Advocacy & Safety - AZ letters to editor re:bicycling

Nothing new here in a general sense. Readers give opinions about cyclists breaking laws, riding outside bike lane, riding 2-3 abreast (two abreast is legal in AZ)

http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/0202ar-chatter0202Z14.html

Al

Should we as cyclists now complain to the paper about motorists speeding, running stop signs and parking illegally?

Should we as cyclists now complain to the paper about motorists speeding, running stop signs and parking illegally?

Uh, yup.

Should we as cyclists now complain to the paper about motorists speeding, running stop signs and parking illegally?

Sure.

But that motorists break laws doesn't mean that cyclists should. In other words, I think that the letters bring up some valid points in a civilized manner. Not that I agree with everything written. But I get the sense that a well-tempered response would be considered by the authors.

i think those are all valid points in the paper (well, except for the `stay in your lane` stuff) seems like those people have no problems with cyclists as long as they follow the rules of the road and ride safety. who could be against that?

ive driven before where i was cut off by bicyclist and then yelled at is if it was my fault. we have to face it, there are some really bad riders out there. there is no need to justify them.

Sure.

But that motorists break laws doesn't mean that cyclists should. In other words, I think that the letters bring up some valid points in a civilized manner. Not that I agree with everything written. But I get the sense that a well-tempered response would be considered by the authors.

Yes, but the point is they are being accusatory, while forgetting that they themselves are not all angels. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Why do cyclists run stop signs?

I have some ideas, see if you can come up with more:

1) Cycist has to keep moving to stay warm.

2) Cyclist has to keep moving top stay cool.

3) Conservation of Momentum, there's no engine to get moving again.

4) Bicycle is too lightweight and/or too slow to kill anyone if a collision occurs.

5) Stop signs were intended for cars. For 6000 years, mankind had horses, but there weren't any stop signs. There weren't any horse accidents.

6) To keep traffic moving. The bicycle is slow enough without stopping. Don't want the cars behind to be inconvenienced by slowing the bike further.

7) Cyclist can see better than a motorist. There are no roof pillars to block the view. Cyclists can see over hedges and parked cars near the intersection.

8) Cyclist can hear if cars are coming.

9) Cyclist is doing a "personal best time trial" Last week he covered ten miles in 21 minutes 18 seconds, can he beat his own time?

10) Copycats. The cyclist has seen other cyclists run stop signs, and he does it too, but without looking both ways, and often with earphones on so he doesn't hear either.

11) The cars disobey the speed-limit signs 85% of the time, so bikes should ignore stop-signs 85% of the time (see #6 above).

For starters there are very few bike lanes in this area. Those are Shoulders because they made the roads to narrow.

Maybe they should ride their bicycles in the bicycle lane, not along the line that separates their lane from ours.

Maybe he should try ridin in those shoulders err bike lanes see how he feels.

Not very educated. Cyclists get points off their driving record.


I agree that bicyclists have rights, however, they also have a responsibility to follow the law, share the road with cars, make themselves visible and not unduly burden our health care professionals.


Ok that last part is a little far burden the health care wow. After all driverrs are the one's hitting them right?

Ok that last part is a little far burden the health care wow. After all driverrs are the one's hitting them right?


yeah, the health care remark was just stupid. consider how much it costs to care for the people involved in over 40,000 annual car crashes. or perhaps the health care costs of a sedentary population who drives everywhere and gets no exercise.

Why do cyclists run stop signs?

5) Stop signs were intended for cars. For 6000 years, mankind had horses, but there weren't any stop signs. There weren't any horse accidents.


Interesting point. Hadn't thought of that one...

Cyclists on smooth pavement can achieve enough momentum to kill pedestrians.

That said, practically speaking, coming to a complete stop is certainly not required to defuse the damage potential of a bike. But for a car, yes.

Most people understand this intuitively. I've never heard of a cyclist who got cited for running a stop sign where he did slow down to a near stop, and checked both ways, before proceeding.

But blowing a stop sign without even a hint of slowing down is what cyclists often do, and cannot be defended. Let's keep things in perspective.

