Advocacy & Safety - Sharing car lanes practical as number of cyclists rises?

Here's something that bothers me about the anti-BL position, even though I tend to lean in that direction. (See, I'm not a total idealogue!) It's been obliquely referenced in other threads, but I wanted to see if I could formulate the question as directly as possible and get your responses.

Is sharing the car lanes something that remains practical no matter how many bicyclists there are? What if 25% of all vehicles on the road were bicycles? (Unfortunately, even this is probably too optimistic of a number, but let's use it for the sake of discussion.) Would a mix of 25% bikes and 75% cars be able to successfully share the same lanes? Does an increasing ratio of bikes to cars lead to an overall increased or decreased ability to share the same lanes, or both at different ratios and depending on other variables?

I think this is a weakness in the anti-BL position. ("Well, duh!", I can hear many of you saying. :rolleyes:) As many of you no doubt will point out, requiring completely vehicular cycling and lane sharing with cars does inhibit many potential cyclists from engaging in the activity, if an informal poll of all of our family and friends means anything. And even if drivers are willing to be held up for a few seconds by maybe one cyclist every few miles, what if it were a continuous stream of cyclists, with varying levels of ability and willingness to abide by the law? Could that be tenable? Does that mean that some form of bike lanes will eventually be required should the ratio of bikes in the traffic stream reach a certain threshold? And does that mean that advocating for more people to cycle but opposing bike lanes are incompatible goals?

Oh my, I seem to converting myself!

Sorry if this sounds like trolling, but as someone who does not have many bike lanes and has learned and believes in vehicular riding, I'd like to hear, especially from the other vehicular advocates here, if and why that position is still practical past a certain threshold of cyclists, and what you think that threshold might be.

Also welcome would be opinions from people who have actually experienced cycling in other countries that have a ratio of bikes to cars that approaches or exceeds 25%. How do they handle their infrastructure? Do any of them attempt to have the two kinds of vehicles use the same lanes?

Last note: Let's try to avoid the debate about if bike lanes are the cause or effect of increasing the number of cyclists. I know that's a controversial area, and I'm not interesting in arguing the studies and statistics on it on this thread. What I'm asking is, if cycling were somehow to increase signficantly in an area without bike lanes, would it still be feasible to have them all sharing the lane with the cars, or would some separation eventually become inevitable?

I think that at a certain, relatively low, threshold (lower than 25% for sure) bicycle traffic would become a significant (an increase from non-existant where it is now) burden for a motorist who only uses narrow two lane roads. On those roads, the constant passing of cyclists would become a hassle and I imagine they would eventually plan their routes to avoid these roads. On roads with more than one lane in each direction, the lowered level of traffic combined with the ability of cyclists to easily share a normal width narrow lane would leave plenty of passing room for faster moving traffic.

As more cyclists used the roads, those who didn't abide by the laws would stand out and they'd eventually learn to comply for their own safety. With so many other cyclists' leads to follow, teaching vehicular cycling would be as easy as teaching vehicular motoring is now, just getting out on the roads and following everyone else.

I see the point of your question, John, and I think, using your hypothetical mix of 25%/75%, the lanes could be shared. Although, I also think it would take a near apocalyptic event to pry that many drivers out of their cars. Nonetheless, it would have a traffic calming effect, slowing the average speed of traffic, and the remaining drivers would initially be perturbed, but over time this would become the new norm.

Here's something that bothers me about the anti-BL position, even though I tend to lean in that direction. (See, I'm not a total idealogue!) It's been obliquely referenced in other threads, but I wanted to see if I could formulate the question as directly as possible and get your responses.

Is sharing the car lanes something that remains practical no matter how many bicyclists there are? What if 25% of all vehicles on the road were bicycles? (Unfortunately, even this is probably too optimistic of a number, but let's use it for the sake of discussion.) Would a mix of 25% bikes and 75% cars be able to successfully share the same lanes? Does an increasing ratio of bikes to cars lead to an overall increased or decreased ability to share the same lanes, or both at different ratios and depending on other variables?

I think this is a weakness in the anti-BL position. ("Well, duh!", I can hear many of you saying. :rolleyes:) As many of you no doubt will point out, requiring completely vehicular cycling and lane sharing with cars does inhibit many potential cyclists from engaging in the activity, if an informal poll of all of our family and friends means anything. And even if drivers are willing to be held up for a few seconds by maybe one cyclist every few miles, what if it were a continuous stream of cyclists, with varying levels of ability and willingness to abide by the law? Could that be tenable? Does that mean that some form of bike lanes will eventually be required should the ratio of bikes in the traffic stream reach a certain threshold? And does that mean that advocating for more people to cycle but opposing bike lanes are incompatible goals?

