Advocacy & Safety - Question for those who use and like BL's

A simple poll plus more discussion questions. Answer either or both ways as you prefer. Note that you can check more than one answer, if your answer is that it depends.

Almost all bike lanes are only indended for directing THROUGH cyclists through an intersection. In the presence of a bike lane, then, what is the expectation for cyclists going some other direction, especially turning left? That's the poll question. (I would merge to a vehicular left-turn position.) A follow-up question is, how are cyclists educated about this - osmosis, word of mouth, efforts by advocacy groups and/or city governments, all of the above, others? How about motorists?

It occurred to me recently that back before I was a bike commuter, at which time I was at most only an infrequent recreational cyclist on neighborhood streets, I had never encountered a bike lane on my bike. I remember that one of the the first times I encountered one as a car driver, I found one intersection to be extremely confusing, where it became dashed and went out into the road to the left of a right-turn only lane. Could that be safe? What if the cyclist really wanted to turn right? Or left? Were they allowed to leave the bike lane to do so? Was I, the car driver, allowed to go through it to turn right? What if I, the car driver, wanted to turn right from a general travel lane that had a bike lane on its right? What am I supposed to do?

Since I've became a largely vehicular commuting cyclist, I am no longer able to imagine how a beginning cyclist would learn the answers to these questions in an area where there are a lot of bike lanes. Or how motorists in those places learn, since I am not in on of those places. Hence this thread.

I voted first two, because I will not turn out into traffic if it's busy enough, and I will stop and wait in the bike lane till traffic has cleared up enough for me to get over the two lanes I need to for most left hand turns around here.

However I usually just merge into traffic lanes as long as it's safe.

I picked all three, not to be annoying, but because that's what happens around here.

Legally, in Denmark, you're supposed to wait for traffic to pass before you turn left. On pretty much any road -- regardless of bike lanes.

At intersections with traffic lights, you're supposed to do the "L" turn -- go through, stop, and wait for the green.

Without traffic lights, you're supposed to wait for traffic to clear. There are several places in town where there are little 10 foot long "bike lanes" on the right hand side of the road with left pointing arrows in them -- little waiting areas for left turners. I should get a picture of one.

It all drives me nuts, so often I will ignore the rules and take the lane. I often get honked at for it. Someday, I'll probably get deported for my behavior.

(Edit: I don't know that I qualify as "liking" bike lanes, but I tolerate them in the overall scheme of things)

Since I don't qualify as "use and like BL's", I'm not voting in the poll. I ride in them when it's safe and reasonable to do so, but I can't honestly say I like bike lanes.

If I did vote, I would vote, "Leave the bike lane before the intersection and merge to a vehicular left-turn position". Of course, that implies that I would look back and signal/negotiate as required before moving left.

I usually leave the lane and merge over, but I have on rare occasion used the L 90 turn trick... especially if I am moving very slowly relative to the rest of traffic.

Greater than 90% of the time I merge left safely as HH described into the vehicular LTL.

However under certain conditions I will make a right turn, then a u-turn and line up behind vehicular thru traffic. This morning was such a condition as the sun was very low and looking back behind me (with both mirror and turning head) I could not clearly see due to the intense sun/glare. That made it hard to safely negotiate a merge.

One thing I would never do (in addtion to turning left from right position) is go thru, then turn 90deg as this can put one in a sudden dangerous condition as the light changes and there is often not any room ahead of lead car to position oneself.

Al

To clarify that first option (too bad it won't let me edit the poll options), I mean "waiting for same-way motor traffic passing you on your left (and opposing traffic) to clear".

To clarify that first option (too bad it won't let me edit the poll options), I mean "waiting for same-way motor traffic passing you on your left (and opposing traffic) to clear".

Here is a video of a cyclist doing what I think you are describing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkikKJ28SJU

One thing you can't fully see is that the pedestrian paused in the x-walk before stepping on sidewalk to let them thru.

Al

Leave the lane and merge over, for me.

Here is a video of a cyclist doing what I think you are describing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkikKJ28SJU

One thing you can't fully see is that the pedestrian paused in the x-walk before stepping on sidewalk to let them thru.

Al

Pretty much. There was no bike lane that I saw, but if there had been one there, that's what I mean. Also, I didn't see any through traffic between you and him, only the left-turners you were behind. Maybe there had been through traffic that finished going through before you turned the camera on, and he waited for it? If so, and there had been a bike lane, that's what I mean.

[edit after watching it again: I see. The light was red, and he rushed the green to do his maneuver. It worked well in this case because there WAS no through traffic next to him.]

But the same question can also apply to a bike lane to the left of a right-turn only lane in a channelized intersection. That would put the cyclist who waits in the manner your video shows even more in the middle of the intersection, unless they waited to even enter the intersection until the traffic was clear. In that case, they might (a) miss the light altogether, or (b) hold up through cyclists behind them.

P.S. You gotta work on those squeaky brakes, man! They sound like mine!! :D

Can someone address my second set of questions? (Sorry I'm such a verbose poster.)

Basically: How are cyclists expected to know how to take turns in bike-laned intersections? How are motorists to know what to expect them to do?

Can someone address my second set of questions? (Sorry I'm such a verbose poster.)

Basically: How are cyclists expected to know how to take turns in bike-laned intersections? How are motorists to know what to expect them to do?
You are asking questions that cannot be answered. There is no debate about that. The debate is about whether it matters that these questions cannot be answered, and, if so, how much. The bike lane supporters seem to think it doesn't matter, or doesn't matter much.

Those of us who think it matters, and matters significantly, don't like bike lanes, largely because of this.

Can someone address my second set of questions? (Sorry I'm such a verbose poster.)

Basically: How are cyclists expected to know how to take turns in bike-laned intersections? How are motorists to know what to expect them to do?

Just follow the rules of the road. Its not rocket science. The only reason bike lanes confuse some motorisst and cyclists is that most people are completely ignorant of traffic law.

Can someone address my second set of questions? (Sorry I'm such a verbose poster.)

Basically: How are cyclists expected to know how to take turns in bike-laned intersections? How are motorists to know what to expect them to do?

