So, again, how do I design a new 2-lane road that doesn't explicitly route roadway cyclists curbside without making the roadway wider than 30'-32' of asphalt? How do I design a 4-lane road the same way, without adding extra pavement (either as unused pavement or as right turn only lanes that make pedestrian crossing distances longer at intersections) to the right of the bike lane? The practical answer is to leave the road as wide lanes without bike lane striping.

sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about!

Right back at ya. The lack of a stripe isn't what improves conditions for cyclists in a WOL, despite what WOL propagandists would have us believe (here's a link to the worldwide center for pro-WOL propaganda, if you're interested: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/index.html).

Contrary to VC-ist dogma, WOLs have nearly all of the drawbacks that BLs have (with the possible exception of the pine needle problem). WOLs create a similar confusion (if not actually a greater confusion for motorists familiar with rules of the road more recent than the rules which existed in England half a century ago). WOLs create the same conflicts between motorists and bicyclists and, in states with 'ride right' laws but no mandatory BL use laws (like Missouri, where I live), I'd argue that WOLs are a greater threat to bicyclists' rights than BLs. WOLs create a situation in which bicyclists are legally prohibited from taking the lane-- that's a nice precedent :rolleyes: -- thank you, VC-ist anti-BL extremists :D.

I'm not a big fan of either BLs or WOLs but I can deal with either. In either case, bicyclists get greater pavement width. The whole "WOLs are the answer to all of the world's problems" position is a bunch of hooey as far as I'm concerned.

But, hey, Forester-inspired VC-ists have spent decades creating a taboo against white paint-- it's probably too much to ask for them to take a rational postiton on BLs now.

How does the Missouri law regarding cycling on the roads read? I tried Googling but couldn't find anything. I did find in their basic motor vehicle code that right turns are to be made from as close as practicable to the right hand curb. With that statement, there's no way a cyclist could be legally required to ride as close as practicable to the curb in a wide outside lane when approaching an intersection. Left hand turns and avoiding debris/obstacles are no brainers in terms of being exemptions from the "far right" law.

sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about!

Steve's point is that to add a standard width traffic lane (11 ft. min) plus a standard or above standard bike lane (5 ft. min.) AND have the bike lane buffered from the curb edge (~3 ft. ???)requires more than 30 feet, a width which is plenty wide for two wide outside lanes.

and the wide lane designs leave the majority of bicyclists hugging the curb, dodging in and out of parked cars, and improperly positioned at intersections.

nice plan :rolleyes:

Steve's point is that to add a standard width traffic lane (11 ft. min) plus a standard or above standard bike lane (5 ft. min.) AND have the bike lane buffered from the curb edge (~3 ft. ???)requires more than 30 feet, a width which is plenty wide for two wide outside lanes.

Exactly: assuming the 3' buffer: 3' + 5' + 11' + 11' + 5' + 3' = 38' as opposed to a 30'-32' WOL road.

But it's still not clear to me that a 3' buffer really helps reduce right hooks if the bike lane isn't dropped at intersections and there is no right turn only lane (requires even more width).

Cyclists and motorists complain about sharing busy 20'-24' roads. They don't complain about the 30'-32' roads. There are diminishing returns designing a two-lane road much wider than 32'.

Road engineers don't add this kind of extra pavement to a road unless they plan to add a parking lane or extra travel lane. This appears to be the original design assumption responsible for most of the road designs I've seen that have featured bike lanes spaced out a substantial distance from the curb. Right of way and roadway construction doesn't come cheap.

Regarding road dieting, I've been a supporter of it. When a developer worked with the town to redesign High House Road between Old Apex Road and Chatham Street, they agreed to drop the road from five lanes to two wide lanes, landscaped median, and on-street parking. The parking is rarely used, and the traffic volume is nowhere near capacity for just one through lane in each direction (maybe 5% at peak?!), so it's a pleasant place to ride. I advocated in favor of leaving the extra pavment as on-street parking because the cost of ripping up the extra pavement and relocating the curbs, gutters, utilities, and sidewalks was too high to justify for the benefit of reduced width. But nobody would build that road there by scratch that way, the parking demand doesn't justify the cost of providing a parking lane on a new road.

How does the Missouri law regarding cycling on the roads read?
Nearly all of the bicycle specific laws are in
Missouri Revised Statutes -- Chapter 307
Vehicle Equipment Regulations

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/STATUTES/C307.HTM

(I notice these are dated August 28, 2006 and the ones on my computer have an earlier date, so I need to update my files-- I'm not aware of any significant changes)

See especially:

307.180. Bicycle and motorized bicycle, defined.
307.183. Brakes required.
307.185. Lights and reflectors, when required--standards to be met.
307.188. Rights and duties of bicycle and motorized bicycle riders.
307.190. Riding to right, required for bicycles and motorized bicycles.
307.191. Bicycle to operate on shoulder, when--roadway defined.
307.192. Bicycle required to give hand or mechanical signals.
307.193. Penalty for violation.


