Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive

just wanted to put it out there.

a bicyclist can ride vehicularily on a road with a bike lane.

speed positioning of slower traffic keep right is one of the tenets of vehicular cycling; a road with a well provided bike lane can be ridden in vehicularily.

a side benefit of bike lanes is they increase road cycling and discourage sidewalk cycling. more road cyclists will increase the cognification of bicyclists.

on streets with bike lanes in my city (3rd in the nation for bike commuting, US census bureau) drivers are much more aware of cyclists at turns and are aware bikes may be on the road using the bike lanes. the bike lanes have likely increased cycling and cyclist safety along the roads with the bike lanes.

another benefit of bike lanes is they encourage a more visible lane position than wide outside lanes alone.

vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. a bike lane network can be used by a vehicular cyclist. a bike lane network encourages bicycling in communities.

vc and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

my city (3rd in the nation for bike commuting, US census bureau)
Care to show the data? The 2005 ACS says differently as far as modal split is concerned.

just wanted to put it out there.

I think you have, ad nauseum in fact.

-D

you can't handle the truth. It's an important point, yet one dismissed as 'not relevant' by ol' mossy john because it's such a disarming truth to his autocentric POV.

CBHI, it was just released US Census Bureau data. I'm not going to source it out for you, why should I? You're so strongly anti-accomodationalist I see no point in doing some legwork for something the US Government has available as public knowledge.

and our Mayor is shooting for more bicyclists on the roads, to surpass Portland's mode splits....guess what the plan is? Bike accomodations, bike lanes, bike boulevards, sharrows, etc....

BIKE SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND BICYCLING ENHANCEMENTS TO PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY that vehicular cyclists can take advantage of.

~Because, remember......VC and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

you can't handle the truth.

Bek,

If this is directed at me, then you simply can't handle reading comprehension. I have never been anti facility. I don't even consider myself VC, in that I haven't ever read any books on the subject.

And I am not attempting to refute anything you have said above. I just get a laugh out of the fact that I can come back to this forum 3-6-9 months later and see the same skipping record.

Maybe if you all just stayed away the whole VC board would dry up. Kinda like how the regular A&S board has done since everyone moved here.

-D

sorry, derath, i don't like the fallacies presented by some of the usual suspect damnifying community bike infrastructure.

I'm VC and pro-accomodation. some of the foresterites like to pretend this is a contradiction, but it is not.

VC and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive

Bek,

Like I said, "IF" that comment was directed at me. If not then I have no beef with you. I just get a kick out of these forums. This forum is mostly useful for entertainment value and little more anyway.

So go have some fun.

-D

a side benefit of bike lanes is they increase road cycling and discourage sidewalk cycling....

I hope this is true, but I see as many cyclists riding on the sidewalk when there is a parallel bike lane. I think a lot of people don't want to ride in the street, bike lane or no.

Maybe there is also some kind of public education in your area, encouraging people to ride in the streets that have bike lanes?

Bek,

Like I said, "IF" that comment was directed at me. If not then I have no beef with you. I just get a kick out of these forums. This forum is mostly useful for entertainment value and little more anyway.

So go have some fun.

-D What i really find entertaining is your aristocratic attitude that the little forum peasants are so amusing with their quaint little forum antics.

If you want to contribute substantively to the discussion we could probably learn from your superior intellect. Otherwise, you'd probably be happier with a forum where the participants meet your high academic standards.

I may disagree with nearly every word Bekologist says, but he's 1000 times your superior when it comes to adding value to this forum.

What i really find entertaining is your aristocratic attitude that the little forum peasants are so amusing with their quaint little forum antics.

You misunderstand. I see you all as little peasants. No it is more like those cute little furry [insert pet name here] that runs around and around and around on one of those wheels. You can leave the room for awhile and come back and sure enough, it will still be running in that wheel.

You could literally roll this forum back a month or 2 and it would look pretty much the same.


