Google sponsored links
Instead of arguing over which is better, blue cheese or ranch, why don't the WOL advocates huddle up and provide clear guidelines for WOLs and the BL advocates huddle up and provide clear guidelines for bike lanes.
And when a city asks about how to accomodate cyclists, we present a menu instead of an argument.
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
Ranch for onion rings, Blue Cheese for wings, carrots and celery sticks.
Sometimes I want Ranch, sometimes I want Blue Cheese. Given the choice, I'll take the cheaper one.
I think in many cases, WOL's are not there for bicycle traffic, specifically. Sometimes they appear for a while, then the lane narrows again, for whatever reason. Other times, WOL's disappear to provide an extra traffic lane. Or they are intended for on-street parking. In any event, if they were for bicycles specifically, they would tend to be uniform in width and somewhat continuous, with no parking allowed.
I guess that's what I'd want in WOL's: uniformly wide, and significantly long, no parking allowed, and including signage indicating when they start and stop, such as "Wide Lane Ends, Cyclists Merge."
Instead of arguing over which is better, blue cheese or ranch, why don't the WOL advocates huddle up and provide clear guidelines for WOLs ....
And when a city asks about how to accomodate cyclists, we present a menu instead of an argument.
We did exactly this.
http://www.campo-nc.us/BPSG/docs/CAMPO_Bicycle_Facility_Planning_and_Engineering_Guidelines_2006_02_20.pdf
See also:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/index.htm
seriously, though, good idea. there will be different solutions for different situations and locations. the problem is mostly coming to a concensus on what is best employed where.
example:
on 25mph roads, maybe bike lanes are not needed, but sharrows or signage would be nice.
on high-speed, high-traffic roads, a combo of Bike lanes, sharrows and signage with bike-triggered lights might be best.
seriously, though, good idea. there will be different solutions for different situations and locations. the problem is mostly coming to a concensus on what is best employed where.
I concur.
Although another practical issue will be whether the road is being retrofitted with cycling in mind or designed and built from scratch.
We did exactly this.
http://www.campo-nc.us/BPSG/docs/CAMPO_Bicycle_Facility_Planning_and_Engineering_Guidelines_2006_02_20.pdf
See also:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/index.htm
Nice work, Steve (and NC crew).
We did exactly this.
http://www.campo-nc.us/BPSG/docs/CAMPO_Bicycle_Facility_Planning_and_Engineering_Guidelines_2006_02_20.pdf
See also:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/index.htm
Oddly enough in your presentation, bike lanes were listed as 4 feet wide, while all other facilities alloted 5 feet to cyclists.
Other than that... nice job.
Oddly enough in your presentation, bike lanes were listed as 4 feet wide, while all other facilities alloted 5 feet to cyclists.
Other than that... nice job.
4 feet when next to a 12 foot lane and 5 feet when next to an 11 foot lane, not including gutter pan. Seems reasonable considering many standards allow the gutter pan to be counted as width.
seriously, though, good idea. there will be different solutions for different situations and locations. the problem is mostly coming to a concensus on what is best employed where.
example:
on 25mph roads, maybe bike lanes are not needed, but sharrows or signage would be nice.
on high-speed, high-traffic roads, a combo of Bike lanes, sharrows and signage with bike-triggered lights might be best.
Plus, if bike lanes are installed on high-speed roads, the width needs to be greater to compensate (and debris-free.) Of course, the commitment to sweep bike lanes on high-speed roads would have to be significant, since their length is potentially much greater.
I've seen crews vacuuming Atlanta streets just for the ambiance clean streets provide. They could just as easily sweep bike lanes.
I'm thinking (after the fashion of Sbhikes' thread about "if cycling was the primary form of transport") that we get leftovers (skinny and/or unswept BL's, etc.) because there are comparatively few of us out there compared to motorists.
(Oops, this is the "WOL" thread...anyway, back to regularly scheduled programming.)
4 feet when next to a 12 foot lane and 5 feet when next to an 11 foot lane, not including gutter pan. Seems reasonable considering many standards allow the gutter pan to be counted as width.
Actually not counting the gutter pan is fantastic... I can't tell you the number of times around here where the stencil for a BL barely fit, and that included the gutter pan.
What I was thinking however is that the 12 foot lane is likely to be a high speed road (hence wider). I want more room there. Especially if, like in this area, motor traffic is moving at 50+MPH.
BTW Ranch all the way. Ketchup for Onion rings.
Instead of arguing over which is better, blue cheese or ranch, why don't the WOL advocates huddle up and provide clear guidelines for WOLs and the BL advocates huddle up and provide clear guidelines for bike lanes.
And when a city asks about how to accomodate cyclists, we present a menu instead of an argument.
