View Full Version : bike lane point/counterpoint
nicomachus
07-15-07, 11:23 AM
Two Bikeforums.net users take the debate to the local paper...
http://www.nicomachus.net/2007/07/bike_lane_pointcounterpoint.html
Anyone else had success taking the bike lane debate public (i.e. outside the biking community)?
Our local paper was happy to publish the debate. I encourage others to contact the opinion page editor of your local paper about writing op-eds.
Well that about sums it up. Have either of you had any feedback?
sbhikes
07-16-07, 07:54 PM
Taking it public? That's a blog for crying out loud. Let's talk about this when it's in the local printed newspaper.
LCI_Brian
07-16-07, 10:46 PM
It was in the local paper, it's just reproduced in the blog. The links are at the bottom of each side's piece of the debate.
Although I have a definite opinion on the bike lane issue, I enjoyed reading both sides of the debate summarized rather well and in a civil fashion. The net result, IMO, is that all of us in the cycling community benefit by providing an awareness of these issues to the general public.
Two Bikeforums.net users take the debate to the local paper...
...
I'll be damned.
That's the first time I have seen someone explain clearly their (and others) dislike of bike lanes in a way that makes me want to agree with them. Much better than the belittlement and the insulting ways that have been tossed about on here for so many years.
I liked reading both pieces, and can come away from this with a little more knowledge than beforehand, thanks.
Too bad this thread will likely see only a handful more useful posts before it goes all to hell.
I'll be damned.
That's the first time I have seen someone explain clearly their (and others) dislike of bike lanes in a way that makes me want to agree with them. Much better than the belittlement and the insulting ways that have been tossed about on here for so many years...LOL It is kind of unusual to see a rational discussion.
There have always been valid arguments against bike lanes, although it seems that some bike lane oppenents prefer patently absurd arguments, and prefer to present them in an insulting and offensive way.
What's ironic, considering how strongly I have disagreed with BL opponents at times, is that I'm really not a big fan of bike lanes, and have a certain sympathy for the anti-bike lane position. It's just that some anti bike lane extremists present such ridiculous arguments with such frightening zealotry.
If the VC-ists would tone down the rhetoric a little bit, maybe it would be easier to take what they say more seriously.
For their own safety, cyclists must often leave the bike lane and take a position farther left in order align themselves with their destination and improve their visibility to other drivers at intersections and driveways, where over 95 percent of urban car-bike collisions occur due to turning and crossing movements. Cyclists who drive defensively must also leave bike lanes that are striped where parked cars' doors can extend...
Sounds to me like motorists don't know what bike lane stripes mean... (motorists refuse to look for cyclists in bike lanes). This is akin to the 2400 or so pedestrians killed crossing streets... many in crosswalks... so there is an education problem... Motorists need to be educated about what the various lines on the street are for... crosswalks and bike lanes... and what a motorists' responsibility is when crossing these lines.
And poorly designed bike lanes (parallel to parked cars) should not exist.
Now what else is interesting is the author... "Steven Goodridge," I believe he is a regular contributer here on BF... usually telling us about Cary NC... where roads don't exceed 35MPH and are built wonderfully wide.
joejack951
07-17-07, 09:48 AM
Now what else is interesting is the author... "Steven Goodridge," I believe he is a regular contributer here on BF... usually telling us about Cary NC... where roads don't exceed 35MPH and are built wonderfully wide.
Why post something like this that you know is ridiculous and false? Is every road in CA so bad that you feel the need to make borderline insulting statements like this one?
Why post something like this that you know is ridiculous and false? Is every road in CA so bad that you feel the need to make borderline insulting statements like this one?
Tell me what about this is rediculous and false?
Steve has told me on BF that he works to make roads in Cary both quite wide to support cyclists and low speed... 25 and 35MPH. Both of which I applaud, and I have told him that I felt the roads there were wonderful and did not require anything such as a BL to support cyclists. I also felt that his area was a wonderland for cyclists. Bucolic tree lined wide roads with moderate traffic... heaven.
Steve even suggested that I look for work in North Carolina and where I might find it. I have no anamosity toward him... however, his "wonderland" does not exist everywhere, so his proposed solutions may not work everywhere. That is my point.
Bike lanes are far from perfect, but on quite high speed roads... they do offer some guidance to motorists such that motorists can and do proceed unimpeded on such roads... WOL may not offer similar smooth sailing, since motorists must determine where they should be, sans guidance, relative to cyclists.
