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.
Helmet Head,

No matter how you spin it, that is not what the abstract to this paper says:

Title: EVALUATION OF BLUE BIKE-LANE TREATMENT IN PORTLAND, OREGON
Accession Number: 00798925
Record Type: Component
Language 1: English
Record URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1705-16
Abstract: Many European cities use colored markings at bicycle-motor vehicle crossings to reduce conflicts. To determine whether such colored markings help improve safety at American bicycle-motor vehicle crossings, the city of Portland, Oregon, studied the use of blue pavement markings and a novel signage system to delineate selected conflict areas. The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC), under contract to the Federal Highway Administration, analyzed the project data. From 1997 to 1999, Portland marked 10 conflict areas with paint, blue thermoplastic, and an accompanying "Yield to Cyclist" sign. All of the sites had a high level of cyclist and motorist interaction, as well as a history of complaints. The crossings were all at locations where the cyclist travels straight and the motorist crosses the bicycle lane in order to exit a roadway (such as an off-ramp situation), enter a right-turn lane, or merge onto a street from a ramp. The study used videotape analysis and found most behavior changes to be positive. Significantly higher numbers of motorists yielded to cyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the blue pavement areas, and more cyclists followed the colored bike-lane path. However, the blue pavement also resulted in fewer cyclists turning their heads to scan for traffic or using hand signals, perhaps signifying an increased comfort level. The overwhelming majority of cyclists and close to a majority of motorists surveyed felt the blue areas enhanced safety. Colored pavement and signage should continue to be used and evaluated in bicycle-motor vehicle conflict areas. (Emphasis added, jcr)
Supplemental Notes: This paper appears in Transportation Research Record No. 1705, Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Research 2000.
TRIS Files: HRIS
Pagination: p. 107-115
Authors: Hunter, W W; Harkey, D L; Stewart, J R; Birk, M L
Features: Figures (8); Photos (3); References (5); Tables (3)

Monograph Info: See related components
Corporate Authors: Transportation Research Board
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001 USA


Availability: Transportation Research Board Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW

From:

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

By the way, I will not post from the actual study, as it is copyrighted, and I will not infringe on their copyright. If you want to read the paper, pay the $25 and get the paper.

John

That's Torrey Pines Serge.

There are also many more examples (from your alleged commute) of dashed bike lanes that are longer than a few car lengths.

So are you a liar, unobservant, or is it the memory problems excuse?
:eek:

I recognize it finally. It's not an angle I'm accustomed to seeing. That's at Hillside. Now I remember the unusually long dashed stripes there. So I have to go with the memory problems excuse. Never-the-less, my original statement holds: "in most places I've measured the solid doesn't go to dashed until just a few car lengths from the intersection".

Unless my memory problems are really bad, that's still an exception.

Thanks for going to the trouble of finding that photo. Where/how did you find it?

John R,

The study says: "All of the sites had a high level of cyclist and motorist interaction, as well as a history of complaints."

That's what I mean by the bike lanes were dangerous.
So they painted them blue, and the bike lanes became less dangerous. How is that evidence supporting advocacy for bike lanes?

jebezzus, obtuseness from a guy that doesn't ride much.

Helemt, leave the transportational cycling to the transportationalists. your infantile damnification of bike infrastructure is quite pathetic. You drive a lot, eh, helmet.

I'd recommend riding a lot more before you continue to damify bike infrastucture with your internet posturing. Don't even recognize your 'commute route' that Pete posted, eh?

From what I've garnered, bike lanes ARE vehicular lanes on roads for bikes, and vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. shouldn't be so tough to grasp, yes?

like ol' bow tie stated on the last page, likely hundreds of studies scientifically support bike infrastructure. its the emotionally ******ed "VC" camp that opposes bike infrastructure, despite all the advantages and benefits it brings communities & cyclists.


Build it, and they will ride.

Regarding the blue lanes in portland, referring back to John Ratliff's posting of studies done....

"Significantly higher numbers of motorists yielded to cyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the blue pavement areas, and more cyclists followed the colored bike-lane path......... The overwhelming majority of cyclists and close to a majority of motorists surveyed felt the blue areas enhanced safety. Colored pavement and signage should continue to be used and evaluated in bicycle-motor vehicle conflict areas."

No Serge, your original statement does not hold.

Apparently your memory problems are really, really, bad, as there are numerous examples, from your commute route alone, that contradict your most recent proclamation.

p.s. That's not at Hillside according to the map I'm looking at, it's Viking.