That would be an appropriate suggestion if, indeed, you did ask a city how cyclists should be accommodated. However, you are not asking that question, but you are providing facilities choices instead.
When considering how a city should accommodate cyclists, the issue boils down to one pair of options. Should the city consider that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles? Or should the city consider that cyclists should not operate as drivers of vehicles?
If it is decided that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles, then the issues are easily settled. Roads need to be designed to accommodate cyclists so operating, traffic police need to be so trained, educators need to be encouraged to teach that method of operation.
If it is decided that cyclists should not operate as drivers of vehicles, the issues become far more complicated because nobody in America has worked out how this should be done. Without knowing how this should be done, there is no basis for designing facilities, let alone all the other relevant items. One might try the Dutch sidepath system, which is probably the most comprehensive of the non-vehicular systems, but that is unlikely to succeed in an American city.
I prefer a little mustard mixed with ketchup on my onion rings.
That would be an appropriate suggestion if, indeed, you did ask a city how cyclists should be accommodated. However, you are not asking that question, but you are providing facilities choices instead.
When considering how a city should accommodate cyclists, the issue boils down to one pair of options. Should the city consider that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles? Or should the city consider that cyclists should not operate as drivers of vehicles?
If it is decided that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles, then the issues are easily settled. Roads need to be designed to accommodate cyclists so operating, traffic police need to be so trained, educators need to be encouraged to teach that method of operation.
If it is decided that cyclists should not operate as drivers of vehicles, the issues become far more complicated because nobody in America has worked out how this should be done. Without knowing how this should be done, there is no basis for designing facilities, let alone all the other relevant items. One might try the Dutch sidepath system, which is probably the most comprehensive of the non-vehicular systems, but that is unlikely to succeed in an American city.
I disagree with your paradigm; that should be quite obvious. Bike lanes are a vehicular facility. An example of a system that considers that "cyclists should not operate as drivers of vehicles" would be a network of bike paths separate from the roadway which segregates bicyclists from other traffic.
So my "menu" is made up primarily of choices of methods to accomodate cyclists bicycling vehicularly. As you have pointed out, a non-vehicular system is quite impractical in terms of both treasure and space.
Let's not confuse operating in a bike lane with not operating vehicularly. There is a reason why this thread is in the "Vehicular Cycling" forum. This "menu" (as it were) contains vehicular options; I think we can agree that vehicular cycling is the most practical way of getting around the typical American city.
Consider a bike lane a lane, since that is the ideal and we are describing the ideal. There are irregularities, but then again, there is no way to allow vehicles with vastly different speed characteristics on the same road with the same smoothness as a road with a uniform vehicle type. For instance, WOLs are irregular because there is no other instance that I know of, of a lane which allows two vehicles to drive side by side at speed.
I'm asking you all to drop the opposition stances and work on whatever part of the menu you believe in. Concentrate on developing your own ideas rather than tearing another's idea down. Bike lanes are ridden vehicularly, so are WOLs. They both require cyclist and motorist education in various degrees and they both work more or less equally well. I am convinced through these discussions that it is all a matter of taste.
4 feet when next to a 12 foot lane and 5 feet when next to an 11 foot lane, not including gutter pan. Seems reasonable considering many standards allow the gutter pan to be counted as width.
These are intended as minimums, but unfortunately some road engineers consider them to be standard sizes.
Some cities in NC are squeezing in 4' lanes next to 11' lanes, and some bike lane proponents are advocating splitting 14' wide outside lanes into narrow travel lanes next to narrow bike lanes.
I prefer 16' total width or more on busy roads. And of course, I prefer the separating stripe be omitted.
Consider a bike lane a lane... I can see how someone might look at the term "designated bicycle lane" and say: It must be a travel lane for bikes; it's got lane and bicycle in the name! but names can be deceptive. Peeking under the cover (i.e., examining the definition) reveals that a designated bicycle lane is: a portion of a roadway or shoulder which has been designated for use by bicyclists.In other words, it's no more a lane in the traveled way than a parking lane or a shoulder is (heck, it may even be a shoulder).
WOLs are irregular because there is no other instance that I know of, of a lane which allows two vehicles to drive side by side at speed.I've seen groups of vehicles driving side by side at speed (40+ mph) in non-wide travel lanes. The vehicles had handelbars, two wheels in-line and pedals (aka pedal-cycles), but motor-cycles would have worked too.
I am convinced through these discussions that it is all a matter of taste.State-sanctioned separation of individuals on the basis of a classification which affects a common and fundamental right (travel) isn't just a matter of "taste"; it's also a matter of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
In other words, it's no more a lane in the traveled way than a parking lane or a shoulder is (heck, it may even be a shoulder).
It is more of a travel lane then a parking lane because of the designation. For something to be designated for a certain purpose it has to meet certain standards.