Oh my, I seem to converting myself!

Sorry if this sounds like trolling, but as someone who does not have many bike lanes and has learned and believes in vehicular riding, I'd like to hear, especially from the other vehicular advocates here, if and why that position is still practical past a certain threshold of cyclists, and what you think that threshold might be.

Also welcome would be opinions from people who have actually experienced cycling in other countries that have a ratio of bikes to cars that approaches or exceeds 25%. How do they handle their infrastructure? Do any of them attempt to have the two kinds of vehicles use the same lanes?

Last note: Let's try to avoid the debate about if bike lanes are the cause or effect of increasing the number of cyclists. I know that's a controversial area, and I'm not interesting in arguing the studies and statistics on it on this thread. What I'm asking is, if cycling were somehow to increase signficantly in an area without bike lanes, would it still be feasible to have them all sharing the lane with the cars, or would some separation eventually become inevitable?
I have to say, this made me laugh out loud. According to John Forester, it was exactly this thinking that lead to the first bike lanes in California in the late 60 and early 70s. As you probably know, there was a tremendous boom in the popularity of cycling at that time, and, in the meetings that Forester attended, the concern about the potential of so many cyclists everywhere "in the way of motorists" was what was being expressed by those who were advocating bike lanes: to get and keep cyclists out of the way.

Forester's response is that this concern is much ado about nothing, since he is convinced that the relative numbers of cyclists to motorists will never reach a level where it matters in the United States.

But I think that if bike lanes solve this hypothetical problems, then the same roads without the stripes (WOLs) would be almost as effective in terms of protecting motorists from behing slowed down. There might be a bit more slowing down by motorists in a WOL than in a lane adjacent to a BL, but I don't see how the difference would ever be enough to really affect motor vehicle throughput to any significant degree.

And at the point where there are so many cyclists that cyclists in WOLs do cause significant decline in motor vehicle traffic throughput, I don't see how BL stripes would help, because there would be so many cyclists that the cyclists would be outside of the BLs anyway.

In short, it's extra space that enables throughput, not one more stripe. That is, yes, stripes in general help: a 72' wide road divided into 6 marked lanes can move a lot more traffic than the same road with no stripes. But an 82' wide road with two marked 12' wide lanes and one marked 17' WOL in each direction (12+12+17=41; 41*2=82) moves just as much traffic as the same 82' wide road with three marked 12' lanes and one marked 5' wide BL in each direction (12+12+12+5=41; 41 * 2 = 82).

So the debate is not about stripes vs. no stripes. The debate is about stripes + BL stripe in WOL vs. stripes with WOL.

no, that's not the debate at all, mr head.

the OP is wondering what percent of riders would mandate a road design change to benefit cyclists and cars both, for the expediency of all road users.

I'd peg the number at less than 10 percent of road trips by bike.

cars and bikes still conflict, regularily, in wide outside lanes. particularily at traffic signals, where congested traffic is ALL OVER THE WIDE LANES.

cars and bikes still conflict, regularily, in wide outside lanes. particularily at traffic signals, where congested traffic is ALL OVER THE WIDE LANES.
When everyone is moving at the same speed (0 mph), how is it a conflict?

Is sharing the car lanes something that remains practical no matter how many bicyclists there are? What if 25% of all vehicles on the road were bicycles? (Unfortunately, even this is probably too optimistic of a number, but let's use it for the sake of discussion.) Would a mix of 25% bikes and 75% cars be able to successfully share the same lanes?


Yeah it should work, thats 25% less cars on the road. although I would imagine average rushhour speed will increase in from 18mph with less congestion... offset by slower speed on other areas.

I'm not sure what the outcome of so many cyclists would be. I mean, would they feel a need or freedom or desire or whatever to ride side-by-side, 2 or more abreast? Would you be allowed to do that? If not, how would that be prevented if it is not allowed? If so, what's to stop traffic as a whole from operating more like it does in say, India?

In the places I visited in India bike and motorized transportation is all mixed together. Nobody bothers to follow any of the lane lines. It's all every man for himself however you can get around everybody else.

From photos I've seen of China, cars and bikes are separated, but most of the roadway is given to the bikes.

