This thread is for citing evidence of sidewalks reinforcing "the notion" that cyclists (and any non-motorized transportation) should stay out of the way of motorists, that it is inherently dangerous for cyclists (and any non-motorized transportation) to share the road with motorists, etc.

I think when people expect cyclists to use the sidewalk it's often because that's where they would ride themselves.

This is one example:
I want to know whats the best and most polite thing to say when stopped by a police officer that thinks you should not ride in the street at all but on the sidewalk? I had this happen and just said ok but can they do anything about it ? I ride my bike to the far right of the street as possible but still giving myself enough room when need be. When there is no cars behind me I take up a little more, almost as much as a normal car for safety reasons on four way stops. At lights I do the same thing. Though once I am pass the light or four way stop I try to move over to the far right as much as possible to let any cars behind me by. If I am about to be at a stop sign I keep my whole lane to let the car or cars behind me know that I am about to stop. Is it a good idea to print out the laws in your state about bicycle's ridding in the street to show the police officer or does that not really matter much ?
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=310987

This assertion is highly questionable. On what basis does it rest? I can think of at least three opinions by motorists and there are at least two kinds of rights involved in the assertion.

Motorist A might think that cyclists should not be using the roadway.

Motorist B might think that cyclists are grudgingly permitted to use the roadway as long as they stay out of the way of motorists.

Motorist C might think that cyclists, at least when operating lawfully, are legitimate roadway users.

Right #1 is the right to ride upon the roadway surface.

Right #2 is the right to operate on the roadway with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles.

Now consider the possible effect of a sidewalk upon Motorist A. He sees that now cyclists are allowed to use the sidewalk but he would not change his mind about Right #1 or Right #2, because that goes beyond the sidewalk area.

Consider the effect of a sidewalk upon Motorist B. He sees the sidewalk as confirming his belief that cyclists have to stay to the side of the roadway to avoid delaying him. That means no change in Right #1, and explicit continued denial of Right #2.

Consider the effect of a sidewalk upon Motorist C. He sees this as the official designation of a place for cyclists, and therefore as a denial of his earlier view of Right #1, as applying to the whole width of the roadway surface, and effectively officially denying Right #2, since that cannot be exercised totally within the sidewalk.

In short, the only positive effect upon any motorist's view of cycling is upon the motorist who thinks that cyclists should not be on the roadway at all, and his change in view extends only to the width of the sidewalk. I think that this is not to be considered an improvement.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4659193&postcount=8
Therefore shouldn’t VC advocates also be against sidewalks?

Therefore shouldn’t VC advocates also be against sidewalks?

Of course not. Pedestrians have different operating characteristics than wheeled vehicles, and this difference justifies facilities that are designed for each class according to the characteristics of the class.

Other than speed, what other relevant characteristics would you mention?

Or should very slow wheeled vehicles be on the sidewalk?

cyclists have a choice whether to act as vehicles or as pedestrians. this is a good thing. why try to limit it to one or the other? both is better!

Of course not. Pedestrians have different operating characteristics than wheeled vehicles, and this difference justifies facilities that are designed for each class according to the characteristics of the class.
But we are not talking about operating characteristics or pedestrians, we are talking about faculties giving motorists the notion that cyclists do not belong on the road, besides the operating characteristics of a bicycle do not preclude it from operating on a sidewalk.

Around here the major taunt from motorists is “ride on the sidewalk.” Since sidewalks give motorist the notion that we don’t belong on the road we should not allow them to be built. Also pedestrians can use a WOL just as effectively as we can so if we are so concerned about what motorists think that VCers should be against bike lanes, shouldn’t they also be against sidewalks?

Or whatever bad stuff happens because of bike lanes it also happens because of sidewalks so being against bike lanes and not sidewalks does not contribute anything at all except to turn cyclist against cyclist.

Out where I live it is usual to have sidewalks on residential streets, and on arterial-type streets usually no sidewalks, unless there is shopping. And there are usually wide bike lanes on arterial-type streets. So it is hard here for sidewalks to reinforce any notions.

When I visited a certain large Southern city I noticed very narrow, high-speed lanes and sidewalks but no bike lanes on arterial-type streets and no sidewalks in the residential areas. I could not imagine myself riding a bicycle on these high-speed lanes. I could only imagine myself on the sidewalk, and since I refuse to ride on the sidewalk out of principle for the notions it does reinforce, I could only imagine myself giving up on riding a bicycle. Not worth the hassle to me.

I think the Southern city's sidewalks reinforce the notion.