I've seen groups of vehicles driving side by side at speed (40+ mph) in non-wide travel lanes. The vehicles had handelbars, two wheels in-line and pedals (aka pedal-cycles), but motor-cycles would have worked too.
There is a huge difference between friends riding to the same destination together in the same lane on narrow vehicles and the chaotic nature of multiple independent vehicles calling a wide lane one or two lanes depending on their whim. We have a few 20+ foot lanes here and motorists are very confused on whither it is one or two lanes. One can observe numerous (and extremely close) passing of motorists who think it is one lane by motorist who think it is two lanes. This is a major problem when the safe and proper use of the roadway is not inherent in the design. (A technical note: while most travel lanes are 10’ wide we still have a lot of cars that are only 6 feet wide so a 20 foot lane would allow for three 6’ wide cars to fit across so there is no way for a single vehicle to effectively take the lane here.)
Similarly if a cyclist takes the lane in a WOL and if the motorist thinks this should be a lane for motorists and a (implied) lane for cyclists the result could be unsafe passing. This behavior can vary a great deal depending on location. (A technical note: a WOL of 14’ wide and car that is 6 feet wide can unsafely squeeze by a cyclist taking the lane so there is no effective way for a cyclist to take the lane in a WOL.)
State-sanctioned separation of individuals on the basis of a classification which affects a common and fundamental right (travel) isn't just a matter of "taste"; it's also a matter of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Personally I find pluses and minuses to both bike lanes and WOLs but I do not find that bike lanes adversely affect my right to the road any more then WOLs or any other extra space that is perceived that cyclists must/should use.
I disagree with your paradigm; that should be quite obvious. Bike lanes are a vehicular facility. An example of a system that considers that "cyclists should not operate as drivers of vehicles" would be a network of bike paths separate from the roadway which segregates bicyclists from other traffic.
I disagree with this because if you built that network as a transportation system, then to say that just because it is separated from motorized vehicles it isn't a vehicular facility doesn't make any sense.
What is also completely illogical is to say that because we want to treat bicycles as vehicles the best way to do that is not to accommodate them at all.
Bruce:
Consider a bike lane a lane.
Ha ha. Even motorcyclists will tell you that you don't share lanes with someone you aren't riding with, I'd suspect - seems dangerous to me if you don't know the person you are sharing the lane with. Have you any others which don't rely on the drivers of the two vehicles knowing and putting extra trust in the other? And of course, bicyclists also don't share lanes unless they know each other as well.
I'm looking for an example where two strangers are asked (and indeed, required) to share lanes with one another at speed.
Ah, your segregation argument. I don't really care about your unique views of sociology here. As an aside, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't apply for two reasons: 1) cyclists are not a protected class, and 2) the 14th Amendment only applies to the federal government. You might find something similar in your state constitution, but it isn't the 14th amendment. Finally, there are always restrictions on the "fundamental right to travel". I mean, banning cars from a city center would be a restriction on the "fundamental right to travel". Restricting trucks to the right lane on the freeway is a restriction on the "fundamental right to travel". But a cyclist can still get to where he wants to go, right? Despite the supposed bike lane "restrictions" (I put the term in quotes because I don't view bike lanes as restrictive)?
By elevating the argument to cry "Segregation!!!", you are doing all us cyclists a huge disfavor: you envoke the civil rights era where segregation was specifically used to make the lives of blacks unteniable and unbearable, in the context of a line of paint on the road. Think about that for a moment. It makes us seem... trite and it makes us into whinners. Go back to arguing safety like everyone else.
I disagree with this because if you built that network as a transportation system, then to say that just because it is separated from motorized vehicles it isn't a vehicular facility doesn't make any sense.
What is also completely illogical is to say that because we want to treat bicycles as vehicles the best way to do that is not to accommodate them at all.
Context. I am focusing on primarily on-road facilities. I agree with you that well placed and well designed bike specific paths can be used to enhance a bike network, but I cannot say that a system consisting of only paths will make any sense from a technical point of view.
A WOL is an accomodation... of sorts. I am convinced that a "network" of WOL roads for the purpose of accomodating cyclists will not garner the same increases in ridership that a network of bike lanes and other facilities (like paths) will garner. But there is no direct data supporting my point of view, though I must say that there is scant data to this point at all and you will have more difficulty trying to claim that WOLs will garner more ridership than bike lanes enhanced with paths and other forms of accomodation. I am on firmer ground though, that a bike lane network is sufficient for the purpose of helping to increase ridership, without a direct comparison to a network of WOLs.
A WOL is an accomodation... of sorts. I am convinced that a "network" of WOL roads for the purpose of accomodating cyclists will not garner the same increases in ridership that a network of bike lanes and other facilities (like paths) will garner.