Holland does not exist everywhere either.
So what is suitable and preferential for multilaned roads where heavy traffic speeds typically exceed 50MPH.
Frankly I like the idea of a slow right lane. But I doubt it will work.
In fact I am really tired of this whole BL/anti BL/ anti motorist/VC / inferiority syndrome debate.
Bad BL are bad.
Good BL are marginal.
Anti-motorists are usually just anti-bad motorists.
Training all cyclists is impossible. (many motorists do not even retain their training... just look at how they drive... really, look for safe following distances as an indicator)
Inferiority syndrome... Ha... it is simply "motorist superiority" manifest by "I am driving a bigger toy than you..."
So frankly I see no "ultimate solutions." I only see cyclists trying to use the road, motorists that don't want to share, a constant battle based on rights and perceived rights, and nothing that is going to create a good environment based on the vast differences between the bicycle and the motor car and the opinions of the drivers thereof.
I would really like to ride the roads without said constant battle... or the need to "train" every 10th motorist.
LOL It is kind of unusual to see a rational discussion.
There have always been valid arguments against bike lanes, although it seems that some bike lane oppenents prefer patently absurd arguments, and prefer to present them in an insulting and offensive way...
As opposed to Bekologist post, right.
sggoodri
07-18-07, 08:41 AM
Although I have a definite opinion on the bike lane issue, I enjoyed reading both sides of the debate summarized rather well and in a civil fashion. The net result, IMO, is that all of us in the cycling community benefit by providing an awareness of these issues to the general public.
That was my motivation for participating. I hope it will reduce the number of the least desirable implementations and encourage a better understanding of traffic cycling.
-Steve Goodridge
That was my motivation for participating. I hope it will reduce the number of the least desirable implementations and encourage a better understanding of traffic cycling.
-Steve Goodridge
Thanks for participating... but your views are based on roads that are designed to remain low speed, and doesn't reflect the reality of what is happening in places like California.
Will your roads remain low speed... or is there an 85 percentile rule that will eventually run the speeds up on those roads too?
This is not to say that BL are the solution... the real solution is to keep motoring speeds low so that traffic can mix at reasonable speeds.
joejack951
07-18-07, 09:31 AM
Tell me what about this is rediculous and false?
Steve has told me on BF that he works to make roads in Cary both quite wide to support cyclists and low speed... 25 and 35MPH. Both of which I applaud, and I have told him that I felt the roads there were wonderful and did not require anything such as a BL to support cyclists. I also felt that his area was a wonderland for cyclists. Bucolic tree lined wide roads with moderate traffic... heaven.
Steve even suggested that I look for work in North Carolina and where I might find it. I have no anamosity toward him... however, his "wonderland" does not exist everywhere, so his proposed solutions may not work everywhere. That is my point.
What's false is your implication that all of Cary, NC is 35mph or less wide laned roads. Steve is working towards the goal of implementing more roadways such as this but I'm sure he's hardly converted the whole city. I've been in Cary, NC and the roads I travelled on were 45mph, single lane each direction narrow roads with no shoulders and plenty of traffic. I did see some share the road signs though. I've seen plenty of photos of wide and/or empty CA roads that look perfect for cycling but I don't post that CA is the perfect cycling state (even though it does seem quite nice).
His proposed solutions could work everywhere. There's no reason why arterial roads in other cities have to be narrow and have 45-50mph (or higher in your case) posted speed limits. We have a mix of both types in Delaware and the lower speed limit roads are far more pleasant for cycling regardless of road width. If there's one thing I'd change about the less pleasant roads (some wide, some narrow) that I use it would be the speed limit.
Bekologist
07-18-07, 09:46 AM
45 mph, single lane, narrow roads with no shoulders or bike lanes are NOT conducive to increasing cycling in the transportation mix, joe. despite 'share the road' signs.
you know that, i know that.
His proposed solutions could work everywhere. There's no reason why arterial roads in other cities have to be narrow and have 45-50mph (or higher in your case) posted speed limits. We have a mix of both types in Delaware and the lower speed limit roads are far more pleasant for cycling regardless of road width. If there's one thing I'd change about the less pleasant roads (some wide, some narrow) that I use it would be the speed limit.
I agree.
