Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Stripes II

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.
A second thing to consider about bike lanes, in addition to keeping them clean, is to provide adequate width.

I read the AASHTO standards for bike lanes, and it appears that the outer bike lane stripe should be 5 feet from the curb, if the longitudinal joint between a 1 to 2 foot gutter pan and the road is smooth (where there is a curb and no on-street parking allowed.) The gutter pan is not to be included as part of the usable space. A minimum of 3 feet of resulting usable space is recommended. But if the joint between the gutter pan and the road is not smooth, a minimum of 4 feet of usable space is recommended.

Consider that a bicycle can be about 2 feet wide, and that overtaking traffic should allow 3 feet of passing space. Even riding nearest the right edge of the pavement (not safe or practicable,) a cyclist would need 5 feet from the road edge, not including the gutter pan.

As it is, these narrow designs force the cyclist to ride near the outside line of the bike lane. If debris is present, the usable space becomes almost negligible inside a 3 or 4 foot-wide bike lane. If a bike lane is to be similar to other traffic lanes, there should be some leeway on either side of the vehicle in the lane, especially in the case of a cyclist, who lacks the external safety protections that motorists enjoy.

To provide adequate usable space on the road for a cyclist in a bike lane, even assuming only 2 feet of leeway on either side of the cyclist, a bike lane would have to provide a minimum of 6 feet of usable space, double the AASHTO standard. This simple calculation does not even take into account road debris in the bike lane, but it assumes regular sweeping, as was discussed in the previously mentioned thread.

Thoughts?

I think that is a minimum standard. I rarely see anything that minimal in real life.

I think that is a minimum standard. I rarely see anything that minimal in real life.

Actually Diane, we have a whole thread on the subject:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=179714&highlight=poor+bike+lane

I think that is a minimum standard. I rarely see anything that minimal in real life.
Hi, Diane,

I am glad about that! The newest bike lanes just installed after major road construction locally are cutting it as close as possible to the minimum standard, if not violating it (or winking a bit.) Maybe the minimum standards are too "minimal?"

I got an e-mail from the county offices stating that in some places where there wasn't room for a bike lane, a narrow strip was added (using a stripe) without adding a stencil indicating it was a bike lane, just to give cyclists a "refuge."

BLs here tend to be 4' not including the gutter pan. This is definitely too narrow, especially considering most cyclists want to ride left biased in the lane, making handlebars, etc. hang over.

This video shows a typical width BL. Note how parts of the bike/panniers hang over the stripe. Note how even when passing other traffic, the cyclist stays center/left in BL.

youtube Z_68U0d1bWc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_68U0d1bWc)

Al

I think that is a minimum standard. I rarely see anything that minimal in real life.

Welcome to the unique environment of Santa Barbara. Now to remind yourself what the rest of us encounter, take a ride down to Oxnard.

Just last December a road here in San Diego was repaved and striped... and lo and behold, about a 3 foot BL resulted. Don't have time to find the pic right now... and it was protested and fixed... but that 3 foot BL is typical stuff... that seems to get put in place often.

Now in the newer places in town, I do see nice wide BL. But often that 5 feet includes the gutter pan. It can be pretty obvious when the "stencil" also covers the gutter pan.

Here is a BL that starts out meeting standards, then steps down to ~2ft. wide (including gutter pan!), then goes away.

youtube PGfHdzu7xhE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfHdzu7xhE)

Note how at start of the video I am outside the BL behind the red car. This is an example of a BL stripe that continues thru to intersection where it instead should not be striped.

Al

Here is a BL that starts out meeting standards, then steps down to ~2ft. wide (including gutter pan!), then goes away.

Al
That might actually be useful to someone like Harry Potter, who can shrink his profile to squeeze though any traffic situation, and disappear if needed. :)

An interesting observation I had recently was prompted by my switch from a fixed gear bike to a road bike (to prep it for a longer commute). Speed is most definitely part of the consideration here. I go slower on the fixed, and I feel more comfortable in smaller spaces. I go faster on the road bike and my speed is less controllable (both because of the higher speed and because of the freewheel transmission, and I want and take more space; I feel cramped and confined on the little streets which feel comfortable on my fixie.

Couple this with the general observation that "bike lane proponents" many times ride in the inner city where speeds are naturally slower because of all the stops and space is constrained, and "bike lane opponents" are generally in sprawl type cities where major intersections are fewer in number and spaced further in between and speeds are higher for both automobiles and cyclists, and I get the impression that the WOL vs. BL controversy is really all driven by different cycling environments.

Just food for thought. Perhaps this is not an either/or question but really one of optimization to a specific environment and a specific type of cyclist. How do you break the deadlock, you ask? Do like the politicians and take a poll. Don't pretend that there is some sort of data when there is none. If it is all anecdotal, take a poll at the local level (1's of miles, not 10's or 100's of miles type local) and ask what all the cyclists want. If they want bike lanes, put in bike lanes. If they want WOLs or nothing at all, do that.

And enough of this "cyclist inferiority syndrome" or any such nonsense. Another thing I noticed: I made some route changes and found that even though I rode some high trafficed roads with no shoulders, single lane in each direction and 9 foot lanes regularly last summer during commute time -- I was considerably more comfortable and less stressed when I was on a road with shoulders on it. I rode part of an alternate route today which avoided the rural highway I'd been using last summer in favor of a higher trafficed road, still single lane in each direction, and higher speed, but with an 8 foot shoulder. Hands down better. Not a single close call or close pass or negotiation or hand wave or yell or horn. The stripe is useful, even to those who don't fear a narrow shared lane.

