Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Outsider's view of the bike lane debate: "One guy ruined it for all the other guys."

Are you just guessing on that last point, or do you have any actual evidence to support this contention?

I know first hand about San Diego, but also in many other cities (Portland, Seattle, Davis, San Francisco, etc), the cycling advocates seem to work pretty closely with the engineers. The problem is not the bickering, but that providing designs that are cheap and politically palatable to their employers is often not feasible. But it's not because of a lack of trying.

I don't know there HH. When I spoke to the road engineer that actually implemented the BL on Carmel Mountain Road that put cyclists right into the Freeway on ramp... I had a feeling he had conferred with nobody... just checked a manual and did what he thought was best.

I know we have folks that have some reach with road crews, but the fiasco on Texas street tells me that cyclists are NOT the #1 priority for bike lane design with local "road engineers."

My point is, maybe it's time that we find some common ground. Both sides need to give a little, I think.

The "anti-facility" people could concede that for many cyclists a well-designed bike lane really does make cycling more comfortable and accessible. Maybe they should focus their energies on fighting mandatory use laws or attitudes, and work toward educating motorists and fellow cyclists that bikes are traffic.

The "anti-VC" people could concede that most bike lanes as currently designed are either unneeded or downright dangerous for some cyclists. Maybe they should focus on researching design aspects as well as encouraging local communities to apply better standards to facilities.

what a good point, Roody. I wish some people would give it some thought.

it's time that we find some common ground. Both sides need to give a little

The "anti-facility" people
-could concede a well-designed bike lane really does make cycling more comfortable and accessible.
-focus their energies on fighting mandatory use laws or attitudes
-educating motorists and fellow cyclists that bikes are traffic.

The "anti-VC" people
-could concede that most bike lanes as currently designed are either unneeded or downright dangerous for some cyclists.
-should focus on researching design aspects as well as encouraging local communities to apply better standards to facilities.


what a good point, Roody. I wish some people would give it some thought.

Firstly I do not know of any anti-facilities advocates, not here, not any I have met.
I do know that VC advocates have put much energy and attention into mandatory use laws

Motorist Education certainly has debate surrounding it, but I am not aware of anyone who opposes it (as in would fight against it vs. let it happen if it was done well), just folks who think it is not a priority over cyclist education and facilities design and wonder how it can really be effective.

The compromise primarily boils down to bike lane stripes and where (if at all) to place them.

I think I've offered a decent middle ground as in the 'good bike lanes' thread. This is it is simplistic terms with some other ideas thrown in:
-Advocate for extra pavement width for outside lanes. Stripe those wide lanes with a wide bike lane on faster higher volume roads (with some factor for cyclist use levels too) Don't stripe 200' before all intersections. - exception for intersections with additive RTOL. Don't ever place BLs in door zone. Insist on maintenance plans for bike lanes.
-After a period of use, say 1yr, allow cyclists to give input as to stripe placement in those 200' prior to intersections - that can be incorporated on a case by case basis for next road striping (after paving, etc.) - (I put this in as a specific case may be to allow for a filtering lane for an intersection that is typically backed up and its approach has no intersections.)
-Continue development of standards for BL design, sharrows, etc.

The concept is to start with a minimal striping guideline that eliminates 90% of the problems with bike lanes, but still provides 90% of the 'comfort' that bike lanes are said to provide, while maintaining appropriate discomfort at intersection approaches, then after careful study tweak existing implementations, but only on a case by case basis. Do this instead of starting with a complex and often unsuitable striping implementations that do not lend themselves to any flexibility.

Al

Firstly I do not know of any anti-facilities advocates, not here, not any I have met.
I do know that VC advocates have put much energy and attention into mandatory use laws

Motorist Education certainly has debate surrounding it, but I am not aware of anyone who opposes it (as in would fight against it vs. let it happen if it was done well), just folks who think it is not a priority over cyclist education and facilities design and wonder how it can really be effective.

The compromise primarily boils down to bike lane stripes and where (if at all) to place them.