Of course, other sections of the vehicle code apply to bicycles, although they aren't bicycle specific.

There is no mandatory bike lane law.

I believe that Missouri Revised Statutes are available, in their entirety, online.

For the record, a bicycle is defined as a vehicle for some sections of the code but not for all sections.

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C300-399/3070000190.HTM

Riding to right, required for bicycles and motorized bicycles.
307.190. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.

In the presence of a WOL, it will likely be tough to make the case that the lane is too narrow to share.

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C300-399/3070000190.HTM

In the presence of a WOL, it will likely be tough to make the case that the lane is too narrow to share.

Is the bike lane considered not to be part of the roadway? If it is part of the roadway, wouldn't the stay-right statute require using it?

road diets can effectively turn a cyclist unfriendly road into a cyclist accomodating one.

I think your predications on the bike lane argument are dishonestly weighted towards municipalities having the inability to make changes in their infrastructure.

by taking the 'defeatist, can't be done' stance on limited types of roads- you like to talk about narrow, slow speed roads that can't have pavement widened or modifications made- your 'argument' against bike infrastructure is dishonest in the face of ever changing city streets and infrastructure.

Who HASN'T seen a street widening project?

Communities have high speed roads, steve. communities have streets that can be restriped. cities have rights of egress. Public domain often extends past streets' existing boundaries. Cities can use eminent domain rules to retake public property for civic improvements.


man, talk about limited vision!

oh, and those wide lanes, they encourage a lot of parked car weaving by average bicyclists as well, dodging in and out of parked cars. bike lanes that are well implemented keep bikes out of the door zone, in a more visible road position, well positioned at intersections, and not dodging in and out of parked cars.

wide lanes and busy streets keep average cyclists hugging curbs, parked car weaving, and improperly positioned at intersections.

Hi Bek,

A few points ...

Do you consider a wide outside lane bike infrastructure? Considering the purpose, I would. Although I would also like to include a SHARROW to address some of your legitimate concerns.

Personally, I don't equate concerns about efficient use of funds nor political ramifications--if I follow the earlier dialogue correctly--as being defeatist. In large, state and municipal government are faced with real constraints with regards to the provision of services. While I agree that local governments have the raw ability to make changes in the their infrastructure, I believe that the sacrifices needed to implement such programs make many grand changes undesirable to the general constituency.

Mind you, people should think about what they want in a perfect world or if they held the "steel gauntlet of power". But considering the pragmatic issues, in my opinion, is an attempt to be as effective as possible.

Hi Steve,

I find your comment regarding motorist behavior in areas with high concentrations of pedestrians and cyclists interesting. Does this mean you believe that promoting more cyclists/cycling is a strategy for making cycling safer?

More generally, how much of your discussion on bike lanes applies, in your opinion, to SHARROWS?

Anecdotally, bike lanes of decent construction--i.e., neither perfect nor a design disaster--do seem to limit certain egregious cyclist behavior such as splitting lanes, weaving in and out of traffic, and wrong way cycling. Moreover, I can see how it might make for faster travel times in dense traffic for both motorists and cyclists relative to WOLs (often, they would be impossible without a major construction project in some local areas). One might think that this might lower the overall stress levels and combative nature of motorist/cyclist interaction. And I think that it is clear that bike lanes lead to greater acceptance of cyclists to at least part of the road. Suppose for the time being that I am right abut these marginal effects--as far as I know, there is no strong data to prove me right or wrong--it would seem reasonable to think that these effects could overcome the increased risk from disadvantagous lane positioning.

To the OP and Steve,

I did find the exchange useful and applaud your efforts. If it makes you feel better, I passed the exchange to some local cycling groups.

-G

I find your comment regarding motorist behavior in areas with high concentrations of pedestrians and cyclists interesting. Does this mean you believe that promoting more cyclists/cycling is a strategy for making cycling safer?

More generally, how much of your discussion on bike lanes applies, in your opinion, to SHARROWS?

I believe that having more cycling miles traveled on the road increases safety for cyclists all other things being equal. I also believe that having more people cycle regularly increases safety for cyclists, all other things being equal. (I believe the cause of the safety improvement is a combination of motorist empathy, motorist habituation, general public education, improved cycling skill, and infrastructure/enforcement response to increased demand for a pleasant road-sharing environment.)