Cyclists aren't expected to "know what to do" because there is no one definitive answer to your question. Every cyclists will do what makes sense to them and is comfortable to them. Some (alot) of cyclists are not comfortable being out in the traffic lane. There's nothing wrong with that either, so they would likely not merge into traffic but rather cross the intersection then turn left onto the perpendicular bike lane and procede when clear. Someone like me would negotiate a lane merge and take my place in the line of left turning vehicles.
This is what makes bike lanes somewhat of a good thing, it gives people options. We need options, we are human afterall.

as for "how do motorists know what to expect" that can only be answered assuming that cyclists obey the laws. If the cyclist is signaling and indicating with his motions that he is about to merge left, the motorist should assume that they cyclist is about to merge and take proper action. If there is no signal or indication the motorist should assume that the cyclist is going through the intersection.
It's like asking how do motorists know what to expect from other motorists. The fact is, so long as everyone obeys the laws, there should be no problem. But this is not always the case, wether it be motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, or politics. ;)

I don't vote in polls, but if I did vote in this one I would chose the option that gives me the most options, so I would take any of the above steps depending upon how I felt at the time and which would be the fastest for me assuming I was pressed for time. If you time it right, you can cross the intersection and turn left and catch the next light perfectly and never have to "wait" at all, and still be perfectly legal and safe.

You are asking questions that cannot be answered. There is no debate about that. The debate is about whether it matters that these questions cannot be answered, and, if so, how much. The bike lane supporters seem to think it doesn't matter, or doesn't matter much.

Those of us who think it matters, and matters significantly, don't like bike lanes, largely because of this.

And then there are manuals like this that the general public is exposed to when they attempt to get a driver's license.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/images/dlhdbk/59ahop.gif

Of course that cycling public may not get this data as they are not required to get a license... and that is where cycle training is important.

Now getting all cyclists and motorists to use and regard this method is another story all together.

Can someone address my second set of questions? (Sorry I'm such a verbose poster.)

Basically: How are cyclists expected to know how to take turns in bike-laned intersections? How are motorists to know what to expect them to do?

Read the CA driver's handbook, or the handbook for your state...

The example in the CA driver's handbook looks like this:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/images/dlhdbk/59ahop.gif

Pretty much. There was no bike lane that I saw, but if there had been one there, that's what I mean. Also, I didn't see any through traffic between you and him, only the left-turners you were behind. Maybe there had been through traffic that finished going through before you turned the camera on, and he waited for it? If so, and there had been a bike lane, that's what I mean.

[edit after watching it again: I see. The light was red, and he rushed the green to do his maneuver. It worked well in this case because there WAS no through traffic next to him.]

But the same question can also apply to a bike lane to the left of a right-turn only lane in a channelized intersection. That would put the cyclist who waits in the manner your video shows even more in the middle of the intersection, unless they waited to even enter the intersection until the traffic was clear. In that case, they might (a) miss the light altogether, or (b) hold up through cyclists behind them.

P.S. You gotta work on those squeaky brakes, man! They sound like mine!! :D

You are right, there is not a bike lane on this 25mph road entering a 45mph arterial. There is however a post mounted on the curb with a button facing the street that says ~"Press for Bicycle Crossing" It has the similar effect as a BL at an intersection to position cyclist to the far right independent of their desired destination. I have found that in all cases my bicycle (and in a few case I have tested by lone alumimum front wheel) activates the inductive loops so I have never had the need to use this button found at many intersections in Tempe.

There was also no other thru traffic at the time, but I also noted the cyclist never once looked back when making the left crossing turn.

As to the brakes, that is on my Lemond Poprad with Avid Shorty 4 cantiliever brake, notorious for having fork shudder (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=234561)and/or brake squeal even when set up perfectly. After over a year of trying to fix it with the very compentent LBS, Lemond send me a replacement carbon folk which has helped a lot, but still not perfect. I rarely ride this bike anymore.

Al

how do bicyclists learn to transit intersections without bike lanes? can a bicyclist that understands how to ride on the roads use a bike lane to spool up to travel straight thru the intersection?

Can Helemt Head, Noisebeam, or Sgoodri use bike lanes?

I like Gene's pictures, and could easily be modified to include bike facilities.

there are some bike laned roadways that provide space approaching the intersections for left turning bikes in Seattle, with painted turn arrows in the bike boxes.

Read the CA driver's handbook, or the handbook for your state...

The example in the CA driver's handbook looks like this:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/images/dlhdbk/59ahop.gif

Hey, I LIKE that picture. It tells the cyclist to just pull right out in front of that car to make a left turn, or go around a car to the left then cut across in front of it to make a right turn. No wonder cyclists and drivers have no idea what's going on.

I chose the second and third answer in the poll. I do it the same as if there were no bike lane. IN heavy traffic just make the left turn by going through the light and stopping to wait for the green for cross traffic.

Can someone address my second set of questions? (Sorry I'm such a verbose poster.)

Basically: How are cyclists expected to know how to take turns in bike-laned intersections? How are motorists to know what to expect them to do?

repetition, law, familiarity, and education (learning on the road)

what ever did the first drivers who encountered a left turn only lane do? did they plow right through because that arrow said so?

what ever did the first drivers who encountered an HOV lane do? or a bus only lane? or a right turn on red? or a no turn on red?

i'll concede that some BLs can be unsafe - but so can car lanes! they tend to get fixed over time, and we tend to think that the motor vehicle traffic markings are perfect and have always been so. if something doesn't work it is in our power to change it... and its also in our power to adapt to changes in markings and control devices.


i think it would go a long way to the safety of all road users to have a comprehensive educational program in order to obtain a motor vehicle license. understanding the rights of all users of the public rights of ways would help ease the friction between bus, car, truck, ped, bike, and buggy.

we raise the limit on drinking, but we give the keys to land missile cars and SUVs to 16 year olds with scant real world training.

And then there are manuals like this that the general public is exposed to when they attempt to get a driver's license.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/images/dlhdbk/59ahop.gif

Of course that cycling public may not get this data as they are not required to get a license... and that is where cycle training is important.