To simply keep our roadway designs as they are and drop an India-like or China-like quantity of cyclists into them would have an outcome I don't think I can predict. Something would probably have to change. Not sure what.

we just had a discussion about splitting lanes of traffic, mr head. In a wide outside lane, even though the lane presents some extra space for riders, the lineup of congested cars in a wide outside lane causes cyclists to split lanes, weave stopped traffic. a bike lane allows bikes to ride by auto traffic backups.

Those physical facts about WOL/BL use bypassing stopped traffic backups is not even debatable, helemt head. I'm not going to endlessly debate your misconstruements of facilities; lets try to stay on topic, good sir. don't derail a potentially useful thread.

I'm pegging the numbers at about %10 percent of all trips on roads by bike as being a critical mass tipping point. Of course, even with less riders, facilities make sense to me, but that's beyond the scope defined by the OP.

I'd just about bet money that a large increase in the percentage of cyclists would raise an outcry by motorists, leading to stricter enforcement of laws that relate to cycling.

This would be a good thing, in reinforcing to motorists that cyclists are credible road users.

I agree with your assesment, CR. it would be so interesting to see what would happen.

I think that the number of cars will continue to rise more quickly than the number of bikes. The percentage of bikes will start to rise only when the duration of gridlock reaches the point when significant numbers of people find the car impractical for urban travel. The role of bikes will be as a safety valve, allowing more people to use overcrowded roads, rather than something that contributes to, or is felt to contribute to, congestion.

Whenever and wherever cars are more convenient than bikes, I think people will drive cars.

Paul

Is sharing the car lanes something that remains practical no matter how many bicyclists there are? What if 25% of all vehicles on the road were bicycles? (Unfortunately, even this is probably too optimistic of a number, but let's use it for the sake of discussion.) Would a mix of 25% bikes and 75% cars be able to successfully share the same lanes?

That's an interesting question. I won't claim to have an answer, but I can hazard a few guesses. First my locale: I would guess that in summer, Ottawa probably sees 15% bike commuting downtown. I may be a bit high there, but there are certainly a heck of a lot of bikes. However they are not all on the roads, many use the pathways to head out of downtown, sometimes creating fender-to-fender bike traffic. A big stretch of my commute is on Bank St. Usually two lanes per direction, both narrow - this street existed in 1906 (and probably earlier), so its not getting any wider. There are several bus routes using this as well as car traffic- its the main noth-south corridor to downtown. Another road I use less often (but still at least once a week) is Heron Rd. Heron has a "pinch area" of a few blocks, where the lanes narrow.

What I have observed on the above roads is that car drivers will pass a bike safely is they can change lanes (fully or partially) however if they can't change lane, they will pass anyway. When I have been in a string or 3-4 bikes, not unusual in summer, drivers will force their way past. While its not common, I've has cases of having to swerve toward the curb or get his by the passenger-side mirror. And once you get forced to the curb, no driver is letting you back on the pavement!

WOLs don't seem to help - drivers pass you much faster, but may well pass just as close. We have few true WIDE outer lanes here, and I don't think most drivers understand them. In a bike lane of proper width, however, I've never found passing distance to be an issue.

So to answer your question as best I can: I'm not a fan of the lane sharing concept in the first place, and I think it does break down when traffic reaches a certain volume. A greater ratio of bikes can, in my observation, make drivers more aggressive. And while taking the lane is fine in theory, you try that during afternoon rush hour and someone will try to force you to the curb sooner or later.

25% bikes might be the most uncomfortable ratio of all - at some point (say 60% bikes) cyclist would just own the outside lane.

We have few true WIDE outer lanes here, and I don't think most drivers understand them.
What's to understand?

Every where I've ever been drivers tend (there are always exceptions) to drive in outside lanes a fixed distance from the lane stripe to their left, regardless of how far the curb/edge is to the right, especialy when they are "at speed". In other words, the left tire track tends to be about the same distance from the left stripe of the outside lane, regardless of the width of the the outside lane. I've never measured it, but I suspect it's always around 2-3 feet from the lane stripe to the left.

fixed distances? cars drive in outside lanes at a fixed distance....what kind of armchair absolutism is that, mr head?

You must not bike much, if you think cars always or with few exceptions drive 2-3 feet from the lane stripe. Cars turning right tend to move further to the right. some drivers like to block approaching bicyclists.

armchair cyclist...:mad:

doesn't most of your anti facilites spiel have to do with drifting motorists?

I almost would agree that the more cyclists the more aggressive or impatient the drivers would become.

However, in Isla Vista there is a preponderance of bike traffic. And none of them ever stops at stop signs. As a driver you just accept that in Isla Vista the bikes rule and you just give them the right of way at all times. It's not really a big deal. Nobody gets upset about it. Except the cops, but they get a little jack-booted at times out there.