I think I've offered a decent middle ground as in the 'good bike lanes' thread. This is it is simplistic terms with some other ideas thrown in:
-Advocate for extra pavement width for outside lanes. Stripe those wide lanes with a wide bike lane on faster higher volume roads (with some factor for cyclist use levels too) Don't stripe 200' before all intersections. - exception for intersections with additive RTOL. Don't ever place BLs in door zone. Insist on maintenance plans for bike lanes.
-After a period of use, say 1yr, allow cyclists to give input as to stripe placement in those 200' prior to intersections - that can be incorporated on a case by case basis for next road striping (after paving, etc.) - (I put this in as a specific case may be to allow for a filtering lane for an intersection that is typically backed up and its approach has no intersections.)
-Continue development of standards for BL design, sharrows, etc.

The concept is to start with a minimal striping guideline that eliminates 90% of the problems with bike lanes, but still provides 90% of the 'comfort' that bike lanes are said to provide, while maintaining appropriate discomfort at intersection approaches, then after careful study tweak existing implementations, but only on a case by case basis. Do this instead of starting with a complex and often unsuitable striping implementations that do not lend themselves to any flexibility.

Al
Thanks for the thoughtful response (and the nice edit job on my post :)).

Yes, these were the kinds of thoughts I had after my friend told me about the planning meeting. Clearly somebody needs to think about the design of bike lanes, if cities insist on putting them in, and local cyclists insist on advocating for them.

I'm not very familiar with the city planning situation in East Lansing (I live in Lansing), but the bike lanes there are so horrible that obviously no rational thought went into designing and implementing them. That's why I was wondering how much expertise in bike lane design the cyclists in other communities have. And I'm also wondering how much the arguments among cyclists and cycling advocates result in poorer facilities. Evidently the city is asking for cyclist input, but getting more fights than good advice from those local cyclists. (If my friend's account is accurate.)

An interesting thread, Roody.



What first interested me was the way an outsider to cycling, a motorist, viewed the debate that fills so much time on this forum.What I find intersting is how close the outsider's view of the debate is to my own view.


To most Americans, this argument is totally under the radar.The argument belongs under the radar. It is a testament to the power of ideological lunacy that cyclists argue so much about things of such little importance in the larger scheme of things.



And I'm also wondering how much the arguments among cyclists and cycling advocates result in poorer facilities.I wonder that, too.



Evidently the city is asking for cyclist input, but getting more fights than good advice from those local cyclists.The constant bickering over trivial things is disheartening. If some government officials conclude, on the basis of all the infighting, that cyclists are all nuts, it may not be a totally unfounded conclusion.

I, myself, sometimes think that cyclists are all nuts. Bicyclists are the most disparate group I've ever been associated with. Maybe presenting a united front (even though we all want the same things) is simply too much to ask.

What is/was the proposal for the bike lane?

-Adding more pavement width for the added bike lane?
-Adding a stripe with no other lane changes? (changing a wide lane into a narrow lane with a bike lane)
-Removing a 'vehicular lane' and striping a bike lane? (i.e. 'road diet')

Al

If I remember Hagadorn correctly, although it's been since the late 80's I worked there, I would be taking the right lane to ride on it. I wasn't riding then, but I don't remember it as being wide enough to share the lane. I'd think extra pavement would be needed.

If it's as wide a road as I get the impression it is, it wouldn't be hard to take 1.5' from each lane and come up with a 4.5' to 5' wide bike lane, w/ no reduction in motor vehicle capacity.

If it's as wide a road as I get the impression it is, it wouldn't be hard to take 1.5' from each lane and come up with a 4.5' to 5' wide bike lane, w/ no reduction in motor vehicle capacity. As I said earlier, south of the river it's 2 and 3 narrow lanes in each direction, divided by a median. North of the river it's undivided, with two narrow lanes each way and turn lanes. The bridge and intersection at Grand River Ave. are horrendous, but under reconstruction. Hagadorn is an access road for the largest campus in the country, and very busy. There isn't much room for restriping, if any.

Personally, I like riding on the road south of the river; I take the narrow outer lane without a problem, but some cager honks during rush hour. But most cyclists there are students who use the sidepath. I don't like riding on Hagadorn north of the river because it's busy and narrow, and the traffic picks up speed, but there aren't very many alternative routes. There is no sidepath to the north either.



Google map of Hagadorn (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=48824&ie=UTF8&ll=42.728352,-84.462376&spn=0.026102,0.039139&z=14&om=0)

Are you just guessing on that last point, or do you have any actual evidence to support this contention?

I know first hand about San Diego, but also in many other cities (Portland, Seattle, Davis, San Francisco, etc), the cycling advocates seem to work pretty closely with the engineers. The problem is not the bickering, but that providing designs that are cheap and politically palatable to their employers is often not feasible. But it's not because of a lack of trying.