AGREED.
WOLs will not increase ridership in communities.
WOLs will keep some cyclists on the sidewalks.
WOLs leave 'average' cyclists curb hugging, dodging in and out of parked cars and incorrectly positioned at intersections.
There are many flaws in promoting WOLs' as 'accomodation' for bicycling.
I'm looking for an example where two strangers are asked (and indeed, required) to share lanes with one another at speed.
Most states have laws requiring slower motorists to use the rightmost lane on multilane roads. Being anywhere in the rightmost lane is sufficient for compliance.
But for cyclists, most states go even further than that and require cyclists to ride as "far right as practicable". Thus, a cyclist is required to ride far enough right in a WOL to allow faster drivers to pass in the same lane, something which no other drivers have to do.
Therefore, on a road with a WOL, a motorist slower than other motorists and a cyclist slower than all traffic are both required to share the outside lane.
Instead of arguing over which is better, blue cheese or ranch, why don't the WOL advocates huddle up and provide clear guidelines for WOLs and the BL advocates huddle up and provide clear guidelines for bike lanes.
And when a city asks about how to accomodate cyclists, we present a menu instead of an argument.
But we can't look at facilities in isolation from the laws that govern their use. Cyclists have no more restrictions than slow motorists on NOL, slightly more restrictions on WOL (due to the far to the right laws), and (at least in California) severe restrictions where there is a BL (due to mandatory bike lane use laws).
If we didn't have far to the right laws and mandatory bike lane use laws, then I could agree with BrianR.
But we can't look at facilities in isolation from the laws that govern their use. Cyclists have no more restrictions than slow motorists on NOL, slightly more restrictions on WOL (due to the far to the right laws), and (at least in California) severe restrictions where there is a BL (due to mandatory bike lane use laws).
If we didn't have far to the right laws and mandatory bike lane use laws, then I could agree with BrianR.
The mandatory use laws have so many exceptions, that effectively the law is nothing more than an advisory.
you're acting like mandatory use laws automatically "come with" bike lanes. that's untrue. a much-cherished argument of anti-facilities folks, but untrue.
... motorcyclists will tell you that you don't share lanes with someone you aren't riding with ...Motorcyclists (who weren't traveling with me) have passed me a number of times within a marked lane.
... bicyclists also don't share lanes unless they know each other as well. Strangers on bicycles have passed me within marked lanes more times than I can remember.
... the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't apply for two reasons: 1) cyclists are not a protected class, ... True, but that's not the only way to qualify for strict scrutiny. Quoting from the Equal protection article at WEX (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection):
The Supreme Court...will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." ... The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel.
... and 2) the 14th Amendment only applies to the federal government.
From that same WEX article:
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
... banning cars from a city center would be a restriction on the "fundamental right to travel". Such a regulation doesn't have to discriminate, as it can be based just on individual merit rather than a classification. For example, the operation of a piece of heavy equipment (such as a car) in a public area can be constitutionaly infringed by the government on the basis that doing so would pose an extraordinary danger to others or their property. In contrast, bicyclists aren't capable of posing more than an ordinary danger.
there are practical restrictions in WOLs that reduce their effectiveness for bicyclists as a group, regardless of laws.
1) a bicyclist cannot practically 'take the lane' of a WOL approaching an intersection- if a bicyclist is in the middle of a WOL to attempt to block, drivers can (and will!) pass on both sides.
2)WOLs leave some cyclists riding on the sidewalks.
3) WOLs leave the 'average' bicyclist hugging curbs, darting in and out of parked cars, and incorrectly positioned at intersections.
4) WOLs and traffic congestion can require a lot of traffic weaving or bikes get stuck in traffic just like the rest of the road users- bikes ALWAYS can get stuck in a narrow lane, sometimes stuck in traffic in a WOL.
5) WOLs approaching intersections still encourage curb hugging. more so than accomodating velotransit lanes that are striped to the left of right turning lanes.
WOLs can have effects on slow speed roads. RELYING on WOLs as the sole road accomodation for bicyclists provides a weak advocacy platform and leave roads autocentric in design, and continue to allow unsafe operation by bicyclists; while providing none of the benefits of preferred class lanes as community infrastructure to increase road cycling, bicyclists' visibility, and overall safety.
The mandatory use laws have so many exceptions, that effectively the law is nothing more than an advisory.
Yes, but the burden of proof on the cyclist to demonstrate that the exceptions applied.
you're acting like mandatory use laws automatically "come with" bike lanes. that's untrue. a much-cherished argument of anti-facilities folks, but untrue.
That's why for bike lanes I specifically indicated California as an example; I realize that most states don't have mandatory bike lane use laws.
