Google sponsored links
Whether old neighborhoods or modern suburban arteries, wide lanes offer more room for cyclists. The width of so many American roads is really great.
What I'd like to see is greater awareness that cyclists are a part of the traffic design.
We can argue "bike lanes" vs. "wide lanes" all we want. I think the main reason many cyclists like bike lanes is the validation it gives us as belonging.
What about an overall acknowledgement that cyclists belong, bike lane or not?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
We can argue "bike lanes" vs. "wide lanes" all we want. I think the main reason many cyclists like bike lanes is the validation it gives us as belonging.
In the morning, the lighter traffic makes cycling to work much more pleasurable than in the afternoon, when it's heavy. I really prefer the back roads through quiet neighborhoods in the afternoon.
But then my wife tells me, "What took you so long?" :p
maybe those wide lanes need some bike lane stripes in the afternoons? :lol:
Whether old neighborhoods or modern suburban arteries, wide lanes offer more room for cyclists. The width of so many American roads is really great.
What I'd like to see is greater awareness that cyclists are a part of the traffic design.
We can argue "bike lanes" vs. "wide lanes" all we want. I think the main reason many cyclists like bike lanes is the validation it gives us as belonging.
What about an overall acknowledgement that cyclists belong, bike lane or not?
Amen. If there was greater awareness and acceptance of cyclists as part of traffic... the silly lines need not exist at all. They are only about awareness... however negative are some of the effects, it is awareness, none the less.
And Portland police are well aware of where cyclist belong!
We can argue "bike lanes" vs. "wide lanes" all we want...Some people evidently can. The arguments are really quite pointless. Pavement width is good, white lines or not.
Many of the pissing matches on this forum are about little more than terminology and symbolism.
I find it interesting that, on the Bike St. Louis map (http://www.bikestlouis.org/map.htm) (Map10.pdf (http://www.bikestlouis.org/Map10.pdf), 3 Mb), wide outside lanes are called bike lanes (on the bottom of page two, under the heading "Types of Bikeways"). Three types of "Shared Bike Lanes" are shown. They look like WOLs to me. I wonder if foaming-at-the-mouth bike-lane haters are opposed to those types of 'bike lanes'. And I wonder if a way to reduce the numbers of FATMBLHs who throw hissy fits about bike lanes is to call the lanes "WOLs with linear markings".
Meanwhile, I just keep riding by bike.
I'm as free as a breeze
And I ride where I please
Saddle tramp, saddle tramp.
The foaming-at-the-mouth normal travel-lane haters are opposed to those types of 'bike lanes' when they do not contain the white strip and funny little man.
maybe those wide lanes need some bike lane stripes in the afternoons? :lol:
Do bike lanes keep traffic levels down? If so, we need some of that special paint you guys are using.
I think the main reason many cyclists like bike lanes is the validation it gives us as belonging.
I keep seeing statements about why "cyclists" want bike lanes. Seldom to these statements reflect what I feel, or the feelings of other local cyclists I know. Just where do these oft-quoted reasons come from, I wonder?
:lol:
The WOL vs. BL "debate" has raged on these forums for a long time. How about you tell us about your thoughts on the subject, LBM?
maybe those wide lanes need some bike lane stripes in the afternoons? :lol:
As you like, but it won't decrease the traffic flow, which is the main reason I sometimes take detours on "the road less travelled." ;)
:lol:
The WOL vs. BL "debate" has raged on these forums for a long time. How about you tell us about your thoughts on the subject, LBM?
If it will tickle your funny bone, Brian. ;)
There is really only one reason I prefer WOL's to BL's, and for the record, it's not a "religious conviction," so to speak: BL's tend to gather debris quite rapidly around here; but also for the record, WOL's are not free of debris, either.
I'm sorry, I guess I'm not much of a comedian... :)
Man, LBM, you are a bore... ;)
Absent the debris, any reason to prefer one over the other?
BL's tend to gather debris quite rapidly around here; but also for the record, WOL's are not free of debris, either.
I'm sorry, I guess I'm not much of a comedian... :)Actually, that was pretty funny.
The debris-gathering characteristics of BLs is one of the best arguments that the white paint phobics / WOL worshippers have. What's funny is that some VC-ists (apparently including John Forester himself) prefer shoulders over BLs. Wow, talk about debris. What a hoot!
Personally, I don't give a rats behind about bike lanes. While I'm no fan of governments wasting good paint, I'm not superstitious about white paint on the pavement, either (and I've been practicing riding over pine needles).
Governments have been doing stupid stuff for as long as I remember. I much prefer that the goverment do harmless stupid stuff (like waste paint).
Honestly, the bike lane debate is one of the stupidest, most nonsensical, debates I've ever seen in my life-- no foolin'.
I find the debates interesting but, then, it always amuses me to see wacky religious zealots wrestling with the realities of modern bureaucratic government. It would make a great reality TV show-- "Tilting at Windmills."