Many if not most of the stop signs in this area are for four way intersections. Solo I never run them - its hardly a hassle to stop. But I've ridden with groups (10-30 people) in the area and then they (the four way only) are always ran - not blown at full speed, but with reduced to allow lead rider(s) to assess situation. There is something about group dynamics with the lead rider seeing no other approaching vehicles that makes running them 'feel more appropriate' vs. getting the whole line to stop and go, in which either many more vehicles appear as each rider stops and goes, or only the lead rider is the one who technically stops and all the followers run the sign.

Also as wheel points out there are very few bike lanes in the area, some, but mostly narrow (Chandler, Ray) or wide (Pecos) shoulders. The roads that do have true bike lanes are more generally slower (25-35mph) and also the primary lane is usually very wide too. There is much confusion motorist and cyclist alike as to what is and isn't a bike lane in this area. See http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html for a good review and photos.

here is a link to a map of the area: http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=chandler,+az&ie=UTF8&z=13&ll=33.313746,-112.024498&spn=0.099126,0.177498&om=1&iwloc=addr

Al

Many if not most of the stop signs in this area are for four way intersections. Solo I never run them - its hardly a hassle to stop. But I've ridden with groups (10-30 people) in the area and then they (the four way only) are always ran - not blown at full speed, but with reduced to allow lead rider(s) to assess situation. There is something about group dynamics with the lead rider seeing no other approaching vehicles that makes running them 'feel more appropriate' vs. getting the whole line to stop and go, in which either many more vehicles appear as each rider stops and goes, or only the lead rider is the one who technically stops and all the followers run the sign.

My assessment is slightly different. I think group leaders tend to ride exactly like they do when they're riding solo. When you see a group leader not coming to a complete stop, it's not to keep everyone in the group of having to stop, it's to keep himself from having to stop, no different from what he would do if he were solo.

I say this because those at the front often forget they are essentially driving a virtual bus. This is perhaps most obvious when there is an obstacle up ahead of some sort (perhaps the need to adjust left to avoid a right only lane, or the start of onstreet parking, etc.), but they don't seem to adjust left any earlier than they would if they were riding solo. But because there is a delay that is propogated one cyclist at a time in the group, they should think ahead and move earlier than when riding solo. But, for the most part, they usually don't.

Now, those behind the leaders? Act like lemmings (again, for the most part).

My assessment is slightly different. I think group leaders tend to ride exactly like they do when they're riding solo. When you see a group leader not coming to a complete stop, it's not to keep everyone in the group of having to stop, it's to keep himself from having to stop, no different from what he would do if he were solo.

I say this because those at the front often forget they are essentially driving a virtual bus. This is perhaps most obvious when there is an obstacle up ahead of some sort (perhaps the need to adjust left to avoid a right only lane, or the start of onstreet parking, etc.), but they don't seem to adjust left any earlier than they would if they were riding solo. But because there is a delay that is propogated one cyclist at a time in the group, they should think ahead and move earlier than when riding solo. But, for the most part, they usually don't.

Now, those behind the leaders? Act like lemmings (again, for the most part).
I don't know really.
Leaders are just who is in front. I've been in that postion at four ways. If I did call out slowing well in advance, gradually slow and then signal stopping, I'd likely be ignored by many, perhaps even lectured by an 'elder' - actually this has happened to me before just for slowing gradually ;) There is always a hot head or two in a group, not matter how fine the rest are, who wants to keep moving fast. This all of course all still fits in with the 'don't want to stop' and lemming theory.
But if everyone did stop or slow to 5mph I still don't see how that works with a group of say 20-30 and x-traffic at a four way.
Overall I know that groups could do better at four way stops. On the flip side many motorists give away their ROW at stops for groups of cyclist, so much it encourages worsening behavior and expecations of cyclists.

Basically in my experience good riding behaviors and good traffic managment practices (call in VC if you will) fall apart in most groups - even groups whose official leader (different of course from who continuous varies as the pack/line leader) is a hard-as* about following laws, even groups with a majority of sensible riders. It allways seems to fall to the lowest level. Left turns are always started way to late, some if not all will squeeze by stopped traffic on the right, ride-lines are way too far to the right and leader merges around obstical too late (even if they signal them early)

*Even with leader who has 'informants' who tell them who broke rules so they get a lecture later and may get kicked out if repeated - including: crossing double yellow on corners, running red lights, riding more than two abreast (except when dropping off lead). However two laws that are never of worry to leader include speeding (well exceeded down some hills) and not stopping at stop signs. Interesting.

Anyway, off on a tangent I go...