I have direct experience...but you already knew that. It seems the tactic of hardcore vc folks like you is to derail any possibility of any 'advocates', other than those lock-step with your viewpoints, working closely with the engineers by causing divisiness that drives policy makers to throw the lot of you out and perhaps provide no solution at all, rather than one you don't agree with.

Are you going to try to deny that you would prefer no solution to a solution you don't agree with...and actually consider such as a victory? Granted, the other side pulls the same BS, but rather than considering it victory, they use it to beat vc zealots over the head as being obstructionist.

And I'm also wondering how much the arguments among cyclists and cycling advocates result in poorer facilities. Evidently the city is asking for cyclist input, but getting more fights than good advice from those local cyclists. (If my friend's account is accurate.)

My experience in North Carolina is that our professional planners and engineers react to cyclists' debate over vehicular cycling and bikeway design by better educating themselves about both. This is good for cyclists.

When a city council member in Raleigh was promoting a striping project that would create substandard bike lanes next to substandard width travel lanes on an existing 2-lane road, the traffic engineer involved invited me to speak before their committe and present the reasons why the substandard design was a bad idea, and what preferable alternatives existed. I did so, and the substandard design was not used.

When Cary developed a comprehensive transportation plan, the consultants studied up on vehicular cycling and made strong recommendations that supported on-roadway cycling and treating cyclists according to vehicular rules. This, in combination with other actions by vehicular cycling advocates, resulted in a transition in the city policy from one that focused on development of designated sidewalk bike paths toward support of wide outside lanes and on-roadway cycling. The city also repealed its mandatory sidepath-use ordinance and its mandatory stay-right ordinance for cyclists.

When area police started harassing cyclists who rode on streets with narrow lanes, local cyclists complained to the planners and engineers first, who then took up their cause to influence police policy at the local level, and the state released a new printing of their old bicycle driver manual, which defended cycling in roads with narrow lanes in a manner where drivers must change lanes to pass.

When I have complained while serving on the P&Z board about hazardous curves, grades, or junctions for bike paths as drawn on site plans and subdivision blueprints, the designs for the paths have been fixed before the plans were approved.

When cyclists here complain about low-hanging tree branches over bike lanes, potholes, or an improperly striped bike lane to the right of the a right-turn-only lane on local roads, our local public works department planners, and engineers appear to understand the importance of these issues, and treat them more seriously than obstructions for pedestrians given the kinetic factors affecting cyclists. In every case I know of the city has sent someone to look at the problem within 24 hours, usually fixing it within that time if possible. The state maintained roads have been a bit slower to be repaired, but we are working on that.

I think public debate initiated by vehicular cyclists in my area of NC has greatly improved the quality of both roadway cycling and path cycling here.

I have direct experience...but you already knew that. It seems the tactic of hardcore vc folks like you is to derail any possibility of any 'advocates', other than those lock-step with your viewpoints, working closely with the engineers by causing divisiness that drives policy makers to throw the lot of you out and perhaps provide no solution at all, rather than one you don't agree with.

Are you going to try to deny that you would prefer no solution to a solution you don't agree with...and actually consider such as a victory? Granted, the other side pulls the same BS, but rather than considering it victory, they use it to beat vc zealots over the head as being obstructionist.
You're talking about the "solution" but I'm not sure which problem you're solving. Please clarify. :)

Steve is a good example of of the type of vehicular cycling advocate who is better grounded in reality and willing to work with others to develop and advocate solutions that benefit the cycling population in general. Intelligence and willingness to compromise gets more accomplished than blind dogma and inflexibility...pity there is not more of this on all sides of the debate. This is not to say I agree with everything Steve says, but he's someone that others can work with to move forward, rather than spend time arguing with and getting nowhere.

My experience in North Carolina is that our professional planners and engineers react to cyclists' debate over vehicular cycling and bikeway design by better educating themselves about both. This is good for cyclists.

When a city council member in Raleigh was promoting a striping project that would create substandard bike lanes next to substandard width travel lanes on an existing 2-lane road, the traffic engineer involved invited me to speak before their committe and present the reasons why the substandard design was a bad idea, and what preferable alternatives existed. I did so, and the substandard design was not used.