Man, LBM, you are a bore... ;)
Absent the debris, any reason to prefer one over the other?
I might say that some uneducated motorists think I should be "imprisoned" in the bike lane, but on the other hand, it's probably these same motorists who think I don't belong in a WOL, either.
The debris-gathering characteristics of BLs is one of the best arguments that the white paint phobics / WOL worshippers have.
Here in Atlanta, I've seen everything that has changed here over the last 30-odd years (not that I remember everything, but... :) ) Bike lanes were non-existant here back then. When I saw them being installed here-and-there, the first thing I noticed as a cyclist was that suddenly, the debris started building up in them, and I'd have to ride further and further away from the curb.
That's why I say they need to be properly maintained. I'm not afraid of a white line all by itself. Why should I be? It's just that the white line keeps most cars away, and that's why the debris accumulates.
Actually, that was pretty funny.
The debris-gathering characteristics of BLs is one of the best arguments that the white paint phobics / WOL worshippers have. What's funny is that some VC-ists (apparently including John Forester himself) prefer shoulders over BLs. Wow, talk about debris. What a hoot!
Personally, I don't give a rats behind about bike lanes. While I'm no fan of governments wasting good paint, I'm not superstitious about white paint on the pavement, either (and I've been practicing riding over pine needles).
Governments have been doing stupid stuff for as long as I remember. I much prefer that the goverment do harmless stupid stuff (like waste paint).
Honestly, the bike lane debate is one of the stupidest, most nonsensical, debates I've ever seen in my life-- no foolin'.
I find the debates interesting but, then, it always amuses me to see wacky religious zealots wrestling with the realities of modern bureaucratic government. It would make a great reality TV show-- "Tilting at Windmills."
I would agree that it's silly to argue about debris building in bike lanes and then tout shoulders as if they are debris free. Touting a shoulder as more vehicular than a bike lane is a different story though. Not all bike lanes/shoulder accumulate debris and where they don't, they make convenient places to move over to allow faster traffic to pass. No more convenient than a wide lane though, which in my experience, tend to have the debris build up start further right than a marked off bike lane/shoulder.
If bike lanes weren't touted as having such magical powers like making people no longer care that it's 95 degrees outside and jump on a bike to head to the store, then I wouldn't argue about them so much.
I would agree that it's silly to argue about debris building in bike lanes and then tout shoulders as if they are debris free. Touting a shoulder as more vehicular than a bike lane is a different story though. Not all bike lanes/shoulder accumulate debris and where they don't, they make convenient places to move over to allow faster traffic to pass. No more convenient than a wide lane though, which in my experience, tend to have the debris build up start further right than a marked off bike lane/shoulder.
If bike lanes weren't touted as having such magical powers like making people no longer care that it's 95 degrees outside and jump on a bike to head to the store, then I wouldn't argue about them so much.
Who's citing "magical powers"? Are you saying that making roads more attractive for cycling has no effect on the total number of cyclists on the streets? Who here has claimed that they are the only factor in increasing cyclists?
I kind of thought that you were on a warpath here. Why not back down a bit if you are just arguing for amusement?
I would agree that it's silly to argue about debris building in bike lanes and then tout shoulders as if they are debris free. Touting a shoulder as more vehicular than a bike lane is a different story though...Not really. It's quite silly to claim that riding on a shoulder (which isn't part of the 'traveled way' set aside for the movement of vehicles) is more vehicular than than riding in a lane (by definition, even in the case of a special use lane, set aside for the movement of vehicles).
The claim that riding on the shoulder is more vehicular than riding in a lane is really quite hilarious.
It is quite amusing to see the contortions VC-ists must go through in attempting to rationalize their superstitions regarding bike lanes.
Not really. It's quite silly to claim that riding on a shoulder (which isn't part of the 'traveled way' set aside for the movement of vehicles) is more vehicular than than riding in a lane (by definition, even in the case of a special use lane, part of the roadway set aside for the movement of vehicles).
The claim that riding on the shoulder is more vehicular than riding in a lane is really quite hilarious.
It is quite amusing to see the contortions VC-ists must go through in attempting to rationalize their superstitions regarding bike lanes.
I guess I should clarify. I use the shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass and that's about it. This movement is per the vehicle code. I will not use the shoulder like a special use lane disregarding the fact that traffic to my right is allowed to turn right at any intersection we cross which would put me in a situation where I'm passing someone on the right who's trying to make a right turn (not vehicular). If bike lanes ended before every intersection to allow traffic to mix and destination position themselves, then they'd be just as vehicular as a shoulder (assuming they are used appropriately). "Bike lanes" would also have to not be limited to just bikes just like shoulder use isn't limited to only one vehicle but allow for any slow moving vehicle or pedestrians to use them.
Who's citing "magical powers"? Are you saying that making roads more attractive for cycling has no effect on the total number of cyclists on the streets? Who here has claimed that they are the only factor in increasing cyclists?