Boy, change a couple of words around, and john advocates for bike facilities!

non-motorized vehicles have different operating characteristics than motorized vehicles, and this difference justifies facilities that are designed for each class according to the characteristics of the class.

Of course not. Pedestrians have different operating characteristics than wheeled vehicles, and this difference justifies facilities that are designed for each class according to the characteristics of the class.

It is your contention then that bikes have the same "operating characteristics" of all other wheeled vehciles?

Of course not. Pedestrians have different operating characteristics than wheeled vehicles, and this difference justifies facilities that are designed for each class according to the characteristics of the class.

Perhaps bicyclists should not oppose sidewalks but the rest of what you say is utter nonsense.

Many modern sidewalks have curb cuts designed specifically to accomodate wheeled vehicles (usually wheelchairs but also other vehicles, such as scooters and Segways). The difference between design users of sidewalks vs. design users of roadways is not the absence or presence of wheels but, rather, speed. As a former serious runner, I can assure you that sidewalks are not designed for fast pedestrians, even those without wheels.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the original purpose of what we now call sidewalks, was not to separate pedestrians on the basis of operating characteristics but to protect pedestrians from the mud, muck and horse poop of early dirt roads (in other words, to keep their clothes clean).

The operating chatacteristics of a bicycle differ as much, if not more, from the operating chacteristic of an automobile as they differ from the operating chacteristics of a pedestrian. The opposing claim must be based on either bias or perhaps, to use the same reasoning that VC-ists are so fond of using to discredit any with the audacity to disagree with John Forester's nutcase theories, on some form of mental defect. :D

John Forester, for someone who claims to have studied transportation most of your life, you demonstrate an absolutely incredible lack of understanding of both history and modern reality.

I think the Southern city's sidewalks reinforce the notion.
Very interesting comment thanks. MD is very much a mix of north and south and we have any combination of sidewalks that you can think of depending on what county you are in.

RE: curb cuts on sidewalks. They are kind of like large-handled kitchen implements.

Someone invented some large-handled kitchen tools for people with arthritis. Well, because they are so easy and comfortable to hole, they provided better usefulness to people without arthritis.

Curb cuts are similar. You don't need them as someone with perfectly good legs, but they provide advantages over stepping up a curb, so they benefit everybody.

Not that this has anything to do with the original question. As to that, I think that when people ride on sidewalks that reinforces the notion, and that when developers build roads where the sidewalk appears to be the most logical place (or even is the sanctioned place) for cyclists to ride, that reinforces the notion. Bike lanes, in my opinion, don't do the same negative damage to the idea that cyclists are real road users that sidewalks can do.

But we are not talking about operating characteristics or pedestrians, we are talking about faculties giving motorists the notion that cyclists do not belong on the road, besides the operating characteristics of a bicycle do not preclude it from operating on a sidewalk.

Around here the major taunt from motorists is “ride on the sidewalk.” Since sidewalks give motorist the notion that we don’t belong on the road we should not allow them to be built. Also pedestrians can use a WOL just as effectively as we can so if we are so concerned about what motorists think that VCers should be against bike lanes, shouldn’t they also be against sidewalks?

Or whatever bad stuff happens because of bike lanes it also happens because of sidewalks so being against bike lanes and not sidewalks does not contribute anything at all except to turn cyclist against cyclist.

I have cycled fairly extensively in Maryland and Virginia areas, both rural and urban, and, so far as I remember, I was never told to ride on the sidewalk.

But we are not talking about operating characteristics or pedestrians, we are talking about faculties giving motorists the notion that cyclists do not belong on the road, besides the operating characteristics of a bicycle do not preclude it from operating on a sidewalk.

snip
Or whatever bad stuff happens because of bike lanes it also happens because of sidewalks so being against bike lanes and not sidewalks does not contribute anything at all except to turn cyclist against cyclist.

It is correct that the operating characteristics of a bicycle not preclude it from operating on a sidewalk. It is equally correct that the operating characteristics of a lawn roller, or a child's wagon, or a wheelbarrow, do not preclude them from operating on a sidewalk. What you are ignoring, and one can't help but think that this is deliberate, is that by operating on the sidewalk the cyclist is giving up what used to be considered the prime value of a bicycle, that it is both faster and cheaper than horses.

Perhaps bicyclists should not oppose sidewalks but the rest of what you say is utter nonsense.