Not trying to put anyone down or anything, but you'd think that an experienced bicycle commuter would know his route right down to the location of the potholes. Especially if he's been riding it for several years. Experience in bicycling is extremely relevent. JF probably has quite a bit of experience, even if he is extremely opinionated. I can learn something from him (and, believe it or not, have) if I get past his caustic words. HH, maybe not so much. I don't think I've learned much from him.

Brian, my commute has a road which was just repaved last week. I've ridden said road but 2 or 3 times and know the humps, the bottles, the area next to the driving range, etc already.

I knew HH didn't ride as much as he claimed...but that much?!

Following some links, doing a little searching, I came across this:

ite-espanol.org/meetcon/2005AM/Barber_Wed.pdf

In it, starting on slide 39 or so, they discuss a case study of increased numbers of cyclists with little or no increase in accidents. There is also a slide on the "Benefits of Paint" which I think is referring not only to blue-painting intersections, but adding striping to un-striped roads.

Can't say I've dug beyond that, or even for sure what the conclusion is, but it might be worth looking into.

They state: "In Denmark, bicycle lanes reduced the number of bicycle crashes by 35 percent." I'll try to look up the referenced article for more information, but don't hold your breath. If you find it, and it's in English, have at it. If it's in Danish, let me know (seriously, PM me if you want) and I'll try to translate some of it.

I also have a paper in Danish, sitting behind me right now as it has for a couple of months, that appears to show the opposite (bike lanes increased accident rate), but I haven't gotten around to that one either.

Enjoy.

Helmet Head:
I agree that with limited space everything slows down. And it's not just to the lowest common denominator.

For example, freeways with all vehicles capable of 65+ mph regularly slow down to speeds below that due to limited space.

Just because there are bikes mixed in in slow traffic doesn't mean they are causing the slowing.

Edit: the natural flow is that when there is sufficient space for motor traffic to move at faster speeds, cyclists tend to keep right. When there is insufficient space for fast motor speeds, bicyclists tend to merge into the mix. This is just as true on southern Cal arterials, Asian urban centers, and bike messengers doing deliveries in Manhattan.
Or motorcycles blazing through a traffic jam on the freeway?

Yeah, I think if cars were going 5 MPH in a city, I wouldn't mind riding in the main traffic lanes. Maybe not on the freeway, though, 'cause you never know when the blockage is gonna let up.

Ok, I'm confused. I've read some stuff on this site, and have come to the conclusion that I don't know what the two sides are arguing about. I especially don't understand how having a bike lane will keep anyone from "vehicularly cycling". And is there a link to these abreviations? I don't know what half of them mean.

"We want bike lanes instead of..." what?

If bike lanes were put in, would something be taken away? What does making a bike lane mean? Do they just take the shoulder and call it a bike lane, or do they actually expand the road? How is it different than not having one?

"Having bike lanes will keep us from doing..." what? "We don't want bike lanes because we'd rather they put in..." what?

If there's a bike lane, are you afraid you won't be able to ride in a regular traffic lane? Do you normally ride on the shoulder anyway, but are afraid of "the white stripe"?

Are bike lanes supposed to replace something? Are they added to the infrastructure? What's the difference between the two? Is it bike lanes vs. ...not having them? Or do VC's (I figured that abreviation out after a week) want something else put in instead?

My solution- an underground tunnel system! Ha ha, not really. But at least I understand that. :P

Ok, I'm confused. I've read some stuff on this site, and have come to the conclusion that I don't know what the two sides are arguing about.

:roflmao: join the crowd!
Seriously though, the way I see it is that HH and JF are arguing a VERY strict, "their way or the highway", "thank us for saving your life out there" riding mentality, and the other side is arguing that sure, sometimes their ideas work, and others times there are far better ways to ride based on the situation and location - a small fact that someone here, I seem to have forgotten his name (silly me), doesn't quite get.
But I'm looking forward to someone from the other side telling me why I'm wrong. :rolleyes: See, if that didn't happen, these threads wouldn't continue indefinitly, :)

John R,

The study says: "All of the sites had a high level of cyclist and motorist interaction, as well as a history of complaints."

That's what I mean by the bike lanes were dangerous.
So they painted them blue, and the bike lanes became less dangerous. How is that evidence supporting advocacy for bike lanes?
Helmet Head,

You cannot even acknowledge what a study's abstract says, when it's right in front of you. If you only recognize your own spin on everything, then trying to put studies in front of you is a useless activity.

