulder and not putting any marks on it? (following the 'rose by any other name' school of thought.....)

HH's concept has some merit, and it addresses the biggest drawback of conventional Narrow Outside Lanes, i.e., that their speed limit is generally the same as those of all other lanes on the road. It attempts to enforce a laminar flow, with the fastest traffic near the centerline of the road and the slowest traffic near the curb. I think a 15mph posted maximum is too low, because it would leave a 20-25mph cyclist on a 55mph/90kph prime arterial with no safe place to ride, so let's consider 20mph/32kph, perhaps, but certainly no more than, 25mph/40kph. What I like best about the idea is that it might encourage motorists to merge all the way curbward when preparing for a near-side turn. What I like least about it is that it would pretty much force pedestrians out of the bike lane, which is a huge problem wherever there is no sidewalk or the sidewalk is obstructed.

Ok, this has got to be satire. Of that I have no doubt.

What bicyclist in his right mind would go slower then 15 mph if they're able to go faster? How stupid is that? Plus how the hell would the speed be monitored? Radar guns can not detect bicycles very well, if at all. Not all bicycles are equipped with computers, nor should they be required to. This would make it so they would have to be. Do you know how much public outcry this would cause amongts the cycling community?

Then again this is satire so who the **** cares?

25 mph is way too fast riding 3' from the curb. Even 20 mph is. That's why I think a 15 mph speed limit is appropriate.

On an arterial, how about 15 mph narrow 5' lane, a 30 mph wide lane, and then a 45+ lane?

They'd be meaningless.

They'd just become another potential passing lane for cars, just like the exisiting bus and HOV lanes. The only advantage to the existing bike lane design in this regard is they are generally a bit too narrow for cars to use.

Drivers will continue to pick and choose which laws they obey based on minimizing their delays.

HH's concept has some merit, and it addresses the biggest drawback of conventional Narrow Outside Lanes, i.e., that their speed limit is generally the same as those of all other lanes on the road. It attempts to enforce a laminar flow, with the fastest traffic near the centerline of the road and the slowest traffic near the curb. I think a 15mph posted maximum is too low, because it would leave a 20-25mph cyclist on a 55mph/90kph prime arterial with no safe place to ride, so let's consider 20mph/32kph, perhaps, but certainly no more than, 25mph/40kph. What I like best about the idea is that it might encourage motorists to merge all the way curbward when preparing for a near-side turn. What I like least about it is that it would pretty much force pedestrians out of the bike lane, which is a huge problem wherever there is no sidewalk or the sidewalk is obstructed.

Maybe a fixed speed limit isn't the idea, but rather a percentage of the speed limit in other lanes, say 50%, rounded to the nearest 5MPH, with a minimum of 15mph or 25km/h, so on a 30MPH road it would be 15MPH, on a 45MPH road it would be 25MPH, on a 55MPH road it would be 30MPH. However, maybe the real issue is that speed limits in general are too high.

How about calling it a shoulder and not putting any marks on it? (following the 'rose by any other name' school of thought.....)
Because a shoulder is not a real travel lane, despite its being used frequently as such by cyclists.

Interesting idea which I will have to think more about before knowing quite what I think of it. I will say, though, that I think your thread title is a bit misleading. What you are proposing is not just an alternative name for the same thing, it is a whole different facility.

I think I know what you're getting at. Drivers would be required to merge into this lane in order to make a right-hand turn, which is fact precisely how they should be treating a bike lane anyway. But because a traditional BL is bike-only in markings and width, this pyschologically discourages car drivers from treating it as a separate and equal travel lane when preparing for turns. They don't think they need to bother merging into a bike lane, or think they're not supposed to, so they just turn into it instead. By enlarging it and encouraging its use by slowing right-turning cars, the merge concept is reinforced.

Still, maybe a shoulder accomplishes the same thing already...

He's back and he's got the same trick with a new face!

*yawns*

He's back and he's got the same trick with a new face!

*yawns*

Hence my firm beliefe this is & has got to be satire. I mean he is kidding, right? He's gotta be. That or it's a troll post.

However, maybe the real issue is that speed limits in general are too high.


BINGO! Give the man a prize!