When Cary developed a comprehensive transportation plan, the consultants studied up on vehicular cycling and made strong recommendations that supported on-roadway cycling and treating cyclists according to vehicular rules. This, in combination with other actions by vehicular cycling advocates, resulted in a transition in the city policy from one that focused on development of designated sidewalk bike paths toward support of wide outside lanes and on-roadway cycling. The city also repealed its mandatory sidepath-use ordinance and its mandatory stay-right ordinance for cyclists.

When area police started harassing cyclists who rode on streets with narrow lanes, local cyclists complained to the planners and engineers first, who then took up their cause to influence police policy at the local level, and the state released a new printing of their old bicycle driver manual, which defended cycling in roads with narrow lanes in a manner where drivers must change lanes to pass.

When I have complained while serving on the P&Z board about hazardous curves, grades, or junctions for bike paths as drawn on site plans and subdivision blueprints, the designs for the paths have been fixed before the plans were approved.

When cyclists here complain about low-hanging tree branches over bike lanes, potholes, or an improperly striped bike lane to the right of the a right-turn-only lane on local roads, our local public works department planners, and engineers appear to understand the importance of these issues, and treat them more seriously than obstructions for pedestrians given the kinetic factors affecting cyclists. In every case I know of the city has sent someone to look at the problem within 24 hours, usually fixing it within that time if possible. The state maintained roads have been a bit slower to be repaired, but we are working on that.

I think public debate initiated by vehicular cyclists in my area of NC has greatly improved the quality of both roadway cycling and path cycling here.

This is very heartening. Modern Americans usually hold the belief (ironically fostered by our political leaders) that government can't solve the problems because government is the problem. It's good to realize that many government officials are hard-working professionals who want to make life better for their constituents.

You're talking about the "solution" but I'm not sure which problem you're solving. Please clarify. :)

The problem being what type of accomodation for cyclists, if any, will be included in a roadway construction/improvement project, or the design of proposed (or modification of existing) cycling facilities.

Steve is a good example of of the type of vehicular cycling advocate who is better grounded in reality and willing to work with others to develop and advocate solutions that benefit the cycling population in general. Intelligence and willingness to compromise gets more accomplished than blind dogma and inflexibility...pity there is not more of this on all sides of the debate. This is not to say I agree with everything Steve says, but he's someone that others can work with to move forward, rather than spend time arguing with and getting nowhere.
+100!

This is very heartening. Modern Americans usually hold the belief (ironically fostered by our political leaders) that government can't solve the problems because government is the problem. It's good to realize that many government officials are hard-working professionals who want to make life better for their constituents.

People across the political spectrum, in every nation I'm aware of, support public roads. Even before the Magna Carta, people have recognized the importance of protecting the liberty of travel across the land and the problems associated with allowing essential corridors to fall under private, exclusive control.

Among the most conservative people active in public service are those who believe that if the government is charged with doing something, it should do it well, and be responsive to the people. Given the assumption that the roads will be built and maintained by the government, it is only logical to such people that the roads be designed, maintained, and policed to best meet the needs of the people and support their essential liberties.

People across the political spectrum, in every nation I'm aware of, support public roads. Even before the Magna Carta, people have recognized the importance of protecting the liberty of travel across the land and the problems associated with allowing essential corridors to fall under private, exclusive control.

Among the most conservative people active in public service are those who believe that if the government is charged with doing something, it should do it well, and be responsive to the people. Given the assumption that the roads will be built and maintained by the government, it is only logical to such people that the roads be designed, maintained, and policed to best meet the needs of the people and support their essential liberties.
Very well said! :) (To be fair, many liberals and moderates are also excellent public servants.)

One further thought. As good as they may be, public servants can't take all of the credit when the roads turn out well. Much of the credit goes to the activist citizens who provide the policy makers with a clear statement of their needs and suggestions for meeting those needs. I'm sure that Steve's disposition, as reflected in this forum, is also a great benefit to politicians and planners in his community and state.

I may have to read this thread in full later.

I may have to read this thread in full later.
Is that a threat?

:eek:

No. I find it interesting, but I have other things to do this evening besides read the forums.

Very well said! :) (To be fair, many liberals and moderates are also excellent public servants.)


As of late I frequently find myself ever so slightly to the left of the line.

Nearly all of my close friends are liberal (except for my gay republican friend.)

However, I grew up in New Hampshire, where conservationism and conservatism didn't seem incompatible, and although many of the roads were in awful shape because of tight budgets, lots of people of all persuasions enjoyed cycling because it felt too good to be wrong.

