Google sponsored links
As Brian said, 17 feet of pavement is 17 feet of pavement. Who can't handle a stripe, or the lack of one?
My own perspective, not a scientific one, just day-to-day commuting, is that bike lanes need to be clean.
I'm for sweeping the bike lanes. If you install one, it's your job to keep it swept clean. Just the POV from a user.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
The 2-3' band of space that overlaps the stripe is an ambiguous if not possibly illegal place to ride. A stripe results in less usable pavement space (all else being equal)
Al
The stripe changes motorist expecatations of where the cyclist should or may be. Motorists may be more likely to drive in response to the stripe vs. the presence of a cyclist. This changes the interaction dynamics when communicating with motorists while riding on a road with stripe vs. without all else being equal.
This effect is of greatest impact when: intersections are approaching or debris that fell just after the daily cleaning are present.
Al
Stripe or no stripe, I still ride where I feel safest for that particular stretch of road.
One thing about the painted sttripes though that I have noticed as a motorist. When the road is extra wide without a strip, motorists tend to drift left and right. When there is a paintet stripe, their drifting is lessened. I guess it has something to do with the "keep it between the lines" quote burned in everyones mind.
You are right, pj7. When roads are narrower the bike lanes feel more cramped. But when the roads and bike lanes are generous, they really do keep motorists from drifting all over the f-in' place.
I dunno. I ride in that 2-3' "dead" area regularly, without problems. From noisebeams video, I believe he does also. I think the 2-3' zone is a contrived grievance. 17' is 17' is 17'.
Debris in the bike lane is an issue, but one which is adequately solved, in my experience, by regular street sweeping.
Between WOLs and BLs, it's a wash, from my perspective.
Adequate sweeping costs a lot more than adding thermoplastic stripes to wide pavement over the life of the stripe. I find that the organizations that decide striping policy for roads typically have either no budget for or no control of street sweeping. It falls to the cyclists to try to clamor for public money to get the lanes swept, and the cyclists must do this repeatedly, forever, with minimal political support. This is why some cyclists find it to be less work to advocate for leaving plain wide outside lanes, which are automatically swept by cars for the lifetime of the road.
Most of the bike lane stripes here in town are 4 or 5 feet from the edge of the pavement. The debris line starts about 1-2' to the right of the stripe. This puts my tires on the stripe, about where I rode before the stripes were added to these same roads. I never experienced a close pass or other harassment on these roads until the bike lane stripes were installed. I suspect that the close passes and such are a result of my apparent disobedience of a traffic control device that directs me closer to the curb.
In raleigh there is one road, Edwards Mill Road, that features mostly wide bike lanes next to a road with typical traffic speeds of 50 mph:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/edwardsmill/edwardsmill.htm
Here I think that if the bike lane stripes were ended in advance of the intersections, and if they were well swept, I would be happy to ride in the bike lane, and might believe that the stripe increases my safety under some rare but significant circumstances. But they don't, and aren't.
I dunno. I ride in that 2-3' "dead" area regularly, without problems. From noisebeams video, I believe he does also. I think the 2-3' zone is a contrived grievance. 17' is 17' is 17'.
Of course I do sometimes, but I mostly try to be either fully in our fully out of the BL. To do this one must be at least 3' into primary lane or well into BL. I think the only BL riding videos I've shown are demonstrating static use of BL, then I guess I ride close to the line inside BL due to my discomfort with riding closer to curb. This puts my shoulder over the stripe.
But yes, it is prime space to be cycling. Most other cyclists I observe ride along the stripe too.
It is strange to me that the stripe is intended to define a bike lane to be used like other vehicular lanes, yet a significant portion of cyclist ride the stripe, a non-vehicular (and like I said probably technically illegal) use of lane striping.
This is of course alternately a reason to make the minimum standard for a BL width to 6'. 4-5' doesn't cut it.