...I get the impression that the WOL vs. BL controversy is really all driven by different cycling environments.
Brian, this thread is not intended to re-hash the "bike lanes vs. WOL debate" that has so often been bantered back and forth in these forums.

My contention is that AASHTO design standards are insufficient, perhaps half as wide as is desireable. Diane pointed out that the standards are minimum, and that she rarely encounters anything that minimal. At the same time (in keeping with the spirit of your post regarding differing cycling environments and geographical variations,) the bike lanes being installed right now in my area are barely meeting the minimum requirements, if that.

It is this substandard design that communicates a pervasive perception on the part of the general motoring public, as mirrored by traffic engineers and politicians, that cyclists are an inferior customer on the public roadways to be served only after the more importants customers, motorists, are taken care of.

Leftovers.

A second thing to consider about bike lanes, in addition to keeping them clean, is to provide adequate width.

I read the AASHTO standards for bike lanes, and it appears that the outer bike lane stripe should be 5 feet from the curb, if the longitudinal joint between a 1 to 2 foot gutter pan and the road is smooth (where there is a curb and no on-street parking allowed.) The gutter pan is not to be included as part of the usable space. A minimum of 3 feet of resulting usable space is recommended. But if the joint between the gutter pan and the road is not smooth, a minimum of 4 feet of usable space is recommended.

Consider that a bicycle can be about 2 feet wide, and that overtaking traffic should allow 3 feet of passing space. Even riding nearest the right edge of the pavement (not safe or practicable,) a cyclist would need 5 feet from the road edge, not including the gutter pan.

As it is, these narrow designs force the cyclist to ride near the outside line of the bike lane. If debris is present, the usable space becomes almost negligible inside a 3 or 4 foot-wide bike lane. If a bike lane is to be similar to other traffic lanes, there should be some leeway on either side of the vehicle in the lane, especially in the case of a cyclist, who lacks the external safety protections that motorists enjoy.

To provide adequate usable space on the road for a cyclist in a bike lane, even assuming only 2 feet of leeway on either side of the cyclist, a bike lane would have to provide a minimum of 6 feet of usable space, double the AASHTO standard. This simple calculation does not even take into account road debris in the bike lane, but it assumes regular sweeping, as was discussed in the previously mentioned thread.

Thoughts?
A one mile uphill stretch of my commute is being repaved. This stretch has only one small intersection with almost nonexistent turning traffic (the light is almost always green). Typical cyclist speed is under 10 mph; typical motorist speed is 50 mph. There has been a substandard width bike lane here for years. Now that they're repaving, I'm lobbying for 5'. Wish me luck.

The idea of keeping bike lanes clean is a farce. The best you could reasonably hope for is a sweeping once per week. Due to the sweeping nature of moving motor traffic, debris collects in unused adjacent roadway space in a matter of hours, if not minutes. Any debris that is dropped or blown into the traffic lanes is swept by motor traffic into the bike lane within minutes, if not seconds.

...I'm lobbying for 5'. Wish me luck.
Even 5 feet is too narrow. You're not suffering from cyclist inferiority, are you? (joke, that's a joke...)

:D

Man, I really do wish you success!

:beer:

A one mile uphill stretch of my commute is being repaved. This stretch has only one small intersection with almost nonexistent turning traffic (the light is almost always green). Typical cyclist speed is under 10 mph; typical motorist speed is 50 mph. There has been a substandard width bike lane here for years. Now that they're repaving, I'm lobbying for 5'. Wish me luck.

The idea of keeping bike lanes clean is a farce. The best you could reasonably hope for is a sweeping once per week. Due to the sweeping nature of moving motor traffic, debris collects in unused adjacent roadway space in a matter of hours, if not minutes. Any debris that is dropped or blown into the traffic lanes is swept by motor traffic into the bike lane within minutes, if not seconds.

Why not lobby for reducing the speed limit to 40 MPH and forget the stripe?

Why not lobby for reducing the speed limit to 40 MPH and forget the stripe?
If they don't widen it, he might have to forget about the stripe.

Which really bothers me, because then we are seen as riding where we don't belong.

I don't know any non-cyclist that knows anything about why a cyclist might choose to legitimately leave a bike lane. As far as they are concerned, the stripe tells the whole story.

I've was on a kick a few months back of saying that I can't even begin support BLs of any kind until there is a better standard, suggesting that the best thing advocates of BLs could do would be to improve the standard.

Any standard that calls out a minimum, will result more often than not in minimum implementation.

AASHTO also allows for BLs in DZs. (With a slightly higher 5' mininum width - see page 22)

AASHTO guidelines here: http://communitymobility.org/pdf/aashto.pdf

On page 5 begins the trouble. Note that under 'The Bicycle' the guide suggests that a cyclist only needs 1m to operate in, and recommend a minimm of 1.2m (4') space.

Page 22 shows a picture of a BL that likely meets standards, but it obvioulsy too narrow. Note how all the cyclists are riding near the stripe, parts of them hanging over it.

Al

LBM: you missed my point. My point is that space needs to be tailored to riding conditions and the expected ridership. Inner cities, where speeds are slower, require less space for cyclists. Arterials and highways need more space. Likewise, faster cyclists will always want more space, while slower riders are content with less space. My experience switching from the fixie to the road bike was in illustration of this and is what prompted my post. When I was going slower, on a slower route on a slower bike, 5' was plenty. When I upped my speed, on the faster bike, 5' felt a bit cramped, and less than that, I just rode in partially in the lane.