I kind of thought that you were on a warpath here. Why not back down a bit if you are just arguing for amusement?
Again, how does a bike lane "magically" make a road more attractive to cyclists? And even if the road might be attractive (bike lane or not), how does a bike lane help people overcome their issues with getting sweaty when travelling somewhere, especially in hotter climates?
Unless I've been reading you wrong this whole time, any time you've defended the Portland bridge bike counts you've given credit to bike lanes as being the single biggest factor in increasing bike usage.
In another thread, you state:
Sociologically, bike lanes are favored because they bring more cyclists out onto the road.
Am I misinterpretting you there?
I guess I should clarify. I use the shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass and that's about it.
I do too.
This movement is per the vehicle code...I agree. It's certainly allowed be the vehicle code, and it's certainly vehicular behavior.
What I dispute is the idea that riding on a shoulder is vehicular and riding in a bike lane is not.
Note that, in a few states, bicyclists are required to ride on the shoulder in some situations. I hardly find that a good situation for cyclists.
Here in Atlanta...It's just that the white line keeps most cars away, and that's why the debris accumulates.
Recently, the county re-painted a favorite, wide, two-lane road I use everyday (N. Clarendon in Scottdale). The only difference is that before, there was no white outside line. Now, what use to be a nice, mostly clean road with 14/15 ft lanes has 12/13 ft lanes with a bunch of trash on the side. :( I seriously doubt the traffic engineers have a clue about the consequences of their painting that line.
What I dispute is the idea that riding on a shoulder is vehicular and riding in a bike lane is not.
Who makes this claim?
The appropriate lateral position for cycling may or may not coincide with either the location of a striped shoulder or a striped bike lane.
One difference is that marking and designation of the striped area as a bikeway frequently carries the legal requirement that cyclists use it, and places the legal burden on the cyclist operating outside it to demonstrate that his actions were warranted. Bike lane markings tend to get used in urban areas where there are lots of operational reasons to avoid the bike lane, but the police and general public don't appreciate these reasons. Shoulders, by contrast, are very rarely required for cyclists to use - the exceptions typically being those rural fully controlled access freeways where cycling is permitted.
Rural freeways with few junctions pose the fewest possible operational reasons to leave the shoulder area. In general, wide paved shoulders tend to be used in rural areas with fewer junctions. In urban areas with lots of junctions - the places where bike lanes are often proposed by bikeway advocates - wide outside through lanes are preferable.
In rural areas, striped paved shoulders are useful for pedestrians (there are no sidewalks; nighttime pedestrians fatalities are higher where the travel lane is the only flat place to walk), and as a way to reduce loss of control collisions if motorists dip a wheel outside the lane. (Head-on collisions involving an out-of-control driver who dropped a wheel into a soft shoulder and overcorrected are common here. ) This is why NCDOT's bicycle and pedestrian division generally promotes wide paved shoulders in rural areas without curb and gutter, and wide outside through lanes on urban roads with curb and gutter.
One difference is that marking and designation of the striped area as a bikeway frequently carries the legal requirement that cyclists use it
I wouldn't say "frequently". that's misleading. not many places have the mandatory use requirement.
I bet North Carolina still has a fair and increasing amount of sidewalk bicyclists.
just because the vc prefer wide outside lanes is not a good enough reason to not build preffered class bike lanes into community infrastructure.
Speed differentials are a better determining factor if bike lanes or wide outside lanes should be emplaced.
low speed differentials - 25-30 mile per hour roads are well accomodated with wide lanes; roads marked 35-55 MPH are better accomodated with preferred class lanes that are buffered from edge of roadway and thoughtfully accomodated at major intersections.
And a big vcist beef against bikelanes is that the Legal onus is on cyclists to prove they were operating legally? the first time I get stopped and ticketed for operating outside of a bike lane while avoiding debris or for my personal safety, I'll eat my Brooks, Steve...
Debris? sweep streets. they sweep the bike lanes around these parts...
I agree. It's certainly allowed be the vehicle code, and it's certainly vehicular behavior.
What I dispute is the idea that riding on a shoulder is vehicular and riding in a bike lane is not.
Note that, in a few states, bicyclists are required to ride on the shoulder in some situations. I hardly find that a good situation for cyclists.
Steve did a good job addressing the shoulder/bike lane vehicular issue so I won't elaborate any more than I have already.
I believe the only state with mandatory shoulder use is Maryland and I agree that it's certainly not a good thing, though not any worse than a mandatory bike lane use law. I sometimes wonder if I'm on the receiving end of some of thenegative sides of a mandatory shoulder use law cycling in the bordering states of DE and PA (I rarely end up in Maryland). I have been pulled over for not using a notoriously dirty but wide shoulder in DE on a quiet Sunday morning. No ticket received as I was doing nothing illegal.
