Google sponsored links
What makes for a good bike lane?
Come on in here and offer your best advice. Tell a story about a particularly bad or good intersection or stretch of road and what makes it good or bad and what might be done to fix it, staying within the bike lane paradigm. Speak from your experience, we've heard all the theory. This is a thread to collect emperical data about what cyclists enjoy or don't enjoy from their bike lanes and how to make bike lanes better.
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 have one on a stretch of road here that has signs telling motorists that right turns yield to bicycles. Along this same stretch, there are right turn lanes and the bike lane is still clearly marked in a straight line to the left of the right turn lane. I've seen many where the expectation becomes that the right turn lane is the bike lane. I also like this one lane that is in the upper part of a T intersection where there is a stoplight. The bike lane is clearly demarkated from the travel lanes' stoplight because there is no reason that the bike lane riders need ever stop.
I'd like to comment, whether I fit all the aforementioned criteria or not, because I'm a cyclist and have some experience here.
1) I prefer bike lanes that are very wide, say 5 feet of ashphalt or more, not including the paint, and especially not including the gutter pan. This gives me more lateral movement to avoid possible road hazards, etc.
2) I prefer drain covers be made as level as possible with the pavement when they are in the bike lane, whether they are sewer lids or drain grates. Of course, drain grates should be perpendicular to my tires.
3) This one I don't see much of, but I'm hoping: sweep the lanes regularly, and as needed especially when cleaning up after a car crash. A lot of that broken stuff gets pushed into the bike lane and left there. When I'm avoiding debris in the bike lane, often motorists don't know why I'm riding to the left of the bike lane line.
4) Include signs to indicate cyclists' option to leave the bike lane to turn, or to avoid hazards, perhaps something like, "Caution: Cyclists May Leave Bike Lane," or, "Cyclists May Use Any Lane."
5) Include more signs to indicate cyclists merging back into the regular lane when the bike lane ends, like, "End Bike Lane, Cyclists Merge."
There is a very nice bike lane on Edgewood Avenue in Atlanta, it's very wide and smooth, for the most part. Slower traffic speeds and nice neighborhood only 2 miles from downtown.
There are some bad "bike lanes" in the north side of Dekalb County, which are so narrow that they cause more problems than they are worth. And in some cases, there are bike lanes that gradually get more narrow until they are just a fog line, and it's hard to tell where they really stop. If a bike lane stops, it should be clearly marked as such, just as is done for normal lanes.
I posted a while ago about these bike lanes outside of Philly, but I feel it's worth posting again. The one positive thing that I've ever seen come from bike lanes were signs indicating that the bike lane was ending as the road was narrowing. I found them useful as they indicated clearly the the road width was no longer shareable and gave me time to merge left. These signs were clearly posted in advance of the lane ending or placed such that they were easy to see in advance of reaching the end of the lane which is what made them useful.
I find them useful uphill. Sort of like a right lane for slower trucks to use on climbs out on the highway.
On a NOL had to bail into a driveway this morning when a bus nearly plowed into the back of me with the driver scowling and mouthing something. Apparently I wasn't climbing fast enough for his liking?... of course as soon as he was passed me he had to slam on the brakes for congestion ahead, but I digress.
good bike lanes - wide, swept regularily, buffered from parking, thoughtful accomodation at minor curb cuts and to the left of right turn lanes at major intersections. signs stating "cars yield to bikes" placed at regular intervals.
Speed differentials make bike lanes more conducive for installment. i doubt many bike lane advocates are encouraging bike lanes on every residential street; bike lanes make much more sense along roads where cars travel 2.5 + times faster than the AVERAGE bicyclist.
I've seen good roads that include a bike lane AND a ped lane in ruralish suburbs. very good design in my opinion, protects peds with buffer zone and places cyclists in a more visible position than wide lanes do.
In my area, some good bike lanes are very far from the door zone and some bad ones are too close to the door zone.
Also, a bike lane was recently put in on a road where once there was only a fog line on the edge. That road is much more pleasant to ride on now and I don't have to ride through sand and weeds. Ok, so some of the weeds are coming back, but now I have space to avoid them without causing motorist conniptions that I'm "swerving randomly" because I can avoid them and stay in my lane.
good bike lanes - wide, swept regularily, buffered from parking, thoughtful accomodation at minor curb cuts and to the left of right turn lanes at major intersections. signs stating "cars yield to bikes" placed at regular intervals.
Don't expect an arugment from me, here, Mr. Beko. :D
(I reiterate, "swept." :) )
(Still, something in me yearns for the same lane. :D )
Ok, I'm done, we're all friends here, right?
If I ever see a good bike lane I'll let you know. Around here they're all lousy. Narrow, dirty, misplaced, etc. I haven't seen one that's an improvement over the same road without a bike lane.
Florida cycling is different than any place Ive ever lived.
There are bike lanes all over the West Palm Beach area.
I love them !! There are only a few places that they coincide
with the Hummer / Canyonero parking lanes....Sometimes
they stop abruptly but then you can just jump up on the 6' wide
sidewalks as it appears walking is against the law.
