lanes that "support" sharing - some observations

[Bekologist]

there's a lot of talk by the anti-bike stripe crowd in this forum - steve goodridge, larry felton, bruce rosar, etc- that claim there's great benefits by promoting roads that have 'wide lanes that support sharing'.

I find there are a lot of contradictions and flaws in wide lanes. I like extra width for riding (who doesn't?) but there's a lot of flaws on relying on wide lanes for greater bikeability in communities.

wide lanes encourage bicyclists to hug the curb and dart in and out of parked cars.

also, just wide lanes on high speed arterials will keep many cyclists off those roads, looking for alternate routes.

moving from a 'lane sharing' position to a 'lane claiming' position approaching intersections on high speed roads will be difficult or impossible for some bicyclists and impossible at times for all, making right hooks, blind spot crosses and destination conflicts inevitable with wide lanes.

wide lanes at intersections also cause blocking problems for bicyclists in heavy traffic, making bicyclists do a bumper weave to advance, or getting stuck in traffic.

I've been noticing a lot of 'wide lanes' that supposedly 'support sharing' that I have NO interest in sharing with automobile traffic. 14' feet of lane? please. that puts me riding within a foot or two of the curb as cars pass, or holding them up while claiming the lane. something I'm perfectly willing to do.

I got the angry pickup truck honking and yelling yesterday in a wide lane as i was spooling up for a left off the road.

I question the validity of promoting wide lanes that 'support' sharing.....

is "wide lanes that support sharing" 'vc code' for promoting curb hugging, parked car dodging, bumper weave at stoplights, keeping some roads biker adverse, and causing destination conflicts?

[randya]

wide lanes also encourage motorists to drive faster and IMO 14' is a fairly minimal width for a 'shared lane'. It gives cyclists about four feet or less of lane width, which would be unacceptably narrow if we were talking about bike lanes.

[sggoodri]

wide lanes encourage bicyclists to hug the curb and dart in and out of parked cars.


The performance of the wide lane boils down to pavement width.

If parking is to be accommodated on an important street, then the pavement needs to be wide enough to accommodate trucks passing the parked cars. Some streets are paved wide enough that drivers can overtake cyclists traveling outside the door zone without changing lanes. Other streets require drivers to change lanes. No big deal; if harassment or improper cycling is a concern, sharrows can be used.

If bike lanes are to be striped, three options exist: 1 - Prohibit parking, which adjacent landowners will oppose. 2 - Stripe a door-zone bike lane, which encourages improper cycling and harassment of cyclists who operate properly. 3. Stripe a 4' buffer zone in the door area and stripe the standard-width bike lane outside of that, and a standard travel lane outside the bike lane. This option requires the maximum pavement width, even if the on-street parking is only lightly used. As a result, this expensive design is very rarely used, especially for new construction. It is usually seen in older, retrofitted areas where striped lanes have been removed or an extra-wide roadway existed for historical reasons.


moving from a 'lane sharing' position to a 'lane claiming' position approaching intersections on high speed roads will be difficult or impossible for some bicyclists and impossible at times for all, making right hooks, blind spot crosses and destination conflicts inevitable with wide lanes.


This makes no sense. If one wants or needs to move into the center of the normal travel lane from the side of the road, how does a bike lane stripe facilitate this? It can't. Bike lanes default to the right edge of the road, placing the cyclist in the prime location for a right hook or drive-out collision. The stripe discourages cyclists from moving farther left. A wide through lane lets the cyclist choose a lane-sharing or lane-claiming position, while the bike lane stripe explicitly routes cyclists to the right.


wide lanes at intersections also cause blocking problems for bicyclists in heavy traffic, making bicyclists do a bumper weave to advance, or getting stuck in traffic.


This is a tradeoff between the danger of filtering forward, which is more problematic the faster the cyclist goes, and the inconvenience of waiting for traffic congestion. In some areas with traffic problems, the inconvenience of waiting may be significant, but in others, such as where I live, it is not. Unfortunately, those places with the worst congestion also tend to be those places where the greatest opportunity for turns across the bike lane exist.


I've been noticing a lot of 'wide lanes' that supposedly 'support sharing' that I have NO interest in sharing with automobile traffic. 14' feet of lane? please. that puts me riding within a foot or two of the curb as cars pass, or holding them up while claiming the lane. something I'm perfectly willing to do.


Most of Cary's collector streets are built with 16' lanes next to a wide gutter pan. Raleigh's are 18' and some are wider. Some of these streets have been marked with 4' bike lanes; drivers pass me closer on those streets now that the stripes are added than they did before.

Some of Cary's 4-lane arterials now feature 14' outside lanes next to wide gutter pans per the new standard. With my tires about 4 feet from the curb, 2' from the gutter pan, drivers pass me with adequate space.