My main point is that you are looking for generalities when the problem may be more complex than that. If I were looking for the "universal bike lane", FWIW, I'd choose 5-6 feet as a minimum standard.

Brian,
I ride on BL roads with different kinds of bikes at all speeds (10-30mph) and never really felt the BL width available felt more or less right with my varied speed.

Sure more space is nice for suburban BLs (assuming they are cleaned, a wider lane will collect even more debris). But more important (to me) is that the stripe is not present at intersection approaches.

Al

Personally, I think one needs 6' to operate any single track vehicle. Since balance is part of operating the vehicle than some wobble room on either side is necessary. Cyclists when climbing slowly probably wobble more than scooters or motorcycles.

Why not lobby for reducing the speed limit to 40 MPH and forget the stripe?
First, I don't believe speed limits have much effect. They lowered the speed limit from 45 to 35 on another stretch a few years ago, and it made little difference. Plus, it's normal/natural/safe to drive 50 there.

This is a long uphill stretch with essentially no intersections. It is about as close in conditions to those that warrant a slow truck lane as one might possibly have.

Practically speaking, what's most likely to happen is they restripe the substandard width bike lane. There is an outside chance to get a standard width bike lane (gutter pan + 4'). I'm hoping to get that by asking for 5'. I would need to have much more support than I currently I have in the local cycling community to get rid of the stripe altogether. This is a designated bike route, and the bike plan calls for a bike lane here, etc. They've started the repaving project and will probably be restriping in the next few days.

LBM: you missed my point. My point is that space needs to be tailored to riding conditions and the expected ridership. Inner cities, where speeds are slower, require less space for cyclists. Arterials and highways need more space. Likewise, faster cyclists will always want more space, while slower riders are content with less space.

...FWIW, I'd choose 5-6 feet as a minimum standard.
I agree for 6 foot minimum.

As for varying speeds and lane widths that correspond to those speeds, I'd design bike lanes to accomodate the fastest anticipated speeds, not the slowest. Nevertheless, I don't think bike lane width should vary according to anticipated speed of cyclists who may use it, unless you're talking about widening it even further than 6 feet.

Heck, I can outstretch my arms to reach almost 6 feet (yes, I'm short, but I'm not 5 feet! :D )

Folks... I am talking about my personal observations about cyclist's speed. Just something I noticed. HH, that means that if your 45 turned 35 mph road you are still riding at 20 mph, then it doesn't pertain to my point. Get on a fixed gear where your speed is actively limited to a 15 mph average on the flat, and the experience is different. I suspect that most transportational cyclists, unless they are traveling many miles, don't have to and don't, in fact, hold a 20 mph average.

LBM: I'm not necessarily suggesting variable width lanes here. I'm just making the observation. Road design is another matter entirely, and I, for one, am unqualified to engineer a road. Keep in mind that there is no inherent reason to build a bike lane for the maximum cyclist travel speed if the road is space limited. Riders who average faster speeds can simply take the lane. In my perfect world, cyclists are accomodated but also accepted on the full roadway as part of traffic with no caveats. To put it another way, why should road accomodations be focused on the few fast, athletic, capable cyclists who make up a small percentage of transportational cyclists? Why not design the bike lane, for example, for slower cyclists and let the more capable cyclists merge with car traffic when needed?

...Road design is another matter entirely, and I, for one, am unqualified to engineer a road.
I'd rather have you design a bike lane than whoever is responsible for some of the bike lanes we have. At least you are an experienced cyclist.

Folks... I am talking about my personal observations about cyclist's speed. Just something I noticed. HH, that means that if your 45 turned 35 mph road you are still riding at 20 mph, then it doesn't pertain to my point. Get on a fixed gear where your speed is actively limited to a 15 mph average on the flat, and the experience is different. I suspect that most transportational cyclists, unless they are traveling many miles, don't have to and don't, in fact, hold a 20 mph average.
San Diego is very hilly. The only time I can come close to a 20 mph (19 and change) average over any significant distance is when hanging on for dear life in a club peloton.

On this particular stretch where they went from 45 to 35, my morning commute is mostly downhill (but not very steep) and in the 20-30+ range, and my return commute is 8-18.

While I'm sure the experience is significantly different on the downhills between free/multi and fixed, not so much on the gradual climbs. That said, I should mention that a few guys do manage to hang with the weekend peloton riding a fixie, so I'm not so sure the difference is that great, at least not for someone who is in exceptionally good shape (that would not be me!).


To put it another way, why should road accomodations be focused on the few fast, athletic, capable cyclists who make up a small percentage of transportational cyclists? Why not design the bike lane, for example, for slower cyclists and let the more capable cyclists merge with car traffic when needed?
Because even the "fast, athletic, capable" cyclists often can't keep up with motor traffic speeds, but are going too fast to be riding as close to the road edge as the bike lane typically places them. It makes it unnecessarily difficult to ride in traffic, slowing it down, when there is a bike lane off to the side and no apparent reason (to the motorists and cops) for you to not be using it.

Perhaps you are, Brian, but I don't think you're less qualified to design a bike lane than those responsible for some of the engineering feats I've witnessed. I'd rather have you design a bike lane than them.

Perhaps. But I suspect that cyclists sometimes get a bit of a god complex when we start describing bicycling accomodations we would like to see built. Did you see the Simpson's episode where Homer is asked by his distant relative to design a car for him? You can imagine that it didn't turn out very well...