Al

FWIW, I read the original article and thought, "Yep." I didn't think the writers' comments were far off the mark. They seemed like reasonable requests for the most part.

Disclaimer: I'm not a scofflaw cyclist. I do foot-down stops for stop signs and red lights and always wear a helmet.

yeah, the health care remark was just stupid. consider how much it costs to care for the people involved in over 40,000 annual car crashes. or perhaps the health care costs of a sedentary population who drives everywhere and gets no exercise.

To clarify - 40,000 fatalities. The number of highway crashes is more than 6,000,000 per year. Perhaps drivers should wear helmets ;) .

To clarify - 40,000 fatalities. The number of highway crashes is more than 6,000,000 per year. Perhaps drivers should wear helmets ;) .

ah, yeah, i had that backwards. thanks.

FWIW, I read the original article and thought, "Yep." I didn't think the writers' comments were far off the mark. They seemed like reasonable requests for the most part.

Disclaimer: I'm not a scofflaw cyclist. I do foot-down stops for stop signs and red lights and always wear a helmet.
I agree, except for the bike lane comments due to two misconceptions:

1. Many of the roads where cyclist ride 'on the line' do not have bike lanes, but a fog line
2. Riding two abreast is legal. Most if not all of these roads have dual same direction lanes. Most of the group cycling occurs weekend morning or late evening when roads are relatively light in traffic (this part of town is known as 'the worlds largest cul-de-sac' - no thru traffic in the region. Passing two abreast cyclists is easy using adjacent lane.

Solo I am not a scoffaw either, ever.

Al

2) Ahwatukee is blessed with many sections of road with designated bike lanes. However, I often see two and sometimes three bicyclists riding abreast of one another and outside of the bike lane. I understand the need to provide bicyclists adequate room when passing in a car, but do they have the right to occupy a lane of traffic when a bike lane is available to them simply so that they can carry on a conversation with a buddy? I have witnessed and myself have been forced to change lanes to avoid colliding with a bicyclist in the roadway when they have decided not to use an adjacent bike lane to chat with a fellow cyclist.

There were only 2 letters and this was the only comment about 'staying in the bike lanes'. It really does not seem unreasonable to me if the facts are 3 riders abreast. Now if it is a group of 20 that would be different, but that is not the image that comes to mind from the letter.

There were only 2 letters and this was the only comment about 'staying in the bike lanes'. It really does not seem unreasonable to me if the facts are 3 riders abreast. Now if it is a group of 20 that would be different, but that is not the image that comes to mind from the letter.
The facts? Probably usually one rider line, but sometimes two abreast. Based on what I witness every week.

The other comment in the first letter:
"Maybe they should ride their bicycles in the bicycle lane, not along the line that separates their lane from ours. "

Which is pretty normal positioning given that the most 'bike lanes' in this area are sub-standard width or really shoulders. "their lane, ours" language also may be indicator of belief that cyclist dont belong anywhere but the BL.

Al

If I ever find someone to ride we ride abreast when taking the lane. Not to talk but more visual.
We normally won't ride side by side but the person on the right will be ahead a little (half a bike), Incase I need to slam on my brakes to allow for the rider to merge left.

Sub standard bike lanes yea we have alot of that. I think they paint shoulders so they don't have to take care of that portion of the road.

Hay I got to yell at a cager today so I guess I feel better. Goes around the barrels on the left passes in oncomming lane and then back through the barrels. (no passing zone) To bad he had a red light ahead.

Me What is your problem?
Cager you didn't move over.
Me Your huge truck didn't allow enough room.
Cager you need to move over
Yellow light
Try 7th ave (1/2mi.) F$%K Face


Not to jack this thread. I might write a letter and put hyperlinks where they can educate themselves.
Of course the paper always gets them wrong.

The facts? Probably usually one rider line, but sometimes two abreast. Based on what I witness every week.

The other comment in the first letter:
"Maybe they should ride their bicycles in the bicycle lane, not along the line that separates their lane from ours. "

Which is pretty normal positioning given that the most 'bike lanes' in this area are sub-standard width or really shoulders. "their lane, ours" language also may be indicator of belief that cyclist dont belong anywhere but the BL.

Al

Yes the facts can make a difference. The first letter seemed reasonable and the on the line part seemed to invite a response. Wonder why there was not one.

Why do cyclists run stop signs?

