Outsider's view of the bike lane debate: "One guy ruined it for all the other guys."

[Roody]

A friend at work--a non-cyclist--attended a city planning meeting for East Lansing, MI. This was his account of the meeting, as near to how he said it as I can manage:

A bunch of bike guys were at the meeting and they'd been trying to get the city to put a bike lane on Hagadorn Rd. You know, that's a busy road and the bike guys don't like to ride on it. The city had finally agreed in principle to do it.

But this one bike guy was at the meeting. This guy always rides in the car lanes. He's some kind of fanatic or something. Even when he's riding on Abbot Rd. where they already have a bike lane, he refuses to ride in it. He has to ride in the car lane and he's always holding up the traffic. I got behind him one time and he really pissed me off.

Anyway, he was arguing that they shouldn't have any bike lanes anywhere in the city. This one guy thinks the bikes should just ride wherever they want to, even if they're getting in the way of the cars. Like I said, he's some kind of fanatic, I guess. So the city scrapped the whole plan to put in a bike lane on Hagadorn. Now they're talking about not putting any bike lanes in the whole city. So, all the other bike guys were yelling and shouting at this one bike guy. One guy ruined it for everybody.

It was fascinating to hear one outsider's view of this whole debate. I think I was more confused about the bike lane issue after I heard this.

[Bekologist]

yep, sounds like a rabid foresterite getting in the way of increasing bike infrastructure in communities.

the foresterites should be ashamed of themselves. our local 'advocate' stoops to talking to radio shock jockeys about mandatory cyclist liscensing.

I've seen him riding on the MUP's to get around town :eek: - what a hypocrite.

[Denny Koll]

A friend at work--a non-cyclist--attended a city planning meeting for East Lansing, MI. This was his account of the meeting, as near to how he said it as I can manage:

A bunch of bike guys were at the meeting and they'd been trying to get the city to put a bike lane on Hagadorn Rd. You know, that's a busy road and the bike guys don't like to ride on it. The city had finally agreed in principle to do it.

But this one bike guy was at the meeting. This guy always rides in the car lanes. He's some kind of fanatic or something. Even when he's riding on Abbot Rd. where they already have a bike lane, he refuses to ride in it. He has to ride in the car lane and he's always holding up the traffic. I got behind him one time and he really pissed me off.

Anyway, he was arguing that they shouldn't have any bike lanes anywhere in the city. This one guy thinks the bikes should just ride wherever they want to, even if they're getting in the way of the cars. Like I said, he's some kind of fanatic, I guess. So the city scrapped the whole plan to put in a bike lane on Hagadorn. Now they're talking about not putting any bike lanes in the whole city. So, all the other bike guys were yelling and shouting at this one bike guy. One guy ruined it for everybody.

It was fascinating to hear one outsider's view of this whole debate. I think I was more confused about the bike lane issue after I heard this.

Hagadorn runs right beside MSU campus and there is a lot of bike traffic on campus. Seems like a great place for a bike lane and great tiiming since it is under construction right now.

Too bad that bonehead cyclist was too self absorbed to see that the world extends beyond him and his theories....what a shame.

[Bekologist]

being that vehicular cyclists can use a bike lane in a vehicular manner, and bike lanes and vehicular cycling are not mutually exclusive, i'd say the anti-accomodationalists don't have a pot to piss in.

the rabid, foresterite anti-accomodationalists should be ashamed of themselves.

[Roody]

Hagadorn runs right beside MSU campus and there is a lot of bike traffic on campus. Seems like a great place for a bike lane and great tiiming since it is under construction right now.

Too bad that bonehead cyclist was too self absorbed to see that the world extends beyond him and his theories....what a shame.
Keep in mind that this was my friend's recollection of the meeting. I doubt if East Lansing will actually base their alternative transportation policy on the opinions of one cyclist.

Do you happen to know what accommodations for cyclists will be made on the new Hagadorn bridge over the Red Cedar River, just south of the Grand River Ave. intersection?

