Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The science of bike lane advocacy.

Helmet Head, and JF,

Look at this:



From:

http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=667814

HH, I think if you only looked, did a bit of research, you'd find your answers. Let's see, that makes two scientific studies that I've posted which reinforce the need for bike lanes, one in Singapore and one in Portland, Oregon. Do you want more?

John
The Singapore study is not a study about why bike lanes should be advocated. It's simply a record of a doctor's opinion about bike lanes.

The Portland study is about whether bike lanes shown to be dangerous should be painted blue to make them less dangerous, hardly scientific evidence supporting the notion that bike lanes should be advocated.

Yes, I want more, because I want something.

So are "bike lanes" and "slow truck lanes" "artificial" speed segregation?
And "slower traffic keeps to the right" rules are natural speed segregation?

Speed segregation is automatically built into the vehicular rules of the road via the speed positioning principle (slower traffic keeps right).
Right, I would say that natural equates likely to automatic in your post.
Although these are misnomers. There is nothing especially natural, automatic, or artificial about speed segregation.

HH,

By the way, there is research currently underway that will help resolve these issues:

Analysis of Bicycle Lanes (BL) Versus Wide Curb Lanes (WCL)
http://adotnet/divisions/itd/pnp/PDF/MGT/mgt021.pdf
Record Type: RiP

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Bicycle Policy (MGT 02-01) became effective 3/1/02 and is scheduled for review. Excerpts from that policy state that it is ADOT’s policy: (1) provide shared roadway cross-section templates; (2) consider, as a part of major new construction and major reconstruction in urban areas, Wide Curb Lanes up to 15’ in width; and (3) consider bicycle lanes for inclusion with major new construction or major reconstruction when they are fully funded for construction and maintenance by a local agency and the bicycle lane is included as a part of a planned designated bicycle route approved by ADOT. What is the appropriate type of bicycle facility on the State Highway System for cyclists? Some research, for example, concludes that: (1) BL cause problems to the extent that they encourage bicyclists and motorists to violate the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, or (2) the best way to make most busy roads "Motorist Friendly in the Presence of Bicyclists, Resulting in Bicycling Friendliness" is to provide WCL, that they are simple, and simply better. The counterargument is that cycling is much safer and more popular precisely in those countries where bikeways, bike lanes, special intersection modifications, and priority traffic signals are the key to their bicycling policies. Finally, some studies conclude that both BL and WCL facilities can and should be used to improve cycling conditions.
Start date: 2005/10/1
End date: 2008/7/31
Status: Active
Contract/Grant Number: 598
Total Dollars: 15000
Source Organization: Arizona Department of Transportation
Date Added: 11/09/2005
Index Terms: Bicycle lanes, Curbs, Policy making, Bicycling, Reconstruction, Construction of specific facilities, Maintenance, Bikeways, Research projects, Arizona,



Sponsor Organization Project Manager
Arizona Department of Transportation
http://www.azdot.gov
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
USA


Federal Highway Administration
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
USA
Phone: (202) 366-4000

Semmens, John
Phone: (602) 712-3137



Performing Organization Principal Investigator


Subjects
Administration and Management
Construction
Maintenance
Operations and Traffic Management
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Highway and Facility Design
Highway Operations, Capacity and Traffic Control

http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=11339

_______________________

Bicycle Traffic Pavement Markings
Record Type: RiP

Pavement markings, including those in colour, take many forms and functions in North American and European jurisdictions. In some cases the pavement markings are intuitive and easily understood by motor vehicle traffic and cyclists, but in some applications, the intended effect is not always clear. It also seems that the use of pavement markings is discretionary, without clear guidelines, numerical evaluation processes or ranking systems to help determine when benefits can be achieved. The objective of this project is to develop guidelines and recommendations on the design and application of pavement markings for bicycle traffic on Canadian roads. The project will provide recommendations on the most effective configuration of pavement markings, use of materials, installation, maintenance and cost. Furthermore, numerical evaluation processes and ranking systems will be determined. The project will also result in recommendations for an update to the TAC 1998 publication, Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada, with relevant guidelines on pavement markings.
Start date: 2004
End date: 2006
Status: Active
Contract/Grant Number: 200411RT369E
Total Dollars: 0
Source Organization: Transportation Association of Canada
Date Added: 06/14/2005
Index Terms: Bicycles, Pavements, Marking materials, Bicycle lanes, Traffic lanes, Specifications, Evaluation and assessment, Safety, Recommendations, Motor vehicles, Bicycling, Research projects, Canada,



Sponsor Organization Project Manager
City of Calgary Transportation Department
P.O. Box 2100 , Station M
Calgary, Alberta T2P 2M5
Canada


Regional Municipality of Halifax
Halifax
Nova Scotia


Regional Municipality of Halton
Halton
Canada


City of Hamilton
Hamilton
Canada


City of Ottawa
Ottawa
Canada


Transportation Association of Canada
2323 St Laurent Boulevard
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 4J8
Canada



Performing Organization Principal Investigator
Transportation Association of Canada
2323 St Laurent Boulevard
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 4J8
Canada

Skene, M.



Subjects
Administration and Management
Materials
Operations and Traffic Management
Pavements
Planning
Research
Safety and Human Factors
Vehicles
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Highway Operations, Capacity and Traffic Control
Pavement Design, Management and Performance
Safety and Human Performance


http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=10903
__________________________________________________


Tools for Predicting Usage and Benefits of Urban Bicycle Network Improvements
Record Type: RiP

Research started in the first Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) project, and developed further in the NCHRP project, would make it possible to develop precise expectations regarding the quantity and types of cycling and cyclists expected under various conditions. Data collection for this research will focus first on exploratory counts and questioning to establish the extent to which these expectations are supported, and if there are particular situations for which further study would provide the most new knowledge. Additional data would then be collected for those situations.
Start date: 2004/1/2
End date: 2005/12/31
Status: Active
Contract/Grant Number: 81655-102
Secondary Number: 2003-048R
Total Dollars: 50000
Source Organization: Minnesota Department of Transportation
Date Added: 04/30/2004
Index Terms: Urban areas, Urban development, Bicycle facilities, Networks, Benefits, User benefits, Tools, Research projects, Minnesota,



Sponsor Organization Project Manager
Minnesota Department of Transportation
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
Mail Stop 330
395 John Ireland Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55155-1899
USA
Phone: (800) 657-3774

Warzala, Dan
Phone: (651) 366-3786
Email: dan.warzala@dot.state.mn.us



Performing Organization Principal Investigator
University of Minnesota
301 19th Avenue South, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Minneapolis, MN 55455-
USA

Barnes, Gary R.
Phone: (612) 626-9865
Fax: (612) 626-9833
Email: gbarnes@hhh.umn.edu



Subjects
Materials
Research
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Public Transportation
Planning and Administration
Public Transit

http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=9485

John

Good for you. But it was HH who was asking, not you, so I'm not seeing the point. If you've done the research and are not convinced, then good on you. But if there is no hope of holding a reasonable discussion on the subject, then why are you here?



Enough with the insults already. Damn man, are you off your meds? Tell you what. I'll just repeat your words back to you, they have as much relevence.

In other words, all the advocacy of VC'ism is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You VC'ists ought to shut up.

Now then, did that convince you to shut up? Why do you think it would convince me to shut up?

And don't you go thinking that I cannot produce an argument for bike lanes. I've produced countless arguments. None have been refuted. Use the search function to look up previous discussions. I don't care to repeat them to a person who is unable to have a reasonable discussion on the subject.


The issue never concerned what you, Brian, have argued. The question concerned reasonable studies upon which you might have based your arguments. You have advanced none.

On the contrary, there are reasonable studies supporting vehicular cycling. The first is that the rules of the road have been worked out to fit the operating characteristics of vehicles and of their human drivers. While I know of no specific early study to determine the fits, it is obvious that the experimentation and discussion that developed the rules of the road has always been based on the goodness of fit. It is well known that acting contrary to the rules of the road causes collisions. Numerous studies on various aspects of that. When it comes specifically to cycling, the Cross study demonstrates that issue quite nicely, and also demonstrates that the specific hazard of the straight-ahead cyclist being run over by the straight-ahead motorist, upon which the bikeway hypothesis is based, is a very small proportion of car-bike collisions. Then there is my own study of the different requirements placed on drivers by the normal rules of the road versus the bikeway operating characteristics. And, of course, studies showing that learning how to operate according to the rules of the road is easy to learn.

The above are the reasons why your foolish assertion that vehicular-cycling advocacy is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons is just what I have written about other bikeway advocacy. There is a difference between an accurate, though picturesque, description and nonsense, and it is not an insult to describe nonsense as what it is.

You ask why I am here? I am here precisely because this group chose to denigrate my position regarding bicycle transportation, specifically using my name as the evil-doer. Think about it.

Congratulations. I pointed this out back in #82:
No, in #82 it appears that you were still confused, and misinterpreted Brian's talk of the existence "natural" speed segregation (slower traffic keep right laws) as Brian asserting that those ideas were generally being followed.

The first is that the rules of the road have been worked out to fit the operating characteristics of vehicles and of their human drivers. While I know of no specific early study to determine the fits, it is obvious that the experimentation and discussion that developed the rules of the road has always been based on the goodness of fit. It is well known that acting contrary to the rules of the road causes collisions. Numerous studies on various aspects of that. When it comes specifically to cycling, the Cross study demonstrates that issue quite nicely, and also demonstrates that the specific hazard of the straight-ahead cyclist being run over by the straight-ahead motorist, upon which the bikeway hypothesis is based, is a very small proportion of car-bike collisions. Then there is my own study of the different requirements placed on drivers by the normal rules of the road versus the bikeway operating characteristics. And, of course, studies showing that learning how to operate according to the rules of the road is easy to learn.
So, for the scientific evidence favoring the advocacy of vehicular cycling we have:
The rules of the road have been worked out to fit the operating characteristics of vehicles and of their human drivers.
Experimentation and discussion that developed the rules of the road has always been based on the goodness of fit.
Numerous studies showing that acting contrary to the rules of the road causes collisions.
The Cross study.
The Forester study comparing the safety of cycling on roadways to cycling on a sidepath at the same speeds using the same vigilance.
studies showing that learning how to operate according to the rules of the road is easy to learn.For the scientific evidence opposing the advocacy of vehicular cycling we have:

Nothing.

For the scientific evidence favoring the advocacy of bike lanes we have:
Some Singapore doctors' opinions (arguably not scientific evidence)
A study showing that particularly dangerous bike lanes are not quite as dangerous when painted blue (not really evidence support the advocacy of bike lanes)
For the scientific evidence opposing the advocacy of bike lanes we have:
The Cross study showing that the specific hazard of the straight-ahead cyclist being run over by the straight-ahead motorist, upon which the bikeway hypothesis is based, is a very small proportion of car-bike collisions.
Anything else?

If you are interested in papers currently published, you can look at this source:

http://www.vtpi.org/documents/walking.php

On this page, you will find a link to this paper:

Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: A comparative
analysis of bicycling trends and policies
John Pucher *, Ralph Buehler
Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Newtown NSW 2006, Australia; Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy,
Rutgers University, 33 Livingston Avenue, Room 363, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Received 26 May 2005; received in revised form 21 October 2005; accepted 1 November 2005

Abstract
In spite of their colder climate, Canadians cycle about three times more than Americans. The main reasons for this difference are Canada’s higher urban densities and mixed-use development, shorter trip distances, lower incomes, higher costs of owning, driving and parking a car, safer cycling conditions, and more extensive cycling infrastructure and training programs. Most of these factors result from differences between Canada and the United States in their transport and land-use policies, and not from intrinsic differences in history, culture or resource availability. That is good news, since it suggests the possibility of significantly increasing cycling levels in the United States by adopting some of the Canadian
policies that have so effectively promoted cycling and enhanced its safety. (Emphasis added, jcr)
copyright 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

HH,

By the way, there is research currently underway that will help resolve these issues:

Analysis of Bicycle Lanes (BL) Versus Wide Curb Lanes (WCL)
http://adotnet/divisions/itd/pnp/PDF/MGT/mgt021.pdf
Record Type: RiP

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Bicycle Policy (MGT 02-01) became effective 3/1/02 and is scheduled for review. Excerpts from that policy state that it is ADOT’s policy: (1) provide shared roadway cross-section templates; (2) consider, as a part of major new construction and major reconstruction in urban areas, Wide Curb Lanes up to 15’ in width; and (3) consider bicycle lanes for inclusion with major new construction or major reconstruction when they are fully funded for construction and maintenance by a local agency and the bicycle lane is included as a part of a planned designated bicycle route approved by ADOT. What is the appropriate type of bicycle facility on the State Highway System for cyclists? Some research, for example, concludes that: (1) BL cause problems to the extent that they encourage bicyclists and motorists to violate the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, or (2) the best way to make most busy roads "Motorist Friendly in the Presence of Bicyclists, Resulting in Bicycling Friendliness" is to provide WCL, that they are simple, and simply better. The counterargument is that cycling is much safer and more popular precisely in those countries where bikeways, bike lanes, special intersection modifications, and priority traffic signals are the key to their bicycling policies. Finally, some studies conclude that both BL and WCL facilities can and should be used to improve cycling conditions.
Start date: 2005/10/1
End date: 2008/7/31
Status: Active
Contract/Grant Number: 598
Total Dollars: 15000
Source Organization: Arizona Department of Transportation
Date Added: 11/09/2005
Index Terms: Bicycle lanes, Curbs, Policy making, Bicycling, Reconstruction, Construction of specific facilities, Maintenance, Bikeways, Research projects, Arizona,



Sponsor Organization Project Manager
Arizona Department of Transportation
http://www.azdot.gov
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
USA


Federal Highway Administration
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
USA
Phone: (202) 366-4000

Semmens, John
Phone: (602) 712-3137



Performing Organization Principal Investigator


Subjects
Administration and Management
Construction
Maintenance
Operations and Traffic Management
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Highway and Facility Design
Highway Operations, Capacity and Traffic Control

http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=11339

_______________________

Bicycle Traffic Pavement Markings
Record Type: RiP

Pavement markings, including those in colour, take many forms and functions in North American and European jurisdictions. In some cases the pavement markings are intuitive and easily understood by motor vehicle traffic and cyclists, but in some applications, the intended effect is not always clear. It also seems that the use of pavement markings is discretionary, without clear guidelines, numerical evaluation processes or ranking systems to help determine when benefits can be achieved. The objective of this project is to develop guidelines and recommendations on the design and application of pavement markings for bicycle traffic on Canadian roads. The project will provide recommendations on the most effective configuration of pavement markings, use of materials, installation, maintenance and cost. Furthermore, numerical evaluation processes and ranking systems will be determined. The project will also result in recommendations for an update to the TAC 1998 publication, Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada, with relevant guidelines on pavement markings.
Start date: 2004
End date: 2006
Status: Active
Contract/Grant Number: 200411RT369E
Total Dollars: 0
Source Organization: Transportation Association of Canada
Date Added: 06/14/2005
Index Terms: Bicycles, Pavements, Marking materials, Bicycle lanes, Traffic lanes, Specifications, Evaluation and assessment, Safety, Recommendations, Motor vehicles, Bicycling, Research projects, Canada,



Sponsor Organization Project Manager
City of Calgary Transportation Department
P.O. Box 2100 , Station M
Calgary, Alberta T2P 2M5
Canada


Regional Municipality of Halifax
Halifax
Nova Scotia


Regional Municipality of Halton
Halton
Canada


City of Hamilton
Hamilton
Canada


City of Ottawa
Ottawa
Canada


Transportation Association of Canada
2323 St Laurent Boulevard
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 4J8
Canada



Performing Organization Principal Investigator
Transportation Association of Canada
2323 St Laurent Boulevard
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 4J8
Canada

Skene, M.



Subjects
Administration and Management
Materials
Operations and Traffic Management
Pavements
Planning
Research
Safety and Human Factors
Vehicles
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Highway Operations, Capacity and Traffic Control
Pavement Design, Management and Performance
Safety and Human Performance


http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=10903
__________________________________________________


Tools for Predicting Usage and Benefits of Urban Bicycle Network Improvements
Record Type: RiP

Research started in the first Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) project, and developed further in the NCHRP project, would make it possible to develop precise expectations regarding the quantity and types of cycling and cyclists expected under various conditions. Data collection for this research will focus first on exploratory counts and questioning to establish the extent to which these expectations are supported, and if there are particular situations for which further study would provide the most new knowledge. Additional data would then be collected for those situations.
Start date: 2004/1/2
End date: 2005/12/31
Status: Active
Contract/Grant Number: 81655-102
Secondary Number: 2003-048R
Total Dollars: 50000
Source Organization: Minnesota Department of Transportation
Date Added: 04/30/2004
Index Terms: Urban areas, Urban development, Bicycle facilities, Networks, Benefits, User benefits, Tools, Research projects, Minnesota,



Sponsor Organization Project Manager
Minnesota Department of Transportation
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
Mail Stop 330
395 John Ireland Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55155-1899
USA
Phone: (800) 657-3774

Warzala, Dan
Phone: (651) 366-3786
Email: dan.warzala@dot.state.mn.us



Performing Organization Principal Investigator
University of Minnesota
301 19th Avenue South, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Minneapolis, MN 55455-
USA

Barnes, Gary R.
Phone: (612) 626-9865
Fax: (612) 626-9833
Email: gbarnes@hhh.umn.edu



Subjects
Materials
Research
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Public Transportation
Planning and Administration
Public Transit

http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=9485

John

Of the first two studies advanced by John R in this discussion, the first, by doctors in Singapore, presents no expert knowledge regarding either bikeways or vehicular cycling. The second, largely a study of the blue-painted bike lanes in Portland, reports attempts to make several particularly dangerous bike-lane locations somewhat safer.

The three studies advanced by John R in the above post are unfinished; we have only the intended aim of the studies, nothing about method, results, or conclusions. The first, in Arizona, acknowledges the two main lines of argument that have been present in this discussion, but there is no indication of how evidence will be obtained to settle the issue. I doubt that much will come of this; I've seen too many such. The second, for Canadian highways, looks to be much the same, developing guidelines without good evidence. The third, for Minnesota, intends to start trying to measure bicycling volume against various types of facility, to determine whether or not further study would be valuable. Possibly useful as far as it goes, but this is irrelevant to the issue of vehicular cycling versus other styles of cycling.

Perhaps John R should start to consider the characteristics that distinguish reasonable relevant studies from those that are irrelevant or do not produce an expectation of new and useful knowledge.

I see no reason to change my view of the science of bicycle transportation. I have never seen a study that demonstrates significant benefit from bike-lane stripes, and those on this forum who advocate bike-lane stripes have not advanced any study that demonstrates such benefits with an explanation of why they think it does demonstrate such benefit. In other words, all the advocacy of bike lanes is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You bike-lane advocates ought to shut up.

There's the difference between you and I John...I consider cycling as a way of life, not science...and my momma taught me better manners than to tell people to shut up just because they don't agree with my wacky theories. Of course, when one's twaddle doesn't hold water, I guess 'shut up' is the only response left to them. :rolleyes:

If you are interested in papers currently published, you can look at this source:

http://www.vtpi.org/documents/walking.php

On this page, you will find a link to this paper:

Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: A comparative
analysis of bicycling trends and policies
John Pucher *, Ralph Buehler
Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Newtown NSW 2006, Australia; Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy,
Rutgers University, 33 Livingston Avenue, Room 363, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Received 26 May 2005; received in revised form 21 October 2005; accepted 1 November 2005

Abstract
In spite of their colder climate, Canadians cycle about three times more than Americans. The main reasons for this difference are Canada’s higher urban densities and mixed-use development, shorter trip distances, lower incomes, higher costs of owning, driving and parking a car, safer cycling conditions, and more extensive cycling infrastructure and training programs. Most of these factors result from differences between Canada and the United States in their transport and land-use policies, and not from intrinsic differences in history, culture or resource availability. That is good news, since it suggests the possibility of significantly increasing cycling levels in the United States by adopting some of the Canadian
policies that have so effectively promoted cycling and enhanced its safety. (Emphasis added, jcr)
copyright 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
I suspect Mr. Forester will have something to say about Pucher. Everything I've read about him and his studies is not pretty.

I suspect Mr. Forester will have something to say about Pucher. Everything I've read about him and his studies is not pretty.

And everything we read from you and Forester is pretty? :roflmao:
Then again, the wig is nice....

If you are interested in papers currently published, you can look at this source:

http://www.vtpi.org/documents/walking.php

On this page, you will find a link to this paper:

Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: A comparative
analysis of bicycling trends and policies
John Pucher *, Ralph Buehler
Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Newtown NSW 2006, Australia; Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy,
Rutgers University, 33 Livingston Avenue, Room 363, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Received 26 May 2005; received in revised form 21 October 2005; accepted 1 November 2005

Abstract
In spite of their colder climate, Canadians cycle about three times more than Americans. The main reasons for this difference are Canada’s higher urban densities and mixed-use development, shorter trip distances, lower incomes, higher costs of owning, driving and parking a car, safer cycling conditions, and more extensive cycling infrastructure and training programs. Most of these factors result from differences between Canada and the United States in their transport and land-use policies, and not from intrinsic differences in history, culture or resource availability. That is good news, since it suggests the possibility of significantly increasing cycling levels in the United States by adopting some of the Canadian
policies that have so effectively promoted cycling and enhanced its safety. (Emphasis added, jcr)
copyright 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

John R, you added the emphasis for "safer cycling conditions". Upon what do you base your view that this is both important and supports bikeways rather than vehicular cycling? I say a bit more. Professor Pucher has never shown any indication in a published paper of knowing the difference between safe and dangerous cycling, and he has violated the cardinal rule of statistical comparison that correlation does not demonstrate causation. He has shown in public correspondence that he is full of the typical bikeway superstitions as well as the anti-motoring attitude typical of his profession. And he has shown, in public correspondence, that he is, or recently was, completely ignorant of the literature of bicycle transportation engineering. Of course, I am arguing ad hominem, but in this kind of case I think it justified as the proper skepticism to be expected from his papers, unless demonstrated otherwise.

So, for the scientific evidence favoring the advocacy of vehicular cycling we have:
The rules of the road have been worked out to fit the operating characteristics of vehicles and of their human drivers.
Experimentation and discussion that developed the rules of the road has always been based on the goodness of fit.
Numerous studies showing that acting contrary to the rules of the road causes collisions.
The Cross study.
The Forester study comparing the safety of cycling on roadways to cycling on a sidepath at the same speeds using the same vigilance.
studies showing that learning how to operate according to the rules of the road is easy to learn.
In all usages of the term "rules of the road" are you referring to the local traffic laws, or the vc rules of the road (based on the EF 5 points), or something else?

Also, if you take the stance that the ROTR evolved to reach their current state, then there is the question of whether they need furthur evolution, and if there is a "perfect state" that has already been conceived and will one day be reached, or if we can't yet know what improvements the future will show us. Thoughts?

Everything I've read about him and his studies is not pretty.
Let's just stick to his studies, right? If I were trying to decide whether Hitler's, Einstein's, a poster with the user name Helmet Head's, John Forrester's, Zeytoun's, an unrelated person named Harvey Muldragger, Stalin's, or VC advocate Serge *******'s ideas were valid or not, it would be illogical to consider their respective behaviors while evaluating their statements.

Indeed, his behavior is irrelevant.

By Everything I've read about him and his studies is not pretty I did not mean:

Everything I've read about him is not pretty AND everything I've read about his studies is not pretty.

I meant everything I've read about him and his studies is not pretty.

I'm not answering questions here, just posting studies at this point. You guys (HH and JF) are saying that there's nothing out there, and ask us to find it. You are not doing any work here at all. Here's another:

Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe
John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra
Department of Urban Planning
Rutgers University—Bloustein School
33 Livingston Avenue, Suite 302
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901—1900
Phone: (732) 932-3822, ext. 722; Fax: (732) 932-2253
Email: pucher@rci.rutgers.edu; lewis.dijkstra@bigfoot.com
February 2000
This article is scheduled for publication in Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, summer
2000. Please use that citation in any references to this pre-print version of the paper. This
preprint version does not contain the ten photographs in the printed article; also, page numbers
will vary between this version and the final, printed version in the summer 2000 TQ issue

Here is a quote from that study:


Bicycling infrastructure: German and Dutch cities have invested heavily to expand and improve facilities specifically for bicycling; many of these investments have focussed on increased safety. The most obvious symbol of this investment is the already massive and everexpanding network of bike lanes and bike paths, which provide completely separate rights of way for cyclists. Unlike the fragmented cycling facilities in the United States, the bike paths and
lanes in The Netherlands and Germany form a truly integrated, coordinated network covering both rural and urban areas. Dutch and German bikeway systems serve practical destinations for everyday travel, not just recreational attractions, as most bike paths in the United States. The comprehensive route system in Germany and The Netherlands helps insulate cyclists to various
degrees from motor vehicles, which are involved in over 95% of bicyclist deaths. In The Netherlands, the network of bike paths and lanes more than doubled in length in less than 20 years: from 9,282 km in 1978 to 18,948 km in 199619. The German bikeway network almost tripled in length: from 12,911 km in 1976 to 31,236 km in 1995.20

Now, HH & JF, you can discount the studies if you wish (I think I'm up to four posted now, with posts of others that are underway). But you cannot say that they don't exist, as HH has stated. If everything you've read about him and his studies "is not pretty," I would suggest that you read the actual studies before making a judgement. They are available here:

http://www.vtpi.org/documents/walking.php

John

In all usages of the term "rules of the road" are you referring to the local traffic laws, or the vc rules of the road (based on the EF 5 points), or something else?

Also, if you take the stance that the ROTR evolved to reach their current state, then there is the question of whether they need furthur evolution, and if there is a "perfect state" that has already been conceived and will one day be reached, or if we can't yet know what improvements the future will show us. Thoughts?

The rules of the road might be ever evolving, but I fear the day that they start regularly striping straight thru traffic lanes to the right of right turn lane. This would NEVER happen for normal traffic lanes in my opinion. I doubt you'd disagree. Why then is it so acceptable for bike lanes?

Now, HH & JF, you can discount the studies if you wish (I think I'm up to four posted now, with posts of others that are underway). But you cannot say that they don't exist, as HH has stated.

John R, I never said that scientific studies that do not provide reasons to advocate for bike lanes do not exist. In fact, I'm sure they do, as you are proving.

Why then is it so acceptable for bike lanes?
I don't know. I am against lanes that continue at the curb up to the intersection (except for at an intersection with no right turn possible). I'm not sure I have seen one that hasn't either ended or routed to the left of RTOLs here in San Diego.

In all usages of the term "rules of the road" are you referring to the local traffic laws, or the vc rules of the road (based on the EF 5 points), or something else?
I'm using it generically to mean any or all. That is, the statements stand regardless of which specific definition for rules of the road you use.


Also, if you take the stance that the ROTR evolved to reach their current state, then there is the question of whether they need furthur evolution, and if there is a "perfect state" that has already been conceived and will one day be reached, or if we can't yet know what improvements the future will show us. Thoughts?
See JJ's comment/question on this if you haven't already.

I don't know. I am against lanes that continue at the curb up to the intersection (except for at an intersection with no right turn possible). I'm not sure I have seen one that hasn't either ended or routed to the left of RTOLs here in San Diego. Where have you see one that did NOT go all the way to the intersection?

Yes, they change the striping from solid to striped, 20-60 feet prior to the intersection, but it still goes all the way to the intersection, 3-5 feet from the curb, unless the lane becomes too narrow to be able to handle that.

I don't know. I am against lanes that continue at the curb up to the intersection (except for at an intersection with no right turn possible). I'm not sure I have seen one that hasn't either ended or routed to the left of RTOLs here in San Diego.

Are they dashed as they approach the intersection or does the lane switch to a WCL before the intersection? Of course the stripes end in the intersection but so do all stripes (if this is what you were referring to).

FWIW, the treatment of bike lanes to the left of a RTOL leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion. There is often only a very short merge area and the ones I've seen have made room for the RTOL by severely cutting down on the bike lane width. As others have pointed out (and I see this wherever there are RTOL's bike lane or not), that unswept area that the bike lane occupies between the straight and RTOL's is very prone to debris build up as well.

That is, the statements stand regardless of which specific definition for rules of the road you use.


So, for the scientific evidence favoring the advocacy of vehicular cycling we have:

The rules of the road have been worked out to fit the operating characteristics of vehicles and of their human drivers.

Proposition 1, by Helmie: the rules of the road (I read this as traffic law) have been worked out to fit the characteristics of vehicles and their drivers human.

Proposition 2, by Helmie: Proposition 1 is evidence favoring the advocacy of vehicular cycling.

So if a traffic law is unsatisfactory to VC, does it now fall outside of Proposition 1?
If a traffic law changes to conform to your idea of VC (for example, a mandatory side path law is repealled next week) does that mean that the current law (with mandatory side paths) is evidence favoring the advocacy of VC?

Proposition 1, by Helmie: the rules of the road (I read this as traffic law) have been worked out to fit the characteristics of vehicles and their drivers human.

Proposition 2, by Helmie: Proposition 1 is evidence favoring the advocacy of vehicular cycling.

So if a traffic law is unsatisfactory to VC, does it now fall outside of Proposition 1?
If a traffic law changes to conform to your idea of VC (for example, a mandatory side path law is repealled next week) does that mean that the current law (with mandatory side paths) is evidence favoring the advocacy of VC?
Semantic sophistry alert. You got me :rolleyes:

Sorry, I should have said any definition excluding any rules that are contradictory to the basic principles of vehicular operation.

Are they dashed as they approach the intersection or does the lane switch to a WCL before the intersection?
Yes, I'm sorry, they're dashed, so technically the bike lane continues. I guess I just see them as ended since they are dashed, the mandatory bike lane law is now void, and cars can legally enter the space. In addition to the fact that your fear of "striping". And the striping ends. But I will not be a semantic prig. Technically, they continue, I stand corrected.

I guess, in a big picture sense, I would rather see something like regular ads on TV explaining to viewers how and why a cyclist would leave the right side of the road (even with a bike lane) then have bike lanes erased on arterials. On 25mph streets, yes, let's spray paint 'em all black.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I get more excited about advocacy in the areas where I see common ground. I'm happier withholding my personal controversial advocacy ideas, while there is still much common advocacy to be done.


Yes, they change the striping from solid to striped, 20-60 feet prior to the intersection
If so, isn't that in violation of California Law?



Where motor vehicle right turns are not permitted, the solid bike lane stripe should extend to the edge of
the intersection, and begin again on the far side. Where right turns are permitted, the solid stripe should
terminate 30 m (100 ft) to 60 m (200 ft) prior to the intersection.
Option:
A dashed line, as shown in Figure 9C-102, may be carried to, or near, the intersection. Where city
blocks are short (less than 120 m (400 ft)), the length of dashed stripe may be 30 m (100 ft).
Guidance:
Where blocks are longer or vehicle speeds are high (greater than 60 km/h (35 mph)), the length of dashed
stripe should be increased to 60 m (200 ft).

Semantic sophistry alert. You got me :rolleyes:

Sorry, I should have said any definition excluding any rules that are contradictory to the basic principles of vehicular operation.
How is this semantic sophistry?
I'm just trying to bring your ideas to the level of actual science, which requires more rigid levels of logic and communication.

So, if you are not referring to the law, per se, but rather to the basic vehicular principles, combined with defensive driving, we could use the existence of the "VC rules" as scientific evidence for the advocacy of VC.

I belive that, according to the MUPCD (sp?), a dotted line is not a bike lane line (or any other lane line), it is merely a lane line leader. The bike lane does, it seems, disappear for a time before reappearing to the left of the RTOL.

John R, I never said that scientific studies that do not provide reasons to advocate for bike lanes do not exist. In fact, I'm sure they do, as you are proving.
Huh???

The way you word that makes it pretty meaningless. That's the first use of a triple-negative that I've ever seen in one sentence. Good job. If I read this right, you have said that scientific studies do exist, that they do not provide reasons to advocate for bike lanes and so do not exist. No wait, you said that you never said scientific studies do not exist, but that they do not providen reasons for advocating bike lanes? :eek: The more I read that, the more confused I get. Mind clarifying?

John

Seems to me this issue:
Unlike the fragmented cycling facilities in the United States, the bike paths and lanes in The Netherlands and Germany form a truly integrated, coordinated network covering both rural and urban areas. Dutch and German bikeway systems serve practical destinations for everyday travel, not just recreational attractions, as most bike paths in the United States.

From the study cited in post #129... this is the biggest reason for failure of BL in the US.

A new bike map just came out for my city... on that map I notice that in my area... a rather large section of the central region of the city, there are no bike lanes that run east and west... not a single one... I can't go east and west according to that map... there are only "recommended routes..." the biggest of which is the main street with parked cars along each side where most cyclists typically ride on the sidewalk. (I don't) Even the north south route is discontinuous, yet cyclists treat the marked off parking areas on the side of the road as a bike lane, as they ride past my block. Cars get a parking lane... but bikes... nothing.

While the local coalition has done a nice job documenting what they could, if it were a hiway map for motorists... they would beat their heads against the steering wheel trying to get from point A to point B... The city just does not support cycle transit... unless you consider "recommended routes... " the latter often lined with parked cars.

Yes, I'm sorry, they're dashed, so technically the bike lane continues. I guess I just see them as ended since they are dashed, the mandatory bike lane law is now void, and cars can legally enter the space. In addition to the fact that your fear of "striping". And the striping ends. But I will not be a semantic prig. Technically, they continue, I stand corrected.

Ok so they dash the bike lane. Now, for a regular traffic lane that was intended to be straight only (which a traffic lane to the left of a bike lane would be) you'd have arrows showing this and arrows in the outside lane showing it to be straight and right. Why is proper destination positioning never communicated with bike lanes?

For minor intersections, the bike lane stripes don't sound as if they are ever dashed yet motor vehicles are allowed, and required, to enter them there. Why aren't minor intersections treated the same way as major intersections? The mandatory bike lane law does not apply at minor intersections either.


I guess, in a big picture sense, I would rather see something like regular ads on TV explaining to viewers how and why a cyclist would leave the right side of the road (even with a bike lane) then have bike lanes erased on arterials. On 25mph streets, yes, let's spray paint 'em all black.

Don't you think you'd reach more of the people you want to reach by simply leaving the side of the road as necessary while cycling? The same people who are incapable of understanding why a cyclist would leave the side of the road are probably the same people who will reason in their minds that the pile of debris you just avoided was practicable to ride through. Of course, if we could reach the vast majority of motorists through PSA's and that vast majority was also persuaded by these PSA's, I'd be willing to be more supportive of the effort. But, advertising to reach such a high percentage of the population is prohibitively expensive and doesn't guarantee that the guy who you need to yield to you so that you can leave the side of the road has seen the PSA. Signalling, getting his attention and moving right let's the guy know that you need to leave the side of road.


Of course, that's just my opinion, and I get more excited about advocacy in the areas where I see common ground. I'm happier withholding my personal controversial advocacy ideas, while there is still much common advocacy to be done.

I get very excited about common ground. I want more safe cyclists on the road. I want to be able to use certain roads with less passing friction. I would like more local uninterupted bike paths in their own right of way (impossible though due to the density of my area). I would like for all motorists to treat me as a vehicle driver, although this is way down on my list as it wouldn't make for a big change in my every day cycling.

We proved that there can be too many bicyclists on the road at once, contrary to what HH and JF have said previously. If you get a certain number of anything, as Brian said earlier, things will slow down. Here, during the Providence Bridge Pedal in Portland, Oregon in 2005, the organizers made a few mistakes, and we had a traffic jam of bicycles. Literally, we all had to stop and walk. That could happen if many, many more people began bicycling on roads, without any infrastructure to accomodate them. Then you would see some hopping mad motor vehicle drivers, because they probably were filling their tanks with $5.00/gallon gasoline to get that many people on the road. But right now, in Portland, the price for regular gasoline just passed $3.40/gallon.

John

I'm not answering questions here, just posting studies at this point. You guys (HH and JF) are saying that there's nothing out there, and ask us to find it. You are not doing any work here at all. Here's another:

Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe
John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra
Department of Urban Planning
Rutgers University—Bloustein School
33 Livingston Avenue, Suite 302
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901—1900
Phone: (732) 932-3822, ext. 722; Fax: (732) 932-2253
Email: pucher@rci.rutgers.edu; lewis.dijkstra@bigfoot.com
February 2000
This article is scheduled for publication in Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, summer
2000. Please use that citation in any references to this pre-print version of the paper. This
preprint version does not contain the ten photographs in the printed article; also, page numbers
will vary between this version and the final, printed version in the summer 2000 TQ issue

Here is a quote from that study:



Now, HH & JF, you can discount the studies if you wish (I think I'm up to four posted now, with posts of others that are underway). But you cannot say that they don't exist, as HH has stated. If everything you've read about him and his studies "is not pretty," I would suggest that you read the actual studies before making a judgement. They are available here:

http://www.vtpi.org/documents/walking.php

John

John R, There are dozens, probably hundreds of studies that advocate bikeways; God knows I have read enough of them. I reviewed Pucher and Dijkstra years ago, and demolished it. Indeed, it was my criticism of that paper, and Pucher's immoderate reply, that caused the editors of Transportation Quarterly to publish my paper, The Bicycle Transportation Controversy, in Spring 2001, Vol 55 Number 2, pgs 7-17.

Do you read any of these papers that you are recommending for us? I asked rather specifically for papers that provided scientific evidence favoring bikeways over vehicular cycling, and the reasons presented by the member of this group as to why he thinks that the evidence is demonstrative. P phrased my version of HH's request specifically to get at our subject of discussion, rather than the numerous papers that do not present facts and reasons relevant to our discussion.

I repeat, I know of no such papers. The irrelevant or defective papers that exist are just plain propaganda for the superstition. What we ask of you bikeway advocates is whether there are papers with valid data and logic written by people with expert knowledge of the subject, papers that you advocates would stand behind.

Anecdotally, ALL the bonafide traffic engineers I've encountered- by BONAFIDE I mean, emphatically NOT Mossy John F;

ALL the traffic engineers I've spoken with, listened to or seen presentations from KNOW and UNDERSTAND the maxim about cycling specific infrastructure-

BUILD IT, AND THEY WILL RIDE


It's so glaringly apparant I cannot believe the naysayers try to insist otherwise.

cities across the globe encourage bicycling via bicycling infrastructure.

Umm. Mr. Forester. I'm not seeing any refutation of anything in your TQ article. It is simply a summery of the basic VC argument we've heard many times over. Has your refutation been published? Was it peer reviewed?

I cannot even find "Transporation Quarterly". Is it a peer reviewed journal? I found a response from the study's author, which was published two issues later, but you make it seem like your refutation happened before your article was published. I cannot even find this demolishment on your website. Could you post it here?

How was the refutation based? The study was very honest in not drawing hard conclusions. It was basically a list of trends in different areas. I admit I only skimmed through it though. Does Mr. Forester contend that their numbers are wrong?

I never said that scientific studies that do not provide reasons to advocate for bike lanes do not exist. In fact, I'm sure they do, as you are proving.

Huh???

The way you word that makes it pretty meaningless. That's the first use of a triple-negative that I've ever seen in one sentence. Good job. If I read this right, you have said that scientific studies do exist, that they do not provide reasons to advocate for bike lanes and so do not exist. No wait, you said that you never said scientific studies do not exist, but that they do not providen reasons for advocating bike lanes? :eek: The more I read that, the more confused I get. Mind clarifying?

John

John, you claimed: "Now, HH & JF, you can discount the studies if you wish ... But you cannot say that they don't exist, as HH has stated."

You claimed that I have stated "the studies" don't exist. Then you cited some studies that do not provide reasons to advocate for bike lanes. Yet I never said such studies do not exist... Hence:

I never said that scientific studies that do not provide reasons to advocate for bike lanes do not exist.

Now, I did say that I believed studies that do provide reasons reasons to advocate for bike lanes do not exist. And you have not cited such studies, so you have not swayed my belief.

There are dozens, probably hundreds of studies that advocate bikeways.... papers that provided scientific evidence....



well, there we go then! Yep, likely hundreds of studies that advocate bicycle infrastructure. the SCIENCE of bike infrastructure, versus mossy johns' emotionally ******** disapproval of cycling infrastructure.

You suck at communicating. It's that simple.

The fact that you whine about people questioning you based upon your horrid semantics is just icing on the cake of your communications mediocrity.
Thanks, that's very helpful. Feel better now?

Seems to me this issue:

From the study cited in post #129... this is the biggest reason for failure of BL in the US.

A new bike map just came out for my city... on that map I notice that in my area... a rather large section of the central region of the city, there are no bike lanes that run east and west... not a single one... I can't go east and west according to that map... there are only "recommended routes..." the biggest of which is the main street with parked cars along each side where most cyclists typically ride on the sidewalk. (I don't) Even the north south route is discontinuous, yet cyclists treat the marked off parking areas on the side of the road as a bike lane, as they ride past my block. Cars get a parking lane... but bikes... nothing.

While the local coalition has done a nice job documenting what they could, if it were a hiway map for motorists... they would beat their heads against the steering wheel trying to get from point A to point B... The city just does not support cycle transit... unless you consider "recommended routes... " the latter often lined with parked cars. Between you and me and the 3 other people reading this thread, that map is a joke. It implies that the only routes for cycling are along Class 1, 2 or 3 bikeways. :rolleyes: Remember who creates the map: a government agency comprised of people whose livelihood depends on the creation... Class 1, 2 and 3 bikeways. Class 1 bikeways - bike paths - okay, they often serve a useful function. But Class 2 -- bike lanes? Give me a break. And class 3, designating a normal street as a "bike route"? What the heck is that? Every street is a bike route!. Do you really need metal green signs on posts that say "BIKE ROUTE" to ride on a street? :rolleyes: Can you see that the emperor has no clothes? (and that the bikeway map has no purpose?)

You say bikes get nothing? I say cyclists get the whole lane!

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

Exactly. 3 pages and almost 70 posts, and still nuthin'. Nada. Zippo. Nothing except the typical semantic sophistry that is all the bike lane supporters seem to be able to produce.
John Forester and Helmet Head,

You were looking for scientific studies that supported bike lanes. I provided one from Portland, which I don't think either of you had seen before. That wasn't good enough, so I pointed out several others, plus several studies that are currently underway. But those aren't good enough either. Well, I'll let you guys stew on it for a while. But it is not what HH said above, "...Nada. Zippo. Nothing excepth the typical sematic sophistry..."