Many modern sidewalks have curb cuts designed specifically to accomodate wheeled vehicles (usually wheelchairs but also other vehicles, such as scooters and Segways). The difference between design users of sidewalks vs. design users of roadways is not the absence or presence of wheels but, rather, speed. As a former serious runner, I can assure you that sidewalks are not designed for fast pedestrians, even those without wheels.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the original purpose of what we now call sidewalks, was not to separate pedestrians on the basis of operating characteristics but to protect pedestrians from the mud, muck and horse poop of early dirt roads (in other words, to keep their clothes clean).

The operating chatacteristics of a bicycle differ as much, if not more, from the operating chacteristic of an automobile as they differ from the operating chacteristics of a pedestrian. The opposing claim must be based on either bias or perhaps, to use the same reasoning that VC-ists are so fond of using to discredit any with the audacity to disagree with John Forester's nutcase theories, on some form of mental defect. :D

John Forester, for someone who claims to have studied transportation most of your life, you demonstrate an absolutely incredible lack of understanding of both history and modern reality.

Wheeled vehicles all operate according to rather specific physical principles. They roll along relatively smooth surfaces. They steer by turning the front wheels (some special vehicles also by turning the rear wheels). Their turning radius is determined largely by the length of their wheelbase. They go forward much better than they go backwards. Their acceleration and deceleration are determined largely by the coefficient of friction between rubber and road, and, for some, according to the geometry of the vehicle. They are all driven by human drivers, who have the physical and mental characteristics of humans.

wow, john, we share similar coeficient of friction with a 400 horsepower dualie :roflmao:

stop the delusion-laden charades.

wow, john, we share similar coeficient of friction with a 400 horsepower dualie :roflmao:

stop the delusion-laden charades.
Actually, that isn't quite what he said, Bek, to be fair here.....

What he said was the coefficient of friction affected bikes and other vehicle in a similar manner, which is correct. Either application of lateral force in cornering, or rotational force to the wheel, that coefficient of friction is simply an aspect of the mathematical modeling demonstrating why we don't slide off the road or sit there in place and spin. The individual variables are different, but the equations are exactly the same structure for either a bike or a V16 powered Bugatti!

Here's my example: a neighbor of mine, who is generally a nice guy, always politely states that I should ride on the sidewalk. So I saw him and him wife walking last week, on the sidewalk, it's wide sidewalk, so I jumped up onto it, and buzzed him, only going about 15mph.
Later that evening I went over to ask him if I should still ride on the sidewalk, and he said I was an exception because I rode "so fast". So I informed him that I could easily have passed him going 25mph, and that I was a very slow rider, and that there are riders who can run 40-45. Did he really want us on the sidewalk, and he said no.

Here's my example: a neighbor of mine, who is generally a nice guy, always politely states that I should ride on the sidewalk. So I saw him and him wife walking last week, on the sidewalk, it's wide sidewalk, so I jumped up onto it, and buzzed him, only going about 15mph.
Later that evening I went over to ask him if I should still ride on the sidewalk, and he said I was an exception because I rode "so fast". So I informed him that I could easily have passed him going 25mph, and that I was a very slow rider, and that there are riders who can run 40-45. Did he really want us on the sidewalk, and he said no.

I see sidewalk riding ,at 15 to 20 mph, in front my workplace on a regular basis, and I cringe everytime they hug close to our entrance and the blind corner of our building. A bicyclist hasn't hit a ped in those areas yet, but it's a matter of time before there's a collision between the two.

It would obviously take a lot more than posters here arguing about who should be where on/off the road to get any significant changes made. Like making bicycle awareness a bigger part of the drivers license test, much stiffer, enforceable penalties for motorists who commit crimes against cyclists and against cyclists who violate the law, and ongoing public service anouncements, news stories, etc. to constantly reming people. In general, humans are creatures of habit, so when a bad driving habit starts, it's hard to change.
I think those who yell at us to get on the sidewalk is because the last time they rode a bike in elementary or jr. high, they rode on the sidewalk, and their mothers constantly reminded them to stay out of the street.

sorry, Tom, but the operating characteristics between bikes and motorized vehicles is significantly different, despite physics of friction coeficients.

that comparasion is lame.

bikes have significantly different operating characteristics from cars - to even attempt to spin similarities like john has is dishonest and misleading, inaccurate and delusional. Spin doctor!

sorry, Tom, but the operating characteristics between bikes and motorized vehicles is significantly different, despite physics of friction coeficients.

that comparasion is lame.

bikes have significantly different operating characteristics from cars - to even attempt to spin similarities like john has is dishonest and misleading, inaccurate and delusional. Spin doctor!
If what I understood you to be saying is correct, I just wanted to point out a little inaccuracy in your perception of what was being said in this particular case. I was addressing the raw basic premise of mathematical comparison on that basic level. All you do is plug in the different variables (Mass, velocity, etc.). The same physical laws apply, including HP/Weight ratio, etc. That is what I believe he was saying....strictly from a basic physics model.