Of course, some details about IV: All streets are 25 mph residential and business district streets. The one main artery on the perimeter of town would be a death trap to ride your bike on. But all bikes use the bike path there. On the 25 mph streets of the town, people ride very slowly on beaters and beach cruisers. There are bike lanes on some of the main streets. Cars will pass you, bike lane or no, however they can, with no muss or fuss. Basically, it's a polite little place to be.

It's really easy to widen the road in a place like India. You just get out the bulldozer and mow down all the slums. Problem solved. Same with China. Just flood the valley and everybody will move.

And how do the bikes and cars co-exist all mingled in the same lane? Honking. Endless honking. Nobody would put up with all that noise here in the West. Nobody would put up with the chaos, either. We like things orderly.

The problem isn't bike lanes or traffic lanes. Even narrow bike lanes could accommodate 100 times as many bikes as now exist. And BLs could become wider as the number of cars decreases and the number of bikes increases.

The problem is intersections. Most US intersections are already strained to the max with the current number of cars. Add a lot more bikes to the mix, and intersections will become even more chaotic and dangerous than they are now. Expect future turf wars between cyclists and cagers to center on the intersections.

They'd have to make all the intersections work for bikes, too, unless the increased mass can finally trigger the darn sensors.

Here's something that bothers me about the anti-BL position, even though I tend to lean in that direction. (See, I'm not a total idealogue!) It's been obliquely referenced in other threads, but I wanted to see if I could formulate the question as directly as possible and get your responses.

Is sharing the car lanes something that remains practical no matter how many bicyclists there are? What if 25% of all vehicles on the road were bicycles? (Unfortunately, even this is probably too optimistic of a number, but let's use it for the sake of discussion.) Would a mix of 25% bikes and 75% cars be able to successfully share the same lanes? Does an increasing ratio of bikes to cars lead to an overall increased or decreased ability to share the same lanes, or both at different ratios and depending on other variables?

I think this is a weakness in the anti-BL position. ("Well, duh!", I can hear many of you saying. :rolleyes:) As many of you no doubt will point out, requiring completely vehicular cycling and lane sharing with cars does inhibit many potential cyclists from engaging in the activity, if an informal poll of all of our family and friends means anything. And even if drivers are willing to be held up for a few seconds by maybe one cyclist every few miles, what if it were a continuous stream of cyclists, with varying levels of ability and willingness to abide by the law? Could that be tenable? Does that mean that some form of bike lanes will eventually be required should the ratio of bikes in the traffic stream reach a certain threshold? And does that mean that advocating for more people to cycle but opposing bike lanes are incompatible goals?

Oh my, I seem to converting myself!

Sorry if this sounds like trolling, but as someone who does not have many bike lanes and has learned and believes in vehicular riding, I'd like to hear, especially from the other vehicular advocates here, if and why that position is still practical past a certain threshold of cyclists, and what you think that threshold might be.

Also welcome would be opinions from people who have actually experienced cycling in other countries that have a ratio of bikes to cars that approaches or exceeds 25%. How do they handle their infrastructure? Do any of them attempt to have the two kinds of vehicles use the same lanes?

Last note: Let's try to avoid the debate about if bike lanes are the cause or effect of increasing the number of cyclists. I know that's a controversial area, and I'm not interesting in arguing the studies and statistics on it on this thread. What I'm asking is, if cycling were somehow to increase signficantly in an area without bike lanes, would it still be feasible to have them all sharing the lane with the cars, or would some separation eventually become inevitable?


What is the definition of practical or successful in this case? Not many accidents? You can probably look up statistics like that on line.