What makes them good is that they are very clearly marked off
the way it would be best or a bcyclist to ride that stretch of
road, anyway. Too bad they couldnt work something out like that
for the sefish, arrogant and dangerous cars drivers that proliferate,
here :eek:
If I ever see a good bike lane I'll let you know. Around here they're all lousy. Narrow, dirty, misplaced, etc. I haven't seen one that's an improvement over the same road without a bike lane.
Florida cycling is different than any place Ive ever lived.
There are bike lanes all over the West Palm Beach area.
I love them !!
These two comments, for me, just about sum up the canyon that separates cyclists. We are not divided in our love of cycling. We are not divided in our desire to help our fellow cyclists, however we might understand that desire.
We are divided by our personal experience of cycling, our preferences of what constitutes enjoyable cycling, and the difference in the way we are accomodated on our local streets. Different places have different levels of quality and design.
I know my preferences. I prefer not to ride on sidewalk-paths where I am expected to yield right-of-way so often I can't make decent time (or enjoy my ride.) Besides, I live too far from work to do that, I'd be on my bike half a working shift. And I prefer to share a wide lane with motorists, rather than have a bike lane painted.
But not all cyclists agree with me. Should I expect them to?
Isn't it possible to cater to more than one kind of cyclist?
But not all cyclists agree with me. Should I expect them to?
Isn't it possible to cater to more than one kind of cyclist?
It's difficult to cater to everyone with limited resources. So no matter what happens, most of us will still be ranting and moaning on BF.
Just out of curiousity, why is this in the VC subforum? It isn't very VC specific. More of a general advocacy thing. I only ask since it seemed this subforum was created so that you could talk about things like this in the regular A&S without getting it turned into a VC thread every time. Of course it does seem that most everyone just migrated here.
As to the OP, all of the above recommentdations sound good. I can't think of anything else to add. Sadly I have yet to see any BL meeting the above criteria personally.
-D
Sadly I have yet to see any BL meeting the above criteria personally.
Drop by south Orange County, Ca. sometime. Wide, smooth, clean, well-marked bike lanes are the norm here. It's a situation that makes me think the "VC, take the lane" types are off their rockers. Living here makes it easy to forget that many cyclists still have to deal with narrow, shoulderless lanes -- and when those folks advocate a technique that may work for them but is utterly nonsensical for riders with good bike lanes, it's easy to start making fun.
Drop by south Orange County, Ca. sometime. Wide, smooth, clean, well-marked bike lanes are the norm here. It's a situation that makes me think the "VC, take the lane" types are off their rockers. Living here makes it easy to forget that many cyclists still have to deal with narrow, shoulderless lanes -- and when those folks advocate a technique that may work for them but is utterly nonsensical for riders with good bike lanes, it's easy to start making fun.
Ah ha. Well know we know why you feel the way you do. Hey hasn't most of south OC been built in the last 20 years?
Now try riding a bike in an older section of a town such as in LA or San Diego. Down here in SD the newer areas do have nice BL, but in the older areas of town, the roads are narrow and filled with parked cars. I live in a neighborhood built in the early 50s... every house has a single car garage. The other car is on the street. My street for example is so narrow that two cars can barely pass side by side. The arterial feeding my neighborhood is lined with parked cars and has two lanes... but there is no bike lane anywhere on that entire road. If I want to go east or west... I have no choice but to "take a lane."
Try cycling a mile in someone else's shoes before you heap criticism on their riding style. Helmet Head lives about 5 miles away from me, in an even older area of town that is only accessible by three main arterials, one of which is a freeway ramp.
Canyons and mesas define the geography of the area, and thus the roadways... quite often there is no "alternative path" unless it is a freeway... in fact, we have one of the rare interstate freeway bike lanes in California, because there is "no other route."
We have one on a stretch of road here that has signs telling motorists that right turns yield to bicycles. Along this same stretch, there are right turn lanes and the bike lane is still clearly marked in a straight line to the left of the right turn lane. I've seen many where the expectation becomes that the right turn lane is the bike lane. I also like this one lane that is in the upper part of a T intersection where there is a stoplight. The bike lane is clearly demarkated from the travel lanes' stoplight because there is no reason that the bike lane riders need ever stop.
Curious is there sign that states bikes need not stop or is it only a assumption? If theres a legal sign that says so i bet theres allot of bike commuters in your area hehe
Ah ha. Well know we know why you feel the way you do. Hey hasn't most of south OC been built in the last 20 years?
I've made no secret that my current opinions have been influenced by my current location -- that's one of the reasons I'm on record as saying something along the lines of "People should figure out what works for them in their situation, while remembering that their situation is unique". IOW, dogma isn't helpful.
Now try riding a bike in an older section of a town such as in LA or San Diego. Down here in SD the newer areas do have nice BL, but in the older areas of town, the roads are narrow and filled with parked cars. I live in a neighborhood built in the early 50s... every house has a single car garage. The other car is on the street. My street for example is so narrow that two cars can barely pass side by side. The arterial feeding my neighborhood is lined with parked cars and has two lanes... but there is no bike lane anywhere on that entire road.
I've ridden in both places. Occasionally I "took the lane". I did not, however, ever feel as though I needed to make a habit of it, nor that "default center" was anything but a fool's game.