His proposal of 25 and 35MPH roads would work almost everywhere... Here in CA there are laws that permit road speeds to be modified by the 85 percentile rule... so what were 35MPH roads once may now be 50MPH roads today. (I cannot cite any case of that acutally happening... )
While I have not seen a 35MPH road changed to a 50MPH road, I have seen a 45MPH road changed to a 65MPH road, and I have seen quite a few 40MPH roads changed to 50MPH.
So while I again applaud Steve's effort and have indicated that "those roads" indeed need nothing to support cyclists... I do not see those roads remaining "perfect" as long as a motorist mentality rules.
dynodonn
07-18-07, 11:09 AM
And poorly designed bike lanes (parallel to parked cars) should not exist.
I agree, but just about every BL in my city's limits use the minimum curb distance standards of 7 foot parking and a 5 foot wide BL, making me to ride, for my personal safety, just a few inches right of the outside BL line. I measured my SUV width a few days ago, it measured 10 feet from the outer edge of the right hand tires to the outer edge of a fully open driver's door(my SUV is a midsize model, larger versions being wider still). With a 2 foot wide bike, and vehicles passing closer on the left, it's basically "threading the needle".
sggoodri
07-18-07, 01:48 PM
I agree.
His proposal of 25 and 35MPH roads would work almost everywhere... Here in CA there are laws that permit road speeds to be modified by the 85 percentile rule... so what were 35MPH roads once may now be 50MPH roads today. (I cannot cite any case of that acutally happening... )
While I have not seen a 35MPH road changed to a 50MPH road, I have seen a 45MPH road changed to a 65MPH road, and I have seen quite a few 40MPH roads changed to 50MPH.
So while I again applaud Steve's effort and have indicated that "those roads" indeed need nothing to support cyclists... I do not see those roads remaining "perfect" as long as a motorist mentality rules.
A number of physical infrastructure, social, and traffic aspects combine to limit actual speeds on "pleasant" local streets.
First, traffic demand on local streets is limited to mostly nearby residents if major thoroughfares outperform them for longer trips. This is usually accomplished directly through design with less convenient routing, stop signs, traffic calming etc. or indirectly by on-street parking and limited road width.
Second, traffic patterns with mostly local access movements, pedestrian and bicycle traffic tend to reduce speeds.
Third, with only one travel lane in each direction, slower, more prudent motorists tend to cap the range of speeds.
Fourth, public eyes-on-the-street and local traffic enforcement keeps drivers more self-aware of their actions.
...
There are plenty of 35-45 mph multi-lane arterials in town, some with wide outside lanes, and some older ones without. There are also some ugly narrow shoulderless 45 mph state roads. But there's no reason new roads and road improvements can't target the following goals:
- Provide local street alternatives to major thoroughfares
- Limit travel lane count to what is really required for capacity
- Use redundant modest-sized arterials rather than ever-wider arterials to handle greater volumes
- Limit design speed according to surrounding land uses
- Provide wide outside through lanes (14-16') on busier, faster roads
- Provide sidewalks on both sides of collectors and thoroughfares for a better pedestrian environment
A number of physical infrastructure, social, and traffic aspects combine to limit actual speeds on "pleasant" local streets.
First, traffic demand on local streets is limited to mostly nearby residents if major thoroughfares outperform them for longer trips. This is usually accomplished directly through design with less convenient routing, stop signs, traffic calming etc. or indirectly by on-street parking and limited road width.
Second, traffic patterns with mostly local access movements, pedestrian and bicycle traffic tend to reduce speeds.
Third, with only one travel lane in each direction, slower, more prudent motorists tend to cap the range of speeds.
Fourth, public eyes-on-the-street and local traffic enforcement keeps drivers more self-aware of their actions.
...
Uh, sounds fairly "idealistic" to me... one might say the same for any area... I have not found for instance that traffic patters with pedestrians tend to slow traffic in our downtown area.
And as for Prudent Motorists... sounds like something you made up... around here Prudent Motorists are the ones getting the best prices for gas. Honestly, when I drive, I drive at or below the speed limit... and I find I am always passed by a majority of motorists. I don't seem to slow anyone up... and I am as prudent as they come.
And last, law enforcement... if they are anything like those in AZ, they let 10MPH over the speed limit slide right on by.
If any of the above worked, then the 85 percentile rule would never be invoked. And speeds here would never have been adjusted upward.
According to this http://www.ci.winston-salem.nc.us/Home/Departments/Transportation/Operations/Articles/SpeedLimits
Your speeds can be "adjusted" by aggressive motorists... so much for those 25 and 35MPH limits. Then again, I never have figured out how 85 percent of traffic can be allowed to exceed the speed in the first place. Sounds like enforcement is simply sleeping on the job.