But my point is that the situation can differ depending on the laws. In California, I prefer a WOL over a BL, in part because there's less restriction. But in another state where I'm required to share a WOL but don't have to use a BL, then in that case a BL could be better.
Yes, but the burden of proof on the cyclist to demonstrate that the exceptions applied.
That's why for bike lanes I specifically indicated California as an example; I realize that most states don't have mandatory bike lane use laws.
But my point is that the situation can differ depending on the laws. In California, I prefer a WOL over a BL, in part because there's less restriction. But in another state where I'm required to share a WOL but don't have to use a BL, then in that case a BL could be better.
There is no difference in the restrictions between a WOL with the caviat that you must ride as close as practicable to the right, and a bike lane with (CA) mandatory use laws. The results are the same... you the cyclist are still required to ride to the right, unless you the cyclist can demonstrate a need to move away from the right. The application of different laws still yields the same result.
there is NO burden of proof effectively required, unless a bicyclist is in court or suing a motorist.
the 'burden of proof' argument against use laws with exceptions is so weak as to be a worthless argument, in my opinion.
what matters much more are PRACTICAL burdens, like the ones I mentioned above about WOLs.
1) a bicyclist cannot practically 'take the lane' of a WOL approaching an intersection- if a bicyclist is in the middle of a WOL to attempt to block, drivers can (and will!) pass on both sides.
2)WOLs leave some cyclists riding on the sidewalks.
3) WOLs leave the 'average' bicyclist hugging curbs, darting in and out of parked cars, and incorrectly positioned at intersections.
4) WOLs and traffic congestion can require a lot of traffic weaving or bikes get stuck in traffic just like the rest of the road users- bikes ALWAYS can get stuck in a narrow lane, sometimes stuck in traffic in a WOL.
5) WOLs approaching intersections still encourage curb hugging. more so than accomodating velotransit lanes that are striped to the left of right turning lanes.
But we can't look at facilities in isolation from the laws that govern their use. Cyclists have no more restrictions than slow motorists on NOL, slightly more restrictions on WOL (due to the far to the right laws), and (at least in California) severe restrictions where there is a BL (due to mandatory bike lane use laws).
If we didn't have far to the right laws and mandatory bike lane use laws, then I could agree with BrianR.
I like this. There is a basis for agreement here, between you and I at least. Thinking from both the perspective of motorists and the perspective of cyclists, how would we change these laws? Both these laws are cousins with the intention to keep the theoretical cyclist from "blocking" traffic for extended lengths of time. Is a compromise possible which would allow cyclists better use of the full road while allaying the concerns of motorists about this theoretical cyclist?
I'd like to shift this conversation beyond facilities as they are and work on what they can be, not just in construction, but also in the laws governing their use. So, for the moment, assume that construction doesn't change a bit, but we are allowed god-like powers to change the laws governing the use of these two facilities. What would change, and how would these changes affect both cyclists and drivers?
Just to throw this out, perhaps the intentions of the laws are an okay compromise between the interests of motorists and cyclists, yet the wording and subsequent enforcement has driven the laws to work more against the interests of cyclists and more to the interests of motorists. Is there a way to reformulate the laws to re-center, so to speak, the balance of interests between motorists and cyclists?
The need (with a California or Oregon style mandatory use law) for the cyclist to justify himself or herself in the face of a (perhaps) differing opinion given by a law enforcement officer troubles me. Yet, leaving this off may have the effect of increasing motorist intimidation as they attempt to enforce the "stay to the right" or mandatory use idea by force.
In Oregon, there was a relatively large amount of publicity regarding the addition of the exceptions to the mandatory use law in 2006. Precisely because these exceptions exist explicitly, I suspect, is part of the reason why I do not get harrassment when I bicycle outside of the bike lane. The exceptions are explicitly stated, which, while on one hand requires us to justify ourselves, also makes it explicit that we are allowed out of the bike lane and implicitly gives the reasons why we might be traveling outside the bike lane.
It is an interesting situation that cuts both ways. We might have to justify ourselves at times to an officer of the law and defend a ticket, but at the same time, it implicitly justifies being outside the bike lane to the average motorist. It is a compromise that I can, perhaps, live with. Is there a way to get the latter without the former?
Just to throw this out, perhaps the intentions of the laws are an okay compromise between the interests of motorists and cyclists, yet the wording and subsequent enforcement has driven the laws to work more against the interests of cyclists and more to the interests of motorists. Is there a way to reformulate the laws to re-center, so to speak, the balance of interests between motorists and cyclists?
Is the wording really wrong? Or is it the subsequent enforcement based on misunderstanding the law, similar to the misconceptions of the public ("bikes are supposed to get out of the way... ") that really causes the problems?
Is there any case on record of the law being used to the detriment of a cyclist? Somewhere where they had to prove a status and failed to achieve satisfaction due to the law?