Al
I dunno, five feet would be pretty good!
they sweep the bike lanes fairly regularily in Seattle; they even sweep the MUPs that serve a lot of transportational cyclists in the region.
stripes add order to traffic flow on public roads. When I ride up on stopped traffic in a wide outside lane, cars and trucks are all over the lane; vehicles also are free to drive wherever in a wide outside lane they want.
lane stripes that add classed lanes for bikes add more space for bikes on congested thoroughfares, allow passing of stopped traffic, allow more orderly and safer passing of bikes, and encourage people to bicycle as transportation.
the bike lanes get swept fairly regularily in Seattle. Steve-maybe you 'bike advocates' in Cary can lobby for regular sweeping of the bike lanes, steve, instead of fighting striped bike infrastructure, dude!
it's not a very good argument to use the "they don't sweep the BL" excuse as an excuse to not have bike lanes at all, IMO. some get swept, some don't. THAT's something you can probably do something about with a bunch of phone calls.
rando, they don't sweep the BLs often enough.
I live where you do and the amount of hard debris (bolts, nails, rocks, broken tailights, etc.) that accumulates after the monthy or so sweeping that does occur in BLs to the left of RTOLs is rediculous.
BLs on 25mph streets tend to stay much cleaner. I recall you saying to don't (or avoid) riding in BLs on arterials either. I imagine 40,000 cars (and many trucks including construction ones) a day quickly adds to the debris fields.
How often should they be swept? Every week? Day?
I would think to stay clean of hard flat causing debris they would need to be swept weekly and immediately after every storm (think late fall monsoon) to remove piles of organic debris.
Thats a lot of sweeping. Probably non stop given the miles of BLs in Tempe.
Al
sounds like they need to sweep the bike lanes more often where you live, al.
last fall, a majority of seattle voters- a majority of the general public- voted in a 270 million dollar alternate transportation funding package that will be going a long way for improving alternate transportation use and maintence, including bike lane sweeping.
AL, I believe you! but, I have not encountered this where I ride. sometimes I see glass but it never stays around very long.
Bek,
How often does a street get swept where you are? What do you consider often?
Al
From the city web site:
"The City of Tempe is divided into four geographical areas. These areas correspond to four sweeping routes that have been developed by our Street Sweeper Operators. The goal of our Street sweeping program is to sweep all residential streets once a month, in coordination with the City's uncontained/bulky item collection program. That frequency equates to every residential street in Tempe being swept approximately once every four weeks. Arterial streets are swept every eight to twelve working days. "
http://www.tempe.gov/streetsweeping/MAPS/sweeping%20website_map.pdf
So 8-12 working days - every 2-3wks is when the arterials get swept. Obviously this is insufficient except for N/WOLs. Should cyclists demand more?
Al
at LEAST 5 times a day, al.
why is it any real concern, seattle sweeps its bike lanes fairly regularily.
you need to work on YOUR community sweeping YOUR bike lanes, dude! you think every 3 weeks is insufficient? GET SOME MORE DURABLE TIRES, speed racer.
Five times a day!
Wow. Do cyclists complain about sweepers blocking the BL? Surely they must be encountered very often at that rate.
Do you know the city budget for such frequent sweeping?
Its a real concern as the hard debris causes most cyclist to not use the BL. On recreational club rides that is a big reason why they are not used. Especially ones to the left of RTOL. A sure flat tire otherwise and hell to the person who lead the line thru one.
Al
^^^^
5 times a day?! Do you mean 5 times per month?
FWIW, once a week is a good schedule for an arterial. I believe that this is the schedule for most of our heavily traveled arterials around here.
GET SOME MORE DURABLE TIRES.
Much of the debris, piles of organic matter, 1/2" diamter bolts, bits of car mouding, palm fronds, small branches, fields of glass, bottle ends, etc. must be avoided regardless of tire size.
I use 28c gatorskins, hardly a racer tire. I know riders who use 2" tires who get flats regularly. Bigger tires are not neccesarily more flat resistant.
Anyway, why should I need off road tires just to use sub standard facilities when there are clean roads just 2' away?
Al
al, it sounds like they sweep the roads every three weeks. sounds like you are overemphasising your 'debris' issues, dude. maybe you need a personal street sweeper to clean your commute route for you. I sense a little 'crybaby' anti-facilties attitude versus a commuter who understands the urban environment and road conditions, al. no offense.
the original poster asked, who needs bike lane stripes?
