Advocacy & Safety - Who likes bike lanes?

What one has to do to acquire the mentality I describe is accept that as a bicyclist he has the obligation to stay out of the way of same-direction motorists. This is perhaps best exemplified by feeling that if he can't stay out of the way of same-direction motorists in some given situation, then he should probably not be on that road.

Oh you mean the attitude exemplified by LEOs in certain situations presented here on BF...

they tend to think that foot and a half by the curb is the sweet spot for bikes, if not on the sidewalk. I was following this commuter for a bit this morning and I was wincing everytime their right pedal would come down within two inches of the curb. *shutter*

Perhaps, but there is no need to have a p!$$ing contest about which factor is most responsible for the existence and sustainment (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sustainment) of the anti-cycling stay out of the way notion.

My point stands independent of the influence of any and all other factors, or their relative contributions: I believe the mere presence of bike lanes, indeed the very concept of a bike lane, reinforces that anti-cyclist notion about the stay out of the way obligation.
OK just to p!$$ on it some more... then why is the attitude expressed that cyclists should get out of the way of cars, when no such lanes exist? (and long before BL existed... )

At least two reasons:

Because the existence of the bike lane concept in the minds of people is there all the time, and works to reinforce the stay out of the way notion, whether bike lanes are present or not, just like the concept of an ice cream sundae exists in all of our minds even when there is no ice cream sundae present.
Because bike lanes are not the ONLY reason the notion exists and persists. That doesn't mean they don't work to reinforce the notion, along with the other reasons the notion continues to be widely held.




It ain't the BL... it is the notion that bikes are toys and cars are for grownups. (the whole "rite of passage" of getting a Driver's license reinforces this... along with bikes being in toy departments at the big box stores... etc)

Sorry, but in the minds of typical Americans, bikes are not for transportation. Period.
Gene, your thinking is muddled. You're jumping from "it ain't ONLY the BL" to "it ain't the BL at all" - with no basis for that leap.

Yes, we need to get past the notion that bikes are toys and not for adults, and that notion existed before bike lanes were introduced. But bike lanes get in the way of getting past that notion, because they encourage the treatment of bikes as toys, and of bicyclists not as drivers, but as nonserious (secondary) users of the road.

Long enough to negotiate what is shown in the picture. That is what we're discussing after all.

As far as riding within 8" and "keeping an eye on traffic"? A long ways. Are you saying that you can't ride a straight line within an 8" wide space for very far?



Nope, I'm not kidding myself. I've done it while negotiating traffic (as in riding alongside traffic), sharing a narrow lane and filtering forward. It's really not the big deal that you are making it out to be.



Because it can be more fun to challenge yourself sometimes rather than ride the same boring roads. What would you do if there weren't any other road choices?




You're so cute when you're wounded and lashing out.

The discussion, until you took it off on a tangent of "what ifs," was about a short section of pavement marked as a bike lane that you claim you are unable to ride, except if you were running 2" mountain bike tires.

It wasn't about a "nasty, rutted gravel road." Although those can be fun sometimes too.

My statement was that I'd be outside the lane at that point. As would MOST of the people that frequent this forum, for various reasons. My 'what if' was that if the rest of the bike lane was similar, I'd not be in it.

And you took that as an invitation for a personal attack on my bike handling skills. COULD I ride over that? Absolutely. WOULD I ride over it? Probably not... it would be easier and faster to go around it.

And I agree... a nasty, rutted gravel road CAN be lots of fun.... but if I'm going to work, or shopping, or whatever... I'm going to choose to do so in whatever manner will get me there the easiest.

Gene, your thinking is muddled. You're jumping from "it ain't ONLY the BL" to "it ain't the BL at all" - with no basis for that leap.

Yes, we need to get past the notion that bikes are toys and not for adults, and that notion existed before bike lanes were introduced. But bike lanes get in the way of getting past that notion, because they encourage the treatment of bikes as toys, and of bicyclists not as drivers, but as nonserious (secondary) users of the road.

No your thinking is muddled... this notion existed long before the concept of BL came along...

No your thinking is muddled... this notion existed long before the concept of BL came along...