I have some ideas, see if you can come up with more:

1) Cycist has to keep moving to stay warm.

2) Cyclist has to keep moving top stay cool.

3) Conservation of Momentum, there's no engine to get moving again.

4) Bicycle is too lightweight and/or too slow to kill anyone if a collision occurs.

5) Stop signs were intended for cars. For 6000 years, mankind had horses, but there weren't any stop signs. There weren't any horse accidents.

6) To keep traffic moving. The bicycle is slow enough without stopping. Don't want the cars behind to be inconvenienced by slowing the bike further.

7) Cyclist can see better than a motorist. There are no roof pillars to block the view. Cyclists can see over hedges and parked cars near the intersection.

8) Cyclist can hear if cars are coming.

9) Cyclist is doing a "personal best time trial" Last week he covered ten miles in 21 minutes 18 seconds, can he beat his own time?

10) Copycats. The cyclist has seen other cyclists run stop signs, and he does it too, but without looking both ways, and often with earphones on so he doesn't hear either.

11) The cars disobey the speed-limit signs 85% of the time, so bikes should ignore stop-signs 85% of the time (see #6 above).
IMO, the only one of these even faintly defensible is #7. As to #5, there were plenty of horse accidents, especially with carriages. And bikes were already making the situation worse even in the brief period before cars came along and completely pushed things over the edge. My interpretation is that cars only increased the necessity to the point that someone finally came up with the idea. But I think it's a reach to think that because stop signs were only invented due to cars, that they are only meant for cars. Certainly untrue from a legal standpoint, at least in those places where bikes are considered vehicles and thus bound by all vehicular laws, which is most places.

i think those are all valid points in the paper (well, except for the `stay in your lane` stuff) seems like those people have no problems with cyclists as long as they follow the rules of the road and ride safety. who could be against that?



The problem is that most people have only a vague idea about what the laws are pertaining to cyclists, and that vague idea usually includes a few misconceptions. People believe all sorts of things -- cyclists have to stay a certain distance from the curb, cyclists have to stay to the right of the white line, cyclists always have to yield to motor vehicles -- that are just not true.

When I hear people complain about scofflaw cyclists, they complain about two things -- ignoring red lights and stop signs, which is clearly illegal, and not getting out of the way, which isn't. But the not getting out of the way is the real complaint.

A bit more....
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/eastvalleyopinions/articles/0207ar-edit0207.html

Al

They seem to be reluctant to post pro-cycling material. I sent in a very nice response explaining why a cyclist is not required to be in the bike lane and why they might be straddling the line (Like I ride 90% of the time in a bike lane) .... no response, and wasn't posted.

They asy that bicyclists must obey the law, but do not mention drivers also having to obey the law. The way it is written implies that the drivers are already obeying all the laws.

Two more new editorials today and request for reader input on the same subject:

Bicyclists, drivers share safety obligation:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/eastvalleyopinions/articles/0301ar-edit0302.html

Should Bicycles be prohibited from busy streets?
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/eastvalleyopinions/articles/0301ar-talker0302.html

Al

I wrote in this little piece, what do you think?:

I disagree with what Brian5209 said. Roads were built for everyone; pedestrians, horses and wagons, bikes and trucks as well as cars. In some cases there were tracks laid down in the street for trolleys.
There may have been some instances where highway engineers weren't thinking about bicycles when they planned and built the road, but that's a matter of negligence on their part.
If the road is too narrow to pass the bicycle safely, the cyclist has every right to stay in the middle of the lane to block cars from doing so.
An able-bodied man can reach thirty miles per hour (30MPH) on a bicycle, which is a typical city speed limit. However; it takes a mille and a half to reach 30MPH and the cyclist doesn't want any cars tailgating, in case he misses a shift or has to apply brakes for another vehicle.
You as a motorist have the right to ask the government for wider roads. Sometimes it just takes a call to the Department of Public Works to have the road swept, or have a pothole filled. Truckers and bicyclists are more likely than the average motorist to write to a congressman to have a road widened. Road shoulders (lane margins) are nice to have. A cyclist can move over and let your car go by as a courtesy- if there is shoulder to the roadway.