But in the end, if speeds can be kept down, indeed roads tend to be quite friendly to those using lower speed "vehicles." But that is a big IF.
skanking biker
07-18-07, 02:36 PM
With a little practice, these rules and related defensive driving skills make it possible to travel by bike virtually anywhere, safely and efficiently.
. . . .
According to police reports, most of these overtaking-type collisions involve roads that are too narrow to add bike lane stripes, where drivers overtook too closely to cyclists who were hugging the edge of a narrow lane. (In narrow lanes, traveling near the center of the lane reduces close passing by prompting overtaking drivers to slow down or to "unstuck" from the lane and move left.)
While listening and participating in these debates, I do see both sides of the issue. This article clearly and concisely sets forth both positions.
However, without using psychobabble, insults, or jargon, I would really like an explanation from bike lane opponents on this question:
What do you do about a narrow, busy road that has only 1 lane of traffic in each direction and whose speed limit is significantly higher than cyclists? If the cyclist "takes the lane," he will bottleneck and slow down all traffic behind him. Rightly or wrongly, this greatly displeases motorists and results in cyclist harrassment (i.e. horn honking, yelling), and causes motorists to view cyclists in a negative light. If, on the other hand, the cyclist tries to move "as far as practicable" to the right, cylists encounter the danger of that the cyclist will be "clipped" by traffic trying to overtake him in the same lane.
I have yet to hear a rational answer to this problem or why "taking the lane" in this situation would be safer than a bike lane.
dynodonn
07-18-07, 02:38 PM
But in the end, if speeds can be kept down, indeed roads tend to be quite friendly to those using lower speed "vehicles." But that is a big IF.
After our city received the prestigious honor:rolleyes: of having the highest vehicle accident, injury, and death per capita per mile rating in all of California a few years back, speed enforcement was ramped up, traffic calming measures were installed, and speed limits on cetain roads were dropped 10 mph,( with strict speed enforcement, speeds actually dropped 20 plus mph.)
Uh, sounds fairly "idealistic" to me... one might say the same for any area... I have not found for instance that traffic patters with pedestrians tend to slow traffic in our downtown area.
And as for Prudent Motorists... sounds like something you made up... around here Prudent Motorists are the ones getting the best prices for gas. Honestly, when I drive, I drive at or below the speed limit... and I find I am always passed by a majority of motorists. I don't seem to slow anyone up... and I am as prudent as they come.
And last, law enforcement... if they are anything like those in AZ, they let 10MPH over the speed limit slide right on by. .
the other day I was driving down the local 6 lane arterial, aka urban freeway ( the one I drive to work on) and I was going 55 in a 45 mph zone ... and I was being PASSED by people. crazy.
the other day I was driving down the local 6 lane arterial, aka urban freeway ( the one I drive to work on) and I was going 55 in a 45 mph zone ... and I was being PASSED by people. crazy.
Exactly my point... now where does the 16MPH cyclist fit on that road... and how in the heck does one "negotiate" with motorists to make a left turn or even flare out at an intersection to avoid a right hook?
No, bike lanes are not the answer... I know that. But high speed roads are not the answer either. This is where Vehicular cycling breaks down... theory is all fine and good, but when motorists are not giving each other room and do not negotiate with each other (via turn signals) where does that leave cyclists?
Thus to follow... I have a real hard time with Vehicular Advocates that support groups that support motoring at 60MPH+.
I think lanes for bikes can be PART of the answer... right now cyclists who ride along this particular urban freeway for any distance (including me) are on the sidewalks.
I think lanes for bikes can be PART of the answer... right now cyclists who ride along this particular urban freeway for any distance (including me) are on the sidewalks.
BL can only work if the road can be widened... and yes, frankly BL are better than sidewalks.
dynodonn
07-18-07, 03:20 PM
I think lanes for bikes can be PART of the answer... right now cyclists who ride along this particular urban freeway for any distance (including me) are on the sidewalks.
I'm fortunate to have wide paved and swept shoulders/bike lanes(no parked cars allowed, except for emergencies) on our high speed roads to ride on, but I occasionally "take the lane" to pass a ped or another cyclist.
joejack951
07-18-07, 04:29 PM
While listening and participating in these debates, I do see both sides of the issue. This article clearly and concisely sets forth both positions.