[Denny Koll]

Keep in mind that this was my friend's recollection of the meeting. I doubt if East Lansing will actually base their alternative transportation policy on the opinions of one cyclist.

Do you happen to know what accommodations for cyclists will be made on the new Hagadorn bridge over the Red Cedar River, just south of the Grand River Ave. intersection?

No..I don't know. I'm not from Lansing but my daughter attends MSU.

[CB HI]

So motorist do believe bike lanes are there to get cyclist out of their way. And if the cyclist is not in the designated place they should be in, the motorist gets all pissed off.

[CB HI]

Everyone hates him, yet, this one simple cyclist destroyed the whole plan. Imagine the power he has!

[Bekologist]

interesting...

[CB HI]

It was fascinating to hear one outsider's view of this whole debate. I think I was more confused about the bike lane issue after I heard this.
Motorist are not really outsiders. Many cyclist have known for a very long time that bike lanes were invented to get cyclist off the road and out of motorist way.

[sggoodri]

So motorist do believe bike lanes are there to get cyclist out of their way. And if the cyclist is not in the designated place they should be in, the motorist gets all pissed off.

Motorists often fail to appreciate effects of the glass and gravel that so often comes with a bike lane stripe; meanwhile, bike lane advocates often fail to appreciate the effects of increased pavement width when it comes without one.

[CB HI]

Motorists often fail to appreciate effects of the glass and gravel that so often comes with a bike lane stripe; meanwhile, bike lane advocates often fail to appreciate the effects of increased pavement width when it comes without one.
So true, Steven, so true!

[Roody]

Motorist are not really outsiders. Many cyclist have known for a very long time that bike lanes were invented to get cyclist off the road and out of motorist way.
I don't know why bike lanes were invented. But most people assume they were invented in order to scoot bikes out of the way. About the only people who don't think that are the cycling advocates.

[CB HI]

I would refine you classification as the "bike lane cycling advocates".

[Bekologist]

more like 'populist infrastructure cycling advocates'

anti-accomodationalists are anti-populist.

[CB HI]

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the only facilities VC'ers oppose are:
dangerous bike lanes
and those bike path designs that are dangerous to cyclist.

Amazing how you have such a hard time comprehending such a simple statement.

[Bekologist]

sounds like this guy in East Lansing was an "obstructionist", dude.

an "anti-accomodation" foresterite.

[CB HI]

The dog chasing his tail again.

[Bekologist]

what ARE you talking about?

the fool at the East Lansing council meeting definetly sounds like a foresterite 'obstructionist'. inadverdanetly keeping bikes down by insisting in autocentrism.

the foresterite obstructionists should be ashamed of themselves. vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane. vehicular cyclists can take advantage of bike lane networks in communities.

[Denny Koll]

what ARE you talking about?

the fool at the East Lansing council meeting definetly sounds like a foresterite 'obstructionist'. inadverdanetly keeping bikes down by insisting in autocentrism.

the foresterite obstructionists should be ashamed of themselves. vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane. vehicular cyclists can take advantage of bike lane networks in communities.


There was a thread a few months ago regarding a forum member who was opposed to building a MUP close to her home. It would be used by "Freds" and older slower cyclists. According to her these folks "should be" riding in the road...and an MUP would force her off the road.

A bike lane might not be the same but the thinking is similar. Less choices for other less important cyclists because it doesn't fit the agenda.

[uncorrect]

The dog chasing his tail again.
Can you please explain how his comment was like a dog chasing its tail? I've seen you use this phrase before and it didn't make sense then either.
as far as I can tell, it is the VC advocates that resemble a dog chasing its tail. No matter how much preaching, complaining, "advocating" and belittleing they do, bike lanes still get built and cyclists want to use them. So the VC advocates are getting nowhere, hence, dog chasing its tail.

[Cyclaholic]

Many cyclist have known for a very long time that bike lanes were invented to get cyclist off the road and out of motorist way.

