I'm telling you based on my understanding of Ohio and New Mexico law and my experience enforcing both. Your state may be different. ;)

I'll go dig up the laws later for all 3 states and we can compare. Or does anyone here think this is so far off topic that it should have it's own thread? I'll gladly oblige :)

SingingSabre, don't forget HH also diagnoses people who don't believe in his world view with phobias.

And CR, nobody has ever driven me into the curb to teach me a lesson on a road with a bike lane. They have done this on roads without bike lanes. Even when I was not on their side of the road.

Any place that elects to replace a road with accommodations for cyclists for one with more lanes and no accommodations for cyclists is sending a very clear message: cyclists are not welcome here.

I'll take 4 lanes with a WOL or bike lane over 6 lanes and a NOL any day, because the 6 lane monstrosity will inevitably become NO BIKES ALLOWED.
Amen, brother.

Multiple, narrow, same direction lanes are the best facility for cyclist safety. Bike lanes tend to gather debris and lead to closer, and higher speed, passing. As if the painted line is some kind of unbreachable wall.

I'll respond with a quote of my response to Helmet Head on this topic:

I'll remember that next time I'm riding down the road in the center or leftish in the right hand lane of multiple lanes heading my direction and a JAM moves left just far enough to clear me by approx 6" and roars past, expressing his displeasure with me using 'his' lane. (Happened 3x this week alone)

FYI, it's legally impossible to impede traffic on a roadway with more than one same direction lane.

Yes, but that doesn't stop the motorists from getting pissed at you for 'slowing them down' and possibly threatening you with their multi-ton weapons.

Gotta disagree JJ, from a law enforcement perspective. OK six lanes, all congested with bumper-to-bumper, but moving traffic and you decide you want to plant yourself in front of a car in one of the lanes, preventing it from moving forward (unless it jumps the curb, runs you over or smashes into the guy next to him to change lanes) - you are impeding traffic. The number of lanes has no relevance unless those lanes are available to be safely merged into.

In Colorado the rules regarding impeding traffic only apply on RURAL, two lane roads. Even if it's a single lane road and I'm hogging the whole thing, as long as it's in the city I can't LEGALLY be ticketed. Does that mean they wouldn't stop me and write a ticket? Absolutely not. I'm sure they would try it, and I'd have to go to court and fight it. (Assuming the car behind me didn't take matters into his own hands first...)

Just a little about my various experiences riding in traffic:

It varies GREATLY by location.

When riding in San Diego I was never buzzed once, despite the fact that none of the roads I rode on had bike lanes. I did only ride approximately 200 miles in the San Diego area over various trips, however.

Riding in Denver I've never been buzzed in a bike lane. I have been passed close enough that it made me uncomfortable, but nothing malicious and nothing that actually endangered me. When riding in the rightmost driving lane I get buzzed on average once a week. This week has been particularly bad, with three incidents, the worst being where the driver after buzzing me pulled into a parking lot, waited for me to pass and did it AGAIN even closer. The worst ever incident involved a driver who was not originally in my lane, but after passing me swerved back into my lane and slammed his brakes, forcing me to swerve to the right to keep from hitting the back of his truck. He then proceeded to drive his right two tires up onto the sidewalk to ensure I couldn't pass him on the right, and pulled back into the road in front of me when I tried to pass on the left. I ended up just sitting behind him and glaring until he got bored, at which point I simply continued on my way.

The worst ever incident involved a driver who was not originally in my lane, but after passing me swerved back into my lane and slammed his brakes, forcing me to swerve to the right to keep from hitting the back of his truck. He then proceeded to drive his right two tires up onto the sidewalk to ensure I couldn't pass him on the right, and pulled back into the road in front of me when I tried to pass on the left. I ended up just sitting behind him and glaring until he got bored, at which point I simply continued on my way.

that's truly bizarre.

You know something? The "we don't need no stinkin' bike lanes" world view needs to address close passes, intentional buzzing, and motorists striking back to teach cyclists a lesson before it will ever gain any traction with real world cyclists.

Meanwhile, those cities around the world that plan cycling into their road networks ARE gaining traction with their vision because they provide solutions that actually work and actually do address those issues.

Just a little about my various experiences riding in traffic:

It varies GREATLY by location.

When riding in San Diego I was never buzzed once, despite the fact that none of the roads I rode on had bike lanes. I did only ride approximately 200 miles in the San Diego area over various trips, however.