I'll try to find something on Rome. It's like riding in a blender.
There are plenty of cities in other countries where the 25% number is exceeded. There are tons of
places where the cars are not even 25%. More like 2.5%. Somewhere along the way when the population density and the economy make more bikes than cars in the road, (Not cycling culture, or acceptance of bikes) the traffic starts to travel slower. Not sure how dense that is, but it's pretty dense. There are plenty of places where there are a large percentage of bikes and the cars still go pretty fast.
Generally speaking all the traffic moves along a little slower. Not always.
They typically use the same lane. I don't believe this is a choice made by a traffic engineer. The road can't be widened and most people can only afford bikes. If you have to get a five year bank loan for a bike and that's all you can afford, there is no such thing as being inhibited from biking in traffic if you need to go far. If all the roads have cars and bikes mixed together where you live, there is no other option if need to go far. You just ride in traffic. You can't buy a car, neither can your neighbors.
There may always be a steady stream of cyclists with varying ability mixed in with the cars, in the same lane. But just like in the USA some places are improved with lanes or paths.
Most of them have the cars and the bikes in the same lane. There may be all bikes and a few cars moving slowly.
We are the new guys on the block, our towns and roads and cities are only a couple of hundred years old. We could design roads after cars were around and plan the cities that way too. Cities were sometimes laid out with a sidewalk and a front yard for the houses.
The USA in many places can widen the road. Or the road and traffic level could allow room for a lane.
Hard to do when the city is a couple of thousand years old. The houses are already in place close together around the path for the cart or just a walking path.
Plenty of streets are too narrow for a car. In the middle of the big and old cities it's mostly cars motorcycles, mopeds, cars and bikes in the same lane. Throw in a few peds for good measure. And take away the sidewalks too in some places. That is the only way it can be in some places.
But some places that are new are as good or better than the USA. There are good and bad bike lanes, and bike paths too.

In the middle of a big and old city there is no way to widen the road, it's impossible. Roads can be made one way, cars or bikes can be banned from some places etc. That's about it.
There is change just like there is here sometimes. It depends mostly on geography, age of the town, population density, and per capita income. The increase of bike riders and drivers accepting bikes is the
result of the amount of bikes, not the other way around. It's not always true either, some places you have all the problems of the USA, or worse.

Did I address what you were getting at? I'm not sure I did.

I'm not sure what the outcome of so many cyclists would be. I mean, would they feel a need or freedom or desire or whatever to ride side-by-side, 2 or more abreast?

If 25% of traffic were bicyclists, yes we would be riding 3 or 4 abreast in a lane. In congested city areas, car traffic would conceivably move more quickly because bikes take up less room than bikes. Freeway traffic, especially, would clear up for faster commutes.

Cyclists travel at a wide range of speeds and abilities, and the faster cyclists will feel hindered by the slower cyclists.

RFM

They'd have to make all the intersections work for bikes, too, unless the increased mass can finally trigger the darn sensors.
Post like this make me wonder about the basis for your complaints about how the existing system for cars doesn't support bicycles, not something I'd expect from someone with the experience and knowledge of what works and what doesn't you tout.
Al

The problem isn't bike lanes or traffic lanes. Even narrow bike lanes could accommodate 100 times as many bikes as now exist. And BLs could become wider as the number of cars decreases and the number of bikes increases.

The problem is intersections. Most US intersections are already strained to the max with the current number of cars. Add a lot more bikes to the mix, and intersections will become even more chaotic and dangerous than they are now. Expect future turf wars between cyclists and cagers to center on the intersections.

Good point, most of the problems are at intersections. The intersections in some places in the USA are stressed out too, very true. But nowhere near as much as some busy intersections in very old and big cities in Europe and other continents. There is just more chaos in many places.

Post like this make me wonder about the basis for your complaints about how the existing system for cars doesn't support bicycles, not something I'd expect from someone with the experience and knowledge of what works and what doesn't you tout.
Al
I don't quite understand what you mean. I have trouble triggering the sensor at a lot of lights with my bike, and even with my Vespa which is made of metal, not plastic like most scooters.

Actually, I think the intersections wouldn't be much of a problem if there were lots of cyclists. Maybe it would become like Isla Vista where bikes just don't stop at intersections and cars have to stop at all of them, whether there's a stop sign or not.

Sorry Diane, my mistake expecting interchangable usage of mass and weight.
(By the way, my front aluminum wheel alone triggers the several of the lights near my neighborhood.)
Al

I'd just about bet money that a large increase in the percentage of cyclists would raise an outcry by motorists, leading to stricter enforcement of laws that relate to cycling.

This would be a good thing, in reinforcing to motorists that cyclists are credible road users.
Agreed. In some ways it would take some of the fun out of cycling, but overall it would be a good thing. I could stand to be a little more credible myself. I've run lights in front of cops and they have just watched me. There aren't enough cyclists riding in the streets here to make enforcement worth their while.