A cycling facility that gets me out of the way of a motorist that may or may not be sober/drugged/competent/roadworthy(vehichle)/texting/fixing makeup/reading the paper/tuning the radio/a million other distractions other than concentrating on the road ahead?

Sounds like a great idea to me.

[noisebeam]

This so called 'fanantic' does not sound like a vehicular cyclist. Most VCists will move aside when safe and practical to let faster traffic pass.

It is also telling that the person who relayed the story called the vehicular lanes "car lanes"

Al

[sggoodri]

This so called 'fanantic' does not sound like a vehicular cyclist. Most VCists will move aside when safe and practical to let faster traffic pass.

It is also telling that the person who relayed the story called the vehicular lanes "car lanes"

Al

The cyclist who was riding outside the bike lane probably wasn't even taking the lane. Staying just an inch outside the bike lane to avoid debris is enough to set off some motorists.

[noisebeam]

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

[Roody]

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

I might have known that you would be the only one to consider this crucial question. The rest have picked sides even though they have NO IDEA how good or bad the proposed bike lane would be. How sad that most do not use critical thinking skills; instead they have a knee-jerk reaction and manufacture imaginary "facts" that support their own preformed beliefs. So far you're the only one who stopped to wonder what form the proposed bike lane would take before you decided to support or oppose it.

Sorry, Al, but I can't answer your question. I honestly don't know the design of the proposed bike lane. All I know is what I typed in the OP. My friend who told me about the meeting had no idea that there could be good bike lanes and bad bike lanes. He just thought that it's always a good idea to get the bikes away from the cars. I'm confused as to his reason for this: cyclist safety or motorist expediency. I got the feeling it was some of both.

I can say that the existing bike lanes in East Lansing are crap alleys. They are less than 3 feet wide, filled with debris, and they continue right up to the intersection, and to the right of right turn lanes. Furthermore, EL motorists tend to buzz you if you're riding in a bike lane, but pass safely when there is no bike lane.

However, it may be the case that this particular bike lane would have been different. Maybe it would have incorporated advanced design features. It might have made a good cycling corridor out of a road that many local cyclists, like the ones at the meeting, believe is "too dangerous."

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.

[sggoodri]

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')


Google Maps shows a mixture of existing cross sections in the vicinity of the university. Some of the non-curb-and gutter sections have wide paved shoulders; others have little or no shoulder. Some of the curb and gutter sections have somewhat wide lanes; others have narrow lanes. The four-lane bridge appears to have narrow lanes. Some sections are median divided, and there are not many driveways on it. Several intersections feature right turn only lanes.

The bridge design may require definition of right of way requirements. There iappears to be a separate bridge for pedestrians; if the new bridge does not require sidewalks then the bike traffic will be up against the railings. My advice would be to plan for as much width as possible, e.g. a wide bike lane over the bridge in each direction, whether it gets striped or not, so that cyclists are not encouraged to ride too close to the railing.

Most of the rest of the road south of the river appears to have plenty of right of way to add wide outside lanes or bike lanes, or wide paved shoulders. North of the river the right of way looks narrow. While I would be one of the voices supporting wide outside through lanes (at least to avoid more debris-filled lanes, as Lansing has plenty of these already), the degree of access control south of the river reduces the number of junction conflicts that bike lane users would face.

I assume (from observations in other college towns with narrow lanes on busy median-divided roads) that most of the students currently ride on the sidewalk path, and that the lone cyclist opposing the bike lane striping was promoting wide outside lanes instead, but was interpreted by non-cyclists as wanting to obstruct traffic by riding in "their" lanes.

[Denny Koll]

I assume (from observations in other college towns with narrow lanes on busy median-divided roads) that most of the students currently ride on the sidewalk path, and that the lone cyclist opposing the bike lane striping was promoting wide outside lanes instead, but was interpreted by non-cyclists as wanting to obstruct traffic by riding in "their" lanes

I guess Roody is right...we all keep making assumptions based on our personal bias.