Riding in Denver I've never been buzzed in a bike lane. I have been passed close enough that it made me uncomfortable, but nothing malicious and nothing that actually endangered me. When riding in the rightmost driving lane I get buzzed on average once a week. This week has been particularly bad, with three incidents, the worst being where the driver after buzzing me pulled into a parking lot, waited for me to pass and did it AGAIN even closer. The worst ever incident involved a driver who was not originally in my lane, but after passing me swerved back into my lane and slammed his brakes, forcing me to swerve to the right to keep from hitting the back of his truck. He then proceeded to drive his right two tires up onto the sidewalk to ensure I couldn't pass him on the right, and pulled back into the road in front of me when I tried to pass on the left. I ended up just sitting behind him and glaring until he got bored, at which point I simply continued on my way.

Wow.

I've had guys pull in front of me and slam on the brakes, but they've never tried to block me further.

Riding in Denver I've never been buzzed in a bike lane. I have been passed close enough that it made me uncomfortable, but nothing malicious and nothing that actually endangered me. When riding in the rightmost driving lane I get buzzed on average once a week. This week has been particularly bad, with three incidents, the worst being where the driver after buzzing me pulled into a parking lot, waited for me to pass and did it AGAIN even closer. The worst ever incident involved a driver who was not originally in my lane, but after passing me swerved back into my lane and slammed his brakes, forcing me to swerve to the right to keep from hitting the back of his truck. He then proceeded to drive his right two tires up onto the sidewalk to ensure I couldn't pass him on the right, and pulled back into the road in front of me when I tried to pass on the left. I ended up just sitting behind him and glaring until he got bored, at which point I simply continued on my way.
that's truly bizarre.
That is bizarre. Good word to describe that situation, Rando. +1

You know something? The "we don't need no stinkin' bike lanes" world view needs to address close passes, intentional buzzing, and motorists striking back to teach cyclists a lesson before it will ever gain any traction with real world cyclists.
Don't you mean before cyclists with inferiority issues will agree?
There are products on the market that will virtually eliminate close passes. I have considered it, but have never felt I needed such a thing.

Other things I have found to help mitigate close passes are lane position, being too far to the right invites close passing, towing a trailer and cycling in a predictable manner as a vehicle. This stuff isn't exactly rocket science.

for those of you that HAVEN'T been road raged yet, that scenario is NOT bizarre.

Enough miles on the road, and that scenario WILL play itself out.

Commuter Run, you don't even HAVE six lane roads, OR bike lanes down in your slice of florida backwater, do you? how can you accurately judge either?

SingingSabre, don't forget HH also diagnoses people who don't believe in his world view with phobias.
False.

Don't you mean before cyclists with inferiority issues will agree?

C'mon, CR, you don't have to have a "complex" to not want to do battle with cars and trucks in this manner. or to risk life and limb to prove a point.

So you refute my points by attacking me eh, Bek?

Typically Liberal tactic.
When you get old enough to have daddy take the training wheels off let me know.

for those of you that HAVEN'T been road raged yet, that scenario is NOT bizarre.

Enough miles on the road, and that scenario WILL play itself out.

[/i]

...which truly sucks! no one should have to go through that type of crap just to be able to ride a bike from point A to Point B.

C'mon, CR, you don't have to have a "complex" to not want to do battle with cars and trucks in this manner. or to risk life and limb to prove a point.
You are quite correct, Rando, and I don't have a problem with your point of view, I just disagree with it. I have found that bike lanes are not the big safety panacea that some would make them out to be. My inferiority issues comment was directed to Diane. She has made a number of replies in different threads that point in that direction.

And in spite of what bek may challenge, this is not the only place I've been cycling. In fact, one of the reasons that I enjoy living here is that the cycling is very easy and the drivers are, for the most part, excellent. I would not know that if I had nothing else to compare it to.

You are quite correct, Rando, and I don't have a problem with your point of view, I just disagree with it. I have found that bike lanes are not the big safety panacea that some would make them out to be.

And in spite of what bek may challenge, this is not the only place I've been cycling.

I agree that bike lanes are not a safety panacea. But I think they are useful. I certainly use them on my route.

for those of you that HAVEN'T been road raged yet, that scenario is NOT bizarre.

Enough miles on the road, and that scenario WILL play itself out.

Enough miles driving a car and it will happen too. My worst road rage incident (including cycling and motoring) occurred because I was driving a little below the speed limit on a 45mph road.

While cycling, my worst road rage moments have been on two lane, NOL roads. My best treatment, BY FAR, has been on 4-6 lane NOL roads where I had no other choice but to take the lane the entire time. In contrast, on 2-4 lane roads with shoulders, the times, where I have to use the traffic lane (bridges, going around a turn lane or debris) for a even a short period of time, usually result in some boneheaded move that puts me or someone else in far more danger than anything that's occurred on the previously mentioned roads.