If you want to contribute substantively to the discussion we could probably learn from your superior intellect. Otherwise, you'd probably be happier with a forum where the participants meet your high academic standards.

I have long since given up attempting to have a "discussion" here. Practically every thread I have participated in the past in this vein isn't a "discussion" It was 2 sides standing their ground and yelling at the other. A few in the middle would try to find common ground and they would get trampled. I got tired of getting trampled.


I may disagree with nearly every word Bekologist says, but he's 1000 times your superior when it comes to adding value to this forum.

Yes he has his moments. But hey, if you count Bek's signature taglines that he throws into every reply over and over and over... and over a contribution, I guess that is probably on the order of 1000 times or so.

[edit] Oh yea, I remember the one I was gonna use. One of my personal Bek favorites.

"VC and the Ragin Cagers..."

Yea that takes me back.

-D

thanks, derath. you make such a meaningful contribution here.

thanks, derath. you make such a meaningful contribution here.

Hey I'm keeping your thread at the top of the page aren't I? Even keeping the thread count climbing so it looks like it is worth a read. Your welcome...

VC AND THE RAGIN CAGERS!

-D

I have long since given up attempting to have a "discussion" here. Practically every thread I have participated in the past in this vein isn't a "discussion" It was 2 sides standing their ground and yelling at the other. A few in the middle would try to find common ground and they would get trampled. I got tired of getting trampled.
-D
And you find it amusing to be part of the problem while pretending to be so much above the problem.

Derath, that's typical of any polarizing issue. Shooting a hotfoot into the thread though doesn't contribute.:(

I know it's tempting and have been guilty of it myself in the past. It doesn't help though.

VC and Bike lanes are not mutually exclusive! here in Denver Visiting my folks, I have seen numerous cyclists using bike lanes. bike lanes are all over the place here.

You are right on, Bek. VC and bike lanes are definitely the way it's done. I think they help get people off the sidewalk. A little education is still needed for people to understand the destination positioning thing, but the bike lanes don't prevent people from doing it once they learn about it. As for the motorists, I think they understand that bikes belong when you have a lot of bike lanes and I don't see that they make them think anything negative in particular that they wouldn't already be thinking, with or without the bike lanes.

CBHI, it was just released US Census Bureau data. I'm not going to source it out for you, why should I? ...
You won't source it out because you are wrong and it appears you know it.

With minimum effort, I found 4 cities that are higher than Seattle and I only looked at 10 cities. :rolleyes:

It's not central to my post.

i've just read the figures, it was a newspaper article based on US Census stats released wednesday... '3rd in the nation among large cities in bicycle commuting'

Point of post IS:

" vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. a bike lane network can be used by a vehicular cyclist. a bike lane network encourages bicycling in communities."

vc and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

San Jose, CA has painted a whole bunch of bike lanes for many years, that they are very proud of. But San Jose is only at 0.4% modal split - same as the national average.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0801&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-tree_id=305&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=31200US419400668000&-format=&-_lang=en

I started my bicycle commuting in 1982 when i lived there. No bike lanes, but a nice town to ride in.
San Jose painted bike lanes and did nothing else, cyclist modal split did not increase.
Portland painted a few bike lanes but also did a big education program for cyclist and motorist as well as other incentives. Cycling went up.

Conclusuion = bike lanes do little to nothing to increase cycling modal split.

It's not central to my post.

i've just read the figures, it was a newspaper article based on US Census stats released wednesday... '3rd in the nation among large cities in bicycle commuting'
Yet you posted it with pride!
Sure, blame it on some unnamed newspaper!

"vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. ...
How do you ride VC in the bike lane that goes right up to the stop line, next to a combined through and right turn lane, at an intersection?
Best VC position in center of the travel lane to prevent the right hook, and staying in the bike lane results in a right hook.

"can" not "must" - what a pedantic screwjob you are, CBHI.

a vehicular cyclist can ride, vehicularily, in a bike lane.

" vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. a bike lane network can be used by a vehicular cyclist. a bike lane network encourages bicycling in communities."