John

PS--Here it is again:

Title: EVALUATION OF BLUE BIKE-LANE TREATMENT IN PORTLAND, OREGON
Accession Number: 00798925
Record Type: Component
Language 1: English
Record URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1705-16
Abstract: Many European cities use colored markings at bicycle-motor vehicle crossings to reduce conflicts. To determine whether such colored markings help improve safety at American bicycle-motor vehicle crossings, the city of Portland, Oregon, studied the use of blue pavement markings and a novel signage system to delineate selected conflict areas. The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC), under contract to the Federal Highway Administration, analyzed the project data. From 1997 to 1999, Portland marked 10 conflict areas with paint, blue thermoplastic, and an accompanying "Yield to Cyclist" sign. All of the sites had a high level of cyclist and motorist interaction, as well as a history of complaints. The crossings were all at locations where the cyclist travels straight and the motorist crosses the bicycle lane in order to exit a roadway (such as an off-ramp situation), enter a right-turn lane, or merge onto a street from a ramp. The study used videotape analysis and found most behavior changes to be positive. Significantly higher numbers of motorists yielded to cyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the blue pavement areas, and more cyclists followed the colored bike-lane path. However, the blue pavement also resulted in fewer cyclists turning their heads to scan for traffic or using hand signals, perhaps signifying an increased comfort level. The overwhelming majority of cyclists and close to a majority of motorists surveyed felt the blue areas enhanced safety. Colored pavement and signage should continue to be used and evaluated in bicycle-motor vehicle conflict areas. (Emphasis added, jcr)
Supplemental Notes: This paper appears in Transportation Research Record No. 1705, Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Research 2000.
TRIS Files: HRIS
Pagination: p. 107-115
Authors: Hunter, W W; Harkey, D L; Stewart, J R; Birk, M L
Features: Figures (8); Photos (3); References (5); Tables (3)

Monograph Info: See related components
Corporate Authors: Transportation Research Board
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001 USA


Availability: Transportation Research Board Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW

From:

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

This guy has a lot of research on cycling:

http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher.html

John R, all that study shows is that in certain dangerous locations where cyclists who don't know better way too long to merge, and don't properly yield when they do, bike lanes are not as dangerous after they are painted blue than before they are painted blue.

John R, all that study shows is that in certain dangerous locations where cyclists who don't know better way too long to merge, and don't properly yield when they do, bike lanes are not as dangerous after they are painted blue than before they are painted blue.

Don't forget that they also added signage instructing motorists to yield to these same cyclists. This begs the question, did the blue paint have anything to do with the improvement or was it the sign itself or some combination of the two? In either case, the bike lane itself certainly did not improve cyclists' safety.

The traffic engineers designing these bike lanes need to open their eyes and look at how all proper lane merges and diverges take place (not at 90 degree angles). If cyclists were being treated as vehicle drivers, this same merge/diverge treatment would work just as well (if not better) without all the extra signage and paint that just clutters up the roadway and is likely to cause confusion.

Ok, I'm confused. I've read some stuff on this site, and have come to the conclusion that I don't know what the two sides are arguing about. I especially don't understand how having a bike lane will keep anyone from "vehicularly cycling". And is there a link to these abreviations? I don't know what half of them mean.
At most intersections, bike lanes guide straight cyclists to travel too far right, in particular, to the right of right-turning motorists in the adjacent straight-or-right lane. The only way to fix this is to end the stripe 100 to 200 feet prior to every intersection, including midblock intersections with driveways, etc. In most urban and suburban area, this would mean reducing bike lanes to silly short segments that make lno sense.

"We want bike lanes instead of..." what?
It's about the stripe. Bike lane opponents prefer wide outside lanes (WOLs) to the Bike lanes. Picture a street with a bike lane. Now remove the bike lane stripe. Presto, a WOL.

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/engineering/wols.htm


If bike lanes were put in, would something be taken away? What does making a bike lane mean? Do they just take the shoulder and call it a bike lane, or do they actually expand the road? How is it different than not having one?
Whether anything needs to be done to make room for a bike lane, you can do all that anyway, and just no tpaint the stripe.

"Having bike lanes will keep us from doing..." what? "We don't want bike lanes because we'd rather they put in..." what?
Having bike lanes will keep us from changing the thinking that bicyclists naturally belong near the curb and are probably doing something wrong if they're anywhere else slowing down motorists.


