Is there anyone here who does support having the BL stripe (but of course not the BL extra width) end before all intersections (with the exception if there is a RTOL)?
Sure. If they insist upon painting the silly things, they should at least terminate them before leading clueless through cyclists into spaces to the right of right-turning traffic, while utterly confusing motorists about where cyclists should be expected to ride and where they are expected to drive.

It cannot, however, be merely accidental that bike lanes are typically striped to encourage such confusion. Traffic engineers aren't that dumb. The dirty little secret is that they know that the way they paint them encourages cyclists to stay far-right through intersections, and that's fine with them.

Bike lanes are for motorists.

Ooops, I phrased the question wrong.

I meant is there anyone that wants the stripe to continue for the last 200' before all intersections?

Al

al, your insistence of bike lane stripes ending 200 feet before ALL intersections is excessive, over the top, unecessary and a bit fearmongerer.

Brian Ratliff had an excellent treatment for riding in a bike lane past minor intersections- driveways- that was realistic asessment, versus noisebeams' fearmongering.

get more people riding on the roads with bike lane stripes and bike infrastructure.

NOT requiring ending the bike lane stripes 200 feet before ALL intersections as per a rabid, anti facility VC perpectives' fearmongering. Many minor intersections require no cessation of road striping whatsover.

appropriate roadway striping includes a variety of intersection treatments, not a blanket '200 rule insisted upon by the rabid anti-facilties crowd.

...

horse, i'd bet a couple of beers your state code allows you to leave a bike lane to make a left turn.

...

right turn? left turn? get your story straight, horse.

any quebeqois got the definitive? the law in most, if not all, US states is that bikes are allowed to leave the bike lane to make left turns.

...

I'm allowed to leave the BL if making a left turn in AZ, but not if I am simply going straight or making a right turn.

Also if I leave the BL and am hit and injured/killed, civil penalties for driver that hit me no longer apply.

You are funny Bek, 'over the top, 'fearmongering' ha ha ha, what fearmongreing have I ever shown? How at all is not having a stripe that if present doesn't support two of three travel directions 'over the top' or where you playing the april fool?

Also please quit calling me what I am not. I am pro-facilities and you know it, this tactic of yours to call others what they are not to draw them into an endless 'discussion' is tiresome.

Al

al, you want the lane stripes to end 200 feet before every intersection and curb cut, however minor, and that IS fearmongering.

the reality of classed lane stripes past minor intersections are that they work fine without any modification, or much less than your insistence of two hundred feet of unstriped pavement.

YOUR insistence of all the limits on bike infrastructure gets pretty tiring, too, Al.

lane stripes do NOT have to end 200 feet before every intersection, however minor, to expedite bike travel safely. get with the program, al.

al, you want the lane stripes to end 200 feet before every intersection and curb cut, however minor, and that IS fearmongering.

the reality of classed lane stripes past minor intersections are that they work fine without any modification, or much less than your insistence of two hundred feet of unstriped pavement.

YOUR insistence of all the limits on bike infrastructure gets pretty tiring, too, Al.

lane stripes do NOT have to end 200 feet before every intersection, however minor, to expedite bike travel safely. get with the program, al.

All of the designated bike lanes where I live are striped solid all the way to the stop line of the intersections. All that I have seen with my own eyes are curbside all the way to the intersection. Motorists never appear to merge into them to turn right unless there is a car stopped in the travel lane to go straight or left. When I leave these bike lanes to turn left, motorists seem to get upset, more so than with the original 16' and wider lanes.

I would prefer these at least be dashed 200 feet away, and disappear completely in the area leading to right hooks hazards, say 100 feet out.

This need not be done for minor driveways, but for all genuine intersections, IMHO.

This need not be done for minor driveways, but for all genuine intersections, IMHO.
I agree it doesn't need to be done for residential driveways, but for urban/suburban commercial driveways and all road intersections I think it should be done. Commercial driveways include gas stations, shopping centers, malls. These see very high volume, especially during rush hour.

This is may be unique to local roadway layout/design perhaps - multilane roads with large volume shopping centers - in this case there is fairly heavy usage from the outside lane to the shopping center or corner gas station. For example I often see 20-50% of vehicles using outside lane (of three lanes total) turning into these commercial driveways.

Al

Not quite correct.

.......

So, motorists must merge into a BL in preparation for a turn, and may do so not more than 200 feet before the intersection. The law does not require that the merge take place at the maximum permitted distance.