Indeed that is an issue with western cities anyway... where arterials can be marked at 45, 50 and even 60MPH (one right outside of my office for instance.) (Vista Sorrento Parkway, for locals)

Highways exist for higher speeds... slow down the traffic on city streets. Period.

However a system of sharrow marked "slow lanes" does make sense, and is somewhat intuitive. A local major road I drive about once a week is marked at 50MPH, yet the outer lane typically moves at about 30-35MPH due to the number of driveways and merges that motorists do along that route. (Miramar road, for the locals) So the concept has merit.

Because a shoulder is not a real travel lane, despite its being used frequently as such by cyclists.

Interesting idea which I will have to think more about before knowing quite what I think of it. I will say, though, that I think your thread title is a bit misleading. What you are proposing is not just an alternative name for the same thing, it is a whole different facility.

I think I know what you're getting at. Drivers would be required to merge into this lane in order to make a right-hand turn, which is fact precisely how they should be treating a bike lane anyway. But because a traditional BL is bike-only in markings and width, this pyschologically discourages car drivers from treating it as a separate and equal travel lane when preparing for turns. They don't think they need to bother merging into a bike lane, or think they're not supposed to, so they just turn into it instead. By enlarging it and encouraging its use by slowing right-turning cars, the merge concept is reinforced.

Still, maybe a shoulder accomplishes the same thing already...


Shoulders don't typically exist in town where the road edges are bordered by sidewalks.

I like the psychology of the idea... encouraging merging is a good idea, but the real question is will motorists actually look for bikes in that lane or just move over after a quick glance for a "car like object."

Interesting idea which I will have to think more about before knowing quite what I think of it. I will say, though, that I think your thread title is a bit misleading. What you are proposing is not just an alternative name for the same thing, it is a whole different facility.

I think I know what you're getting at. Drivers would be required to merge into this lane in order to make a right-hand turn, which is fact precisely how they should be treating a bike lane anyway. But because a traditional BL is bike-only in markings and width, this pyschologically discourages car drivers from treating it as a separate and equal travel lane when preparing for turns. They don't think they need to bother merging into a bike lane, or think they're not supposed to, so they just turn into it instead. By enlarging it and encouraging its use by slowing right-turning cars, the merge concept is reinforced.

I don't think I'm proposing a whole different facility.

By calling it something other than a bike lane - something generic that applies equally to drivers of all vehicles - I think it's more likely for it to be used like it's supposed to be - for slow moving traffic between intersections, including merging and turning traffic, and not by through traffic at intersection approaches, not even by through bike traffic.

As to N_C and SingingSabre, I think you guys have reading comprehension problems.

BINGO! Give the man a prize!

Indeed that is an issue with western cities anyway... where arterials can be marked at 45, 50 and even 60MPH (one right outside of my office for instance.) (Vista Sorrento Parkway, for locals)

Highways exist for higher speeds... slow down the traffic on city streets. Period.

Why? Our club ride route includes Vista Sorrento Parkway north of Sorrento Valley Blvd. Motor traffic speed is high, but it never seems to be a problem, whether I'm with the club or riding solo, whether traffic is heavy, or light. What's the issue?

Why? Our club ride route includes Vista Sorrento Parkway north of Sorrento Valley Blvd. Motor traffic speed is high, but it never seems to be a problem, whether I'm with the club or riding solo, whether traffic is heavy, or light. What's the issue?

What is the speed delta between you and the motor traffic as you ascend that hill from Sorrento Valley Blvd (VSP BTW is 50MPH as you go north, 60MPH as you go south).

A distracted motorist will close on you much faster (and thus have less time to react) at 50 or 60MPH than at 40 or 45MPH... it may only be a second or two difference, but that may be all YOU need.

Now the flip side is with a parallel freeway, why does any motorist need to drive at freeway speeds on a surface street? Further, the speed was set long before all the apartments, businesses, and stoplights in that area were put in... from a practical sense alone, only the most powerful cars can even hit 50MPH between those lights... yet the road is marked at ludicrous speed. Rather than ask "why" as in "why not that speed..." ask "why" as in "why that speed at all."