It seems the people in this thread (and the other on the same topic) condemning the NOL roads have the least experience riding those types of roads (some admit to not riding them at all).

I call bull on me not riding NOL's... I ride all roads in Washington state, and there's PLENTY of narrow lanes here, dude. I get harassed the MOST on 4 lane narrow outside lane roads, joejack.

I'd rather you be riding more, than driving all those miles in a car to get roadraged while driving, joejack :D

I've posted this before, and I'll post it again, because it's relevant.

One section of road that I use twice daily is a two lane road (one each direction) .... nice and wide, plenty of room for a car to pass a cyclist safely. Riding this road I had an average of one road rage incident a week where some driver PURPOSEFULLY passed close, swerved towards me, screamed, honked, whatever.

Late last summer they repaved part of the road, and painted a bike lane on each side along the entire stretch that I ride. The bike lane would be termed 'substandard' being that it varies from 2ft to 4ft wide. Since they painted the bike lanes I've had NO incidents where drivers have intentionally squeezed me, swerved towards me, honked, screamed. Yes, some motorists have passed uncomfortably close, but the INTENTIONAL acts have stopped.

If you take away the bike lanes and add extra driving lanes then yes, MOST motorists will give you plenty of room while riding in that outside lane, but the number of INTENTIONAL road rage incidents WILL go up. THAT'S what scares cyclists away from those types of roads.

I have many choices about my routes... I avoid Colfax Avenue, which is a 6 lane road and SHOULD be safer than riding a block over on a 2 lane road (with or without bike lanes) that the cars use to bypass the lights and stuff on Colfax. (Pretty high traffic for a two lane road... it's the road I talk about above with the new bike lanes)

When it comes to downtown I'd much rather ride the MUP for my commute than deal with the motorists during rush hour. But that's not an option right now as the trail is not maintained to a level that is safe to ride on with my bike. (The roads are barely in a condition to ride on!)

Them painted lines are an attempt at providing 'order'. The painted line tells drivers that 'lane' is where bikes belong, while the lack thereof tells drivers that the space is theirs. Lines are a double-edged sword - as evidenced by the endless debate about them in here.

I don't care if there is a line or not, I still maintain that I'd rather have 4 lanes with a WOL than 6 standard lanes...but most of the roads I ride are two narrow lanes with nothing, so what do I know. :rolleyes:

6 standard lanes = no bikes allowed, sooner or later.

I call bull on me not riding NOL's... I ride all roads in Washington state, and there's PLENTY of narrow lanes here, dude. I get harassed the MOST on 4 lane narrow outside lane roads, joejack.

I'd rather you be riding more, than driving all those miles in a car to get roadraged while driving, joejack :D

Did I say you specifically didn't ride on NOL roads? I know you do, because you constantly b!tch and moan about it. Then you say in other threads about bike lanes how motorists will accept cyclists better even on roads without bike lanes by having more bike lanes. It's contradictory.

My road rage while in a car incident was about 12 years ago. I've put exactly 0 miles on my car in the past two years (yeah I really need to sell it). I do drive my GF's car when I need to go somewhere with her or need to carry more weight than my trailer can handle. Can I be your friend now, Bek? :D

Can I be your friend now, Bek? :D
Only if you sell that car (if it is in perfect shape) to me for next to nothing when I come to Phila. this May.

Only if you sell that car (if it is in perfect shape) to me for next to nothing when I come to Phila. this May.

If an Eagle Talon TSi AWD interests you, we can talk :)

If an Eagle Talon TSi AWD interests you, we can talk :)
Nah, sorry. Practically, I'm a Corolla type of guy, now that my kids are out of the house. Though I fantasize about a Miyata

Funny, this poll is. I don't hear Helmet Head crowing about the results this time. ;)

Funny, this poll is. I don't hear Helmet Head crowing about the results this time. ;)
What are they? Not that it makes any difference. I never reply or pay much attention to any HH poll because they are established and worded to provide the correct, HH approved answer. And the pollster argues and browbeats all who have the temerity to provide an "incorrect" response. Bottom line for HH poll results: Worth less than worthless.

What are they? Not that it makes any difference. I never reply or pay much attention to any HH poll because they are established and worded to provide the correct, HH approved answer. And the pollster argues and browbeats all who have the temerity to provide an "incorrect" response. Bottom line for HH poll results: Worth less than worthless.