I thought these two comments were telling about the effect of bike lanes on the perception of a cyclist's right to use the road (I added the italics):


Maybe they should ride their bicycles in the bicycle lane, not along the line that separates their lane from ours.

but do they have the right to occupy a lane of traffic when a bike lane is available to them simply . . . ? I have witnessed and myself have been forced to change lanes to avoid colliding with a bicyclist in the roadway when they have decided not to use an adjacent bike lane . . . .
Horrors of horrors! A driver had to change lanes to get around other traffic. That means he had to signal, slightly turn his steering wheel, signal again, and then slightly turn his steering wheel again. I hope he recovers from the trauma, but psychological wounds like that leave scars that can stay with you forever.

Maybe during the week of Bike to Work day you could get the paper to print an editorial that speaks to the bicyclists' side of things. Then have cyclists flood the paper with letter to the editor in response so you can put the issue out there from the cyclists' point of view for a week.

Another letter from a cyclist published today. (unfortunately I don't have nor saw the Mar-1 letter he refers to):
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0308thurlets083.html

Valley drivers ignore cyclists
Mar. 8, 2007 12:00 AM

Regarding "Keep bikes off major streets" (Letters, March 1):

The writer asserts that it is "dangerous for all concerned when a street with a 45 mph speed limit has a bicycle rider occupying the right-hand lane." He makes this observation to chide bicycle riders for trying to get laws passed increasing penalties for drivers who strike cyclists, and he proposes restricting cyclists to "bike lanes, side streets and sidewalks."

I am an avid cyclist and, as a practical matter, I practice what the writer advocates. I agree that it is just too dangerous to ride on busy thoroughfares in the Valley.

The laws of physics trump any laws governing right of way on the roads: The heavier object wins in a collision.

I used to periodically commute to work on my bike but have given it up because of the number of near-death experiences that occurred. However, my brushes with death by car occurred not because I was riding in the right-hand lane but because I was nearly run over or sideswiped while riding in bike lanes or sidewalks.

The fact is cyclists are invisible to Valley drivers. Many drivers barely pay enough attention to other vehicles on the roads, much less bikes. Compounding this problem is the fact that the bike lanes we do have are few and far between and don't serve as bikeways to places we really need to go, like work.

The solution is not more laws but more bike-friendly roads that allow vehicles and cyclists to coexist.
- JS,
Phoenix

Actually both of those letters sound relatively 'pro-cyclist', they just point out a few of the asshat moves that some cyclists are guilty of performing.

Should Bicycles be prohibited from busy streets?
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/eastvalleyopinions/articles/0301ar-talker0302.html

Al Like lobsters rejoicing in the comfort of being in a pot of cold water, bicyclists rejoicing in the "comfort" of a bike lane are oblivious to what's coming.

The sentiments expressed in those letters are real, and becoming more and more prevalent. For every letter written, there are thousands who agree but did not bother to write.

If cycling advocates don't get ahead of this issue, and start fighting the notion that bicyclists should be separated from motorists, rather than promoting it by calling for more and more bike lanes and other separate facilities because of the alleged "dangers" of cycling in traffic, it's going to be too late.

We're getting cooked and most of it don't even realized we're in the pot and are even turning up the heat!

I agree HH...
All these BL advocates are truly clueless when the 'rubber hits the road'.

Make the motoring public believe that we belong there, and guess where we'll be relegated

:rolleyes:

How's that sky lookin', Chicken Little?

Ok, here is a question for you. You are stopped or slowing to a stop at a timed red with a car behind you trying to turn right, whose driver is obviously pissed off that you are in his way. There is no cross traffic. Do you: a) blow the red b) sit at the red and deal with the ahole in the car honking/swearing at you?


Seriously----I've had this happen a lot and feel like a jerk no matter what i do. If I blow the red, then i feel like I am contributing to negative views about cyclists not obeying traffic signals. If I sit at the red (which I know I am suppossed to do) I feel like I am contributing to negative views about cyclists being "in the way" and "holding up traffic." I know I have a "right" to stay in the lane and wait for the light to change just like any other verhicle----but i also don't like front bumper up my arse with a horn blaring.



What to do?

:rolleyes:

How's that sky lookin', Chicken Little?
Said the lobster to the cousin who was trying to warn everyone else in the pot of cold water on the stove that they're about to get cooked.

Ok, here is a question for you. You are stopped or slowing to a stop at a timed red with a car behind you trying to turn right, whose driver is obviously pissed off that you are in his way. There is no cross traffic. Do you: a) blow the red b) sit at the red and deal with the ahole in the car honking/swearing at you?


