Advocacy & Safety - Why do BL's have solid lines?

This just occurred to me the other day. Normal car travel lanes only have solid lines lines separating them close to an intersection, indicating that it's too late now to change lines. The rest of the time, they are dashed, indicating that lateral movement may be done with care. Even yellow center lines follow this convention, dashed when safe for passing, solid when not.

So why are bike lanes usually done with solid lines? True, they sometimes become dashed in obvious merge situations, such as approaching a right turn only lane, but why only then? Do cyclists never have to merge to the center to turn left into a side street? Do motorists never have to turn right, through the bike lane, into a driveway or parking lot?

This makes me believe that all bike lanes, all the time, should have a dashed inside line. Perhaps this would be a clearer indication to cyclists and motorists alike that it's merely a suggested travel lane for bikes, but should be treated by both like any other lane, merged into and out of as necessary, with care. Solid lines, on the other hand, seem to imply that bikes should not leave them, cars should not enter them, and in general imply a sense of segregation that I believe is completely false.

What thinkest thou?

I'm not sure how BL's are laid out in Southern Maine. In CA they are solid, until they approach intersections, when they become broken dashed, whatever.

I would say solid lines indicate to cars that they are to stay out of the bike lane unless they are entering/exiting a driveway. The broken lines at intersection indicate it is OK to for autos cross for a turn, and also alerts the cyclist that the sanctity of the bike lane may become violated by automobiles in this area.

For the record, I will ride in a bike lane if it happens to be the correct lane position for a given situation, but correct lane position is paramount, whether there are bike lanes or not.

My own rather cynical view is that it is an attempt to blur the distinction between a bike lane and the shoulder by those who believe that bikes do not belong in the roadway.

A white line on pavement means to any vehicle that you cannot cross that line. For example, in a left hand turn lane only, the white line means that once you have committed to that lane, you cannot cross it on the right to get into through lanes, and that cars in the through lanes cannot cross it to the left to get in the left hand turn lane.

Exactly the same rule applies for bike lanes.

I've thought about it too and came to the same idea that the solid-dash lining makes better sense, but its too complicated. If a line must exist I think it should be dashed, never solid, and end 100-200' before any and all intersections.

Al

Going up the hill to SFU in Burnaby BC (a mountain top campus), there is a right hand switchback that a lot of accordion buses go around. The solid white line that marks the bike lane swells to about 8 inches wide there, and I'm glad of it. :)

This just occurred to me the other day. Normal car travel lanes only have solid lines lines separating them close to an intersection, indicating that it's too late now to change lines. The rest of the time, they are dashed, indicating that lateral movement may be done with care. Even yellow center lines follow this convention, dashed when safe for passing, solid when not.

So why are bike lanes usually done with solid lines? True, they sometimes become dashed in obvious merge situations, such as approaching a right turn only lane, but why only then? Do cyclists never have to merge to the center to turn left into a side street? Do motorists never have to turn right, through the bike lane, into a driveway or parking lot?

This makes me believe that all bike lanes, all the time, should have a dashed inside line. Perhaps this would be a clearer indication to cyclists and motorists alike that it's merely a suggested travel lane for bikes, but should be treated by both like any other lane, merged into and out of as necessary, with care. Solid lines, on the other hand, seem to imply that bikes should not leave them, cars should not enter them, and in general imply a sense of segregation that I believe is completely false.

What thinkest thou?

But there is a real segregation. CARS MAY NOT USE A BIKE LANE AS A TRAVEL LANE That presents a real problem Solid line and bikes think they can not leave the lane and cars think they should NEVER enter the lane (but of course can cross it leading to right hooks). But a normal dashed line just seperates lanes, result cars will think they [b]CAN[/b/ use it as a travel lane.

Possible solution. Either dash with a different pattern or color. The problem here is getting 'universal' acceptence of the same solution.

What thinkest thou?
You think too much about a problem that exists only in the mind of those looking for reasons to rant about the evil bike lane menace.