Except when the bike lane will not allow the cyclist to ride VC. As many bike lanes do!

and many bike lanes allow safe vehicular operation within them, until a cyclist needs to leave the lane for destination positioning or to avoid a hazard. standard operating practice.


a vehicular cyclist can use a bike lane vehicularily. a bike lane network can be utilized by a vehicular cyclist.

and many bike lanes allow safe vehicular operation within them, until a cyclist needs to leave the lane for destination positioning or to avoid a hazard. standard operating practice.


a vehicular cyclist can use a bike lane vehicularily. a bike lane network can be utilized by a vehicular cyclist.
So I guess you really mean that "a vehicular cyclist can use some bike lanes vehicularly."

i guess that's true roody..... the point being, VC and bike lanes are NOT mutually exclusive.

i guess that's true roody..... the point being, VC and bike lanes are NOT mutually exclusive.
A better version might be:
VC and bike lanes are NOT always mutually exclusive.

Sometimes they are incompatible, as when a bike lane goes right of a right turn lane, or through a door zone, or in many other situations. You yourself mentioned leaving the bike lane for destinational positioning, or to avoid hazards. You are a sophisticated cyclist, so you understand the exceptions to using bike lanes. Some novice street cyclists don't understand this, so a bike lane may be more dangerous for them.

+1

A better version might be:
VC and bike lanes are NOT always mutually exclusive.

Sometimes they are incompatible, as when a bike lane goes right of a right turn lane, or through a door zone, or in many other situations. You yourself mentioned leaving the bike lane for destinational positioning, or to avoid hazards. You are a sophisticated cyclist, so you understand the exceptions to using bike lanes. Some novice street cyclists don't understand this, so a bike lane may be more dangerous for them. You're going over Bek's head, Roody. He's demonstrated countless times that the rusty gears in his brain come to a halt when confronted with processing slightly nuanced logic like this. Eventually the gears restart, the memory banks cleared of any of this reasoning, and the simplistic and irrelevant mantra is repeated: "VC and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive".

vc and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

Bekologist thinks, with his repeated repetition, that he is stating some great truth. VC is an activity, bike lanes are facilities. They cannot be mutually exclusive in the sense that ice skating and water skiing are mutually exclusive, being both activities, but one requiring solid water the other fluid water. Bekologist thinks that his great discovery is that a portion of the time and distance in the activity of vehicular cycling might take place on the surface of a bike lane, while another part might take place on a normal roadway, and another part on the roadway adjacent to a bike lane.

Bekologist's discovery of the obvious reflects an artificially limited scope to the discussion of cycling and bicycle transportation. But, of course, Bekologist won't admit that, despite the fact that he, himself, advocates a far wider scope to the discussion, without, of course, admitting to that fact. That is, Bekologist advocates bike lanes because he believes that they persuade people who are rather ill-informed about cycling, even less informed than he is himself, that these bike lanes make cycling safe for beginners such as themselves.

That, of course, is what Bekologist advocates, presumably because he believes it himself, or, to be somewhat less charitable, because he is willing to lie in his anti-motoring cause. And that lying is what is wrong.

Vehicular cycling and bikeways are mutually exclusive when the theories, or superstitions, that produce them are concerned. Vehicular cycling says that the proper and safe way to cycle on the roadway is according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that society and government ought to accept that principle and build roads that are suitable for both motorists and cyclists operating properly. The bikeway superstition is that bikeways, bike lanes as far as this discussion goes, make cycling safe for beginning cyclists and therefore reduce motoring, so that roads are built to suit incompetent cycling without actually making incompetent cycling safe. It takes a rather warped mind to advocate such a system.

actually, john, you are so wrong on so many counts.

bike lanes encourage bicycling, even for cyclists that are NOT beginners, make roads with high speeds and high volumes more palatable and can ease transit for even the most experienced cyclist.

john, you are the one espousing superstitions, not the bike infrastructure. give it a rest, don quixote. you warp the pro faciltites point of view with your incessant fallacies. your last two sentences above are fallacious to the core.