If I want to go east or west... I have no choice but to "take a lane."
Which again brings us to the definition of "no choice". IMO, many VC advocates feel they almost always have "no choice", even in situations where the great majority of cyclists would be riding the shoulder.
Try cycling a mile in someone else's shoes before you heap criticism on their riding style. Helmet Head lives about 5 miles away from me, in an even older area of town that is only accessible by three main arterials, one of which is a freeway ramp.
I apologize for ever having heaped criticism upon any body else's riding style. And I stand by my opinion that "taking the lane" is a poor and avoidable choice in most situations, that anyone arguing that "VC" is always the correct thing to do is wrong, and that substituting "VC" dogma for encouraging the development of bike lanes is stupid.
Canyons and mesas define the geography of the area, and thus the roadways... quite often there is no "alternative path" unless it is a freeway... in fact, we have one of the rare interstate freeway bike lanes in California, because there is "no other route."
And again, I've done plenty of riding around canyons and mesas and still rarely found it necessary to impede traffic.
BTW, if "taking the lane" is always safe and appropriate, and car drivers just have to deal with it, why does that freeway have a bike lane? You should be able to just ride in front of 70 MPH traffic and expect the motorists to smile and wave as they safely change lanes to pass you. Right? :lol:
I've made no secret that my current opinions have been influenced by my current location -- that's one of the reasons I'm on record as saying something along the lines of "People should figure out what works for them in their situation, while remembering that their situation is unique". IOW, dogma isn't helpful.
But you are spouting dogma by suggesting that alternative routes or curb hugging is a viable solution. Heck I can't even get to the curbs in the area in and around my neighborhood. In other areas I willingly use the available bike lanes. But when there is no other way, I will and do take the lane. Narrow roads lined with parked cars offer no other alternative.
I've ridden in both places. Occasionally I "took the lane". I did not, however, ever feel as though I needed to make a habit of it, nor that "default center" was anything but a fool's game.
Which again brings us to the definition of "no choice". IMO, many VC advocates feel they almost always have "no choice", even in situations where the great majority of cyclists would be riding the shoulder.
The "shoulders" here are curb filled parked cars. The majority of slow moving cyclists ride on the sidewalk. Is that your solution too?
I apologize for ever having heaped criticism upon any body else's riding style. And I stand by my opinion that "taking the lane" is a poor and avoidable choice in most situations, that anyone arguing that "VC" is always the correct thing to do is wrong, and that substituting "VC" dogma for encouraging the development of bike lanes is stupid.
Well we partially agree... I think the discouragement of facilities by the strict VC crowd is just as foolish as not taking a lane when one needs too.
And again, I've done plenty of riding around canyons and mesas and still rarely found it necessary to impede traffic.
I think you misunderstand... the nature of the road designs here follow geography of the area... the paths through the canyons and between mesas... hence only one road may go through... while other roads terminate on top of a mesa at the canyon edge... thus no alternative route.
BTW, if "taking the lane" is always safe and appropriate, and car drivers just have to deal with it, why does that freeway have a bike lane? You should be able to just ride in front of 70 MPH traffic and expect the motorists to smile and wave as they safely change lanes to pass you. Right? :lol:
I have made the same argument while citing the need for lowered speed limits... it is my contention that strict VC cycling "falls apart" when there is a high speed differential between cyclists and motorists... thus 50MPH+ arterials with freeway like ramps should not exist on shared surface streets and cycling advocates should not support groups that promote such designs.
BTW some freeways are quite ridable... and legal. I have personally ridden the interstates from San Diego to Arizona.
I think we're both bored and like to argue. Especially in reading your stuff on other threads, I really don't think we're very far apart in our opinions or our riding.
Hey I don't mind a good debate.
But the bottom line for me RE cycling is VC is not the be all end all solution, and in some cases facilities can be quite nice... so while I will ride as a strict VC when and where I need to, I don't see a need for VCers to deny facilities. Nor do I see it beneficial for the "father of Effective Cycling" to align with a group that views the automobile as the key to freedom, with their pursuit of 50-60MPH roads... due to a misinformed view of "efficiency."
At the same time, some facilities can be a load of junk... so I can understand why some cyclists think that that facilities suck... but all facilities are not bad, so blanket arguments against facilities are also wrong.
Frankly I am somewhere in the middle... arguing that well designed lower speed roads offer the best solution, and facilities can mitigate some issues where there are no alternatives to high speed roads. (a side argument in itself.)
I also feel that properly designed neighborhoods encourage walking and cycling... and that America needs to be weaned from it's oil habit... both for economic reasons and health reasons. It's high time we stop sucking on that metaphorical "big Gulp."
With that in mind, I am pro-cycling. I am not anti car, but I do feel that too often there is too high a dependence on the auto... and that mentality has been prevalent for far too long in America and in many ways has tainted the design of neighborhoods and cities. It is time to put the auto where it belongs... as a useful form of transportation suited for longer distances and greater loads than is practical for cycling. At the same time, while moving a piano can be done by bike, it just doesn't make sense. :D
With most trips from home being only 2-3 miles, there is no reason why those trips cannot be done on a bike... and lowering speed limits and enforcing motor vehicle laws and lastly encouraging walking and cycling, especially for children and others in good health, is only a good thing.