I promote 15' or wider lanes if the traffic speeds are high, but we've had a hard time convincing the city to buy and pave that much right of way. Adding even more width to create bike lanes would be a similarly difficult thing to sell.


I got the angry pickup truck honking and yelling yesterday in a wide lane as i was spooling up for a left off the road.


And a proper left turn approach is endorsed by a right-side bike lane how, exactly?

At least with an unsegregated wide lane, he can lawfully pass you at a safe distance on the right. Narrow it by making the right portion legally off-limits to motorists, and he can't.

[sggoodri]

wide lanes also encourage motorists to drive faster and IMO 14' is a fairly minimal width for a 'shared lane'. It gives cyclists about four feet or less of lane width, which would be unacceptably narrow if we were talking about bike lanes.

Before I was aware of operational issues with bike lanes (I had never used one until a few years ago) I used to be really hopeful that bike lane striping would demonstrate reduced speeds on the same pavement width, i.e. converting a 15' lane into an 11' travel lane and a 4' bike lane.

Unfortunately, all the studies I have been able to find indicate no improvement with the stripe. In some cases speeds get higher. The city of Raleigh even did their own study showing the same results. So it turns out that an 11' lane next to a 4' bike lane generates the same prevailing speeds as a 15' lane. However, studies show that drivers slow down considerably if a cyclist is in the same wide lane.

[The Human Car]

I really don’t think there is one type of treatment that is going to be applicable everywhere, the problem is how to describe conditions that make one kind of treatment preferable over another kind.

For example a three foot curb lane is nice on country roads but stinks on fast busy urban roadways. Similarly I think a WOL is also less then ideal in an urban setting but may have applicability in semi-urban or rural settings.

I was trying to think of situations where I would prefer a WOL to other treatments and so far I have only come up with a curvy down hill descent with sections of near straight or level roadway. (i.e. the safest/courteous position for a cyclists changes frequently from right side or center of the roadway.)

I have also reached the conclusion that I really like stripes but not necessarily the space created to the right of the stripe. So the problem is how to show that the space to the right of the strip is an optional or less then ideal space for a cyclist to be. A couple of my thoughts would be to put an occasional diagonal line across to remove the perception of a lane. Another idea would be to have an inside dashed line next to the solid stripe to indicate that a cyclist is allowed to move out from the space on the right.

As much as people tout same road, same rules we need to also tout same engineering principles and same engineering considerations. A sold line means crossing is discouraged and that is not what we want to say to cyclists. Just because a narrow bike lane is safe for 8mph bike travel does not mean that it is safe for 20mph bike travel.

[The Human Car]

This makes no sense. If one wants or needs to move into the center of the normal travel lane from the side of the road, how does a bike lane stripe facilitate this? It can't. Bike lanes default to the right edge of the road, placing the cyclist in the prime location for a right hook or drive-out collision. The stripe discourages cyclists from moving farther left. A wide through lane lets the cyclist choose a lane-sharing or lane-claiming position, while the bike lane stripe explicitly routes cyclists to the right.

I think the point is that a WOL does not facilitate this either.

[randya]

Similarly I think a WOL is also less then ideal in an urban setting but may have applicability in semi-urban or rural settings.
Exactly. Steve lives and rides in a very post-automobile suburban environment, I'm more of a pre-automobile city urban cyclist.

[CommuterRun]

I'll go on the record once again as supporting multiple, same direction, narrow lanes over anything else.

In other words, the lane doesn't support sharing which would mitigate a lot of negative interaction between motorists and cyclists, but the entire road, overall, supports sharing more than any other facility.

[joejack951]

Exactly. Steve lives and rides in a very post-automobile suburban environment, I'm more of a pre-automobile city urban cyclist.

The WOL's that make up a large part of the route I take from work into Philadelphia work very nicely. When the road is multiple lanes in my direction and a lot of intersections, I just use the normal line of travel in the right hand lane but have the option to move over into clean pavement if there's traffic waiting behind me and a long enough gap appears between intersections. I certainly never hear "get in the bike lane." I also found that motorists bias far enough right in a WOL when stopped that they can easily be passed on the left in heavy congestion. When traffic is stopped in both directions, passing on the left and avoiding being off to the right for any driveways or side streets is about as safe of filtering as I've been able to do.

[joejack951]

I think the point is that a WOL does not facilitate this either.

There is no point in saying that though. Everyone knows that a wide lane does not facilitate lane changes in any way over a normal width lane. The point Steve is trying to make is that by striping an non-conventional lane (bike lane with a solid stripe) the process of changing lanes can become more difficult than if the wide lane was left alone. The fact that many motorists will change lanes even for a cyclist off to the right in a WOL makes lane changing even easier (more gaps to choose from).