[Helmet Head]

A friend at work--a non-cyclist--attended a city planning meeting for East Lansing, MI. This was his account of the meeting, as near to how he said it as I can manage:
A bunch of bike guys were at the meeting and they'd been trying to get the city to put a bike lane on Hagadorn Rd. You know, that's a busy road and the bike guys don't like to ride on it. The city had finally agreed in principle to do it.

But this one bike guy was at the meeting. This guy always rides in the car lanes. He's some kind of fanatic or something. Even when he's riding on Abbot Rd. where they already have a bike lane, he refuses to ride in it. He has to ride in the car lane and he's always holding up the traffic. I got behind him one time and he really pissed me off.

Anyway, he was arguing that they shouldn't have any bike lanes anywhere in the city. This one guy thinks the bikes should just ride wherever they want to, even if they're getting in the way of the cars. Like I said, he's some kind of fanatic, I guess. So the city scrapped the whole plan to put in a bike lane on Hagadorn. Now they're talking about not putting any bike lanes in the whole city. So, all the other bike guys were yelling and shouting at this one bike guy. One guy ruined it for everybody. It was fascinating to hear one outsider's view of this whole debate. I think I was more confused about the bike lane issue after I heard this. I know of only one person (named Ken) in the entire U.S. who claims to never ride in bike lanes, and advocates accordingly. I don't know of any mainstream VC advocates who hold that position, nor any forum members.

Having said that, prevention of adding bike lane stripes in almost any urban or suburban environment is probably a good thing.

[Roody]

Google Maps shows a mixture of existing cross sections in the vicinity of the university. Some of the non-curb-and gutter sections have wide paved shoulders; others have little or no shoulder. Some of the curb and gutter sections have somewhat wide lanes; others have narrow lanes. The four-lane bridge appears to have narrow lanes. Some sections are median divided, and there are not many driveways on it. Several intersections feature right turn only lanes.

The bridge design may require definition of right of way requirements. There iappears to be a separate bridge for pedestrians; if the new bridge does not require sidewalks then the bike traffic will be up against the railings. My advice would be to plan for as much width as possible, e.g. a wide bike lane over the bridge in each direction, whether it gets striped or not, so that cyclists are not encouraged to ride too close to the railing.

Most of the rest of the road south of the river appears to have plenty of right of way to add wide outside lanes or bike lanes, or wide paved shoulders. North of the river the right of way looks narrow. While I would be one of the voices supporting wide outside through lanes (at least to avoid more debris-filled lanes, as Lansing has plenty of these already), the degree of access control south of the river reduces the number of junction conflicts that bike lane users would face.

I assume (from observations in other college towns with narrow lanes on busy median-divided roads) that most of the students currently ride on the sidewalk path, and that the lone cyclist opposing the bike lane striping was promoting wide outside lanes instead, but was interpreted by non-cyclists as wanting to obstruct traffic by riding in "their" lanes.
Amazing....most of what you say is accurate! I wonder if you worked in intelligence using maps and satellite photos? (Don't tell me if it would entail killing me!)

I assume the proposed bike lane was for Hagadorn north of the river. The bridge is currently being rebuilt, so it's too late to change its design now. South of that, you have divided highway with narrow, debris-ridden shoulders but slow traffic and few intersections. Most cyclists would handle it easily by taking the outer lane, if they ever tried. But, there's a side path on the campus side and almost everybody uses it. I imagine that the city and the university consider it to be an adequate facility. I don't like it because it crosses several dormitory driveways. But I'm pretty sure that almost all local cyclists will continue to use the side path, even if provided with a state-of-the-art bike lane. So why bother?

So the road north of the river would be the logical place for bike lanes. The intersection with Grand River Ave. is a nightmare for everybody and has perhaps the longest traffic light cycles in the Lansing area.Like I said earlier, East Lansing bike lanes so far have been narrow debris alleys. Like you, I would prefer WOLs, but I think a well-designed bike lane would be better than the current narrow lanes for most cyclists.