This is very heartening. Modern Americans usually hold the belief (ironically fostered by our political leaders) that government can't solve the problems because government is the problem. It's good to realize that many government officials are hard-working professionals who want to make life better for their constituents.


Ahh yes, those mobbed up roadbuilders that line the pockets of both political parties so that they get juicy contracts to rip up the same road every two years and then consistently go 40% over budget really have my best interest at heart.

If it were not for the fact that privately owned roads would result in "paving the world" even more so than we do already, I would wholeheartedly support them.

Goverment IS the problem because it is a bunch of crooked elitist snobs whose only concern is taking money from one group of people to give it to another group in order to get re-elected so they can contineu fleecing us.

As of late I frequently find myself ever so slightly to the left of the line.

Nearly all of my close friends are liberal (except for my gay republican friend.)

However, I grew up in New Hampshire, where conservationism and conservatism didn't seem incompatible, and although many of the roads were in awful shape because of tight budgets, lots of people of all persuasions enjoyed cycling because it felt too good to be wrong.
Well, the trend is probably toward pragmatic rather than ideological (conservative/liberal) politics, at least on the local level. At any rate, your attitude when dealing with planning and policy people is probably the opposite of the cyclists I mentioned in the first post. They seemed more interested in proving an ideological point than in working together to solve a problem. (I know I sometimes have the same problem.)

Update:

I did go back to talk some more with the friend from the OP who told me about the cyclists arguing at the meeting. He said that it seemed that the bike guy who was against the new bike lane seemed fanatical. He couldn't understand how a cyclist would be against a bike lane. His reason for saying this was that it's dangerous for a cyclist to ride with the cars, and it only makes sense that they would want some protection.

I said that I prefer to ride in the street most of the time because it's faster, smoother and more convenient. (He said he followed behind me in his car once, so he knew this.) I told him that bike lanes don't make me feel safer, at least not the way they're designed in East Lansing. I explained about the debris problem, and the way many drivers won't pull left to pass me if there's a bike lane.

He said this made sense, and he didn't think the bike guy at the meeting explained it very well. He thought the guy rode in the street to be stubborn or to prove some point. Mostly the one bike guy was just yelling at the other bike guys, and they were yelling just as loudly back at him. My friend didn't really understand what the arguing was about at the time, but my explanation helped him to see both sides better.

Ahh yes, those mobbed up roadbuilders that line the pockets of both political parties so that they get juicy contracts to rip up the same road every two years and then consistently go 40% over budget really have my best interest at heart.

If it were not for the fact that privately owned roads would result in "paving the world" even more so than we do already, I would wholeheartedly support them.

Goverment IS the problem because it is a bunch of crooked elitist snobs whose only concern is taking money from one group of people to give it to another group in order to get re-elected so they can contineu fleecing us.
Now tell us how you really feel! ;)

I think you're getting a little carried away here. Of course corruption is a problem in government, but it's the exception more than the rule. This belief that all pols are crooked is widespread, and it actually makes it easier for corrupt politicians to get away with their shenanigans. Jaded and cynical citizens ***** on the Internet, but they typically don't vote, thus ensuring that the same old crooks will get reelected.

I wonder if you ever attend meetings or in any other way get involved with trying to clean up government and make it more responsive to you?

...gay republican....
go figure...

:eek:

;)

Look it up. (http://online.logcabin.org/)

I'm totally aware of the log cabin republicans, guess I just don't understand how they can deal with the cognitive dissonance

Now tell us how you really feel! ;)

I think you're getting a little carried away here. Of course corruption is a problem in government, but it's the exception more than the rule.

Not here in Wisconsin, where we are lorded over by Diamond Jim Doyle

I'm totally aware of the log cabin republicans, guess I just don't understand how they can deal with the cognitive dissonance


mostly because there is a huge divide in the republican party between the so-called "moral majority" conservatives and libertarians

that meeting is a pretty glaring example of how we as cyclists, arguing amongst each other about stupid crap, can screw ourselves over, while looking like total crazies to other people. we need to stop.

there's something happening here. what it is ain't exactly clear. there's a man with a gun over there. telling me i got to beware. its time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down. paranoia strikes deep. into your heart it will creep. it happens when you're always afraid. step out of line and the man comes to take you away. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down. its time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down. you hippie ****ers!