lanes that "support" sharing - some observations

[bmike]

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.

priceless.
the more you write on BF, the more appalling I find your character, alliances, and 'theories'.

so, its OK to use a bicycle as transportation so long as it doesn't hinder those automobile drivers that are in a big hurry? efficiency and convenience and all being the only standard which you seem to respect.

have your notions of the road been informed from the seat of your bicycle? automobile? or desk chair?

[sggoodri]

John Forester wrote:
"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.
"

so, its OK to use a bicycle as transportation so long as it doesn't hinder those automobile drivers that are in a big hurry? efficiency and convenience and all being the only standard which you seem to respect.



I believe you are misinterpreting what he wrote. John is one of the nation's staunchest supporters of cyclists' road rights regardless of roadway design and impact on motorists' convenience.

If the lane is narrow, automobile drivers must change lanes to pass cyclists at appropriate distance. If the lane is wide enough, this passing can occur without automobile drivers having to change lanes.

I advocate that wide (14' or wider) through lanes be employed where this changing of lanes to pass is inconvenient enough to cause undesirable social friction between motorists and cyclists. If you read Forester's book Bicycle Transportation, he says basically the same thing, that many cyclists feel more comfortable cycling where they don't feel that they are delaying motorists, and motorists are more likely to treat cyclists favorably if the roadway design reduces this potential delay or stress. I think we all recognize this.

John rightly makes the distinction that WOLs are not intended (by him, at least) to facilitate cyclists' passing to the right of of queued motor vehicles in congested conditions, the desirability of which is the subject of debate.

[bmike]

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.

aside from the casual mention of your clearly superior cyclist here, your true colors show once again.
why do you blindly support the dominant paradigm?

you call dianne ignorant, but somehow traffic planners, motorists, and highway engineers are all knowing when it comes to the needs of everday, commuting, all weather, real world cyclists? how many of these folks ride a mile in cyclists shoes? how many of these folks have on the ground, real world experience moving about our cities and towns on 2 wheels set in motion by their own bodies?

are you not surprised that all the data, all the engineering, all the designs tend to reinforce the automobilist's superiority complex? why do you keep trying to force the bike to be another piece of the vehicular puzzle? aren't we more creative than that? asking the questions tend to influence the outcome. when we ask car headed questions about bicycle travel, are we not surprised that the answers point to more efficiency, convenience, and ease for the motoring public? i think part of the problem here is top down vs. bottom up management. ask the questions from a cyclists point of view. not one of your uberradfahrer "i'm really a car/truck/vehicle, but i'm on 2 wheels today" theoretical cyclists.


and, whats the difference between a WOL and bike lane again? a stripe and some markings? any different than any other device of 'traffic control' we've conjured up and put on the roadways?

we make this **** up everyday. we create the 'rules of the road'. we adapt to countless situations in any given day. why is it that folks can't adapt to some marking on the pavement? we seem to do ok with left turn lanes, stop signs, cross walks.

[bmike]

I believe you are misinterpreting what he wrote. John is one of the nation's staunchest supporters of cyclists' road rights regardless of roadway design and impact on motorists' convenience.


i don't get that sense from reading his posts on BF. his theme seems to be "play nice with cars and trucks or get off the road, because you are clearly unskilled in riding with the big boys and girls (cars and trucks)."

i thought we were talking about sharing... sharing to me means making use of the same item / space / etc. in many cases we can't magically put down a WOL, greenway, or sidepath. in many cases cars, trucks, bikes, busses, joggers, etc. need to share the space.

why does JF support efficiency and convenience in motoring, yet seem to reinforce the very designs and settlement patterns that denigrate efficiency and effectiveness?

lets talk about effective transportation as a whole...
what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about driving a multi-ton vehicle to deliver the kids to school or to pick up 20 pounds of groceries? what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about living many miles from basic services with the need to use a heavy, energy intensive vehicle to move about? what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about a world designed to nearly require one to own, operate, and maintain a vehicle (at sizeable upfront costs) to simply move from point A to point B? where is the freedom in that? the basic argument that i see over and over is that motorists can't be bothered to change their ways (either through new traffic controls, lower speeds, 'sharing', or having to deal with joggers and cyclists and peds on the road) - so we defer to them and work around them. sure, having a WOL makes for efficient car travel around slow moving vehicles, cyclists, and peds - but is it effective? does it make sense to continue to reinforce this behavior, this sacred cow status we have hardwired and built into the very designs of our living patterns?

we are blinded by our current development and dominant mode of transportation, and everything that we try to do is colored by this thinking. we try to make cyclists act like vehicles. we marginalize pedestrian access to allow more cars through an intersection. we build interchanges and intersections to streamline "traffic" flow and volume, while not looking at other costs and issues related to it.

efficient and convenient, (for who?) sure. but effective? hardly.