Now getting all cyclists and motorists to use and regard this method is another story all together.
I hope you're kidding. That diagram is horrible. It makes it seem like the left-turning cyclist shouldn't start merging left until he is 1-2 car lengths from the intersection!

bleaugh bleaugh. HH must have a better idea.....much better to have no instruction or education phamplets for either drivers or bicyclists. :rolleyes: WAIT! that intersection has no signal....and the cars have no drivers!

GHOST CARS ARE DANGEROUS!

Just follow the rules of the road. Its not rocket science. The only reason bike lanes confuse some motorist and cyclists is that most people are completely ignorant of traffic law.
However ignorant most people are of traffic law, they understand the underlying principles well enough to operate relatively safely and efficiently the vast majority of the time when they are operating motor vehicles. I, for one, have driven almost half a million miles in my life and have yet to be involved in a crash.

What the vast majority doesn't understand is how those same traffic principles apply to bicyclists in traffic. And bike lanes add to the confusion by encouraging behavior contrary to those principles by their very nature, especially at intersections without right only lanes. At such intersections they encourage through and left-turning cyclists to keep too far right (see Gene's diagram above for another example of encouraging left-turning cyclists to keep too far right for too long), and right turning motorists to keep too far left.

WOW! that's a lot of driving, Head! Half a mil? Are you SURE you've commuted by bicycle?

watch out for cars like the ones in the CA drivers handbook without drivers, people!

not all bike lanes encourage those behaviors, HH.

bleaugh bleaugh. HH must have a better idea.....much better to have no instruction or education phamplets for either drivers or bicyclists. :rolleyes: WAIT! that intersection has no signal....and the cars have no drivers!

GHOST CARS ARE DANGEROUS!
No, it would be much better to have diagrams that showed proper behavior for bicyclists, such as those produced by the League of American Bicyclists.

There is a similar diagram on p. 21 in the LAB Road 1 manual which also arguably shows the left turning cyclists starting his merge early, but the lack of cars in the diagram at that part of the intersection makes it not appear nearly as close as in the one that Gene posted, and there is a note next to the left-turning cyclist that clearly states:



Make your move well
before the intersection.

WOW! that's a lot of driving, Head! Half a mil? Are you SURE you've commuted by bicycle?

watch out for cars like the ones in the CA drivers handbook without drivers, people!

not all bike lanes encourage those behaviors, HH.
The first image is of an intersection with a right only lane, Bek. The second is the relatively rare mirror-image situation: a left only lane on a one-way street.

What part of at intersections without right only lanes did you not understand, Bek?

the part where you throw bike lanes out with the bathwater. I know you use bike lanes on your commute, WHEN you bicycle. Some bike lanes on roads without rtonly lanes become dashed before minor intersections & curb cuts or stop before intersections, head. I beleive ones along your sometimes bike commute route do that, don't they?

how long have you been driving, Head? 25 years? that's 20,000 miles a year, dude. :eek: I am SHOCKED someone who claims to be an avid bicycle commuter can log up that many miles. that's twice the national average for people that DON'T bicycle.

However ignorant most people are of traffic law, they understand the underlying principles well enough to operate relatively safely and efficiently the vast majority of the time when they are operating motor vehicles. I, for one, have driven almost half a million miles in my life and have yet to be involved in a crash.
I don't thik ignorance is the word that should be used here, rather I believe that "apathetic" applies more properly. When I drive, I am apathetic of the rules I am breaking (speeding, rolling stops, running stale yellow lights, not yielding, etc) and not ignorant of them, and I'm quite sure that the vast majority of the people you refer to as "ignorant" are in the same boat as I... and likely you.



What the vast majority doesn't understand is how those same traffic principles apply to bicyclists in traffic. And bike lanes add to the confusion by encouraging behavior contrary to those principles by their very nature, especially at intersections without right only lanes. At such intersections they encourage through and left-turning cyclists to keep too far right (see Gene's diagram above for another example of encouraging left-turning cyclists to keep too far right for too long), and right turning motorists to keep too far left.

When I was a teenager I used to read alot of 4x4 magazines and such. These magazines were revenue driven by advertisers and not necessarily sales of the publication itself. A vast majority (I love saying "vast majority") of the adds in these magazines were for alcahol and tobacco, after all, nothing added more to the redneck stereotype of 4-wheel off roading than a 6-pack of Bud and tin of Skoal. Even though I was "encouraged" to drive my truck with a cold beer between my legs and a pinch of dip in my lip doesn't necessarily mean that "common sense and self preservation" did not do more to persuade me to do just the opposite. Just because these magazines seemed to encourage me to do these things, just as you feel bike lanes encourage the behaviour you are speaking of, does not mean that it forces this behaviour, we always have the choice to do what we want, and we have the freedom to make bad choices or good.
Aint America grand? ;)

the part where you throw bike lanes out with the bathwater. I know you use bike lanes on your commute, WHEN you bicycle. Some bike lanes on roads without rtonly lanes become dashed before minor intersections & curb cuts or stop before intersections, head. I beleive ones along your sometimes bike commute route do that, don't they?

how long have you been driving, Head? 25 years? that's 20,000 miles a year, dude. :eek: I am SHOCKED someone who claims to be an avid bicycle commuter can log up that many miles. that's twice the national average for people that DON'T bicycle.
Throwing bike lanes out with the bathwater would be throwing out the space as well as the stripe. I only advocate removal of the stripe, not the space.

I've been driving for 31 years and have only been an avid bike commuter for about 7 years now, and I tend to take several long driving vacations of 1,000 miles or more (from San Diego to SF Bay Area, Sierras, Grand Canyon, etc.) per year. I put about 7,000 miles on the VW Camper every year, almost none of which are commuting miles, and that doesn't count vacation driving in rental cars and friends' cars. Also, "almost half a million" was a guesstimate. Maybe it's 400,000. I don't know. The point is it's several hundred thousand miles and no collisions. And, frankly, I've only become a defensive driver since my daughter was born in 2000, and I still regress to some of my less conservative habits from time to time, especially with respect to speeding on long drives. So the fact that I've done all that driving without collisions indicates the countless millions of drivers I've encountered without conflict are all reasonably good drivers, which was my point.

that is rich, head. all those drivers you've encountered have been reasonably good drivers? :roflmao: what a deluded sense of the center of the universe. what is your point? millions of drivers you've encountered while you drive (a LOT!) are reasonably good at driving? what possible relevancy does your driving habit have in a thread about bicycling and left turns?