If there's a bike lane, are you afraid you won't be able to ride in a regular traffic lane? Do you normally ride on the shoulder anyway, but are afraid of "the white stripe"?
The direct practical effect of bike lanes on vehicular cyclists is minor. The opposition to them is based on the effect of bike lanes on the behavior of uninitiated cyclists and most motorists at intersections - setting them up for conflicts.

Are bike lanes supposed to replace something? Are they added to the infrastructure? What's the difference between the two? Is it bike lanes vs. ...not having them? Or do VC's (I figured that abreviation out after a week) want something else put in instead?

My solution- an underground tunnel system! Ha ha, not really. But at least I understand that. :P
Please read the link referenced above and let me know if you have any other questions.

Brian, my commute has a road which was just repaved last week. I've ridden said road but 2 or 3 times and know the humps, the bottles, the area next to the driving range, etc already.

I knew HH didn't ride as much as he claimed...but that much?!
Bumps, bottles, etc. are relevant to a cyclist.

I'll verify the length of that dashed bike lane later today (I still have trouble believing it is as long as is shown in the photo - mayb ethat's an old photo). But if it is, that just shows that I simply never paid attention to the striping there. Inattentional blindness. We're all prone to it. Obviously I am!

will you be driving, mr head? you're prone to a lot more than inattentional blindness, that's for sure - like, inflating your bicycling skills and knowledge to the detriment of Bike Forums.

give it a rest, Mr Head. you're a fraud, and we all know it.

There IS a science behind bicycle infrastructure. Ol' Mossy Bow Tie, despite his emotionally stunted, kneejerk reactions, states there are likely hundreds of studies that show the efficacy of bike infrastructure.

There is proof positive, seen in cities across the globe, that bike infrastructure increases cycling and increases the safety of cyclists.

John Ratliff has shown some proof, and Head continues his prattling. pathetic.

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?

In my opinion, if roads are going to be signed for 45+mph speed limits with frequent intersections, I'd prefer those roads to have multiple narrow, unshareable lanes. In my experience, this works much better than the same road with a shoulder/bike lane stripe to the right of the outside through lane. I get a whole lane that motorists are used to using for making right turns so there is much less ambiguity about how to treat me near intersections. I'll admit that I have little experience with wide curb lanes on these types of roads. I do regularly ride 45mph roads with multiple narrow lanes ans frequent intersections though. In regards to using a full lane near intersections, the treatment I receive from motorists is leaps and bounds above the treatment I receive when doing the same thing on roads with a shoulder/bike lane. Perhaps with more experience with wide curb lane roads my opinion might begin to favor that setup. I certainly prefer that setup when intersections are less frequent, regardless of speed limit (speed limits generally mean nothing to most motorists at rush hour when I'm normally cycling).

For those roads with high speeds, narrow lanes, and frequent intersections, signage saying that cyclists have the right to use the full lane would be a mild benefit (like I said, I get the best treatment there already) as would sharrows. Both would hopefully encourage proper lane positioning (not curb hugging) by cyclists using these roads. Having the cyclist in the center of the narrow lane that motorists are accustomed to using for right turns and expecting to have through traffic, has in my experience reduced right hook and failure to yield situations to nil.

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.

My question was somewhat rhetorical in the sense that the only way to guarantee that you reach the motorists you need to reach when you need to use the full lane is to actually be there negotiating and using the full lane. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot as to whether or not they've seen the PSAs or read the driver's manual, etc.

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 agree that cyclists operating in their own individual style is a huge issue for motorists who have come to expect some sort of conformity of use from all other users of the road. If motorists are used to seeing cyclists hugging the edge of the road, they are going to expect that from any cyclist they see, like the lady yesterday telling me (not in a complimentary way) that she's never seen another cyclist with my mentality. I had merged left early before the road narrowed which also happens to be the location of a frequently used intersection. I guess most cyclists she sees would have stayed right until the last second then cut into the lane.

did the blue paint have anything to do with the improvement or was it the sign itself or some combination of the two?

The blue lane treatments are very limited in application, for high hazard locations, and the study repeatedly referred to by John Ratliff shows a correlative increase in safety due the bike specific infrastructure.