Seriously----I've had this happen a lot and feel like a jerk no matter what i do. If I blow the red, then i feel like I am contributing to negative views about cyclists not obeying traffic signals. If I sit at the red (which I know I am suppossed to do) I feel like I am contributing to negative views about cyclists being "in the way" and "holding up traffic." I know I have a "right" to stay in the lane and wait for the light to change just like any other verhicle----but i also don't like front bumper up my arse with a horn blaring.



What to do? What would you do if you were on a motorcycle?
Whatever that is, is there any reason to do anything different simply because you're on an unmotorized cycle?

Edit: thinking in this manner is the hallmark of a cyclist who utilizes basic vehicular cycling practices. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275653)

:rolleyes:

How's that sky lookin', Chicken Little?

C'mon Rando, you've been here a while.
In North America (US specifically) there has been more than a couple attempts to bar cyclists from certain public roadways (not highways, mind you - but important thoroughfares used for free movement). I for one attribute part of that trend to the ideas that bikelanes elicit from the motoring public.

Like lobsters rejoicing in the comfort of being in a pot of cold water, bicyclists rejoicing in the "comfort" of a bike lane are oblivious to what's coming.

The sentiments expressed in those letters are real, and becoming more and more prevalent. For every letter written, there are thousands who agree but did not bother to write.

If cycling advocates don't get ahead of this issue, and start fighting the notion that bicyclists should be separated from motorists, rather than promoting it by calling for more and more bike lanes and other separate facilities because of the alleged "dangers" of cycling in traffic, it's going to be too late.

We're getting cooked and most of it don't even realized we're in the pot and are even turning up the heat!



At least in my experience I have found bike lanes to be both beneficial and not worth a damn depending on how they are desgined/placed and the general attitudes towards cycling in the particular area. For instance, in Madison, WI, where there are a lot of bike lanes---I find them to be useful as I am able to comfortably ride on a 35-45 mph road without fear of being rammed. The lanes are usually fairly wide and well-marked. Moreover, "most" Madison drivers respect (or at least dont try to kill) cyclists because of how prevelant they are in that city. That being said, I can comfortably ride on most roads in Madtown w/out bike lanes for this very reason. On the other hand, take Milwaukee or Green Bay, there are few, if any, bike lanes. Drivers in these cities as a whole simply cannot fathom seeing a cyclist on a road, esp. during rush hour. In Milw. cars ride in the bike lanes all the time. On a whole, a get at least 10 x as many angry honks, get on the sidewalk, middlefingers, etc. from drivers in Green Bay and Milwaukee as I do when riding in Madison.

This experience has often made me wonder whether having more bike lanes contributes to more bikes being on the road and thus more drivers experiencing/accepting cyclists on the road or whether regional attitudes on cycling are not affected by well-designed bike lanes.

Ok, here is a question for you. You are stopped or slowing to a stop at a timed red with a car behind you trying to turn right, whose driver is obviously pissed off that you are in his way. There is no cross traffic. Do you: a) blow the red b) sit at the red and deal with the ahole in the car honking/swearing at you?

What to do?

Jeez... that's an easy one.
First of all, I am well aware of the car(s) behind me when approaching a stop, and if Mr. Rightturn has his blinker on, then I just simply make sure I stop in the far left of the rightmost lane. He can easily make his right on red.

Now if he DOESN'T have his blinker on (or it's a junker, and long burned out) then when I'm stopped (center lane) I simply look back and make eye contact, and if he wants to turn right, I simply move myself left.

Brain surgery, eh?

What would you do if you were on a motorcycle?
Whatever that is, is there any reason to do anything different simply because you're on an unmotorized cycle?

Edit: thinking in this manner is the hallmark of a cyclist who utilizes basic vehicular cycling practices. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275653)


I know what I "should" do---its just that realistically, cars dont try and shove a motorcycle through an intersection b/c they want to make a right turn----i have had that happen on a number of occassions. My point is, if I follow the rules in this situation, motorsits tend to get pissed (wrongly so)--which in turn makes them more hostile to cyclists in general.


I'm just saying its a catch 22--motorists will get pissed no matter what you do

Said the lobster to the cousin who was trying to warn everyone else in the pot of cold water on the stove that they're about to get cooked.