That said, yes, there are significant differences in performance characteristics between a bicycle and a motor vehicle.

wow, john, we share similar coeficient of friction with a 400 horsepower dualie :roflmao:

stop the delusion-laden charades.

The only characteristic to which you refer when stating that motor vehicles have greatly different operating characteristics than bicycles is the power/weight ratio. If that is all that you consider to be important, you show your drag-racing heritage. How sad to see.

The differences between pedestrian and vehicular motion are far greater than the differences between motorised vs. non-motorized and/or narrow dual wheel vs. wide multiple wheel vehicular motion.

Pedestrian motion allows for near instantaneous lateral movement, a wide range of variation (front to back and side to side) as to where to place contact points with the ground and the continuous variability in the power vector applied from the two individual contact points. With the exception of 'hops or jumps', a vehicle generally keeps constant and continuous contact with the ground. Except for very extreme vehicular cases, pedestrians can traverse terrain and obsticals and a follow line/path that is impossible on a human sized vehicle.

Al

The only characteristic to which you refer when stating that motor vehicles have greatly different operating characteristics than bicycles is the power/weight ratio. If that is all that you consider to be important, you show your drag-racing heritage. How sad to see.
Bek is the man that should know, after all (in another thread), he told us how he drag races cars from red light to red light, at night, jumping from lane to lane, at a consistent 29 mph.:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

I should clarify that I am not really purposing that we be against sidewalks (but there are situations where if there is a choice between sidewalk or shoulder area we may want to consider advocating for the shoulder area instead of a sidewalk.)

What I am trying to do is wrap my head around why some so called bike advocates would want to be against bike lanes. Any bike facility that involves extra space reinforces the notion that bikes don’t belong on the road. Heck lets look at a WOL:

This assertion is highly questionable. On what basis does it rest? I can think of at least three opinions by motorists and there are at least two kinds of rights involved in the assertion.

Motorist A might think that cyclists should not be using the roadway.

Motorist B might think that cyclists are grudgingly permitted to use the roadway as long as they stay out of the way of motorists.

Motorist C might think that cyclists, at least when operating lawfully, are legitimate roadway users.

Right #1 is the right to ride upon the roadway surface.

Right #2 is the right to operate on the roadway with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles.

Now consider the possible effect of a WOL upon Motorist A. He does not see that now cyclists are allowed to use the WOL in accordance with Right #1, but he would not change his mind about Right #2, because that goes beyond the WOL area.

Consider the effect of a WOL upon Motorist B. He sees the WOL as confirming his belief that cyclists have to stay to the side of the roadway to avoid delaying him. That means no change in Right #1, and explicit continued denial of Right #2.
Consider the effect of a WOL upon Motorist C. He sees this as the official designation of a place for cyclists, and therefore as a denial of his earlier view of Right #1, as applying to the whole width of the roadway surface, and effectively officially denying Right #2, since that cannot be exercised totally within the extra space of the WOL.

This does not apply to a WOL: In short, the only positive effect upon any motorist's view of cycling is upon the motorist who thinks that cyclists should not be on the roadway at all, and his change in view extends only to the width of the WOL. I think that this is not to be considered an improvement.
The only thing that makes a small positive effect on our right to the road is a bike lane and it is also the only thing that some bike advocates are against, I just don’t get it.

The operating chatacteristics of a bicycle differ as much, ... from the operating chacteristic of an automobile as they differ from the operating chacteristics of a pedestrian. The opposing claim must be based on either bias or perhaps, to use the same reasoning that VC-ists are so fond of using to discredit any with the audacity to disagree with John Forester ...

+1 Some of the more progressive transportation schools are looking at the assumptions that a lot of engineers have made about bicycles over the years and are finding most of them false. For example we do not have the same friction coefficient as motorVs which restricts the appropriate road surface for us vs. motorVs.

I should clarify that I am not really purposing that we be against sidewalks (but there are situations where if there is a choice between sidewalk or shoulder area we may want to consider advocating for the shoulder area instead of a sidewalk.)