Glad to hear you are such an avid motorist :rolleyes:

To the OP: turing left while riding roads with or without bike lanes is not rocket science. there are many levels of skill of traffic bicyclist. some choose 'pedestrian' lefts, and some choose vehicular lefts, and some mix it up, depending on skill and traffic levels. a bike lane does NOT deter a cyclist from turning left.

the diagram shown by Genec from the CA drivers' manual shows the two most common ways to turn left. despite there being no drivers in the cars and the diagram obviously not intended to be an absolute instruction.

the diagram does NOT show a messenger left, a wrong way left, or a split the yellow left.

and in my neck of the woods, there are left turn bike lanes on some roads, as well as bike lanes to the LEFT of straight traffic, allowing easier left turn lineup for bicyclists.

I don't thik ignorance is the word that should be used here, rather I believe that "apathetic" applies more properly. When I drive, I am apathetic of the rules I am breaking (speeding, rolling stops, running stale yellow lights, not yielding, etc) and not ignorant of them, and I'm quite sure that the vast majority of the people you refer to as "ignorant" are in the same boat as I... and likely you.
"Ignorant of traffic law" was Pat's wording, I was just responding to it. But, I do agree most drivers are ignorant of traffic law. That is, the vast majority does not own a copy of the vehicle code, or has even ever looked at it. Most only skim the driver's manual, which is at best a sloppy summary of the law. But it doesn't matter because most traffic law is based on common sense principles, and most drivers know these principles. Police know the law better than most, but that's because they're trained, so they know what vehicle code section is violated when someone does something wrong. But most people are ignorant of that information: they don't know what the law is. That's what I meant.




When I was a teenager I used to read alot of 4x4 magazines and such. These magazines were revenue driven by advertisers and not necessarily sales of the publication itself. A vast majority (I love saying "vast majority") of the adds in these magazines were for alcahol and tobacco, after all, nothing added more to the redneck stereotype of 4-wheel off roading than a 6-pack of Bud and tin of Skoal. Even though I was "encouraged" to drive my truck with a cold beer between my legs and a pinch of dip in my lip doesn't necessarily mean that "common sense and self preservation" did not do more to persuade me to do just the opposite. Just because these magazines seemed to encourage me to do these things, just as you feel bike lanes encourage the behaviour you are speaking of, does not mean that it forces this behaviour, we always have the choice to do what we want, and we have the freedom to make bad choices or good.
Aint America grand? ;)
Bad example, since you admit what those ads did was encourage behavior that was contrary to "common sense and self preservation". The problem with bike lanes, particularly at intersections without right only lanes, is that the behavior they encourage (whether the stripe is solid or dashed) is NOT contrary to common sense - at least not the common sense that most people seem to have in common: bicyclists should keep right as far as reasonably possible, period.. Bicyclists see the bike lane near the curb and their "self-preservation common sense" tells them they should ride in it, even if they are going straight. Motorists see the bike lane near the curb and their "self-preservation common sense" tells them they should stay out of it, even if they are turning right. The result? A right-hook setup at the intersection.

:roflmao: that is rich, head. all those drivers you've encountered have been reasonably good drivers? :roflmao: what a deluded sense of the center of the universe.


Glad to hear you are such an avid motorist :rolleyes:
Yep.

Being an avid motorist helps me be a better bicycle driver.
Being an avid bicyclist helps me be a better car driver.

interesting POV. :rolleyes:

So the fact that I've done all that driving without collisions indicates the countless millions of drivers I've encountered without conflict are all reasonably good drivers, which was my point.





Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.

Or should we change that to anecdotal evidence does not imply good driving, nor law abiding driving, nor good driving with respect to other road users. The fact that you weren't in collisions is near useless data, no? How many is 'countless millions'? What does 'reasonably good' mean?



If anyone else made this statement you would generate a 3 page soliloquy on the fault of their logic, their shallow understanding of driver behavior, traffic statistics, traffic law, you would quote sections of vehicular code, parse language regarding the definition of 'countless' and 'conflict', inform me how many 'millions' is etc. etc. etc.





Couldn't we apply the same logic to BLs, that you seem to vilify in nearly every post?


Lets try this:


"So the fact that I've done all that riding in bike lanes without incident indicates the countless miles of bike lanes I've encountered without conflict are all safe and well designed, which was my point..."

"Ignorant of traffic law" was Pat's wording, I was just responding to it. But, I do agree most drivers are ignorant of traffic law. That is, the vast majority does not own a copy of the vehicle code, or has even ever looked at it. Most only skim the driver's manual, which is at best a sloppy summary of the law. But it doesn't matter because most traffic law is based on common sense principles, and most drivers know these principles. Police know the law better than most, but that's because they're trained, so they know what vehicle code section is violated when someone does something wrong. But most people are ignorant of that information: they don't know what the law is. That's what I meant.

Being ignorant of something implies that there is a lack of knowledge in that area due to an uneducation in the fundamentals of that area and a general lacking of relevant information.
Just because one person has a more in depth knowledge of traffic law (the police officer) does not mean that people with less in depth information about it (the general motoring public) are ignorant of it.
I once again reiterate that these people, including you, I and others here, are more apathetic of the driving law and not ignorant of it. We do have a basic knowledge of the law, we just chose to ignore it to some extent.
Maybe you are confusing competency of the knowledge (The integrated knowledge, skills, attitude, and judgment expected of the practitioner) which is what police have with lack of ignorance (uneducated in the fundamentals of a given art or branch of learning).
People do know what the law is to the extent that they are not ignorant of it.