I would say solid lines indicate to cars that they are to stay out of the bike lane unless they are entering/exiting a driveway.
When turning right, do you think motorists should merge into the bike lane before beginning the turn, or begin the turn from their lane (to the left of the bike lane) and only go through the bike lane during the turn? It's not even clear to me which is proper, and I've never seen it spelled out in any law. Frankly, I'd rather see them pull over into the bike lane ahead of me than see them turn into it suddenly, since a merge is more gradual, thus giving more reaction time.

A white line on pavement means to any vehicle that you cannot cross that line. ... Exactly the same rule applies for bike lanes
So if I'm in a bike lane and I need to prepare to turn left into a driveway, I can't do that because the line is solid, or maybe I have to start my turn from the bike lane? I know that's not what you mean, but that's what I'm getting from your words, because you say that the rule applies to "any vehicle". Is a bike not a vehicle? Or do you mean the solid line applies only to cars but not to bikes? I think that makes for unclear and inconsistant traffic guidance.

But there is a real segregation. CARS MAY NOT USE A BIKE LANE AS A TRAVEL LANE That presents a real problem Solid line and bikes think they can not leave the lane and cars think they should NEVER enter the lane (but of course can cross it leading to right hooks). But a normal dashed line just seperates lanes, result cars will think they [b]CAN[/b/ use it as a travel lane.
Well of course cars can't use the bike lane as a travel lane, because it's not wide enough! They shouldn't need a solid line to tell them that!

Of course I know what you mean: cars should not be travelling with their right halves in the bike lane. But that's just common sense. They don't straddle other lane lines, why would they choose to straddle a bike lane line, even a dashed one, unless maybe they were preparing for a right turn, in which case see my reply above to Eubi.

When turning right, do you think motorists should merge into the bike lane before beginning the turn, or begin the turn from their lane (to the left of the bike lane) and only go through the bike lane during the turn? It's not even clear to me which is proper, and I've never seen it spelled out in any law. Frankly, I'd rather see them pull over into the bike lane ahead of me than see them turn into it suddenly, since a merge is more gradual, thus giving more reaction time.
In AZ a motor vehicle unfortunately must never move forward while in a bike lane, even when making a right turn:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00815.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS
"D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain access to a public or private road or driveway."

In other states, such as CA, drivers are required to merge into BL before right turning.

Al

You think too much about a problem that exists only in the mind of those looking for reasons to rant about the evil bike lane menace.
If you said I think too much trying to figure out what makes me so uncomfortable about bike lanes, and how I might be more comfortable with them, I could accept that. But when you start making accusations about my motives, you lose me.

Thanks for the legal references, Al. I'm glad to at least hear that the law does attempt to spell out proper behavior, rather than just leave it ambiguous. Interesting that here in Maine, we have absolutely no statutes in regards to proper bike lane behavior. (I've just finished putting together a page (http://bike.meetup.com/132/pages/Summary_of_Maine_Bicycle_Laws/) summarizing Maine bike law.)

This just occurred to me the other day. Normal car travel lanes only have solid lines lines separating them close to an intersection, indicating that it's too late now to change lines. The rest of the time, they are dashed, indicating that lateral movement may be done with care. Even yellow center lines follow this convention, dashed when safe for passing, solid when not.

The convention in Ontario is that all restricted lanes use solid lines. A solid line simply means "not all vehicles may freely pass this line." So the solid line on a bike lane, bus lane, taxi lane, car-pool lane etc. indicates that ALL vehicles may not freely merge across the line, a road user should not blindly assume he/she can cross. The line is there to say, "check the signs before you cross me."

In a few places we have the bike lane dashed at intersections, usually in older areas without a proper RTOL (a layout I disapprove of). This usage does not seem to be consistent.

Solid lines, on the other hand, seem to imply that bikes should not leave them, cars should not enter them, and in general imply a sense of segregation that I believe is completely false.


This would also follow the pattern pertaining to High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on the freeway. They are solid, with dashed portions indicating "exits." Here in Georgia, it's illegal to enter or leave an HOV lane until the lines become dashed. So the solid line indicates "do not cross."