Again, I think misunderstanding the law may be the issue, not the law itself.
Does LCI_Brian or Bruce Rosar know of any case that could be discussed?
The need (with a California or Oregon style mandatory use law) for the cyclist to justify himself or herself in the face of a (perhaps) differing opinion given by a law enforcement officer troubles me. Yet, leaving this off may have the effect of increasing motorist intimidation as they attempt to enforce the "stay to the right" or mandatory use idea by force.
In Oregon, there was a relatively large amount of publicity regarding the addition of the exceptions to the mandatory use law in 2006. Precisely because these exceptions exist explicitly, I suspect, is part of the reason why I do not get harrassment when I bicycle outside of the bike lane. The exceptions are explicitly stated, which, while on one hand requires us to justify ourselves, also makes it explicit that we are allowed out of the bike lane and implicitly gives the reasons why we might be traveling outside the bike lane.
It is an interesting situation that cuts both ways. We might have to justify ourselves at times to an officer of the law and defend a ticket, but at the same time, it implicitly justifies being outside the bike lane to the average motorist. It is a compromise that I can, perhaps, live with. Is there a way to get the latter without the former?
Here is an issue that comes to mind, with regard to a cyclist "defending themselves... " This is a judgement call issue... the judge or cop may not have suitable cycling experience and therefore how can they judge whether a "hazard" is a hazard?
By the same token, a split in pavement may not be a hazard to a cyclist riding 32mm knobbies, but could well be a hazard to a cyclist on 23mm tires. Only the cyclist is the best judge of the issues they face.
Nobody has ever asked me to justify why I left a bike lane. Plenty of people have demanded some sort of justification for my existence on NOLs and plenty of people just get in my way for no reason at all in WOLs.
I demand justification for why motorists can willy-nilly drift all over a WOL without trying to determine if faster-same-direction traffic (me) is coming from behind.
I demand justification for why motorists can willy-nilly drift all over a WOL without trying to determine if faster-same-direction traffic (me) is coming from behind.
I can just picture sbhikes with a helmet cam submitting her evidence that a motorist failed to follow the slow moving vehicle law in allowing the faster cyclists to pass. That would make for some great headline news! ;)
I'm going to respond mostly to BrianR in #31, but also tangentially to his and Gene's followups up to #36.
If I had god-like powers to change the law, for multilane roads I would default to normal driving rules, requiring cyclists to be in the rightmost lane, in part because cyclists don't significantly delay motorists on these roads. For two lane roads, I'd probably keep some form of a far to the right law.
Coming back down to reality, in the short term I'd settle for a much direct and clearer wording of the current laws. My main gripe is that the current laws are written bass-ackwards, in that a cyclist must stay right, unless (add exceptions here) - especially when in some areas, the exceptions always apply! Perhaps the law had to be written that way as a political compromise. But when these laws are quoted or excerpts are used for safety materials, some or all the exceptions are conveniently omitted.
Police harassment does happen around here - mostly with groups on weekends, but even with individuals cyclists during the week. In the case of groups either the police are ignorant of the law, or especially in the case of the wealthier areas they know the law and pretend the exceptions don't exist. Usually when individuals are harassed or cited it is because the police officer feels its for the cyclist's own safety.
A while back the statewide coalitions in California tried to turn around the wording of the "far to the right" law to make the exceptions the main part and then only require riding far to the right when the exceptions didn't apply. Although this reshuffling wouldn't have given cyclists any more rights than current law, this met into stiff opposition from the Highway Patrol, and other the other groups (such as AAA) that said "me too". The main thing was that they were either ignorant of or ignoring the cyclists' current right to "take the lane", essentially implying that the proposed law was giving cyclists additional rights to use the roadway at the expense of safety. Lesson learned is that you can't change the law without a broad spectrum of support (or at least non-opposition) - easier said than done.
I don't mean this as a dig against facilities advocates, but all of this does make me wonder if one of the reasons many cycling organizations advocate for facilities because it's easy to do so - at least compared to trying to change motorist and police attitudes about cyclists and cycling. For example, it's easier to get a city to put a bike lane stripe on a road to try to communicate to motorists that cyclists belong on the road, as opposed to hiring a marketing firm to come up with a message and then paying for air time to show it on TV during prime time.
Time to go back into lurk mode, life is getting busy again. Thanks for starting this, Brian.
what matters much more are PRACTICAL burdens, like the ones I mentioned above about WOLs.
[B] 1) a bicyclist cannot practically 'take the lane' of a WOL approaching an intersection- if a bicyclist is in the middle of a WOL to attempt to block, drivers can (and will!) pass on both sides.