Recently, the county re-painted a favorite, wide, two-lane road I use everyday (N. Clarendon in Scottdale). The only difference is that before, there was no white outside line. Now, what use to be a nice, mostly clean road with 14/15 ft lanes has 12/13 ft lanes with a bunch of trash on the side. :( I seriously doubt the traffic engineers have a clue about the consequences of their painting that line.
What????
North Clarendon, leading out of Avondale?
That used to be sweet. Now it's full of trash?
That's the kind of thing that really puts me off.
I guess they thought the bike lane would link up to the bike path after crossing North Decatur?
:(
One more lesson for cyclists: bike lanes can narrow a good road, if they aren't swept.
Map Tester, you just made me realize something: the bike path on Church Street (the continuation of Clarendon after North Decatur) actually replaces a bike lane. So Church Street, which is wide enough to accomodate cyclists on the street, (especially to get past that bottleneck at the 4-way stop) will be fine to ride on. :) Hey, I avoid all those bike-path-stop-signs, anyway, at least until I get to the path that's behind the trees. Then when the path crosses Ponce, I can veer right-left across (what is it, Hambrick?) to go through the local neighborhood, leading parallel to the RR, through the indusrial park area, to that side street that connects Ponce to Central. From Central, I can ride easy to Goldsmith, then down Memorial Dr. (the part that turns at right angle to 78, which is 2-lane 25 mph.) and go through Stone Mountain Village. From there, it's neighborhood riding all the way.
These "planners" obviously don't ride a bike.
Another way to go (for me) is Norman Rd. to Hambrick, then left to Central Dr.
sigh. sweep those lanes, guys.
What I dispute is the idea that riding on a shoulder is vehicular and riding in a bike lane is not.
Who makes this claim?
I'm not aware that anyone makes this claim.
And I never claimed that anyone does (I actually considered using the word 'claim' but decided it would be untenable).
I did imply that an idea either exists or, at the very least, would be a reasonable inference. I'm sticking with that :D.
VC-ists often assert that bike lanes violate basic traffic principles (a claim I dispute, btw- some BLs do but a well-designed bike lane does not). Some VC-ists also claim that riding on a shoulder does not violate basic traffic principles. From these two claims, one might reasonably get the idea that riding on a shoulder is vehicular and riding in a bike lane is not. While such an idea does not follow logically, it does seem to follow.
So it was a hypothetical idea I was disputing (always risky, I know).
BTW, I dispute the claim that riding on a shoulder does not violate basic traffic principles-- at an intersection where motorists are making right turns it certainly does-- just as riding in a poorly designed bike lane does.
When deciding whether a given facility violates basic traffic principles, VC-ists apply different statndards to bike lanes than they apply to either shoulders or, for that matter, wide outside lanes. When it comes to intersections, both shoulders and WOLs have nearly all of the same problems that bike lanes have, and they result in the same conflicts. At an intersection, both shoulders and (in states with ride-right laws) WOLs, put bicylists using those facilities to the right of right-turning traffic. The VC-ist preference for WOLs and, seemingly, for shoulders (let's call them inferior bike lanes because, in some cases, that's what they are) is based primarily on ideology, not traffic science.
The appropriate lateral position for cycling may or may not coincide with either the location of a striped shoulder or a striped bike lane.Agreed. In either case, it is not the facility that is the problem. The problems are an mandatory use or ride-right laws that may exist, as well as a general misunderstanding of where cyclists should ride.
Advocates seem to spend an indordinate amount of time arguing about which facility is best ('my facilties type is better than yours, hey, hey, na, na') when the real issue is cyclists legal rights and acceptance by the motoring public.
An afterthought: some problems I find with shoulders are that they sometimes disappear suddenly and without adequate warning, or a shoulder that is rideable suddenly turns into a shoulder that's unrideable.
Steve did a good job addressing the shoulder/bike lane vehicular issue...Yes, he did. He always does an excellent job of presenting the VC point of view.
While I disagree with him on ideology, I rarely disagree with the specifics of what he advocates.
Yes, he did. He always does an excellent job of presenting the VC point of view.
While I disagree with him on ideology, I rarely diagree with the specifics of what he advocates.
What do you suggest for local governments that want to adopt politically-correct solutions to the detriment of cyclists who are already using the infrastructure happily, and find themselves frustrated by solutions that aren't working for them?
What do you suggest for local governments that want to adopt politically-correct solutions to the detriment of cyclists who are already using the infrastructure happily, and find themselves frustrated by solutions that aren't working for them?
I can only guess what you mean by "politically-correct solutions to the detriment of cyclists..."
But what the heck, in the spirit of good fun, I'll play.
If you mean anti-sidewalk riding laws with draconian punishments, -laws that have achieved a good deal of political correctness (even among so-called bicyclist advocates) based on decades of fear-mongering and exageration of the dangers, then I'd say, "don't do that stuff."
If you mean mandatory helmet laws which have achieved a good deal of political correctness, then I'd say, "don't do that stuff."