However, I don't believe that safety increases overall if the incremental increase in cycling miles is done contrary to the normal vehicular rules. So I believe in encouraging more people to cycle more often, but not in a manner that conflicts with the normal rules of the road. Likewise, inexperienced cyclists will tend to have higher collision rates than experienced cyclists, so realizing increased net safety by increaseing the number of people cycling requires improving the skill sets of beginners as quickly as possible. That's part of why I am an LCI.

The main intended purpose of sharrows is to convey the legitimacy of cycling in a roadway position where car drivers cannot overtake in the same lane. The premise is that car drivers act more politely and safely when they believe the cyclist is entitled to use the full lane in these places (I believe this) and that cyclists are more likely to stay away from a more hazardous door zone or curbside location with such markings (I believe this as well.) So, I have written in support of this use of sharrows.

If sharrows were used to designate a cycling position that is frequently undesirable or unsafe, such as in a door zone, or the edge of a narrow lane, this would conflict with best bicycling practices, and I would oppose it.

Therefore, I think most of the good locations for sharrows are in the center of lanes where it is particularly useful to remind road users about where cyclists may operate. Meanwhile, if the pavement is wide enough for drivers to safely pass cyclists operating a safe distance from the edge of the clear roadway, there really isn't a harassment or legitimacy problem to address.

-Steve

Is the bike lane considered not to be part of the roadway? If it is part of the roadway, wouldn't the stay-right statute require using it?Well, yea, probably.

Which only confirms what I have always contended: that virtually all bicycle specitic laws are unnecessary.

Try convincing real flesh and blood legislaters of that.

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C300-399/3070000190.HTM

In the presence of a WOL, it will likely be tough to make the case that the lane is too narrow to share.

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure why I could not find what you found as I was looking at the same website.

In a WOL, about the only time you would want to have control of the lane that's not covered by the exceptions (assuming travelling below traffic speed) in the vehicle code is when going through an intersection. As I pointed out before, the vehicle code does say that right turns are to be made from the far right so it could easily be argued that staying far right at an intersection would put the cyclist in conflict with right turning vehicles and thus is not "safe."

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure why I could not find what you found as I was looking at the same website.I've always thought it was misleading that Missouri's bicycle laws are under, "Vehicle Equipment Regulations."

But I wish that were the biggest gripe I had about the way things are done in Missouri. :D

However, I don't believe that safety increases overall if the incremental increase in cycling miles is done contrary to the normal vehicular rules. So I believe in encouraging more people to cycle more often, but not in a manner that conflicts with the normal rules of the road. Likewise, inexperienced cyclists will tend to have higher collision rates than experienced cyclists, so realizing increased net safety by increaseing the number of people cycling requires improving the skill sets of beginners as quickly as possible. That's part of why I am an LCI.

Regarding the provision of training to new cyclists, there is some evidence that new motorcyclists taking the Motorcycle Safety Foundation course fare much better than those that do not. Intuitively, one would think that a similar mechanism would apply to cyclists.

In large, I agree with many details of your argument. However, since there are several underlying reasons why more cycling (both in number of heads and miles) might result in increased safety, each of those underlying effects have their own contribution to the change in safety.

So while bike lanes can put inexperienced riders in suboptimal positions at times, the habituation and acceptance effects along with an improved position at times could more than compensate resulting in greater safety for the population. If we consider the likelihood of the general cycling population taking a safe-cycling course or of alternative programs increasing the general acceptance of cyclists on roads, I can see how bike lane/facilities could be an integral part of a successful safe-cycling program.

The main intended purpose of sharrows is to convey the legitimacy of cycling in a roadway position where car drivers cannot overtake in the same lane. The premise is that car drivers act more politely and safely when they believe the cyclist is entitled to use the full lane in these places (I believe this) and that cyclists are more likely to stay away from a more hazardous door zone or curbside location with such markings (I believe this as well.) So, I have written in support of this use of sharrows.

If sharrows were used to designate a cycling position that is frequently undesirable or unsafe, such as in a door zone, or the edge of a narrow lane, this would conflict with best bicycling practices, and I would oppose it.

Therefore, I think most of the good locations for sharrows are in the center of lanes where it is particularly useful to remind road users about where cyclists may operate. Meanwhile, if the pavement is wide enough for drivers to safely pass cyclists operating a safe distance from the edge of the clear roadway, there really isn't a harassment or legitimacy problem to address.

Anecdotally, I see too many circumstances where the SHARROWS are placed too far to the right. So I find your comment relevant empirically.

