Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Are *any* bike lanes good bike lanes?

I was trying to be clear. I was trying to be sure people understood that I was talking about the lanes and not the whole path (which consists of three lanes). On 3 of 4 of these the "paths", the lanes are divided by a center median, so there are three distinct lanes and not just a line of paint that seperates one from the other.

I was using Lane the same way you might talk about the right southbound lane of 35W is blocked by a stalled vehicle. It's talking about a part of the road, not the whole road itself.

Of the four I mention the entire "Bike Path", "Bike Trail", "Bikeway", "Bikewhatever" is multiple use but each lane is not, it's either eastbound bike, westbound bike, or bi-directional ped (as an example).

Pictures worth a thousand words:
Cedar Lake Trail
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/415983455_07fd978cbf_o.jpg
---
Kenilworth Trail
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/508525094_7a6d64b8cb_o.jpg
---
Shepard/Warner Road Bikeway -shared bikelanes at this point.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/147/353345661_9e0aa5a64b.jpg
---
Midtown Greenway
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/415995932_466310a43c.jpg
---
Minneapolis Grand Rounds Trails
with the 10 mph bike lanes and the non-speed limited ped path on the right.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/439289547_d59d91a45f.jpg

Scot

That makes it clear. Median seperated bike paths that still have room for passing; WAY COOL.:D

jeez, helemt, the more you post, the clearer it becomes you are clueless, if you see no discernable differences between motorist behavior when you're riding in a bike lane, versus a wide outside lane.
They pass me closer in a BL versus the WOL.

yes, brian, reduced passing friction because of clearly demarcated lanes of use.

Drivers pass me closer when I'm near a lane stripe, versus none. I experience close passing a lot when I'm edge biased in a lane for visibility riding in rush hour traffic. And that's not just a bike lane stripe, it is ANY lane striping.

Have you experienced this? If you've ridden a lot, you know EXACTLY what I'm describing.

a driver does pass closer when there's a line seperating you from them, versus in a WOL. Riding in a (any) travel lane, near the stripes, cars pass closer, because of the demarcation from the lane stripes.

You think close passing because of lane striping invalidates the utility a bike lane network provides for a community? what a kneeslapper...

Passing me close is not a problem unless it is done with malice or it is VERY close. Those of you who cry chicken little just because people pass close when there are lane lines simply don't understand lane lines.

Yes, I live and ride in a fairly urban area with little to no street parking and bike lanes work well on these type of roads. I feel much safer having dedicated bike lanes here.

Scot, those are cool pictures of bike paths, and they are made up of "lanes" intended for "bikes", but it's confusing and arguably incorrect to refer to them as "bike lanes".

In road engineering the term "bike lane" is used specifically to mean a stripe-demarcated space primarily for use by bicyclists on the roadway. To use the term for something off the roadway is confusing.

Scot, those are cool pictures of bike paths, and they are made up of "lanes" intended for "bikes", but it's confusing and arguably incorrect to refer to them as "bike lanes".

In road engineering the term "bike lane" is used specifically to mean a stripe-demarcated space primarily for use by bicyclists on the roadway. To use the term for something off the roadway is confusing.
thank you Mr. Know-It-All

Passing me close is not a problem unless it is done with malice or it is VERY close. Those of you who cry chicken little just because people pass close when there are lane lines simply don't understand lane lines.

I'm clucking all the time while in a bike lane, the "structured" nature of a roadway BL must give some motorists confidence in "knowing" where the cyclist "is" in the roadway and that the cyclist will not deviate from that lane, but the reduced distance between motorist and cyclist leaves less margin for error for both parties involved.

Another bike lane classic just this morning:

The state just sweep the bike lane to avoid EPA fines (part of a settlement agreement) for violation of the clean water act. So I was actually riding just inside the bike lane this morning. A road crew had closed the left lane of the highway, so of course they put the lane closure temporary sign in the bike lane, completely blocking it. No problem, since I am moving at about the same speed as motor traffic was moving (18-22 mph) and had a good gap into the travel lane, I signaled my lane change and safely executed. As soon as I was in the travel lane, the JAM behind me stomped the gas pedal, to tailgate me and honk his horn. It only took a couple seconds to pass the sign and move back to the bike lane. The JAM pulls along side and is screaming that I am not allowed to ride outside the bike lane. I smiled, waved and told him he needed to learn the traffic laws, at which the JAMs head almost exploded.

I accept the bridge count with the bike lane that shows bike lanes = less cyclist.

But people aren't planning their routes solely based on the bridge infrastructure, are they? What about the surrounding streets? In other words, if Bridge A has crappy bike facilities but the surrounding streets have good facilities, and the opposite is true for Bridge B, you cannot draw a conclusion about bike lanes simply by looking at the facilities on the bridges.

Another bike lane classic just this morning:
...

Man, this is why the future of our species is so bleak...

But people aren't planning their routes solely based on the bridge infrastructure, are they? What about the surrounding streets? In other words, if Bridge A has crappy bike facilities but the surrounding streets have good facilities, and the opposite is true for Bridge B, you cannot draw a conclusion about bike lanes simply by looking at the facilities on the bridges.
So where does the data show that.

They use their bridge count to claim that more bike lanes = more cyclist,

I show how the data actually indicates that bike lanes = less cyclist,

and suddenly, you are complaining about the data I used!

So where does the data show that.

They use their bridge count to claim that more bike lanes = more cyclist,

I show how the data actually indicates that bike lanes = less cyclist,

and suddenly, you are complaining about the data I used!

I don't know. I have not seen the study. I am not complaining about anything. I am merely stating that the number of cyclists who choose Bridge A or Bridge B may do so for reasons other than the infrastructure on those bridges, per se.