[The Human Car]

There is no point in saying that though. Everyone knows that a wide lane does not facilitate lane changes in any way over a normal width lane. The point Steve is trying to make is that by striping an non-conventional lane (bike lane with a solid stripe) the process of changing lanes can become more difficult than if the wide lane was left alone.

Here WOL’s can informally break down to a right hand turn lane and a through lane or people make a right turn from the through lane (left most portion of the travel lane.) Cycling a WOL that breaks down to two lanes is near identical to traveling in a bike lane that ends 200 feet before an intersection. Cycling a WOL that doesn’t break down to two lanes is near identical (for average cyclist) to having a bike lane up to the intersection. So as far as intersection issues go I don’t see a whole lot of differences.

The fact that many motorists will change lanes even for a cyclist off to the right in a WOL makes lane changing even easier (more gaps to choose from).

They just changed a WOL to a standard lane and a curb lane (could be a designated bike lane) by my house and my impression is I still get the same % of people crossing the centerline to pass me while in the curb lane as I did without the curb lane. The only real difference the curb lane has made is that there are more joggers, bikes with kid trailers and just more cyclist out in general. It used to be I would generally not see any non motorized person out on this roadway and now it is the norm to wave to at least one or two people every time I use the road.

[LittleBigMan]

there's a lot of talk by the anti-bike stripe crowd in this forum - steve goodridge, larry felton, bruce rosar, etc- that claim there's great benefits by promoting roads that have 'wide lanes that support sharing'.

I find there are a lot of contradictions and flaws in wide lanes. I like extra width for riding (who doesn't?) but there's a lot of flaws on relying on wide lanes for greater bikeability in communities.

wide lanes encourage bicyclists to hug the curb and dart in and out of parked cars.
I guess an inexperienced cyclist might do that, just like an inexperienced cyclist might stay in a bike lane no matter what the circumstance.

[Bekologist]

inexperienced bicyclists? do you mean the majority of the bicyclists out there? that still understand the 'rules of the road'?

bike lanes can have much more fluidity to encourage leaving the bike lane with the use of dashes or cessation of the stripe to encourage greater lane use, little big man.

and how does a bicyclists 'control' a 18' lane? I've found, in very wide lanes, that traffic will pass on both sides regardless of intended direction of bicyclist.

[Bekologist]

"wide lanes that support sharing" = vc code for promoting curb hugging, parked car dodging, bumper weave at stoplights, keeping some roads biker adverse, and causing destination conflicts.

[rando]

WOLs can be ambiguous. give me stripes.

[sggoodri]

I'll go on the record once again as supporting multiple, same direction, narrow lanes over anything else.

In slower downtown areas with lots of junctions, I prefer this too. I just take the lane and drivers change lanes to pass me in the next same-direction lane.

If there isn't room for more than one lane in each direction in an urban environment, I prefer a wide lane, so I can choose to move into a rightward location when I want to facilitate same-lane passing.

In an urban area where there is room for multiple lanes in each direction but the speeds are fast, I also prefer wide outside through lanes over narrow lanes.

If there are very few junctions, i.e. if it is an expressway type facility or a rural road with few driveways, I don't care whether it is a striped faciltiy or WOL facility, except for the amount of debris. I have seen some shoulders with very little debris, and I ride on these. If there is construction in the area or if there are unpaved driveways along the road (common along the state roads without curb and gutter here) there tends to be a lot of gravel on the shoulders.

[sggoodri]

bike lanes can have much more fluidity to encourage leaving the bike lane with the use of dashes or cessation of the stripe to encourage greater lane use, little big man.


You've claimed that the lack of a stripe encourages cyclists to stay too far right. Now you claim that ending the stripe causes cyclists to ride farther left. Which is it?


and how does a bicyclists 'control' a 18' lane? I've found, in very wide lanes, that traffic will pass on both sides regardless of intended direction of bicyclist.

One doesn't need to control an entire 18' wide lane. One only needs to ride in a location that discourages hook-type collisions. When turning right, ride near enough to the right side to deter passing on the right. When turning left, ride far enough left to deter passing on the left. When riding straight, ride far enough left to discourage right hooks at intersections. If this means that a straight-traveling driver sometimes manages to pass you on the right, so what? Merge farther to the right after they pass.

I get passed on the right a lot by other cyclists, and occasionally by car drivers at stop sign intersections where there are no destination lane markings. Dividing up the roadway with destination-specific markings would be much more useful for reducing this type of problem than adding vehicle-type lane markings.

[Bekologist]

steve, wide lanes will do nothing, intrinsically, to keep a rider further left. a buffered bike lane intrinisically does. and if the bike lane is dashed versus solid at conflict zones, or the stripe stops as a lane approaches a minor intersection, it indicates it is legal for bikes to move out of the lane.