I have yet to hear a decent justification for high speed surface streets that are paralleled by freeways. Freeways offer the ability to access the same locations at high speeds and in a controlled manner... parallel surface streets should be speed limited to serve those that cannot access the freeways. (pedestrians, cyclists, heavy loads, etc.)

So can I, but is it appropriate to be riding faster than 15 mph as close to the edge of a road as a bike lane or sharrow normally positions a cyclist? (hint: NO!)

Bike lanes and sharrows where I ride are typically 12-14 ft from the curb. You know, the door zone.

They are not bordered on the right by the curb.

So do I want to be limited to 15 MPH 'way out there? (hint: NO!)

:D

Ok, this has got to be satire. Of that I have no doubt.



No, actually on the few times I've stumbled in over here, this seems to be the actual type of discussion going on, sometimes with such passion as to just about lead to fistacuffs.

Tends to be good theater, but the novelty fades fairly quickly.

Bike lanes and sharrows where I ride are typically 12-14 ft from the curb. You know, the door zone.

They are not bordered on the right by the curb.

So do I want to be limited to 15 MPH 'way out there? (hint: NO!)

:D
15 MPH is way too fast for riding in a door zone, and even a foot or two outside of the doorzone.

What is the speed delta between you and the motor traffic as you ascend that hill from Sorrento Valley Blvd (VSP BTW is 50MPH as you go north, 60MPH as you go south).

A distracted motorist will close on you much faster (and thus have less time to react) at 50 or 60MPH than at 40 or 45MPH... it may only be a second or two difference, but that may be all YOU need.

Now the flip side is with a parallel freeway, why does any motorist need to drive at freeway speeds on a surface street? Further, the speed was set long before all the apartments, businesses, and stoplights in that area were put in... from a practical sense alone, only the most powerful cars can even hit 50MPH between those lights... yet the road is marked at ludicrous speed. Rather than ask "why" as in "why not that speed..." ask "why" as in "why that speed at all."

I have yet to hear a decent justification for high speed surface streets that are paralleled by freeways. Freeways offer the ability to access the same locations at high speeds and in a controlled manner... parallel surface streets should be speed limited to serve those that cannot access the freeways. (pedestrians, cyclists, heavy loads, etc.)
The justification for the higher speeds is increased traffic throughput to all the new housing up there.

As for the speed deltas, we're probably going 15-20 up that hill in a group, maybe closer to 12-15 when I'm solo.
But the group is more visible than slow contruction vehicle would be there, and we're usually oozing out of the bike lane into half of the rightmost traffic lane (big deal, there are two more same-dir lanes).

When I'm solo I monitor for traffic to the rear as always and move aside into the bike lane as they approach.

Closing speed and not noticing is not an issue.

Is there any evidence for correlation between speed limits and crash incidence and/or severity? That is, is there any basis for the claim that lower posted speed limits make things safer?

The justification for the higher speeds is increased traffic throughput to all the new housing up there.


Yeah, right... the speed limits were established well before any of that housing existed... and in the housing areas it is 45MPH, except near the school on Carmel Mountain Road, where the speed limit has actually been recently LOWERED to 40MPH. So "to support housing density..." Wrong Guess... try again.




As for the speed deltas, we're probably going 15-20 up that hill in a group, maybe closer to 12-15 when I'm solo.
But the group is more visible than slow contruction vehicle would be there, and we're usually oozing out of the bike lane into half of the rightmost traffic lane (big deal, there are two more same-dir lanes).

When I'm solo I monitor for traffic to the rear as always and move aside into the bike lane as they approach.

Closing speed and not noticing is not an issue.

Is there any evidence for correlation between speed limits and crash incidence and/or severity? That is, is there any basis for the claim that lower posted speed limits make things safer?

I find it very hard to believe you ascend that hill at 15MPH or even close to 20... but that is your claim so I let it lie.

Are there any claims for less crash severity at lower speeds... OK, simple test. Let me crash my bike into you at 5MPH and then again at 20MPH (the latter is still not even the speed delta you claim for your 20MPH climb with 50MPH traffic) and let's see if you notice any difference in the severity of the impact. :rolleyes:

Yeah, right... the speed limits were established well before any of that housing existed... and in the housing areas it is 45MPH, except near the school on Carmel Mountain Road, where the speed limit has actually been recently LOWERED to 40MPH. So "to support housing density..." Wrong Guess... try again.
Fine. The road is reasonably safe at the higher speeds. It's straight, there's very little cross traffic... what's the problem?