Thank you for clarifying this point :)

I'd better go back and read some more.... Test on Friday :o

I agree it doesn't need to be done for residential driveways, but for urban/suburban commercial driveways and all road intersections I think it should be done. Commercial driveways include gas stations, shopping centers, malls. These see very high volume, especially during rush hour.

This is may be unique to local roadway layout/design perhaps - multilane roads with large volume shopping centers - in this case there is fairly heavy usage from the outside lane to the shopping center or corner gas station. For example I often see 20-50% of vehicles using outside lane (of three lanes total) turning into these commercial driveways.

Al

Yes; I generally classify shopping center driveways as intersections.

Where I live, there are two kinds of driveways to private property: (1) those where the vehicular facility rises to sidewalk level at the apron, and (2) those where the sidewalk drops to the roadway level (often via an ADA ramp) at a curb cut.

I consider the first to be a driveway crossing a sidewalk, and the second to be a crosswalk crossing a roadway. Some states and municipalities define this explicitly. They have legal implications for how drivers and pedestrians are expected to yield to one another. Drivers must always yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk. Pedestrians who have not yet entered a crosswalk must yield to drivers who are too close to the crosswalk to stop for them. This doesn't always work out properly, but generally, busier driveways tend to be designed as intersections with crosswalks.

Here is a video example of commercial driveway intersections that should not have the BL striped at their approach - I don't think there should be BL striping thru this entire stretch.

youtube 98a55mSPQGA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98a55mSPQGA)

0:02: Commercial driveway
0:05: Note how BL ends and feeds into RTOL
0:20: Major arterial intersection
0:24: Begin bus pull out*
0:30: Commercial driveway
0:40: Commercial driveway (I obviously started using BL too soon)

*when bus is not present I have seen fairly often drivers pull in, thinking they are turning into shopping center, then suddenly pull out when they realize error.

Al

i believe this thread is about keeping bike lanes swept clear of debris.

BUT, the anti-facility fearmongering just has to persist, eh?

al wants the bike lanes swept before all his commutes, and the usual suspects chime in with their damnification of bike lane stripes. typical.

i believe this thread is about keeping bike lanes swept clear of debris.

BUT, the anti-facility fearmongering just has to persist, eh?

al wants the bike lanes swept before all his commutes, and the usual suspects chime in with their damnification of bike lane stripes. typical.
No, the question posed by the OP was:
"Who can't handle a stripe, or the lack of one?"

I have never said I want the bike lanes swept before all my commutes. Never. I have never done any fear mongering on BFs about facilities or otherwise. Why are you persisting with misrepresenting me (and others t0o in my observation)? Open thoughtful discussion can not happen with underhanded tactics like this. Its really a shame.

Al

al, you keep pointing out flaws in bike infrastructure; i think the OP mentioned the need to keep bike lanes clean and swept.

who can't handle a stripe? YOU, obviously, Al. you've never done any fearmongering about bike lane stripes? plueaze.

Don't fear the swept bike lane. Use it to your advantage when when riding. bike lane filled with debris? avoid it and call your local streetsweeper.

Don't fear the swept bike lane. Use it to your advantage when when riding. bike lane filled with debris? avoid it and call your local streetsweeper.
If those cans and bottles have a deposit, pick 'em up and make some money! :)

al, you keep pointing out flaws in bike infrastructure; i think the OP mentioned the need to keep bike lanes clean and swept.

who can't handle a stripe? YOU, obviously, Al. you've never done any fearmongering about bike lane stripes? plueaze.
Would you rather live with flaws and adapt to poor facilities design? Sounds like you want to give up vs. trying to understand flaws with current design standards in order to improve them. See I'm an optimist and think there is room for improvement. I want better. If you think there is no room for improvement, then why do you particpate in discussions regarding infrastructure?

Where I have ever said I can't handle a stripe? I handle BL stripes, well designed and not, every day, thank you. Many motorists can't handle them (the poorly designed ones) however, making my riding less enjoyable than it could be. Also I'd rather put my focus into riding in a safe and predictable way without having the additional variable of a poorly placed stripe and the added consideration of how it and my position relative to it affects my interactions and communications with motorists.