Vehicular cycling and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive. Speed positioning of slower traffic keep right is one of the tenets of vehicular cycling; a road with a well provided bike lane can be ridden in vehicularily.

a side benefit of bike lanes is they increase road cycling and discourage sidewalk cycling. more road cyclists will increase the cognification of bicyclists.

Bike facilites puts bikes into the road mix; drivers become aware bikes may be on the road. bike lanes increase cognition of bikes on road to drivers. bike lanes can increase cycling and cyclist safety along roads with bike lanes.

another benefit of bike lanes is they encourage a more visible lane position from the majority of bicyclists than wide outside lanes alone. bike lanes move riders into a more visible road position.


vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. a bike lane network can be used by a vehicular cyclist. a bike lane network encourages bicycling in communities.

vehicular cycling and bike lane networks are not mutually exclusive; they are not comparative of ice skating and water skiing- you are the pathetic joker, john.

actually, john, you are so wrong on so many counts.

bike lanes encourage bicycling, even for cyclists that are NOT beginners, make roads with high speeds and high volumes more palatable and can ease transit for even the most experienced cyclist.

john, you are the one espousing superstitions, not the bike infrastructure. give it a rest, don quixote. you warp the pro faciltites point of view with your incessant fallacies. your last two sentences above are fallacious to the core.


Vehicular cycling and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive. Speed positioning of slower traffic keep right is one of the tenets of vehicular cycling; a road with a well provided bike lane can be ridden in vehicularily.

a side benefit of bike lanes is they increase road cycling and discourage sidewalk cycling. more road cyclists will increase the cognification of bicyclists.

Bike facilites puts bikes into the road mix; drivers become aware bikes may be on the road. bike lanes increase cognition of bikes on road to drivers. bike lanes can increase cycling and cyclist safety along roads with bike lanes.

another benefit of bike lanes is they encourage a more visible lane position from the majority of bicyclists than wide outside lanes alone. bike lanes move riders into a more visible road position.


vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. a bike lane network can be used by a vehicular cyclist. a bike lane network encourages bicycling in communities.

vehicular cycling and bike lane networks are not mutually exclusive; they are not comparative of ice skating and water skiing- you are the pathetic joker, john.
I wish you could demonstrate some evidence for your contention that bike lanes encourage cycling. I mean evidence with the understanding that correllation and causation are not the same thing.

Also, I wish you would delete the last phrase in this post because it's a violation of Bikeforum guidelines. Insults contribute nothing to your arguments, which are often weak to begin with.

roody, some cities in Europe have 40 percent trips by bikes, in direct response to adding bike facilities, infrastructure, and bike lanes. Copenhagen is one city that has seen massive increases in bicycling by adding bike lanes and other enducements to bicycling into the community.

By the way, pathetic means 'inspires pity', and his tired spiel does just that. john's diatribe is much worse than mine, roody.

I wish you could demonstrate some evidence for your contention that bike lanes encourage cycling. I mean evidence with the understanding that correllation and causation are not the same thing.

Also, I wish you would delete the last phrase in this post because it's a violation of Bikeforum guidelines. Insults contribute nothing to your arguments, which are often weak to begin with.

oh, get off your high horse, Roody, Forester insults most of us who don't agree with him daily. do you ever tell the Great One to modify HIS posts?

Bekologist is referring to the following from me:

"Bekologist thinks, with his repeated repetition, that he is stating some great truth. VC is an activity, bike lanes are facilities. They cannot be mutually exclusive in the sense that ice skating and water skiing are mutually exclusive, being both activities, but one requiring solid water the other fluid water. Bekologist thinks that his great discovery is that a portion of the time and distance in the activity of vehicular cycling might take place on the surface of a bike lane, while another part might take place on a normal roadway, and another part on the roadway adjacent to a bike lane.