I understand how to destination position, steve, I don't need riding advice from you. yes, I get cars spooling up on my right at traffic signals too, when I'm travelling straight. I don't let them pass at stops though- how do they pass you at a stop sign???

wow, incredible that destination positioning sometimes doesn't work in wide lanes.....

I was pointing out flaws inherent in wide lanes.....sometimes, steve, in the middle of a wide lane, a right turning driver will STILL attempt to get around the bicyclist on the left, AND drivers will also attempt to pass on the right. you blithely state "so what?"..... must be your innocence (inexperience?) coming out, to deny traffic ambiguity towards bicycling inherent on wide lane roads.

[John Forester]

there's a lot of talk by the anti-bike stripe crowd in this forum - steve goodridge, larry felton, bruce rosar, etc- that claim there's great benefits by promoting roads that have 'wide lanes that support sharing'.

I find there are a lot of contradictions and flaws in wide lanes. I like extra width for riding (who doesn't?) but there's a lot of flaws on relying on wide lanes for greater bikeability in communities.

wide lanes encourage bicyclists to hug the curb and dart in and out of parked cars.

also, just wide lanes on high speed arterials will keep many cyclists off those roads, looking for alternate routes.

moving from a 'lane sharing' position to a 'lane claiming' position approaching intersections on high speed roads will be difficult or impossible for some bicyclists and impossible at times for all, making right hooks, blind spot crosses and destination conflicts inevitable with wide lanes.

wide lanes at intersections also cause blocking problems for bicyclists in heavy traffic, making bicyclists do a bumper weave to advance, or getting stuck in traffic.

I've been noticing a lot of 'wide lanes' that supposedly 'support sharing' that I have NO interest in sharing with automobile traffic. 14' feet of lane? please. that puts me riding within a foot or two of the curb as cars pass, or holding them up while claiming the lane. something I'm perfectly willing to do.

I got the angry pickup truck honking and yelling yesterday in a wide lane as i was spooling up for a left off the road.

I question the validity of promoting wide lanes that 'support' sharing.....

is "wide lanes that support sharing" 'vc code' for promoting curb hugging, parked car dodging, bumper weave at stoplights, keeping some roads biker adverse, and causing destination conflicts?

This is typical of Bekologist's irrelevant writings. Most of the problems that Bekologist cites as problems with wide outside lanes are also the same problems with bike lanes. Does Bekologist then follow his own logic and claim that narrow outside lanes are the best design?

[sbhikes]

I don't believe wide lanes actually support sharing at all. I think they allow cyclists to ride to the right of motorists and that's about it.

Sharing is what you do when there's only one toy and two kids want to play with it: take turns.

[John Forester]

I don't believe wide lanes actually support sharing at all. I think they allow cyclists to ride to the right of motorists and that's about it.

Sharing is what you do when there's only one toy and two kids want to play with it: take turns.

Not quite. The argument for wide outside lanes is that they allow motorists to travel to the left of cyclists without using the adjacent lane, and, thus, without being much delayed.

Diane, you make such noble announcements in matters about which you show blatant ignorance.

[randya]

The argument for wide outside lanes is that they allow motorists to travel to the left of cyclists without using the adjacent lane, and, thus, without being much delayed.
another example of the motorist superiority complex. bike lanes do it better

[sggoodri]

wow, incredible that destination positioning sometimes doesn't work in wide lanes.....

I was pointing out flaws inherent in wide lanes.....sometimes, steve, in the middle of a wide lane, a right turning driver will STILL attempt to get around the bicyclist on the left, AND drivers will also attempt to pass on the right. you blithely state "so what?"..... must be your innocence (inexperience?) coming out, to deny traffic ambiguity towards bicycling inherent on wide lane roads.

The prudent engineering solution to address improper destination positioning at intersections is destination-specific roadway markings. This is what I advocate at intersections; I have worked with engineers to obtain added lane markings at intersections in previously wide unmarked lanes where drivers of vehicles attempted to travel in parallel into the same lane on the opposite side of the intersections.

If no destination lane markings have been provided, drivers of narrow vehicles must employ destination-appropriate positioning.

Vehicle-specific markings invite improper destination positioning whenever the destination and vehicle type don't match. They aren't an effective solution at all.

[Bekologist]

no, steve, destiantion specific lane markings for thru travel ARE an effective lane striping pattern. changing lanes to the turning lane is expected and required for turning traffic, but a preferred class travel lane for thru travel provides dedicated space at intersections.

man, the big nay sayer says it can't be done. but it can.

problem with steve's vision? striping turning lanes places some thru cyclists in the right side of the right turn lane, hugging the curb. bad position.


a preferred class lane to the left of right hand turns places thru cyclists to the left of right turning traffic. striped bike lanes at major intersections for thru bike travel work, steve.

cars are required to yield to vehicles to their right before moving right, no conflict at the merge zone unless drivers don't follow the rules of the road.