[Roody]

I guess Roody is right...we all keep making assumptions based on our personal bias.
Um, just one problem here. Sbgoodri's assumptions were based on close study of google photos and maps, and they happened to be correct! (see above post)

[maddyfish]

Sounds like he did a good job to me. I don't understand bike lanes. What are roads for?

[Helmet Head]

Amazing....most of what you say is accurate! I wonder if you worked in intelligence using maps and satellite photos? (Don't tell me if it would entail killing me!)

I assume the proposed bike lane was for Hagadorn north of the river. The bridge is currently being rebuilt, so it's too late to change its design now. South of that, you have divided highway with narrow, debris-ridden shoulders but slow traffic and few intersections. Most cyclists would handle it easily by taking the outer lane, if they ever tried. But, there's a side path on the campus side and almost everybody uses it. I imagine that the city and the university consider it to be an adequate facility. I don't like it because it crosses several dormitory driveways. But I'm pretty sure that almost all local cyclists will continue to use the side path, even if provided with a state-of-the-art bike lane. So why bother?

So the road north of the river would be the logical place for bike lanes. The intersection with Grand River Ave. is a nightmare for everybody and has perhaps the longest traffic light cycles in the Lansing area.Like I said earlier, East Lansing bike lanes so far have been narrow debris alleys. Like you, I would prefer WOLs, but I think a well-designed bike lane would be better than the current narrow lanes for most cyclists.
On long stretches of 2 lane roads, it's nice to have space to the right to use for allowing faster traffic to pass easily. If the only way to get that space is to have it demarcated as a bike lane, so be it. But this is much more an accomodation for motorists (to make it easier to pass cyclists), than an accomodation for bicyclists (who can just as well ride in the narrow lane of the road), and this should be pointed out at every opportunity, in particular whenever they try to use funds ear marked for cycling to pay for such expansions.

[Roody]

I know of only one person (named Ken) in the entire U.S. who claims to never ride in bike lanes, and advocates accordingly. I don't know of any mainstream VC advocates who hold that position, nor any forum members.

Having said that, prevention of adding bike lane stripes in almost any urban or suburban environment is probably a good thing.
Well, maybe this guy's name is Ken, but I doubt it. I know that the bike lane he refuses to ride in, on Abbot Rd., is too narrow and it's filled with debris. It also discourages destinational positioning. I don't ride in it either. I ride just to the left of the stripe and I take cager heat for it sometimes. The other cyclists ride on the sidewalk or parallel side streets. I rarely see anybody in the bike lane, so I doubt if it does much to encourage cycling.

Since I can be an AC cyclist, I'll take side streets there when I'm in no hurry. Also there is a beautiful segregated trail paralleling portions of Abbot that I sometimes use.

[Helmet Head]

Well, maybe this guy's name is Ken, but I doubt it. I know that the bike lane he refuses to ride in, on Abbot Rd., is too narrow and it's filled with debris. It also discourages destinational positioning. I don't ride in it either. I ride just to the left of the stripe and I take cager heat for it sometimes. The other cyclists ride on the sidewalk or parallel side streets. I rarely see anybody in the bike lane, so I doubt if it does much to encourage cycling.

Since I can be an AC cyclist, I'll take side streets there when I'm in no hurry. Also there is a beautiful segregated trail paralleling portions of Abbot that I sometimes use. Well, there are probably countless cyclists, vehicular and otherwise, who certainly avoid debris-filled and too-narrow bike lanes.

[sggoodri]

Um, just one problem here. Sbgoodri's assumptions were based on close study of google photos and maps, and they happened to be correct! (see above post)

I've spent my share of time looking at satellite photos and aircraft photos. Some of that was while serving on our city's planning and zoning board for six years. I've grown accustomed to translating such images to ground truth and back.