I find it very hard to believe you ascend that hill at 15MPH or even close to 20... but that is your claim so I let it lie.
I don't have a specific memory of checking the speed on that hill, but I know we go about 20 on El Camino Real up from Carmel Valley Road to Del Mar Heights, which seems like a similar grade, and it always amazes me.


Are there any claims for less crash severity at lower speeds... OK, simple test. Let me crash my bike into you at 5MPH and then again at 20MPH (the latter is still not even the speed delta you claim for your 20MPH climb with 50MPH traffic) and let's see if you notice any difference in the severity of the impact. :rolleyes:
That's an answer to a question different from what I asked. Obviously, getting hit at higher speeds is worse than getting hit at lower speeds.

But at lower speeds drivers also might be less alert, and, so more likely to hit someone.

Personally, I prefer to let nature takes its course. People tend to drive at reasonable speeds given good designs, and this road seems to qualify.

Ok, this has got to be satire. Of that I have no doubt.

What bicyclist in his right mind would go slower then 15 mph if they're able to go faster? How stupid is that? Plus how the hell would the speed be monitored? Radar guns can not detect bicycles very well, if at all. Not all bicycles are equipped with computers, nor should they be required to. This would make it so they would have to be. Do you know how much public outcry this would cause amongts the cycling community?

Then again this is satire so who the **** cares?

HH, have you met N_C? He's one subject that I bet you, ILTB, Bek I and others who usually don't agree on much of anything, will all be in agreement about! Welcome back.

Ok back to reality for a second, ladies and gents...what makes you think speed limits for bikes, or anything else for that matter, will be any more enforced, or enforcable, than the current posted speed limits on the roadways? How about addressing the root cause - inability/unwillingness to enforce the laws we have before trying to create new laws and new paradigms.

The dead sexy lane.....with a picture of fat bastard rubbing his nips drawn onto the lane.

How about "Express Lane to reward Bike Commuters"?

(Yeah, I know, shame on me for contributing to HH's waste of bandwidth, but that's really how I see bike lanes, and how they really are to anyone without a chip on their shoulders.)

Simple. Cycling is patriotic, so call them "Freedom Lanes."

Paul

How about "Express Lane to reward Bike Commuters"?

(Yeah, I know, shame on me for contributing to HH's waste of bandwidth, but that's really how I see bike lanes, and how they really are to anyone without a chip on their shoulders.)
I'm guessing you have a lot of dense/slow urban traffic in Ottawa?

In southern cal, bike lanes are mostly (not entirely) about getting cyclists out of the way of faster motorists.
Very rarely are they useful as express lanes for passing motorists, much less as express lanes where motorists can be passed safely at a reasonable cycling speed.

As to N_C and SingingSabre, I think you guys have reading comprehension problems.

While my comment was barely on topic for this thread, this one isn't. However, I'm just going to leave it be.

Argu....er...."debating" your whacky ideas is like pulling teeth from an angry alligator. You vehemently call any argument anybody presents as anti-cyclist, misinformed, or you call the person themselves incapable of comprehending facts. That's why I'm leaving it be.

I'm sad to see you back, HH. I was really quite enjoying the discussions taking place in your absense. I'll be begrudgingly reading the posts now, waiting for the anti-bike lane "advocacy" to start back up. Oh...wait, it already has.

15 MPH is way too fast for riding in a door zone, and even a foot or two outside of the doorzone.

I never said I ride in the door zone. You assume too much, and that's why people get so angry at you.

Just friendly advice....

Those things that VC zealots ***** and whine about.

Ok back to reality for a second, ladies and gents...what makes you think speed limits for bikes, or anything else for that matter, will be any more enforced, or enforcable, than the current posted speed limits on the roadways? How about addressing the root cause - inability/unwillingness to enforce the laws we have before trying to create new laws and new paradigms.


What a concept....

So can I, but is it appropriate to be riding faster than 15 mph as close to the edge of a road as a bike lane or sharrow normally positions a cyclist? .........