John, if you have taken those studies apart in the past, please do post some of that to support it. We have not been researching if as long as you have, and if it is what you say it is, you may change a few minds.

John

Yes, I'm sorry, they're dashed, so technically the bike lane continues. I guess I just see them as ended since they are dashed, the mandatory bike lane law is now void, and cars can legally enter the space. In addition to the fact that your fear of "striping". And the striping ends. But I will not be a semantic prig. Technically, they continue, I stand corrected.
There is no legal difference between a solid and dashed stripe, so far as I know. The law (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21209.htm) allows motorists to merge into bike lanes up to 200 feet prior to the right turn, regardless of the type of striping.


Motor Vehicles and Motorized Bicycles in Bicycle Lanes
21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:

(1) To park where parking is permitted.

(2) To enter or leave the roadway.

(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21209.htm


I guess, in a big picture sense, I would rather see something like regular ads on TV explaining to viewers how and why a cyclist would leave the right side of the road (even with a bike lane) then have bike lanes erased on arterials. On 25mph streets, yes, let's spray paint 'em all black.
Do you mean you support erasing all bike lanes on all arterials, or just the last 200 feet?
If you support erasing them on arterials and 25 mph streets, where do you support them?





Where motor vehicle right turns are not permitted, the solid bike lane stripe should extend to the edge of
the intersection, and begin again on the far side. Where right turns are permitted, the solid stripe should
terminate 30 m (100 ft) to 60 m (200 ft) prior to the intersection.
Option:
A dashed line, as shown in Figure 9C-102, may be carried to, or near, the intersection. Where city
blocks are short (less than 120 m (400 ft)), the length of dashed stripe may be 30 m (100 ft).
Guidance:
Where blocks are longer or vehicle speeds are high (greater than 60 km/h (35 mph)), the length of dashed
stripe should be increased to 60 m (200 ft).


If so, isn't that in violation of California Law?
That looks like guidelines, not a law. Is that the CA MUTCD or the CA Hwy design manual? Either way, it's not the law.

Anyway, the law is the law, and the stripe is the stripe. The guidelines indicate they should end the bike lane, or change to dashes, at 100 feet prior. But the law allows merging up to 200 feet prior, and that stands regardless of how they paint it. Speaking of how they paint it, in most places I've measured the solid doesn't go to dashed until just a few car lengths from the intersection, or 30-60 feet.

You were looking for scientific studies that supported bike lanes.
Not quite.

From the OP: Is there any science, or even pseudo science, supporting the advocacy of bike lanes?

If you find a study that supports bike lanes, that's not necessarily science supporting their advocacy. You have to actually read the study and find and cite the science that actually does that. You have not done that.

I provided [a study] from Portland, which I don't think either of you had seen before.

We've seen it before, John, many times. A study showing that some bike lanes are so dangerous they need to be painted blue is science the supports the position to remove bike lanes, not advocacy of them.

I think Ol' Bow Tie mentions the existance of literally, hundreds of studies that scientifically support bike infrastructure, presumably including bike lanes.....

Do you mean these blue lanes, Helmet? 'vehicular cyclists' merge onto this bridgeway using the blue lane. the blue lanes serve to warn drivers of cross traffic and make even vehicular cycling safer, not less safe. this type of infrastructure benefits all cyclists, even the blowhard armchair "VC", and all road users by the increased safety relevance.

For minor intersections, the bike lane stripes don't sound as if they are ever dashed yet motor vehicles are allowed, and required, to enter them there. Why aren't minor intersections treated the same way as major intersections? The mandatory bike lane law does not apply at minor intersections either.
This is a beef for me too. I think streets with minor intersections shouldn't have 45mph speed limits, they should be slower, and no bike lane should exist. And streets with 45mph speed limits shouldn't have frequent minor intersections.

Of course, this is the real world, and such things exist. So how do I deal with it? From a safety point of view, I exhibit more care, and will exit the bike lane depending on specific scenarios. From an advocacy point of view, I don't know how to handle it. I don't see how erasing the line will help a newbie, if he doesn't receive more information in exchange. But I don't have a real answer for this. What do you think? Do you think bike lanes on arterials with frequent intersections should be abolished altogether, or is there another improvement you suggest?


Don't you think you'd reach more of the people you want to reach by simply leaving the side of the road as necessary while cycling?
I am happy to leave the side of the road as necessary. I wouldn't know how to even begin measuring and extrapolating from my anecdotal experience. I know only rarely do drivers treat me discourteously (1 every few days), and it doesn't seem to have much relevence to whether I am in the bike lane or not. It seems to depend more on the driver. And I'm not sure if there is any correlation between that and collisions or deaths.

The points you make about PSAs are valid. But I think we need to be able to somehow distribute a message that is a bit more universal to this forum, and carries a bit of wait. My opinion is that drivers see cyclists as being very individual, and each prone to individual behavior. Just because I ride one way or say one thing, doesn't mean anyone respects my opinion. I'm just an eccentric on a bicycle.


I want more safe cyclists on the road. I want to be able to use certain roads with less passing friction.
We agree. I'm going to spend less times on these forums. And more doing general advocacy.

I think Ol' Bow Tie mentions the existance of literally, hundreds of studies that scientifically support bike infrastructure, presumably including bike lanes.....

Do you mean these blue lanes, Helmet? 'vehicular cyclists' merge onto this bridgeway using the blue lane. the blue lanes serve to warn drivers of cross traffic and make even vehicular cycling safer, not less safe. this type of infrastructure benefits all cyclists, even the blowhard armchair "VC", and all road users by the increased safety relevance.
AJ and HH are reaching for their garlic, crosses and silver bullets as they read this.

;)

You're either very, very unobservant, a liar, or have memory problems.

http://www.paradigmhosting.net/images/commute.jpg
I've only measured in San Diego, and have not seen a dashed bl stripe that long anywhere. Is that in San Diego?

I don't recognize it. What street? Maybe it's a section that is not on my commute?

I think 'alleged commute' hits the nail squarely on the head, Pete. Helmet Head, he's one heck of a motorist! A Transportational bicyclist, not so much....

It's hard to measure the bike lane stripe while you're flying by in your RV or sports car, eh?