What I am trying to do is wrap my head around why some so called bike advocates would want to be against bike lanes. Any bike facility that involves extra space reinforces the notion that bikes don’t belong on the road. Heck lets look at a WOL:.
Ummm, no. The word swap game doesn't work at alll in this case. WOL does not designate in any way where on the road a cyclist is expected to ride.


The only thing that makes a small positive effect on our right to the road is a bike lane and it is also the only thing that some bike advocates are against, I just don’t get it.
BLs perhaps suggest that cyclist should be on the road. But in doing so they very clearly mark only a very small space on the road and strongly suggest that is the only place cyclist should be, a place that is all to often the wrong place to be. I don't want an right to an implied 10% of the road, when I already have full rights to 100%.
I do think it is a bit silly the idea that the only thing possible to help educate motorists that cycliist should be on the road vs. sidewalk is a BL. There are ways that do not say where they should be. Stencils, share the road signs, etc. Most non cycling folks I talk to know cyclists are allowed on the road, after all they see them there every day and many casually cycle (or they let their kids) on quiet neighborhood streets without thinking they are breaking any law. But most non-cycling folks I talk to do not realize that they are allowed to ride outside the BL when one is present.
Al

I have cycled fairly extensively in Maryland and Virginia areas, both rural and urban, and, so far as I remember, I was never told to ride on the sidewalk.
Ride this road for 15-30 minutes on a weekend afternoon and I will guarantee someone will hassle you. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=bel+air,+md&ie=UTF8&ll=39.463035,-76.316056&spn=0.002245,0.004989&t=k&z=18&om=1 (There are more stores to the south.)

MD is very strange in that it has some of the best places to ride and some of the worst. In this area bikes are ether tolerated (most roads do not have sidewalks) or accommodated on adjacent roads but this dead end shopping center with very narrow lanes and sidewalks that look more like sidepaths since they do not go to the stores but only parallel the roads there is little tolerance for bikes.

I will also note that local kids are telling me that motorists are harassing them to ride on the sidewalk while I am not getting those taunts on those roads. So there appears to be some tolerance of older crazy guys on bikes but that is not extended to kids on bikes riding in the road. :eek:

I should clarify that I am not really purposing that we be against sidewalks (but there are situations where if there is a choice between sidewalk or shoulder area we may want to consider advocating for the shoulder area instead of a sidewalk.)

What I am trying to do is wrap my head around why some so called bike advocates would want to be against bike lanes. Any bike facility that involves extra space reinforces the notion that bikes don’t belong on the road. Heck lets look at a WOL:


The only thing that makes a small positive effect on our right to the road is a bike lane and it is also the only thing that some bike advocates are against, I just don’t get it.

I suspect that there is a miswording in the above. I suggest that HC wanted to write: "Any bike facility that involves extra space reinforces the notion that bikes belong on the road."

First place. Bike lanes do not create space; all that the bike-lane stripe does is to delimit space, designating that small part of the roadway that cyclists are supposed to use. If, indeed, political power is used to widen the roadway, that extra width can be equally used for either a WOL or a BL. The motoring public, of course, prefers that the new width be used for a BL, because a BL stripe gives them the feeling that they don't have to bother about bicycle traffic, which must stay out of their way. Motorists typically, also, fail to concern themselves much about the difficulties that bike lanes create for them, thinking that those difficulties are the responsibility of the cyclist. Bicycle advocates also want the space used for bike lanes rather than wide outside lanes, because they believe that bike lane stripes persuade a transportationally significant proportion of motorists to switch to bicycle transportation. In all of this unthinking commotion, rational analysis of traffic patterns and cyclists' rights and competence is lost.

Now consider the above statement about cyclists' rights to use the road. "The only thing that makes a small positive effect on our right to the road is a bike lane and it is also the only thing that some bike advocates are against, I just don’t get it." This is utterly false. Cyclists already have the right, given by traffic law, to use the whole roadway according to the rules of the road. Painting a bike-lane stripe then, if it produces any change in rights, restricts the cyclist to only the area to the right of the bike-lane stripe. That, of course, is one reason why vehicular cyclists oppose bike-lane stripes.

Al, My experience is in WOL is that we are expected to stay to the right so while not designated there is an expectation of where we should be. My personal experience is there seems to be more tolerance of me commanding the lane when there is a BL present then when there is just a WOL but we don’t have a lot of either so that may in itself be an explanation.