However, without using psychobabble, insults, or jargon, I would really like an explanation from bike lane opponents on this question:
What do you do about a narrow, busy road that has only 1 lane of traffic in each direction and whose speed limit is significantly higher than cyclists? If the cyclist "takes the lane," he will bottleneck and slow down all traffic behind him. Rightly or wrongly, this greatly displeases motorists and results in cyclist harrassment (i.e. horn honking, yelling), and causes motorists to view cyclists in a negative light. If, on the other hand, the cyclist tries to move "as far as practicable" to the right, cylists encounter the danger of that the cyclist will be "clipped" by traffic trying to overtake him in the same lane.
On "a narrow, busy road that has only 1 lane of traffic in each direction and whose speed limit is significantly higher than cyclists" you abide by the impeding traffic laws which are pretty similar from state to state. The cyclist when on the road uses the full lane and traffic behind the cyclist slows to the cyclist's speed. When a safe turnout appears, assuming a significant amount of traffic has backed up behind the cyclist (DE and PA law is 5 vehicles), the cyclist turns off the roadway (I've used driveways, side streets, small sections of wider pavement, and even the grass shoulder once when I saw there wasn't going to be another turnout oppurtunity for a while) and allows backed up traffic to pass. Once the backup clears, the cyclist proceeds. It's not terribly convenient for anyone, but it's the best you can do on that type of road. Wider pavement would make things more convenient for all provided that it was useable wider pavement (smooth, clean, etc.)
I have yet to hear a rational answer to this problem or why "taking the lane" in this situation would be safer than a bike lane.
This statement is completely unrelated to your first. If the road has an outer lane that is too narrow to share, a bike lane isn't even an option. If a bike lane was an option, the pavement would be wide enough to share and there would not be an issue.
joejack951
07-18-07, 04:37 PM
Exactly my point... now where does the 16MPH cyclist fit on that road... and how in the heck does one "negotiate" with motorists to make a left turn or even flare out at an intersection to avoid a right hook?
No, bike lanes are not the answer... I know that. But high speed roads are not the answer either. This is where Vehicular cycling breaks down... theory is all fine and good, but when motorists are not giving each other room and do not negotiate with each other (via turn signals) where does that leave cyclists?
Thus to follow... I have a real hard time with Vehicular Advocates that support groups that support motoring at 60MPH+.
How does vehicular cycling break down? I just VC'ed my butt 8 miles home from work on 45-50mph multilane roads. I used the full right lane and traffic passed on my left. I negotiated left to make 3 left turns (going maybe 18mph max, all three negotiations are at uphill though two are only slight) without any issues. Traffic behind me slowed to my speed and passed when they had a chance. Traffic in the left lanes was probably a little slower than without my presence due to people changing lanes to pass me. VC works because in the presence of a slow moving vehicle, traffic acts differently. They don't go the same speed as they normally would because otherwise they'd be running into each other all over the place. The more cyclists you throw into the mix, the more common the slower speeds becomes and suddenly your 85th percentile rule that you loathe so much becomes a good thing.
And would you get off this Forester/ADC bashing thing? It's really annoying.
How does vehicular cycling break down? I just VC'ed my butt 8 miles home from work on 45-50mph multilane roads. I used the full right lane and traffic passed on my left. I negotiated left to make 3 left turns (going maybe 18mph max, all three negotiations are at uphill though two are only slight) without any issues. Traffic behind me slowed to my speed and passed when they had a chance. Traffic in the left lanes was probably a little slower than without my presence due to people changing lanes to pass me. VC works because in the presence of a slow moving vehicle, traffic acts differently. They don't go the same speed as they normally would because otherwise they'd be running into each other all over the place. The more cyclists you throw into the mix, the more common the slower speeds becomes and suddenly your 85th percentile rule that you loathe so much becomes a good thing.
And would you get off this Forester/ADC bashing thing? It's really annoying.
Gee sounds like your motorists may actually be real live humans. I was driving on Monday and slowed down for a cyclist in front of me, and I nearly got run over by an idiot in an SUV (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=321572).
It doesn't work that well everywhere... Recall that here the motorists barely leave room between each vehicle, thus your negotiations may not work, as no one is going to slow down. (see "idiot in SUV" above) VC depends highly on co-operative motorists driving within the confines of the laws.
And the 85 percentile thing won't matter until cyclists make up a majority of the road users. Not likely to ever happen.