But do you believe that a SHARROW in a WOL could address Bek's complaints with minimal side effects?

Anecdotally, I see too many circumstances where the SHARROWS are placed too far to the right. IMHO, that would be less likely to happen with a large enough marking:

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/bicycleBlvd/image1.jpg

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

sharrows and busy, high speed arterials are not as good of a solution compared to a well designed, preferred travel lane for bikes on high speed arterials.

sharrows may have their place on lower speed roads, bruce, as part of a regional bicycle transportation network, but wol and sharrows are not the end all, be all solution to mixing cars and bikes on the roads.

sharrows in a narrow lane on a busy, high speed road? expect just as many sidewalk cyclists.

I like the idea of sharrows, compared to bike lanes. Seems Portland thinks so, too:

http://bikeportland.org/2005/09/28/new-sharrow-markings-in-nw/

The idea of bike lanes seems to be to communicate to motorists that cyclists belong. If they do, sharrows communicate that cyclists can use an entire lane.

I like a little "elbow room."

there's a lot more to bike lanes than just communicating to drivers that bikes belong, lbm.

a community plan to enhance cycling should incorporate WOL, sharrows, bike lanes, bike paths, signage, and off road bike infrastructure like bike parking, etc.

Relying on WOLs as the sole road accomodation for bicyclists- specifically, along high speed roads- leaves cyclists improperly positioned, in the door zone, off of high speed arterials, and will serve to stunt increasing bicycling in communities.

there's a lot more to bike lanes than just communicating to drivers that bikes belong, lbm.

a community plan to enhance cycling should incorporate WOL, sharrows, bike lanes, bike paths, signage, and off road bike infrastructure like bike parking, etc.

Relying on WOLs as the sole road accomodation for bicyclists- specifically, along high speed roads- leaves cyclists improperly positioned, in the door zone, off of high speed arterials, and will serve to stunt increasing bicycling in communities.
Well, I never said WOL's are the "sole road accomodation for bicyclists." But you know that.

But you also know that I prefer WOL's; at least I can compromise a bit.

What's the problem with sharrows?

?

see post #66.

... Relying on WOLs as the sole road accomodation for bicyclists- specifically, along high speed roads- leaves cyclists improperly positioned, in the door zone, off of high speed arterials, and will serve to stunt increasing bicycling in communities.
Seattle must have really changed since I was last there. I do not remember on street parking on any 50 mph highways in Seattle. Must be fun trying to parallel park.

see post #66.
I like your new method of constantly repeating yourself, it is much better.

see post #66.

My attention span isn't that short.

I don't know about these utopian paradises you folks must bicycle in, but here drivers move along at 10 over the speed limit plus- effectively making a 35MPH arterial a high speed road. and there's definetly parking along roads signed 35 mph.

and like I mentioned in post #66, sharrows have their place on lower speed roads as part of a regional bicycle transportation network, but wol and sharrows are not the end all, be all solution to mixing cars and bikes on the roads.

I don't know about these utopian paradises you folks must bicycle in, but here drivers move along at 10 over the speed limit plus- effectively making a 35MPH arterial a high speed road. and there's definetly parking along roads signed 35 mph.

and like I mentioned in post #66, sharrows have their place on lower speed roads as part of a regional bicycle transportation network, but wol and sharrows are not the end all, be all solution to mixing cars and bikes on the roads.

It's no utopian paradise where I live, but we finally have more law enforcement keeping a much larger portion of traffic within a couple of mph of the posted speed limit on our 30 to 35 mph roads.

So the new "Bek definition" of a high speed arterial road = any 35 mph road.

dude.

When I consider benefits for bicycling in communities, I do not consider only myself or my riding abilities.

I ride all roads, any time. Highway speed, narrow roads. interstates, high speed arterials. HOWEVER,

I do not expect all persons throwing a leg over a bicycle to have the same skillset as mine for riding in traffic. Even yourself, CBHI, cannot fathom :lol: getting up to 29 MPH off the stops in a sprint....

Advanced riding skills and fearless traffic negotiation abilities cannot be expected of every person riding a bicycle- that is a VC fantasy.

That false predication of the VC camp serves to ****** bicycling transportation in America.

I don't know about these utopian paradises you folks must bicycle in, but here drivers move along at 10 over the speed limit plus- effectively making a 35MPH arterial a high speed road. and there's definetly parking along roads signed 35 mph.

and like I mentioned in post #66, sharrows have their place on lower speed roads as part of a regional bicycle transportation network, but wol and sharrows are not the end all, be all solution to mixing cars and bikes on the roads.
I prefer the idea of sharrows to bike lanes on lower speed roads, because they provide an entire lane for cyclists. But on these same lower speed roads, why are they needed? They are really just signage, after all, which is a good thing, but not imperative to any motorist that already knows cyclists belong.