Consumers (and all cyclists are basically consumers of bicycle accomodations of all sorts), are generally incompetent designers. Consumers make great evaluators, but hand them a blank sheet of paper and they wouldn't know what to do with it. I am a mechanical engineer by trade, but I have little experience (I've been working for round about 3 years now). I know enough to respect the fact that engineering design skill is built up through experience, not schooling. In fact, I believe that engineering is the only professional organization where you can obtain professional certification (the PE) through experience alone; you don't need a degree in Engineering to obtain a PE certification. All you need is experience.

So I'd say that I'd easily be able to evaluate a certain bicycling facility already implemented on the road, but I am not qualified to design one from scratch. It could very well be that there are very few people in the country who are qualified to design bike accomodations from scratch, since the engineering problem is so new. But a knowledge base is certainly being built up using the road engineer's best designs, integrated in time. In my experience, I haven't seen bicycle accomodations regress in time; what is rebuilt is better than what was torn out, so progress is being made; just have patience.

In my perfect world, cyclists are accomodated but also accepted on the full roadway as part of traffic with no caveats. To put it another way, why should road accomodations be focused on the few fast, athletic, capable cyclists who make up a small percentage of transportational cyclists? Why not design the bike lane, for example, for slower cyclists and let the more capable cyclists merge with car traffic when needed?

Ideal world, sure. But this is not an ideal world and the question is not so much what cyclists want as what society, meaning the motorists who are the predominant roadway users, expect. Do you think that the typical motorist can tell whether a cyclist is traveling at 16 mph or at 21 mph? I don't think the motorist would bother, except when considering merging or turning in front of, and then I expect he would consider the observed movement rather than the speed in mph. A facility suitable for high speed is also suitable for low speed.

Many years ago I measured the speed of cyclists commuting into Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at the start of the working day, at a location with a long level stretch and on a day without wind. The speed range was from 12 to 22 mph, 16 mph average and 18 mph 85 percentile speed.

San Diego is very hilly. The only time I can come close to a 20 mph (19 and change) average over any significant distance is when hanging on for dear life in a club peloton.

On this particular stretch where they went from 45 to 35, my morning commute is mostly downhill (but not very steep) and in the 20-30+ range, and my return commute is 8-18.

I should point out that this is pretty fast, both up and down.


While I'm sure the experience is significantly different on the downhills between free/multi and fixed, not so much on the gradual climbs. That said, I should mention that a few guys do manage to hang with the weekend peloton riding a fixie, so I'm not so sure the difference is that great, at least not for someone who is in exceptionally good shape (that would not be me!).

Fixies, I have found, have a predilection to slow down; to make them go fast, one has to focus on going fast. This is partially from gearing (the gearing is always compromised), and partially from the fixed drivetrain (no coasting to keep up speed). So just think how fast those guys who are riding fixed on your club ride would be on a road bike! :D

Anyway, I am just describing my personal observation from yesterday and this morning. Riding fast requires more space; this might be part of the source of the divide between pro-stripe and anti-stripe.


Because even the "fast, athletic, capable" cyclists often can't keep up with motor traffic speeds, but are going too fast to be riding as close to the road edge as the bike lane typically places them. It makes it unnecessarily difficult to ride in traffic, slowing it down, when there is a bike lane off to the side and no apparent reason (to the motorists and cops) for you to not be using it.

Didn't you list NOL before BL when asked about cyclist accomodations? Why should sharing a narrow outside lane differ if there is a bike lane beside it? Yes, it goes against norms, perhaps, but norms change. Already, in my area, I don't have much problem treating a bike laned road as if it has a narrow lane and no shoulder, if that is what riding conditions dictate. If this is soley about expectations - expectations can change.

And if the capable cyclist is capable of riding in the narrow lane beside the bike lane, why not design the bike lane for slower speeds? Either the capable cyclist slows down, or s/he takes to the full width lane. Other cyclists use the bike lane. I am a capable cyclist myself, but who am I to take away something that a less capable cyclist wants? It is not about what works best for me; people like me are few. It is about what works best for the cycling population and potential population as a whole!

Welcome to the unique environment of Santa Barbara. Now to remind yourself what the rest of us encounter, take a ride down to Oxnard.

The bike lanes are pretty wide in Oxnard, but they are a LOT dirtier.

That might actually be useful to someone like Harry Potter, who can shrink his profile to squeeze though any traffic situation, and disappear if needed. :)
That's not Harry Potter doing that, it's that bus he rides.

Ideal world, sure. But this is not an ideal world and the question is not so much what cyclists want as what society, meaning the motorists who are the predominant roadway users, expect. Do you think that the typical motorist can tell whether a cyclist is traveling at 16 mph or at 21 mph? I don't think the motorist would bother, except when considering merging or turning in front of, and then I expect he would consider the observed movement rather than the speed in mph. A facility suitable for high speed is also suitable for low speed.

I am refering to the maneuvering room the cyclist prefers. Surely you can tell if you are going 16 mph or 21 mph on your bike! As for the motorist, well, they just go on observed speed if they need to make a maneuver. Every experienced cyclist out there that I've heard from observes that one needs more room when traveling at higher speed. Bikes are simply more maneuverable at slower speeds, just like just about everything that moves.


Many years ago I measured the speed of cyclists commuting into Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at the start of the working day, at a location with a long level stretch and on a day without wind. The speed range was from 12 to 22 mph, 16 mph average and 18 mph 85 percentile speed.

Good, good. You measured a bunch of roadies, didn't you; a bunch of engineering types who love cycling, and bike and commute for pleasure and exercise, not for purpose - like Helmet Head and I. 18 mph on the level, while not pushing it hard, is fairly up there. For instance, on my fixed, because of my gearing, I cannot get up to 18 mph on the level without trying really hard. Most cyclists don't travel that fast.

