Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Are WOLs VC in Arizona?

15', if translated into traffic lane + bike lane, will result in a 3' bike lane. Not adequate. A 5-6' bike lane is a way of getting 17-18' of pavement without the risk of cars doubling up in the lane. 16' gives you a 4' bike lane, which I consider too narrow as well. In a 4' bike lane, I ride directly on the stripe.

New WOLs in AZ are designed with a 16' outside lane. I find that plenty of space. It does feel like more than if a stripe was added giving 12'/4'.

New BL in AZ tend to be 4' also, which I agree is too narrow.

Al

...

Roads carry a variety of vehicle types: slow wide vehicles, fast narrow vehicles, slow narrow vehicles, and fast wide vehicles. Bicyclists often desire to pass other bicyclists without changing lanes, and moped and motorcycle operators often wish to pass bicyclists without changing lanes. Similarly, automobile drivers often wish to pass bicyclists and moped users without changing lanes. Wide outside lanes allow all of these situations with a very simple rule of vehicular travel: if there is sufficient room to overtake on the left of slower through-traffic at the speeds involved, that's fine; if there isn't room, move into the next lane/half of the road when safe or wait until there is room.
(emphasis mine)

Except that the simple rule you describe is not the rule in a WOL (at least, not in states with mandatory lane-sharing laws for bicyclists). The rule in many states is, "If you are a bicyclist in a WOL, get out of the way so that motorists don't have to slow down."

WOLs are for motorist convenience, not bicyclist safety.

In a paper he presented to the "Preserving the American Dream Conference, 2005," John Forester stongly criticizes on-road bike facilities favored by many bicyclists, then describes on-road facilities that have his official approval:

Generally, this means adequate width in the outside through lane for motorists to overtake cyclists without delay... - John Forester
Continuing:

An outside through lane that is sufficiently wide for motorists to overtake cyclists both provides the efficiency and convenience desired by both parties without also introducing the legal and psychological problems inherent in the stripe. Such are called wide outside lanes.
- John Forester
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/place_of_bicycle_transportation.htm

Interestingly, Mr. Forester fails to mention mandatory lane-sharing laws that require a bicyclist in a WOL to move out of the way. Mr. Forester seems concerned with the legal problems of facilities he opposes but not the legal problem of his pet facilities type, WOLs.



By comparison, striped bike lanes that separate traffic by vehicle type create more confusion about how to handle slow wide vehicles and destination positioning at intersections, resulting in more conflicts with the basic vehicular rules.A bike lane may create some minor confusion about wide slow vehicles in some cases.

However, WOLs have more conflicts with vehicular rules on a laned roadway, not fewer (that's been the argument presented in this thread: lane-sharing on a laned roadway is not vehicular; the implied intent of a laned roadway is to define areas of the roadway to be occupied by one vehicle at a time).

As far as destination positioning at intersections goes, WOLs have the same problems that a well-designed bike lane would have. The path of a bicyclist going straight and a motorist turning right have to cross either way (keep-right laws prohibiting bicyclists from taking the lane may apply to either a WOL or a BL, depending on state law).


The other extreme, having all lanes equally narrow, requires motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists. Bicyclists say this makes them uncomfortable and motorists say this is inconvenient. So, the wide outside lane is the simple, easy solution.To which bicyclists do you refer? Do these bicyclists prefer to be buzzed? Clipped by a side-view mirror?

Some motorists being uncomfortable I can believe (some motorists couldn't look in their mirror, signal and change lanes if their life depended on it). So, once again, WOLs cater to to motorist convenience and comfort, not cyclist safety.

sggoodri (post #87 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=279396&page=4#87)):
So, given that there are at least 10x more road miles in NC with wide outside lanes than there are striped bike lanes, do you propose prohibiting motorists from passing cyclists in wide outside lanes?

No. You're jumping to conculsions. I was simply pointing to another example of a law that prohibits lane-sharing. There are many such laws that apply to laned roadways, despite claims otherwise. I say again: lane sharing on a laned roadway is not vehicular. The way bicyclists are treated in a laned roadway is the exception.

sggoodri (post #87 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=279396&page=4#87)):
If not, then what rules should apply to passing in the same lane?

For one thing, bicyclists should not be required to share a lane (as they are in many states).

Do you favor mandatory lane-sharing laws?

If so, please explain why.


Should slower cyclists stay right, and not move left without looking and yielding, and overtaking motorists move to the left, and pass only with adequate distance to be safe? In other words, normal vehicular rules for shared unmarked pavement?

I don't have any particular problem with applying normal vehicular rules for shared unmarked pavement to marked pavement where sharing is not normal. The problems I have with WOLs are 1. mandatory lane-sharing laws, 2. the claim that WOLs don't create conflicts with vehicular rules - they most certainly do and 3. the promotion of WOLs as a solution to all the problems with bike lanes. WOLs are not the panacea they are made out to be on the North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/index.html) website.

The problems I have with WOLs are 1. mandatory lane-sharing laws, 2. the claim that WOLs don't create conflicts with vehicular rules - they most certainly do and 3. the promotion of WOLs as a solution to all the problems with bike lanes. WOLs are not the panacea they are made out to be on the North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/index.html) website.
The problem I have with advocates of street/road widening for WOL as some sort of cycling solution is that their proposals are going nowhere in the conceivable future. Proposals to retrofit WOLs on to established urban and suburban streets for the benefit of cyclists is a DOA proposal when ROW or major construction is an issue. Street widening is only going to be done to improve motor traffic flow, usually by adding more lanes. Period. Sorry if reality does not match some advocates' dreamy proposals, but there it is.