If you mean various efforts to promote bicycle ridership (including the creation of bike routes, bike maps (which may have some rather questionable information on them), the posting of "Share the Road" signs, etc.), I say, "go for it."
If you mean the creation of various MUPs, greenways and trails, even though some are far from perfect, again I say, "go for it." To so-called advocates who moan either that such facilities are overcrowded or too expensive, I say, "you can't have it both ways" and "quit your *****in'." :D There are far worse things governments can and do spend money on.
If you mean the painting of white lines and funny little gender indeterminant bicyclists on the roadway, I say, "who gives a crap?" I can happily use the infrastructure, even if they paint pictures of Gumby all over the place.
If you mean bicycle specific 'ride right' and mandatory use laws, I say, emphatically, "don't do that stuff!"
But, hey, governments rarely listen to a single person. Which is why bicylist advocates need to get the sh!t together and quit arguing about stupid religious stuff like the mythical powers of white paint.
Good enough rant for ya, LBM? :D
While I disagree with him on ideology, I rarely disagree with the specifics of what he advocates.
Perhaps you have inferred more about my ideology than is warranted from what I actually write.
I always prefer specifics, and I try to be careful about my generalizations from concrete (or asphalt) observations.
I believe the only state with mandatory shoulder use is Maryland ...Quoting from A Guide to Improving U.S. Traffic Laws Pertaining to Bicycling (http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm):
Mandatory Shoulder Use
Four states require cyclists to use the shoulder...
BTW:
Mandatory Sidepath Use
Fifteen states still have some version of a mandatory sidepath rule,...
and:
Bicycles to Far Right Rule
Forty-one states have adopted some form of a rule requiring cyclists to stay to the far right...
IMHO, all of these government regulations are discriminatory.
JRA, you say a lot, but you have missed my prime concerns so completely I wonder if you even discern them.
IMHO, all of these government regulations are discriminatory.
Of course they are. The question is whether the discrimination is bad. But look at it from the perspective of a majority non-cyclist. The elephant in the room with all your interpretations is the massive speed difference between cars and cyclists which exists most of the time. How can we, as cyclists, solve the overly discriminatory policies without directly addressing the elephant?
In most instances on most roads, cars and bikes cannot coexist without the cars slowing down to the speed of the cyclist or the cyclist moving out of the way of the cars. One or the other has to happen if cyclists and motorists are to coexist on the same road. Motorists naturally fear that the former will be allowed if the latter isn't enforced in some way. Does another compromise exist? That's what you have to ask yourself. If so, is it worth the political capital to implement, or are their other battles to be wagged and won before this one is tackled?
What do you suggest for local governments that want to adopt politically-correct solutions to the detriment of cyclists who are already using the infrastructure happily, and find themselves frustrated by solutions that aren't working for them?
The fallacy is that the government is only considering those cyclists on the road today. Either they don't care to increase cycling in the community, in which case, they will do whatever gets them popular support in other areas of the political arena, or they care, and they focus on the needs of potential cyclists as well as the present ones.
I believe the present cyclists would do well to first, adapt, and second, guide with an eye not towards their own needs, but the needs of those potential cyclists they hope to recruite. I fully believe that the sole consideration to bicycling safety need only be to increase the number of legally riding, on-road cyclists on the street. More cyclists means more exposure, which, over time, leads to more tolerance and more room to experiment and come to the most optimal accomodation solution. I've seen this with my own eyes watching the Portland metro area over the last 5 years.
Simply put, I don't often get yelled at anymore.
What do you suggest for local governments that want to adopt politically-correct solutions to the detriment of cyclists who are already using the infrastructure happily, and find themselves frustrated by solutions that aren't working for them?
The fallacy is that the government is only considering those cyclists on the road today. Either they don't care to increase cycling in the community, in which case, they will do whatever gets them popular support in other areas of the political arena, or they care, and they focus on the needs of potential cyclists as well as the present ones.
I believe the present cyclists would do well to first, adapt, and second, guide with an eye not towards their own needs, but the needs of those potential cyclists they hope to recruite. I fully believe that the sole consideration to bicycling safety need only be to increase the number of legally riding, on-road cyclists on the street. More cyclists means more exposure, which, over time, leads to more tolerance and more room to experiment and come to the most optimal accomodation solution. I've seen this with my own eyes watching the Portland metro area over the last 5 years.
Simply put, I don't often get yelled at anymore.
I think you make a good point, Brian. Nothing will be done at all to improve transportational cycling in a manner truly pleasing to all cyclists until there are more transportational cyclists.
Until then we can either continue to build our roads and cities so that there will never be more transportational cyclists and so that cycling is always considered a recreational activity at best, or we can try to change that thinking by striving to increase cycling among the general population.
I think you make a good point, Brian. Nothing will be done at all to improve transportational cycling in a manner truly pleasing to all cyclists until there are more transportational cyclists.
I'm all for that.