Additionally, Joe, what you find best for 'your' riding is not what your bicycling compatriots, your brothers of wheel, would find expeditious to cycling for 'their' cycling. Personally, I've no problem with narrow lanes, wide lanes OR bike lanes, but bike advocacy is about a lot more than chest puffery and internet skill announcements about claiming the lane on 45 MPH roads. your brothers of wheel do not all want to do that.

so, in debating bike lane advocacy, do you want more cyclists, joe, or just a few that are as ballsy as you, leaving the roads largely the domain of automobiles? I recall you assert you rarely see other bike commuters in your area.....Besides, you should be skilled enough to ride any type of roadway and accomodation, Joe, including a bike laned road, I'll give you that much.



Remember, Joe, vehicular cyclists can and do use the blue bike lanes to bicycle in Portland. Vehicular cyclists use bike infrastrucuture

The blue lane treatments are very limited in application, for high hazard locations, and the study repeatedly referred to by John Ratliff shows a correlative increase in safety due the bike specific infrastructure.

You are missing the point of the study (or I am, but I doubt that unless the abstract is extremely poorly written). The "bike specific infratructure" caused the issue of cyclist/motorist altercations at the poorly designed merge area. Additional signage and/or paint made the poorly designed merge area better. Solving a problem with a bandaid fix is generally not considered a good thing. The additional signage and blue paint are a bandaid fix to a bad original design.

The only way that the blue paint/signage could be directly argued as a safety fix is if the badly designed bike lane did not exist at all before the blue paint/signage was added. Did the bike lane exist in the same form before the blue paint/signage was added? The abtract certainly makes it sound like it did exist before the changes.

Joe, you're being woefully obtuse. Portland bridgeways and their approaches have been made safer by the application of bike specific infrastructure and safety marking and signage. I've ridden the majority of the bridges in Portland, and the bike accomodated ones are much more conducive to cycling and cyclists as a group (not internet, chest puffing & posturing individuals) than the bridge (Sellwood bridge) lacking any bike infrastructure.

You are dodging direct questions as usual.

Did the bike lane exist in the same form before the blue paint/signage was added? The abtract certainly makes it sound like it did exist before the changes.
Exactly. John R, do you acknowledge this, and thus, this study's irrelevancy in the search for science on which to base the advocacy of bike lanes?

Joe, you're being woefully obtuse. Portland bridgeways and their approaches have been made safer by the application of bike specific infrastructure and safety marking and signage. I've ridden the majority of the bridges in Portland, and the bike accomodated ones are much more conducive to cycling and cyclists as a group (not internet, chest puffing & posturing individuals) than the bridge (Sellwood bridge) lacking any bike infrastructure.
What does this have to do with the study about the effect of painting certain dangerous bike lanes blue?

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

That is a really nasty deliberate misquotation of my words. Here are the actual words: "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."

My point is that none of these probably hundreds of studies has provided scientifically reasonable evidence to support the three basic claims of bikeway advocates, or specifically for bike lanes. The three basic claims for bike lanes are that the bike-lane stripe reduces car-bike collisions, reduces the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and significantly reduces motoring. I have never seen such a paper; it was the purpose of the inquiry to see whether any of the bicycle advocates in this forum would advance such a paper and support its reasoning.

By the way, we on this forum have had a much better discussion of European facilities than is possible from reading the Pucher and Dijkstra paper. That's how bad that paper is.

I'm getting ready to ride to work! don't have a lot of time to waste debating the efficacy of bike infrastructure, which works on bridge approaches in Portland, and portland generally, with a posturing chest puffer in Bike Forums.....

tonight, Ride of Silence, Seattle, 6:30 PM, Gasworks park, to show solidarity to our brothers of the wheel killed or injured while bicycling. If you're in Seattle, please show up.

I'm getting ready to ride to work! don't have a lot of time to waste debating the efficacy of bike infrastructure, which works on bridge approaches in Portland, and portland generally, with a posturing chest puffer in Bike Forums.....
What does this have to do with a study about blue bike lanes?

tonight, Ride of Silence, Seattle, 6:30 PM, Gasworks park, to show solidarity to our brothers of the wheel killed or injured while bicycling. If you're in Seattle, please show up.
Yes, let's add more fuel to the fire keeping many people from taking up cycling: fear of dying. Just what we need to further the interests of expanding the popularity of bicycling. :rolleyes:

hey, Head, I've had good friends killed on their bicycles by inattentive drivers. put a sock in it, armchair rider.