[sbhikes]

i don't get that sense from reading his posts on BF. his theme seems to be "play nice with cars and trucks or get off the road, because you are clearly unskilled in riding with the big boys and girls (cars and trucks)."

i thought we were talking about sharing... sharing to me means making use of the same item / space / etc. in many cases we can't magically put down a WOL, greenway, or sidepath. in many cases cars, trucks, bikes, busses, joggers, etc. need to share the space.

why does JF support efficiency and convenience in motoring, yet seem to reinforce the very designs and settlement patterns that denigrate efficiency and effectiveness?

lets talk about effective transportation as a whole...
what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about driving a multi-ton vehicle to deliver the kids to school or to pick up 20 pounds of groceries? what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about living many miles from basic services with the need to use a heavy, energy intensive vehicle to move about? what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about a world designed to nearly require one to own, operate, and maintain a vehicle (at sizeable upfront costs) to simply move from point A to point B? where is the freedom in that? the basic argument that i see over and over is that motorists can't be bothered to change their ways (either through new traffic controls, lower speeds, 'sharing', or having to deal with joggers and cyclists and peds on the road) - so we defer to them and work around them. sure, having a WOL makes for efficient car travel around slow moving vehicles, cyclists, and peds - but is it effective? does it make sense to continue to reinforce this behavior, this sacred cow status we have hardwired and built into the very designs of our living patterns?

we are blinded by our current development and dominant mode of transportation, and everything that we try to do is colored by this thinking. we try to make cyclists act like vehicles. we marginalize pedestrian access to allow more cars through an intersection. we build interchanges and intersections to streamline "traffic" flow and volume, while not looking at other costs and issues related to it.

efficient and convenient, (for who?) sure. but effective? hardly.

This is a beautiful post.

[sggoodri]

i don't get that sense from reading his posts on BF. his theme seems to be "play nice with cars and trucks or get off the road, because you are clearly unskilled in riding with the big boys and girls (cars and trucks)."

i thought we were talking about sharing... sharing to me means making use of the same item / space / etc. in many cases we can't magically put down a WOL, greenway, or sidepath. in many cases cars, trucks, bikes, busses, joggers, etc. need to share the space.

why does JF support efficiency and convenience in motoring, yet seem to reinforce the very designs and settlement patterns that denigrate efficiency and effectiveness?

lets talk about effective transportation as a whole...
what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about driving a multi-ton vehicle to deliver the kids to school or to pick up 20 pounds of groceries? what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about living many miles from basic services with the need to use a heavy, energy intensive vehicle to move about? what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about a world designed to nearly require one to own, operate, and maintain a vehicle (at sizeable upfront costs) to simply move from point A to point B? where is the freedom in that? the basic argument that i see over and over is that motorists can't be bothered to change their ways (either through new traffic controls, lower speeds, 'sharing', or having to deal with joggers and cyclists and peds on the road) - so we defer to them and work around them. sure, having a WOL makes for efficient car travel around slow moving vehicles, cyclists, and peds - but is it effective? does it make sense to continue to reinforce this behavior, this sacred cow status we have hardwired and built into the very designs of our living patterns?

we are blinded by our current development and dominant mode of transportation, and everything that we try to do is colored by this thinking. we try to make cyclists act like vehicles. we marginalize pedestrian access to allow more cars through an intersection. we build interchanges and intersections to streamline "traffic" flow and volume, while not looking at other costs and issues related to it.

efficient and convenient, (for who?) sure. but effective? hardly.

I can tell from your writing that you are upset with a physical environment and culture that often marginalizes those who travel under their own power. Such emotions are what compelled me to become a dedicated advocate for pedestrians and cyclists (I was car-free for some of my adult life, and have always liked traveling under my own power). However, the experiences that I've had while working on many government land use/transportation planning, engineering, enforcement, and encouragement activities over the last several years have given me a perspective that leads me to interpret John Forester's writing a bit differently.

First, one does not need to like the socioeconomic and technological factors behind trends in transportation and land use in order to acknowledge their reality and conclude that they are unlikely to change. Some changeable things are probably worth great effort to overcome, such as motorists' ignorance about cyclists' entitlement to roadways, while other things may be too difficult to be worth cyclist advocates' effort, such as preventing suburbanization - even if we could agree that is desirable (some of us like cycling in some types of suburbs). What we agree most on here is that we all enjoy cycling, and it appears most productive to focus on replicating the conditions that cyclists enjoy rather than on conditions that motorists don't.

Second, I have observed that departures from the vehicular cycling paradigm can often create undesirable side effects for both pedestrians and cyclists. For instance, let's say we want to promote bike lane striping in an attempt to encourage cycling. But in urban areas where cycling is most convenient compared to motoring, there are lots of junctions where curbside bike lanes would encourage right hooks and door-zone bike lanes would create dooring hazards. Bek recommends that we add more pavement to the right of the bike lane, e.g. buffer zones and right turn only lanes. But this widens the road, especially where pedestrians cross, and can increase hazards that pedestrians face from right-turning traffic. Having cyclists merge with through traffic at junctions or to stay out of door zones is often a preferable compromise.

I think there are lots of opportunities to create improvements in conditions for cycling (both social and environmental), but I have come to the conclusion that those improvements will generally require recognition of the kinematic and dynamic principles of bicycles as vehicles, the perceptual, cognitive, and reactive abilities of cyclists as drivers, the basic traffic negotiation methods recognized as the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and the defensive driving methods we have identified that are compatible with these principles.

[Helmet Head]

I can tell from your writing that you are upset with a physical environment and culture that often marginalizes those who travel under their own power. Such emotions are what compelled me to become a dedicated advocate for pedestrians and cyclists (I was car-free for some of my adult life, and have always liked traveling under my own power). However, the experiences that I've had while working on many government land use/transportation planning, engineering, enforcement, and encouragement activities over the last several years have given me a perspective that leads me to interpret John Forester's writing a bit differently.

First, one does not need to like the socioeconomic and technological factors behind trends in transportation and land use in order to acknowledge their reality and conclude that they are unlikely to change. Some changeable things are probably worth great effort to overcome, such as motorists' ignorance about cyclists' entitlement to roadways, while other things may be too difficult to be worth cyclist advocates' effort, such as preventing suburbanization - even if we could agree that is desirable (some of us like cycling in some types of suburbs). What we agree most on here is that we all enjoy cycling, and it appears most productive to focus on replicating the conditions that cyclists enjoy rather than on conditions that motorists don't.