COMMUNITIES need bike infrastructure, to encourage bicycling as transportation, get sidewalk cyclists off the sidewalks and learning road skills and mixing it up with traffic instead of remaining sidewalk cyclists. communities need on-road bike infrastructure to increase roadway bike traffic, show drivers that bikes are on roads, and concurrently increase the safety of all cyclists in a community.
Who needs bike lane stripes? COMMUNITIES need on road bike infrastructure to encourage bikes as transportation. 50 mile wide lane arterials do NOT facilitate the general publics' greater use of bikes for transportation.
yes, bike lanes need to be cleaned.
I think once a week would be a good rate for most places. Bike lanes, and all the parts of the roadway that need it, should be swept regularly...
al, it sounds like they sweep the roads every three weeks. sounds like you are overemphasising your 'debris' issues, dude. maybe you need a personal street sweeper to clean your commute route for you. I sense a little 'crybaby' anti-facilties attitude versus a commuter who understands the urban environment and road conditions, al. no offense.
I am certainly not over emphasizing debris issues in the metro-phx area. You are being a bit offensive. There is a difference between 'crying about it' vs. noting it as a local issue, but still dealing with it (not riding where debris accumulates)
My commute route is nice and clean, thank you.
One of the issues is that 'Phx-metro' is a collection of municipalities and sections of non incorporated county. My commute takes me thru three cities (Tempe, Mesa, Chandler). I've been thru over a dozen cities/communities on a single weekend ride (Tempe, Chandler, Phoenix/Awatukee, Gilbert, Apache Junction, Maricopa County, Guadalupe, Scottsdale, Queen Creek, Mesa/Lehi, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Gila River Indian Community, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community) Road conditions and maintence (sweeping) vary greatly. Tempe actually has some of the best roads in the region.
Point here is that local cleaning advocacy doesn't solve the debris problem. Thats one reason I prefer a bicycle facility that doesn't require addtional sweeping beyond what is typical for any road.
Al
This touches on something that I was recently thinking of. Generally debris in the bike lane does not seem to present much problem, with one exception - paved bridges. Earlier this year, I suffered a spate of punctures (10 or so in the space of a couple of weeks). The problem area seems to have been the bridge that crosses central expressway and the railway (or railroad ;)) here in Mountain View. The lane is very heavily littered with grit, glass, screws (I caught a wood scew there last year :mad:) etc.
It is swept occasionally, but the debris builds up soon enough.
Since two or three weeks now, I have avoided the bike lane, just for the short stretch of road over the bridge in favour of the rightmost of the 3 "regular" lanes. Generally no problem from motorists, except one instance where I was "told" to use the bike lane. So far touch wood I have not had a flat (wish I had not said that...).
Ed
the original poster asked, who needs bike lane stripes?
No, I didn't. In fact, I said elsewhere bike lane stripes could benefit some people who prefer them.
the bike lanes get swept fairly regularily in Seattle. Steve-maybe you 'bike advocates' in Cary can lobby for regular sweeping of the bike lanes, steve, instead of fighting striped bike infrastructure, dude!
Local streets are swept four times per year in Cary. Main roads, under state control, are not swept.
Getting the state roads swept would require action at the state level. There are no bike lane stripes on the main roads in Cary yet; it would be hard for me to generate action in other cities as an out-of-towner. On the side streets with bike lanes in Cary, staying out of the bike lane is less work than calling public works every two weeks to complain about broken glass and so forth. Besides, it seems that Cary would rather spend the money required for sweeping on adding striping and stencils to other roads.
As Brian said, 17 feet of pavement is 17 feet of pavement. Who can't handle a stripe, or the lack of one?
My own perspective, not a scientific one, just day-to-day commuting, is that bike lanes need to be clean.
I'm for sweeping the bike lanes. If you install one, it's your job to keep it swept clean. Just the POV from a user.
I think that there are times where the stripe does help preserve a space for cyclists. But as you imply, my experience is that there is a lot of gunk in the lane making it somewhat hazardous.
Has anyone ever thought of using sharrows with occasional reflectors--as on some highways--to prevent auto drift?