If you want to have thoughtful discussion I am willing to engage, but time and time again you merely rant and misrepresent in attempt to (successfully) start argument and derail any critical thinking. If it is ranting and arguing you want I suggest you take your postings to the link given here in the OP: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=282909

Al

Is there anyone here who does support having the BL stripe (but of course not the BL extra width) end before all intersections (with the exception if there is a RTOL)?

If in some states is is required by law for motorists to merge far right up to 200' before intersection and to help prevent left crosses and right hooks, cyclist should merge leff if going straight, what is the desire to have a stripe 200' before intersections?

Al

If you got rid of the stripe, Bek (and others not so vocal about it) might not be able to filter (at full speed?) all the way through the intersection when traffic is backed up. FWIW, filtering through heavy congestion argument is the only reasonable justification I've ever heard for bike lanes.

If you got rid of the stripe, Bek (and others not so vocal about it) might not be able to filter (at full speed?) all the way through the intersection when traffic is backed up. FWIW, filtering through heavy congestion argument is the only reasonable justification I've ever heard for bike lanes.
Or they still might be able to. In 16' WOL I can almost always filter far enough forward to ensure I make the next green cycle. Mostly on left, sometimes on right.

In CA if there is one right turner in the line of cars waiting at a light who is following the law, they could/would be blocking the bike lane anyway.

If cyclists want a preferential lane for filtering forward at intersections known to be backed up, perhaps putting that lane to the right is not the only solution.

Also if stripe is dashed 200-100' before intersection and ends completely for the last 100' (as Steve G. suggests), that supports filtering to the right using BL for 200-100', once 100' to intersection one may be likely to make green light anyway, certainly the next cycle.

There are many intersections (nearly all commercial driveway and most minor road intersections) where traffic never backs up as there is not a stoplight control signal. What would be the justification for keeping the stripe in these cases?

Al

FWIW, filtering through heavy congestion argument is the only reasonable justification I've ever heard for bike lanes.

It's the only reasonable one I've heard of for urban-street bike lanes. Since I rarely miss a green signal phase here due to waiting in congestion on my bike, I don't see any convenience benefit for them where I live.

I think there is a credible, if not substantiated, potential benefit to bike lane striping (as opposed to wider outside lanes) on minimal-junction, high-speed high-volume roads under poor visibility conditions. If the motorists' view of the cyclist is occluded by other traffic directly ahead, or if lighting and precipitation conspire against the cyclist, well-equipped or not, the truly high-speed motorist may not see the cyclist until a couple of seconds before overtaking. It is possible that the motorist could drift right or be inattentive during that time span.

All of the local Raleigh/Cary area overtaking collisions I have read reports on involved narrow lanes where the driver saw the cyclist and tried to squeeze by too closely, or the underequipped cyclist was invisible in darkness, or the driver lost control of the vehicle. Of these only the underequipped cyclists in darkness might have been helped by a bike lane stripe.

bike infrastructure including integrated, on road bike lanes encourage and expedite cycling as transportation. more riders, more visibility, more use of the road, greater safety of bicyclists.

on road bike infrastructure encourages bicycling on roads in communities.

In CA if there is one right turner in the line of cars waiting at a light who is following the law, they could/would be blocking the bike lane anyway.


Al

If that driver is following the law, then we can ride to within at least 200' of the intersection.

I should have added some qualifiers when I said bike lanes for filtering through heavy congestion were "reasonable." They are more reasonable than the justification for bike lanes in almost all other applications, which usually amounts to nothing more than cyclists wanting to stay out of traffic. I don't agree with unobstructed filtering lanes simply because it's encourages a quite risky behavior for cyclists in the situations where the bike lane stripe might be of benefit (lanes of marginal width for sharing). In wider lanes, motorists can be staggered by even a few feet and a cyclist could still easily pass at slow speed on the right or left depending on the proximity of intersections.

i have different reasons for wanting bike infrastructure on the roads, joejack. see my post last page. its not 'to stay out of traffic' what a mischaracterization of the pro-facilites point of view!

"Bike infrastructure - including integrated, on road bike lanes encourage and expedite cycling as transportation. more riders, more visibility, more use of the road, greater safety of bicyclists.

on road bike infrastructure encourages bicycling on roads in communities."

If that driver is following the law, then we can ride to within at least 200' of the intersection.
Right and this statement would be true whether or not the extra width of the lane was striped for a BL or not for the 200' approaching an intersection.