Second, I have observed that departures from the vehicular cycling paradigm can often create undesirable side effects for both pedestrians and cyclists. For instance, let's say we want to promote bike lane striping in an attempt to encourage cycling. But in urban areas where cycling is most convenient compared to motoring, there are lots of junctions where curbside bike lanes would encourage right hooks and door-zone bike lanes would create dooring hazards. Bek recommends that we add more pavement to the right of the bike lane, e.g. buffer zones and right turn only lanes. But this widens the road, especially where pedestrians cross, and can increase hazards that pedestrians face from right-turning traffic. Having cyclists merge with through traffic at junctions or to stay out of door zones is often a preferable compromise.

I think there are lots of opportunities to create improvements in conditions for cycling (both social and environmental), but I have come to the conclusion that those improvements will generally require recognition of the kinematic and dynamic principles of bicycles as vehicles, the perceptual, cognitive, and reactive abilities of cyclists as drivers, the basic traffic negotiation methods recognized as the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and the defensive driving methods we have identified that are compatible with these principles.

This is a brilliant post. :beer:

[bmike]

I can tell from your writing that you are upset with a physical environment and culture that often marginalizes those who travel under their own power. Such emotions are what compelled me to become a dedicated advocate for pedestrians and cyclists (I was car-free for some of my adult life, and have always liked traveling under my own power). However, the experiences that I've had while working on many government land use/transportation planning, engineering, enforcement, and encouragement activities over the last several years have given me a perspective that leads me to interpret John Forester's writing a bit differently.



i'm not so hung up on traveling under my own power, whether walking or riding, as i think that spending the money we burn on wasted fuel sitting in traffic on transit would be a wiser investment. i'm looking for ways to get around the whole design flaw of our current system, and finding ways to empower and reinforce those ways - car sharing, transit, bike, walking, smarter development patterns, etc.

what i'm upset about is the continual reinforcement (from many many sides) of the car centric point of view. this was taken to an extreme last week when i read the draft transportation plan that is circulating in our fair city. after talking about complete streets, the new transit center, bicycle avenues, and trying to separate bikes and peds from truck routes, the authors write about the moving forward using the metaphor of the "dashboard", "roadmap", and "the driver". what? the bike council is lobbying to have this language changed, and everyone was very receptive of it... but this thinking about how we move about is so ingrained and entrenched...

so, i hear you on working to change what we can, and leveraging the resources available to get the largest bang for the miniscule buck set aside for bike and ped uses... but our very language for talking about transportation is so colored by the automobile that its hard to get outside of the box. people don't really need cars - we need the service of something to get from point A to point B - and we only need that service when our travels need to take us beyond a certain realm. how often do people jump in the car and run to the corner for an ice cream cone? (i've been guilty of this) - if we look at the embodied energy and the technology required to get that cone - its a pretty expensive cone! and why in the world was one of the first thing we did when we got to the moon was unload a car and drive all over?

i'm sometimes just stunned when smart people (JF and others on this forum) crap all over other peoples concepts and ideas based on "science" and "logic" - when i look at the logic of our autocentric society and see flaws - flaws of justice, flaws of freedom, flaws of efficiencies, and flaws in planning. (to name a few) what are we thinking? - to continue to spread further and further apart - needing more and more energy to go faster and farther? at some point the system will break down - the energy inputs alone cannot be sustainable. we live in a world of limits - and at some point we will hit the wall on those limits. be it energy, road rage, peak oil, or just plain frustration with having to spend 2 hours a day for most of our lives in a vehicle that we are chained to make payments on (not including fuel, maintenance, and insurance) for most of our working lives - many times in order for the privilege to have that job, that home, that feeling of 'safety' and freedom. what are we doing? where are we going? 2 hours a day spent on a freeway? indentured to the auto industry, the oil companies, and the planners that came before us? in another time this would be called tyranny. and to me that is what it is. each time i get into the car i'm reminded of it. and as we deplete our resources and poison the air and water (and ourselves) we are accomplices to intergenerational tyranny - to our grandkids and our grandkids grandkids - who will have to live with our sewage, pollution, deforestation, and depletion of natural resources - and our choices in transport, planning, urban design, and sprawl - so we could what? have those heated seats for our winter commute?

[invisiblehand]

i'm not so hung up on traveling under my own power, whether walking or riding, as i think that spending the money we burn on wasted fuel sitting in traffic on transit would be a wiser investment. i'm looking for ways to get around the whole design flaw of our current system, and finding ways to empower and reinforce those ways - car sharing, transit, bike, walking, smarter development patterns, etc.

what i'm upset about is the continual reinforcement (from many many sides) of the car centric point of view. this was taken to an extreme last week when i read the draft transportation plan that is circulating in our fair city. after talking about complete streets, the new transit center, bicycle avenues, and trying to separate bikes and peds from truck routes, the authors write about the moving forward using the metaphor of the "dashboard", "roadmap", and "the driver". what? the bike council is lobbying to have this language changed, and everyone was very receptive of it... but this thinking about how we move about is so ingrained and entrenched...

so, i hear you on working to change what we can, and leveraging the resources available to get the largest bang for the miniscule buck set aside for bike and ped uses... but our very language for talking about transportation is so colored by the automobile that its hard to get outside of the box. people don't really need cars - we need the service of something to get from point A to point B - and we only need that service when our travels need to take us beyond a certain realm. how often do people jump in the car and run to the corner for an ice cream cone? (i've been guilty of this) - if we look at the embodied energy and the technology required to get that cone - its a pretty expensive cone! and why in the world was one of the first thing we did when we got to the moon was unload a car and drive all over?