IFixies, I have found, have a predilection to slow down; to make them go fast, one has to focus on going fast. This is partially from gearing (the gearing is always compromised), and partially from the fixed drivetrain (no coasting to keep up speed). So just think how fast those guys who are riding fixed on your club ride would be on a road bike! :D
I'm really no different in speed fixed vs. free. Wind and physical/mental state have a bigger effect.
I regularly ride in club rides with 25-32mph pacelines (flat) both fixed and free. The only place one can get dropped in on the downhills, where I max out at 34 or so on fixed, the free guys go down 45+.

I get comments all the time from others I ride with that I'd be scary when I switch to a geared bike. Then I do and perform no differently. Its not like I'd suddenly be able to break away from the lead group.

Al

You should try a trike instead of a fixie. You'll go even slower and you won't even fit in the bike lane if they're designed to the minimum. What are you gonna do then? Adapt, of course.

Fortunately, for those who can think outside the stripe, the bike lane stripe isn't a prison cell. It's just a lane marking.

Fortunately, for those who can think outside the stripe, the bike lane stripe isn't a prison cell. It's just a lane marking.
Thats not what the law says. Ya gotta stay in a lane, not partly in one, or hanging partly out of one.

It is also not what the average motorist thinks either.

Al

I'm really no different in speed fixed vs. free. Wind and physical/mental state have a bigger effect.
I regularly ride in club rides with 25-32mph pacelines (flat) both fixed and free. The only place one can get dropped in on the downhills, where I max out at 34 or so on fixed, the free guys go down 45+.

I get comments all the time from others I ride with that I'd be scary when I switch to a geared bike. Then I do and perform no differently. Its not like I'd suddenly be able to break away from the lead group.

Al

Your place is flat. I suspect my gear ratio is a bit lower (48/17, road wheels, about 75 gear inches). I don't think I can hit speeds much over about 25 mph.

Thats not what the law says. Ya gotta stay in a lane, not partly in one, or hanging partly out of one.

It is also not what the average motorist thinks either.

Al

Says who? I ride just inside (to the right of) the stripe or share the lane next to the bike lane all the time. Nobody seems confused. You've been on this argument for a couple months now. Did you get a ticket? Or is this all contrived?

Your place is flat. I suspect my gear ratio is a bit lower (48/17, road wheels, about 75 gear inches). I don't think I can hit speeds much over about 25 mph.
Some flat, some not. I use 48x15/17. Mostly 15 unless a hilly route, then the 17. 17 limits me to about 30 in the pacelines, but have pushed it to 32 for shorter stretches so as not to get dropped.
Al

Says who? I ride just inside (to the right of) the stripe or share the lane next to the bike lane all the time. Nobody seems confused. You've been on this argument for a couple months now. Did you get a ticket? Or is this all contrived?
Its not my argument. BL proponents are the ones who keep telling me to ignore the stripe. My experience is that while I can ignore it, others are not so willing to. Where I live there is definitely motorist resistance to me traveling or desiring to merge outside a marked BL.

The AZ law I am refering to is this:
"28-729. Driving on roadways laned for traffic
If a roadway is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules in addition to all others consistent with this section apply:
1. A person shall drive a vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not move the vehicle from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety."

No I have not had any ticket, nor is it intended to be contrived. The point is that some motorists do not like it when I hang over the line and the law supports their concern.

Al

John Forester:
Many years ago I measured the speed of cyclists commuting into Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at the start of the working day, at a location with a long level stretch and on a day without wind. The speed range was from 12 to 22 mph, 16 mph average and 18 mph 85 percentile speed.




I am refering to the maneuvering room the cyclist prefers. Surely you can tell if you are going 16 mph or 21 mph on your bike! As for the motorist, well, they just go on observed speed if they need to make a maneuver. Every experienced cyclist out there that I've heard from observes that one needs more room when traveling at higher speed. Bikes are simply more maneuverable at slower speeds, just like just about everything that moves.



Good, good. You measured a bunch of roadies, didn't you; a bunch of engineering types who love cycling, and bike and commute for pleasure and exercise, not for purpose - like Helmet Head and I. 18 mph on the level, while not pushing it hard, is fairly up there. For instance, on my fixed, because of my gearing, I cannot get up to 18 mph on the level without trying really hard. Most cyclists don't travel that fast.


You are biased, aren't you, Brian? I measured the speeds of all the employees who arrived by bicycle during the morning rush hour. No selectivity at all.

And, if all that concerns you is how you feel, then I agree that at faster speeds one needs to stay a bit farther from the edge of the roadway. However, according to the discussion, the issue concerned the width of the marked bike lane, whose stripe has an effect on motorists, and on society in general, that is rather disconnected to the speed of the cyclist.

Fixies, I have found, have a predilection to slow down; to make them go fast, one has to focus on going fast. This is partially from gearing (the gearing is always compromised), and partially from the fixed drivetrain (no coasting to keep up speed). So just think how fast those guys who are riding fixed on your club ride would be on a road bike! :D
Indeed, on days when the guys who keep up on the fixies show up with their road bikes, they're usually driving at the front.


Anyway, I am just describing my personal observation from yesterday and this morning. Riding fast requires more space; this might be part of the source of the divide between pro-stripe and anti-stripe. Riding speed is only part of the equation - how much space the cyclist requires from stationary objects (normally off to the right). I'm fine griding uphill in the gutter at 5 mph. On the downhill at 25-40 I want to be at least 5 feet from the curb.