In context of the conversation we are talking about perceived rights so I made the following changes:
Now consider the above statement about cyclists' perceived rights to use the road. "The only thing that makes a small positive effect on our perceived right to the road is a bike lane and it is also the only thing that some bike advocates are against, I just don’t get it." This is utterly false. Cyclists already have the right, given by traffic law, to use the whole roadway according to the rules of the road. Painting a bike-lane stripe then, if it produces any change in perceived rights, restricts the cyclist to only the area to the right of the bike-lane stripe. That, of course, is one reason why vehicular cyclists oppose bike-lane stripes.
So if we are concerned about things that give a perception of limited rights to the road we should also be against sidewalks. If the counter argument is that we still have the legal right to the road even when sidewalk exists, well we still have the legal rights to the road even when a BL exists. The counter argument is that we should be concerned about the perception of our rights to the road so we should be against bike lanes. Cue endless loop.

What I am trying to do is wrap my head around why some ... would ... be against bike lanes.Well, one reason is the door zone (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf):

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/DoorLane.jpg

The only thing that makes a small positive effect on our right to the road is a bike lane ... There are some folks in Berkeley who might disagree with that assertion:
A Bicycle Boulevard (http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/01/24/streetfilms-berkeleys-bike-boulevards/) gives the cyclist the sense of owning the road and being able to take the lane and being able to be in the middle of the street where they can avoid the door zone. Cars are expecting that they're going to have to wait for bikes and that they're going to be seeing bikes. It's not going to be a confrontational thing if a cyclist is the middle of the road because it's expected ...
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/bicycleBlvd/image1.jpg

bruce, your first snapshot, what a tired picture. you get a lot of mileage out of that one, eh? bike lanes do not have to be striped in door zones; many updated road designs with bike lanes avoid the door zone bike lane.

However, this thread is not about bike lanes.

and to CBHI: yes, 29MPH sprint speed, off the stops, if I choose to put the hammer down, consistently. that doesn't mean 29 MPH continuous speed.
Don't mock cyclists that can ride faster than you, CBHI, it's not very flattering. If you can't sprint that fast, it sounds like a personal problem, dude.

despite my speed and ability to ride vehicularily and mix it up in traffic, I agree with part of the Human car's premise:

that bike lanes (and sharrows) are the few things that can 'show' drivers bikes belong on the roads.

the presence of sidewalks without bike lanes, wide outside lanes without sharrows, do nothing to show drivers bikes belong on the roadways.

bruce, your first snapshot, what a tired picture. you get a lot of mileage out of that one, eh? bike lanes do not have to be striped in door zones; many updated road designs with bike lanes avoid the door zone bike lane.

However, this thread is not about bike lanes.

and to CBHI: yes, 29MPH sprint speed, off the stops, if I choose to put the hammer down, consistently. that doesn't mean 29 MPH continuous speed.
Don't mock cyclists that can ride faster than you, CBHI, it's not very flattering. If you can't sprint that fast, it sounds like a personal problem, dude.

despite my speed and ability to ride vehicularily and mix it up in traffic, I agree with part of the Human car's premise:

that bike lanes (and sharrows) are the few things that can 'show' drivers bikes belong on the roads.

the presence of sidewalks without bike lanes, wide outside lanes without sharrows, do nothing to show drivers bikes belong on the roadways.

Every single dedicated BL in my area puts me in the "door zone", and the I wish that some of the city planners had to ride in some of these bike lanes. As far as I'm concerned, bike lanes in roadways just put the cyclist between a rock and a hard spot.

here's a few non door zone bike lanes, since bruce and dynodon are convinced that's an inseparable feature of bike lanes.

BUT, this thread is not about bike lanes. however, they DO show drivers that bikes belong off the sidewalks and using the roads.

and before all you anti-accomodationalists get your chamois all in a bunch, THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE BIKE LANES PICTURED BELOW!

however, sidewalks and narrow lanes may very well reinforce the notion bikes belong off the roads. wide lanes do nothing to educate drivers bikes belong on the roads.

Bike specific infrastructure is one of the very few things vehicular cyclists have going for them, besides their own, transitory road position, that show bikes belong on the road.

Well, one reason is the door zone (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf):

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/DoorLane.jpg

I'll strongly assert that the door zone bike lanes and especially the one pictured above is not AASHTO. I understand not wanting door zone bike lanes but there are other places to put bike lanes.

There are some folks in Berkeley who might disagree with that assertion:

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/bicycleBlvd/image1.jpg
Has this been adopted by MUTCD or is it still experimental? And I encourage anyone who does like what there local government is doing is get involved and offer solutions that make sense and solve the issues. (i.e. Just because you don’t ride on the sidewalk does not mean that sidewalk riding is not a problem and does not need a solution.)