i'm sometimes just stunned when smart people (JF and others on this forum) crap all over other peoples concepts and ideas based on "science" and "logic" - when i look at the logic of our autocentric society and see flaws - flaws of justice, flaws of freedom, flaws of efficiencies, and flaws in planning. (to name a few) what are we thinking? - to continue to spread further and further apart - needing more and more energy to go faster and farther? at some point the system will break down - the energy inputs alone cannot be sustainable. we live in a world of limits - and at some point we will hit the wall on those limits. be it energy, road rage, peak oil, or just plain frustration with having to spend 2 hours a day for most of our lives in a vehicle that we are chained to make payments on (not including fuel, maintenance, and insurance) for most of our working lives - many times in order for the privilege to have that job, that home, that feeling of 'safety' and freedom. what are we doing? where are we going? 2 hours a day spent on a freeway? indentured to the auto industry, the oil companies, and the planners that came before us? in another time this would be called tyranny. and to me that is what it is. each time i get into the car i'm reminded of it. and as we deplete our resources and poison the air and water (and ourselves) we are accomplices to intergenerational tyranny - to our grandkids and our grandkids grandkids - who will have to live with our sewage, pollution, deforestation, and depletion of natural resources - and our choices in transport, planning, urban design, and sprawl - so we could what? have those heated seats for our winter commute?

Hmmmmmm, I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps I should just write that I don't see the world as such a bad place to live. Moreover, the world--for humans--is better in many dimensions than ever in history and that the doomsday arguments proposed by (what I consider) extremists are flawed in many ways.

Clearly we see the world in different lights. I don't plan on convincing you otherwise in this forum. But my interpretation of your argument is that it is based on values. We all value different things and I don't think that one person's values are intrinsically better than another person's values. Science and logic help us weigh those tradeoffs in values since we rarely ever gain something without giving something else up.

Anyway, what were those thoughts on lane sharing?

[bmike]

Hmmmmmm, I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps I should just write that I don't see the world as such a bad place to live. Moreover, the world--for humans--is better in many dimensions than ever in history and that the doomsday arguments proposed by (what I consider) extremists are flawed in many ways.

Clearly we see the world in different lights. I don't plan on convincing you otherwise in this forum. But my interpretation of your argument is that it is based on values. We all value different things and I don't think that one person's values are intrinsically better than another person's values. Science and logic help us weigh those tradeoffs in values since we rarely ever gain something without giving something else up.

Anyway, what were those thoughts on lane sharing?

i don't see it as a horrible place to hang out either... but i'm not so sure i buy that it's better than at any other time in history - its all sort of relative. we'd first have to agree upon which metrics we were using to determine 'better'. 'progress', GDP, infant mortality, cell phone coverage? etc. if we use death by auto - we wouldn't see it as a very nice place - we got all angry and started two wars after 9/11 for the deaths of 3,000+ people, but 42,000+ have died due to traffic accidents in '06 and no one really cares.

i really don't think i have an extremist point of view. i drive when i have too (and sometimes just because), i work for myself, i sometimes buy stuff from big corporations, i eat meat, i live in a lower density area of town, and i enjoy popcorn and a movie at the cinema on occasion (although i've been TV free for 10 years) i'm probably pretty 'normal' on most counts - aside from the fact that i want to build a life and business that is more human scaled than what i see as the 'standard'. and i spend too much time writing about it on bike forums.

[invisiblehand]

and i spend too much time writing about it on bike forums.

:lol:

I agree with that.

Writing broadly and not in a reference to you, I think that people are rightly skeptical when coal/oil companies produce research but fail to apply that same skepticism when environmental groups produce research. Both have been shown to possess considerable bias. But this taints the general publics view of the world. Let me finish by writing that (1) you are absolutely correct that the metrics one uses are quite important, (2) everything in the world is not peachy either, and (3) we can and should do better in some important ways.

Somewhat random comments:

Personally, I have a hard time distinguishing between a genuine preference for living in an auto-dominated and/or suburban society versus one where the rules are geared for such behavior (and people behave accordingly). Both would result in similar observations. Just to make things more difficult, both could be true.

As opposed to some proposals I read elsewhere, I would be happy if motorists simply had to pay the true social cost of driving. There is a gasoline tax; but my rough (and outdated) understanding of the research is that it fails to capture many of the costs associated with driving and is rarely set with the idea of accounting for the external costs correlated with gasoline use. I would like to see a congestion tax, a tax on tall vehicles that impede visibility, and a tax on vehicles that increase injury/mortality to other drivers--consider SUVs with high bumpers.

Regarding cycling advocacy, I think that our conditions can be improved considerably with small changes such as:

Encourage law enforcement to curb aggressive driving
Ensure that new roads consider cyclists as active users
Use education/legislation to re-enforce/enable transportational cycling on general roads
Apply a cost/benefit approach when considering redesigning infrastructure or applying facilities.
Stiffer penalties for negligent driving

I agree that we can reach for more, but I consider that icing on the cake as opposed to main goals by which we should judge our success. I should add that outreach to new and potential cyclists is worthwhile.

Lastly, while JF dumps on others in the forum, he also bears the brunt of many an insult. Despite my presence since his arrival--discounting the theories of HH=JF--I really don't remember who started the unseemly chatter. But it really does not help anyone's argument and degrades the quality of A&S in general.

[invisiblehand]

I should add, I have no idea how my post relates to lanes that support sharing either. :D

[Bekologist]

"wide lanes that support sharing"-

"VC code" for promoting road design that encourages curb hugging, parked car dodging, bumper weave at stoplights, keeping some roads biker adverse, and causing destination conflicts for the average bicyclist.