Bad example, since you admit what those ads did was encourage behavior that was contrary to "common sense and self preservation". The problem with bike lanes, particularly at intersections without right only lanes, is that the behavior they encourage (whether the stripe is solid or dashed) is NOT contrary to common sense - at least not the common sense that most people seem to have in common: bicyclists should keep right as far as reasonably possible, period.. Bicyclists see the bike lane near the curb and their "self-preservation common sense" tells them they should ride in it, even if they are going straight. Motorists see the bike lane near the curb and their "self-preservation common sense" tells them they should stay out of it, even if they are turning right. The result? A right-hook setup at the intersection.
What basis (scientific and/or examined and not just personal speculation) do you have to base this on?
Any competent cyclist would take pains to make the right decisions in a situation wether or not a bike lane is present. Even if there is no delegating paint stripe a majority of the bicycling population would likely stay as far right as reasonably possible and "possibly" set themselves up for a right hook at said intersection. The rest of the cyclists would do what is needed to do in order to avoid it. This will happen with or without a bike lane. Bike lanes don't automagically turn all cyclists into slobbering idiots, and the removal of such infrastructure is not going to automagically turn all cyclists into competent traffic cyclists.



Bicyclists see the bike lane near the curb and their "self-preservation common sense" tells them they should ride in it, even if they are going straight. Motorists see the bike lane near the curb and their "self-preservation common sense" tells them they should stay out of it, even if they are turning right. The result? A right-hook setup at the intersection.
You are pigeonholing here.
A competent cyclist riding in said bike lane would use their common sense and "self preservation" and merge from the bike lane into the traffic lanes in order to make a legal left turn. A competent law abiding motorist would follow their local laws in dealing with right turns at intersections with bike lanes. If everyone would only be non-apathetic to the laws then there would be no problem here at all and all this bickering I see about bike lanes would never have come to pass.
Can you give me a single example where a right hook would occure at an intersection with a bike lane where both the right turning motorist and the through cyclist followed their local traffic laws? I can not think of a way it could possibly happen.
Maybe the anti-bikelane crowd should advocate for a better adherance to the law than the removal of bike lanes, that way everyone wins. The'd sure get alot more results if they did.

However ignorant most people are of traffic law, they understand the underlying principles well enough to operate relatively safely and efficiently the vast majority of the time when they are operating motor vehicles. I, for one, have driven almost half a million miles in my life and have yet to be involved in a crash.

What the vast majority doesn't understand is how those same traffic principles apply to bicyclists in traffic. And bike lanes add to the confusion by encouraging behavior contrary to those principles by their very nature, especially at intersections without right only lanes. At such intersections they encourage through and left-turning cyclists to keep too far right (see Gene's diagram above for another example of encouraging left-turning cyclists to keep too far right for too long), and right turning motorists to keep too far left.

That is not "Gene's Diagram" it is the diagram out of the CA handbook, which I offered to your comment of "nothing is available." Quite the contrary, there is a handbook available. If you don't like the illustration, write to the DMV and get it changed. But don't deny that there is indeed information available.

Further, you have never offered any form of cycling training except the LAB "tupperware party" method, which has yet to have any real educational penetration into the cycling community. At least the general public knows about the DMV.

Or should we change that to anecdotal evidence does not imply good driving, nor law abiding driving, nor good driving with respect to other road users. The fact that you weren't in collisions is near useless data, no? How many is 'countless millions'? What does 'reasonably good' mean?



If anyone else made this statement you would generate a 3 page soliloquy on the fault of their logic, their shallow understanding of driver behavior, traffic statistics, traffic law, you would quote sections of vehicular code, parse language regarding the definition of 'countless' and 'conflict', inform me how many 'millions' is etc. etc. etc.





Couldn't we apply the same logic to BLs, that you seem to vilify in nearly every post?


Lets try this:
You really don't see the difference?

The fact that I can drive several hundred thousand miles and encounter tens of millions of drivers and avoid colliding with them indicates that either


I'm particularly adept at avoiding collisions with the myriads of incompetent drivers out there, or
There aren't significantly many incompetent drivers out there that are impossible to avoid colliding with (my original point), or
Some of both (a) and (b) is true.

You'll have to take my word for it that (a) does not explain it, certainly not (a) alone. But if you want to give me all the credit, whatever. :rolleyes:

The fact that I can ride a few thousand miles in bike lanes and avoid crashing indicates:

I'm particularly adept at avoiding collisions despite the inherent bad designs of bike lanes, or
Bike lanes are not really inherently bad in design, or
Some of both.


In this case I cannot rule out (a), particularly given how often I encounter accounts of crashes of experienced cyclists riding in bike lanes who insist they were doing nothing wrong, which too works to contradict (b).

:roflmao:

Being ignorant of something implies that there is a lack of knowledge in that area due to an uneducation in the fundamentals of that area and a general lacking of relevant information.
Just because one person has a more in depth knowledge of traffic law (the police officer) does not mean that people with less in depth information about it (the general motoring public) are ignorant of it.
I once again reiterate that these people, including you, I and others here, are more apathetic of the driving law and not ignorant of it. We do have a basic knowledge of the law, we just chose to ignore it to some extent.
Maybe you are confusing competency of the knowledge (The integrated knowledge, skills, attitude, and judgment expected of the practitioner) which is what police have with lack of ignorance (uneducated in the fundamentals of a given art or branch of learning).
People do know what the law is to the extent that they are not ignorant of it.
You are engaging in a semantic argument centered on the meaning of the word ignorant, which is not nearly as precise as your argument appears to presume. I've explained what I meant by my usage. If you choose to interpret it some other way, communication between us is not possible.





The problem with bike lanes, particularly at intersections without right only lanes, is that the behavior they encourage (whether the stripe is solid or dashed) is NOT contrary to common sense - at least not the common sense that most people seem to have in common: bicyclists should keep right as far as reasonably possible, period.. Bicyclists see the bike lane near the curb and their "self-preservation common sense" tells them they should ride in it, even if they are going straight. Motorists see the bike lane near the curb and their "self-preservation common sense" tells them they should stay out of it, even if they are turning right. The result? A right-hook setup at the intersection.
What basis (scientific and/or examined and not just personal speculation) do you have to base this on?
Despite the law in CA clearly requiring right-turning motorists to merge into a bike lane before turning right, personal observation indicates this is widely ignored. Further, in just about any randomly chosen group of CA drivers, rarely do more than half, and usually less than half, know that they are required by law to drive this way.
The neighboring states of OR and AZ have conflicting laws that actually prohibit right turning motorists from entering the bike lane, thus legally setting up a right hook situation at the intersection.The fact that lawmakers can't agree what to do with bike lanes and the behavior of right-turning motorists with them indicates how inherently confusing they are. What more evidence do you need? Where do you live? Do you know what the law requires with respect to right-turning motorists and bike lanes in your state? What was the last state you visited? Do you know what the law is there in this respect?