[joejack951]

Here WOL’s can informally break down to a right hand turn lane and a through lane or people make a right turn from the through lane (left most portion of the travel lane.) Cycling a WOL that breaks down to two lanes is near identical to traveling in a bike lane that ends 200 feet before an intersection. Cycling a WOL that doesn’t break down to two lanes is near identical (for average cyclist) to having a bike lane up to the intersection. So as far as intersection issues go I don’t see a whole lot of differences.

Your list of faults of how a WOL is set up in your area says nothing about how effective the design is. Where pavement width only allows a WOL to turn into a narrow thru and turn lane (and the road engineers felt this was a necessary change), aside from adding more pavement, what could be done? There's not enough width for a bike lane so that can't even be considered as a possible solution.

The difference between riding to the right in a WOL and riding to the right in a bike lane is that motorists see the bike lane as something they have to avoid whereas the right side of the WOL is space that can be used to turn right from. This difference places more turning motorists in the proper "as far right as practicable" position and eliminates at least some of the right hook oppurtunities that the less skilled cyclists places himself in. That's the biggest difference that I see.

They just changed a WOL to a standard lane and a curb lane (could be a designated bike lane) by my house and my impression is I still get the same % of people crossing the centerline to pass me while in the curb lane as I did without the curb lane. The only real difference the curb lane has made is that there are more joggers, bikes with kid trailers and just more cyclist out in general. It used to be I would generally not see any non motorized person out on this roadway and now it is the norm to wave to at least one or two people every time I use the road.

By curb lane, do you mean a lane who leftmost boundary is a solid stripe, like a bike lane but without the stencil? How wide is this curb lane? How many of these joggers do you think would be using it if there was "bike only" signs placed next to the lane? There's not much I can argue aside from what has been argued about why a white stripe on the roadway increases the comfortability of some users on a road.

One of my small gripes about bike lanes is how they take away space that could be used by other road users (including walkers, runners, rollerbladers, etc.) by stating that only bikes can use that space. Some cyclists even let those signs go to there heads and start berating anyone who dares use THEIR bike lane.

[joejack951]

no, steve, destiantion specific lane markings for thru travel ARE an effective lane striping pattern. changing lanes to the turning lane is expected and required for turning traffic, but a preferred class travel lane for thru travel provides dedicated space at intersections.

man, the big nay sayer says it can't be done. but it can.

problem with steve's vision? striping turning lanes places some thru cyclists in the right side of the right turn lane, hugging the curb. bad position.


a preferred class lane to the left of right hand turns places thru cyclists to the left of right turning traffic. striped bike lanes at major intersections for thru bike travel work, steve.

cars are required to yield to vehicles to their right before moving right, no conflict at the merge zone unless drivers don't follow the rules of the road.

So how do you fit a "good quality" bike lane in between a thru lane and a right turn only lane when you only have 16-18 feet of space?

[Bekologist]

more 'fire marshall bill' armchair engineers saying road redesign "can't be done".......

use right of way space or emminent domain to move the right turn only lane over five feet.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

I don't believe wide lanes actually support sharing at all. I think they allow cyclists to ride to the right of motorists and that's about it.

Sharing is what you do when there's only one toy and two kids want to play with it: take turns.

John, I'm presuming you mean untrained from an engineering standpoint here and mean no insult?

John and Dianne: Perhaps a better definition of "Sharing" is in order to clarify what both of you both mean, so there is communication here instead of head butting.Not quite. The argument for wide outside lanes is that they allow motorists to travel to the left of cyclists without using the adjacent lane, and, thus, without being much delayed.

Diane, you make such noble announcements in matters about which you show blatant ignorance.

[The Human Car]

Your list of faults of how a WOL is set up in your area says nothing about how effective the design is. Where pavement width only allows a WOL to turn into a narrow thru and turn lane (and the road engineers felt this was a necessary change), aside from adding more pavement, what could be done? There's not enough width for a bike lane so that can't even be considered as a possible solution.

FWIW The problem of WOLs that don't break down to a separate right turn lane (motorists not in proper turning position) has more to do with a tight turn radius on the cross street then design issues on the through street. Increasing the turn radius increases the speed going into a residential neighborhood. Some days you just can't win.


By curb lane, do you mean a lane who leftmost boundary is a solid stripe, like a bike lane but without the stencil? How wide is this curb lane? How many of these joggers do you think would be using it if there was "bike only" signs placed next to the lane? There's not much I can argue aside from what has been argued about why a white stripe on the roadway increases the comfortability of some users on a road.