The really strange thing nobody will mention here is that I, a transportational cyclist, was doing fine for years. I really loved (and love) my commute, despite the fact that motorists didn't have a clue what I was doing out there.
Now, every change made to "improve transportational cycling in a manner truly pleasing to all cyclists" somehow falls flat for me when all is said and done, the one who's actually been doing it for all these years. Maybe things are different where you live, and that's just the point: things aren't equal all around.
Only one improvement actually made things better for me, --an unusually wide bike lane that replaced almost an entire lane on Edgewood Ave. near Inman Park, about 2 miles from downtown. What made it better?
Edgewood Ave. was part of a run-down section of town. "Yuppies" moved in. I like it, it's really nice, now that the pavement is smooth and I don't have to dodge potholes like I was in a downhill slalom.
If they had repaved it for cyclists, "Yay." But they repaved it for the "Yuppies."
"Yay."
However, I truly support whatever solutions work in your local community. I'm not a religious fanatic.
:beer:
The fallacy is that the government is only considering those cyclists on the road today. Either they don't care to increase cycling in the community, in which case, they will do whatever gets them popular support in other areas of the political arena, or they care, and they focus on the needs of potential cyclists as well as the present ones.
I believe the present cyclists would do well to first, adapt, and second, guide with an eye not towards their own needs, but the needs of those potential cyclists they hope to recruite. I fully believe that the sole consideration to bicycling safety need only be to increase the number of legally riding, on-road cyclists on the street. More cyclists means more exposure, which, over time, leads to more tolerance and more room to experiment and come to the most optimal accomodation solution. I've seen this with my own eyes watching the Portland metro area over the last 5 years.
Simply put, I don't often get yelled at anymore.
Brian mentions the "needs of those potential cyclists". The first traffic-related need of a new cyclist is to learn to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Brian states that he "believe[s] that the sole consideration to bicycling safety need only be to increase the numbers of legally riding, on-road cyclists on the street." By "legally riding" I presume that he means operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That, indeed, almost certainly would reduce the cyclist accident rate. It might well increase the tolerance of motorists for cyclists, but when I rode in the Pacific Northwest I did not notice any particularly high level of intolerance. Therefore I think that this is not as important as many people seem to feel.
Of course they are. The question is whether the discrimination is bad. But look at it from the perspective of a majority non-cyclist. The elephant in the room with all your interpretations is the massive speed difference between cars and cyclists which exists most of the time. How can we, as cyclists, solve the overly discriminatory policies without directly addressing the elephant?
In most instances on most roads, cars and bikes cannot coexist without the cars slowing down to the speed of the cyclist or the cyclist moving out of the way of the cars. One or the other has to happen if cyclists and motorists are to coexist on the same road. Motorists naturally fear that the former will be allowed if the latter isn't enforced in some way. Does another compromise exist? That's what you have to ask yourself. If so, is it worth the political capital to implement, or are their other battles to be wagged and won before this one is tackled?
This analysis is not so. The situation is far more sensitive to the number of motor vehicles using the road, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road. On those roads where bicycle traffic delays a significant number of motorists, the road is likely to be operating at near capacity in any case, and the situation calls for an increase in road capacity. That capacity may be increased by adding a full lane, or by adding a wide outside lane, depending on the relative quantity of bicyclists and the projection of future traffic. Does this require political capital? Indeed, in some areas increases in motoring capacity are opposed. However, the answer in that case is that those motorists using that area, probably many of whom are local motorists, will just have to suffer from an undercapacity roadway. That's their problem, and their fault, just as much as it is that of cyclists.
[QUOTE=JRA
VC-ists often assert that bike lanes violate basic traffic principles (a claim I dispute, btw- some BLs do but a well-designed bike lane does not). Some VC-ists also claim that riding on a shoulder does not violate basic traffic principles. From these two claims, one might reasonably get the idea that riding on a shoulder is vehicular and riding in a bike lane is not. While such an idea does not follow logically, it does seem to follow.
So it was a hypothetical idea I was disputing (always risky, I know).
BTW, I dispute the claim that riding on a shoulder does not violate basic traffic principles-- at an intersection where motorists are making right turns it certainly does-- just as riding in a poorly designed bike lane does.
When deciding whether a given facility violates basic traffic principles, VC-ists apply different statndards to bike lanes than they apply to either shoulders or, for that matter, wide outside lanes. When it comes to intersections, both shoulders and WOLs have nearly all of the same problems that bike lanes have, and they result in the same conflicts. At an intersection, both shoulders and (in states with ride-right laws) WOLs, put bicylists using those facilities to the right of right-turning traffic. The VC-ist preference for WOLs and, seemingly, for shoulders (let's call them inferior bike lanes because, in some cases, that's what they are) is based primarily on ideology, not traffic science.
Agreed. In either case, it is not the facility that is the problem. The problems are an mandatory use or ride-right laws that may exist, as well as a general misunderstanding of where cyclists should ride.