Whether you're a car or bike, if you're going 15 or slower, you should be allowed in the road margin.
Whether you're a car or bike, if you're traveling faster than 15, you should be to the left of the margin.




First off, bike lanes are not necessarily 'in the margins.' or always position riders close to the edge of the road.

Many bike lanes are bufferred from the road edge, buffered from parking and accomodated at intersections, position the average rider further from the edge of the roadway than simple wide outside lanes alone, and provide a better lane position leading up to free accomodated intersections.

the intent of hh appears to actually be marginalizing unduly the utility, value and actual physicality of roadway space granted by velotransit lanes in a well accomodated roadway network.


velotransit lanes can be well provided, integrated with roadway striping patterns, and allow preferential travel by bicyclists.

speed limits, or allowing cars to drive in them willy-nilly is a disenfranchisment of the value of velotransit integrated with a community roadway network.

If you want a new name for a bike lane, call it a velotransit lane.

I never said I ride in the door zone. You assume too much, and that's why people get so angry at you.

Just friendly advice....
Thanks for the advice. Sorry for misunderstanding. But, hopefully, when you reread your own words, perhaps you'll understand why I assumed you were saying you rode in the door zone:


Bike lanes and sharrows where I ride are typically 12-14 ft from the curb. You know, the door zone.

And all of this was in the context of you, apparently, challenging my assertion that riding at speeds above 15 mph in bike lanes is not a good idea.

If you're riding outside of the bike lane, what is your point?

The margins.

HH, have you met N_C? He's one subject that I bet you, ILTB, Bek I and others who usually don't agree on much of anything, will all be in agreement about! Welcome back.

Did hell just freeze over? Cause I swear you just paid a compliment. ;)

Thanks for the advice. Sorry for misunderstanding. But, hopefully, when you reread your own words, perhaps you'll understand why I assumed you were saying you rode in the door zone:


Bike lanes and sharrows where I ride are typically 12-14 ft from the curb. You know, the door zone.

And all of this was in the context of you, apparently, challenging my assertion that riding at speeds above 15 mph in bike lanes is not a good idea.

If you're riding outside of the bike lane, what is your point?

I was referring to the physical placement of the bike lanes where I ride. They are in the door zone, but rarely are there any cars there. I meant it to be a relative term, since the lanes you referred to are bordered by the curb..

I wouldn't want speed limits placed on a bike lane, no matter where they are.

In the end, I believe there are too many different riding conditions, even in the same location but at different times, for a catch-all solution. You have to constantly assess possible hazards and deal with them accordingly. I think we agree on this.

Now my head hurts...

HH, not for nothing my friend & this is not meant to be an insult, flaming or trolling. But your posts about BL's are getting as bad as mine about helmets. This is turning into what others have called a "dead horse" issue. I'm not saying to stop posting about them, I won't stop posting about helmets if I feel it is appropriate, I imagine you feel the same way.

just expect satrical comments from me & others as well as serious comments similar to what I have received about helmet threads.

And BTW the second part of my first response to this thread is meant to be serious. Why do that & why require speedometers on bicycles?

...why require speedometers on bicycles?
I know. I know. Because all Real Cyclists have a cycling computer (with speed readout) anyways; and enactment of this "brainstorm" would be a useful tool for HH-types to hassle those cyclists who are not Real Cyclists and might use/prefer bike lanes.

Some ideas:

"Death strip"
"Broken glass trough"
"Door zone"
"Parking lot"
"Path to salvation"

As much as I prefer the main travel lanes to bike lanes around here, I would be very much against any kind of speed limit for them.

Honestly, though, Helmet Head, I don't see any chance of such a thing happening anyway.

What are bike lanes? I've never seen one.

Some ideas:

"Death strip"
"Broken glass trough"
"Door zone"
"Parking lot"
"Path to salvation"


Hershey Highway? :eek:

I think "shoulder" is just fine. Rules can define who belongs there and when.

"Emergency lane" might be OK.

I don't like calling anything "bike lane." Any bit of space is useful, but if you call it a shoulder or emergency lane, people will think it's a great idea. Call it a bike lane, and the cycle haters go nuts.