Based on observation and lots of discussion with various people, regardless of what the law states, many motorists simply treat the bike lane stripe as an edge stripe on the road, and drive accordingly. When they do encroach into the bike lane while turning right, many assume they are technically doing something illegal but harmless, just like if they encroach into a gore or shoulder to cut a corner, even if they are in CA where they are oblivious to the fact that they are required to enter the bike lane before turning right. This point is also made when cyclists express outrage when right-turning motorists enter bike lanes, also obviously ignorant of the legal mandate for them to do exactly that.



Any competent cyclist would take pains to make the right decisions in a situation wether or not a bike lane is present. Even if there is no delegating paint stripe a majority of the bicycling population would likely stay as far right as reasonably possible and "possibly" set themselves up for a right hook at said intersection. The rest of the cyclists would do what is needed to do in order to avoid it. This will happen with or without a bike lane. Bike lanes don't automagically turn all cyclists into slobbering idiots, and the removal of such infrastructure is not going to automagically turn all cyclists into competent traffic cyclists.

I don't disagree. The real problem is bicyclist behavior, not bike lanes. I'm just saying bike lanes certainly don't help, and that they get in the way of learning proper behavior, which was the point of the OP if I understand it correctly.



You are pigeonholing here.
A competent cyclist riding in said bike lane would use their common sense and "self preservation" and merge from the bike lane into the traffic lanes in order to make a legal left turn. A competent law abiding motorist would follow their local laws in dealing with right turns at intersections with bike lanes. If everyone would only be non-apathetic to the laws then there would be no problem here at all and all this bickering I see about bike lanes would never have come to pass.
Can you give me a single example where a right hook would occure at an intersection with a bike lane where both the right turning motorist and the through cyclist followed their local traffic laws? I can not think of a way it could possibly happen.
Maybe the anti-bikelane crowd should advocate for a better adherance to the law than the removal of bike lanes, that way everyone wins. The'd sure get alot more results if they did.
In AZ and OR right-turning drivers are required to stay out of the bike lane. So what happens is they pass some cyclist in a bike lane, perhaps not even noticing him, and a block later slow down to turn right, perhaps delayed and distracted by a pedestrian crossing, not realizing that the bicyclist is catching up and passing them on the right. When they proceed to complete their turn, collision.

In any other situation a traffic engineer would be fired for painting a lane where through travel is allowed to the right of a lane from which right turning is allowed. The only exception is when the rightmost lane is a bike lane. So motorists naturally are not accustomed to check for being passed on the right when turning right. This is what makes bike lane inherently bad design. And this not only applies at major intersections of two roads, but at any place where right turns are allowed, such as into alleys, driveways, malls and gas stations. You can't put right only lanes with the BL going to the left of the right only lane at every such place. This makes the use of bike lanes impractical in most urban and suburban setting, where there are few relatively long stretches of road uninterrupted by places where right turns may be made (but where such sections exist, bike lanes are not nearly as problematic).

more anti-bike lane screed by the forums' most ardent bike lane hater.

can't you stay on topic, anwser the question, head?

How do YOU make left turns on roads with bike lanes for thru travel?

more anti-bike lane screed by the forums' most ardent bike lane hater.

can't you stay on topic, anwser the question, head?

How do YOU make left turns on roads with bike lanes for thru travel?
I don't hate bike lanes, I dislike them, particularly when they are painted along the outside margin of roads, demarcating the supposed proper lateral positioning for through travel by cyclists, yet across which right turns are allowed by motorists. It's crazy, really.

And I answered the question. See post #4.

You are engaging in a semantic argument centered on the meaning of the word ignorant, which is not nearly as precise as your argument appears to presume. I've explained what I meant by my usage. If you choose to interpret it some other way, communication between us is not possible.

I'm arguing nothing, I'm showing definition. And using/understanding semantics of a word is necessary to cary on an intelligent conversation. I am not chosing to "interpet" anything, I'm following the rules colloquy. And if you chose not to follow the basic rules of colloquy, then communication between you and anyone else period is not only "not possible", but pointless to attempt.
I'm just stating that "ignorant" is not the word that should have been used.



Despite the law in CA clearly requiring right-turning motorists to merge into a bike lane before turning right, personal observation indicates this is widely ignored. \

I asked for something other than personal speculation. Speculation of an event by someone who is already predisposed to what they think should happen does not constitute untainted information about said event. Even though you are very likely right in the statement you have just made.



Further, in just about any randomly chosen group of CA drivers, rarely do more than half, and usually less than half, know that they are required by law to drive this way.

Can you please point me to where you found this information. I should very much like to read the findings of this study to further educate myself in such matters.



The neighboring states of OR and AZ have conflicting laws that actually prohibit right turning motorists from entering the bike lane, thus legally setting up a right hook situation at the intersection.

This is only true assuming that the cyclist in said bikelane is not proactive in being aware oh his surroundings. You seem to be an intelligent person. If you were riding in one of these bike lanes would *you* be in danger of being the victim of a right hook? Would you not be very aware of your surroundings when approaching these intersections and act accordingly? Maybe merge into the traffic lane before reaching the intersection?
I'll not address your statement of legality above as I feel you were making a statement of retort in order to drive your point home there.



The fact that lawmakers can't agree what to do with bike lanes and the behavior of right-turning motorists with them indicates how inherently confusing they are. What more evidence do you need?

What more evidence do I need of what? I wasn't aware I had taken sides on anything, only made statements of obviousness.



Where do you live? Do you know what the law requires with respect to right-turning motorists and bike lanes in your state? What was the last state you visited? Do you know what the law is there in this respect?