...... Mentioning the efficacy of bike specific bridge infrastructure, the 'blue bike lanes', that have been repeatedly referred to by John Ratliff, myself and others, make cycling across the bridges safer in Portland. Vehicular cyclists use the blue bike lanes in Portland, bub. i'd bet ol' Bow Tie and Head would as well.

The blue bike lanes are one of the Foresterologists biggest strawmen. Even though all the empirical evidence and years of personal experience indicate that they lead to less confusion, a higher degree of safety for cyclists and contribute to increased levels of cycling, the Forsterologists continue to rattle their dull sabers at the strawmen.


:roflmao:

Bumps, bottles, etc. are relevant to a cyclist.

I'll verify the length of that dashed bike lane later today (I still have trouble believing it is as long as is shown in the photo - mayb ethat's an old photo). But if it is, that just shows that I simply never paid attention to the striping there. Inattentional blindness. We're all prone to it. Obviously I am!

Not paying attention? How do you manage to obey the rules of the road? I mean wasn't it you that said we have to be vigilant and observant to obey the rules of the road? :p

Dude, I even have names for the critters on my route...I highly advise that you pay better attention to your surroundings and leave the auto-pilot for jet jocks.

And lane markings are not?

Lane markings in general are relevant to my riding. Bike lane markings in particular are not.

Whether a bike lane stripe is present makes practically no difference to my riding - whether that stripe is dashed or solid makes even less differerence. The fact that I was oblivious to the length of the bike lane stripe dashing just a few blocks from my home only confirms how irrelevant bike lane striping is to me.

Pete, thank you. You have made it clear that there are many more exceptions than I realized; that the dashing is much longer than 30-60 feet at many intersections, and appears to be even 100-200 feet or more at some.

In my opinion, if roads are going to be signed for 45+mph speed limits with frequent intersections, I'd prefer those roads to have multiple narrow, unshareable lanes. In my experience, this works much better than the same road with a shoulder/bike lane stripe to the right of the outside through lane. I get a whole lane that motorists are used to using for making right turns so there is much less ambiguity about how to treat me near intersections. I'll admit that I have little experience with wide curb lanes on these types of roads. I do regularly ride 45mph roads with multiple narrow lanes ans frequent intersections though. In regards to using a full lane near intersections, the treatment I receive from motorists is leaps and bounds above the treatment I receive when doing the same thing on roads with a shoulder/bike lane. Perhaps with more experience with wide curb lane roads my opinion might begin to favor that setup. I certainly prefer that setup when intersections are less frequent, regardless of speed limit (speed limits generally mean nothing to most motorists at rush hour when I'm normally cycling).

For those roads with high speeds, narrow lanes, and frequent intersections, signage saying that cyclists have the right to use the full lane would be a mild benefit (like I said, I get the best treatment there already) as would sharrows. Both would hopefully encourage proper lane positioning (not curb hugging) by cyclists using these roads. Having the cyclist in the center of the narrow lane that motorists are accustomed to using for right turns and expecting to have through traffic, has in my experience reduced right hook and failure to yield situations to nil.



Tend to agree, and commend the use of "cyclists have the right to use the full lane" signs. That removes the abiguity of the motorists who feel that cyclists should be on the sidewalk.

The blue bike lanes are one of the Foresterologists biggest strawmen. Even though all the empirical evidence and years of personal experience indicate that they lead to less confusion, a higher degree of safety for cyclists and contribute to increased levels of cycling, the Forsterologists continue to rattle their dull sabers at the strawmen.


:roflmao:

Did the bike lane exist in the same form before the blue paint/signage was added?

Not paying attention? How do you manage to obey the rules of the road? I mean wasn't it you that said we have to be vigilant and observant to obey the rules of the road? :p

Dude, I even have names for the critters on my route...I highly advise that you pay better attention to your surroundings and leave the auto-pilot for jet jocks. Paying attention does not mean paying attention to everything.
Paying attention while riding in traffic means paying attention to what is relevant (or potentially relevant) to your getting to your destination safely.

Whether a bike lane stripe is dashed or solid makes absolutely no difference to me, so I don't pay attention to it (even less so than I realized, thanks to Pete). That's a good thing, because it means I'm paying more attention to that which is relevant.

Yes, let's add more fuel to the fire keeping many people from taking up cycling: fear of dying. Just what we need to further the interests of expanding the popularity of bicycling. :rolleyes:

How un-vc of you to be concerned about the popularity of cycling, especially considering that you oppose many things that the majority of folks who do or consider riding a bicycle prefer.