And as for the Forester/ADC thing, the irony of it just gets to me... I mean its like republicans supporting interns giving oral sex. "oh no we would never do that... but we endorse it... " Sigh. :rolleyes:
Now this is not to say that VC doesn't work, but that it becomes quite difficult when speeds of motorists are 15MPH over the speed of a cyclist (Forester)... and it depends highly on co-operation from motorists that may not believe you should even be on their road. (the latter belief is at least dispelled with a BL)
As I have said before... slow down the motorists... then things work just fine.
good for you, joejack. you have balls of steel. I'm not getting my ass out on my local suburban freeway for any amount of love or money. the speeds are too great, the driving is too aggressive, and too much could happen. not something I want to experiment with using my life.
good for you, joejack. you have balls of steel. I'm not getting my ass out on my local suburban freeway for any amount of love or money. the speeds are too great, the driving is too aggressive, and too much could happen. not something I want to experiment with using my life.
So what do you suggest that could make the road useable for you?
a nice wide bike lane with signage and sharrows would work for me. actually the de facto bike lane right now is the sidewalk ... although I would probably still use my back route that is more pleasant much of the time... but I could cut minutes off my time by using the arterial route.
joejack951
07-18-07, 09:04 PM
Gee sounds like your motorists may actually be real live humans. I was driving on Monday and slowed down for a cyclist in front of me, and I nearly got run over by an idiot in an SUV (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=321572).
It doesn't work that well everywhere... Recall that here the motorists barely leave room between each vehicle, thus your negotiations may not work, as no one is going to slow down. (see "idiot in SUV" above) VC depends highly on co-operative motorists driving within the confines of the laws.
Yes, they are human, which means sometimes they ***** and moan and honk their horns and a few have even threatened (maybe they did?) to call the police on me. Yup, definitely human. I've encountered a few highly cooperative drivers but the rest cooperate just enough so that they can get where they want to go and I can too. And that's all I've come to expect whether motoring or cycling so it suits me just fine.
And the 85 percentile thing won't matter until cyclists make up a majority of the road users. Not likely to ever happen.
It doesn't take many cyclists using a road to cause a dramatic drop in the average speed of motorists between intersections. [As I see happen daily though, overall speed isn't affected one bit. Having driven the same route I commute on, I know it takes at least 20 minutes, and usually 25 or more in a car. The fact that I do it in 28-30 minutes on my bike means that I'm certainly not the cause of any slow downs on that route.]
And as for the Forester/ADC thing, the irony of it just gets to me... I mean its like republicans supporting interns giving oral sex. "oh no we would never do that... but we endorse it... " Sigh. :rolleyes:
What's ironic? That a cyclist advocate is taking the time to remind people who are so caught up in their car-car-car attitude that motorists are not the only users of the road? Have you read the paper that's linked to on JF's page on the ADC website? What in there do you disagree with? I think he's doing a really smart thing. Whether it's effective or not is hard to say but as is quite apparent (in my opinion) the best ideas aren't always listened to or understood no matter who the audience.
Now this is not to say that VC doesn't work, but that it becomes quite difficult when speeds of motorists are 15MPH over the speed of a cyclist (Forester)... and it depends highly on co-operation from motorists that may not believe you should even be on their road. (the latter belief is at least dispelled with a BL)
As I have said before... slow down the motorists... then things work just fine.
Let me list some situations where I need the cooperation of motorist(s) and tell me how a bike lane would help:
1. merging left to make a left turn
2. merging left at an intersection
3. merging left to avoid debris/parked car/pedestrian
In all of these situations, if there was a bike lane, I must leave it. If a bike lane gives the impression to motorists that I can use the bike lane (and I'm quite confident that they do), what clicks in that motorist's mind that extends full rights to the road to me? I have only seen evidence that motorists expect cyclists to stay in the bike lane when one is present, or when something that looks like a bike lane is present (and most shoulders do, minus the stencil).
I don't need motorists to understand that I can use the edge of the road. The ones who take the time to tell me how they feel during their commute, are pretty consistent in telling me that I should be at the edge of the road.
joejack951
07-18-07, 09:11 PM
good for you, joejack. you have balls of steel. I'm not getting my ass out on my local suburban freeway for any amount of love or money. the speeds are too great, the driving is too aggressive, and too much could happen. not something I want to experiment with using my life.
But you'd get out there with a bike lane?