/QUOTE]
I think that all the responsible participants in this discussion agree that the vehicular-cycling principle, that cyclists should operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, prescribes the same types of action whether the cyclist is riding on a roadway with standard lanes, with wide outside lane, or with a good shoulder, or with a bike lane. One problem, as JRA mentions, is with mandatory side-of-the-road and mandatory bike-lane laws, which contradict the rules of the road (though many include many exceptions), and, if the cyclists allows them to, dictate different actions that do the rules of the road.
However, these laws are reflections of public opinion, and the problem with which the road-width discussion is concerned is public opinion. When the width is added by means of a bike-lane stripe (or even if the width is merely redistributed by that stripe), that stripe is believed to produce effects that have no empirical support, which belief, unsupported though it is, tells the public that cyclists will be safe if they ride in the bike lane and will have no need to learn the supposedly difficult and dangerous skill of operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
Those of you who recognize the overriding importance of operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles recognize that these supposed characteristics of bike-lane stripes do not exist. Yet far too many of you strongly advocate bike-lane stripes because you believe that the general public, the people whom you hope will become new cyclists, believe the false superstition. However, your advocacy of bike-lane stripes also has the effect of increasing the strength of the false superstitions, and therefore increases the difficulty of persuading more people to ride properly.
In my opinion, it would be a better strategy to work towards getting people to ride properly than it is to advocate facilities that make that task more difficult. I do not say that the better choice is easy, and I have often said that acting in accordance with the public superstition is by far the easier choice, but if there is to be a revolution in cycling, the better choice is the better choice.
When the width is added by means of a bike-lane stripe ... tells the public that cyclists will be safe if they ride in the bike lane and will have no need to learn the ... skill of operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
Substantiate those claims. In particular, prove that the presence of a bike lane leads a significant number of cyclists to believe they have "no need to learn... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road". Justify your evidence for that proof in light of the legal status of bike lanes - part of the traveled way of a road, for use by vehicles.
Unless you indicate otherwise, I will assume your general statements apply internationally. Any legal claims should be backed by specific reference to statutes. Any claims of motivation (i.e. "The bike lane was created to....") must be backed with published quoted from individuals or position papers from groups/organizations /governments.
I'm tired of your hyperbole and soap-box preaching, time you justify your sweeping statements.
The question is whether the discrimination is bad. When the government sanctions discrimination (i.e., differentiation by a classification, group, etc.) that affects a fundamental right (such as travel), it's a violation of the equal protection clause. That's bad.
... cars and bikes cannot coexist without the cars slowing down to the speed of the cyclist or the cyclist moving out of the way of the cars. There's another possibility; the overtaking driver (whether pedaling or motoring) executes a pass without even needing to slow down. In any event, we should all keep in mind that while traveling is a fundamental right, overtaking and passing is a privilege (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-150.html).
Motorists naturally fear that the former will be allowed if the latter isn't enforced in some way.I don't have that fear when I'm motoring, so I suspect that it lies elsewhere. For example, Michael Farrell (Transportation Planner II, MWCOG) once wrote in the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) list (http://archives.listserve.com/archiver/html/members/2006-06/msg00016.html) that:
... if you could get cyclists to take the lane, ... you would cause a lot of traffic congestion. If you want cyclists to ... not block motor vehicle traffic, put in the bike lane.
Does another compromise exist?I think so. For example:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/bicycleBlvd/image1.jpg
... 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 ...
Substantiate those claims. In particular, prove that the presence of a bike lane leads a significant number of cyclists to believe they have "no need to learn... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road". Justify your evidence for that proof in light of the legal status of bike lanes - part of the traveled way of a road, for use by vehicles.
Unless you indicate otherwise, I will assume your general statements apply internationally. Any legal claims should be backed by specific reference to statutes. Any claims of motivation (i.e. "The bike lane was created to....") must be backed with published quoted from individuals or position papers from groups/organizations /governments.
I'm tired of your hyperbole and soap-box preaching, time you justify your sweeping statements.
Don't be so silly. I was not referring to any legal consideration; I was referring to public belief.
You require that my account of the motivation for the creation of the standard designs for the bikeways system be backed by published quotations from individuals or position papers from groups/organizations/governments. You will not find a discussion of the motivation in any official document, because nobody was willing to admit that the purpose of bikeways was to discriminate against cyclists. If they had admitted that, the whole business would have gone down the drain. My account is that of the individual who was most active in that process, active in reducing as much as possible the deleterious effects of bikeways upon cyclists. My account is what historians call a primary source, written at the time, and then also later, of the events as they occurred. As I have written, it was necessary to deduce the motivation, but there was sufficient evidence to do so. Every action proposed by these committees about bikeways, including those actually taken, was to shove cyclists off to the side. Both committees refused to adopt actions that would be directed at the known causes of many car-bike collisions, such as left-turning cars and right-turning cars. Yet the other committee members continually justified their actions by arguing the safety of cyclists (despite the entire lack of evidence that their actions would significantly reduce car-bike collisions, and, later, the evidence against their actions), particularly those who were not what they called "professional cyclists" (by which misnomer they meant lawful, competent cyclists).