Actually, I think the intersections wouldn't be much of a problem if there were lots of cyclists. Maybe it would become like Isla Vista where bikes just don't stop at intersections and cars have to stop at all of them, whether there's a stop sign or not.
Well gosh wouldn't it be even sweller if it was more like this:

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
You never change your socks
And little streams of lemonade
Come a-tricklin' down the rocks
The hobos there are friendly
And their fires all burn bright
There's a lake of stew ...and soda, too
You can paddle all around 'em in a big canoe
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

In nations where bicycle traffic makes up a large percentage of vehicle traffic, the government is more likely to enforce laws mandating that cyclists stay in segregated facilities, where present, in order to increase the convenience of motoring. Examples are Holland, where use of bikeways was made mandatory during Nazi occupation in order to speed motor traffic, and China, where the purpose of bikeways is to constrain cyclists from moving near the center of the roadway and slow motor traffic, e.g. it is often illegal for cyclists to make vehicular left turns. Similarly, California developed bikeways in response to increased levels of bicycle traffic in the 1970s, and numerous groups within the state government worked at that time to make use of bikeways mandatory for cyclists in order to increase the convenience of motoring.

If many bicyclists use all of the vehicle travel lanes and vehicle signal phases as required based on traffic volume and destination positioning, motor traffic may experience increased travel times, but the vehicle-count (including bicycles) throughput capacity of the road will be maximized because bicycle traffic throughput is more dense and intersections are used optimally. If bicyclists are constrained to a section of the roadway that is unnaturally narrow for their numbers, and/or cyclists and motor traffic are required to proceed through traffic signals only on separate phases, travel times for motor traffic may be decreased, but vehicle-count throughput (including bicycles) will be diminished.

-Steve Goodridge

Sorry Diane, my mistake expecting interchangable usage of mass and weight.
(By the way, my front aluminum wheel alone triggers the several of the lights near my neighborhood.)
Al

Interesting... I have a hard time triggering a couple lights close to my neighborhood with a heavy steel bike. I have reported the lights to the traffic repair division in the city and they responded that the signals are working properly.

Yet my cruiser Huffy will not trigger them.

Some cities take bikes seriously, others do not. And yes, I know all about how to trigger "loops." I can do it quite well at other intersections.

I also know of some loops in new BL that have never worked... so much for QA. (I leave the BL and trigger the auto loop for these intersections anyway)

In nations where bicycle traffic makes up a large percentage of vehicle traffic, the government is more likely to enforce laws mandating that cyclists stay in segregated facilities, where present, in order to increase the convenience of motoring.

This shows that auto centricity will always remain as the prevailing factor in any bike/auto decisions. Bikes will never be treated as "equals" to other vehicles in the eyes of any governement.

This shows that auto centricity will always remain as the prevailing factor in any bike/auto decisions. Bikes will never be treated as "equals" to other vehicles in the eyes of any governement.
We'll be counted as equals when cyclists outnumber motorists. If we come to our senses and adopt strict laws against greenhouse gases, cyclists could become the majority in some areas in the midterm future. Unlike China and Holland, traffic planning here is local rather than national. So, if a local area reaches true "critical mass," we may see a revision of traffic laws and road design in favor of bikes in that area.

Meanwhile, we should ride "as if" we are equal.

We'll be counted as equals when cyclists outnumber motorists. If we come to our senses and adopt strict laws against greenhouse gases, cyclists could become the majority in some areas in the midterm future. Unlike China and Holland, traffic planning here is local rather than national. So, if a local area reaches true "critical mass," we may see a revision of traffic laws and road design in favor of bikes in that area.

Meanwhile, we should ride "as if" we are equal.

Riiiiiight. Cyclists outnumber motorists in China... or did. Yet bikes were still mandated to the side of the road.

Steve, what do you predict will happen in your area, for example, without a lot of separate bike paths, few integrated on road bike facilties, and an incresing number of bicyclists using the roads for transportation?

At what percent do you peg the riders at a tipping point for autos to become 'fed up' with bikes on the roads, and a change becomes mandated by the auto-cenetric road lobby?

WHAT is your predicted outcome of a heck of a lot of riders on the roads, without your dirty little segregationist nonsense plugged into the equasion?

This thread is about sharing car lanes practical as the number of cyclists rises?...

Riiiiiight. Cyclists outnumber motorists in China... or did. Yet bikes were still mandated to the side of the road.
Yes, where policy was decided on a national basis, and the government was obsessed with "modernization," or at least with appearing modern. Also, judging from pictures I've seen, the "side of the road" is often the bigger portion of the road in Chinese cities. Picture 12 bike lanes with one motor lane in the narrow center of the road.

Nationwide, in any country, rapid long distance movement is a priority for military, industrial, and commercial purposes. On a strictly local level, this is less of an issue: most local traffic is individual traffic and shorter distances permit slower speeds. There will come a time when, in some local areas, bikes outnumber cars, and democratic local governments will design and legislate in favor of cyclists rather than motorists.

Don't underestimate how much our world is going to change in the next few years, especially in the area of transportation.