Perhaps a more accurate striping for bike lanes would be to have a solid line on the outside, indicating to motorists "do not cross," while an inside dashed line would indicate to cyclists, "ok to merge."

This would also follow the pattern pertaining to High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on the freeway. They are solid, with dashed portions indicating "exits." Here in Georgia, it's illegal to enter or leave an HOV lane until the lines become dashed. So the solid line indicates "do not cross."

Perhaps a more accurate striping for bike lanes would be to have a solid line on the outside, indicating to motorists "do not cross," while an inside dashed line would indicate to cyclists, "ok to merge."
In AZ, HOV lanes are separated with a solid line, which can be crossed at any time (assuming vehicle requirements and other lane change, etc. laws are followed)

Your idea for 'accurate' striping is exactly what John suggested.
Al

In AZ, HOV lanes are separated with a solid line, which can be crossed at any time
Holy cow, are you sure? In neighboring CA, it's a hefty fine to cross the HOV solid stripe at any time. You have to wait until you reach a designated enter/exit area (stripe is dashed).

This would also follow the pattern pertaining to High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on the freeway. They are solid, with dashed portions indicating "exits." Here in Georgia, it's illegal to enter or leave an HOV lane until the lines become dashed. So the solid line indicates "do not cross."

Perhaps a more accurate striping for bike lanes would be to have a solid line on the outside, indicating to motorists "do not cross," while an inside dashed line would indicate to cyclists, "ok to merge."
The HUGE difference between bike lanes and HOV lanes is that HOV lanes are always placed on the roadway where non-HOVs NEVER have to cross, on the left, while bike lanes are almost always placed in space where non-bikes do have to cross (to enter/exit the roadway), on the right.

Holy cow, are you sure? In neighboring CA, it's a hefty fine to cross the HOV solid stripe at any time. You have to wait until you reach a designated enter/exit area (stripe is dashed).
I am not 100% sure, but can not find any evidence or law otherwise.
It would be impossible to use an HOV lane if one could not cross the solid line, there would be no way to get into it. Whe HOV lane use restriction are off (non rush hour) it is used by all vehicles just like any other lane.
The only law I can find regarding HOV lanes is this:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00737.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS

Attached is a photo I took of typical HOV lane implementation. If you note there is a major freeway intersection, the entering ramp on the left side of the road has no way to get into the HOV lane as there is no break in the solid white line (which if there was would be out of picture, but I know this area very well and there is no break behind me from where the pic is taken)

Al

Your idea for 'accurate' striping is exactly what John suggested.
Not exactly. I was proposing a single dashed line, whereas noisebeam proposed two lines, solid on the car side but dashed in the bike side, and I might like that even better. I'm still not sure it addresses the implication of cars turning right from their own lane instead of merging first, but maybe it's sufficient to address that by spelling it out in the law, as in CA. Of course, then you still need to educate both car and bike drivers that that is the expectation, but at least everyone's teaching from the same page.

Al, does that sign say "Superstition Freeway"? WTH? :) (This interface needs a "confused" smiley!)

Al, does that sign say "Superstition Freeway"? WTH? :) (This interface needs a "confused" smiley!)
Yep. In this pic it leads toward the Superstition Mountains

Al

Al, in your picture, is there an area up ahead where the HOV stripe temporarily becomes dashed within the next mile or two?

This makes me believe that all bike lanes, all the time, should have a dashed inside line. Perhaps this would be a clearer indication to cyclists and motorists alike that it's merely a suggested travel lane for bikes, but should be treated by both like any other lane, merged into and out of as necessary, with care. Solid lines, on the other hand, seem to imply that bikes should not leave them, cars should not enter them, and in general imply a sense of segregation that I believe is completely false.
I totally agree, but this would contradict all those state laws that say 'bicyclists shall use the bike lane if one is provided.'

:(

When turning right, do you think motorists should merge into the bike lane before beginning the turn, or begin the turn from their lane (to the left of the bike lane) and only go through the bike lane during the turn? It's not even clear to me which is proper, and I've never seen it spelled out in any law. Frankly, I'd rather see them pull over into the bike lane ahead of me than see them turn into it suddenly, since a merge is more gradual, thus giving more reaction time.