I experienced the two sided pass too often when using the right lane to go around a right hand turn lane. I'm pretty sure I've never had someone pass me on the right in a WOL though when I was "taking the lane." Then again, I don't ride in the middle of the WOL but rather to the left where motorists generally tend to drive in a WOL. You do realize that the same thing can (and will!) happen when leaving a bike lane. It's happened to me before at intersections (the worst of all places for this to occur).
Also, cyclists on almost any road cannot completely block unsafe passes from occurring. That's why it's important to communicate to help dissuade motorists from ever getting the idea to pass when you really don't want them to pass. Bike lanes make for no more safer passing than any other road arrangement. Bike lanes certainly don't keep people from passing at bad times either.
2)WOLs leave some cyclists riding on the sidewalks.
So do bike lanes and shoulders and quiet, wide 25mph neighborhood roads.
We've gone through the rest before so I won't repeat myself.
If I had god-like powers to change the law, for multilane roads I would default to normal driving rules, requiring cyclists to be in the rightmost lane, in part because cyclists don't significantly delay motorists on these roads. For two lane roads, I'd probably keep some form of a far to the right law.
My imagined powers would change the laws the exact same way. It would say basically the same thing that Delaware law says today but I think it would be clearer and to the point allowing for much less chance of it being misinterpretted. The current laws combine the rules for multilane roads and single lane (each direction) roads into one law which leads to some confusion. We've had a discussion on this forum before about the meaning of the words "or" and "and" in the vehicle code which demonstrated how people will tend to intepret laws however they see fit when it's not worded explicitly.
I don't mean this as a dig against facilities advocates, but all of this does make me wonder if one of the reasons many cycling organizations advocate for facilities because it's easy to do so - at least compared to trying to change motorist and police attitudes about cyclists and cycling. For example, it's easier to get a city to put a bike lane stripe on a road to try to communicate to motorists that cyclists belong on the road, as opposed to hiring a marketing firm to come up with a message and then paying for air time to show it on TV during prime time.
Oh clearly there is motivation for this... HH and I discussed this some time back. For instance a city may be granted federal funds for improving a road by adding extra width for a bike lane. Yet there may not be federal funds for simply making a WOL... so there is political motivation for bike lanes. Also politicians get photo opps by adding paint.
Trying to change behaviour of all cyclists and all motorists on a road would be nearly impossible... yet add paint or a light or maybe a sign and you can modify behaviour passively vice trying to train or retrain all those road users in some sort of class.
And in spite of the objections of folks like JF, stripes do have enough "magic power" to modify behaviour... which is why there is a stripe down the center of the road... the darn things work, to some degree.
And indeed there are negative aspects... the "get in a bike lane" aspect. Clearly BL are not the ultimate solution.
And in spite of the objections of folks like JF, stripes do have enough "magic power" to modify behaviour... which is why there is a stripe down the center of the road... the darn things work, to some degree.
If by "work" you mean that they remove ambiguity the result of which is motorists going faster then yes, they work (much like bike lane stripes "work"). I've been on enough roads without centerlines to know that the lack of a centerline doesn't mean that the road is a death trap.
If by "work" you mean that they remove ambiguity the result of which is motorists going faster then yes, they work (much like bike lane stripes "work"). I've been on enough roads without centerlines to know that the lack of a centerline doesn't mean that the road is a death trap.
But you certainly have to be more alert and drive slower than if the road had a center line.
A driver's attention bandwidth is only so large. Lines organize the road such that, instead of the driver having to track each and every road user equally, he or she can parce out only the exceptions and pay more attention to those. This is the magic power of lines.
If by "work" you mean that they remove ambiguity the result of which is motorists going faster then yes, they work (much like bike lane stripes "work"). I've been on enough roads without centerlines to know that the lack of a centerline doesn't mean that the road is a death trap.
Yes, the lines perform the function of ordering traffic. That is exactly what they should do. No "magic" in that.
And indeed traffic does move faster when it is orderly. I believe John Forester mentions that cyclists prefer to go fast.
For most people, the time required to travel is a significant personal cost; they choose to travel by the quickest route. Cyclists are no different; they frequently choose the route that takes least trip time. Since one of the joys of cycling is the pleasure of moving along as fast as one wants, cyclists choose routes that allow them to maintain their desired speeds with few delays. These two characteristics determine the high priority that voluntary transportational cyclists place upon direct routes with few interruptions, which means, in the great majority of cases, traveling along major arterials.
Here is traffic without the order of lines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr5Gssaxl6g
On the plus side the traffic is moving at a "human pace." Perhaps removing all the lines is a far better solution over all. Do you think it will work? Cyclists in China certainly do not move at a pace desired by voluntary transportation cyclists in the US... unless you consider the speed of sidewalk cycling a good pace.
Order does indeed bring more speed. The question is how much order and how much speed is enough.