[invisiblehand]

"wide lanes that support sharing"-

"VC code" for promoting road design that encourages curb hugging, parked car dodging, bumper weave at stoplights, keeping some roads biker adverse, and causing destination conflicts for the average bicyclist.

Just curious ... I remember Barry mentioning something like this earlier ... is there any evidence supporting this other than our personal experiences?

[John Forester]

priceless.
the more you write on BF, the more appalling I find your character, alliances, and 'theories'.

so, its OK to use a bicycle as transportation so long as it doesn't hinder those automobile drivers that are in a big hurry? efficiency and convenience and all being the only standard which you seem to respect.

have your notions of the road been informed from the seat of your bicycle? automobile? or desk chair?

"so, its OK to use a bicycle as transportation so long as it doesn't hinder those automobile drivers that are in a big hurry? " The illogicality and irrelevance of your reply is proof of a mind distorted by ideology. I meant nothing of the sort, and I wrote nothing of the sort.

[John Forester]

aside from the casual mention of your clearly superior cyclist here, your true colors show once again.
why do you blindly support the dominant paradigm?

you call dianne ignorant, but somehow traffic planners, motorists, and highway engineers are all knowing when it comes to the needs of everday, commuting, all weather, real world cyclists? how many of these folks ride a mile in cyclists shoes? how many of these folks have on the ground, real world experience moving about our cities and towns on 2 wheels set in motion by their own bodies?

are you not surprised that all the data, all the engineering, all the designs tend to reinforce the automobilist's superiority complex? why do you keep trying to force the bike to be another piece of the vehicular puzzle? aren't we more creative than that? asking the questions tend to influence the outcome. when we ask car headed questions about bicycle travel, are we not surprised that the answers point to more efficiency, convenience, and ease for the motoring public? i think part of the problem here is top down vs. bottom up management. ask the questions from a cyclists point of view. not one of your uberradfahrer "i'm really a car/truck/vehicle, but i'm on 2 wheels today" theoretical cyclists.


and, whats the difference between a WOL and bike lane again? a stripe and some markings? any different than any other device of 'traffic control' we've conjured up and put on the roadways?

we make this **** up everyday. we create the 'rules of the road'. we adapt to countless situations in any given day. why is it that folks can't adapt to some marking on the pavement? we seem to do ok with left turn lanes, stop signs, cross walks.

If you want to operate your bicycle in an anarchic manner, go right ahead and run the risks. You believe that operating a bicycle is far different from operating a motor vehicle, but you have not provided any evidence as to proper differences in actual operation. You say that the road system, at least in part, should be designed from the cyclist's point of view. Well, OK, but then the cyclist has to produce a reasonable, safe, and convenient design. Which has never been done, despite decades of trying. You have your illusions, but they are more nearly delusions.

[John Forester]

i don't get that sense from reading his posts on BF. his theme seems to be "play nice with cars and trucks or get off the road, because you are clearly unskilled in riding with the big boys and girls (cars and trucks)."

i thought we were talking about sharing... sharing to me means making use of the same item / space / etc. in many cases we can't magically put down a WOL, greenway, or sidepath. in many cases cars, trucks, bikes, busses, joggers, etc. need to share the space.

why does JF support efficiency and convenience in motoring, yet seem to reinforce the very designs and settlement patterns that denigrate efficiency and effectiveness?

lets talk about effective transportation as a whole...
what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about driving a multi-ton vehicle to deliver the kids to school or to pick up 20 pounds of groceries? what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about living many miles from basic services with the need to use a heavy, energy intensive vehicle to move about? what is effective (or efficient or convenient) about a world designed to nearly require one to own, operate, and maintain a vehicle (at sizeable upfront costs) to simply move from point A to point B? where is the freedom in that? the basic argument that i see over and over is that motorists can't be bothered to change their ways (either through new traffic controls, lower speeds, 'sharing', or having to deal with joggers and cyclists and peds on the road) - so we defer to them and work around them. sure, having a WOL makes for efficient car travel around slow moving vehicles, cyclists, and peds - but is it effective? does it make sense to continue to reinforce this behavior, this sacred cow status we have hardwired and built into the very designs of our living patterns?

we are blinded by our current development and dominant mode of transportation, and everything that we try to do is colored by this thinking. we try to make cyclists act like vehicles. we marginalize pedestrian access to allow more cars through an intersection. we build interchanges and intersections to streamline "traffic" flow and volume, while not looking at other costs and issues related to it.

efficient and convenient, (for who?) sure. but effective? hardly.

You oppose suburbia, giving whatever arguments you choose, but you are hardly likely to destroy it. I accept the existence of suburbia and work out how best to cycle in the modern city. You can dream, but it doesn't do much good for cyclists; I work with what exists to do good for cyclists.

[Bekologist]

"wide lanes that support sharing"-

"VC code" for promoting road design that encourages curb hugging, sidewalk cycling, parked car dodging, bumper weave at stoplights, keeping some roads biker adverse, and causing destination conflicts for the average bicyclist.

edited to add the sidewalk cycling bit.

Invisible hand, this is bonifide observations on my part watching other bicyclists, and also has been shown in studies that bike lanes encourage more visible road position from most cyclists than a wide outside lane alone provides- seems most bicyclists hug the curbs in wide lanes, but given a bike lane, move away from the edge of roadway.

move the bike lane out from the door zone and towards the center of the road, and to the left of right hand turn lanes at major intersections, and make the majority of bicyclists operate, generally speaking, in a much more vehicular manner than wide outside lanes intrinisically encourage.