Like I said, we aren't all that different, I don't think. I'm a little too libertarian to hop on board with the oil deal -- I think supply and demand is going to sort that one out within our lifetimes -- but most of what you say makes sense to me.
But man... the idea of some of our siliconed, lipo'd, and Botoxed South County chicks riding to the mall with their Chihuahuas perched in their Luis Vitton bike baskets... good luck with that one!
Like I said, we aren't all that different, I don't think. I'm a little too libertarian to hop on board with the oil deal -- I think supply and demand is going to sort that one out within our lifetimes -- but most of what you say makes sense to me.
But man... the idea of some of our siliconed, lipo'd, and Botoxed South County chicks riding to the mall with their Chihuahuas perched in their Luis Vitton bike baskets... good luck with that one!
Hey, get Luis Vitton to make chihuahua baskets for bikes... and who knows? :D
Hey six jours... and others... have you seen this SFPD video? http://www.cyclelicio.us/2007/08/sfp...ing-video.html
Drop by south Orange County, Ca. sometime. Wide, smooth, clean, well-marked bike lanes are the norm here. It's a situation that makes me think the "VC, take the lane" types are off their rockers. Living here makes it easy to forget that many cyclists still have to deal with narrow, shoulderless lanes -- and when those folks advocate a technique that may work for them but is utterly nonsensical for riders with good bike lanes, it's easy to start making fun.
You forgot to mention that these bike lanes are generally on high speed roads with relatively long distances between intersections, very few driveways, and no on-street parking. Even those on this forum who aren't big into bike lanes would agree that if you're going to stripe a bike lane, best to do it on those kinds of roads. (I prefer the same space but without the bike lane stripe, but that's a subject for another thread.)
That said, most of the roads in the area that cross I-5 often require dealing with multiple lanes of traffic entering or exiting the freeway. Bike lanes are not striped through these interchanges - nor would there be a logical place to route them. Crossing I-5 can be a barrier to a potential commuter cyclists, if they are only comfortable on roads with bike lanes.
You forgot to mention that these bike lanes are generally on high speed roads with relatively long distances between intersections, very few driveways, and no on-street parking. Even those on this forum who aren't big into bike lanes would agree that if you're going to stripe a bike lane, best to do it on those kinds of roads.
This is why we in Cary NC have been trying to get local engineers and planners to take our special Road 1 course designed for engineers and planners. Only with a firm understanding of vehicular cycling and real-world cycling safety tradeoffs will they understand this. Currently, the main criterion used by local planners/engineers for determining where bike lanes will or will not be striped is available pavement/ROW width, not junction frequency, door zones, roadway grade, traffic speeds/volumes, or any other operational criteria. Improved design requires the designers stop thinking like draftsmen and start thinking like competent road cyclists.
That said, most of the roads in the area that cross I-5 often require dealing with multiple lanes of traffic entering or exiting the freeway. Bike lanes are not striped through these interchanges - nor would there be a logical place to route them. Crossing I-5 can be a barrier to a potential commuter cyclists, if they are only comfortable on roads with bike lanes.
Yes, there are a number of "two traffic lane freeway entrances" here, and no, there's probably no effective way of "bike laning" them. I suppose they could turn the solid line into two dashed lines, they way they often do through right turn lanes, but I don't think it's critical, because getting safely across these entrances is not difficult. You simply look over your shoulder and proceed if there is no traffic, and if there is, you can signal with your left hand and then go. Most drivers, in my experience, are bright enough to understand that the cyclist does not intend to enter the freeway, and so do not need any encouragement to slow down and allow the cyclist to cross.
I suppose that might be an impediment to commuters, but anyone impeded by that is likely to be impeded by darn near anything. It's just not a very big deal.
Yes, there are a number of "two traffic lane freeway entrances" here, and no, there's probably no effective way of "bike laning" them. I suppose they could turn the solid line into two dashed lines, they way they often do through right turn lanes, but I don't think it's critical, because getting safely across these entrances is not difficult. You simply look over your shoulder and proceed if there is no traffic, and if there is, you can signal with your left hand and then go. Most drivers, in my experience, are bright enough to understand that the cyclist does not intend to enter the freeway, and so do not need any encouragement to slow down and allow the cyclist to cross.
I suppose that might be an impediment to commuters, but anyone impeded by that is likely to be impeded by darn near anything. It's just not a very big deal.
The problem that will occur when the traffic load becomes so heavy that motorists feel it is difficult to slow down... when they feel the pressure from the bumper to bumper 45-50MPH traffic "pushing them along." Under those circumstances, the cyclist will lose due to the freeway like configuration of the roads... with those dual on-ramps making the surface street function as part of the freeway system.
When motorists have lots of room to respond, they can and will tend to be generous... however, when they feel pressure from congestion, then decisions to grant cyclists and peds "perceived favors" falls by the wayside. This is where this type of design fails at both the BL level and the VC level. It is in effect a very auto centric design.
It's difficult to cater to everyone with limited resources. So no matter what happens, most of us will still be ranting and moaning on BF.
