Road Cycling - Bike lanes are pure evil

Today was my last time riding in a bike lane. I'm done. From now on I'll be avoiding them at all costs.

Essentially, what bike lanes do is fortify drivers' impression that the only ones on the road are them and the other drivers. Since you are not in their way, they drive like they would drive on any other street. Therefore when they turn right, they will turn in front of you. When they look to the right, what they see is not a bike lane; it's an awesome space to temporarily park in. The bike lane is always clogged with cars with drivers in them, waiting for something or someone. So it's ok for cars to clog the bike lane, but as soon as you attempt to go around the car and start riding in the car lane, drivers automatically get pissed off, because there's a bike lane and you're not in it. Furthermore, going around cars with drivers at the wheel drastically increases your chances of getting doored.

The completely EVIL bike lanes are the ones with parking spots on the right side, and car lane on the left. So if you're not getting driven over by the huge SUV turning right into you, you'll get doored by the people who don't bother to look back when opening their doors because there's plenty of "space" between their car and the car lane.

Today I almost got hit by a driver who turned into me at the light, looking to her left the entire time, never acknowledging the fact that I was in the bike lane. I turned just in time, turned the bike away from the car at the last moment, and fell with my arms onto the side of her car. She drove away, not knowing the least bit of what had just happened.

This has happened to me at least once a day, but never to this extent. Usually I am able to brake well before they turn, letting them go through, and then going behind them. I've had doors open in front of me several times, from parked cars. Cars that park in the lane are usual daily business.

So from now on, I'll ride on streets without bike lanes, forcing drivers to acknowledge the fact that i'm in the street before they maneuver. This will also give me more room to avoid doorings, and parked cars won't be an issue anymore. It seems that the only accident dangers I've ever faced have been while riding in the bike lane.

I think you are Chris L's new best friend

Originally posted by Spire
I think you are Chris L's new best friend

Actually, my primary opposition is to bike paths. I have rather neutral feelings about bike lanes. Generally I treat bike lanes like any other shoulder on the road - I use it when I feel it's practical to do so. I'll ride outside of any bike lane that puts me within "dooring" range.

As far as being right/left hooked goes, I don't think bike lanes make any difference either way here. Most people would quite happily run over their own children when they get into their cars, so they aren't going to care about a stranger on a bike. I think the best solution to that problem is to be aware of your own surroundings.

I will take a bike lane over my typical ride zone: A fifty five speed limit, narrow two lane with so little shoulder the stripe is half painted on dirt, getting buzzed by rednecks doing seventy in their fourby Nascar stickers and Confederate flag stickers in all their glory.

I think bicycle lanes are a good idea to promote cycling as a day to day activity, but I personally ride down the center yellow lines as much as possible. This way I am not only EXTREMELY visible, but most drivers take special care because they think A) I'm nuts or B) they'll kill me if they aren't careful. Both cases may be true, but I find I get a lot more respect when I command the "center lane," and I have yet to be doored riding down the center of the street too (nor do I get glass from broken windows in my tires, or people stepping out between cars, etc, etc)! Not to mention when there is no oncoming traffic I can ride in my own lane!

Disclaimer: This is not to advocate trying to ride in such an irresponsible and honestly, quite dumb, manner. Any attempts to do this may result in DEATH and I assume no responsibility for DEATH, DISMEMBERMENT, or PAIN. He he.

I AGREE! The bike lanes here in Minneapolis are DANGEROUS! Cars are either oblivious or just don't care. They turn in front of you, and into you, and then yell at you for being in the way. Two days ago I was riding in a bike lane passing cars and there was a Huge, Fat lady sitting in here Tiny, Minny car yelling at me to use the side walk! I guess I was in her way in the bike lane. She probably wanted to use it to go around traffic. I know that when I am in the bike lane though, if I get hit, I am going to get some serious cash!

Originally posted by princebaal
I AGREE! The bike lanes here in Minneapolis are DANGEROUS! Cars are either oblivious or just don't care.

Again I have to ask - does this attitude occur because of the bike lane or in spite of it? There are situations where bike lanes can be very useful. The key is determining when and where those situations are, and when and where they aren't. Simply put, you need to use your own judgement to determine when to leave the bike lane and claim the "traffic lane" and when not to.

If I have a bike lane that's outside of a left-turn lane (right-turn lane for those in the US), I'll leave it and move into the centre lane (the one with traffic going straight ahead). This is purely a judgement call. However, it doesn't necessarily say that all bike lanes are bad - just impractical in certain situations.

The idea of a bike lane is of course, a good one.

The problem lies in the application. Considering the apparent average driver mentality, they are dangerous. I find myself riding much slower and much more paranoid when in the bike lane, due to a series of bad experiences which typically do not occur when riding in the car lane, or on the shoulder of a bike lane-less street. The fact that you're in the driver's face makes them aware of you, and thus much less likely to run you over.

One partial solution would be constant 'Beware of cyclists in bike lane' signs. There are roads around here which have constant 'No Bike Lane. Bicycles in Car Lane' signs, which I really like.

Originally posted by shrimpx

One partial solution would be constant 'Beware of cyclists in bike lane' signs.

You mean like this?
http://www.neebu.net/~khuon/albums/visual_tao_of_cycling/PICT0001.jpg

... err... wait... nevermind. :D


Originally posted by shrimpx

There are roads around here which have constant 'No Bike Lane. Bicycles in Car Lane' signs, which I really like.

I prefer this...
http://www.neebu.net/~khuon/albums/visual_tao_of_cycling/bicycles_have_right_of_way_1.jpg

My objection to bike lanes is that they create the impression in the minds of the ignorant that they're the ONLY place bikes can be on the street legitimately. I've run into this "get off the street, there's no bike lane here" attitude repeatedly.

Sure this could be counteracted by aggressive efforts to educate the public about how bikes and other vehicles are expected to interact according to the law.

Yeah, right.

RichC

Biking in Toronto bike lanes is a *****. Riding in Montreal bike lanes is an enormous *****.

Originally posted by WorldIRC
Biking in Toronto bike lanes is a *****. Riding in Montreal bike lanes is an enormous *****.

I don't agree, I think Montreal has some wonderfully placed bikepaths such as Lachine, but others are downright stupid and/or dangerous, such as the one along Notre-Dame E.


I personally think that bike lanes are almost always useless, you get the road debris in them and many drivers think they don't have to move over because you are in your lane and they come really close. I think cyclists are best served by just having the outside lane of the road extra wide, rather than having the bike lane.

Without plunging too deply into the "bike lanes are evil" debate, thought you may like to have a read of this article in today's paper over here:

Vehicle Ploughs into a Pack of Riders (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6595688%255E21302,00.html)

As an aside, I like the attitude of the cyclist interviewed at the end of the article:

"It's a sport. Life is about taking risks. If you didn't take risks, there'd be no reason to get up in the mornings," he said.

Which merely goes to show that bike lanes are secondary to the behaviour of that unrestrained species known as the motoring primate. One night last week I had two of them make deliberate attempts to kill me. In such a situation, bike lanes or paths are of no assistance whatsoever.

Chris L, what is your beef with bike paths?

As Spire says, some paths in Montreal are great. The Lachine and Riverside paths have almost no road crossing. They are basically bike roads. They are also useful for me to get downtown and work.

My problem with bike lanes is that drivers have to look at different place for fast moving vehicules: on the road and the bike lane. Since bike lanes are not omnipresent, drivers don't think about it. It's very dangerous, especially for riders coming "against traffic" (because lanes are often two way lanes on a single side of the street). I hope I make sense here, my bad English makes it difficult sometimes!

Originally posted by Erick L
Chris L, what is your beef with bike paths?

As Spire says, some paths in Montreal are great. The Lachine and Riverside paths have almost no road crossing.

But do they actually go where you need to go? Are they as accessable as the road? Do drivers actually refrain from using them for their own purposes? Do they provide sufficient space to swerve around hazards such as broken glass or overhanging brances? Are you required to "give way to pedestrians" or "dismount to cross whatever the council feels like putting there?" every 40 metres or so? Is that enough vitriol for one rant?

Actually, a brief re-reading of my above post would reveal very little mention of bike paths, except to say that they will not protect you from a driver who is deliberately trying to kill you. A quick look at the thread linked below will explain exactly what I am talking about. The safety of these things is dramatically overrated.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=29054

I ride on the street regardless. IT's worse to ride on the sidewalk or bike lane if there is one. people like to throw bottles or other things in the bike lanes and sidewalks to apparently cause flats. I would rather take my chances witht the motorists. I haven't had too many problems.

>>>>I personally think that bike lanes are almost always useless, you get the road debris in them and many drivers think they don't have to move over because you are in your lane and they come really close.<<<<

Bingo... That's my problem with bike lanes. Without the lane, the cyclist can demand the entire land and the motorist KNOWS this and drives accordingly. In other words, they tend to drive more cautiously when attempting to pass.

When the bike lane is present, they expect you to maintain within that lane regardless to what hazzards appear on the road. As a result, motorist often feels assured that you won't move out of the bike lane and will pass at a maximum speed or above just inches away. A much more dangerous situation in my opinion.

In New York City, I often ride in the Bus lane. Most of the cabs and cars have to stay out enabling me to ride in the center of that lane.

I actually prefer bike lanes ... it keeps me and cars away from each other (most of the time). Generally when I'm riding on the road, I try to be alert as much as possible for cars behind me. Bike lanes here are generally very roomy as far as door space, so that hasn't been a big deal with me. I guess I just haven't gotten hit by a door yet, so that lesson is an unlearned one for me.

Bike lanes in Chicago sometimes means "parking lanes" for cars... or they come and park in the car and turn on the hazards while they run in to pick something up.

Despite the $50 fine, they still do it on a regular basis. The fine is a joke- police rarely do anything to enforce it, and sometimes, I even see THEM parked illegally in a bike lane.

The sad thing about this fine is that the police enforce a SMALL section of Sheridan Road where cyclists are sometimes forced to ride on the sidewalks because the cars ride like maniacs- the residents complained, and the police and politicians responded by passing this stupid law saying bikes could not ride on the sidewalks. The fine? $250. Police will sit there and wait for cyclists to roll up on the sidewalks, then fine them, and if they refuse to take the ticket, they get their front wheel taken away and ticketed anyway.

All that, and they can't be bothered to ride around the city and enforce the more important law that protects cyclists from drivers jumping into the bike lane or obstructing our path, while they gleefully sit around eating donuts waiting on the sidewalk for the occasional cyclist... :rolleyes:

But do they actually go where you need to go?

In my case, yes. But I chose where I live with that in mind. You can't expect paths to lead you every where you need to go, they are much rarer than road, after all. But most paths are not meant to go anywhere practical. They are for casual riding. It think trying to make path for practical reason is useless, there are roads for that. But in my case, yes, the paths are actually useful. One leads right in front of my photo lab and the other lead (in part) to work.


Are they as accessable as the road?

One of them, yes, as it follows the rivershore boulevard and is right in front of my appartment. Others are easily accessible too, but I don't go out of my way just to take them. I won't take the path to go the corner store three blocks away! The Lachine path is like a highway for me. I take if I need to go downtown. It follows a canal with locks and whenever there's a road crossing, the path goes under the bridge (the road needs a bridge because of the canal), so there are no stops, just like a highway. I can avoid all the lights by using it.


Do drivers actually refrain from using them for their own purposes?

Drivers? What would a driver do on a bike path? There are roads for them. I've never seen a car on a bike path, wether in the city or on a rail-trail lost in some country side.


Do they provide sufficient space to swerve around hazards such as broken glass or overhanging brances?

Absolutely, and the paths are cleaned just like the street.


Are you required to "give way to pedestrians" or "dismount to cross whatever the council feels like putting there?" every 40 metres or so?

Pedestrians have right of way wherever they go. One of the path I mentionned above, there's so much bike traffic that pedestrians are pretty careful. The other one is more tricky, but not anymore than pedestrians on the street. They even have their on path in some places. I've seen the dismount sign sometimes, but only on one rural rail-trail path at road crossings. It was more like every 10km. Nobody actually get off their bike. There are often some "narrowing device" to force riders to slow down and keep cars from getting on the path.


Is that enough vitriol for one rant?

Not for me! ;)


...except to say that they will not protect you from a driver who is deliberately trying to kill you. A quick look at the thread linked below will explain exactly what I am talking about. The safety of these things is dramatically overrated.

I don't understand. Bike paths are separated from the road. A driver would have to drive up the curb and some grass, dodge a few trees to get you on a bike path. On a bike lane, a driver just has to hit you, like on the street. But I think if people are deliberately trying to kill you, maybe you should consider moving out of there. ;) I'm quite surprised at all the negative comments here towards cars. I don't like cars when I'm riding my bike either but they are a fact of life. I never experience these acts of violence. Sometimes, I'm wondering if cyclists are not a bit paranoid, scared of the steel monster. Or maybe it is just so great here... maybe we get so much winter we simply want to enjoy summer. The way of thinking here is slightly more european and I don't hear them complaining about cars. Maybe that's it.

Bike lanes... I don't mind streets with a bike lane on each side but I think streets with a two-way lane on a single side is way more dangerous. The worst are the ones separated from the street by a sidewalk. Drivers always drive up to the sidewalk...

I'll take some pictures and show our paths, Chris.

There aren't any bike lanes in fredericton, so i ride on the side of the road while i get the finger, and swarn at. We are supposed to ride on the sidewalk I quess, but take a road bike on the sidewalk and don't pop a tube, impossible.

In Chicago, we also have some paths, which go absolutely nowhere, and is primarily there for the enjoyment of the individual who is on bike or on foot. I rarely frequent these paths.

We also have bike paths that clearly lead from one major point to another. They actually can make the commute faster than being on the street, as they tend to have longer points where there are no lights, but run nearby the streets, and occasionally cross the streets. I take these paths often, as riding in the streets sometimes isn't the greatest option in the world when you're trying to work on building up mileage or work on increasing overall speed.

For what it's worth, the mayor does realize that bike paths often do not get people from one point to the next, and in his quest to make the city more bike friendly and bike riding less intimidating for the "tender-hearted", so he's worked on creating more bike lanes so that people are more comfortable riding in the streets. We have miles and miles of bike lanes running throughout the city, and this makes riding a little more comfortable for some. I still just ride wherever- I don't consciously seek out the bike lanes, as I don't want to feel restricted or have my paths subconsciously dictated for me. I also get tired of swerving around parked cars in the bike lane too, and that causes me no small amount of angst.

I absolutely HATE the lakefront bike path- it is the type of path that Chris hates- signs saying you must dismount in heavy pedestrian traffic, rollerbladers, mothers with strollers, mothers with children who are out of control, walkers, runners, people with pets, etc... all that riff-raff in the summertime. They get out there and pollute the path with their presence until mid-September, when it's too "cold" for them to use it. Then I get to reclaim 37.5 miles of pure freedom- aaaaaaaaaaahhhh....

Rarely do I ride the sidewalks- if there's a bridge with grates, I will jump onto the sidewalk to cross the bridge, then jump off when I've ridden across it. I am not good at riding on the grates- I get really slow and I feel like I'm sliding all over the place. :( Otherwise, I just don't ride on the sidewalk unless I've reached my destination, and the bike rack is on the sidewalk- then I'll jump off the street and ride up to the rack.

Some of our paths are beautiful- those ones that are long stretches where you can ride and ride and ride are just unbelieveable. And most people are just content riding on the path along the lake and fight the traffic, which is fine with me, because that gives me more space on the miles and miles of path that is pristine and almost deserted.

It should just be pointed out that at least some of the disagreement and misunderstanding in this discussion comes from how much implementation of bike paths and lanes vary from city to city, country to country.

There are narrow, painted bike lanes in Eastern cities that have been created simply by redistributing existing road real estate, often with ludicrous or downright dangerous results (eg, the woman who was killed in Boston last year after being doored into the wheels of a moving bus by a parked car).

There are bike lanes that are planned as part of new road construction (so I hear; I've never seen any).

There are bike paths that are really multi-use paths that go through public lands/parks, where the primary intent is recreational, not transportational.

There are bike paths that actually parallel regular roads and that are intended to function as segregated bike lanes. (I've read about these, but again I've never seen one.)

There are "bike routes" that may or may not involve lanes or paths during some or all of their length, or that may be little more than a set of signs.

And while most places in the US and Canada have traffic codes that include some form of the "same rights and responsibilities" concept for bikes, there seem to be a fair number of local variations that get put into place in concert with the creation of lanes, paths, routes, or other dedicated cycling infrastructure. These usually seem to take the form of ordnances requiring use of the lane or path when it parallels a road.

So I just think it's imporant to be clear what sort of implementation you're talking about when discussing this topic, and what local laws (if any) apply.

In Philadelphia, like most Eastern cities of my experience, the infrastructure consists essentially of:

1) Multi-use paths through the city's extensive park system, some of which can be used by commuters if they live and work in the right places (unlike me).

2) Painted bike lanes that are, by and large, of the "useless and/or dangerous" variety. The ones that aren't dangerous are full of debris.

3) "Bike Routes" than are not marked on the roads themselves, but only on a "bike map" distributed through libraries and bike shops. The bike routes are supposed to consist of streets with bike lanes, paved shoulders, wide right lanes, or other cycling-friendly accommodations, and have mostly been posted with "share the road" signs. In my experience, these routes are often no more or less rideable than any other streets. At least one (and it's on my commuting route) includes a mile of high-speed four-lane highway with no shoulder, a high curb, and no sidewalk. And a fair climb on my way home.

It's this combination of facilities that I believe does more harm than good for the transportational cyclist, because they are often not actually usable, yet they create the impression among drivers that there are enough such facilities that cyclists shouldn't have to use "their" roads.

RichC

Yeah, the "bike routes" are pretty useless. I prefer making my own. Many of them are there to connect real paths.

I've never got the impression that drivers thought we should stick to bike paths, not here anyway.

I agree that lakefront/riverfront get really crowded sometimes. But it's mostly concentrated in particular areas. Here, it follows a boulevard so when I get to a crowded spot, I jump on the street. It's almost as crowded though but pedestrians pay more attention because of the cars. The problem is not in the path, it's just because it's an area where lots of people go at the same time. Somebody who wants to ride at 20mph should know better than go there. When I approach downtown, I expect a lot more traffic on the path. I go there because I need to drop off some film at the photo lab. The ride itself is not the end, I would go somewhere else for that. I also work week-ends, so I get my days off during the week, when the crowd is working. :)

I like the paths that "go nowhere". When I ride for riding (as opposed to going somewhere), they are my favorite. No cars, complete peace. I don't really care where they go, I just want to ride.

Originally posted by Erick L
In my case, yes. But I chose where I live with that in mind.


I guess that's a lifestyle choice. For me, I find it easier to simply ride on the road than to up and move somewhere else. Thus, that's what I do.


Originally posted by Erick L

Drivers? What would a driver do on a bike path? There are roads for them. I've never seen a car on a bike path, wether in the city or on a rail-trail lost in some country side.

I honestly have no idea. I am not a driver. I can only assume that they think it's a good way to get through the traffic faster. After all, they don't have the advantage of lane-splitting the way I do on my bike. Either way, I've seen it happen plenty of times around here.


Originally posted by Erick L

Pedestrians have right of way wherever they go.

Not true. On the roads they only have right of way at marked pedestrian crossings. Additionally, there is much more room to avoid them on the roads. If I'm going to get to work on time, I can't afford to slow down to walking pace for great lengths of my ride.


Originally posted by Erick L
There are often some "narrowing device" to force riders to slow down and keep cars from getting on the path.

Same here. Great if you don't plan on actually going anywhere, but not so good if you want to get to work, or if you want to experience a change of scenery.


Originally posted by Erick L

I don't understand. Bike paths are separated from the road. A driver would have to drive up the curb and some grass, dodge a few trees to get you on a bike path. On a bike lane, a driver just has to hit you, like on the street. But I think if people are deliberately trying to kill you, maybe you should consider moving out of there.

If a driver is prepared to risk those obstacles to avoid traffic, they are just as likely to do it for other reasons. To be hoenst, the deliberate thing doesn't happen very often - it's only happened twice in the last three years - and they both came on the same night last week. My point is that I was able to avoid it and survive because I was on the road, and I had the space to take evasive action. I don't believe I would have been able to do this successfully on a bike path.

Of course, the other safety issue is where the path re-enters the road. You acknowledged in your post that the paths are not as common as the road, meaning that most of us will have to use the road at some point to get to wherever it is we are going. Those that actually do link up to a road somewhere usually do it in the worst place possible. Usually somewhere it's difficult to see the traffic on the road with all sorts of obstacles in between. Personally I feel safer just staying on the road in these situations.


Originally posted by Erick L
I like the paths that "go nowhere". When I ride for riding (as opposed to going somewhere), they are my favorite. No cars, complete peace. I don't really care where they go, I just want to ride.

I often ride for riding, too. However, I at least like a change of scenery when I do this. After all, I see enough of the urban environment riding too and from work through the week. Who could begrudge me the chance to escape to the rainforests on the weekend? None of the paths here are long enough to facilitate that.

The USA standard for traffic lanes is 11'9". I firmly believe that bike lanes are more dangerous than sharing the lane. Give me wide curb lanes, say on the order of 15' - 16', and I am content.

The drawbacks are mainly political. Road planners have a more difficult time stealing bike lanes to make more traffic lanes, whereas it's easy for them to redivide two wide lanes into three substandard lanes.

Most drivers simply don't look for anything in the bike lane, but will see riders when they are in the regular car lanes. Very few people will want to kill a rider, and even fewer will try in front of witnesses.

Originally posted by Da Tinker
The USA standard for traffic lanes is 11'9". I firmly believe that bike lanes are more dangerous than sharing the lane. Give me wide curb lanes, say on the order of 15' - 16', and I am content.

The drawbacks are mainly political. Road planners have a more difficult time stealing bike lanes to make more traffic lanes, whereas it's easy for them to redivide two wide lanes into three substandard lanes.

Most drivers simply don't look for anything in the bike lane, but will see riders when they are in the regular car lanes. Very few people will want to kill a rider, and even fewer will try in front of witnesses. Where did you get that standard, the AASHTO Geometric standards?

Chris, I think our situations are very different. I've never met anyone here that would even think of driving on a bike path. Not even on a bike lane.

I don't understand your argument against "narrowing devices". Here, a bike can easily go thru them, at full speed if you want, but that would be stupid because they are at road crossing, where a a rider should be slowing down anyway.

You're right about the rights of pedestrians... but they do cross the road anywhere. Sometimes, you can't see them because they're hidden behind a tall SUV ;). If you do a move to avoid them on the street, you might get hit by a car. Here, pedestrians can't hide anywhere near the path and if you try to avoid them, you might hit another rider at worst.

I don't find re-entering the road anymore dangerous than any other road crossing.

There are no rain forests here :( If you want to go to the rain forest, just go on the road! I don't see why you should stick to paths if they don't go where you want. I don't. Like I said, I don't feel drivers here think we should stick to our paths. By going to a beautiful place (in your case, the rain forest), chances are there will tourists on the road along with the normal traffic. What I like about the bike path "that go nowhere" is to ride without the sound and smell of cars, not to mention feeling them passing by at 100km/h a few inches from me.

I'm not saying bike paths are the answer to our problems. Some are great, some OK, some are just plain bad, just like roads. It's only getting better. Here, there are a few thousand kilometres of paths "going nowhere". The goal is to make a trans-provincial bike road. Every year, new streches are added, less safe spot are corrected and some confusing parts (usually where two paths connect) are figured out.

For your problem with drivers, I can't help. Maybe you guys should start by driving/riding on the right side of the road. ;) :D

I still think "practical" bike lane in the city are not useful. There are too many people going at too many places at the same time. There's no point making a "bike street" system.

Happy riding

Reading this thread I have only one thought: Move to Oregon. Bike lanes nearly everywhere. 95% of them clean - and the DoT will sweep if you report a hazard. In the Portland area, most - though not all - drivers show tolerance for cyclists - and some show real respect.

My friend lived in Oregon. He said that if you deviate out of the bike lanes, you are ticketed, and those bike lanes are strictly enforced. Is that true?

If so, I dunno... Oregon may not be the place for me, even if you guys have the best method of voting for the presidential elections! :lol:

Koffee

Originally posted by Koffee Brown

If so, I dunno... Oregon may not be the place for me, even if you guys have the best method of voting for the presidential elections!

I didn't know they drew straws for elections in Oregon. :D

Hopefully the next election will not look like a combination of Elimidate and Meet my Folks. :confused:

I don't think it's the bike lanes' fault ... I think it is the ignorance on the non-bicyclists' part that makes safety for us a problem. Bike lanes are just another thing out there that attract attention, especially from us, for criticism. I'm totally for something that'll at least attempt to give us cyclists a safe way to ride.

Just because the rest of the world doesn't see it this way doesn't mean that the means to the end (the bike lanes) are evil.

Originally posted by Erick L
Chris, I think our situations are very different. I've never met anyone here that would even think of driving on a bike path. Not even on a bike lane.

I don't understand your argument against "narrowing devices".


Again, our situations are different. Here the narrowing devices are so narrow, you simply can't ride through them any faster than walking pace. This is fine if you've got all day, but the sort of places I'd be likely to use a path (if it were practical) would be on my way to/from work - where I don't really have the time to slow down to walking pace every 5 minutes.


Originally posted by Erick L

You're right about the rights of pedestrians... but they do cross the road anywhere. Sometimes, you can't see them because they're hidden behind a tall SUV ;). If you do a move to avoid them on the street, you might get hit by a car.

Again, I've yet to be hit by a car in this situation in over 100,000km of riding on streets. I take my surroundings into account when planning my move. My biggest fear trying to avoid them on a bike path would be coming off the bike because of the difference in height between the path and the surrounding ground (which is quite considerable on most paths around here).


Originally posted by Erick L

I don't find re-entering the road anymore dangerous than any other road crossing.

OK, this is where we differ. I know for a fact that if I'm passing through an intersection on the road, the drivers on the other roads will at least be looking for other cars, so they have a greater chance of seeing me. I'll have good visibility myself due to the width of the road. If I'm paying attention, I'm highly unlikely to have any issues here.

Contrast that with a narrow path entrance where a driver definitely won't be looking, and where my view is likely to be obscured considerably by trees, buildings or whatever is around. I think I know where I'll feel safer.


Originally posted by Erick L

By going to a beautiful place (in your case, the rain forest), chances are there will tourists on the road along with the normal traffic. What I like about the bike path "that go nowhere" is to ride without the sound and smell of cars, not to mention feeling them passing by at 100km/h a few inches from me.

Believe it or not, the traffic in these areas is always much less than the traffic on the coast. Simply put, most tourists haven't discovered the rainforests and mountains of the Gold Coast Hinterland - they're generally content to stay near the beaches (and the rip-offs) which is perfectly fine by me. Also consider that the population of these areas is considerably lower than the urban areas - I don't have to go far to experience no traffic. However, sometimes you just can't replace the feeling of blowing by a peak-hour tourist-season traffic jam in Surfers Paradise while all the cagers sit there helpless!


Originally posted by Erick L
I still think "practical" bike lane in the city are not useful. There are too many people going at too many places at the same time. There's no point making a "bike street" system.

Agreed. Personally I think cycling advocates should totally forget about trying to get a separate transport network. Particularly when we already have such an efficient road network at our disposal. I'd much prefer to concentrate on making that safer.

Originally posted by Chi
I don't think it's the bike lanes' fault ... I think it is the ignorance on the non-bicyclists' part that makes safety for us a problem. Bike lanes are just another thing out there that attract attention, especially from us, for criticism. I'm totally for something that'll at least attempt to give us cyclists a safe way to ride.

Just because the rest of the world doesn't see it this way doesn't mean that the means to the end (the bike lanes) are evil.

Personally I couldn't care less how the rest of the world sees it. I'm only interested in the practical side of things, and as a consequence I'm against anything that either increases danger or encourages cyclists to ride in areas that present an increased danger.

I'm also not totally convinced about their intentions either. Some of the half-baked ideas that come out supposedly making things "safer" for cyclists make me wonder. Sometimes I think it's just a political stunt to appear to be "doing something" without putting the proper thought into it.

So many good points, so many diverse perspectives, so many thoughful comments. So what's the deal with bike lanes?

It's not the "bike lane" that's the problem. It the complex relationship of road bicycles to automobiles and the users' of each failure to respect and act responsibly.

#1. problem- bicycles are operated and used by both children and adults as toy and as transportation vehicles.

#2. problem- automobiles are operated and "licensed" to be operated by a large, segment of society. Drivers include the immature and the senile, as well as drug abusers, air-heads and just genrally "nasty" people.

#3.problem- the disproportiate amount of weight, and mobility and speed between the two types of vehicles makes them "ripe" for possible collisions involving significant damage to the "lighter vehicle" as well as injury to the cyclist.

These are "core" unchangable aspects of society (at least in the U.S.).

A remarkable change in the automobile operator education and licensing system is needed as well as "real" parental-child education and instruction in bicycle safety and responsibility. Oh, OK you guys already knew that, nevermind. But do the guys making the bike paths?

RC has pretty much hit it on the nose. The bike lanes are a pretty decent civil engineering solution. Unfortunately, the problem is a social engineering issue.

Originally posted by Richard Cranium
Oh, OK you guys already knew that, nevermind. But do the guys making the bike paths?

Either they don't, or it's in the "too hard" basket. A bike path is a political tool with which they can appear to be "doing something" to solve the problem, being "interested in safety" or "promoting sustainable transport" without actually having to have a proper look at the logisitics of it.

IMHO, it's a con, and I'm not buying it!

I've never considered bike paths (not lanes, but dedicated paths) to be a serious method of transportation. Around here, people use them for training and leisure riding. Maybe a few use it to commute, if they happen to live right on the bike path. Otherwise though, I've never thought of them as anything more than a place to ride your bike for fun or to train...

And I fully agree with Chris L