[bmike]

The illogicality and irrelevance of your reply is proof of a mind distorted by ideology. I meant nothing of the sort, and I wrote nothing of the sort.


one could say the same for all of your posts mr. forester.

[bmike]

"so, its OK to use a bicycle as transportation so long as it doesn't hinder those automobile drivers that are in a big hurry? " The illogicality and irrelevance of your reply is proof of a mind distorted by ideology. I meant nothing of the sort, and I wrote nothing of the sort.

and again, instead of discussion, you blame me for having a mental condition that is unable to deal with logic and reasoning.

[bmike]

You oppose suburbia, giving whatever arguments you choose, but you are hardly likely to destroy it. I accept the existence of suburbia and work out how best to cycle in the modern city. You can dream, but it doesn't do much good for cyclists; I work with what exists to do good for cyclists.

mr. forester, thank you for allowing me to dream.

and note that nowhere in that post did i mention suburbia.

according to the posts on BF, i think it is highly debatable on whether or not you work for the good of everyday, ride in the rain, carrying their loads to work and back cyclists. [edit - and the kids to school, and to the grocer, and to the library] and by your own admission, you have done little cycling of this sort in today's 'modern city'.

why, as a transportation designer, engineer, whatever certificate you have, professional smart guy can you not admit that parts of our autocentric planning and design are counter to efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness? do you not see the waste of space, resources, and time that these patterns continually reinforce?

as a number crunching statistics data driven professional how do you justify the 40,000+ deaths reported by the national highway transportation admin. in 2006 in support of our current development patterns? how many of these folks were just heading to school or work? or are those 'acceptable' losses which allow for the convenience of the folks who did not die?

[invisiblehand]

"wide lanes that support sharing"-

"VC code" for promoting road design that encourages curb hugging, sidewalk cycling, parked car dodging, bumper weave at stoplights, keeping some roads biker adverse, and causing destination conflicts for the average bicyclist.

edited to add the sidewalk cycling bit.

Invisible hand, this is bonifide observations on my part watching other bicyclists, and also has been shown in studies that bike lanes encourage more visible road position from most cyclists than a wide outside lane alone provides- seems most bicyclists hug the curbs in wide lanes, but given a bike lane, move away from the edge of roadway.

move the bike lane out from the door zone and towards the center of the road, and to the left of right hand turn lanes at major intersections, and make the majority of bicyclists operate, generally speaking, in a much more vehicular manner than wide outside lanes intrinisically encourage.

Oh, I can believe the effect. Given that so much of my riding is in relatively dense urban areas or rural hills, I don't see WOLs much. I will have to think about whether I regularly observe this effect on the few that I do see.

[bmike]

If you want to operate your bicycle in an anarchic manner, go right ahead and run the risks. You believe that operating a bicycle is far different from operating a motor vehicle, but you have not provided any evidence as to proper differences in actual operation.


nowhere in my reply do i suggest that i want to operate my bicycle in an anarchic manner.

i said that it would be nice if those 'lobbying for cyclists' actually had some experience navigating, riding, and using our road system on a bicycle, as opposed to just counting and data parsing and driving about hoping to help us poor, inferiority afflicted cyclists. i also stated that 'we' create the rules of the road... if we control the arbitrary definitions we apply to transportation, speed, traffic signals, etc... we certainly can find ways to incorporate bicycles into the mix. and if drivers are capable of negotiating pavement markings for left turn only, signals for stop and go, etc while talking on their phones and eating breakfast, they sure as hell better be able to notice other road users out there. and i really don't see a difference between lines on the road designed for automobiles, and those on the road designed for other uses. it seems we keep dumbing down our roads to make it easier and easier to drive in straight lines, at high speed, while multitasking. pity the mountain, school bus, farm tractor or cyclist that gets in the way.

You say that the road system, at least in part, should be designed from the cyclist's point of view. Well, OK, but then the cyclist has to produce a reasonable, safe, and convenient design. Which has never been done, despite decades of trying.

so, you admit to not being a cyclist, and not being successful in designing a safe, convenient design for cyclists to use? who are you? by this post you claim that cyclists have to produce reasonable, safe, and convenient designs? are you not a cyclist working for cyclist's rights - working for safe, convenient designs for cyclists?

You have your illusions, but they are more nearly delusions.

again, please note that you denigrate my mental capabilities when criticizing my response.

[joejack951]

and also has been shown in studies that bike lanes encourage more visible road position from most cyclists than a wide outside lane alone provides- seems most bicyclists hug the curbs in wide lanes, but given a bike lane, move away from the edge of roadway.

This same study also showed that motorists are less concerned about a cyclist's presence on the roadway when in a bike lane even though that cyclist is further from the curb. Prior to the installation of the bike lane, motorists often changed lanes to pass a cyclist even though there was plenty of room to share the lane. After the bike lane installation, motorists no longer felt the need to change lanes or even move over in their lane to give the cyclist more space.

[patc]

This same study also showed that motorists are less concerned about a cyclist's presence on the roadway when in a bike lane even though that cyclist is further from the curb. Prior to the installation of the bike lane, motorists often changed lanes to pass a cyclist even though there was plenty of room to share the lane. After the bike lane installation, motorists no longer felt the need to change lanes or even move over in their lane to give the cyclist more space.

Why is that considered a problem? (No, I'm not being an ass, I often see this argument used against bike lanes.)