Around here, motorists pass me with plenty of room, and no bike lanes or sharrows. But this is Atlanta, the hell-hole of cycling... :rolleyes:

...interesting....and likely sugar coated, little big man. got those rose colored bicycling glasses on again, eh? never experience any motorist grief, yeah? no distracted drivers, no manevolence, no bubbas in trucks, no road rage and close passes?

...interesting.....


sounds like a province of Erehwon.

...interesting....and likely sugar coated, little big man. got those rose colored bicycling glasses on again, eh? never experience any motorist grief, yeah? no distracted drivers, no manevolence, no bubbas in trucks, no road rage and close passes?

...interesting.....


sounds like a province of Erehwon.
"Bubbas in trucks?"

:lol:

Sorry, it sounds like things are tougher where you live, Bek. I don't have to sugarcoat it.

Bek, if you think you are such a pro with your 29 mph attempted insults, why are you not riding the TDF right now.

Some of use have grown older and can no longer do the 30 mph sprint, on a flat, in no wind that we use to do. I wonder if you will be able to do your 29 mph sprint when you are 50+.

It is amazing the qualifications Bek and Brian R. want to establish for who can and cannot post on this open forum.

whatever. you really gots a chip on your shoulder for the accomodationalists, CBHI.

Read what I said again in the post just above, CBHI. Despite your best efforts to discredit my viewpoint, read it again.....



When I consider benefits for bicycling in communities, I do not consider only myself or my riding abilities.

I ride all roads, any time. Highway speed, narrow roads. interstates, high speed arterials. HOWEVER,

I do not expect all persons throwing a leg over a bicycle to have the same skillset as mine for riding in traffic.

Advanced riding skills and fearless traffic negotiation abilities cannot be expected of every person riding a bicycle- that is a VC fantasy.

That false predication of the VC camp serves to ****** bicycling transportation in America.

no road rage directed towards taking the lane in Atlanta, little big man? UNBELIEVABLE. completely unbelievable.

Yes Bek, we already understand how you expect everyone to read each of your post at least 5 times and that is why you keep repeating yourself.

As to the "you really gots a chip on your shoulder", review your post to HH and then look in the mirror to find the chip.

dude.

When I consider benefits for bicycling in communities, I do not consider only myself or my riding abilities.

I ride all roads, any time. Highway speed, narrow roads. interstates, high speed arterials. HOWEVER,

I do not expect all persons throwing a leg over a bicycle to have the same skillset as mine for riding in traffic. Even yourself, CBHI, cannot fathom :lol: getting up to 29 MPH off the stops in a sprint....

Advanced riding skills and fearless traffic negotiation abilities cannot be expected of every person riding a bicycle- that is a VC fantasy.

That false predication of the VC camp serves to ****** bicycling transportation in America.

The falsity inherent in Bekologist's ranting is that the bikeway system that he advocates fails to reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling.

The falsity inherent in Bekologist's ranting is that the bikeway system that he advocates fails to reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling.
Riding comfortably in traffic without a bike lane is a skill. Without that skill and without bike lanes too many cyclist resort to unsafe riding by sidewalk riding or riding against traffic. The education system that you advocate fails to reach a significant % of the population to make the slightest dent what so ever in the bike crash stats.

Riding comfortably in traffic without a bike lane is a skill. Without that skill and without bike lanes too many cyclist resort to unsafe riding by sidewalk riding or riding against traffic. The education system that you advocate fails to reach a significant % of the population to make the slightest dent what so ever in the bike crash stats.

The same skills are needed with or without a bike lane; in fact, more skills with a bike-lane stripe, because the cyclist has to figure out when to obey it and when not to obey it, and also has to watch out for the same kinds of errors made by motorists. THC advocates, as do so many of you, using a bike lane to entice people into cycling without having any skill at all, on the excuse that the bike lane gets some people off the sidewalk and gets some fewer people riding on the proper side of the road instead of the improper side. Frankly, I think that this argument is just one more excuse for the supposed enticing effect of bike lanes that so many of you advocate. However, this argument is just one more example of the traditional American policy, once unofficial but official for the last thirty-five years, of unskilled cycling that is therefore dangerous and not socially acceptable.