Where I live has no bearing on anyhting we are discussing. However, I do know what the laws are in respect to right turning motorists and bike lanes in my state. I am sure that you do as well, even though you don't know where I live. You do seem like the type of person who is very interested in this sort of thing and probably have read up alot on the subject.
The last state I visited would also not be important. And yes, I do know the laws there in this respect. However, I still don't see what my knowledge of the laws of right turning motorists in two different states have to do with the discussion that has been taking place between you and I and if I were to state any of this information that you have requested I feel it would derail this thread more from its indended path than it already has been, and I have enough respect for John Brooking to not do that to him intentionally.



Based on observation and lots of discussion with various people, regardless of what the law states, many motorists simply treat the bike lane stripe as an edge stripe on the road, and drive accordingly. When they do encroach into the bike lane while turning right, many assume they are technically doing something illegal but harmless, just like if they encroach into a gore or shoulder to cut a corner, even if they are in CA where they are oblivious to the fact that they are required to enter the bike lane before turning right. This point is also made when cyclists express outrage when right-turning motorists enter bike lanes, also obviously ignorant of the legal mandate for them to do exactly that.

In this, bike lanes are not the enemy, but rather an apathetic view and slight lack of information on what the law requires is.



I don't disagree. The real problem is bicyclist behavior, not bike lanes. I'm just saying bike lanes certainly don't help, and that they get in the way of learning proper behavior, which was the point of the OP if I understand it correctly.

I'm glad that you don't disagree, and it doesn't suprise me that you don't. You are obviously intelligent (as stated already) and I can't see how anyone with a more than basic understanding of these types of situations could disagree here. Though I must say, I did not develope the same opinion that you did from the OP. I guess I'm just a little more literal than most.



In AZ and OR right-turning drivers are required to stay out of the bike lane. So what happens is they pass some cyclist in a bike lane, perhaps not even noticing him, and a block later slow down to turn right, perhaps delayed and distracted by a pedestrian crossing, not realizing that the bicyclist is catching up and passing them on the right. When they proceed to complete their turn, collision.

I understand what you are saying here. But if both the driver and the cyclist followed all laws and rules of dilligence, would this occure? If the driver was not "possibly distracted"; If the cyclist saw the right turn signal of the motorist, assuming of course that the motorist used a turn signal; are there no written laws that a motorist is supposed to check the bike lane to his right before making a turn across it (serious question because I don't know the answer and feel you may)?
In my gut I am 100% positive that this type of accident would not happen if the laws and rules were followed properly.
But let us assume for instance, that this accident just happened and you witnessed it from the street corner. Now, remove the bike lane stripe. Could the accident still happen? Could the bike lane be to blame then or would the blame go to one of the vehicle drivers?

I understand what you are saying here. But if both the driver and the cyclist followed all laws and rules of dilligence, would this occure? If the driver was not "possibly distracted"; If the cyclist saw the right turn signal of the motorist, assuming of course that the motorist used a turn signal; are there no written laws that a motorist is supposed to check the bike lane to his right before making a turn across it (serious question because I don't know the answer and feel you may)?

I apologize for not addressing all of your points, I would like to focus on the heart of the matter here. If there is anything in particular you really want me to answer, please copy/paste it and I will be happy to do so. That said, I would like to respond to the above.

Here's the thing. They could change the laws and road designs such that right turns would become legal from traffic lanes that are to the left of traffic lanes in which through travel is allowed. But they don't, because they know that chaos and mayhem would ensue. Never-the-less, you could argue that all the chaos and mayhem would not occur if everyone "followed all laws and rules of diligence". But that would not be a good enough reason to make those changes, because traffic experts know that people behave according to basic principles, customs, conventions, habits and common sense, not according to esoteric legalities. And for the same reason it should not be a good enough reason to legislate/design that way with respect to bicyclist behavior. The only reason they get away with it with bike lanes is because there are so few bicyclists relative to the number of motorists. For this same reason it is accepted by law and cultural convention that cyclists keep right even when going straight, and bike lanes painted at the right edge of the road all the way to the intersection reinforce this.

I, for one, seek to change our culture in this respect, and bike lanes, as an official reinforcement for this kind of wacky behavior (through [bicycle] traffic directed to travel to the right of right-turning [motor] traffic) make it very difficult, if not impossible, to do so.


In my gut I am 100% positive that this type of accident would not happen if the laws and rules were followed properly.
But let us assume for instance, that this accident just happened and you witnessed it from the street corner.
Yes, IF the laws were followed properly all would be fine, but that's a big IF. When some law (or design) is consistently not followed properly, it's time to question the law (or design). Good laws are generally followed, hence the vast majority does not murder, rob, steal or run red lights.

And again I want to say in order to avoid collisions between through bicyclists in bike lanes at the right and right turning motorists, normal "rules of the road" have to be ignored, and esoteric ones dealing with bike lanes and cyclists specifically have to be followed instead. Rules and designs that inherently call for exceptional behavior are inherently prone to error. That's the problem with bike lanes.


Now, remove the bike lane stripe. Could the accident still happen? Could the bike lane be to blame then or would the blame go to one of the vehicle drivers?
Yes, of course it could still happen. But that's because through cyclists staying to the right of right turning motorists is ingrained/expected behavior in our culture, and, again, that's what I ultimately want to change. Opposing and getting rid of bike lane stripes that encourage this behavior is merely one part of this effort, though a critical one.

Read the CA driver's handbook, or the handbook for your state...

The example in the CA driver's handbook looks like this:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/images/dlhdbk/59ahop.gif

Hmm I turn in and out of parked cars if people are crawling pass me, mainly I fall in, slow down and will nod/wave them by, and only if it's a big gap. Maybe I shouldn't do that...

As for doors, I look for people in the cars. I generally don't have room to be 3-4 feet into the road.

Hmm I turn in and out of parked cars if people are crawling pass me, mainly I fall in, slow down and will nod/wave them by, and only if it's a big gap. Maybe I shouldn't do that...
I use a mirror and sometimes if there are only one or two cars approaching and I can tell I can let them by by temporarily moving into an open gap on the right, I do. But as a general practice, no, I maintain a fixed lateral line of travel.