[The Human Car]

This same study also showed that motorists are less concerned about a cyclist's presence on the roadway when in a bike lane even though that cyclist is further from the curb. Prior to the installation of the bike lane, motorists often changed lanes to pass a cyclist even though there was plenty of room to share the lane. After the bike lane installation, motorists no longer felt the need to change lanes or even move over in their lane to give the cyclist more space.
My problem with all this info is all I care about is the frequency of motorists encroaching on the cyclist’s safety zone (generally defined as passing within three feet of a cyclist.) There is noting good to date on that subject.

[joejack951]

Why is that considered a problem? (No, I'm not being an ass, I often see this argument used against bike lanes.)

With all the advocating for 3 foot passing laws, you'd think cyclists would be more concerned that something else they are advocating might be contributing to the problem. I see the issues of close passes like this. For an experienced cyclist, they probably don't matter much in terms of spooking cyclists but for less experienced cyclists, there is the concern of startling them and having them swerve into the path of motorists. Very high speed traffic passing in close proximity is a concern of just about any cyclist as the wind blast can be significant. There's also the concern that the close passes are due to motorists simply paying less attention to a cyclist in a bike lane which can cause a host of issues such as right hooks by motorists who didn't notice the cyclist they just passed. Whether or not bike lanes really do those things is up for debate. Just like cyclists moving a foot or two left from the curb becuase of the bike lane making the cyclist so much more visible (as Bek touts) is also up for debate.

[joejack951]

My problem with all this info is all I care about is the frequency of motorists encroaching on the cyclist’s safety zone (generally defined as passing within three feet of a cyclist.) There is noting good to date on that subject.

All I care about is being noticed and getting treated as a predictable driver on the roadway. I think striping/using bike lanes works against this.

[Bekologist]

joe, its more like 10-14 feet from the curb when there's pockets of curb parking, AND i disagree with your analysis that bike lanes work against being noticed and treated as a predictable user of the public roads.

How did you erronously come to the conclusion that smoother passing equates drivers paying less attention to bicyclists in a striped lane? that's pure, sophistic conjecture. Or your conclusions bicyclists in a bike lane will get 'spooked' by passing traffic and swerve into the next lane? more conjecture...

(and you don't drive your bike, joe. you ride it.)

[joejack951]

joe, its more like 10-14 feet from the curb when there's pockets of curb parking, AND i disagree with your analysis that bike lanes work against being noticed and treated as a predictable user of the public roads.

(you don't drive your bike, joe. you ride it.)

In the case of a few buffered and non-door zone bike lanes, sure. Those exist in how many locations? None near me and they never will because there aren't any roads with that much wasted space.

While I usually do say that I "ride" my bike, per the vehicle code, as a cyclist I am the driver of a vehicle so I have no problems saying that I "drive" my bike or want to be treated as a "driver."

[Bekologist]

they(sic) never will be (buffered bike lanes)...

don't be such a defeatist, joe. redesign of public space, including road diets, is an ongoing civic process in cities across the country and world, dude.

How DID you erronously come to the conclusion that smoother passing equates drivers paying less attention to bicyclists in a striped lane? that's pure, sophistic conjecture. Or your conclusions bicyclists in a bike lane will get 'spooked' by passing traffic and swerve into the next lane? more conjecture...

[bmike]

All I care about is being noticed and getting treated as a predictable driver on the roadway. I think striping/using bike lanes works against this.

so we should remove stripes for drivers too? it might help them be more predictable.

[The Human Car]

All I care about is being noticed and getting treated as a predictable driver on the roadway. I think striping/using bike lanes works against this.
What are the signs that cyclists don't get treated like a predictable driver on the roadway? I think the biggie is encroachment into cyclists’ safety zone. I would be interested in hearing what others think.

I was looking at motorcycle laws and we have a law that says you can't pass a motorcycle in the same lane. So that means the greater the speed differential (with cyclists) motorists can use less space to pass??? This does not make a lot of sense to me. There is something I find appealing to one vehicle per lane rule but that would make a WOL non-vehicular.

Anyway all I am saying is I would like better evidence on what works and what doesn’t, till then we can only argue is what you think vs. what I think.

[joejack951]

so we should remove stripes for drivers too?

Well, for starters, we shouldn't (and never do) stripe straight through lanes to the right of lanes that allow right turns. We also shouldn't (and don't) stripe lanes with solid lines for special vehicle types that aren't meant to restrict those vehicle types to just that lane. After all, bike lanes are not meant to restrict cyclists to just the bike lane, or at least that's what bike lane advocates say.

[invisiblehand]

Anyway all I am saying is I would like better evidence on what works and what doesn’t, till then we can only argue is what you think vs. what I think.

:beer:

[The Human Car]

:beer:
Hey I paid for a half hour agrument! ...:p



:D :beer: Right back at you.

[bmike]

.

Anyway all I am saying is I would like better evidence on what works and what doesn’t, till then we can only argue is what you think vs. what I think.

you'd undermine most of A&S then!

[Six jours]

This same study also showed that motorists are less concerned about a cyclist's presence on the roadway when in a bike lane even though that cyclist is further from the curb.
I'm less concerned about my presence on the roadway when there's a bike lane. Drivers pay attention to stripes, and when there's one indicating to drivers that bicyclists get that space to themselves, it makes things better for everyone.

[Six jours]

You believe that operating a bicycle is far different from operating a motor vehicle, but you have not provided any evidence as to proper differences in actual operation.

Cars go 70 mph. A key bit of obviousness that must be overlooked if one is to accept "VC".

[genec]

Cars go 70 mph. A key bit of obviousness that must be overlooked if one is to accept "VC".

Bikes can go 70MPH too, and faster (http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm)... not that I would ride one at that speed. I pretty much keep it below 35MPH these days.