I cannot see individual cyclists in the Google images. But from the images of the cars it's easy to tell that the lanes over the bridge and some other places are narrow, and that the multi-use path with its own bridge is wide. The path is also on the university side. Having cycled on college campuses, I know the political pressure to get off the narrow-laned roadway and onto an adjacent sidewalk path designated as a bikeway. When the government builds a sidewalk bike path next to a thoroughfare with narrow lanes, sidewalk cycling becomes the social norm despite the higher rate of crashes per cycling mile than exists on the roadway.

[zeytoun]

I know of only one person (named Ken) in the entire U.S. who claims to never ride in bike lanes, and advocates accordingly. I don't know of any mainstream VC advocates who hold that position, nor any forum members.
Typical Helmet Head idiocy. How many bicyclists do you know in the entire US, Helmet Head? You realize that over a quarter of the adult population of the US has bicycled in the last 3 months? what percentage of those 75million people do you know? Assuming you know all of the 75,000 forum members, that's still .1%.

This illogical reasoning style on your part is why you reach so many false conclusions.

The net result of your posts is decrease the amount of useful information on this forum.

I'm putting you on ignore, and recommend that others do the same.

[noisebeam]

Typical Helmet Head idiocy. How many bicyclists do you know in the entire US, Helmet Head? You realize that over a quarter of the adult population of the US has bicycled in the last 3 months? what percentage of those 75million people do you know? Assuming you know all of the 75,000 forum members, that's still .1%.

This illogical reasoning style on your part is why you reach so many false conclusions.

The net result of your posts is decrease the amount of useful information on this forum.

I'm putting you on ignore, and recommend that others do the same.
Huh? He said 'he knows' not 'there is'

How many 'refuse to ever ride in BL advocates' have you heard of? Are you suggesting this position is more popular than so minor as to be negligibile?

Al

[Helmet Head]

Huh? He said 'he knows' not 'there is'

How many 'refuse to ever ride in BL advocates' have you heard of? Are you suggesting this position is more popular than so minor as to be negligibile?

Al
Exactly. Maybe Zey woke up on the wrong side of the bed today?

[sbhikes]

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.

Those of us who regularly disagree with the Forester crowd already do this.

[genec]

This so called 'fanantic' does not sound like a vehicular cyclist. Most VCists will move aside when safe and practical to let faster traffic pass.

It is also telling that the person who relayed the story called the vehicular lanes "car lanes"

Al

It is for convenience... there is no clear cut term for the area outside of a bike lane. Especially in a PC rich environment such as this forum. "Travel lane" might be the closest correct term... but then it is in the realm of "lingo" and may not be known by everyone.

I have also been known to call motor traffic "cars" vice motorists... which really gets the goat of some... granted, there are humans involved in piloting all these "vehicles" (yet another PC term) but when you cannot see them due to distance or window tint... they amorphasize into the metal beasts themselves. And quite frankly some motorists work at achieving some sort of identity with their vehicles.

[Roody]

Those of us who regularly disagree with the Forester crowd already do this. Interesting.... Details?


I wonder if the "bike guys" at the meeting knew or cared about the design details of the proposed bike lane. In your experience, do cyclists or bike lane advocates have much knowledge of various bike lane designs?

[chipcom]

Great troll, Rood...who knew that a thread about bike lanes would spark a heated debate? You have learned well, my son. When you can snatch the paintbrush from my hand, it will be time for you to leave. :D

[Roody]

Great troll, Rood...who knew that a thread about bike lanes would spark a heated debate? You have learned well, my son. When you can snatch the paintbrush from my hand, it will be time for you to leave. :D What first interested me was the way an outsider to cycling, a motorist, viewed the debate that fills so much time on this forum. To most Americans, this argument is totally under the radar. When they hear about it, they seem to think that bike lanes are a good thing. But it doesn't seem clear whether they think they're mainly good for cyclists, or for motorists, or both. As I talk to more people about the issue, I find few motorists who believe that cars and bikes should mix on the roadways. Unfortunately, I find very few cyclists who believe it either.