Oh, I know that. But this is the first I've seen where he couldn't phrase it in such a way as to get his "correct" response. I don't think there is a way to spin a 75% "wrong answer" response. Except by labeling those 6 people as "enlightened" and insisting that those people not so labeled are not "not enlightened."

What are they?

29 to 6 to 4: bike lane, no bike lane, don't care, respectively.

Funny, this poll is. I don't hear Helmet Head crowing about the results this time. ;)
I have NEVER "crowed" about poll results.
There is nothing surprising about these results.

Except by labeling those 6 people as "enlightened" and insisting that those people not so labeled are not "not enlightened."
Another favorite Forester Clone MO is to label all those who don't get it as "incompetent" or suffering from the mental infirmity of a phobia or inferiority complex.

Of course another possibility is for the pollster to ignore this poll and initiate a dozen more in order to extract the correct response for the upcoming VC opus.

I have NEVER...
Repeat as often as needed. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif... Repeat as often as needed. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif...Repeat as often as needed... http://deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif...

What makes you guys think there is a "correct" response to a poll inquiring about preferences?

It depends.

If the 6 lane road, has the outside lanes marked as HOV lanes including motorcycles and bicycles, or the outside lanes are marked as sharrows, or the outside lanes have signs indicating that bicycles have full use of the lane, then 6 lanes is acceptable.

Otherwise, I'll take the 4+2BLs thank you very much.

What makes you guys think there is a "correct" response to a poll inquiring about preferences?

I've never suggested there was a "correct" answer to a poll about preferences. I suggested there was a "correct" answer to your poll about preferences.

You've never been an objective poller, and you have been known to crow when a poll turns out to be in favor of the point you are trying to make, despite that, many times, it is in your favor because of the way you worded the poll.

You've never been an objective poller, and you have been known to crow when a poll turns out to be in favor of the point you are trying to make, despite that, many times, it is in your favor because of the way you worded the poll.
As well as crying "Who me? Not Me!" whenever HH's tactics Posting/polling methods are described.

What are they? Not that it makes any difference. I never reply or pay much attention to any HH poll because they are established and worded to provide the correct, HH approved answer. And the pollster argues and browbeats all who have the temerity to provide an "incorrect" response. Bottom line for HH poll results: Worth less than worthless.

Interesting, since HH said in the third post of this thread


No one can be wrong about a preference, SingingSabre.


But go ahead and be contrary. It is your strong suit.

Anyhow, to reply to the original question. I didn't vote as I really don't have a preference.[edit] Voted no preference. Missed that before[edit] I can't think of a 6 lane highway in my area without a bike lane that I am legally allowed to ride on. Heck, I can't think of a 4 lane road in my area that has bike lanes.

-D

If you take away the bike lanes and add extra driving lanes then yes, MOST motorists will give you plenty of room while riding in that outside lane, but the number of INTENTIONAL road rage incidents WILL go up. THAT'S what scares cyclists away from those types of roads.
Amen. Somebody gets it.

And to all you who have no better recourse than to brand me as suffering from an inferiority complex, you should know that in my experience, I have not yet met in person another bicyclist who is MORE VC THAN ME! Yes, that's true. I'm the MOST lane-grabbing, fearless, VC, alpha dawgin' cyclist I have EVER met in person.

i will repeat: Unless you "we don't need no stinkin' bike lane" people offer up solutions to intentional motorist harrassment and driver distraction, real world cyclists are not going to give any credence to your ideas. All you have to offer are wierd theories based on pop-psychology and various tactics of intimidation and manipulation.

Real world cyclists want concrete solutions, not pop-psychology and arm-chair theories.

Interesting, since HH said in the third post of this thread
Originally Posted by HelmetHead
No one can be wrong about a preference...

HH says a lot of things. Apparently you are one of those who takes him seriously.

Diane, there are products on the market such as the Flash Flag, and others, that will help mitigate close passes. I have considered it, but have never felt I needed something like this. If close passes become a routine problem for me, I will get one.
http://www.flashback.ca/images/flagrear.jpg
http://www.flashback.ca/products/accessories.html

Other things I have found to help mitigate close passes are lane position, being too far to the right invites close passing. Towing a trailer and cycling in a predictable manner as a vehicle also help mitigate close passes.

Better driver training could be easily incorporated into each state's driver license program. This can be done easier and at less expense than installing and maintaining bike lanes.

Better cyclist training........No, that's incorrect. Excellent cyclist training is currently available through courses offered by the League of American Bicyclists. The problem with this is, it is strictly voluntary, and cyclists, as a group, tend to abhor mandatory training. The result of this, is that most cyclists receive no training other than experience. Experience can be extremely limited training. Limited to each cyclists specific location and regular route(s).