RELYING on WOLs as the sole road accomodation for bicyclists provides a weak advocacy platform and leave roads autocentric in design. WOL's encourage unsafe, curbhugging operation by the average bicyclist while providing none of the benefits of preferred class lanes as community infrastructure to increase road cycling, bicyclists' visibility, and overall safety.
RELYING on WOLs as the sole road accomodation for bicyclists provides a weak advocacy platform and leave roads autocentric in design. WOL's encourage unsafe, curbhugging operation by the average bicyclist while providing none of the benefits of preferred class lanes as community infrastructure to increase road cycling, bicyclists' visibility, and overall safety.
Wide outside lanes are vehicle-type-neutral. Conversion of of nice WOLs to create striped bike lanes explicitly designates the curbside as the place for bicyclists, rather than encouraging safer destination positioning and speed positioning based on context. There is no operational benefit to being a "preferred class" on the ordinary streets where I live; being an equally entitled user of available roadway space is all that is generally required. Perhaps in a few dense urban places where the road system is inadequate to manage traffic congestion, cyclists might desire designated space to travel faster than other traffic, but this is of little interest elsewhere and has its own operational complications. A few locations such as bridges or freeway-like roads might perform better for cyclists with the addition of striping on adequate pavement width if that space is properly maintained. However, these locations make up such a small percentage of roadway miles that basing an advocacy platform on class separation is not in the best interest of cyclists. The best way to improve cyclist's visibility and overall safety is to educate them to use lights at night and ride according to vehicular, defensive driving practices that are generally uncorrelated with with bike lane positioning at intersections.
But you certainly have to be more alert and drive slower than if the road had a center line.
A driver's attention bandwidth is only so large. Lines organize the road such that, instead of the driver having to track each and every road user equally, he or she can parce out only the exceptions and pay more attention to those. This is the magic power of lines.
I've observed many roads before and after the addition of centerline striping. After the striping, drivers traveled faster, and passed cyclists at closer distance than before the striping, when they were more likely to cross the center of the roadway to give cyclists extra space, and paid closer attention to the trajectory of oncoming traffic. This is why some communities use removal of the centerline marking as a traffic calming measure.
On higher speed roads with higher traffic volumes of drivers traveling longer distances, centerline striping is associated with reduced head-on collisions. By making it easier to judge the position of oncoming traffic and where one should be, fatigue is reduced over long trips with many oncoming drivers,and the reduced fatigue/easier judgement increases safety.
My general conclusion about roadway structuring such as guideline striping is that it is most appropriate for longer-distance, higher-speed arterial routes used by higher volumes of traffic, while on shorter distance routes where slower speeds are desired and a greater diversity of traffic types and movements are expected, less roadway structuring is preferred in favor of encouraging drivers to focus on individual road users.
plying the tired 'education' gambit again, eh steve?
curbside is NOT where well implemented bike lane designs place cyclists; bike lanes have a place on many high speed roads in suburbia, urban and rural locales, not marginalized like you describe them.
bike lanes can and do provide a more visible road position than wide outside lanes alone provide to the 'average' bicyclist, who will be curb hugging and dodging in and out of parked cars along roads with wide lanes.
WOLs are PART of an effective bike accomodation plan for communities (low speed, low traffic roads); however, relying on WOLs as the default road design for cycling on all roads in a community will continue to leave bicyclists curb hugging and marginalized, and the roads autocentric in focus and scope.
My general conclusion about roadway structuring such as guideline striping is that it is most appropriate for longer-distance, higher-speed arterial routes used by higher volumes of traffic, while on shorter distance routes where slower speeds are desired and a greater diversity of traffic types and movements are expected, less roadway structuring is preferred in favor of encouraging drivers to focus on individual road users.
What you have observed and commented upon is generally true... the problem is that the west tends to be dominated by "longer-distance, higher-speed arterial routes used by higher volumes of traffic," and those areas that are "shorter distance routes" tend to be the side streets of gated planned communities... with the latter not having connective roads at all. (in fact those gated communities often find that they later improve by adding MUPs that allow walking and cycling outside of their gates.)
What you have shown visually from Cary NC is a very nice environment in which I too would question the need for bike lanes. Now imagine that the main thru roads were instead "urban freeways" of 6 or more lanes, where the traffic moves at 50MPH+... hardly the bucolic picture of Cary NC or even Amsterdam. Imagine long stretches of strip malls extending for miles on these 50MPH corridors... and you have something of the picture of the western states. (remember the pictures of Columbine, and the long stretches of strip malls?)
In all honesty, perhaps the best solution is one joejack and others have discussed... where the entire right lane is a slow lane for both motorists and bicycle traffic. The right lane typically is slower due to merging... fill that lane with sharrows and post slower speeds for the lane and "human scale" is reintroduced.
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.