One of my small gripes about bike lanes is how they take away space that could be used by other road users (including walkers, runners, rollerbladers, etc.) by stating that only bikes can use that space. Some cyclists even let those signs go to there heads and start berating anyone who dares use THEIR bike lane.

Yes it is a five foot wide "bike lane" without the stencil. There is somewhat of an unofficial war between cyclists and joggers so putting a stencil of "Bike only" would cause a significant flair up IMO. A regular biker dude icon stencil would probably still see the same type of usage I currently see but possibly an occasional cyclists would give other users a bit of hassle. (It is a bit annoying to share such a lane with a jogger running the opposite direction.)

[sggoodri]

no, steve, destiantion specific lane markings for thru travel ARE an effective lane striping pattern.


That is exactly what I said. Destination specific lane markings should be used where it is desirable to explicity route traffic by destination at intersections.


changing lanes to the turning lane is expected and required for turning traffic, but a preferred class travel lane for thru travel provides dedicated space at intersections.
.....
problem with steve's vision? striping turning lanes places some thru cyclists in the right side of the right turn lane, hugging the curb. bad position.
.....
a preferred class lane to the left of right hand turns places thru cyclists to the left of right turning traffic. striped bike lanes at major intersections for thru bike travel work, steve.
...


No, striping a right-turn-only lane beside the through lane is what provides dedicated space for through traffic to the left of right-turning traffic. Any bicycle-specific marking is merely accessory to the issue at hand. Through-cyclists who follow the basic rules of the road for normal striped destination lanes will be in the correct position.

If it is desirable to provide extra passing space between through cyclists and through motorists where an RTOL is present, the through lane can be made extra-wide. I provide pictures of this in my article on designing WOLs:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/index.htm

[The Human Car]

That is exactly what I said. Destination specific lane markings should be used where it is desirable to explicity route traffic by destination at intersections.



No, striping a right-turn-only lane beside the through lane is what provides dedicated space for through traffic to the left of right-turning traffic. Any bicycle-specific marking is merely accessory to the issue at hand. Through-cyclists who follow the basic rules of the road for normal striped destination lanes will be in the correct position.

If it is desirable to provide extra passing space between through cyclists and through motorists where an RTOL is present, the through lane can be made extra-wide. I provide pictures of this in my article on designing WOLs:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/index.htm

Your figure 9 is near identical to figure 11.a here http://communitymobility.org/pdf/aashto.pdf

Similarly if a bike lane was only where the wide lane was a solid stripe in your figure 10 again I do not see much of a difference. I am not saying a bike lane is better then a WOL for safety, I am just not seeing the WOL is better then a bike lane argument. Sorry.

[LittleBigMan]

inexperienced bicyclists? do you mean the majority of the bicyclists out there? that still understand the 'rules of the road'?

bike lanes can have much more fluidity to encourage leaving the bike lane with the use of dashes or cessation of the stripe to encourage greater lane use, little big man.

and how does a bicyclists 'control' a 18' lane? I've found, in very wide lanes, that traffic will pass on both sides regardless of intended direction of bicyclist.
1) You said "wide lanes encourage bicyclists to hug the curb and dart in and out of parked cars." Only an inexperienced cyclist would do those things.

Is that what you do in wide lanes?

2) Do you need "cessation of the stripe" or "dashed lines" to decide when it's ok to leave the bike lane, bekologist? Only an inexperienced cyclist would be bound to that kind of authoritarianism.

3) I hope you aren't trying to "control" 18 foot lanes, bekologist. If you do try, you'll get more experiences like you've already had of traffic passing on both sides of you.

[John Forester]

John, I'm presuming you mean untrained from an engineering standpoint here and mean no insult?

John and Dianne: Perhaps a better definition of "Sharing" is in order to clarify what both of you both mean, so there is communication here instead of head butting.

Here is the more complete version of the exchange:

"
Originally Posted by sbhikes View Post
I don't believe wide lanes actually support sharing at all. I think they allow cyclists to ride to the right of motorists and that's about it.

Sharing is what you do when there's only one toy and two kids want to play with it: take turns.
John, I'm presuming you mean untrained from an engineering standpoint here and mean no insult?

John and Dianne: Perhaps a better definition of "Sharing" is in order to clarify what both of you both mean, so there is communication here instead of head butting.
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Not quite. The argument for wide outside lanes is that they allow motorists to travel to the left of cyclists without using the adjacent lane, and, thus, without being much delayed.

Diane, you make such noble announcements in matters about which you show blatant ignorance."