Al

no true, al.

in wide outside lanes, cars stop up ALL OVER THE LANE. bike lane stripes provide a classed lane for bicycle traffic. I used one today to pass a long line of stopped traffic.

i have different reasons for wanting bike infrastructure on the roads, joejack. see my post last page. its not 'to stay out of traffic' what a mischaracterization of the pro-facilites point of view!

"Bike infrastructure - including integrated, on road bike lanes encourage and expedite cycling as transportation. more riders, more visibility, more use of the road, greater safety of bicyclists.

on road bike infrastructure encourages bicycling on roads in communities."

Go to the "Do you want JF advocating for you" thread and download the Power Point presentation. People don't want to ride in traffic and bike lanes, IMO, are promoted as a compromised way to let you get where you need to go without having to deal with traffic, since bike paths are impossible in most locations. A little misleading don't you think? Why else would bike lanes be so popular?

what specifically I said is not true, bek? and why call me out by name when this is a group discussion with pro/con for stripe being presented by others too. are you trying to make it personal?'

-In many states (AZ is an exception) right turning vehicles must merge into BL and may do so up to 200' before intersection. So in CA cars will be lined up 'all over the lanes' despite BL stripe.

-In WOLs I use drivers mostly line up with each other and they tend to line up using left stripe as guide, unless turning right. I find I can always filter foward if needed and most often on the left at intersection where there is a majority of right turners from the wide outside lane. Where there are few right turners drivers tend to line up left biased in lane. How often do you use WOLs?

Al

joe, i disagree that bike lanes allow a bicyclist to 'not deal' with traffic. thats' not what bike lanes provide. bike paths provide that to some degree, however.

noisebeam, i disagree with your assessment that drivers 'all line up using the left stripe' - drivers are ALL OVER THE LANE.


wide outside lanes get clogged with stopped traffic all over the lanes. the right turners move right, the left turners move left, people are poised to peer around the cars ahead.

I use wide outside lanes all the time, dude. seattle doesn't even have 4 percent bike laned roadways. i think seattle has less than 20 miles of bike lanes throughout the entire city and I think its even less than that.

within a half mile of leaving my house in the morning, i thread and weave my way thru stopped traffic approaching a highway on ramps, and the cars are all over the lane. not orderly, hardly. and there's no guidance for them to do so in a wide outside lane either.

It seems there are folks (intentionally trying not to call out names) who are very willing to accept slower transportational cycling offered by MUPs, and have given me a hard time about complaining about the extra 10min it takes me to use a BL/MUP commute route, but these same folks can not wait an extra light cycle lining up with traffic?
Why all this rushing and need to save a few minutes here and there?
Al

i think bike lanes should be swept clean as a regular maintence for roadway bike infrastructure, as per the original post.

joe, i disagree that bike lanes allow a bicyclist to 'not deal' with traffic. thats' not what bike lanes provide. bike paths provide that to some degree, however.

So how do you relate the fact that most people do not want to ride a bike in traffic yet bike lanes seem to be very popular with many people who want to ride a bike? Is it just coincidence?

It seems there are folks (intentionally trying not to call out names) who are very willing to accept slower transportational cycling offered by MUPs, and have given me a hard time about complaining about the extra 10min it takes me to use a BL/MUP commute route, but these same folks can not wait an extra light cycle lining up with traffic?
Why all this rushing and need to save a few minutes here and there?
Al

If I waited in traffic instead of riding up on the right on longer rides, it would add up to much more than ten minutes. Bicycles are more adaptable than cars, so we should use them to their advantage whenever we can. I believe in some states it's illegal to ride up on the right of stopped traffic, even if the traffic is backed up for 3-4 or more light cycles.

Because 10 minutes of fresh air is better than 10 minutes of polluted air.

I see we're onto filtering.

Filtering is really a judgement call for me. There is no one right way to handle it, in my opinion. I try not to filter, even if I'm in a wide lane. It just makes sense to communicate I belong.

But if the traffic is very heavy, if the lane is wide enough, I'll find a way around it, like every good American. :D

I see we're onto filtering.

Filtering is really a judgement call for me. There is no one right way to handle it, in my opinion. I try not to filter, even if I'm in a wide lane. It just makes sense to communicate I belong.

But if the traffic is very heavy, if the lane is wide enough, I'll find a way around it, like every good American. :D

I agree wholeheartedly with this approach. I reserve my filtering for the few oppurtunities where it will really make a difference.