Riiiiiight. Cyclists outnumber motorists in China... or did. Yet bikes were still mandated to the side of the road.

Perhaps to accommodate large vehicles, such as cube vans & other big city necessities? Silly Chinaman, cube vans belong on the sidewalk! Or between pedestrian & bicycle traffic, big trucks are far more efficient with streams of small vulnerable road & sidewalk users to either side, as we well know that the largest vehicles on the roads make the most stops. I'd bet that even the large cycling populations in Asia knew that vehicular thoroughfares belong in the center, as peds belong on the side & bicycles, well, they use all 3, sidewalk, "side of the road" (sometimes a separate facility shared with motor vehicles) or central thoroughfare designated for motor vehicles.

Yes, where policy was decided on a national basis, and the government was obsessed with "modernization," or at least with appearing modern. Also, judging from pictures I've seen, the "side of the road" is often the bigger portion of the road in Chinese cities.


OK quite true. Not to mention that where I was in Hangzhou, there was no parking for cars... but plenty of space for bikes. Cars were treated as a luxury... but everyone wanted one. Clearly the majority of transit was by bike... but indeed they were shunted to the side.



Nationwide, in any country, rapid long distance movement is a priority for military, industrial, and commercial purposes. On a strictly local level, this is less of an issue: most local traffic is individual traffic and shorter distances permit slower speeds.


Also noticed in China was the lack of bike facilities along the narrow high speed hiways. Usually one would only see a dirt path that cyclists rode on.




There will come a time when, in some local areas, bikes outnumber cars, and democratic local governments will design and legislate in favor of cyclists rather than motorists.

Don't underestimate how much our world is going to change in the next few years, especially in the area of transportation.



I await the day.

I once thought that was going to happen in the '70s with the gas crisis and alternate day rules governing fueling. I just knew eventually there would be "car free days." They never came to pass.

As long as self important politicians drive cars as their primary means of transit, legislation will favor cars. Look at the results of the "do not call lists" for examples of this same mentality.

Yes, where policy was decided on a national basis, and the government was obsessed with "modernization," or at least with appearing modern. Also, judging from pictures I've seen, the "side of the road" is often the bigger portion of the road in Chinese cities. Picture 12 bike lanes with one motor lane in the narrow center of the road.

Nationwide, in any country, rapid long distance movement is a priority for military, industrial, and commercial purposes. On a strictly local level, this is less of an issue: most local traffic is individual traffic and shorter distances permit slower speeds. There will come a time when, in some local areas, bikes outnumber cars, and democratic local governments will design and legislate in favor of cyclists rather than motorists.

Don't underestimate how much our world is going to change in the next few years, especially in the area of transportation.

Reading from posts of expats and others actually living in China, they are saying that the national policy is changing to encourage more car use, and restricting bikes even more so to bike lanes. Sure, you can drive a tank through these lanes, but cars are getting more priority on the streets. It's the American way!

I agree with your last point, but automakers are drooling over the Chinese market and China seems to be convinced it's nothing but cars, cars, cars in their future.

In the last couple weeks I read a couple articles suggesting that China is in the process of reconsidering its cars-first policies. They are aware that they're the most polluted country, and the public health costs are enormous, especially for a socialist government. Like us, they realize that oil supplies are finite, and global warming is a real threat. They have recently been courting foreign investors in alternative energy plans. Old Chinese proverb: "The longest journey begins with a single turn of the crankset."

Riiiiiight. Cyclists outnumber motorists in China... or did. Yet bikes were still mandated to the side of the road.
We vote.

Every where I've ever been drivers tend (there are always exceptions) to drive in outside lanes a fixed distance from the lane stripe to their left, regardless of how far the curb/edge is to the right, especialy when they are "at speed". In other words, the left tire track tends to be about the same distance from the left stripe of the outside lane, regardless of the width of the the outside lane. I've never measured it, but I suspect it's always around 2-3 feet from the lane stripe to the left.

Come to DC. Here, many of the sidestreets are one way, with a single wide lane. Drivers drive in the center of the lane, which is annoying because the traffic flow on these streets is generally slower than biking speed, and bikes have to wait for cars (which never have the decency to pull over and let faster traffic pass!). The city has recently begun adding bike lanes, which actually improve cycling. Cars now drive in the middle of the (narrower) lane, and the bike lane is essentially an express lane for cyclists.