:roflmao:

you're too much, Helmo.
back to demonizing bike facilities I see.

At least in my experience I have found bike lanes to be both beneficial and not worth a damn depending on how they are desgined/placed and the general attitudes towards cycling in the particular area. For instance, in Madison, WI, where there are a lot of bike lanes---I find them to be useful as I am able to comfortably ride on a 35-45 mph road without fear of being rammed.

OK.
Well how about this:
Instead of a designated Bike Lane, the rightmost travel lane is simply as wide as it would be had it had that magic white stripe.
Would you still feel as safe? You should

You should feel safer without that demarcation because - if god forbid - you have to leave that sacred space (obstacles, debris, etc) you are now "breaking the rules" where the cagers are concerned, and have become fair game.

At least in my experience I have found bike lanes to be both beneficial and not worth a damn depending on how they are desgined/placed and the general attitudes towards cycling in the particular area. For instance, in Madison, WI, where there are a lot of bike lanes---I find them to be useful as I am able to comfortably ride on a 35-45 mph road without fear of being rammed. The lanes are usually fairly wide and well-marked. Moreover, "most" Madison drivers respect (or at least dont try to kill) cyclists because of how prevelant they are in that city. That being said, I can comfortably ride on most roads in Madtown w/out bike lanes for this very reason. On the other hand, take Milwaukee or Green Bay, there are few, if any, bike lanes. Drivers in these cities as a whole simply cannot fathom seeing a cyclist on a road, esp. during rush hour. In Milw. cars ride in the bike lanes all the time. On a whole, a get at least 10 x as many angry honks, get on the sidewalk, middlefingers, etc. from drivers in Green Bay and Milwaukee as I do when riding in Madison.

This experience has often made me wonder whether having more bike lanes contributes to more bikes being on the road and thus more drivers experiencing/accepting cyclists on the road or whether regional attitudes on cycling are not affected by well-designed bike lanes. Indeed, the best designed bike lanes are very good at effectively separating bicyclists from motorists, and promoting the alleged benefits and needs of doing so. The more this notion is promoted, the stronger and more widespread the sentiments that bicyclists should not be allowed on streets that don't have facilities that allow motorists to pass us as if we're not even there.

OK.
Well how about this:
Instead of a designated Bike Lane, the rightmost travel lane is simply as wide as it would be had it had that magic white stripe.
Would you still feel as safe? You should

You should feel safer without that demarcation because - if god forbid - you have to leave that sacred space (obstacles, debris, etc) you are now "breaking the rules" where the cagers are concerned, and have become fair game.

I'm not saying you don't have a point---but in my experience, cars seem to give you a wider berth if you are in a bike lane versus riding in traffic

:roflmao:

you're too much, Helmo.
back to demonizing bike facilities I see. Back to ignoring the reasons I give, and simply dismissing what I'm saying because you disagree with my conclusion for no apparent reason, I see. :rolleyes:

Another thing to consider is that a lot of new or inexperienced cyclists are too intimidated to ride on a road w/out a bike lane. Often I cannot get my girlfriend out on a ride unless I promise to stay on roads w/ bike lanes.

I'm not saying I disagree with the sentimens about separating cyclists from motorists, but I also cannot say that bike lanes are useless or counterproductive because I know firsthand that they will get more people in the saddle. If you are a city planner and trying to encourage people to ride into work rather than drive and having a bike lane increases the number of people riding to work---isn't that a good thing?

Again---i do not like the idea that cyclists should be "separated" from traffic---At the same time practicality should trump dogma---I'm in favor of anything that gets more people riding

Another thing to consider is that a lot of new or inexperienced cyclists are too intimidated to ride on a road w/out a bike lane. Often I cannot get my girlfriend out on a ride unless I promise to stay on roads w/ bike lanes.

I'm not saying I disagree with the sentimens about separating cyclists from motorists, but I also cannot say that bike lanes are useless or counterproductive because I know firsthand that they will get more people in the saddle. If you are a city planner and trying to encourage people to ride into work rather than drive and having a bike lane increases the number of people riding to work---isn't that a good thing?

Again---i do not like the idea that cyclists should be "separated" from traffic---At the same time practicality should trump dogma---I'm in favor of anything that gets more people riding
Would you be in favor of something that gets more people riding at the cost of it leading to the prohibition of cycling on busy streets without bike lanes?