THC asserts that the public has not wanted to learn safe and lawful cycling practice. That is very true, and that is the great defect in American bicycle transportation. I have been working for thirty-five years to improve cycling for cyclists by correcting this defect, both on the road and in the policy that creates it, while you self-named bicycle advocates (I've never seen any bicycle that gives a damn about what you do) have done your best to have government and society continue with this policy of unskilled cycling. Bicycle advocates you may be, but as I said, no bicycle gives a damn. What is important is the welfare of cyclists, and that is best accomplished when cyclists both act and are treated as drivers of vehicles instead of acting as incompetents and being so regarded.

Riding comfortably in traffic without a bike lane is a skill. Without that skill and without bike lanes too many cyclist resort to unsafe riding by sidewalk riding or riding against traffic. The education system that you advocate fails to reach a significant % of the population to make the slightest dent what so ever in the bike crash stats.

What skill required for cycling in a wide lane is eliminated with the addition of a stripe to the road?

What skill required for cycling in a wide lane is eliminated with the addition of a stripe to the road?
I know people who don’t driver on the freeway because they are uncomfortable traveling that fast, so what skill is needed on a freeway that you don’t need on a regular road? I know people who don’t drive at night because they are uncomfortable with the lack of visibility, so what skill is needed for driving at night that you don’t need during the day? I know people who are uncomfortable with speaking in public, so what skill do they need for public speaking that they don’t need for one on one conversation?

The answer to all these is experience and confidence, these are skills, these are skills taught in the Road I course. To deny that these are skills is to deny the validity of components of the Road I course. But instead of having a national campaign for better and more accessible education you guys would rather have a national anti-bike lane campaign. This is just wrong and is not helping to get the education that is needed out there. It is you guys that are shooting yourselves in the foot with your silly circular arguments and silly superstitions that bike lanes are the root of all evil.

What skill required for cycling in a wide lane is eliminated with the addition of a stripe to the road?

No skill is eliminated... but the comfort level of all the users of the road way is increased, just as the center stripe increases the comfort level of all the users of the roadway.

There is no magic involved... a stripe simply provides visual guidance for users of the road.

On lower speed roads this level of comfort is often present simply because all the vehicles are moving at low speeds, but as the speed of the vehicles increase, more control and more guidance is needed.

IMHO, that would be less likely to happen with a large enough marking:

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/bicycleBlvd/image1.jpg

Ooooo, we just saw something quite similar to this in the Del Rey, VA on Mt. Vernon Avenue. Although when we rode by, school was out of session and no cars were parked on the right. Hence we were on the right-hand side of the SHARROW.

I know people who don’t driver on the freeway because they are uncomfortable traveling that fast, so what skill is needed on a freeway that you don’t need on a regular road? I know people who don’t drive at night because they are uncomfortable with the lack of visibility, so what skill is needed for driving at night that you don’t need during the day? I know people who are uncomfortable with speaking in public, so what skill do they need for public speaking that they don’t need for one on one conversation?

The answer to all these is experience and confidence, these are skills, these are skills taught in the Road I course. To deny that these are skills is to deny the validity of components of the Road I course. But instead of having a national campaign for better and more accessible education you guys would rather have a national anti-bike lane campaign. This is just wrong and is not helping to get the education that is needed out there. It is you guys that are shooting yourselves in the foot with your silly circular arguments and silly superstitions that bike lanes are the root of all evil.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Freeway speeds and lack of daylight produce additional challenges to the driver not present on other roads. Taking away a bike lane stripe and leaving the same width of pavement unstriped does not create additional challenges to the cyclist.

What is required to operate as safely on a wide outside lane street as on a bike laned street is not extra skill; it is the knowledge that the stripe does not provide a significant safety benefit to the cyclist. When we vehicular cycling advocates try to educate the public about this, you accuse us of being anti-cycling.

You claim to want a national campaign for better and more accessible education about cycling, and that we vehicular cyclists are somehow opposed to that. I am a League Cycling Instructor for the explicit reason of educating the public about cycling better; on Friday I taught a special all-day Road 1 class for area planners, engineers, and police with the help of another local LCI. I took a vacation day to do this. Here is the letter I received today from one of the students, who is in charge of bicycle and pedestrian planning for the city and provided us facility space for the class:

Just wanted to take a moment to thank you both once again for taking time
out of your schedules to conduct the LAB Road I course on Friday. I really
enjoyed the course and feel like I have gained a lot of confidence in my
street cycling capabilities. What a great way to spend a Friday.

Thanks again,


We are addressing the actual operational issues involved with safer traffic cycling, making cyclists more confident because they better understand what skills they really need and what road markings they don't. We're taking people out into real traffic and trying to convince more people that skills education is necessary. By contrast, I believe pushing for more curbside stripes and is contra-productive to this mission. So forgive me if I have the tenacity to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

sharrows and busy, high speed arterials are not as good of a solution compared to a well designed, preferred travel lane for bikes on high speed arterials.

sharrows may have their place on lower speed roads, bruce, as part of a regional bicycle transportation network, but wol and sharrows are not the end all, be all solution to mixing cars and bikes on the roads.

