Advocacy & Safety - AC: using this 2 way bike lane

here's a picture of a bike lane like chip describes that actually isn't that bad for the adaptive cyclist......

two way bike traffic!

all a bicycist has to do is keep their wits about them, and avoid the cars in the other lane. and the rest of the bikes, which will be all over the lane.

here's a picture of a bike lane like chip describes that actually isn't that bad for the adaptive cyclist......

two way bike traffic!

all a bicycist has to do is keep their wits about them, and avoid the cars in the other lane. and the rest of the bikes, which will be all over the lane.

Imagine the same lane about 1/3 as wide.

Robert Hurst does do a very good treatment for riding roads in his book.

come ON, chip! I can help to define adaptive cycling just as much as the rest of ya!
(i posted the photo because some poster was calling two way bike lanes hypothetical or non existant....)


Yeah, I saw that, thanks. That thing is like wider than some of the car lanes I ride in!

Bek,

Can you explain how this two way BL is intended to be used? I assume motor vehicle traffic (as shown by the car with lights on) is at minimum one way coming toward the photographer on the left side lane (from photographer perspective).

Are motor vehicles allowed to use the lane (the right one from photographer persepective) with the two way BL icon? It looks like it based on the drying pattern of the wet road.

If motor vehicles can use this lane, is it really a bike lane or a lane with a form of a sharrow?

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=38009&d=1172518365

Al

cars only left lane one way, bikes two way traffic on the right. It's a drawbridge underpass. the traffic splits a block behind my perspective.

It's an unusual one, but its a two way, bigger than travel lane on road accomodation. Not that that is either here nor there in Adaptive cycling method or definition, just using it as an example of a facility Roody thought was nonexistant.

Bek, do you have a Google Maps link that shows this street? I'm curious as to how this lane begins and ends, for both auto and cyclist traffic.

Bek, do you have a Google Maps link that shows this street? I'm curious as to how this lane begins and ends, for both auto and cyclist traffic.
Good question. My guess? Not pretty.

Perhaps a new thread to discuss this specific bike lane would be in order. Prepend 'AC:' if you don't wish to get into a debate concerning bike lanes in general, or not if you don't mind such a debate.

cars only left lane one way, bikes two way traffic on the right. It's a drawbridge underpass. the traffic splits a block behind my perspective.

It's an unusual one, but its a two way, bigger than travel lane on road accomodation. Not that that is either here nor there in Adaptive cycling method or definition, just using it as an example of a facility Roody thought was nonexistant.
Sorry, for some reason I seem to be having trouble understanding chipcom on this thread. I misunderstood his post (quoted below) to mean that the one-sided two-way bike lane existed only in What-if-ville. My fault entirely.

If I ran across such a bike lane, I'd probably claim the right half as my own and ride merrily along. I'd be careful entering and exiting, and I'd expect the firendly cagers to be rather confused by the setup. It doesn't look too difficult in the pic, and I imagine you'd ride it the same way if you were AC, DC or VC. Not being an ideologically driven rider, I don't see how the 2 "systems" would differ in this or any other situation.




But this does bring up an interesting situation that I'd love to see a thread for: a single bike lane on one side of the road where some riders are riding with traffic, others are going in the opposite direction. Definitely a badly designed bike lane...but if an OP is dead set on riding in it, what kind of tips and advice can we give?

Sorry, for some reason I seem to be having trouble understanding chipcom on this thread. I misunderstood his post (quoted below) to mean that the one-sided two-way bike lane existed only in What-if-ville. My fault entirely.

If I ran across such a bike lane, I'd probably claim the right half as my own and ride merrily along. I'd be careful entering and exiting, and I'd expect the firendly cagers to be rather confused by the setup. It doesn't look too difficult in the pic, and I imagine you'd ride it the same way if you were AC, DC or VC. Not being an ideologically driven rider, I don't see how the 2 "systems" would differ in this or any other situation.

I think the main difference would be that we'd talk about things relevant to those that choose to ride 'in' that bike lane, rather than debating the merits of bike lanes or riding in bike lanes in general, which is done over and over again in other threads.

These above posts were moved from the Adaptive Cycling Defined thread. You may wish to edit them for clarity in this new thread. When it looks good, someone let me know and I'll delete this message.

I think the main difference would be that we'd talk about things relevant to those that choose to ride 'in' that bike lane, rather than debating the merits of bike lanes or riding in bike lanes in general, which is done over and over again in other threads.

Then this new thread is perfect for this discussion. We can't get anywhere meaningful though until Bek posts a link of an overview of this [insert what adjective you feel appropriate (mine would be "fine," heavy on the sarcasm)] creation.