A Bicycle Boulevard gives the cyclist the sense of owning the road and being able to take the lane and being able to be in the middle of the street where they can avoid the door zone. Cars are expecting that they're going to have to wait for bikes and that they're going to be seeing bikes. It's not going to be a confrontational thing if a cyclist is the middle of the road because it's expected ...

A nice idea actually, but what it takes is a street that has a low speed limit, which means that it was probably quite suitable for cycling in the first place.

How can such a thing be implimented on a 45 or 50 MPH arterial? What can be done on a high speed arterial for cyclists?

In all of this unthinking commotion, rational analysis of traffic patterns and cyclists' rights and competence is lost.
I have yet to see any study that verifies your “rational” analysis. Any “rational” argument that implies that VC cyclists comprise a majority of the cycling population is totally off base. My observations are that cyclists are far more likely to look and yield to thru traffic when avoiding an obstacle in a bike lane then they are in a WOL. Other issues are split between what a trained VC cyclist will do and what an untrained cyclist will do. A VC cyclist will do the correct road position bike lane or not and an untrained cyclist will hug the curb or ride the sidewalk in the absence of a bike lane and with a bike lane they will have a better road position. Therefore rational analysis shows an improved situation. Fear mongering that bike lanes will now cause all the trained VC cyclists to ride solely and exclusively in bike lanes is ridiculous IMHO.

I have yet to see any study that verifies your “rational” analysis. Any “rational” argument that implies that VC cyclists comprise a majority of the cycling population is totally off base. My observations are that cyclists are far more likely to look and yield to thru traffic when avoiding an obstacle in a bike lane then they are in a WOL. Other issues are split between what a trained VC cyclist will do and what an untrained cyclist will do. A VC cyclist will do the correct road position bike lane or not and an untrained cyclist will hug the curb or ride the sidewalk in the absence of a bike lane and with a bike lane they will have a better road position. Therefore rational analysis shows an improved situation. Fear mongering that bike lanes will now cause all the trained VC cyclists to ride solely and exclusively in bike lanes is ridiculous IMHO.

Well, you are arguing for what I have always written, that the bikeway system was designed on the assumption that the majority of cyclists are incompetent. It is strange that you argue for that theory, which is supported by historical fact, while so many on this list dispute it entirely.

However, your analysis of the beneficial effect of bike-lane stripes is based solely on lateral position on roads without intersections or driveways. That has only rarely been in dispute. The complications produced by bike-lane stripes occur at intersections and driveways, where the great majority of car-bike collisions also occur, and those complications contradict the rules of the road. That is the point that vehicular cyclists make; roads should be designed so that the users all obey the same rules of the road, instead of sometimes having to obey different ones at different times and places according to some confused view of proper operation.

Here in columbia we are planning on making all of the bike lanes end well before intersections with the expectations that the cyclists will then merge with vehicular traffic, take their place in line and not be in danger of a right hook.

The problem is that there is not a sign explaining to cyclists what they are supposed to do when the bike lane suddenly runs out.

I have begged the city to NEVER force a cyclists to be on the right side of a possibly right turning car like so many other cities have done.

Getting most of the important folks in public works like the traffic engineer to take Road 1 certainly helped. It helped because he now gets vehicular cycling and it helps because he now rides his bike every day and before the class he would of rathered wrestled a grizzly bear then ride a bike on the road.

Al, My experience is in WOL is that we are expected to stay to the right so while not designated there is an expectation of where we should be. My personal experience is there seems to be more tolerance of me commanding the lane when there is a BL present then when there is just a WOL but we don’t have a lot of either so that may in itself be an explanation.
My experience is completely the reverse. In fact I've never been hassled while riding in WOL and sometime I have been when riding on a road with a BL and I leave it - and I don't leave it when there is faster same direction traffic and there is no specific reason to.

No point in arguing different experience as it is all valid and may simply vary due to differing environmental conditions and rider behavior/communication with other road users. Maybe one simple difference is the WOLs where I live have 'Share the Road" signs every 1/4mi or so. Perhaps what you are calling a WOL is narrower than 15-16'

Al

bruce, your first snapshot, what a tired picture. you get a lot of mileage out of that one, eh? bike lanes do not have to be striped in door zones; many updated road designs with bike lanes avoid the door zone bike lane.
First Bek complains about others pictures, then he promptly post his old reused pictures.:rolleyes:

At least you are very consistent with your double standard.