Getting back to the original question: obviously, a high volume of slower traffic will slow you down eventually. However, here in DC there are a lot of bicycle commuters, especially when the weather is nice. However, there are very few streets that are either narrow or single lane, and traffic often moves slower than bicycle pace anyway, so the effect on traffic is pretty negligible.

Wow, DC ,you actually see benefical effects from restriping plans that added bike lanes to our capitol city? I never thought I'd see you getting behind the positive effects of 'express lanes' for bikes.

Washington will likely see ever increasing bikes on the roads due the facilties.

anyway, a little off topic, and i apologize.

I also disagreed above with HH's misleading 'orderly asssesment' of drivers lining up nice and neat in Wide outside lanes. In periods of congested, stopped traffic, car drivers are ALL OVER THE LANE. right turners hug the curb, some are far left, to try and peer around the stoppage, some are getting ready to turn left, some are completely oblivious, etc.... its not the 'vision' head sees from the armchair.

Wow, DC ,you actually see benefical effects from restriping plans that added bike lanes to our capitol city? I never thought I'd see you getting behind the positive effects of 'express lanes' for bikes.

Washington will likely see ever increasing bikes on the roads due the facilties.

anyway, a little off topic, and i apologize.
I guess bike lanes are never off-topic in this forum. In fact, it seems like everything else is off-topic. I defy you to find one thread that doesn't devolve into a catfight about bike lanes. I started a thread about Boy Scouts and their merit badges, thinking it would be a nice change from bike lanes. But before you know it, people were arguing about whether the Boy Scouts should ride in bike lanes! :rolleyes: So, by all means, talk about bike lanes in this thread about sharing car lanes.

Why does everybody see some kind of nefarious, paranoid reasoning behind cycling space being at the side of the road? That's silly.

We all enter the roadway from the edges. Then we move inward according to our speed. The faster you can go the further inward you can get. Nothing nefarious about that.

Or would you rather than as soon as you step out your door you have to cross high-speed traffic to get to the sidewalk? That would make no sense at all.

Roody, the scope of the original post encompassed bike facilities, once the number of bicyclists in a community reached a tipping point.

The OP ws speculating what would happen, first by cager community outcry and then road design, if large numbers of bicyclists began "crowding" the cars.

I also disagreed above with HH's misleading 'orderly asssesment' of drivers lining up nice and neat in Wide outside lanes. In periods of congested, stopped traffic, car drivers are ALL OVER THE LANE. right turners hug the curb, some are far left, to try and peer around the stoppage, some are getting ready to turn left, some are completely oblivious, etc..

Tend to agree... I have seen motorists even crowd out a BL in their effort to "squeeze ahead." If the motorists were merging into the BL to make the turn, that would be one thing, but these motorists were a 1/2 mile or more back.

I have also seen the police clear the BL in those situations. They signaled the motorists to move out of the BL and keep it clear. Great for cyclists.

I have also seen motorists in narrow cars use the BL to get around other cars.

Now why is it I have seen such traffic and HH has not... yet we are in the same town and in nearly the same area.

MAYBE, gene, because helmet head doesn't really commute by bike much, instead prefferring to ride an armchair in the utopian cycling world of his imagination,

where all the drivers are alert, follow one another in an concientious manner, and line up orderly in wide outside lanes???

His road analysis spiel is always full of artifice, and his comments about drivers in wide outside lanes is further example of that make-believe world helm tries to foist on this forum.

Now why is it I have seen such traffic and HH has not... yet we are in the same town and in nearly the same area.
I suspect it is because he doesn't really ride. Oh, I know you say you have met him and ridden with him, but I don't think he's ever posted a picture of his bike or even a picture of the places where he rides. I honestly find it hard to believe he's real. Whoever he is, he probably sent someone to meet you who is a cyclist, but that wasn't Serge himself.

... if a local area reaches true "critical mass," we may see a revision of traffic laws and road design in favor of bikes in that area. Meanwhile, we should ride "as if" we are equal.


I agree.


I think the question posited in the OP only works for me when I am specific to a city or locale. To make any generalized predictions probably invites endless random argument. If I confined my predictions to a city like Manhattan, which is an island and therefore has a limit to the lateral expansion of the city then this potential "critical mass" is achievable. The combination of pollution, noise and space considerations along with safety issues make the private automobile less and less attractive in some urban environments. This is why world-wide there are movements to radically alter surface transport with many of these plans elevating the role of bicycles as an everyday solution. Most of the suggestions I'm seeing in this thread are bickering over short term solutions involving minimal modification of existing infrastructure. I think the hypothetical situation the OP describes would require more extensive change and I think those kinds of changes may be on the horizon for some congested urban areas.