Thanks for creating this thread, Donna. I was going to offer to do the same myself in the other thread but left work before I posted there. Such a nice present waiting for me at the end of my commute :)

I'd ride to the right and expect approaching traffic to be on the left... If nobody was coming, though I'd ride n the middle or maybe ride in little "S" shapes all over it.

I really think that bike only lane should be devided. I have enough trouble with wrong way bikers when everyone knows where they should be. Other than that, it's a great concept.

I think the main difference would be that we'd talk about things relevant to those that choose to ride 'in' that bike lane, rather than debating the merits of bike lanes or riding in bike lanes in general, which is done over and over again in other threads. In this case I don't see where you'd have much choice but to ride in the wacky bike lane, unless you stupidly decided to ride against one way car traffic. I wonder why they decided to paint it this way. It seems like there's enough pavement to stripe it in a more traditional bike lane fashion.

(edit) I suppose they probably did it this way because it's a one-way for cars and a two-way for bikes. But why didn't they just direct bikes to travel with the cars on a companion road that goes the other way? That would make it a one-way for cars and bikes.

These above posts were moved from the Adaptive Cycling Defined thread. You may wish to edit them for clarity in this new thread. When it looks good, someone let me know and I'll delete this message.

Best thing that's happened to A&S in a long time is you becoming a mod, Donna. Thanks for taking the initiative on this. :beer:

I have another AC question semi-related to this same photo. How do people feel about going under bridges/tunnels like this on a bright sunny day? All of a sudden you're in the dark, and it can be hard for cagers to see you, especially if they have their sunglasses on. You don't have your lights on the bike if it's the middle of the day. This situation isn't so bad because the dim section is so short. But we have a busy one-way (no bike lane) that goes under a parking garage that's dark for almost 100 yards. I feel a little creepy going into situations like this, especially on a one way street.

In this case I don't see where you'd have much choice but to ride in the wacky bike lane, unless you stupidly decided to ride against one way car traffic. I wonder why they decided to paint it this way. It seems like there's enough pavement to stripe it in a more traditional bike lane fashion.

(edit) I suppose they probably did it this way because it's a one-way for cars and a two-way for bikes. But why didn't they just direct bikes to travel with the cars on a companion road that goes the other way? That would make it a one-way for cars and bikes.

As wide as the thing is, I'd have to agree. Concerning this monster, I wonder if the folks that ride in it treat it like a bike-only road and follow the rules of the road in doing so, ie. staying right, moving right if riding two-abreast and folks are approaching from the other direction, etc.

The reason I ask, we have a bike lane here that is maybe 1/3 as wide and runs on only one side of a two-way, 4 lane street. Some people (me included) opt for the road when riding in the opposite direction as the traffic lane, but many others stick to the bike lane and it's a free-for-all, no rules that I can see cept maybe the biggest, ugliest rider might get the right of way.

I'm not sure I wanted to make a post out of this one, because it is obvious when coming upon this facility that all an adaptive cyclist has to do is stay to the right and avoid the rest of the bikes. this is a cut of road that actually gets a bicyclist OFF a bike path (helemt head would be all for that) and places the rider more in a situation to ride a bike on the unacommodated streets around the university.It is either this road with bike lane, a path, or going a half mile, 8-10 blocks out of the way.

but how DOES an adaptive cyclist ride this? seems painfully obvious.

how would YOU ride this stretch of road, mr. head, if you were heading in the direction of the photo?

I think the main difference would be that we'd talk about things relevant to those that choose to ride 'in' that bike lane, rather than debating the merits of bike lanes or riding in bike lanes in general, which is done over and over again in other threads. Yeah. I don't know why people have a hard time distinguishing between riding bikes (safety) and talking about riding bikes (advocacy). In philosophy it's called Hume's Fork--thinking about how things really are--as opposed to thinking about how things should be.

this is a cut of road that actually gets a bicyclist OFF a bike path (helemt head would be all for that)
Huh? What makes you think that?


how would YOU ride this stretch of road, mr. head, if you were heading in the direction of the photo?
I am an adaptive cyclist (who isn't?) Bek, so I would ride in the space demarcated by the bike lane stripe, assuming there isn't a better alternative (where do motorcyclists go?).

Can you please provide the street names so we can find this on google?

but how DOES an adaptive cyclist ride this? seems painfully obvious.

how would YOU ride this stretch of road, [A&S contributor], if you were heading in the direction of the photo?

I, for one, would not be positioned where the rider is as shown in the photo if I knew this was a two way bike lane. I'd be further right, probably centerish to right tire track.