Here it is clearly spelled out in law in California:


Turning Across Bicycle Lane

21717. Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane that is adjacent to his lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to making the turn and shall make the turn pursuant to Section 22100.

Holy cow, are you sure? In neighboring CA, it's a hefty fine to cross the HOV solid stripe at any time. You have to wait until you reach a designated enter/exit area (stripe is dashed).

Yet another area where the laws of various states are not in sync.

Yep. In this pic it leads toward the Superstition Mountains
If you don't believe in them, do they still exist? :D

(Reminds me of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley#Contributions_to_philosophy), especially the limerick if you scroll down a bit.)

Not exactly. I was proposing a single dashed line, whereas noisebeam proposed two lines, solid on the car side but dashed in the bike side, and I might like that even better. I'm still not sure it addresses the implication of cars turning right from their own lane instead of merging first, but maybe it's sufficient to address that by spelling it out in the law, as in CA. Of course, then you still need to educate both car and bike drivers that that is the expectation, but at least everyone's teaching from the same page.

Actually it should address it fine if the lines on both sides (car side and bike side) become dashed... just like they would in the center, if it were OK to pass.

I totally agree, but this would contradict all those state laws that say 'bicyclists shall use the bike lane if one is provided.'
Yes, I thought about that. I think that even the most ardent BL supporters here would agree that in an ideal world, this law would not exist. (ILTB, I know you'll jump in here if I'm not speaking for you.)

Actually it should address it fine if the lines on both sides (car side and bike side) become dashed... just like they would in the center, if it were OK to pass.
Yes, and then the striping would function exactly like most other striping (with notable exceptions such has AZ's HOV lanes). The great thing about that is that everyone already knows what those lines mean, it is taught on about the first day of Driver's Ed, so no additional education is even needed! I like it. :)

Yes, and then the striping would function exactly like most other striping (with notable exceptions such has AZ's HOV lanes). The great thing about that is that everyone already knows what those lines mean, it is taught on about the first day of Driver's Ed, so no additional education is even needed! I like it. :)

BINGO! Now all we have to do is change the MUTCD... (sigh... years of delay and confusion... sigh)

In AZ, HOV lanes are separated with a solid line, which can be crossed at any time

Holy cow, are you sure? In neighboring CA, it's a hefty fine to cross the HOV solid stripe at any time. You have to wait until you reach a designated enter/exit area (stripe is dashed).
Yes, the white HOV line in AZ can be crossed at any time. Keep in mind that the HOV lanes in So Cal are separated by a double yellow, or even a double-double yellow in some cases.

BINGO! Now all we have to do is change the MUTCD... (sigh... years of delay and confusion... sigh)
Yes. I was in a recent group meeting with the Portland (Maine) city planner, and he seemed to imply that he can only do something if it's in MUTCD. Don't know if he meant that's a department mandate or just his personal rule... Of course, he says that, but at least half of the few bike lanes we do already have are not MUTCD-compliant anyway! :(

I can't find anything in AZ traffic law (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=28) that indicates crossing a solid white line is illegal

Only reference I can find is in 'Driver's L Manual (http://www.dot.state.az.us/mvd/mvdforms/documents/AZDriverLicenseManual_99-0117.pdf)" which says:
"to prevent crossing"

Yes, the white HOV line in AZ can be crossed at any time. Keep in mind that the HOV lanes in So Cal are separated by a double yellow, or even a double-double yellow in some cases.
If I'm not mistaken, in nocal it's only a solid white stripe. Another difference between nocal and socal is that in socal HOV lanes are fulltime HOV-only, but in nocal they are HOV-only only during commute times.

The HUGE difference between bike lanes and HOV lanes is that HOV lanes are always placed on the roadway where non-HOVs NEVER have to cross, on the left, while bike lanes are almost always placed in space where non-bikes do have to cross (to enter/exit the roadway), on the right.
So you think a single dashed line would be more appropriate for a bike lane?