Trust me, ranting and moaning on BF has nothing whatsoever to do with 'resources' of any type, limited or otherwise.
:)
This is where this type of design fails at both the BL level and the VC level. It is in effect a very auto centric design.
Here's a picture of Edwards Mill road in Raleigh where the marked and signed bike lane is directed into a dual-lane freeway on-ramp just past a "Bike Lane Ends" sign:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/edwardsmill/bikelanenarrowthroughsmall.jpg
The on-ramp design is stupidly wasteful. The two on-ramp lanes actually narrow to one just before they merge onto the freeway. There is no signalization at the point where two lanes are used. Thus, having two lanes provides zero improvement in capacity over a single lane.
Yes, there are a number of "two traffic lane freeway entrances" here, and no, there's probably no effective way of "bike laning" them. I suppose they could turn the solid line into two dashed lines, they way they often do through right turn lanes, but I don't think it's critical, because getting safely across these entrances is not difficult. You simply look over your shoulder and proceed if there is no traffic, and if there is, you can signal with your left hand and then go. Most drivers, in my experience, are bright enough to understand that the cyclist does not intend to enter the freeway, and so do not need any encouragement to slow down and allow the cyclist to cross.
In this area, one common configuration for the street approaching the freeway ramp is that the rightmost lane is dedicated for the freeway on-ramp, and the next lane over is a dual straight/right. Clearly a negotiation with traffic is required to get past the ramp - but I agree with Gene about doing the negotiation at the ramp during heavy traffic. Ever seen pedestrians try to use the crosswalks across these ramps? They have to rely on the generosity of not one, but two motorists to be stopped at the same time.
So, in advance of the intersection, I merge out of the bike lane into the center of the straight/right lane. (Sometimes that may require starting the merge before the end of the bike lane striping.) That requires a negotiation with traffic, but my doing the negotiation earlier, I don't have to do a last minute negotiation at the ramp. If it's rush hour traffic, I'll use the left tire track of the straight/right lane, because it makes it obvious that I'm going straight, and makes it easier for the freeway traffic to slip by on the right. Then I'll move back over into the bike lane after I've cleared the intersection. I find that doing the merge earlier gets me through the area faster, and the motorists don't have to play guessing games as to how I'm going to cross the ramp.
Okay. In the above illustration, I'll simply look behind me -- often all that is necessary to catch the motorist's attention -- and then ride on the dashed line. Then another look behind as I approach the straight/turn option lane, with the same results. Again, not rocket science.
Of course, for folks super concerned about it, it is again worth noting that, at least in the area of south OC we are talking about, there are almost always other options, including several overpasses.
Oh, and as for the "autocentric" buzzword? At the heart of that word lies "...and all the streets are built for CARS!!!". Which, for the most part, will earn you blank stares from rational folks.
Seems to me most of this "VC" business has got a bit of a pipedream quality to it. And while there's usually nothing particularly harmful about the average pipedream, I'd hate to see bike lanes ignored or even removed due to them.
Not that I'm worried, of course -- I'd never heard of "VC" before logging into BF, and neither had anybody else I know. And in my experience, it takes a LOT of words to convince a rational person to vacate the bike lane in favor of the middle of the road -- and most folks are too well informed about cultism for it to ever really take off, IMO.
Okay. In the above illustration, I'll simply look behind me -- often all that is necessary to catch the motorist's attention -- and then ride on the dashed line. Then another look behind as I approach the straight/turn option lane, with the same results. Again, not rocket science.
This is a good point - destination positioning is not rocket science - but the ease of this realization assumes that one is already thinking of themselves as a driver.
There is an alternate paradigm - the pedestrian-on-wheels paradigm - that deters many bicycle users from using destination positioning, and encourages many road engineers to route bikeways contrary to destination positioning, or to design roads so that destination positioning is more unpleasant or dangerous than it has to be.
Consider this design, which has been modified (digitally) from before to make the second lane from the right wider:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/edwardsmill/widerthroughlanesmall.jpg
Now consider removing the second on-ramp lane in the picture entirely (it isn't needed for capacity). Would this not be better for cycling?
A very different engineering approach would be for the government to designate a sidewalk-type path on the opposite side of the road, crossing the ramps at crosswalks. This design, which has been proposed by the DOT, appears to be based on the pedestrian-on-wheels paradigm.
This is where I believe vehicular cycling has the most value as a paradigm - to explicitly identify where and how it differs from competing, conflicting paradigms of how to operate a bicycle. There will always be debate over how to apply driving concepts to cycling, but this disagreement seems small to me compared to the divide between bicycle driving and promotion of pedestrian-on-wheels inspired operation.
Isn't it possible to cater to more than one kind of cyclist?
This I seriously doubt. Back when someone invented a cycling helmet, they never expected it to become mandatory. The first person who painted the first bike lane never expected cities to relegate cyclists to them 100%, when cars took over from horses, they didn't create many horselanes to segregate them from traffic. Dual systems often fail in their general purpose. I'm thinking of Education and Healthcare. In both instances, the private institutions pay better salaries and draw good personel away from public institutions, eventually leaving the public institutions as shadows of their previous selves. It seems to me that as bike lanes become more and more commonplace, the laws applying to them continuously grow in number, and the freedoms get to be fewer and fewer, these freedoms don't only diminish through government legislation but also through personal "censorship".