But the other part of the equation is speed differential with passing traffic. The higher the speed differential the more space I seem to require. Thus I don't mind being fairly close to 40 mph passing traffic when I'm going downhill at 30, but I require much more space when I'm going uphill at 5 mph next to that 40 mph traffic.

So, in some ways, yes, going slower requires less space, but in other ways it requires more space.



Didn't you list NOL before BL when asked about cyclist accomodations? Why should sharing a narrow outside lane differ if there is a bike lane beside it? Yes, it goes against norms, perhaps, but norms change.

Already, in my area, I don't have much problem treating a bike laned road as if it has a narrow lane and no shoulder, if that is what riding conditions dictate. If this is soley about expectations - expectations can change. Yes, the problem is norms and expectations. Drivers are much more tolerant of cyclists slowing them down in a NOL when there is obviously no alternative than in a WOL, especially with the margin demarcated especially for bike use. Worse, only the boldest among us are willing to take on the intolerant drivers, and, so, most cyclists end up riding in the bike lane even when they shouldn't. For example, we have a long/straight/flat downhill on a 6 lane arterial with bike lanes where I see experienced cyclists riding 40+ in the bike lane literally inches from the curb, even when there is no other same direction traffic. Some norms and expectations change, some do not. I suspect the expectation for BIKEs, especially when they're slowing others down, to be in the space labeled BIKE LANE, is a norm that's here to stay.



And if the capable cyclist is capable of riding in the narrow lane beside the bike lane, why not design the bike lane for slower speeds? Either the capable cyclist slows down, or s/he takes to the full width lane. Other cyclists use the bike lane. I am a capable cyclist myself, but who am I to take away something that a less capable cyclist wants? It is not about what works best for me; people like me are few. It is about what works best for the cycling population and potential population as a whole! Road engineering is not about satisfying people's wants, it's about satifisying their actual real needs. Facilities that encourage behavior contrary to best practices (no matter how congruent with "wants") is not good engineering.

John F.: No, actually the object of the OP is the width of the bike lane from the perspective of the cyclist. I don't believe in your theory about the effects of bike lanes on society or motorists; I believe that your theory is colored by your environment and your riding style. I don't believe because I have not seen this effect when I ride around town here, or, really, in any other city I have ridden in. The only effect of bike lanes I've personally witnessed is my comfort or discomfort with the space provided; the effects, on the contrary of your claim, have little to nothing to do with cars or drivers.

Am I biased? No. I'm just saying that middle class engineers on road bikes ride faster than your typical city dweller. If you are measuring the speed of Ames Aeronautical Laboratory employees, then you are already being selective with your sample.

Indeed, on days when the guys who keep up on the fixies show up with their road bikes, they're usually driving at the front.

Riding speed is only part of the equation - how much space the cyclist requires from stationary objects (normally off to the right). I'm fine griding uphill in the gutter at 5 mph. On the downhill at 25-40 I want to be at least 5 feet from the curb.

But the other part of the equation is speed differential with passing traffic. The higher the speed differential the more space I seem to require. Thus I don't mind being fairly close to 40 mph passing traffic when I'm going downhill at 30, but I require much more space when I'm going uphill at 5 mph next to that 40 mph traffic.

So, in some ways, yes, going slower requires less space, but in other ways it requires more space.

Yes, I forgot that your surface streets can sometimes get pretty fast. There are two variables here; I suppose I am looking more at median speed of all traffic, bikes included.



Yes, the problem is norms and expectations. Drivers are much more tolerant of cyclists slowing them down in a NOL when there is obviously no alternative than in a WOL, especially with the margin demarcated especially for bike use. Worse, only the boldest among us are willing to take on the intolerant drivers, and, so, most cyclists end up riding in the bike lane even when they shouldn't. For example, we have a long/straight/flat downhill on a 6 lane arterial with bike lanes where I see experienced cyclists riding 40+ in the bike lane literally inches from the curb, even when there is no other same direction traffic. Some norms and expectations change, some do not. I suspect the expectation for BIKEs, especially when they're slowing others down, to be in the space labeled BIKE LANE, is a norm that's here to stay.

I respectfully disagree with your pessimism. My experience is different. Attitudes can successfully be changed from "there's a bike lanes - use it" to "the cyclist is in my lane - the bike lane must be unsuitable for this person".


Road engineering is not about satisfying people's wants, it's about satifisying their actual real needs. Facilities that encourage behavior contrary to best practices (no matter how congruent with "wants") is not good engineering.

The customers are both the cyclists and the traffic system. An engineer cannot just go about designing something that people "need" if nobody will end up using it. The concerns of both customers have to be worked in together and coupled with good engineering design. This is why I, and probably nobody here, is qualified to actually design a bicycle facility. Engineers are notoriously bad at recognizing the coupling between a person's "wants" and "needs". If "wants" deviate from "needs", then the model needs to be rethought. People are better judges of what they need then engineers, many times, give them credit for. They are good evaluators, but they are not designers. That's the engineer's job.

Many years ago I measured the speed of cyclists commuting into Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at the start of the working day, at a location with a long level stretch and on a day without wind. The speed range was from 12 to 22 mph, 16 mph average and 18 mph 85 percentile speed.

Good, good. You measured a bunch of roadies, didn't you; a bunch of engineering types who love cycling, and bike and commute for pleasure and exercise, not for purpose - like Helmet Head and I. 18 mph on the level, while not pushing it hard, is fairly up there. For instance, on my fixed, because of my gearing, I cannot get up to 18 mph on the level without trying really hard. Most cyclists don't travel that fast.