Bekologist's discovery of the obvious reflects an artificially limited scope to the discussion of cycling and bicycle transportation. But, of course, Bekologist won't admit that, despite the fact that he, himself, advocates a far wider scope to the discussion, without, of course, admitting to that fact. That is, Bekologist advocates bike lanes because he believes that they persuade people who are rather ill-informed about cycling, even less informed than he is himself, that these bike lanes make cycling safe for beginners such as themselves.

That, of course, is what Bekologist advocates, presumably because he believes it himself, or, to be somewhat less charitable, because he is willing to lie in his anti-motoring cause. And that lying is what is wrong.

Vehicular cycling and bikeways are mutually exclusive when the theories, or superstitions, that produce them are concerned. Vehicular cycling says that the proper and safe way to cycle on the roadway is according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that society and government ought to accept that principle and build roads that are suitable for both motorists and cyclists operating properly. The bikeway superstition is that bikeways, bike lanes as far as this discussion goes, make cycling safe for beginning cyclists and therefore reduce motoring, so that roads are built to suit incompetent cycling without actually making incompetent cycling safe. It takes a rather warped mind to advocate such a system.





actually, john, you are so wrong on so many counts.

bike lanes encourage bicycling, even for cyclists that are NOT beginners, make roads with high speeds and high volumes more palatable and can ease transit for even the most experienced cyclist.

john, you are the one espousing superstitions, not the bike infrastructure. give it a rest, don quixote. you warp the pro faciltites point of view with your incessant fallacies. your last two sentences above are fallacious to the core.


Vehicular cycling and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive. Speed positioning of slower traffic keep right is one of the tenets of vehicular cycling; a road with a well provided bike lane can be ridden in vehicularily.

a side benefit of bike lanes is they increase road cycling and discourage sidewalk cycling. more road cyclists will increase the cognification of bicyclists.


bike lanes increase cognition of bikes on road to drivers. bike lanes can increase cycling and cyclist safety along roads with bike lanes.

another benefit of bike lanes is they encourage a more visible lane position from the majority of bicyclists than wide outside lanes alone. bike lanes move riders into a more visible road position.


vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. a bike lane network can be used by a vehicular cyclist. a bike lane network encourages bicycling in communities.

vehicular cycling and bike lane networks are not mutually exclusive; they are not comparative of ice skating and water skiing- you are the pathetic joker, john.

Bekologist: " your last two sentences above are fallacious to the core."

Here ae my last two sentences: "The bikeway superstition is that bikeways, bike lanes as far as this discussion goes, make cycling safe for beginning cyclists and therefore reduce motoring, so that roads are built to suit incompetent cycling without actually making incompetent cycling safe. It takes a rather warped mind to advocate such a system." Which parts are fallacious, Bekologist? You have stated repeatedly that bike lanes increase bicycle transportation, presumably with a corresponding reduction in motor transportation. So that part is not fallacious, not according to you. Why does the presence of bike lanes persuade motorists to cycle, Bekologist?


Bekologist: " Vehicular cycling and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive. Speed positioning of slower traffic keep right is one of the tenets of vehicular cycling; a road with a well provided bike lane can be ridden in vehicularily."

It is very interesting, Bekologist, to see you expressing so much admiration for the opinions of the motorists who designed the bike lane system to keep people such as you in what they considered to be your proper place, and seeing you have the effrontery to try to attach such thinking to my description of how traffic operates. It is a striking commentary on how limited is your vision and thought, that you express your admiration for bike lanes in such praise for the principle of speed positioning that you completely miss the subject of the argument. Nobody doubts that bike lanes are the motoring establishment of speed positioning; the problem lies not with speed positioning as such, but with all the other principles by which traffic operates that bike lanes contradict. Bike lanes work only when motorists travel faster than cyclists, when there are no intersections or driveways, or, if there are, motorists never turn right and cyclists never turn left.


Bekologist: "Bike facilites puts bikes into the road mix; drivers become aware bikes may be on the road."