Most BL riders I've seen, when approaching an intersection stick to the bike lane until it disappears, at which point, like frightened deer in headlights, they stay to the right of all traffic and then use pedestrian cycling to cross left or go straight on. My safety on bicycle is not to "merge when the sign allows me to" I merge ahead of time, whenever I detect a gap in traffic, as small as it may be, the same as if I were motoring. If I need to turn left, I may switch to the left lane a half a km ahead if there's an opening. When I eventually started driving a car, I took the exact same approach.
As we get older we can see how society evolves, how voluntary behaviors in society become mandatory behaviors, how freedom behaviors become legislated behaviors. As it stands cyclists in most cities have rightful access to ALL pavement zones except for freeways. And just as when women's lib decreased it's fight intensity for salary equity, the salary gap began to widen once more;... If we do not fight to maintain access to EVERY INCH of available pavement we will loose that access. Segregation for "safety" was one of the reasonings Apartheid used in South Africa. In the original writings, segregation was for the "good and advancement" of black people, to encourage them to thrive in "their own lane" so to say...
The other day, in the Whitehorse swimming pool's nearly empty hot tub I was floating on my back holding onto the edge with my toes so as to not float away and enjoying listening to the bubbling, well the lifeguard came up to me in a frenzy and said NOOOOOOOOOO do not submerge your head you'll get ear infections!!!!!! Funny how I've been doing that behavior for over 30 years and never got an ear infection!
You watch, the day that a "critical mass" of cyclists choose the BLs over the street, that'll be the beginning of the end for street access to cyclists. By then cyclists will be so lulled into believing it's safer there, there will be no fight to be banned from the motoring lanes. That is simply the way our society functions.
This is a good point - destination positioning is not rocket science - but the ease of this realization assumes that one is already thinking of themselves as a driver.
Indeed, for most BL riders, it IS rocket science, because they have not enough experience negotiating traffic to be at ease doing it, only practice makes perfect.
Now consider removing the second on-ramp lane in the picture entirely (it isn't needed for capacity). Would this not be better for cycling?
I have never been to the aforementioned intersection, but there's a pretty good opposite example in South Fort Lauderdale, southbound between Able Car Rental and the Airport exit, there's on-ramp for 595 :
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&geocode=&q=able+car+rental&near=Fort+lauderdale,+fl&ie=UTF8&ll=26.08635,-80.13491&spn=0.003903,0.007296&t=k&z=17&om=1
It's a one lane ramp that should be two lanes as the traffic is often times backup beyond Able Car Rentals (I don't own a car but often rent if needed). So what do motorists do, "hang" in the non turning lane until ahead of the traffic jam and at the very last minute rush onto the ramp lane.
So at least having the second lane designated as a possible turning lane WARNS the cyclist of the extra care needed in this location. The fact that double lanes becomes single on ramp is not indicative of unneeded capacity, as the speed differentials between the highway, the ramp, and the city streets work out.
The digital remastering is pretty cute, but are you implying that an 11' motoring lane is becoming a 14' motoring lane? or that a 14' motoring lane is becoming a 17' motoring lane? Because to me the preceding "BL" looks like a simple shoulder...
Haven't read any of the responses so there might be overlap:
1. There is nothing I hate more from a cyclists perspective and from that as a taxpayer as the 200 feet of "bike lane to nowhere." I mean, seriously, what is the point? Did the construction crew just have leftover paint?
2. Don't run the bike lane all the way to the intersection because drivers seem to hate when you merge out of a bike lane before it ends. Give plently of room for the cyclist to merge.
3. Wider is better; even more important is cleaner is better. I can keep a straght line in a narrow bike lane if it is not full of crap. Not cleaning the bike lane again defeats its entire purposes and pissess of both motorists and cyclists because the cyclist must ride outside the bike lane.
4. If there is street parking, run the bike lane between lanes of traffic rather than next to the parking lane. Opening car doors tend to negatively impact a cyclist's health
5. Just cause there is a bike lane doesn't mean I like traffic zipping past me at 65 mph. If you are going to designate the street as a bike route and both painting a bike lane, lower the speed limit!
So at least having the second lane designated as a possible turning lane WARNS the cyclist of the extra care needed in this location. The fact that double lanes becomes single on ramp is not indicative of unneeded capacity, as the speed differentials between the highway, the ramp, and the city streets work out.
In this particular location, the "city street" (Edwards Mill) is a 45 mph arterial with few junctions (speeds over 50 mph are common) and the closest traffic signal up-road from this RTOL configuration is at least a mile away. The right-turning traffic will never be heavy enough to saturate a single turn lane; only if the freeway itself becomes blocked by a crash would traffic ever back up onto Edwards Mill (this freeway doesn't experience congestion at this location in this direction except for a serious crash on a semi-annual basis).
Since traffic capacity per lane is less at freeway-merge speed than at right-turn speed, the capacity is limited by the single merge lane at the top of the ramp rather than a single turn lane onto the ramp. The only reason for having two turn lanes is to increase the speed of drivers headed into the turn, by delaying their merge into a single lane after they leave Edwards Mill.