The huge difference between an HOV lane and a bike lane is the normal speed of traffic, and the type of traffic.

But I understand the concept--a dashed line indicating the cyclist is not bound in the bike lane.

So you think a single dashed line would be more appropriate for a bike lane?
Yes, except perhaps on long stretches of road without any kind of intersections whatsoever.


The huge difference between an HOV lane and a bike lane is the normal speed of traffic, and the type of traffic.
Only on long stretches of road without any kind of intersections, which are rare in suburban areas and practically nonexistent in urban areas. With intersections, all types of traffic that travel in a wide spectrum of speeds use the space designated as a "bike" lane, and they must, because bike lanes are almost always to the right of through traffic lanes.

And even on the long stretches, the stripe, whether dashed or solid, encourages the high speed differentials at close lateral proximity. This is one of the reasons I believe removing the stripe improves conditions, because sharing the same wide lane without a stripe encourages faster traffic to slow down and increase lateral proximity from slower cyclists as they approach and pass. It is logical in theory, and is easily verified in practice by any cyclist.

When turning right, do you think motorists should merge into the bike lane before beginning the turn, or begin the turn from their lane (to the left of the bike lane) and only go through the bike lane during the turn? It's not even clear to me which is proper, and I've never seen it spelled out in any law. Frankly, I'd rather see them pull over into the bike lane ahead of me than see them turn into it suddenly, since a merge is more gradual, thus giving more reaction time.

Around here, they try to merge when turning right. Looking -- but not always.:eek:

This just occurred to me the other day. Normal car travel lanes only have solid lines lines separating them close to an intersection, indicating that it's too late now to change lines. The rest of the time, they are dashed, indicating that lateral movement may be done with care. Even yellow center lines follow this convention, dashed when safe for passing, solid when not.

So why are bike lanes usually done with solid lines? True, they sometimes become dashed in obvious merge situations, such as approaching a right turn only lane, but why only then? Do cyclists never have to merge to the center to turn left into a side street? Do motorists never have to turn right, through the bike lane, into a driveway or parking lot?

This makes me believe that all bike lanes, all the time, should have a dashed inside line. Perhaps this would be a clearer indication to cyclists and motorists alike that it's merely a suggested travel lane for bikes, but should be treated by both like any other lane, merged into and out of as necessary, with care. Solid lines, on the other hand, seem to imply that bikes should not leave them, cars should not enter them, and in general imply a sense of segregation that I believe is completely false.

What thinkest thou?

I agree with you, two narrow lines, one on the "bike" side that is dashed, one on the "car" side, that is solid, this indicates to drivers and cyclists, that bicycles in the bike lane, can use the "car" lane to pass. At points where cars can cross the bike lane, for example at driveways or intersections, then either both lines are dashed, or they are replaced with a single dashed line. This is pretty much an international standard, for dealing with vehicles, lanes and lane markings. It also indicates to a smart cyclist, of potential right hook situations. Lane marking colours should be the standard for two lanes going the same direction. If a street is one way, the bike lane(s) should be one way, same direction as the street, contra-directional bike lanes are a really stupid idea, and a major safety hazard. Another street going the opposite direction is usually only a block away, so put a bike lane on both.

If you said I think too much trying to figure out what makes me so uncomfortable about bike lanes, and how I might be more comfortable with them, I could accept that. But when you start making accusations about my motives, you lose me.
Let me repeat. You are spending a lot of time worrying about something that few others (cyclists or motorists) think about, less worry about. As could be expected the usual posters stepped up to the plate to take a crack at this "problem".

If I'm not mistaken, in nocal it's only a solid white stripe. Another difference between nocal and socal is that in socal HOV lanes are fulltime HOV-only, but in nocal they are HOV-only only during commute times.

That's right. The HOV lanes up here are a solid white stripe, and there are no dashed sections from beginning to end.