I can see how as traffic density, speeds, road widths, and lines of sight vary that the optimal solution will vary too. Maybe I should include something about cyclist acceptability among the population too into the equation ...

But Steve does make some good points about bike lanes. And the lack of data distinguishing the effect of WOLs, BLs, and so on means that there is a lot of theoretical guess work occurring. As a layperson, I gather that WOLs require less construction costs and maintenance than bike lanes. (true?) If I had to choose between the two in a situation where I had no reason to believe one would be better than the other, my preference would be to have a WOL.

Did I ever mention the following? When my wife and I did the Santa Fe Century, the route takes riders on a long stretch on I-25 instead of the service road. The (striped) shoulders were 10-15 feet wide and relatively clean. While we don't know whether the lack of debris--trekking tires did particularly well ... roadie tires less so--is typical for the area, we thought that the quality of the ride was quite good despite the 75 mph speed limit (or was it 70?) and heavy trucks. My conclusion from this anecdotal example is that well-maintained bike lanes can do particularly well in these situations. Considering the lack of attention that many motorists exhibit on interstates and the lack of intersections, my guess is that these marked uber-shoulders (more like a bike lane in my opinion) would outperform WOLs.

sharrows in a narrow lane on a busy, high speed road? expect just as many sidewalk cyclists.

but what would you expect with a bike lane in "a narrow lane on a busy, high speed road?"

that last sentence is nonsensical.

sharrows on narrow high speed roads do not accomodate bicyclists well. preferential, dedicated bike lanes on high speed roads have the potential to accomodate bicyclists better than placing sharrows on 50 MPH arterials.

Taking away a bike lane stripe and leaving the same width of pavement unstriped does not create additional challenges to the cyclist.

I wholeheartedly disagree. if roadway speeds are high- over 40MPH, wide outside lanes, intrinisicly, by design, makes the road less likely to be bicycled by many riders - even those who are aware of how to operate their bikes vehicularily - compared to a high speed road with a well provided preferential travel lane for bicycles.

As a layperson, I gather that WOLs require less construction costs and maintenance than bike lanes. (true?) If I had to choose between the two in a situation where I had no reason to believe one would be better than the other, my preference would be to have a WOL.

Did I ever mention the following? When my wife and I did the Santa Fe Century, the route takes riders on a long stretch on I-25 instead of the service road. The (striped) shoulders were 10-15 feet wide and relatively clean. While we don't know whether the lack of debris--trekking tires did particularly well ... roadie tires less so--is typical for the area, we thought that the quality of the ride was quite good despite the 75 mph speed limit (or was it 70?) and heavy trucks. My conclusion from this anecdotal example is that well-maintained bike lanes can do particularly well in these situations. Considering the lack of attention that many motorists exhibit on interstates and the lack of intersections, my guess is that these marked uber-shoulders (more like a bike lane in my opinion) would outperform WOLs.

If the pavement width and depth is the same, the only construction cost increase with bike lanes/striped shoulders would be the installation of thermoplastic. But if a 14' lane can be used instead of a wider bike lane and travel lane combination (possibly with additional buffering as has been described by some proponents) the WOL becomes cheaper. I recommend modest right of way for slower, lower volume roads, but on the fastest roads with high traffic volumes I prefer a wider lane than 14'.

I grew up cycling in New England, where many state roads have very wide paved shoulders so that snowbanks can be plowed beyond the area where disabled vehicles would end up parked. (This also was good for pedestrians and kept the snowbanks a safer distance from the travel lane for vehicle operators.) These very wide paved shoulders provided for good cycling as long as there wasn't too much debris. I don't recall many right turn only lanes on the shouldered roads I used at the time; things may have changed since then. Distances between intersections were long, since these were rural/low-density suburban highways. Right turning drivers generally encroached into the shoulder area on approach, and I moved into the travel lane at intersections, so I cannot remember any significant right turn issues, but I may have selective memory there.

I wholeheartedly disagree. if roadway speeds are high- over 40MPH, wide outside lanes, intrinisicly, by design, makes the road less likely to be bicycled by many riders - even those who are aware of how to operate their bikes vehicularily - compared to a high speed road with a well provided preferential travel lane for bicycles.