The digital remastering is pretty cute, but are you implying that an 11' motoring lane is becoming a 14' motoring lane? or that a 14' motoring lane is becoming a 17' motoring lane? Because to me the preceding "BL" looks like a simple shoulder...
The existing lane is 12'. The bike lane behind the camera is 4', stenciled and signed with bike lane markings.
Here are more pictures of the area: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/edwardsmill/edwardsmill.htm
... The existing lane is 12'. The bike lane behind the camera is 4', stenciled and signed with bike lane markings.
Here are more pictures of the area: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/edwardsmill/edwardsmill.htm
Interesting doc... Now regarding the road, that means a 12' motorist lane becomes a 16' motorist lane, interesting, I'm not sure any repainting of lines can make it easier on the cyclist, no easy way out, just pedal like hell!
Cheers
(One post addressing several different poster's stuff -- hope it's not confusing.)
This is a good point - destination positioning is not rocket science - but the ease of this realization assumes that one is already thinking of themselves as a driver.
Probably a nitpick, but I don't consider myself a bicycle "driver" and don't think the labels are important one way or another. I'm just a guy on a bicycle trying to enjoy myself and not get killed. And when it comes to riding in traffic, I really don't think it takes a whole lot of brain power to manage it. Yeah, a guy who is absolutely brand new to cycling has a learning curve, but I don't see that textbooks and classes are necessary here.
Now consider removing the second on-ramp lane in the picture entirely (it isn't needed for capacity). Would this not be better for cycling?
Probably, though I don't consider it especially important. But perhaps I misunderstand: if we're talking little detail changes like that, I have no problem at all. I'm only arguing against the folks that want to dismantle bike lanes entirely in favor of trying to get every motorist in America to accept being blocked by 15 mph cyclists taking the whole lane to themselves.
when cars took over from horses, they didn't create many horselanes to segregate them from traffic.
That's because the cars were hardly faster than the horses. Speed differential is the number one reason why I want to be "segregated" (is their some kind of Godwin's law for comparing bike lanes to apartheid?) whether I'm in my car or on my bike. I can only imagine the mess that results from a horseman getting smacked by a 60 mph Continental.
... I want to be "segregated" (is their some kind of Godwin's law for comparing bike lanes to apartheid?) whether I'm in my car or on my bike. I can only imagine the mess that results from a horseman getting smacked by a 60 mph Continental.
:roflmao:
I just got a vision of the cow being smacked by the car during in "Oh Brother Where Are Though". :D And then also by the knowledge in Canada that when a car hits a moose, the driver is likely to die as the moose's legs get cut off by the bumper and the body slams through the windshield. Nearly 100% fatality rate to drivers in those conditions.
Very interesting your analogy to Godwin's law, I'd never heard of this before, I guess I don't spend enough time chatting. Wikipedia rightly states that overuse of Nazi analogies are bad in a historical sense. I don't think we're quite there yet with the Apartheid analogy, it just happens to be more part of my political timeframe. Indeed cyclists aren't dying in the same numbers as Black South Africans, far from it, however the rhetoric on paper WAS in fact that similar.
... Probably a nitpick, but I don't consider myself a bicycle "driver" and don't think the labels are important one way or another. I'm just a guy on a bicycle trying to enjoy myself and not get killed. And when it comes to riding in traffic, I really don't think it takes a whole lot of brain power to manage it. Yeah, a guy who is absolutely brand new to cycling has a learning curve, but I don't see that textbooks and classes are necessary here.
Interesting cuz I most certainly consider myself a driver. I'm 41 and owned a motor vehicle only 4 years, 10 years ago. Because I lived near the Arctic circle 30 miles from town.
So before that, my bike WAS my car, and since that my bike IS my car. I take it everywhere cars go, on ferries, drivethrus, car parks, tunnels, bridges, in an amongst all car lanes and even sometimes illegally on the highway. I give rides to other people by sitting them on my seat and myself pedaling upright for a few miles unless it's a steep uphill, just gotta shout to my passenger "knees in" if I come close to anything. I sometimes eat and drink while driving, Yes I DRIVE IT. I do my groceries on it, to the extreme of having both saddle bags full, by back pack full with a grocery bag hanging from it and two more bags on my handlebars. I've been on road touring trips for months on end and crossed borders and mountain ranges on it, I've hauled luggage and boxes on it when I changed apartments and it's also been my delivery vehicle. I hardly ever bring it "inside", as when I arrive anywhere I instantly pop the lock off the frame and lock it to anything in sight. I signal when I turn and I look behind me before stopping, I often break the letter of the law but only after assessing that I'm not endangering myself or others. Once in a while I enter my baby Brodie in a road race and do better than my cross country skiing races!
But only rarely do I ride a BL, only to accompany my aging mother or friend's child, I just don't feel safe there.
Thanks for being a good sport, Tallard. A&S needs more of that, and I need to stop being an A&S hole myself.