Paying attention does not mean paying attention to everything.
Paying attention means paying attention to what is relevant.
Whether a bike lane stripe is dashed or solid makes absolutely no difference to me, so I don't pay attention to it (even less so than I realized, thanks to Pete). That's a good thing, because it means I'm paying more attention to that which is relevant.

My advice stands...you better start learning to pay attention to everything. THAT is the mark of an experienced transportational cyclist...the fact that you don't consider it important only supports those that accuse you of being a club rider at best, armchair cyclist at worst.

My advice stands...you better start learning to pay attention to everything. THAT is the mark of an experienced transportational cyclist...the fact that you don't consider it important only supports those that accuse you of being a club rider at best, armchair cyclist at worst.

You can't be serious. Where do you draw the line at paying attention then? Should I note what type of grass is used in the front yards of the houses I pass by, you know, just in case I need to collapse from exhaustion and want to choose the softest landing spot?

My advice stands...you better start learning to pay attention to everything.
And my advice is that it is humanly impossible to pay attention to everything and the more you pay attention to the irrelevant, the less you pay attention to the relevant.

That's why we prefer drivers pay attention to their driving, and not to their radios, cell phones, french fries or whether a bike lane stripe at an intersection approach where they never turn is solid or dashed, and if it is dashed, how long that dashing is.

My advice stands...you better start learning to pay attention to everything. THAT is the mark of an experienced transportational cyclist...the fact that you don't consider it important only supports those that accuse you of being a club rider at best, armchair cyclist at worst.
You can't be serious. Where do you draw the line at paying attention then? Should I note what type of grass is used in the front yards of the houses I pass by, you know, just in case I need to collapse from exhaustion and want to choose the softest landing spot? Chip just can't resist slipping in an ad hominem attack on me. It's how he gets his jollies, even if it means pushing all reason aside. It's pathetic.

Chip just can't resist slipping in an ad hominem attack on me. It's how he gets his jollies, pushing all reason aside.
Looks to me like you don't enjoy taking a good natured razzing; just like giving 'em to others for fun, eh?

Tend to agree, and commend the use of "cyclists have the right to use the full lane" signs. That removes the abiguity of the motorists who feel that cyclists should be on the sidewalk.

Really? I thought I was in a very small minority in preferring narrow outside lanes in these conditions. Or were you agreeing with something else I said?

Looks to me like you don't enjoy taking a good natured razzing; just like giving 'em to others for fun, eh? My good natured razzing is aimed at the abstract concept of "Portland cycling", not at any particular members.

I'd prefer those roads to have multiple narrow, unshareable lanes.
That's probably not a bad idea, provided it can me made clear to motorists that there is no speed minimum on this route. The only issue that I can think of with this is what I see happen often around my area, where cars don't look ahead, and they suddenly find themselves going uphill behind a slow vehicle, with the traffic whizzing by on the EDIT: left, making for a dangerous merge scenario. But, then again, I think this is a driver attention problem (combined with busy traffic), and not necessarily a road design issue.

In regards to using a full lane near intersections, the treatment I receive from motorists is leaps and bounds above the treatment I receive when doing the same thing on roads with a shoulder/bike lane.
I take you for you word. You see a huge difference. I have been "questioned" twice for exiting a bike lane. Once by a driver, who I educated personally (who knows if it stuck), and once by an officer, who I ignored. I also have been "questioned" when taking the lane at places without bike lanes. But that's just my experience. I believe you when you say it makes a huge difference for you.

Now my law says that you can leave bikelanes for several reasons, including approaching intersections. It is similar (with some small differences) to the law I have that says you should keep near to the curb with several exceptions.

Now, the way I see it, if an officer incorrectly assumed I should be in a bike lane, it shows that he didn't know or understand the law. Would he treat me differently on that same stretch of road if there were no bike lane?

I guess what I am saying is that we agree on a few things. One is to generally ride vehicularly is a good thing. We probably agree, but to different levels, on how much that affects how we are treated. That doesn't affect our decision on how to ride.

We also agree that some drivers will treat you improperly, if you don't ride vehicularly. We probably agree that cyclist education is key (and with the relative small number of cyclists, free classes probably work, although we need to somehow reach the cyclists who for whatever reasons, don't attend these classes).