Can you please provide either a Google Maps link to the road or a road name and zip code so that we can see the "big picture?"

Quit copying me, HH!

I, for one, would not be positioned where the rider is as shown in the photo if I knew this was a two way bike lane. I'd be further right, probably centerish to right tire track.

Can you please provide either a Google Maps link to the road or a road name and zip code so that we can see the "big picture?" How's there going to be a tire track in a bike lane? :)

I wouldn't feel any pressure to ride right if there were clearly no other cyclists using the lane. If I wasn't alone there, I'd stay right in obedience to the vehicular conventions. besides, the cyclist in the picture probably just finished passing the photographer.

no. i had no intent for this to become a seperate thread so all the "I'm-so-vehicular" chestbeaters could dissect this stretch of road.

take it at face value and adapt.

no. i had no intent for this to become a seperate thread so all the "I'm-so-vehicular" chestbeaters could dissect this stretch of road.

take it at face value and adapt. So it was just one of your rhetorical tricks to hijack another thread? ;)

Did the moderator ask your permission before making this into a separate thread? Do you think she should have?

EDIT: I do see your point that this thread is veering into a discussion of "should this be a bike lane?" instead of "how would you ride this bike lane that already exists?"

Furthur edit: The chestbeater insult didn't help me to see your point. It put me off and threw me off.

no. i had no intent for this to become a seperate thread so all the "I'm-so-vehicular" chestbeaters could dissect this stretch of road.

take it at face value and adapt.

Adapt to what? A picture of a short stretch of roadway showing a two way bike symbol? Do you want this east coast boy to learn anything from your high-tech west coast bike lanes or not? If this is such a good idea, why not let us see the whole road so that the design can be copied in other areas?

*chest beat* me* proud *biker.* give it a rest, east coast riding neophyte. you might bruise your pecs.

joe, donna started this thread using one of my posts.

as an adaptive cyclist, if you were riding along the street, and sudennly came onto this, one way road, with a two way bike lane, and you had to go in the direction the photo is being taken, what would you do?

Did the moderator ask your permission before making this into a separate thread? Do you think she should have?

EDIT: I do see your point that this thread is veering into a discussion of "should this be a bike lane?" instead of "how would you ride this bike lane that already exists?"
Mod note: I didn't ask Bek's permission. The OP of the thread it came from wished for this.

I think this is a great first example for AC, and Bek, I'm glad you mentioned it. This is real life, just as Roody points out in his Hume's Fork post. This is how things are sometimes. So you've got a weird bike lane on a weird one-way stretch. How would I ride it? I guess it would depend on traffic conditions. Do cars respect it or drive in it sometimes, all the time, never? What's the bike traffic congestion like? Am I riding during rush hour or not? Where was I before I got on this street and where will I be leaving it? Really though, I suspect it would be just fine. Just ride on through. I'd be bearing right, just as though this were a street for bikes.

I kinda wish they could put in a bike lane like that on Highway 101 at the Gaviota Tunnel. Anything to avoid going into that Tunnel. Put the two-way bike lane on the other side of the freeway, on the side that doesn't go into the tunnel.

That's what I imagine is going on here sort of. For some reason the other half of this road is a death trap or something, so better off having all the bike on this half?

as an adaptive cyclist, if you were riding along the street, and sudennly came onto this, one way road, with a two way bike lane, and you had to go in the direction the photo is being taken, what would you do?
I guess that to me it's so obvious that you would ride on that bike lane and you probably wouldn't ever have a problem there because the sight lines are good, there are no intersections or even driveways to worry about, and traffic is probably never very heavy. Whether there was a bike lane or not, this would be easy riding.




That's what I imagine is going on here sort of. For some reason the other half of this road is a death trap or something, so better off having all the bike on this half?

Why they decided to put the bike stencil in is anybody's guess--maybe just velo-bragging rights or they may have had some federal alternative transit funds to spend. It's just a former two-way road that was changed into a one-way road, probably to facilitate the flow of motor traffic in the general area. Rather than go to the expense of restriping the road, they used the existing double yellow line and threw down a bike lane stencil. Then they threw down another stencil to make another arrow, and called it done. I don't see the big deal--just municipal corner-cutting that probably won't help or hurt cyclists one bit.

Roody, you don't live in the area so you're just making stuff up.

Seems to me you would need the double-yellow line so that drivers wouldn't try to ride on the left. The bike lane would indicate they should ride on the left, so the double-yellow line prohibits that.

There has to be something about the other side of the road that doesn't make it safe for cycling. Bek said something about a draw-bridge. I'm not sure what a draw-bridge is (unless you're talking about castles and moats), but it does sound like something that could have a surface or some other feature making it treacherous to ride a bicycle on.