Bike commuting at the arctic circle... More of a man than I am! :lol:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/edwardsmill/widerthroughlanesmall.jpg
This is fairly nice design for cyclists but what about pedestrians? One thing we are pushing here is trying to square off interchanges like this into regular styled intersections.
Doesn't that make life more difficult for car drivers?
Well a more complete answer; as roads are expanding we want to see all multi lane ramps with ether a pedestrian over pass bridge and a treatment like what Steve showed for cyclists or a squared of interchange. Bike peds represent 13% of the traffic fatalities and we should demand 13% of the budget for our accommodations.
Anyway the impact on drivers going from ramps to intersection type design is more delay dispersion then an actual delay or a “difficulty” for car drivers.
Drop by south Orange County, Ca. sometime. Wide, smooth, clean, well-marked bike lanes are the norm here. It's a situation that makes me think the "VC, take the lane" types are off their rockers. Living here makes it easy to forget that many cyclists still have to deal with narrow, shoulderless lanes -- and when those folks advocate a technique that may work for them but is utterly nonsensical for riders with good bike lanes, it's easy to start making fun.
Given that your experience differs, perhaps you could broaden your perspective.
I find the opposite true. On my 30 mile round-trip commute, the roads are fine for me, just as they are. But I don't assume that bike lane advocates are "off their rockers" because they don't have my perspective.
EDIT: I just read your response to Tallard. :beer: good job with the understanding, bro
This is fairly nice design for cyclists but what about pedestrians? One thing we are pushing here is trying to square off interchanges like this into regular styled intersections.
Agreed; I promote squared-off intersections with conventional crosswalk designs, or if a slip-type turn lane configuration is used, the radius and width for the lane should be designed to limit vehicle speeds and reduce the width pedestrians must cross, with a generous refuge island on the other side of the slip lane.
The problem we have here in NC is that the state designs all the new important roads as high-speed mini-freeways (notice no sidewalks in the picture), but the localities later zone the surrounding land use at major junctions as high intensity commercial, which results in many potential pedestrian trips.
The adjacent land will get developed with sidewalks added along the road frontage, but the sidewalks will end when they approach the interchange, and start up again at the other side of the interchange. The interchange land belongs to the state, and the state won't pay for sidewalk installation, and if the municipality volunteers to pay for it, the state will resist, citing a desire to not encourage pedestrian travel through an area they deem unsafe for pedestrians.
The opposite side of the road currently has right-angle and single-turn-lane junctions. I suspect that is the only side of the road that will ever get a sidewalk facility. There has been a proposal to route a multi-use path through this interchange, which would lure many of the southbound cyclists over to that side of the road and require them to operate on the left side opposite the normal flow of traffic where right-turning traffic volumes are heavy. This is why I prefer a conventional intersection design with good sidewalks on both sides and more pleasant conditions for on-roadway cyclists traveling in both directions.
Given that your experience differs, perhaps you could broaden your perspective.
I find the opposite true. On my 30 mile round-trip commute, the roads are fine for me, just as they are. But I don't assume that bike lane advocates are "off their rockers" because they don't have my perspective.
EDIT: I just read your response to Tallard. :beer: good job with the understanding, bro
Now if only others could understand that blanket denial of certain facilities is just plain foolish as different areas have different requirements and different road patterns.
Just as I say that VC works, provided the road speeds and situations call for it, facilities also work under the right conditions... there is "no one size fits all" solution.
Now if only others could understand that blanket denial of certain facilities is just plain foolish as different areas have different requirements and different road patterns.
Just as I say that VC works, provided the road speeds and situations call for it, facilities also work under the right conditions... there is "no one size fits all" solution.
What are the bike lanes providing in Six Jours case that would not be provided if all of the excessive lane width was just striped as a very wide shoulder? His situation is not "facilities working"; it's just an area where they paved a lot more width than they really needed to. He's even admitted that the bike lanes do nothing to help in negotiating the freeway on-ramps, arguably the most dangerous situation a cyclist might encounter.
What are the bike lanes providing in Six Jours case that would not be provided if all of the excessive lane width was just striped as a very wide shoulder? His situation is not "facilities working"; it's just an area where they paved a lot more width than they really needed to. He's even admitted that the bike lanes do nothing to help in negotiating the freeway on-ramps, arguably the most dangerous situation a cyclist might encounter.
The bike lanes provide two simple things... they tell motorists that cyclists do indeed belong on the road, in spite of the freeway like speeds, and they help guide the motorist (stay between the lines) similar to all the other lines on the road.
The BL for cyclists provide a guideline for cyclists and offer a guideline on where to ride and give psychological comfort.
It has been long noted that BL on long intersectionless stretches of roadway are not a bad thing...
Beyond that, the BL help to reduce the ambiguity of a shared WOL... a motorist can clearly see a cyclist is leaving the right edge relative to the BL, when such movements are required.
BL are far from perfect, but then no line on the road offers anything more than guidance and psychological comfort and in this, BL are no different.
... they tell motorists that cyclists do indeed belong on the road, in spite of the freeway like speeds, and they help guide the motorist (stay between the lines) similar to all the other lines on the road.
Oh yes, that I would like, BLs on limited access freeways. BLs as a was of INCREASING cyclist access instead of reducing it :D
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.