Please inform us, Bekologist, of the proportion of American motorists who do not know that bicycle traffic uses the roads. Upon what evidence do you base this claim?

you presume far too much, john, and there are many shades of cyclists between 'incompetent' beginners and 'skilled' vehicular cyclists. you also profess an astonishing lack of understanding about bike lanes.

bike lanes encourage bicycling, even for cyclists that are NOT beginners, make roads with high speeds and high volumes more palatable and can ease transit for even the most experienced cyclist.

oh, get off your high horse, Roody, Forester insults most of us who don't agree with him daily. do you ever tell the Great One to modify HIS posts?
I think the whole debate could take place without any personal insults.

Now, I'm still wondering about the evidence that bike lanes increase ridership. Data from Europe isn't very useful in the context of North America, especially since some European countries with lots of cyclists don't have much in the way of bike lanes. Correlational data is also pretty worthless. It's never clear whether the bike lanes led to more cyclists or more cyclists led to bike lanes.

you presume far too much, john, and there are many shades of cyclists between 'incompetent' beginners and 'skilled' vehicular cyclists. you also profess an astonishing lack of understanding about bike lanes.

bike lanes encourage bicycling, even for cyclists that are NOT beginners, make roads with high speeds and high volumes more palatable and can ease transit for even the most experienced cyclist.

Many shades of cyclist between "'incompetent' beginners and 'skilled' vehicular cyclists"? If you can ride according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles you are a vehicular cyclist. If you do not have that ability, you are incompetent. It's that simple. There are no "shades" between these two conditions.

I have never held that bike lanes do not get more butts on bikes; that is an accepted result. However, I hold that this effect is insufficient to markedly affect the volume of motoring, and I also hold that this effect occurs because of the false superstition that bike lanes make cycling safe for beginners. The first effect would be insufficient to warrant significant social action even if the second effect were scientifically sound, which it manifestly is not. As is, I hold that the bikeway superstition is harmful for cyclists, both as seen by motorists and as affecting their own behavior. When officially presented in the form of bikeways, it presents the official view of reducing cyclists from the position of drivers of vehicles to beings of inferior status and capability, who do not really belong on the road with the other drivers but need to be kept in a lane of their own.

john, you are pathetically out of touch with bicyclists. an astonishing lack of understanding.

john, you are pathetically out of touch with bicyclists. an astonishing lack of understanding.

It is not a question of being out of touch with typical bicyclists; I understand them only too well, as I have come to understand bicycle advocates only too well, as well. The situation is that what most Americans believe now about bicycle transportation, and have believed about it for more than sixty years, is just contrary to fact. That's the way it is.

However, I hold that this effect is insufficient to markedly affect the volume of motoring, and I also hold that this effect occurs because of the false superstition that bike lanes make cycling safe for beginners.
While some do argue the safety point my experience is the vast majority argue that bike lanes are more comfortable for cyclists, this is nether false nor a superstition.

While some do argue the safety point my experience is the vast majority argue that bike lanes are more comfortable for cyclists, this is nether false nor a superstition.

Why do they feel more comfortable? The road is just as smooth outside the bike-lane stripe as inside it. So far as I can understand the situation from what I have read, two reasons are usually given for this "comfort". One is safety, the other is legitimacy. And they are both false, being products of the cyclist-inferiority superstition. That's the problem of bicycle transportation in America.

Gee why can I comfortably talk to just about any individual but get me to give a speech to a crowd of people and I get uncomfortable. They have the same ears as individuals and I have the same things to say but because I lack experience in talking to crowds I get a bit flustered. Similarly a cyclist needs experience to be comfortable in traffic. Today’s built environment provides little opportunity for a cyclist to gradually get their feet wet riding in traffic, it is pretty much very little slow traffic (residential) confined to a very small area and the next step is way too much fast moving traffic. Only two options exist for a cyclist to increase their comfort in traffic, intensive individual training (Road I course) or gradual exposure to traffic. Again nothing about safety or legitimacy, it is about being gaining experience to be comfortable around all that stimuli (like when you first learned to drive, driving on an expressway is a very tense and uncomfortable situation.)