I don't think education or job description has anything to do with average cycling speed. I think it's directly related to flatness of terrain, wind direction and velocity, personal training, total vehicle weight, and heredity.

I ride a fairly heavy recumbent with a lot of baggage (I myself weigh about 152 lbs. naked; I need to lose a few pounds, but what-the-hey. :eek: ) My route is very hilly, with a few level spots, and plenty of lights.

Can you say, "Fred?"

Over a ~15 mile route, I usually average about 14-15 mph. I don't think on a flat road, with no wind or stops, 16 mph. is very fast for an average speed.

Shoot, I'd like to race on of those mother's boys. :D

(Did you say "12 mph" for a low-end speed on the flats? Definitely Fredsky.)

Just in case someone is trying to visualize the issues, I think that SG has a nice page here

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carydesign/carydesignreview.htm

-G

The customers are both the cyclists and the traffic system. An engineer cannot just go about designing something that people "need" if nobody will end up using it. The concerns of both customers have to be worked in together and coupled with good engineering design. This is why I, and probably nobody here, is qualified to actually design a bicycle facility. Engineers are notoriously bad at recognizing the coupling between a person's "wants" and "needs". If "wants" deviate from "needs", then the model needs to be rethought. People are better judges of what they need then engineers, many times, give them credit for. They are good evaluators, but they are not designers. That's the engineer's job.

When designing consumer products solely for entertainment purposes, it's important to know your customer's wants and needs and to design for them. When designing any product where safety is a number one priority (such as designing roads) people's wants really should be left out of the equation unless the safety issues are not compromised. Imagine an engineer designing a child car seat that released smoother/quicker/easier but as a result the seat no longer passed minimum crash requirements. Is that a good design? I think the same logic can be applied to designing in 2-3 foot wide bike lanes simply because some cyclists want a marked off space, even though using that space is generally not safe. A good engineering analysis of what a cyclist needs to operate safely would not come to the conclusion that a 3 foot wide lane is sufficient.

When designing consumer products solely for entertainment purposes, it's important to know your customer's wants and needs and to design for them. When designing any product where safety is a number one priority (such as designing roads) people's wants really should be left out of the equation unless the safety issues are not compromised. Imagine an engineer designing a child car seat that released smoother/quicker/easier but as a result the seat no longer passed minimum crash requirements. Is that a good design? I think the same logic can be applied to designing in 2-3 foot wide bike lanes simply because some cyclists want a marked off space, even though using that space is generally not safe. A good engineering analysis of what a cyclist needs to operate safely would not come to the conclusion that a 3 foot wide lane is sufficient.

The engineer's job is to combine these requirements. That is my point. The road system is not the sole customer, and neither is the road user. Both are, and both have to be catered to. In the car seat example, any ol' person can design a seat like a rock which is perfectly safe and perfectly un-user friendly. Any ol' person can make a seat that the child slips into like a glove, easy as pie, but doesn't protect. The engineer is to combine these requirements, which is why most child seats are also child carriers and fairly easy to use, yet still protect in an accident.

Such is the job of the road engineer. Any person, you or I for example, can devise the perfect cycling environment; but'd be unbuildable. Any person, you or I for example, can devise a perfectly buildable bicycle accomodation, but it wouldn't be perfect for cycling. The engineer's job is to combine these two requirements, which are conflicting, and make something useable and good for cycling, but which can also be practically implimented.

But even for engineers, there is a collective learning curve. Engineers don't just sit at a desk and dream up ideas; few ideas are unique. Engineers expand on what's already been done, innovating by noticing solutions in products or designs unrelated to the work they are doing, but are applicable. Engineers tend to focus on commonalities between things, not differences, though they have to acknowledge the differences as well. But there is a learning curve, meaning that it might take years or decades to get a design, such as our highly technical traffic system (as opposed to free form such as in India or Cambodia) which evolves at a slow pace, perfected. How many years and how many different interesection designs for cars evolved to keep pace with things like multiple lane roads and such? In watching roads being reconstructed around here, I've never once seen a road regress in terms of the way it handled cyclists and increasing traffic. That is progress.


I think the same logic can be applied to designing in 2-3 foot wide bike lanes simply because some cyclists want a marked off space, even though using that space is generally not safe. A good engineering analysis of what a cyclist needs to operate safely would not come to the conclusion that a 3 foot wide lane is sufficient.

I want to address this directly, because it gets at the main beef that cyclists have with bad road designs. You are right, a good engineering analysis, or even a cursory one, will result in acknowledging that 3' is not enough for a bike lane. This is why bike lanes around here tend to be no less than 5' wide. But designs are about tradeoffs as well. There is nothing really inherently dangerous about a 3' bike lane for a typical, slow moving cyclists (as you start going faster, one starts requiring, or at least feeling the need for, more space). So if your goal is to increase cycling, then you cater to the majority of cyclists and potential cyclists, and design the bike lane for them. Depending on the road, 3' might be enough. Hell, on some rural roads around here, I'd appreciate 1' so can at least ride the line at times and assist cars passing.

I fully believe that, when doing something as sensitive as mixing bicycle and car traffic in the face of restrictions in road width and resources, compromises need to be made almost on a road to road basis. Think about it: if the design guidelines are extensive and encompasses all issues surrounding mixing of cars and cyclists, is there really a need for standard bike lane design? Roads are built on such a long term scale, that they can all be treated as separate, custom, projects. For the most part, they are. Why require 6' lanes when the road is 25mph? Why lanes at all? Why restrict to 5' when traffic is passing at 55-70 mph? Bicycles and cars usually have large speed differences; bicycle accomodations can and should address these on a more continuum basis.