[patc]

For an experienced cyclist, they probably don't matter much in terms of spooking cyclists but for less experienced cyclists, there is the concern of startling them and having them swerve into the path of motorists. Very high speed traffic passing in close proximity is a concern of just about any cyclist as the wind blast can be significant. There's also the concern that the close passes are due to motorists simply paying less attention to a cyclist in a bike lane which can cause a host of issues such as right hooks by motorists who didn't notice the cyclist they just passed.

Without going into a lengthy explanation (I'm quite done with the BL debates), you and I just see BLs differently. To me, a bike lane allows ME to control passing distance, it should not matter how fast or close to the lane line another vehicle is when passing me. If it matters, the bike lane is not sufficiently wide for that road and traffic conditions.

A proper bike lane should allow drivers to treat bikes as they do all other vehicles - which is largely to ignore the ones passed in different lanes.

[patc]

We also shouldn't (and don't) stripe lanes with solid lines for special vehicle types that aren't meant to restrict those vehicle types to just that lane.

But we do - at least we do here, don't know about your locale. All reserved lanes here have a solid stripe, period (unless ALL users may merge into or through the lane, as at an intersection).

How are reserved lanes OTHER than bike lanes striped in your neck of the woods?

[joejack951]

Without going into a lengthy explanation (I'm quite done with the BL debates), you and I just see BLs differently. To me, a bike lane allows ME to control passing distance, it should not matter how fast or close to the lane line another vehicle is when passing me. If it matters, the bike lane is not sufficiently wide for that road and traffic conditions.

A proper bike lane should allow drivers to treat bikes as they do all other vehicles - which is largely to ignore the ones passed in different lanes.

We have some common ground here. If a space is wide and clear enough for me to use such that I can control passing distance and largely ignore the vehicles passing in different lanes, then I'll use it. Most bike lanes that I've seen are not wide/clean enough to allow this and at intersections require a huge amount of attention to be paid to vehicles in different lanes (because most of them are in a lane different than you and don't/can't* treat your lane as a true traffic lane). I think the least problematic bike lane design would be of the style that Bek has touted before where the bike lane is a bus lane as well that becomes a straight for cyclists and busses/right turn only lane for motorists at intersections. This design requires a huge amount of extra pavement making it unviable in most places. It also still promotes the idea of cyclists staying to the right at all times which I obviously disagree with.

*They can't drive completely in it due to it's width.

[joejack951]

But we do - at least we do here, don't know about your locale. All reserved lanes here have a solid stripe, period (unless ALL users may merge into or through the lane, as at an intersection).

How are reserved lanes OTHER than bike lanes striped in your neck of the woods?

The only reserved lanes for a certain vehicle type other than cyclists that I have seen are bus lanes in the city. They are striped as normal traffic lanes and restricted for only bus use (and cyclists) during certain hours of the day as posted on signs. Right turn traffic is allowed to use the lane during that time. The area where these bus lanes are does have frequent intersections which may be why the lanes are not striped with solid lines. Perhaps your bus lanes have much longer distances between intersections which is why they got solid stripes. I'll admit that I do sometimes forget about bus lanes when talking about bike lanes. The reason I feel they are less problematic than bike lanes though is that motorists are easily able to treat it as a normal traffic lane when they need to use that space.

[patc]

Most bike lanes that I've seen are not wide/clean enough to allow this and at intersections require a huge amount of attention to be paid to vehicles in different lanes (because most of them are in a lane different than you and don't/can't* treat your lane as a true traffic lane).

I agree that there are engineering issues with bike lanes. Some of these are just because bike lanes are relatively new, and overall standards need to improve. The issue of where to put reserved lanes is always going to be problematic as well. While I am a supporter of bike lanes and other reserved lanes, they have to be taken into context - on some roads they just will not work out.

I think the least problematic bike lane design would be of the style that Bek has touted before where the bike lane is a bus lane as well that becomes a straight for cyclists and busses/right turn only lane for motorists at intersections.

That sounds like a nightmare to me, largely because where we have bus lanes they are heavily used by buses - and I mean bumper-to-bumper bus traffic at peak hour. In several places downtown, where road width did not allow both a bus lane and a RTOL, the city put up signage forbidding right turns at peak hours (you have to drive to the next block to turn). In one place motorists turn right from the SECOND lane, but the bus-only curb lane gets a green long before the other lanes do.

For me the ideal design, when a bike lane is present, is to have a RTOL with the merge-through area well before the intersection, and the bike lane stripes becoming solid again at the intersection. This is the least problematic for everyone, and what I see here on newer arterials.

I see reserved lanes as part of a continuum of road design. Factors such as easy/comfort of use, efficiency of travel, cost of construction, traffic patterns, social engineering, and safety must be weighed in each case before deciding to implement one or more reserved lanes on any given stretch of road.

[patc]

The only reserved lanes for a certain vehicle type other than cyclists that I have seen are bus lanes in the city. They are striped as normal traffic lanes and restricted for only bus use (and cyclists) during certain hours of the day as posted on signs.

With few odd-ball exceptions, all of our reserved lanes are identical (except in width and the specific vehicle symbol). Solid stripe unless other vehicles are allowed to merge into/through, diamond symbol on signage and/or pavement, and vehicle-specific symbols. We have hundreds of km of bike lanes and bus lanes, as well as a few taxi lanes and HOV lanes.

A few of the older bike lanes do not use the diamond symbol, but they are solid stripe too, so for me this is all a very consistent marking system. Solid = you may not be able to cross (look at signage), dashed = anyone may cross. Diamond = stay out unless you are specifically permitted.