Tom Storncrowe asks whether I meant to insult Diane. I did not intend to insult her, just to state the obvious truth. The argument that wide outside lanes are intended to allow motorists to overtake cyclists without intruding on the next lane over has been well known in bicycle advocacy circles since, oh, 1978 or so. Any person who considers himself or herself qualified to participate in intelligent discussion of bicycle advocacy matters should know basic information such as this.

[The Human Car]

Dian – WOL allow cyclists to ride to the right of motorists
John – WOL allow motorists to travel to the left of cyclists

Yep one answer is intelligent and the other answer shows blatant ignorance. Who can argue with that?

[sbhikes]

Whether you believe a WOL allows one vehicle to ride to the left or right of another, in no way does it promote the concept of sharing. That was my only point.

Bike lanes at least acknowledge that there is no sharing at all.

[The Human Car]

Whether you believe a WOL allows one vehicle to ride to the left or right of another, in no way does it promote the concept of sharing. That was my only point.

Bike lanes at least acknowledge that there is no sharing at all.
Uh Oh, an intelligent answer, of course JF can refute such intelligence is by simply stating the obvious truth, [insert insulting statement] which is the only true intelligent defense of a poor argument.

[dynodonn]

Bike lanes at least acknowledge that there is no sharing at all.

Yes, I know this very well, I just have to move out of the BL, into the motorist's lane, and I'm usually reminded ,rather venomously at times, at the average motorist's inability to share when a BL is present.

[sggoodri]

Your figure 9 is near identical to figure 11.a here http://communitymobility.org/pdf/aashto.pdf

Similarly if a bike lane was only where the wide lane was a solid stripe in your figure 10 again I do not see much of a difference. I am not saying a bike lane is better then a WOL for safety, I am just not seeing the WOL is better then a bike lane argument. Sorry.

Indeed, a wide through lane isn't much different from an AASHTO-compliant bike lane where a right turn only lane is to the right.

It's at other intersection locations - without right turn only lanes - where striped bike lanes create more problems than integrated wide lanes. The striped bike lane, when present, will always be striped to the right of motor traffic, setting up the through cyclist for improper destination positioning wrt right-turning motorists. With the WOL, the cyclist is free to operate farther left, as is encouraged by traffic cycling educators.

BEK claimed that bike lanes provide superior destination positioning for through cyclists compared to wide outside through lanes; my counter is that (MUTCD-compliant) striped bike lanes and wide outside through lanes provide equal quality destination positioning where RTOLs are present, but striped bike lanes are inferior when marked at all other intersections. RTOL-equipped intersections make up less than 5% of the intersections in Cary that have bike lanes striped up to the intersection. The other 95% are striped curbside directly into the right-hook zone.

[dynodonn]

Some motorists can work well with BL's and some cannot, it can be really difficult at times to discern the two types at 20 plus mph. At this one intersection without a RTOL that I travel through on a regular basis, twice in the last week, two motorists did not seem aware that they could merge across the dashed lines into the BL. One motorist stopped in the lane, blocking traffic, waited for another cyclist and myself to pass, irregardless that she had a several hundred foot lead on us. The other motorist also had a large lead on me, also did not attempt to merge across the dashed BL lines, but just made an abrupt right turn from the main travel lane, and very seldom see this type of driving behavior being exhibited on non BL roads.

[joejack951]

FWIW The problem of WOLs that don't break down to a separate right turn lane (motorists not in proper turning position) has more to do with a tight turn radius on the cross street then design issues on the through street. Increasing the turn radius increases the speed going into a residential neighborhood. Some days you just can't win.

Even if motorists don't get their right tires up against the curb, coming within a couple feet is a lot better than staying a full 5 or 6 feet away from the curb as would likely happen with a striped bike lane. I'll agree that no design is perfect in terms of allowing a relatively untrained cyclist safe travel down a busy street. I do think the WOL design has advantages over a bike lane though and allows the cyclists more freedom which hopefully will in time help the cyclist to learn proper destination positioning. Riding in a curbside bike lane every day does nothing to encourage a cyclist to properly destination position himself.

Yes it is a five foot wide "bike lane" without the stencil. There is somewhat of an unofficial war between cyclists and joggers so putting a stencil of "Bike only" would cause a significant flair up IMO. A regular biker dude icon stencil would probably still see the same type of usage I currently see but possibly an occasional cyclists would give other users a bit of hassle. (It is a bit annoying to share such a lane with a jogger running the opposite direction.)

This is the kind of thing I'm getting at. Since when do cyclists "own" the right side of the lane/shoulder? They don't and they shouldn't always be there, especially when a pedestrian is using that space. Implying that the right side of the road is cyclist only space is misleading at best.

[The Human Car]

Even if motorists don't get their right tires up against the curb, coming within a couple feet is a lot better than staying a full 5 or 6 feet away from the curb as would likely happen with a striped bike lane.