When turning right, do you think motorists should merge into the bike lane before beginning the turn, or begin the turn from their lane (to the left of the bike lane) and only go through the bike lane during the turn? It's not even clear to me which is proper, and I've never seen it spelled out in any law. Frankly, I'd rather see them pull over into the bike lane ahead of me than see them turn into it suddenly, since a merge is more gradual, thus giving more reaction time.

I will allow, and even signal for them to merge, if they are far enough ahead of me. This in the CA driving handbook, pg 24 and 25. If it's safe to do so, I'll move to the left to pass them as they slow and make the turn.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdf

Otherwise I'll hold my line, well away from the curb.

Some situations may vary.

A white line on pavement means to any vehicle that you cannot cross that line. For example, in a left hand turn lane only, the white line means that once you have committed to that lane, you cannot cross it on the right to get into through lanes, and that cars in the through lanes cannot cross it to the left to get in the left hand turn lane.

Exactly the same rule applies for bike lanes.

Not Quite.... I'm pretty sure that the white line simply means that you are to handle any entry/exit to/from the lane with care. There are sections of roadway in Michigan where EVERY lane has White lines for a stretch of more than a couple miles...

Solid yellow is what means crossing would be a Bad Thing. (TM)

If they were serious about BL's, they'd be lined with bots dots. These would have almost the full effect of an actual barrier. But its a tool to get cyclists out of way -- not to protect cyclists. And painting white lines is fast, easy, and apparently makes politicians feel good.

In neighboring CA, it's a hefty fine to cross the HOV solid stripe at any time. You have to wait until you reach a designated enter/exit area (stripe is dashed).
That's how HOV lanes work in Southern California. In Northern California they're all dashed everywhere, and drivers can merge in and out wherever they wish. Just another example of how CA is actually two states.

If they were serious about BL's, they'd be lined with bots dots. These would have almost the full effect of an actual barrier.Botts' Dots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botts_dots#Botts.27_dots) would be disastrous for cyclists because we need to be able to merge in and out across that line.


But its a tool to get cyclists out of way -- not to protect cyclists. And painting white lines is fast, easy, and apparently makes politicians feel good.When will cyclist advocacy organizations begin to resist the imposition of bike ghetto stripes?

Well from my experince A solid white line means you can not cross the line if something is already occupying the whatever.
Case in point Crosswalks have a solid white line. You can cross it but only when no one is in the crosswalk or that half of the cross walk.
Or used to travel on meaning not a big enough lane or not a travel lane.
Of course a sign stating no passing.

Yet I think there is lots of confusion as to what do with a white line because it is used on HOV lanes, Shoulders, Bike lanes, Turn lanes, lanes for no passing, crosswalks.

I agree dashed lines for bicycle lanes. Would save paint and send a better message.
Second change the law so sidewalks, bike lanes, and travel lanes would be the choice of the rider.

In MN on 394 HOV you can only enter at certian points there is a double white line and dashed lines for enterance and portion which is has k dividers. Plus a heavy fine if you don't obey. They are also allowing you to pay making it a toll road.

I'm with ILTB on this one. You all are making a mountain out of a molehill and looking for conspiracies to support your obsessive-compulsive need to villify bike lanes.

Botts' Dots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botts_dots#Botts.27_dots) would be disastrous for cyclists because we need to be able to merge in and out across that line.I can navigate botts-dots easily enough -- there are obstacles a lot worse than dots scattered across our lanes here. But the dots would alert the text-messaging cell-phone waving SUV driver's that they've crossed the line. If you have to have a barrier then it should be a barrier that actually does something rather than a line that communicates: "Bad cyclist! Stay!"

I don't think its going to be possible to convince cyclist advocacy groups to eliminate BLs. They're too thoroughly entrenched whatever the reason. Maybe it makes them feel good to see miles of roadway striped. I do like BLs on long straight stretches next to high-speed roads (45+). Wide shoulders would be just as good, but without a lane stripe of some type motorists would be clambering to make that shoulder into yet another auto lane.

If they're not going to be bott's dots, then they should be a distinctive color (blue or green) to clearly say "This is a real lane" and not just "the shoulder with all the glass where we want cyclists to stay".