Well, you are arguing for what I have always written, that the bikeway system was designed on the assumption that the majority of cyclists are incompetent. It is strange that you argue for that theory, which is supported by historical fact, while so many on this list dispute it entirely.
Hmm... stats for Balto city bike crashes 31% ride against traffic, ~19% on the sidewalk, unknown 28%, with traffic 14% and ages 5-15 48%. Why is it strange that I argue this point when trying to get decent bike education in the public schools is a real up hill battle? You should merge with traffic at intersections in a WOL and you have to do the same thing with a bike lane (that ends before intersections which they do around here.) I don’t see a major difference.

However, your analysis of the beneficial effect of bike-lane stripes is based solely on lateral position on roads without intersections or driveways. That has only rarely been in dispute. The complications produced by bike-lane stripes occur at intersections and driveways, where the great majority of car-bike collisions also occur, and those complications contradict the rules of the road.
Pedalcyclist fatalities occurred more frequently in urban areas (66%), at nonintersection locations (67%), between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. (30%), and during the months of June, July, and August (36%).
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2004/809912.pdf


You need to keep up to date.

That is the point that vehicular cyclists make; roads should be designed so that the users all obey the same rules of the road, instead of sometimes having to obey different ones at different times and places according to some confused view of proper operation.
Get me a workable system that some other city has adopted and it made a major impact on the wrong way/sidewalk cyclists (or just reducing crashes and fatalities) and I'll join in. I agree logically things should not be as bad as they are but there it is.

My experience is completely the reverse. In fact I've never been hassled while riding in WOL and sometime I have been when riding on a road with a BL and I leave it - and I don't leave it when there is faster same direction traffic and there is no specific reason to.

No point in arguing different experience as it is all valid and may simply vary due to differing environmental conditions and rider behavior/communication with other road users. Maybe one simple difference is the WOLs where I live have 'Share the Road" signs every 1/4mi or so. Perhaps what you are calling a WOL is narrower than 15-16'
Around here WOLs are 14’ and in some rare cases 20+ feet (but these are totally nuts both for cyclists and motorists.) Here Share the Road signs seem to be reserved for narrow roads (12’ or less and with less then a 3’ shoulder.) FWIW your experience is identical to mine when I ride out in AZ (my Mom lives in Mesa and I ride around a bit when I go out to visit.) My speculation is that because you have a lot more bike lanes out there then here there is a different expectation on the motorist’s part.

Hmm... stats for Balto city bike crashes 31% ride against traffic, ~19% on the sidewalk, unknown 28%, with traffic 14% and ages 5-15 48%. Why is it strange that I argue this point when trying to get decent bike education in the public schools is a real up hill battle? You should merge with traffic at intersections in a WOL and you have to do the same thing with a bike lane (that ends before intersections which they do around here.) I don’t see a major difference.

You need to keep up to date.

Get me a workable system that some other city has adopted and it made a major impact on the wrong way/sidewalk cyclists (or just reducing crashes and fatalities) and I'll join in. I agree logically things should not be as bad as they are but there it is.


You have made the point that I have always made, that traffic-safe cycling requires the vehicular-cycling skills, not bikeways. You complain that it is very difficult to get decent cyclist training in the public schools, which is a matter with which many of us are familiar. But you have not here considered the reason for this. The reason is that the members of the public don't want it. They don't want it because they think that cyclists should ride in the cyclist-inferiority manner, which they think they know all about, and because bike lanes, in their minds, make cycling safe for incompetent cyclists. Advocating bike lanes simply plays into their hand by reinforcing their superstition.

You ask for an example of an American city that has turned this around. There isn't one. The only people who have turned this around have been cyclists with sufficient experience and training to discover the falsity of the public superstition, and the traffic engineers who have recognized the ways in which bikeways and bikeway operation contradict their traffic-engineering knowledge. However, it is obvious that the only way to reverse this situation is through constant criticism of the wrong way and advocacy of the right way. That is the proper task for people who advocate doing the right thing for cyclists.

umm, there are cities around the world that have increased both numbers of bicyclists and bicyclist safety by the addition of bike specific infrastructure, boys.

umm, there are cities around the world that have increased both numbers of bicyclists and bicyclist safety by the addition of bike specific infrastructure, boys.

You have made this statement repeatedly. What evidence do you present for the two claims that you make:
1) Bikeways have increased the number of bicyclists to an extent that significantly reduces the amount of motoring.

2) Bikeways have reduced the accident rate per bike-mile while still providing service equivalent to that obtainable on normal American roadways.