Honestly, if I had balls of steel I'd ride in the shoulder as much as possible as that would be the way to make my commute really exciting. I could play chicken with all the motorists pulling out onto the roadway, wondering if they really saw me as I'm passing a few feet in front of their car. I could test my braking skills and reaction time whenever a well timed pass and right turn manuever left me watching a rapidly approaching passenger side of a car. What I do now is watch motorists approach and do what I can to let them know I'm not moving over so they should start changing lanes NOW. If they don't they slow down behind and sit until a gap opens up for them to move left into. If they honk, I direct them to the left lane which they eventually use to pass me. It's honestly less stressful than dealing with the JAM's on the 25mph backroad (currently closed) that I was using on my commute. On that road I never knew who was going to come up behind me and completely ignore my hand signals or oncoming traffic and try to pass anyway (even though I'm going 20 in a 25).
LCI_Brian
07-18-07, 10:58 PM
However, without using psychobabble, insults, or jargon, I would really like an explanation from bike lane opponents on this question:
What do you do about a narrow, busy road that has only 1 lane of traffic in each direction and whose speed limit is significantly higher than cyclists? ... (snip) ...
I have yet to hear a rational answer to this problem or why "taking the lane" in this situation would be safer than a bike lane.
Comparing the narrow road to one with a bike lane is sort of like comparing apples and oranges, due to the different total road width. The apples to apples comparison would be the same width road, with and without the bike lane stripe. Most bike lane opponents support the extra road width, but just without the stripe.
Bekologist
07-18-07, 11:44 PM
wide lanes on busy roads without bike lanes encourage curb hugging and improper positioning at intersections by the average cyclist.
BL can only work if the road can be widened... and yes, frankly BL are better than sidewalks.
And then the wide outside lane would do just fine.
Jane, you ignorant slut!
(someone had to say it)
chipcom
07-19-07, 06:40 AM
Jane, you ignorant slut!
(someone had to say it)
Ack, beat me to it!
What's ironic? That a cyclist advocate is taking the time to remind people who are so caught up in their car-car-car attitude that motorists are not the only users of the road? Have you read the paper that's linked to on JF's page on the ADC website? What in there do you disagree with? I think he's doing a really smart thing. Whether it's effective or not is hard to say but as is quite apparent (in my opinion) the best ideas aren't always listened to or understood no matter who the audience.
Have you read it?
He effectively dismisses utility cyclists... the ones that ride a bike because they have to. He then concludes that there are two groups that voluntarily cycle... the anti car extremists who he dismisses as anti-car, and then ultimately he cites the voluntary cycling professionals... thus filtering out anyone that does not fit his ideal picture... the college students, the elementary school kids, the older folks seeking exercise. The folks that may not be comfortable in high speed traffic with multiple lanes (the very conditions that ADC is working to achieve.)
In other words, he dismisses anyone except his model of the perfect cyclist, and then declares that nothing else is required to suit these strong riders. Meanwhile, the rest, those that have the potential to simply ride the 3 miles that the NHTSA encompass most local car trips, have been dismissed as inadequate.
With his vision, we end up with school kids being driven the couple of miles to school; with folks driving a mile or two to get milk or bread; and with college students who have experienced cycling and the discomfort of high speed roads seeking to drive rather than continue cycling. Even the paperboy drives.
We lose the "Mayberry" feeling of any town, which in the hands of the ADC now becomes a stripmall with a big drivethru and a gas station along a 60MPH corridor to support the "freedom" of the motor vehicle... and the cycle of Big Gulps, stage 2 diabetes and overweight Americans continues under smog filled skis.
Drive on America, drive on... 'cause the only people cycling are the Voluntary High Speed cyclists... meanwhile watch that addiction to oil.
Ever notice that the roads are filled with a wide variety of motor vehicles.... from big trucks to mopeds to sport cars to hybids... yet in Forester's eyes, only one type of cyclist should be on the road.... to heck with variety. Couple Forester with the ADC and you end up with high speed roads and only Lance wannabes...
Yeah, have you really read it? And then taken a look around to see who really rides a bike and where? Not everyone is a "sportscar." A bike trip doesn't have to be high speed nor long distance to be "Effective."