There you go. There's a half-dozen points to mitigate close passing in the real world. Bike lanes alone don't do it, can't do it. Bike lanes encourage closer and higher speed passing, by lending a false sense of security to the cyclist and the motorist. However, bike lanes may help, if used in conjunction with any or all of the above. But with all bike lanes, there will always be intermittent and variable stretches that, for a variety of factors, cannot be safely utilized.

Notice I said "mitigate" throughout this reply, rather than "eliminate." Close passing and other boorish behavior by motorists, and cyclists alike, cannot be eliminated. To think it can is a fantasy. As long as roads are public access there will always be that 10% of bottom feeders, in the real world.

commuter run, I run a lit safety triangle at night, I ride as vehicularily as the neophyte Helmet head, am likely a lot more comfortable riding than HH, definetly ride a lot more often than HH as well, and I STILL prefer 4 lanes with a bike lane versus 6 narrow lanes of highway speed traffic!!

Just becuase you can ride a bike as if it were a car - WHICH BIKES AREN'T- doesn't mean you won't prefer accomodations. A savvy vehicular cyclist knows how to use a bike lane. Highway speed roads are one circumstance where a bike lane is very beneficial for riders of all stripe and bicyclo-political camp. HH would be in the bike lane with steady traffic on a highway speed road, just like the rest of us.

Helmet head's an anti-cyclist that prefers the roads remain largely the domain of the automobile, limiting populist expanses in the numbers of riders and % of trips by bicycle. Helemt Head, with his johnny-come-lately sophmoric rantings, pushes an anti-cyclist masquerade in bike forums.

Good looking setup, bek.

Using the entire rest of your reply to rant against HH doesn't help your position.

Bike lanes are not the be-all-end-all to all cycling ills. There are other means, that will do much more than bike lanes alone.

Excellent cyclist training is currently available through courses offered by the League of American Bicyclists. The problem with this is, it is strictly voluntary, and cyclists, as a group, tend to abhor mandatory training.
For good reason; given what passes for expertise on safe cycling techniques from those promoters who claim that it is a "problem" that cyclists can't be mandated to take their "excellent training courses".

commuter run, i will rail against the anti-populist sophmoric hysterics of helmet head becuase his rhetoric does nothing to benefit cyclists at large in any community.

" Just because you can ride a bike as if it were a car - WHICH BIKES AREN'T- doesn't mean you won't prefer accomodations. A savvy vehicular cyclist knows how to use a bike lane. Highway speed roads are one circumstance where a bike lane is very beneficial for riders of all stripe and bicyclo-political camp."

CR, I am not talking about myself and my own fears about intentionally malicious drivers. I have experienced this, yes. And so have most people. Like I said before, I'm the most fearless, lane-grabbing, VC cyclists I know.

Most cyclists I ever talk to want something concrete to protect them. They would scoff at your solutions because they don't address road rage and they do not make up for a lack of on and off-street cycling facilities.

Flash flags and high visibility gear make you more visible but they do not protect you from intentional harrassment, of which there is an INCREASE when there are no on-street cycling facilities.

Most cyclists I ever talk to want something concrete to protect them.
Thus the fallacy of the bike lane. A LAB course would do a much better job, with or without the bike lane.

Thus the fallacy of the bike lane. A LAB course would do a much better job, with or without the bike lane.
Since you bring up fallacies; perhaps you can discuss your non-fallacious reason for stating that the "LAB course would do a much better job" of anything.

Thus the fallacy of the bike lane. A LAB course would do a much better job, with or without the bike lane.

All the courses in the world won't help with road rage if it's the CYCLIST taking them and not the idiot behind the wheel.

If you remove a bike lane to widen a street from four lanes to six, it just proves to the drivers that bicyclists don't belong on that road.

What if that outer lane had sharrows or a bicycle icon or some such regular reminder that cyclist are to use its full width?

What if that road had an intersection every 200' or so, a major one every 1/4mi?

What if there was a 3mi stretch with no intersection, but a sign at the begining of the stretch said 'pass cyclist using adjacent lane' or some such language?

What if cyclists regularly used this road and it was commonplace to encounter them using the full lane?

Al
I pretty much agree with Al. The answer is "it depends." On a high-speed road with few intersections and regularl maintenance, 4 lanes + Bl's could work, Remove any of those factors, and I'd probably favor 6 lanes with sharrows and/or signs like the ones Al mentions.