I see motorist drift over the BL stripe (and shoulder stripe) quite often. Perhaps difting close to curb less than if unstriped, but by no means does the stripe prevent drifting.
I also see motorist intentionally going over line when lining up at intersections, especially those that are impatiently waiting and plan to make a right turn. Like the guy in the black sedan with blinker on:
youtube QsK-Pnv7y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsK-Pnv7yDo)
A very common case: When driving a car use right most lane on multilane arterial, be first in line. If the driver behind you plans on turning right they 50% of the time will right bias in the BL, (with blinker on and bumper inches from yours) (As a cyclist I don't mind this as I don't often use BL to move forward, especially this close to an intersection where I'll make the light anyway. In some states motorists are legally required to do this.)
Al
I see motorist drift over the BL stripe (and shoulder stripe) quite often. Perhaps difting close to curb less than if unstriped, but by no means does the stripe prevent drifting.
I also see motorist intentionally going over line when lining up at intersections, especially those that are impatiently waiting and plan to make a right turn. Like the guy in the black sedan with blinker on:
youtube QsK-Pnv7y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsK-Pnv7yDo)
A very common case: When driving a car use right most lane on multilane arterial, be first in line. If the driver behind you plans on turning right they 50% of the time will right bias in the BL, (with blinker on and bumper inches from yours) (As a cyclist I don't mind this as I don't often use BL to move forward, especially this close to an intersection where I'll make the light anyway. In some states motorists are legally required to do this.)
Al
How do you know FOR SURE that his hovering of the line was due to impatience? Could it possibly be, maybe, that he was not paying attention, slammed on his brakes to avoid rearending the person in front of him, swerved right so that he could miss the guy in front if his brakes didn't work well enough, and then just sit there? I've seen this happen quite alot.
How do you know FOR SURE that his hovering of the line was due to impatience? Could it possibly be, maybe, that he was not paying attention, slammed on his brakes to avoid rearending the person in front of him, swerved right so that he could miss the guy in front if his brakes didn't work well enough, and then just sit there? I've seen this happen quite alot.
I don't particulary care about the reason in this minor example. Actually I wrote the bit about impatience, then later I added an example of over the line while in line since I remembered I had a video already posted (for other reasons, to show using BL to pass). I didn't intend it to be an example of impatience, although I agree it reads that way. Anyway, does it matter?
I do see it often enough though that impatience or 'anticipation' is a likely cause.
(note: swerving right wouldn't have avoided any accident anyway, plus is that what 'we' want drivers to do to avoid accidents, swerve suddenly into BL?)
I also see motorist intentionally going over line when lining up at intersections, especially those that are impatiently waiting and plan to make a right turn.
Isn't that what we'd prefer motorists to do when preparing for a right turn? Much better to occupy the BL than to right-hook it (along with any misinformed or unskilled cyclist who might be there).
In California, I observe that most drivers tend to avoid the (typically dashed) BL stripe until the very last moment, despite the vehicle code requirement to merge into the BL before turning (CVC 21717).
Isn't that what we'd prefer motorists to do when preparing for a right turn? Much better to occupy the BL than to right-hook it (along with any misinformed or unskilled cyclist who might be there).
In California, I observe that most drivers tend to avoid the (typically dashed) BL stripe until the very last moment, despite the vehicle code requirement to merge into the BL before turning (CVC 21717).
I CA it is required they do this, in AZ it is illegal to do so.
I would prefer they merged right into BL before right turn.
Its another good reason to have no BL stripe 200' before any and all intersections. Eliminates the confusion of what motorists should do (in CA) or makes it legal to move toward curb where motorits are prohibited from crossing BL stripe. (in AZ)
Al
I don't particulary care about the reason in this minor example. Actually I wrote the bit about impatience, then later I added an example of over the line while in line since I remembered I had a video already posted (for other reasons, to show using BL to pass). I didn't intend it to be an example of impatience, although I agree it reads that way. Anyway, does it matter?
I do see it often enough though that impatience or 'anticipation' is a likely cause.
(note: swerving right wouldn't have avoided any accident anyway, plus is that what 'we' want drivers to do to avoid accidents, swerve suddenly into BL?)
Ahh I see, I never got your intent at first.