Bekologist
07-19-07, 08:34 AM
well said, Gene.
sggoodri
07-19-07, 08:49 AM
...I would really like an explanation from bike lane opponents on this question:
What do you do about a narrow, busy road that has only 1 lane of traffic in each direction and whose speed limit is significantly higher than cyclists? If the cyclist "takes the lane," he will bottleneck and slow down all traffic behind him. Rightly or wrongly, this greatly displeases motorists and results in cyclist harrassment (i.e. horn honking, yelling), and causes motorists to view cyclists in a negative light. If, on the other hand, the cyclist tries to move "as far as practicable" to the right, cylists encounter the danger of that the cyclist will be "clipped" by traffic trying to overtake him in the same lane.
I have yet to hear a rational answer to this problem or why "taking the lane" in this situation would be safer than a bike lane.
If the pavement is too narrow for drivers to pass safely, then it is obviously to narrow to add a stripe to create a bike lane.
If the pavement is widened to provide enough space for safe passing of cyclists, then the delays and harassment go away.
The stripe isn't what improves conditions for cyclists in this case, it's pavement width, which is what vehicular cycling advocates have been pointing out all along.
Bekologist
07-19-07, 09:08 AM
Steve, wide lanes alone encourage curb hugging and improper destination positioning at intersections by the average bicyclist.
sggoodri
07-19-07, 09:28 AM
Steve, wide lanes alone encourage curb hugging and improper destination positioning at intersections by the average bicyclist.
Not necessarily, and you've never explained how a curbside bike lane doesn't, or how to provide a non-curbside bike lane without adding a lot of extra pavement to the roadway to the right of the bike lane - pavement that increases impervious surface area, increases the required right of way, increases the cost of the road construction, and tends to increase traffic speeds.
Bekologist
07-19-07, 09:41 AM
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.
Not necessarily, and you've never explained how a curbside bike lane doesn't, or how to provide a non-curbside bike lane without adding a lot of extra pavement to the roadway to the right of the bike lane - pavement that increases impervious surface area, increases the required right of way, increases the cost of the road construction, and tends to increase traffic speeds.
easy. on a multi-lane arterial, you eliminate a lane and re-stripe the road. paint is cheap!
sggoodri
07-19-07, 09:43 AM
Uh, sounds fairly "idealistic" to me... one might say the same for any area... I have not found for instance that traffic patters with pedestrians tend to slow traffic in our downtown area.
And as for Prudent Motorists... sounds like something you made up... around here Prudent Motorists are the ones getting the best prices for gas. Honestly, when I drive, I drive at or below the speed limit... and I find I am always passed by a majority of motorists. I don't seem to slow anyone up... and I am as prudent as they come.
The less pedestrians and cyclists defer to motorists, the more motorists become conditioned to this. I see enormous differences in motorist behavior between places like downtowns with lots of pedestrians who are assertive, almost recklessly so, and exurban areas with few pedestrians, most of whom run for their lives.
On a two lane road with oncoming traffic or other limited opportunities for passing, motor traffic speeds are predominantly set by the slowest 25% or so of the drivers because the faster drivers have fewer opportunities to go fast, compared to multi-lane roads where they can pass easier.
Street topology, surrounding land use, cross section and streetscape have a big impact on how roads are used. Some roads will always be more pleasant for cycling than others. Our challenge is to make the pleasant ones as functional as possible for bicycle transportation and make the less pleasant ones as safe as possible for bicycle transportation.
Bekologist
07-19-07, 09:46 AM
boy steve, it sounds like you are advocating for restriping high speed roads to add bike lanes that are well engineered on those 'less pleasant' roads.
pleasant roads (slow speed residential roads) ARE functional for bicycling. its the rest of the roads that need redesign to encourage bicycling as transportation.
leaving the roads the domain of cars and fast, lance wannabees and vc- ideologues is not the solution to greater bikeability.
sggoodri
07-19-07, 09:56 AM
easy. on a multi-lane arterial, you eliminate a lane and re-stripe the road. paint is cheap!
Restriping/road dieting, while nice, is limited to a very small number of overbuilt existing roads, and still leaves more impervious surface than designing a standard 32' wide (asphalt portion) 2-lane road.
My city is experiencing 6% annual growth and rapid expansion. We are designing and building lots of new roads; we are experiencing stormwater runnoff issues; we don't want to encourage speeding with overly wide pavement; we want to spread the transportation dollars to do the most good.
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.
The stripe isn't what improves conditions for cyclists in this case, it's pavement width, which is what vehicular cycling advocates have been pointing out all along.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 unreasonable to expect them to take a rational postiton on BLs now.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.