As for doors, I look for people in the cars. I generally don't have room to be 3-4 feet into the road.
We've had entire threads devoted to door zone riding. The bottom line is that sooner or later you won't be able to see someone in the car and the door will fly open, which can cause you to crash into it and serious injury, or, worse, it can cause you to swerve in front of overtaking motor traffic. Note that the latter can happen easily even if you're traveling at a slow speed. You should ride FIVE FEET from parked cars, and you do have the room to do so, you just have to come to believe you have the same right to that road space as any other driver does, which you do. Riding in door zones should not be considered an option.

The bottom line is that sooner or later you won't be able to see someone in the car and the door will fly open, which can cause you to crash into it and serious injury, or, worse, it can cause you to swerve in front of overtaking motor traffic. Note that the latter can happen easily even if you're traveling at a slow speed. You should ride FIVE FEET from parked cars, and you do have the room to do so, you just have to come to believe you have the same right to that road space as any other driver does, which you do. Riding in door zones should not be considered an option.

The REAL bottom line is that you are speculating about the probability/risk of what will happen sooner or later. Another self appointed risk conjurer might speculate, with equal self assurance of his expertise, that sooner or later anyone cycling five feet from parked cars in busy traffic will be struck/run over by a motorist in the traffic lane with the liklihood of injuries at least as severe and probably greater than a collision with a parked car door.

The REAL bottom line is that you are speculating about the probability/risk of what will happen sooner or later. Another self appointed risk conjurer might speculate, with equal self assurance of his expertise, that sooner or later anyone cycling five feet from parked cars in busy traffic will be struck/run over by a motorist in the traffic lane with the liklihood of injuries at least as severe and probably greater than a collision with a parked car door.
I don't disagree that it's possible to ride in door zones regularly and get away with it for years, possibly even decades. Hmm, makes me think maybe we should have a poll on that.

My commute includes a stretch of 6 lane 45 mph (posted) arterial with onstreet parking. You're right it's possible that I'm taking a greater risk by choosing to ride in the center of the lane rather than in the door zone. This is a suburban neighborhood and most people stay parked there all day long, so the door zone risk is relatively low, at least as compared to other areas where there is more activity. But the few times I have taken the risk to ride in the door zones, I'm immediately treated much worse by traffic, which just buzzes by me with very close passes at 50+ mph (on the way to work this is a slight uphill grade so I'm usually going under 15). So I find it advantageous to control the lane independent of the admittedly low dooring risk. With my mirror I can confirm how far back they are when they seem me and change lanes. In 7 years of doing this commute I've only been honked at on this stretch riding this way one or twice, which is of course positive confirmation that I've been noticed.

I dare say that people who regularly ride in door zones have close calls more often than I do.

Finally, the biggest severity risk with door zones is not crashing into the door, but that the swerving to avoid the door, or that the swerving caused by the door hitting the front wheel, handle bars or cyclist on the side, causes the cyclist to careens into the path of an overtaking motorist.

My commute includes a stretch of 6 lane 45 mph (posted) arterial with onstreet parking.


45 mph with on street parking? Is this normal? :eek::eek::eek:

How do people get in and out? Is it parallel parking (I assume by your 'door zone' reference)?
I don't know how you make the physics of that work.

I'd quit wasting so much time on BF and work to get your local speed limits changed.

45 mph with on street parking? Is this normal? :eek::eek::eek:

How do people get in and out? Is it parallel parking (I assume by your 'door zone' reference)?
I don't know how you make the physics of that work.

I'd quit wasting so much time on BF and work to get your local speed limits changed.


Click here (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd+%26+I-5+to+La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd,+California&sll=32.870423,-117.223477&sspn=0.007308,0.012006&ie=UTF8&ll=32.8725,-117.226929&spn=0.001827,0.003001&z=19&om=1&layer=c&cbll=32.87227,-117.227479&cbp=1,0,0.5,0) .

That's the road, I'm having trouble finding a view with the speed limit sign visible. If I find it, I'll add it here:

EDIT:

Found it! HERE. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd+%26+I-5+to+La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd,+California&sll=32.870423,-117.223477&sspn=0.007308,0.012006&ie=UTF8&ll=32.872516,-117.227098&spn=0.001827,0.003001&z=19&om=1&layer=c&cbll=32.87227,-117.227479&cbp=1,0,0.5,0)

EDIT 2:
A better shot is HERE (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd+%26+I-5+to+La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd,+California&sll=32.870423,-117.223477&sspn=0.007308,0.012006&ie=UTF8&ll=32.873182,-117.227168&spn=0.001827,0.003001&z=19&om=1&layer=c&cbll=32.872261,-117.22729&cbp=2,0,0.5,0).

EDIT 3:
Even better. See attached jpg image.

Click here (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd+%26+I-5+to+La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd,+California&sll=32.870423,-117.223477&sspn=0.007308,0.012006&ie=UTF8&ll=32.8725,-117.226929&spn=0.001827,0.003001&z=19&om=1&layer=c&cbll=32.87227,-117.227479&cbp=1,0,0.5,0) .

That's the road, I'm having trouble finding a view with the speed limit sign visible. If I find it, I'll add it here:

EDIT:

Found it! HERE. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd+%26+I-5+to+La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd,+California&sll=32.870423,-117.223477&sspn=0.007308,0.012006&ie=UTF8&ll=32.872516,-117.227098&spn=0.001827,0.003001&z=19&om=1&layer=c&cbll=32.87227,-117.227479&cbp=1,0,0.5,0)

EDIT 2:
A better shot is HERE (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd+%26+I-5+to+La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd,+California&sll=32.870423,-117.223477&sspn=0.007308,0.012006&ie=UTF8&ll=32.873182,-117.227168&spn=0.001827,0.003001&z=19&om=1&layer=c&cbll=32.872261,-117.22729&cbp=2,0,0.5,0).

EDIT 3:
Even better. See attached jpg image.

LOL... and I DID say our area was unique... But you have convinced me otherwise... so doesn't EVERYWHERE have 45MPH traffic flying past parked cars? Or 50MPH arterials, or bike lanes on interstates?

Nah, we're just like everywhere else here... (except Finland of course... :rolleyes: )