From what I have seen from others, the argument seems to go like:

If the number of cyclists on the bridges has gone up, then we can reasonably conclude that the number of cyclists in Portland has gone up.

If the miles of bike lanes in the areas surrounding the bridges has gone up, then one might argue that the increase in bike lanes helped to increase ridership (IF the gazillion other variables are accounted for), even if the bridges themselves were not altered.

Without having seen the study, though, this is merely speculation.

The graph presented to BF as evidence that more bike lanes = more cyclist

Burnside Bridge is the only bridge with a bike lane.
Broadway and Steel Bridges simply had their sidewalks renamed MUP.
Hawthorne bridge sidewalk was widened from 5 to ten feet about 10 years ago and renamed MUP.

http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/images/AverageDailyBicycleTraff_01.jpg

dude, that's hilarious!

the bridge counts counts cyclists, and the channelling effects bike infrastructure has in the surrounding eastside suburbs into downtown. the bridge census counts are not evidence of 'good' or 'bad' bike lanes on the bridges themselves.

the Sellwood bridge is probably another anomoly the bike lane haters would point too as well, if cyclist numbers have dropped on that bridge too (local portland riders will hopefully get the joke), versus riders choosing one of the more accomodated bridges to the north of the sellwood.

Having cycled ALL those bridges in Portland, the specific type of bridge accomodations are the least important element versus the proof that cycling numbers are on the rise in Portland. increased definely due to the increased focus and accomodation for bicyclists in that city.

a good bike lane network increases bicycling in communities. a good bike lane is part of a good bike lane network.

A good bike lane network encourages bicycling for transportation and recreation alike.

The graph presented to BF as evidence that more bike lanes = more cyclist

Burnside Bridge is the only bridge with a bike lane.
Broadway and Steel Bridges simply had their sidewalks renamed MUP.
Hawthorne bridge sidewalk was widened from 5 to ten feet about 10 years ago and renamed MUP.


OK, so if they made their counts 100 meters before the bridges, where there (presumably) are bike lanes, would your conclusions be different?

As Bek points out and I have tried to say: I don't think it's about the facilities on the bridges, per se; the bridges are just a convenient place to count.

So show me some proof it is from bike lanes rather than education efforts.

Or maybe it is because they rename sidewalks, MUPs. If we just call all sidewalks, MUPs then cycling will increase, right.

I choose to say it is from education, prove me wrong.

Also explain the drop in cyclist on Burnside Bridge after the bike lane was painted.

So show me some proof it is from bike lanes rather than education efforts.

If the increase in bike facilities coincided with an education campaign, then I cannot discern between the two (as with a similar campaign here in Odense 5-7 years ago).


Or maybe it is because they rename sidewalks, MUPs. If we just call all sidewalks, MUPs then cycling will increase, right.

Um...who would say that? Did someone claim that cyclists choose their routes based on labels, and not what they actually ride on?



I choose to say it is from education, prove me wrong.


As noted above, the two cannot be separated. Why do you 'choose' one over the other, when you seem to realize that proving one or the other is impossible?

As noted above, the two cannot be separated. Why do you 'choose' one over the other, when you seem to realize that proving one or the other is impossible?
I agree with your point. I chose the education position to highlight that it was improper for the bike lane advocates making their claims that "more bike lanes = more cyclist" based on that chart with no other factual information, data normalization, etc.

please. your denial is astounding.

But is the BL 1/2 of your commute "more relaxing" because of the BL? In particular, would it be any less relaxing if the BL stripe was removed and everything else stayed the same?
There is no way to know. Maybe, but I don't think so.


You would still be able to ride in the same space that you do now, with just as much space to your left for motorist to use to pass you.
There is no way to know. Maybe, but I don't think so.


Also, is it really "more relaxing"
yes.


...or does it simply feel that way because you're succumbing to the false sense of security often associated with bike lanes?
no.


That is, are you letting yourself feel more relaxed than you should be?
no.


Or is it possible that you over-stressing yourself on the part without a BL?
no, even though I know I have a right to ride in the road it still makes me a bit anxiuos when a giant truck
a) passes me with about 1 foot distance going 40 mph
b) comes up close behind me and lays on the horn.

To me a bikelane is just a reminder to cars that they should respect the space of the bicyclits.
I dont feel trapped in by a bike lane. If it is too narrow for me, I take space on the road as necessary to do what i need to do.

If I had to list several things that I thought would make me safer on the road rolling black paint over the bike lane line would low on the list.

Higher priorities for me would be:

- Education and sinage to drivers about safe passing distance, checking the door zone is clear before opening a door, and the bike's right to be on the road.
- Sharrows on all current bikeways or would-be bikeways that are not already demarcated with street sinage.
- More properly designed Bikeways, Bike Blvds, Bike lanes, Bike Paths, Bike Routes etc. Organized as a city wide network designed to move people efficently to commonly used locations for short and long trips.
- Proper road maintance of bikeways so that bikes do not need to swerve or bunnyhop to avoid road hazards.

Lots of bike lanes are good. I'm going to go get on my bike and ride in some good ones right now, along with the 50 or so other people I'll probably see today.

You who have no bike lanes or love your bike-lane-less existence, how many bicyclists will you see on your commute?

You who have no bike lanes or love your bike-lane-less existence, how many bicyclists will you see on your commute?
At 5:50-6:20 this morning I saw twelve, all on bike lane less roads on the road.

Going home if I ride to the LBS near ASU (when its not as hot as it is right now in the afternoon) I have seen as many as 100 cyclists in a 45min period. However there are a fair number of 25mph roads in this areas with bike lanes, which doesn't seem to stop over half these 100 cyclists from riding the wrong way and/or on sidewalks.

Al