Better to have some lane indicators than to let some happless bicyclist figure it out by chance, and fall into the moat in the attempt.

Yeah. I don't know why people have a hard time distinguishing between riding bikes (safety) and talking about riding bikes (advocacy). In philosophy it's called Hume's Fork--thinking about how things really are--as opposed to thinking about how things should be.

:beer:

I would probably ride in the center of that lane. There is no one around, but if I saw someone, then I'd head right (assuming this is using USA riding rules).

I like this concept, as having the whole lane for bicyclists makes a lot of difference. Chip is asking about a much narrower lane, and I feel that the narrower, the worse it would be. I like wide lanes. We have a bike path up over the Portland West Hills that meets Chip's criterion, and I'll try getting some photos this weekend. But it is much wider in most areas (exact measurements will come later). The path is a combination of paths beside Highway 26 and roadways. Here's a map that shows the path in purple:

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=90495

John

I'm more interested in what cyclists here would do if they are headed toward the camera on that road.

I would operate on the right hand side of the roadway, in the lane shared with cars, so that I would know what to expect when I reach an intersection.

I'm more interested in what cyclists here would do if they are headed toward the camera on that road.

I would operate on the right hand side of the roadway, in the lane shared with cars, so that I would know what to expect when I reach an intersection. Based on what you can see in the picture (low traffic, great sight lines) I would have no qualms about riding either direction. The question is, how does the lane begin and end? Bekologist has decided that we're not to know that--maybe because the information wouldn't support his ideological (non-adaptive) stand on bike lanes?

I had no intent of this becomming a thread for discussion it the first place.

Most riders have no problems using this lane. If I'm making a right at the end of this stretch, and I'm travelling opposite the camera, i'll use the bike lane until time comes I need to move right to make a right hand turn. Adaptive cycling.

I live in the area (Seattle's University District) and Roody is exactly right. Google: NE 40th St and University Bridge, Seattle, WA
The road was once two way, but SDOT apparently wanted to restrict traffic through the Dormitory complex to the east (the direction photographer is heading) and so cut off car traffic into and out of said complex. The westbound lane remains as part of an offramp from the University Bridge.

The West end of the bike lane ends with a barrier at a five-way stop, directing flow onto a bike trail, or into the car lane to enter the intersection. The East end becomes a divided two way street for bicycles and cars (no through car traffic though) and the end of a long 270 degree offramp.

Cars get confused when they come down the offramp (towards the Westbound land here) and see bikes approaching from the east that don't merge, but stay in what must appear to be an oncoming lane.

[Edit] I ride this one all the time, and going WB, (with car traffic) I start out in the BL and merge into the car lane at my leisure if I am going through the intersection. Going EB, from the intersection, I have to enter against (and to my right of) the car traffic on this road, past a "Do Not Enter... Except Bicycles" sign, and then I keep right, or in the middle of the BL.

Thank you for finally posting some worthwhile information about this street, Josef. Bekologist has often posted this bike lane but has never once described it at all, let alone in the detail you have provided. As suspected, the end result of allowing two way traffic in a lane that otherwise appears to be a single direction lane is confusing, and thus potentially dangerous, to any motorist or cyclist using that section of roadway. Nothing like using cyclists as pawns to restrict motorized traffic.

^^^^
University bridge and NE 40th. I used to live near there, at 7th and 45th (which is a story unto itself in terms of intersection arrangements).

That place is a bit f'ed up with the weird intersection if going north towards 40th. The whole south end of the U district is one big kluge job because the grid is originally a N-S-E-W arrangement, and has to switch to a parallel-perpendicular arrangement near the waterfront where the grid contacts the frontage road. Then there is the University bridge which comes in at a weird angle and intersects the grid, not at the frontage road like any normal bridge, but at 40th, after sprouting off exit ramps to every other street it crosses over.

If you want an example of AC technique combining sidewalk riding with street riding, one can look at my bike route (and walking route if I had time), from my apartment at 45th and 7th. 45th street is a pretty busy, 4 lane arterial which, while rideable, is not terribly pleasant or even efficient (the cars get backed up and there is nowhere but the sidewalk for a cyclist to cut through the mess). So, I start out by going down 7th ave, against the traffic, on the east side sidewalk. I get to 43rd ave, get back into the street. Take 43rd until it terminates at Roosevelt, which is a 3 lane, one way arterial. I ride Roosevelt down until I hit 42nd street (which involves changing three lanes to get from the right side of the road to the left to prepare to get off on 42nd street. Then I take 42nd street to campus, where I cross 15th and hop up onto the sidewalk and integrate into the network of paths through campus.

I did this most every day for a year, but ended up getting hit once, on Roosevelt when I was making the requisit two lane changes on the short block and ended up in an apparent "gap" in the left lane which a parallel parked car chose to enter at that exact moment, despite my presence. I ended up uninjured, but totaled the frame of my bike and at least put some dents into the car's fender area.

(Yes, I was vehicular, yes, I should have had my head up, yes, I was wearing a helmet at the time, no, I did not hit my head, no, there was no bike lane. I had just changed lanes, which involved looking back for a gap in traffic in the left lane, and looked back forward to find a car pulled out into my path. I made an error, but the car was at fault though I was stupid and only got a name and phone number, which is not enough to do anything.)

^^^^
How new is the pictured path? I was living in the area not 3 years ago and I don't remember anything like that.

Thank you for finally posting some worthwhile information about this street, Josef. Bekologist has often posted this bike lane but has never once described it at all, let alone in the detail you have provided. As suspected, the end result of allowing two way traffic in a lane that otherwise appears to be a single direction lane is confusing, and thus potentially dangerous, to any motorist or cyclist using that section of roadway. Nothing like using cyclists as pawns to restrict motorized traffic.

Thanks JJ, but that isn't the point. This thing DOES exist, people use it and it isn't going to go away just because we wish it so. So the point of this thread would be to discuss how to use it, if you gotta use it. You say it's potentially dangerous, fine, point out the potential dangers and ways to mitigate them for those who either choose to, or a forced to, use the thing. Let's talk solutions to real problems faced by real people, not politics and shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Thanks JJ, but that isn't the point. This thing DOES exist, people use it and it isn't going to go away just because we wish it so. So the point of this thread would be to discuss how to use it, if you gotta use it. You say it's potentially dangerous, fine, point out the potential dangers and ways to mitigate them for those who either choose to, or a forced to, use the thing.

That's what I was attempting to do all along but Bek flat out refused to post a link showing the roadway. Josef did a fine job describing the situation and the potential areas for conflict. I should have ended my post after my first sentence.

That's what I was attempting to do all along but Bek flat out refused to post a link showing the roadway. Josef did a fine job describing the situation and the potential areas for conflict. I should have ended my post after my first sentence.

It's cool...this takes some getting used to, especially with all of our history and especially when baited. ;)

We have a similiar facility in downtown.
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/minneapolis/images/DSCF01492waylanesm.jpg
It's a two way bike lane in the middle of the road. Similiar to the one in your photo, but this one has strip down the middle to guide the bike traffic. This is one of our worst pieces of bike infastructure in town. There's 3 northbound vehicle lanes, then a northbound bike lane, then a southbound bike lane, then a south bound bus only lane. The cyclist's travel between the northbound cars and the southbound buses. both of them making left turns across the bike lanes at the intersections.

Where did this one come from? It's a poor concession to the elimination of a another bike right of way. A few years back one block East was (is) the Nicolet Mall. Only city buses and bikes (no cars, no trucks) were allowed on Nic. Mall. Well......the buses rolled over a couple of cyclist one summer so they banned bikes on the Nicolet Mall between 6:00am and 6:00pm M-F. The above facility was meant to replace the lost right of way. Not great. There's plans to extend the Cedar Lake in the next couple of years, it will paralel this section one block West.

For the northbound bike lane, it abruptly stops forcing riders to cross 3 lanes of traffic to get back right.

This is downtown, so there's a little bit of "anything goes" driving and riding and the speeds are not too high.

Scot

Does Adaptive Cycling allow for the use of the normal travel lane when traveling in the same direction as the motor traffic?

Here is an interesting article on engineering for two-way bicycle travel on roads that are one-way for cars:
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/lanes/contraflow.htm

We have a similiar facility in downtown.
It's a two way bike lane in the middle of the road. Similiar to the one in your photo, but this one has strip down the middle to guide the bike traffic. This is one of our worst pieces of bike infastructure in town.

For those interested, here's the rest of John Allen's article, "Bike lanes in the middle of the street"
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/lanes/midstreet.htm

Does Adaptive Cycling allow for the use of the normal travel lane when traveling in the same direction as the motor traffic?

Of course. Remember Steve, the premise is that we provide solutions that fit the needs of the cyclist in the environment they choose or are forced to ride in. The road can be one of those choices, or in my case where there are few facilities, the only choice. ;) We try to deal with solutions that are applicable to operating within the chosen evironment, whether that be a road or facility, not debate the merits of road vs facility.