It appears to me that he was being impatient, I was just pointing out that there is *possibly* another reason.
But I do agree with you.
Regarding motorists drifting into the BL to make right turns: I have recently been reading the California vehicle code, in order to take my driving test. It states that motorists must enter the BL 200 ft prior to the intersection at which they intend to turn right.
This bugged me at first, but I suspect the intention of this law is to prevent right hooking, i.e. you must enter the BL, and wait (follow) behind any cyclist that is occupying that last 200 ft before turning. The text of the code doesn't go into reasoning here, which would be helpful...
Ed
Regarding motorists drifting into the BL to make right turns: I have recently been reading the California vehicle code, in order to take my driving test. It states that motorists must enter the BL 200 ft prior to the intersection at which they intend to turn right.
This bugged me at first, but I suspect the intention of this law is to prevent right hooking, i.e. you must enter the BL, and wait (follow) behind any cyclist that is occupying that last 200 ft before turning. The text of the code doesn't go into reasoning here, which would be helpful...
Ed
We've talked about this ad nauseam or the last couple of years.
I think it's a good law, though it seems to get less than 10% compliance.
Besides, it seems that Cary would rather spend the money required for sweeping on adding striping and stencils to other roads.
Who here has seen the aftermath of politically-correct bike lane striping, absent of adequate cycling advocate involvement?
My local folk told me by e-mail [paraphrased,] "...on some roads where we couldn't provide adequate width for a bike lane according to AASHTO standards [see,] we added a stripe anyway without bike lane stencil markings, just to give cyclists a refuge."
These are the two-foot margins I've mentioned before. What cyclist was on acid when he/she advised that? I bet no cyclist was involved at all.
Who here has seen the aftermath of politically-correct bike lane striping, absent of adequate cycling advocate involvement?
My local folk told me by e-mail [paraphrased,] "...on some roads where we couldn't provide adequate width for a bike lane according to AASHTO standards [see,] we added a stripe anyway without bike lane stencil markings, just to give cyclists a refuge."
These are the two-foot margins I've mentioned before. What cyclist was on acid when he/she advised that? I bet no cyclist was involved at all.
Well, it is common knowledge that those involved in the political decision making process and given the power to make such decisions are usually the people who have no idea about what they are deciding on.
Well, it is common knowledge that those involved in the political decision making process and given the power to make such decisions are usually the people who have no idea about what they are deciding on.
makes me skeered
Regarding motorists drifting into the BL to make right turns: I have recently been reading the California vehicle code, in order to take my driving test. It states that motorists must enter the BL 200 ft prior to the intersection at which they intend to turn right.
This bugged me at first, but I suspect the intention of this law is to prevent right hooking, i.e. you must enter the BL, and wait (follow) behind any cyclist that is occupying that last 200 ft before turning. The text of the code doesn't go into reasoning here, which would be helpful...
Ed
It would be helpful, but yes, you are right. That's why the law is this way. To prevent right hooking. Doesn't work very well in practice though because they still go full steam ahead to the end of the line rather than pull in behind you. Or they won't merge into the bike lane because they weren't paying attention when reading the manual and now you've got a chip-n-dale "after you, no after you" thing going on.
More education is needed, that's for sure.
Regarding motorists drifting into the BL to make right turns: I have recently been reading the California vehicle code, in order to take my driving test. It states that motorists must enter the BL 200 ft prior to the intersection at which they intend to turn right.
Not quite correct.
The CVC provides:
21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to
Section 21207 except as follows:
(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.
-and-
21717. Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane that is adjacent to
his lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to
making the turn and shall make the turn pursuant to Section 22100.
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.
It would be helpful, but yes, you are right. That's why the law is this way. To prevent right hooking. Doesn't work very well in practice though because they still go full steam ahead to the end of the line rather than pull in behind you. Or they won't merge into the bike lane because they weren't paying attention when reading the manual and now you've got a chip-n-dale "after you, no after you" thing going on.
More education is needed, that's for sure.
If we could teach the cyclists to properly leave the BL well before the intersection, the mistakes of the motorists would be of much less concern.
Seems to me like a perfect situation for application of HH's favorite Hurst dictum: "If you get right-hooked in a bike lane, even if the motorist who hits you is breaking every law on the books..."
gots to keep the roads clean! and bike lane infrastructure is part of the road network. some communities have their own bike lane sweeper system. It's all what a community values. value cars, and autocentric dystopia persists. value alternatives to single occupancy auto trips, and alternate transit flourishes.
encourage bicycling thru all varieties of bike infrastructure, and see bicycling increase. put in bike lanes as afterthoughts, and fail to keep them clean, and autocentric dystopia persists.
some cities across the globe, and more every day, GET the idea. seen what Paris, France is going to do to increase non-autocentric transportation? impressive.
A MAJORITY of Seattle voters approved a 260 million dollar funding package to increase non-autocentric transportation in our region. cities CAN change things to benefit bicycling,
adding bike infrastructure to a communities' road grid -and keeping it clean- can go a long way towards increasing bicycling, the ability of the citizenry to bike for transportation, and in due course increase cyclist safety by the increased numbers of cyclists sharing the roads with cars. And remember, you CAN VC in a bike lane, dudes!
Keep it clean. yep. sounds good to me. get your local governments involved. stop complaining and gederdun.
rando, they don't sweep the BLs often enough.
I live where you do and the amount of hard debris (bolts, nails, rocks, broken tailights, etc.) that accumulates after the monthy or so sweeping that does occur in BLs to the left of RTOLs is rediculous.
BLs on 25mph streets tend to stay much cleaner. I recall you saying to don't (or avoid) riding in BLs on arterials either. I imagine 40,000 cars (and many trucks including construction ones) a day quickly adds to the debris fields.
How often should they be swept? Every week? Day?
I would think to stay clean of hard flat causing debris they would need to be swept weekly and immediately after every storm (think late fall monsoon) to remove piles of organic debris.
Thats a lot of sweeping. Probably non stop given the miles of BLs in Tempe.
Al
I wonder what would happen if you sued the city based on creating a "hazarous environment," or an attractive nuisance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine)?
The city created the environment, and perhaps there are laws on the books in your state which require BL use... but if they are debris filled what is the alternative?
gots to keep the roads clean! ...gederdun.
Swutahmtowkin'bowt.
Hay'llyaya.
:beer:
passatdoob..,
I wonder what would happen if you sued the city based on creating a "hazarous environment," or an attractive nuisance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine)?
The city created the environment, and perhaps there are laws on the books in your state which require BL use... but if they are debris filled what is the alternative?
Consult with the BF lawyer wannabes.:rolleyes: Maybe there is a Constitutional issue involved too. :eek:
Maybe you might spill hot coffee on yourself too while cycling due to this "hazardous environment." Just think of the possibilities!
The city created the environment, and perhaps there are laws on the books in your state which require BL use... but if they are debris filled what is the alternative?
In California, the alternative is to leave the debris-filled lane.
Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes
21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.
so, kalirego, should municipalities clean the bike lanes, or the bicyclists leave debris filled lanes?
what would be a prefferred solution in your eyes?
certainly, the right to modify road position based on upcoming road hazards should never be infringed, and I think we'd all agree to fight that fight-
but what do you think should be done with bike lanes that need cleaning? should municipalities clean them?
so, kalirego, should municipalities clean the bike lanes, or the bicyclists leave debris filled lanes?
what would be a prefferred solution in your eyes?
I would prefer that bike lanes not be painted at all (I suppose there could be some exceptions, but none come to mind at the moment).
but what do you think should be done with bike lanes that need cleaning? should municipalities clean them?
If they insist upon painting them, of course they should keep them clean. Unfortunately, bike lanes will always fill with debris much more quickly than normal travel lanes, and will thus require much more frequent cleaning. I've never seen that actually happen.
In fact, I've almost never seen a bike lane that isn't (except immediately following sweeping) much more cluttered by debris than the adjacent travel lane.
so, municipalities should engage in regular road cleaning and perhaps have a dedicated bike lane cleaning program to facilitate clean bike facilities. fair enough. gederdun.
If we could teach the cyclists to properly leave the BL well before the intersection, the mistakes of the motorists would be of much less concern.
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
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.