When designing consumer products solely for entertainment purposes, it's important to know your customer's wants and needs and to design for them. When designing any product where safety is a number one priority (such as designing roads) people's wants really should be left out of the equation unless the safety issues are not compromised. Imagine an engineer designing a child car seat that released smoother/quicker/easier but as a result the seat no longer passed minimum crash requirements. Is that a good design? I think the same logic can be applied to designing in 2-3 foot wide bike lanes simply because some cyclists want a marked off space, even though using that space is generally not safe. A good engineering analysis of what a cyclist needs to operate safely would not come to the conclusion that a 3 foot wide lane is sufficient.

I'll put it in a simpler way. If the engineer makes the perfect child's seat, it'll weigh 50 lbs, cost $1000, be made of steel and closed cell foam, have a 5 point belt attachment system, be fully enclosed, and have a personal air conditioning unit in case the parent leaves the kid in the car on a hot day. Nobody would use it. The net result of the "perfect" child's seat is bad.

The current designs use a clever 3 point belt attachment system which is implimented to feel like a single point system, is lightweight, open so the parent has access to the child, and has a detachable base so the parent doesn't have to fiddle with the car's seatbelt buckles to secure the seat after each removal. All these things compromise the safety of the child's seat in the name of convenience. All of these make its use more likely. Thus, the net result of these compromises is good.

This, incidentally, is why standards exist. Design compromises are made to increase useability at the expense of function down to the standard. Standards put a floor on the product's performance, yet give the engineer flexibility to design compromises into the product to increase useability.

Brian,

Do you think the video with the 2' bike lane I posted on page 1 is better than no stripe?
Did the engineers do a good job balancing wants, needs and options?

Al

It seems that Brian Ratliffe's discussion of the problems and compromises involved in road design has ignored the very controlling limitations imposed by the highway design standards. These are very comprehensive, and they have been worked out on the basis of experience over a century. The highway design engineer has the choice of items to include, given expected traffic, space, cost, and such, but there is very little choice as to how to include each of the items chosen.

The big exception, of course, is bike lanes, whose principle contradicts standard roadway operating practice and makes all design decisions difficult. As I have frequently stated, the design standards for bike lanes were created with the intention of pushing bicycles aside, just so long as the added danger to cyclists was insufficient to produce injury liability law suits. Typical militant motorist stunt, that. An now, because people do not understand the facts, bike lanes have taken on a life of their own, in the superstition that they actually produce results that were not intended in the design.

...AASHTO guidelines here: http://communitymobility.org/pdf/aashto.pdf

On page 5 begins the trouble. Note that under 'The Bicycle' the guide suggests that a cyclist only needs 1m to operate in, and recommend a minimm of 1.2m (4') space....

In engineering terms, they are right. I have crossed quite a few narrow bridges that had a 1-m catwalk and had plenty of room to travel at a decent speed. I even was able to ride at a half-decent speed while towing the trailercycle and the child trailer (32" wide). Of course, I have to slow down if there are curves, if the visibility isn't good, if there are oncoming cyclists or pedestrians...

The 4' "rule" doesn't mean that a bike lane should be 4' wide, nor does it mean that there should not be any safety margin on either sides; it just means that a decent alert cyclist will use that amount of space.

"Errors" start to appear in specific situations (pp. 22 ff) when, for example, they estimate the width of a bike lane on the left side of parked cars. Car doors aren't open all the time, yet if one estimates that a car door overhangs by 2.5 or 3 ft, then one needs at least 3.5 or 4' more to cycle beside the door. So a 5' bikelane that would be sitting 2 ft away from the parking spaces could be ok.

Now I just wish that the various cities would use the same criteria before adding obstacles in dedicated bike and multi-use paths. There would be a ban on all bollards placed in the centre of paths or even on both sides unless they are more than 2 ft away.

. . . Why not design the bike lane, for example, for slower cyclists and let the more capable cyclists merge with car traffic when needed?
Because the less capable cyclists can become more capable if they wanted to. There are plenty of books (Forester and non-Forester) available at the library for free. You can get cycling videos, too. Learning to ride in traffic isn't hard. Why should government tailor services to people who chose to remain ignorant?

Back to LBM's point (and the point of the thread), AASHTO standards need to be strengthened. AASHTO has real influence, especially over traffic departments who are only reluctantly "accomodating" cyclists. Five foot lanes are not sufficient in most cases, especially when the five feet includes a gutter or a door zone.

AASHTO standards also need to include maintenance, including cleaning. I look at the parts of the route I take where bike lanes could go, and it generally has gravel, dirt, glass, etc. The standard should require that the lanes be swept frequently enough to keep them clear of debris.

You are right, a good engineering analysis, or even a cursory one, will result in acknowledging that 3' is not enough for a bike lane. This is why bike lanes around here tend to be no less than 5' wide. But designs are about tradeoffs as well. There is nothing really inherently dangerous about a 3' bike lane for a typical, slow moving cyclists (as you start going faster, one starts requiring, or at least feeling the need for, more space).
Brian!!

If bike lanes where you live are no less than 5 feet wide, how can you say a 3 foot wide bike lane is a good trade-off? How in the world would you know anything about that?

How can you say 3 foot wide bike lanes are not dangerous if you don't have to ride them?

:eek:

Frankly, I'm insulted by 3 foot wide bike lanes. I'm worth more than that.