Gee why can I comfortably talk to just about any individual but get me to give a speech to a crowd of people and I get uncomfortable. They have the same ears as individuals and I have the same things to say but because I lack experience in talking to crowds I get a bit flustered. Similarly a cyclist needs experience to be comfortable in traffic. Today’s built environment provides little opportunity for a cyclist to gradually get their feet wet riding in traffic, it is pretty much very little slow traffic (residential) confined to a very small area and the next step is way too much fast moving traffic. Only two options exist for a cyclist to increase their comfort in traffic, intensive individual training (Road I course) or gradual exposure to traffic. Again nothing about safety or legitimacy, it is about being gaining experience to be comfortable around all that stimuli (like when you first learned to drive, driving on an expressway is a very tense and uncomfortable situation.)


Funny, as time goes on, I get less and less comfortable with BL's. To certain riders, they give a sense of security, but personally I dislike having to do an extra duty of watching for opening doors in the majority of lanes in my area that put me in the door zone. I could ride VC on outside of the lane or just on the outer edge of the lane, but it gets to be a hassle putting up with irate motorists who intentionally buzz me closer than if I was in the bike lane, but otherwise would have given me more room if it was a WOL, which the the majority of my commute is on a WOL.

Funny, as time goes on, I get less and less comfortable with BL's. To certain riders, they give a sense of security, but personally I dislike having to do an extra duty of watching for opening doors in the majority of lanes in my area that put me in the door zone. I could ride VC on outside of the lane or just on the outer edge of the lane, but it gets to be a hassle putting up with irate motorists who intentionally buzz me closer than if I was in the bike lane, but otherwise would have given me more room if it was a WOL, which the the majority of my commute is on a WOL.


what about bike lanes where there is no roadside parking?

what about bike lanes where there is no roadside parking?
And no intersections
With substantial BL width
And an excellent maintenance plan

Fine.

Al

Has anyone ever seen a BL like that?

yes. and if so called 'vehiclular cyclists' don't know HOW to ride in a bike lane in a vehicular manner when it is appropriate to do so, i seriously doubt the abilities of said 'vehicular cyclist'.

where does a vehicular cyclist ride this road? speed and destination position for thru travel puts the bicyclist riding vehicularily in the bike lane. if you high and mighty foresterite vcists don't understand how to ride bike lanes not in conflict with speed and destination positioning on arterial roads, i wonder about your abilities.

yes. and if so called 'vehiclular cyclists' don't know HOW to ride in a bike lane in a vehicular manner when it is appropriate to do so, i seriously doubt the abilities of said 'vehicular cyclist'.

where does a vehicular cyclist ride this road? speed and destination position for thru travel puts the bicyclist riding vehicularily in the bike lane. if you high and mighty foresterite vcists don't understand how to ride bike lanes not in conflict with speed and destination positioning on arterial roads, i wonder about your abilities.


Bek, I have many years of motor vehicle, on road motorcycle riding, and bicycle riding to draw from, my conflict is that many BL's in my area are narrow and positioned dangerously close to parked cars, and also, the motorist's reaction to cyclists who ride just outside or on the outer line of a bike lane to avoid being "doored", which are the positions I would take on a WOL, then reverting back to a bike lane center position when there are no parked cars. From my personal riding experience I receive more passing room on an average basis from motorists when a bike lane is not present versus when one is, and I personally have my commute route to make the least use of bike lanes as possible. Bek, maybe in your area, bicycle lanes are better designed, and the motorist are more lenient towards bicyclists.

also have many years of bicycling and driving experience. bike lanes can be better designed than the ones you are complaining about, dynodon. and as seen in cities around the world with better bike facilities, drivers become move cognizant of bikes using the roads, both on accomodated roads and unacoomodated.

VC and bike lanes are NOT mutually exclusive. vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike infrastructure. bike lanes can expedite travel along high speed motorways for even the most experienced vehicular cyclist.