Sure, but BLs help to reenforce it. Take these quotes from reader responses to a recent cycling death news report:

"... there will be large trucks on the roads. Cyclists can be accommodated in alternate ways, such as bike paths along canals and next to freeway rights of way where cars are prohibited. Smart planners can make it work. "

"You ride a kids toy on the street. Grow up and stay in the bike lanes or just stay out of the way..."

"bicycle riders are one of the biggest traffic hazards in the world. They ride their toys in the car lanes"

"The bikers always seem to hug that outside line towards the traffic which causes traffic to slow and swerve around them."

"If you bikers wish to have additional bike lanes or paths, tax yourselves to build them. The roads are built and maintained for vehicle traffic by taxing the vehicles and fuel."

"They believe that bikes are motor vehicles and should be treated as such. The problem with that argument (even though from a purely legal standpoint bikes are considered motor vehicles in Arizona traffic laws) is that bicycles can't safely be driven as motor vehicles on highways and thats why we have bicycle lanes for them. "

Serge, perhaps I should have been more clear.

The victim mentality that I am describing is the type of mentality that you describe yourself as having, thinking that motorists consider you a "second-class user of the road" merely because you're riding a bike.
Ah. I should have known better and looked for the strawman based insult. My bad.

What I wrote was:


What I hate and seek to change is the widely accepted notion that bicyclists are second-class users of the road who have an safety-related, practical and/or legal obligation to get and stay out of the way of the primary users: motorists. I believe the mere presence of bike lanes, indeed the very concept of a bike lane, reinforces that notion.


I don't think they see me personally that way when I'm behaving like a driver on the road. Traffic is no different than other areas in life, where the behavior and actions of a particular individual can often overcome certain prejudices regarding the individual's group. I make it quite clear that I don't see myself as a second-class user, and they treat me accordingly.

But I think much of our population sees bicyclists in general this way, and many cyclists, the vast majority, see themselves that way. I think that kind of thinking gets in the way of more people taking up cycling, and it gets in the way of more cyclists adopting best practices in the way they ride in traffic (and the bad practices work to reinforce the second-class thinking, which in turn discourages cyclists from adopting best practices, and it goes on ad infinitum). That's why I seek to change it.

No your thinking is muddled... this notion existed long before the concept of BL came along...
Gene, please stop playing dumb. No one has challenged the point that the notion existed long before the concept of a BL came along. So what?

Racial prejudice existed long before buses came along, yet racial segregation on buses reinforced the notion that racial prejudice was the norm.

You can hardly begin to address the problem of racial prejudice in a culture where buses are racially segregated, even though the prejudice existed long before the concept of a segregated bus even came along. In fact, a good place to start addressing racial prejudice is to get rid of cultural icons that are based on the prejudice, like the segregated buses.

Similarly, you can hardly begin to address the problem of the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of way in a culture which paints official areas on the road which cyclists are required to use specifically to get them out of the way, even though the notion existed long before the concept of a bike lane even came along. In fact, a good place to start is to get rid of cultural icons that are based on the notion, like the bike lanes.

Edit: Please take a minute to read the quotes in noisebeam's post a couple back from this one. Don't just skim them. Read them, and then please take another minute or two to really think about them. Try to understand the mentality of the people writing these things. How on Earth can we ever change their minds while at the same time we're clamoring for more bike lanes to keep us and our toys separated?

So if traffic in the car lane (*non bike lane portion of the roadway predominantly used by motor vehicles) was stopped or moving slower than you are, you would be stopped or riding slowly in the car lane* with the traffic because that little bit of pavement is too hazardous for you to ride?



No, I took this statement by you as an indication of the quality of you bike handling skills:

"I'm not going to be in the lane in anything short of a mountain bike with 2" knobbies, anyway."

How is altering course easier and faster than just riding through that section on the good portion of pavement?



Some folks like to have a little fun on the bike, regardless of their ultimate destination.
All this continues to ignore the main point that you should be no where near that bike lane unless you're turning right.

You think that cyclists are seen as second-class users of the roadway, as victims of this perception that you think greatly affects the behavior of motorists.

You want to change that.

You're suffering from a victim mentality.
That's like saying:

You think that women are seen as second-class people by wife-beating husbands, as victims of this perception that you think greatly affects the behavior of wife-beating husbands.

You want to change that.