All that leaves is the bike lane issue (whether to erase or improve) and the general public/driver education issue. I want some sort of shoulder/bike lane area for high speed differentials. You would rather have narrow lanes (by the way, do your arterials have curbs?). If we have bike lanes, we have to educate drivers to let them know that you don't have to be in them just because they want you to be in them. If we don't have bike lanes, I have to find another route if I want a shoulder/bail out area.

Did the bike lane exist in the same form before the blue paint/signage was added?
It was a while ago, but my recollection is that it was all pretty much added at the same time. A bus lane has also been added to the right of the bike lane more recently, replacing a parking lane. Before that it was a nightmare free for all at the locations I'm familiar with, with lots of aggro motorists and bus drivers honking and trying to edge out the few brave cyclists attempting to 'take the lane'.

Actually, I think it's more a case of you fabricating something from whole cloth to support another one of your "arguments."

How can bike lane markings be irrelevant to your riding when you have claimed that you have used bike lanes? Or, if I'm not remembering correctly and you never ride in bike lanes, how can you consciously stay out of them if you don't pay attention to the bike lane stripe? Are you serious? Where have you been? The fundamental VC principle about where to ride on roads with bike lanes is ignore the bike lane stripe (position yourself the way you would if the bike lane stripe was not there - if that puts you outside the bike lane, fine, if that puts you inside the bike lane, so be it). Thanks for confirming how thoroughly integrated that VC principle is in my riding (I knew I was good, I didn't realize I was that good! :p ).

How do you selectively ignore bike lane markings but pay attention to the other road markings that are adjacent (or better yet, within your field of view) to the bike lane markings? I, obviously, ignore bike lane stripes. Their presence, much less whether they are solid or striped, makes no difference to me. They are totally and completely irrelevant to me, as you have shown.

How exactly I accomplish that, I cannot tell you. I'm not a cognitive scientist. But I know it has to do with effective cognitive filtering of the relevant wheat from the irrelevant chaff. Bike lane stripes are irrelevant chaff.

You can't be serious. Where do you draw the line at paying attention then? Should I note what type of grass is used in the front yards of the houses I pass by, you know, just in case I need to collapse from exhaustion and want to choose the softest landing spot?

I am serious. You mean to tell me that things about your commute route, 'relevant' or not, don't stick in your mind? That goofy looking tree, that house with the pink flamingo out front, the home with the blue lawn, the cherry trees in that park that look so beautiful in the spring, the place where the paint has been worn off the fog line for the last year, the car that passes you every morning with the garfield doll hangning on the side window, etc. etc. etc? If not, I'd have to question your frequency in commuting too.

snip
All that leaves is the bike lane issue (whether to erase or improve) and the general public/driver education issue. I want some sort of shoulder/bike lane area for high speed differentials. You would rather have narrow lanes (by the way, do your arterials have curbs?). If we have bike lanes, we have to educate drivers to let them know that you don't have to be in them just because they want you to be in them. If we don't have bike lanes, I have to find another route if I want a shoulder/bail out area.


The choice between having a bike lane and having narrow lanes is a false statement, because the best is the wide outside lane, which has all the advantages of easy overtaking by motorists without the disadvantages of the bike-lane stripe.

The choice between having a bike lane and having narrow lanes is a false statement, because the best is the wide outside lane, which has all the advantages of easy overtaking by motorists without the disadvantages of the bike-lane stripe.
Indeed they are not the only two choices. I was not trying to limit road choices to a false dichotomy. I was responding to joejack's suggestion that 45mph arterials have several narrow unsharable lanes, instead of bike lanes.

You would prefer a WOL. That's fine. I would prefer that to a NOL on a 45mph arterial.

And my advice is that it is humanly impossible to pay attention to everything and the more you pay attention to the irrelevant, the less you pay attention to the relevant.

That's why we prefer drivers pay attention to their driving, and not to their radios, cell phones, french fries or whether a bike lane stripe at an intersection approach where they never turn is solid or dashed, and if it is dashed, how long that dashing is.

No HH, it's not about relevancy...that dog don't hunt. It's about things that are above or below the norm. See my response to JJ. You made that statement that you didn't know of such lines anywhere, meaning you consider them out of the ordinary, yet you didn't notice them on your own commute route?

Indeed, your blather about lines being irrelevant is hogwash and a dodge. So if today those dashed lines were now red or blue solid lines, indicating that future construction along the route is likely, you wouldn't notice? How can you notice if something has changed if you never bothered noticing it at all?