You, Patc, in your arrogance, may choose to disbelieve my account of what was done and why it was done. I put it to you that I have provided the account in the form that historians would judge the most likely to be credible. Furthermore, because my account is at odds with the popular opinion. if it is incorrect then it would be likely that there are contradictory accounts in the record. Therefore, Patc, if you choose to continue to disbelieve my account, publicly or even privately, then you are obligated to
publicize this supposed contrary historical record on which you base your opinion. Where and what is this contrary historical account?
Substantiate those claims. In particular, prove that the presence of a bike lane leads a significant number of cyclists to believe they have "no need to learn... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road". Justify your evidence ...
snip
With respect to the specific part of you posting quoted above, I need only to refer to all the advocacy on this list referring to the suitability of bikeways for beginning cyclists, meaning cyclists who do not yet know how to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You convict yourselves by issuing this propaganda.
There is, of course, the official FHWA document on Selecting Roadway Treatments that specifies bike lanes as being particularly suited to the needs of Child and Beginning cyclists.
Don't be so silly. I was not referring to any legal consideration; I was referring to public belief.
I was not being silly - deliberately provocative, perhaps, but not silly. Nice dodge of the question! Very well then, omit that part of my request. So, then:
Substantiate those claims. In particular, prove that the presence of a bike lane leads a significant number of cyclists to believe they have "no need to learn... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road".
You require that my account of the motivation for the creation of the standard designs for the bikeways system be backed by published quotations from individuals or position papers from groups/organizations/governments. You will not find a discussion of the motivation in any official document, because nobody was willing to admit that the purpose of bikeways was to discriminate against cyclists. If they had admitted that, the whole business would have gone down the drain.
Ah, so your position is that the proof does not exist because it can't exist, got it. Can you provide ANY objective evidence for this alleged motivation? Can you show that such evidence is valid internationally and in 2007?
My account is that of the individual who was most active in that process, active in reducing as much as possible the deleterious effects of bikeways upon cyclists. My account is what historians call a primary source, written at the time, and then also later, of the events as they occurred.
Yes, I realize that your account is a subjective rendering of events at a specific time and place. Thank you for your admission. Even if your account is accepted as accurate, that does noting to convince me of its relevance here and now.
You, Patc, in your arrogance, may choose to disbelieve my account of what was done and why it was done. .... Therefore, Patc, if you choose to continue to disbelieve my account, publicly or even privately, then you are obligated to publicize this supposed contrary historical record on which you base your opinion. Where and what is this contrary historical account?
I am under no such obligation (talk about arrogance!). You are presenting an account. You are presenting conclusions based on that account. You are presenting global and contemporary statements based on your conclusions. It is up to you to convince me that your statements are accurate.
With respect to the specific part of you posting quoted above, I need only to refer to all the advocacy on this list referring to the suitability of bikeways for beginning cyclists, meaning cyclists who do not yet know how to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You convict yourselves by issuing this propaganda.
The contributors to these forums present a variety of opinions, and no meaningful statement can be made that the forum members present any sort of distinct or cohesive "advocacy". The idea that we "convict" ourselves with "propaganda" is a clever emotional appeal. However emotional appeals and hyperbole cost you a great deal of credibility in my eyes. And note that I challenged you on bike lanes specifically, so not try to confuse this issue by changing the term to bikeways.
So, the only evidence you can offer that "the presence of a bike lane leads a significant number of cyclists to believe they have 'no need to learn... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road'" is the contents of this forum?
There is, of course, the official FHWA document on Selecting Roadway Treatments that specifies bike lanes as being particularly suited to the needs of Child and Beginning cyclits.
FHWA - that would be the Federal Highway Administration, I assume? Can you convince me that the document in question, with which I am not familiar, applies to bike lanes outside the USA and applies to the current date? Once that is done, can you explain to me why something "particularly suited to child and beginning cyclists" ALSO means that those cyclists will "believe they have no need to learn ... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road". It does not follow that a thing, found to be particularly suitable for beginners, will of it nature lead all users to believe they need to do no more learning.
If you prefer that I release you from defending your statement, I have no abjection to that. I understand that any single statement may not, out of context, fully and correctly represent one's opinion. However, regardless of wording, your positions re: bike lanes seem only based on your alleged experiences, at a time when I was still in diapers, in a (to me) foreign country. While I admire your skill at belittling your adversaries and manipulating discussion, this does noting to convince me to follow in your beliefs. You presented your positions, and you must convince me those positions are valid in whatever contexts (locations/times) you feel they are valid in. I am under no obligation to believe everything presented to me, nor I am under any obligation to refute everything presented to me.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.