I agree but my point is what if motorists are already turning 5-6 feet away from the curb without a bike lane?

[joejack951]

I agree but my point is what if motorists are already turning 5-6 feet away from the curb without a bike lane?

I don't know. I do know that whatever the answer is, it doesn't include striping a bike lane in that space.

[The Human Car]

I don't know. I do know that whatever the answer is, it doesn't include striping a bike lane in that space.

I agree with that as well.

[John Forester]

Dian – WOL allow cyclists to ride to the right of motorists
John – WOL allow motorists to travel to the left of cyclists

Yep one answer is intelligent and the other answer shows blatant ignorance. Who can argue with that?

Not quite so. Allowing cyclists to ride to the right of motorists, Diane's formulation, gives the implication that the purpose is to allow cyclists room to ride to the right of motorists, including those times when the cyclist should not do so, as when overtaking a motorist who could turn right. This is typical bike-lane, cyclist inferiority thought.

My formulation was not "allow motorists to travel to the left of cyclists". As long as the cyclist is not blatantly disobeying the rules of the road, in most cases nothing prevents motorists from traveling to the left of a cyclist. Rather, my formulation is to allow motorists to overtake cyclists without intruding into the next lane over. That conveys an entirely different image. It avoids the implication that the cyclist should ride into the space between a motorist and the curb when that motorist might turn right. More importantly, it establishes the purpose of the wide outside lane as allowing significant bicycle traffic without delaying and inconveniencing motorists, thus making bicycle traffic more politically acceptable for motorists without also creaking the traffic problems created by bike-lane stripes.

There is all the difference in the world between the two formulations.

[ChipSeal]

I'll go on the record once again as supporting multiple, same direction, narrow lanes over anything else.

In other words, the lane doesn't support sharing which would mitigate a lot of negative interaction between motorists and cyclists, but the entire road, overall, supports sharing more than any other facility.

With this I agree!

I have logged more than 5000 miles this year in the greater Dallas area. Urban, suburban, and country roads. I would estimate that only 5% of these roads are of WOL design. The vast majority of our roads are four and six lane "same direction, narrow lanes". I would be hard pressed to point to country roads with lanes wider than ten feet.

I always take the lane, and I will ride "leftish" in the lane to encourage better passing decisions on two lane roads. I realized the other day, that in all those miles, I have never been right hooked. I decided this was due to the lack of WOLs. I think that when this point is taken into account, narrow right lanes are a safer design for cyclists.

"My bicycle cannot stand by it's self: It is two tired.

[The Human Car]

There is all the difference in the world between the two formulations.
The only real difference is one is from the point of view of a motorist and the other is from the cyclist's point of view. Just because you wish to make a different point or add clarity to Diane's point does not make her blatantly ignorant or suffering from your imaginary bike lane inferiority junk.

Without a WOL or bike lane cyclists like Diane are riding away from the right like they should. THEREFORE the only difference between a road that is not a WOL and a road that is a WOL is allowing the cyclists to ride to the right. GET IT? Diane is correct and you are the one who is blatantly ignorant.

[John Forester]

The only real difference is one is from the point of view of a motorist and the other is from the cyclist's point of view. Just because you wish to make a different point or add clarity to Diane's point does not make her blatantly ignorant or suffering from your imaginary bike lane inferiority junk.

Without a WOL or bike lane cyclists like Diane are riding away from the right like they should. THEREFORE the only difference between a road that is not a WOL and a road that is a WOL is allowing the cyclists to ride to the right. GET IT? Diane is correct and you are the one who is blatantly ignorant.

Much of what you have written is not understandable. However, in one point you are absolutely wrong. You describe the two points of view as being "one from the point of view of a motorist and the other is from the cyclist's point of view." That differentiation is absolutely erroneous.

I agree that Diane's formulation is from the point of view of the kind of cyclist she thinks she is.

The other point of view includes much more than that of motorists. It also includes that of highway planners and highway engineers, of civil government, all interested in safe and efficient roadways, and of cyclists, too, who see the advantages of wide outside lanes as reducing conflicts with both individual motorists and with the motoring organizations.

[Bekologist]

I think The Human Car has it pegged more accurately.

john's POV is that of a motorist; Diane's is that of a bicyclist.

[joejack951]

more 'fire marshall bill' armchair engineers saying road redesign "can't be done".......

use right of way space or emminent domain to move the right turn only lane over five feet.

Right, because buildings can be torn down and rebuilt and we really don't need that sidewalk there any more. I'm sure Mr. Landowner doesn't care if we pave over five feet of his yard so that cyclists can feel a little more comfortable going through an intersection. Give me a break.

[sbhikes]

But to JF the reason I'm blatantly ignorant is because I should be barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen.