Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Design a Bike Lane VC study.

Ok, well here it is, a recent comment from Brian on the thread which shall remain nameless has got me thinking. Assuming we had money to run such a study, what would we do to make an objective study of Bike Lanes Vs. Wide Outside Lanes vs. Narrow shoulder lanes Vs. Share the road sections.

I'll start.

We would need to conduct the study in such a way as the participants would not realize to what end the data was being gathered so as not to skew their input.
A large group of beginning cyclists would need to be used to determine what help facilities actually gave them if any.
The study would have to include many different cities but categorize the bike lanes in their degree of VC friendlieness (ending before an intersection, crossing over a right turn lane, staying to the right of the right turn lane).
The study would need to be able to ascertain the cyclists knowledge and comfort with cycling in traffic.
The average daily vehicle number would need to be taken into account to compare roads and cities as well as speed limits.

Ok, that is my start on it. I have to go but please submit your input. Not that it will go anywhere but wouldn't it be fun to send to League of American Bicyclists or find a safety organization that might show some interest in it? Or at least get us all thinking together for a few minutes about what we really should expect from a bonafide study on bicyle facilities and methods in the current day and system.

I hadn't seen this thread, I just proposed something similar on the JF thread! It could be done on a volunteer basis with a spreadsheet and volunteer reporting from members collecting data in their municipalities. I'll be glad to to the computer work and perhaps we can arrive at some current data.:D

Ok, well here it is, a recent comment from Brian on the thread which shall remain nameless has got me thinking. Assuming we had money to run such a study, what would we do to make an objective study of Bike Lanes Vs. Wide Outside Lanes vs. Narrow shoulder lanes Vs. Share the road sections.

I'll start.

We would need to conduct the study in such a way as the participants would not realize to what end the data was being gathered so as not to skew their input.
A large group of beginning cyclists would need to be used to determine what help facilities actually gave them if any.
The study would have to include many different cities but categorize the bike lanes in their degree of VC friendlieness (ending before an intersection, crossing over a right turn lane, staying to the right of the right turn lane).
The study would need to be able to ascertain the cyclists knowledge and comfort with cycling in traffic.
The average daily vehicle number would need to be taken into account to compare roads and cities as well as speed limits.

Ok, that is my start on it. I have to go but please submit your input. Not that it will go anywhere but wouldn't it be fun to send to League of American Bicyclists or find a safety organization that might show some interest in it? Or at least get us all thinking together for a few minutes about what we really should expect from a bonafide study on bicyle facilities and methods in the current day and system.

I hadn't seen this thread, I just proposed something similar on the JF thread! It could be done on a volunteer basis with a spreadsheet and volunteer reporting from members collecting data in their municipalities. I'll be glad to to the computer work and perhaps we can arrive at some current data.:D


We might be able to attack this two ways. My first proposition was kind of a "Fantasy Football" type idea that we could design a study that would prove this once and for all assuming money and time.

Your idea is good too. I am going to email some of the local city traffic engineers and see if they have any data on this.

We might be able to attack this two ways. My first proposition was kind of a "Fantasy Football" type idea that we could design a study that would prove this once and for all assuming money and time.

Your idea is good too. I am going to email some of the local city traffic engineers and see if they have any data on this.
I made the offer on the other thread and everybody seems more interested in fighting!:rolleyes:

Let me know what you get and if nothing else, we can start up the DB! Let's see what we find out.:D

You could set up video cameras at various locations where each type of facility exists and analyze the motorist-bicyclist interactions at each location. This is how San Francisco and Portland 'tested' Sharrows.

You could set up video cameras at various locations where each type of facility exists and analyze the motorist-bicyclist interactions at each location. This is how San Francisco and Portland 'tested' Sharrows.
Good idea, but my concept is a $0.00 budget effort from Law enforcement stats and volunteer collection. I'm willing to donate the time to crunch the data.:D

I made the offer on the other thread and everybody seems more interested in fighting!:rolleyes:

Let me know what you get and if nothing else, we can start up the DB! Let's see what we find out.:D
I'm confused. What metrics are you measuring? Database of what kind of data? Number of cyclists/motorists, age, traffic density, accident counts, near misses, distance from passing cars, etc? Presumably you need to figure out what it is you want to know before going out to measure/record data.

I'm confused. What metrics are you measuring? Database of what kind of data? Number of cyclists/motorists, age, traffic density, accident counts, near misses, distance from passing cars, etc? Presumably you need to figure out what it is you want to know before going out to measure/record data.
Yes, that's why I stated that we would need to set the parameters of the database. It's just an idea at this stage.

Good idea, but my concept is a $0.00 budget effort from Law enforcement stats and volunteer collection. I'm willing to donate the time to crunch the data.:D
Suggestion: if the law enforcement stats and volunteer collection does not include some sort of measure of the severity of the accidents, save your time and don't bother. Because such raw "crash data" cannot be accurately crunched.

Suggestion: if the law enforcement stats and volunteer collection does not include some sort of measure of the severity of the accidents, save your time and don't bother. Because such raw "crash data" cannot be accurately crunched.
Parameters I was thinking of:


Frequency (Total number of incidents in annual period to be determined)
Weather
Severity
Personal injury Y/N
Population of the area
AVG traffic count at the incident site
Bike facility available Y/N
Facility used Y/N

Data source citing as well (ie: Police Statistics, city, etc to be cited in a sources page. The study will have to be peer able to stand peer revue).

Good idea, but my concept is a $0.00 budget effort from Law enforcement stats and volunteer collection. I'm willing to donate the time to crunch the data.:D
I think I've got about four years of the City of Portland's crash data for 'pedal cycles'; trouble is I'm pretty sure the raw data I've got is all in hard copy. I previously performed my own evaluation which I placed in a couple of excel spreadsheets. If you want my analysis in excel PM me with an email address and I'll send it to you. But I'm not sure the data or the evaluation says much about the safety of facilities vs. VC/no facilities, it is mostly just an analysis of the causes of the most common types of crashes (e.g. overtaking, failure to yield when turning, wrong way riding, failure to obey traffic control device, etc.) and assignment of responsibility to either the motorist or the cyclist.

Parameters I was thinking of:


Frequency (Total number of incidents in annual period to be determined)
Weather
Severity
Personal injury Y/N
Population of the area
AVG traffic count at the incident site
Bike facility available Y/N
Facility used Y/N

Now your talkin'! Especially with severity and traffic count at the incident site. Don't forget time of day or at least light vs. darkness.

In the context of the facilities debate, a key piece of data would be simply car-bike collisions by:

1. occuring on the roadway, outside of any bikeway
2. occuring on bikeways by type - bike lanes, bike paths, sharrows, sidepaths, MUPs (we'd have to flesh this out)
3. total

I think by limiting the scope to car-bike collisions, rather than accidents, we can get more meaningful data in regards to the debate and avoid the problems ILTB mentioned when it comes to identifying severity of injuries. Of course determining if a car-bike collision occured in or out of a bikeway might require more effort, based on how a locality reports it's data.

I think the KISS principle applies - and this data is the simplest we can gather to provide some meat to the facilities debate one way or the other.

Of course this is just my suggestion, I'll do what I can to assist using whatever everyone agrees is the proper format.

Weather, severity and personal injury are standard on most accident reports. Here in MI all law enforcement Officers use the same report which captures that data. Most of the rest could be found from traffic studies and census data except for bike facility and if the facility was used. I am not sure how you would capture that. Maybe in an area where bicycling is more common (like Portland) they capture this data?

In the context of the facilities debate, a key piece of data would be simply car-bike collisions by:

1. occuring on the roadway, outside of any bikeway
2. occuring on bikeways by type - bike lanes, bike paths, sharrows, sidepaths, MUPs (we'd have to flesh this out)
3. total

I think by limiting the scope to car-bike collisions, rather than accidents, we can get more meaningful data in regards to the debate and avoid the problems ILTB mentioned when it comes to identifying severity of injuries. Of course determining if a car-bike collision occured in or out of a bikeway might require more effort, based on how a locality reports it's data.

I think the KISS principle applies - and this data is the simplest we can gather to provide some meat to the facilities debate one way or the other.

Of course this is just my suggestion, I'll do what I can to assist using whatever everyone agrees is the proper format.
Yeppers, I agree, for the purpose of the study, a car/bike collision is all the study will cover parameter wise. I've started setting up the DB now and will be fine tuning it over the next few days. Right now I need to set up the macros, etc. I should be able to start accepting preliminary data by the weekend to start testing the macros and chart.

Ok, well here it is, a recent comment from Brian on the thread which shall remain nameless has got me thinking. Assuming we had money to run such a study, what would we do to make an objective study of Bike Lanes Vs. Wide Outside Lanes vs. Narrow shoulder lanes Vs. Share the road sections.

I'll start.

We would need to conduct the study in such a way as the participants would not realize to what end the data was being gathered so as not to skew their input.
A large group of beginning cyclists would need to be used to determine what help facilities actually gave them if any.
The study would have to include many different cities but categorize the bike lanes in their degree of VC friendlieness (ending before an intersection, crossing over a right turn lane, staying to the right of the right turn lane).
The study would need to be able to ascertain the cyclists knowledge and comfort with cycling in traffic.
The average daily vehicle number would need to be taken into account to compare roads and cities as well as speed limits.

Ok, that is my start on it. I have to go but please submit your input. Not that it will go anywhere but wouldn't it be fun to send to League of American Bicyclists or find a safety organization that might show some interest in it? Or at least get us all thinking together for a few minutes about what we really should expect from a bonafide study on bicyle facilities and methods in the current day and system.

Vehicular Cycling = Same Roads Same Rights Same Rules
Bike Lanes = Same Roads Different Rights Different Rules

No way to design around that. It's fundamental to the essence of a bike lane.

I am not sure how you would capture that. Maybe in an area where bicycling is more common (like Portland) they capture this data?

That's my concern...one might have to actually read each report and/or research the location of the accident.

That's my concern...one might have to actually read each report and/or research the location of the accident.
They should have an annual summary locally, if we are lucky!

Select cities by State? Limit the study to 50 cities, perhaps? Like I said, it's a Q&D survey study and that would fulfill a regional study category.

In the context of the facilities debate, a key piece of data would be simply car-bike collisions by:

1. occuring on the roadway, outside of any bikeway
2. occuring on bikeways by type - bike lanes, bike paths, sharrows, sidepaths, MUPs (we'd have to flesh this out)
3. total
[...]

Chipcom Man, even gathering info as simple as that from currently available sources would be extremely difficult. Any BL-related data that does happen to present itself (from currently available sources) should be viewed as highly suspect. Just a for-instance, I was involved in a car-bike collision on a street with a bike lane, and the bike lane wasn't mentioned in the police report, nor was my lateral position mentioned, nor my speed, etc. because none of those factors was deemed relevant to determine liability. We wouldn't be able to get good 'data' on collisions occurring on bike-laned streets vs. non bike-laned streets from police reports, and we sure couldn't get good info on whether or not someone was inside or outside the BL if there was one present.

No good BL-related data available, that means someone will have to go out and get good data -- somehow. Good luck. A lot more work than looking at some pdf's and plugging numbers into a spreadsheet. And even if someone here had tremendous data-gathering energy I very much doubt such a fresh study could provide much compelling evidence one way or the other, let alone put the issue to rest. Too many variables. A nice survey might work, you say. Note that William Moritz addressed the safety of different types of facilities in his survey of LAB members, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States"; he found bike-laned streets to have a much lower 'Relative Danger Index' than non-bike-lane streets. While an interesting result from a relatively robust survey, it is vulnerable to all sorts of valid, crushing criticism, at its very core, and we shouldn't get overly excited about it. People would almost certainly end up saying the same nasty things about any frankenstudy we could cook up here. And his survey cost (iirc) $6500.

Robert, wet blanket

Chipcom Man, even gathering info as simple as that from currently available sources would be extremely difficult. Any BL-related data that does happen to present itself (from currently available sources) should be viewed as highly suspect. Just a for-instance, I was involved in a car-bike collision on a street with a bike lane, and the bike lane wasn't mentioned in the police report, nor was my lateral position mentioned, nor my speed, etc. because none of those factors was deemed relevant to determine liability. We wouldn't be able to get good 'data' on collisions occurring on bike-laned streets vs. non bike-laned streets from police reports, and we sure couldn't get good info on whether or not someone was inside or outside the BL if there was one present.

No good BL-related data available, that means someone will have to go out and get good data -- somehow. Good luck. A lot more work than looking at some pdf's and plugging numbers into a spreadsheet. And even if someone here had tremendous data-gathering energy I very much doubt such a fresh study could provide much compelling evidence one way or the other, let alone put the issue to rest. Too many variables. A nice survey might work, you say. Note that William Moritz addressed the safety of different types of facilities in his survey of LAB members, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States"; he found bike-laned streets to have a much lower 'Relative Danger Index' than non-bike-lane streets. While an interesting result from a relatively robust survey, it is vulnerable to all sorts of valid, crushing criticism, at its very core, and we shouldn't get overly excited about it. People would almost certainly end up saying the same nasty things about any frankenstudy we could cook up here. And his survey cost (iirc) $6500.

Robert, wet blanket
From my viewpoint, Robert, it gives me, if nothing else, real world experience "crunching numbers". My current career path is Psychology and there is a tremendous amount of statistical work involved in the field, so it will help me out if nothing else!:p It may have some impact in other ways as well with quantifying data on a regional basis and serve as a springboard for other studies. Isn't that part of advocacy?

From my viewpoint, Robert, it gives me, if nothing else, real world experience "crunching numbers". My current career path is Psychology and there is a tremendous amount of statistical work involved in the field, so it will help me out if nothing else!:p It may have some impact in other ways as well with quantifying data on a regional basis and serve as a springboard for other studies. Isn't that part of advocacy?

All I'm saying is that there are no BL-related numbers to crunch. Any numbers that appear to be crunchable are probably bogus. I wish it weren't true. If we had some numbers you would be the guy to crunch the hell out of those suckers.

Robert

Roberts got a wet, blankety point about gathering the data. In the past I've been in hospitals with recently injured cyclists & observed doctors/nurse practitioners asking some relevant questions (were you wearing a helmet? were you working at the time of your accident?) that they are supposed to ask with each accident they treat. Other times...not so much & I end up reminding the patient if it's a work injury to inform the doctor or the nurse with the paperwork the doc will sign so that the powers that be will get their info. That program, at least as far as work injuries go, works relatively well for such a large undertaking, and yet I've seen it flop firsthand.
Not that I'd bother an ER doc about that, even though it's important for the patients I'm there to see it can be rectified, and IMO ER docs have enough on the plate without someone busting their chops over a forgotten procedural query.

All I'm saying is that there are no BL-related numbers to crunch. Any numbers that appear to be crunchable are probably bogus. I wish it weren't true. If we had some numbers you would be the guy to crunch the hell out of those suckers.

Robert
I definitely understand your point and intend to apply a type II statistical error possibility on the facilities available numbers that I am able to gather. That allows for inaccuracy of up to 50% for error to allow for suspect data If even available). Other data will be type I of +/- 6%.

States I need data for:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Marianas Islands
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Here's a preliminary sheet in PDF

EDIT:It will be expanded as I enter the data I have for Portland and when I recieve the data promised for San Fran and get other cities as well. Graphs are national average samples and will be complete when I get all data in of course. Yes/no data is simple binary format as either a total entered or not in each city.

I find it interesting that there ARE loose conclusions from the William Moritz study Robert cited, polling League of American Bicyclists members- aren't they supposedly the group of 'serious' and 'trained' cyclists out there on the roads?

perhaps anecdotal, subjective, and polling too limited of a group of cyclists, but VERY INTERESTING the LAB members cited bike laned roads having a low 'relative danger index' versus non-accomdated roads.

Are you looking for something like the University of Texas study on the effect of bike lane stripes? I don't think they tabulated accident statistics. If I remeber correctly they monitored passing distances and ended up recommending bike lanes with stripes as a way of reduceing passing dearances and keeping cars from moving over to avoid the bicycles.

All I'm saying is that there are no BL-related numbers to crunch. Any numbers that appear to be crunchable are probably bogus. I wish it weren't true. If we had some numbers you would be the guy to crunch the hell out of those suckers.

Robert

Robert has a point...I was visiting with the police chief of the little town I work in this morning. You'd think it would be fairly easy here...we have a MUP (the O&E towpath) and the roads - nothing else. Yet in many cases one cannot determine from the accident reports if the rider was riding the MUP or the road. I can ASSUME that most of these riders were on the MUP crossing an intersection of the road, but that is not clear in way too many cases and any assumptions I make destroys the validity of the data.

Trouble is, without numbers to compare car-bike collision rates in different environments, this debate will never end, since the basis of the debate surrounds which is 'safer' from that standpoint.

Trouble is, without numbers to compare car-bike collision rates in different environments, this debate will never end, since the basis of the debate surrounds which is 'safer' from that standpoint.


1. Don't forget, comparable numbers. No more considering an accident resulting in a tacoed rim or skinned knee the same "number" as an accident that results in a broken cyclist's neck or some other catastrophic injury.

2. To rephrase, the debate, or to use Forester's favorite term "bike lane controversy" stems from some people making various unsupported claims of comparative safety for cycling on one type of road/facility in comparison to another, and others not buying into these unsupported claims. Very much related to other unsupported claims that various cycling techniques and programs make cycling safer by reducing risk. Without credible measured data and careful analysis, only opinions about bike lane/cyclist safety are being tendered, and the "debate" is just one opinion vs another.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but not entitled to have that opinion held sacrosanct by others.

Chip, that's one of the reasons I'll be applying a type II error to any data I collect for facilities or not.

As to a position re: facilities, the DB will be positionally neutral and the best I can hope for for that particular application (facility effect on safety) is to indicate a need for a study specifically targeting that aspect and hopefully, this will allow some data to present for grant funding toward that goal.

ILTB, re: point 1, that's the reason I applied the 1-5 severity scale (I'll have the master data as well as the local data to refer to and add any necessary data points as I find the need). I'll be parsing that from the numbers collected and developing a statistical average of severity by zone. That should be able to address that issue, with the DB reflecting severity and rate as reflected in a ratio of rate/population/traffic count at site.

Robert has a point...I was visiting with the police chief of the little town I work in this morning. You'd think it would be fairly easy here...we have a MUP (the O&E towpath) and the roads - nothing else. Yet in many cases one cannot determine from the accident reports if the rider was riding the MUP or the road. I can ASSUME that most of these riders were on the MUP crossing an intersection of the road, but that is not clear in way too many cases and any assumptions I make destroys the validity of the data.

Trouble is, without numbers to compare car-bike collision rates in different environments, this debate will never end, since the basis of the debate surrounds which is 'safer' from that standpoint.

Yeah. Even if we could count all the accidents occurring in bike lanes vs. those not in bike lanes, vs. MUPs, etc., we still wouldn't be able to figure out collision rates for those environments. For that we would also have to determine how much total cycling had occurred on each type of facility for any given time period.


Robert

Yeah. Even if we could count all the accidents occurring in bike lanes vs. those not in bike lanes, vs. MUPs, etc., we still wouldn't be able to figure out collision rates for those environments. For that we would also have to determine how much total cycling had occurred on each type of facility for any given time period.


Robert
Robert, remember, this is going to be a work in process for a while as we assess what data is significant and what isn't.

It's always easier to decide beforehand that something is impossible to quantify.....but doesn't that suck all the fun out of it? I'd rather try and fail gloriously than fail through inaction;)

Another though just occurred to me......

A baseline reflecting a correlation as to whether the gross collision rate is greater or not based on whether a municipality even has bike facilities can be established.

eg: If you have a strong correlation between a municipality has facilities and a lower rate of collision, then that is a positive correlation in that dataset, or vice versa.

Vehicular Cycling = Same Roads Same Rights Same Rules
Bike Lanes = Same Roads Different Rights Different Rules

No way to design around that. It's fundamental to the essence of a bike lane.


High Occupancy vehicles, motorcycles, and slow moving vehicles, have special lanes as do bikes. Same roads same rules Helmet Head. Bicycles aren't the only vehicle with special lanes. It is not as simple as you say. Besides, your post had absolutely nothing to add to the thread. If you are not interested in contributing to our study, please stay out of the thread. Now if you intended to say that a road classified as VC friendly should have absolutely no bike facilities on it (including wide outside lane), then please say so directly as a suggestion for the study and not as a correction to a percieved shortcoming on my part. My intention behind this thread was for us ALL to come up with a quantitative study that measures danger from the "Pure VC" side of the spectrum all the way down to a "Segregated from traffic" point of view devoid of political agendas and objective. Can we all be objective on this? If a person cannot be objective about this and drop personal prejudices to one side or another perhaps that person will skew the study.

A true seeker of truth is ready for whatever they might discover, even if it opposes what they currently believe.

Yeah. Even if we could count all the accidents occurring in bike lanes vs. those not in bike lanes, vs. MUPs, etc., we still wouldn't be able to figure out collision rates for those environments. For that we would also have to determine how much total cycling had occurred on each type of facility for any given time period.

The omission of cyclist exposure rate to the various environments is one of the fatal flaws of the data in the Cross Report that Forester is so fond of jiggering and reinterpreting to make assignments of high/low risk to cycling environments that will fit his agenda.

Vehicular Cycling = Same Roads Same Rights Same Rules
Bike Lanes = Same Roads Different Rights Different Rules

No way to design around that. It's fundamental to the essence of a bike lane.
High Occupancy vehicles, motorcycles, and slow moving vehicles, have special lanes as do bikes.

Same roads same rules Helmet Head. Bicycles aren't the only vehicle with special lanes. It is not as simple as you say.
The issue isn't whether the lane on the road is "special", but whether the rights/rules that apply to that lane are significantly different from the rights/rules that apply to other lanes.

HOV lanes, motorcycle lanes, and truck lanes do not require different rules/rights. HOV lanes are just a fast lane where only HOVs are allowed. No one is affected in any other way. I've never seen truck lanes anywhere except on long intersectionless stretches of uphill roadway. If bike lanes were restricted similarly, you would have no objections from me. Motorcycle lanes are so rare I don't recall ever seeing one, but I suspect they are placed only in areas where they don't cause conflict in crossing movements and the rules and rights that normally govern such movements.

Bike lanes in any typical urban area inherently require Different Rights and Different Rules with respect the the rights and rules that govern crossing movements at intersections, including all minor intersections (driveways, alleys, etc.). There is no way to get around this problem. It is inherent.


Besides, your post had absolutely nothing to add to the thread. If you are not interested in contributing to our study, please stay out of the thread. Now if you intended to say that a road classified as VC friendly should have absolutely no bike facilities on it (including wide outside lane), then please say so directly as a suggestion for the study and not as a correction to a percieved shortcoming on my part. My intention behind this thread was for us ALL to come up with a quantitative study that measures danger from the "Pure VC" side of the spectrum all the way down to a "Segregated from traffic" point of view devoid of political agendas and objective. Can we all be objective on this? If a person cannot be objective about this and drop personal prejudices to one side or another perhaps that person will skew the study. There is nothing prejudical about the objective observation that the very concept of a "special lane" to the right of other lanes on any stretch of road where turning on and off that road is allowed for everyone requires applying different rules with respect to crossing movements than apply elsewhere. Note that this is a general objective observation and is not specific to bike lanes. It also happens to be the reason they don't place "special lanes" in such areas (with the possible exception of bus lanes in certain limited applications). The only reason they make an exception for bikes is because they don't expect same rules/rights behavior from bicyclists as they do for drivers of other "special" vehicles.


A true seeker of truth is ready for whatever they might discover, even if it opposes what they currently believe. :beer:

I am quite open for whatever I might discover, even if it opposes what I currently believe. In fact, it is that attitude that allowed me to appreciate and adopt vehicular cycling, and recognize the inherent problems with bike lanes, in the first place (prior to that what I believed was that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars as much as possible, and that bike lanes were a good way to help us do that).

Now, if you want to challenge the notion that bike lanes requiring different rules/rights with respect to crossing movements is a reason to not have bike lanes, fine. But to deny that bike lanes require different rules/right (in a much more significant way than other "special" lanes do) is, well, NOT a good example of being a "true seeker of truth".

HH, this thread is to discuss the setup of a database, would you like to contribute data to the project? There are other threads discussing the merits of both sides of the arguments. What we're doing is position neutral here until the data is in and interpreted.;) Cool? Let me know if you would like to contribute to this thread with hard data rather than debate positions, either pro or con.

The issue isn't whether the lane on the road is "special", but whether the rights/rules that apply to that lane are significantly different from the rights/rules that apply to other lanes.

HOV lanes, motorcycle lanes, and truck lanes do not require different rules/rights. HOV lanes are just a fast lane where only HOVs are allowed. No one is affected in any other way. I've never seen truck lanes anywhere except on long intersectionless stretches of uphill roadway. If bike lanes were restricted similarly, you would have no objections from me. Motorcycle lanes are so rare I don't recall ever seeing one, but I suspect they are placed only in areas where they don't cause conflict in crossing movements and the rules and rights that normally govern such movements.

Bike lanes in any typical urban area inherently require Different Rights and Different Rules with respect the the rights and rules that govern crossing movements at intersections, including all minor intersections (driveways, alleys, etc.). There is no way to get around this problem. It is inherent.

There is nothing prejudical about the objective observation that the very concept of a "special lane" to the right of other lanes on any stretch of road where turning on and off that road is allowed for everyone requires applying different rules with respect to crossing movements than apply elsewhere. Note that this is a general objective observation and is not specific to bike lanes. It also happens to be the reason they don't place "special lanes" in such areas (with the possible exception of bus lanes in certain limited applications). The only reason they make an exception for bikes is because they don't expect same rules/rights behavior from bicyclists as they do for drivers of other "special" vehicles.

:beer:

I am quite open for whatever I might discover, even if it opposes what I currently believe. In fact, it is that attitude that allowed me to appreciate and adopt vehicular cycling, and recognize the inherent problems with bike lanes, in the first place (prior to that what I believed was that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars as much as possible, and that bike lanes were a good way to help us do that).

Now, if you want to challenge the notion that bike lanes requiring different rules/rights with respect to crossing movements is a reason to not have bike lanes, fine. But to deny that bike lanes require different rules/right (in a much more significant way than other "special" lanes do) is, well, NOT a good example of being a "true seeker of truth".

take North Carolina off the data request list. I have 2004 data from the state. Their last data collection period was published then.

Now, if you want to challenge the notion that bike lanes requiring different rules/rights with respect to crossing movements is a reason to not have bike lanes, fine. But to deny that bike lanes require different rules/right (in a much more significant way than other "special" lanes do) is, well, NOT a good example of being a "true seeker of truth".

I disagree but this is not the thread to discuss this. I thought I mentioned that in my last reply but you must have missed that part.