I don't know why, but it still surprises me that so many cyclists on this forum also believe in separation of cars and bikes, at least to some degree. Also, I'm surprised that others here, the VC minority, don't recognize that some types of road redesign might actually make some roads better suited to cyclists.

The second thing that interested me was that so many people on this forum assumed either that the proposed bike lane was a good thing shot down by a fanatic, and a couple who assumed it was a bad thing, defended by a brave VC advocate. They formed an opinion without any knowledge of the bike lane design proposal. I wonder if this attitude on the part of advocates explains the plethora of poorly designed bike lanes built over the last few years.

[genec]

Interesting.... Details?


I wonder if the "bike guys" at the meeting knew or cared about the design details of the proposed bike lane. In your experience, do cyclists or bike lane advocates have much knowledge of various bike lane designs?

In my experience, the guy designing the stripe probably has little knowledge about the stripe... he is just reading a standard guide... and the knowledge of the cyclists advocating stripes can be as varied as anyone's knowledge here.

[chipcom]

What first interested me was the way an outsider to cycling, a motorist, viewed the debate that fills so much time on this forum. To most Americans, this argument is totally under the radar. When they hear about it, they seem to think that bike lanes are a good thing. But it doesn't seem clear whether they think they're mainly good for cyclists, or for motorists, or both. As I talk to more people about the issue, I find few motorists who believe that cars and bikes should mix on the roadways. Unfortunately, I find very few cyclists who believe it either.

I don't know why, but it still surprises me that so many cyclists on this forum also believe in separation of cars and bikes, at least to some degree. Also, I'm surprised that others here, the VC minority, don't recognize that some types of road redesign might actually make some roads better suited to cyclists.

The second thing that interested me was that so many people on this forum assumed either that the proposed bike lane was a good thing shot down by a fanatic, and a couple who assumed it was a bad thing, defended by a brave VC advocate. They formed an opinion without any knowledge of the bike lane design proposal. I wonder if this attitude on the part of advocates explains the plethora of poorly designed bike lanes built over the last few years.


- Drivers want cyclists out of the way.
- Many cyclists want to be out of the way.
- In this forum assumptions rule.
- We have so many poorly designed cycling facilities because the two factions spend more time fighting than coming to a compromise and presenting a united front to policy makers, thereby empowering engineers with little cycling experience to provide designs that are cheap and politically palatable to their employers.

My take anyway.

[Helmet Head]

- We have so many poorly designed cycling facilities because the two factions spend more time fighting than coming to a compromise and presenting a united front to policy makers, thereby empowering engineers with little cycling experience to provide designs that are cheap and politically palatable to their employers.


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.

[sbhikes]

Interesting.... Details?


I wonder if the "bike guys" at the meeting knew or cared about the design details of the proposed bike lane. In your experience, do cyclists or bike lane advocates have much knowledge of various bike lane designs?
I have no idea what your "bike guys" do anywhere.

Ours will call up the powers that be and demand that bike lanes be restriped if they were done incorrectly, or if Caltrans puts up "walk your bikes" signs at road construction (nobody has to walk their car, why bikes?) they'll complain until it's rectified, and our "bike guys" will pass out cycling educational materials and teach Cyclesmart classes, and fix bikes for free in low-income parts of town and teach others how to do the same, and pass out free blinkies and head lights and all kinds of stuff like this because we care about cycling, not about promoting John Forester's lame ideas or whatever pet theory or grudge of the day is being bandied about here.

[Roody]

Ours will call up the powers that be and demand that bike lanes be restriped if they were done incorrectly,

Well, I edited out the rhetoric and this was the answer you gave to my question: "In your experience, do cyclists or bike lane advocates have much knowledge of various bike lane designs?

Informative as always. Thanks for the insight!

[sbhikes]

Why would the call up to demand something be done correctly if they didn't know what "correct" was. Yes, in my experience cycling advocates know what proper bike lane design is.