I am talking about operational conditions, and you are talking about attitudes. But okay, let's explore your own attitude as an experienced cyclist aware of vehicular cycling. If your desired destination is served by a road with 15' outside through lanes and 40-45 mph typical motor traffic speeds, would you avoid cycling there? If the 15' is instead separated as an 11' travel lane and 4' curbside bike lane, are you now more likely to cycle there? Why or why not?

(For me, there would be no difference, unless the bike lane accumulates debris, in which case I seek alternate routes in order to avoid having to choose between the chance of a flat and the certainty of harassment.)

You are comparing apples and oranges. Freeway speeds and lack of daylight produce additional challenges to the driver not present on other roads. Taking away a bike lane stripe and leaving the same width of pavement unstriped does not create additional challenges to the cyclist.

What is required to operate as safely on a wide outside lane street as on a bike laned street is not extra skill; it is the knowledge that the stripe does not provide a significant safety benefit to the cyclist. When we vehicular cycling advocates try to educate the public about this, you accuse us of being anti-cycling.

You claim to want a national campaign for better and more accessible education about cycling, and that we vehicular cyclists are somehow opposed to that. I am a League Cycling Instructor for the explicit reason of educating the public about cycling better; on Friday I taught a special all-day Road 1 class for area planners, engineers, and police with the help of another local LCI. I took a vacation day to do this. Here is the letter I received today from one of the students, who is in charge of bicycle and pedestrian planning for the city and provided us facility space for the class:



We are addressing the actual operational issues involved with safer traffic cycling, making cyclists more confident because they better understand what skills they really need and what road markings they don't. We're taking people out into real traffic and trying to convince more people that skills education is necessary. By contrast, I believe pushing for more curbside stripes and is contra-productive to this mission. So forgive me if I have the tenacity to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
Hmm, you ignored my public speaking example what is the difference between talking one on one and speaking to a large audience? Can’t answer that one eh? Being comfortable in doing something has a positive influence on behavior and being uncomfortable has an adverse effect on behavior.

What is the difference between riding on quite residential roads and riding on fast urban arterials? My understanding is the VC assertion is that it is the same skill set so there is no difference. I strongly disagree with that assertion as the introduction of traffic is the introduction of additional stimuli which provides additional challenges to the rider, the same as freeway speeds and nighttime driving introduces challenges (it is not apples and oranges.) One must lean how to correctly filter all the stimuli that is produced by traffic and learn how to ignore what is not relevant and pay attention to what is relevant. Once one has learned how to do this then one can be comfortable riding in traffic.

The learning process on how to do this has some variants but the traditional way has been to gradually expose the rider to more and more traffic, this is essentially the same process that we use to learn how to be comfortable driving on the freeway. Due to modern road designs traffic is essentially quantified into two states; high traffic and low traffic, with no middle ground denying people an opportunity to learn how to filter all the traffic stimuli and thus be comfortable riding in traffic. So in conclusion being comfortable is a way of saying you have confidence in your skill set for a given situation which has a positive influence on behavior and safety without comfort behavior and safety is adversely affected.

It has never been my assertion that the bike lane stripe provides any significant additional safety benefits over a WOL but it does provide a good many cyclists additional comfort while riding in traffic. Without this comfort too many cyclists resort to sidewalk riding or ridding against traffic even in a WOL which does adversely affect safety. So my point is comfort is critical for safe riding and I don’t care how I can increase comfort here for cycling wither it is through bike lanes or through a whole bunch of LCIs. If there is a way I can rent 50-100 or so LCIs send me info and I’ll try and make it happen. Till then it is the anti-bike lane crowd that has no substance and is not making the slightest dent in cyclists’ safety.

Steve, I know where I'd ride, but I do not predicate my abilities on the cycling public out there, and neither should you.

that last sentence is nonsensical.

sharrows on narrow high speed roads do not accomodate bicyclists well. preferential, dedicated bike lanes on high speed roads have the potential to accomodate bicyclists better than placing sharrows on 50 MPH arterials.

The point is comparing the same road with two different facilities. Making wholesale changes (widening a road) is often cost prohibitive--again writing as a layperson, I believe this to be true. So if one doesn't have a source of unlimited funds and you have a narrow high-speed road that makes travel from A to B convenient, it would appear to me that the sharrow is superior than the bike lane.

Otherwise, the original statement about sharrows has little meaning. The alternative is to convey why the same widened road with WOLs and sharrows is inferior to a bike lane ... which you have yet to do.

And perhaps one should point out, even if you have just as many sidewalk riders--(1) a point I don't concede and (2) let's not forget that many arterials have no sidewalk nor alternative--the environment can still be better for those cyclists on the road. In other words, there are other worthy goals than increasing ridership.