You're suffering from a victim mentality.
The whole point is to help people - in this case cyclists - to NOT see themselves as victims. At least that's what I'm trying to do. That's what I'm trying to change.

Gene, please stop playing dumb. No one has challenged the point that the notion existed long before the concept of a BL came along. So what?

Racial prejudice existed long before buses came a long, yet racial segregation on buses reinforced the notion that racial prejudice was the norm.

You can hardly begin to address the problem of racial prejudice in a culture where buses are racially segregated, even though the prejudice existed long before the concept of a segregated bus even came along. In fact, a good place to start addressing racial prejudice is to get rid of cultural icons that are based on the prejudice, like the segregated buses.

Similarly, you can hardly begin to address the problem of the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of way in a culture which paints official areas on the road which cyclists are required to use specifically to get them out of the way, even though the notion existed long before the concept of a bike lane even came along. In fact, a good place to start is to get rid of cultural icons that are based on the notion, like the bike lanes.

Now buses are second class users of the road:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/379737417_1ee9a50be8.jpg

And car pools:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/102/311234442_6889b3248d.jpg

And Semi's:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/91/240016824_7776cee181.jpg

Providing special facilities for bikes does NOT make them 'second class users' of the roadway, any more than providing passing lanes on steep grades makes semi's second class users of the road. Or runaway truck ramps.

That continues to ignore the fact that there is not a universal rule that covers every riding/road situation.

It also ignores the fact that not all cyclists are fearful hazard nannies.
Why take the time to add additional words all the time to acknowledge the obvious?
Of course there is no universal rule. That why they're called best practices. There are always exceptions, but it's important to know the rule, and why it's there, so that you can judge when and why it's appropriate to make an exception, and to understand the potential ramifications of the compromise.

For example, one of my best practices is: "don't let your front tire pass the rear bumper of a car to your left".
However, I do break that rule once in a while, but never without being extra careful because I know I'm breaking the rule. In particular, I slow down, always consider and give preference to moving behind and passing on the left (unless it is slowing to turn left), and I make sure that the car I'm passing on the right can't and won't turn right.

So if traffic in the car lane (*non bike lane portion of the roadway predominantly used by motor vehicles) was stopped or moving slower than you are, you would be stopped or riding slowly in the car lane* with the traffic because that little bit of pavement is too hazardous for you to ride?



No, I took this statement by you as an indication of the quality of you bike handling skills:

"I'm not going to be in the lane in anything short of a mountain bike with 2" knobbies, anyway."

How is altering course easier and faster than just riding through that section on the good portion of pavement?



Some folks like to have a little fun on the bike, regardless of their ultimate destination.

I think we're arguing semantics here... to me being on the line, or just barely inside it is not 'in the bike lane'... My bike will not fit into the 'good portion of pavement' that is in that bike lane.... it would be overhanging to the left... therefore, I'm not 'in the lane'

As far as whether I'd be in the bike lane if traffic was slow? I don't know... depends on the rest of the lane, what bike I'm riding, and other factors.

To safely negotiate both that section of the bike lane(within the bike lane) AND the intersection immediately beyond, I'd be going slow, anyway.

Calling the bike lane 'unpassable' or 'unusable' is more from a legal standpoint... in SOME areas there are mandatory bike lane laws... I disapprove of these, as I'm sure most people do... but designating the lane as unusable or unpassable negates those laws. And that lane is not usable for all riders and all bikes.

As far as having fun: I always have fun on my bike.... well, as long as the rubber side is down. ;)

Providing special facilities for bikes does NOT make them 'second class users' of the roadway, any more than providing passing lanes on steep grades makes semi's second class users of the road. Or runaway truck ramps.
Don't be silly. I never argued that special facilties for bikes ALONE is what makes them seen as "second class users" of the roadway.


Bikes and bike lane are different.

First, as Gene likes to point out, the notion is already out there. There is no such notion for buses, taxis, trucks, car pools, etc., so, for them, there is no notion that such special facilities could reinforce. But for bikes and cyclists the notion is already out there, and bike lanes clearly reinforce it. Again, please see noisebeam's post, and really pay attention as you read it... can you imagine such comments made about bus and bus lanes?.

Second, HOV (car pool) and slow truck lanes are not analogous to bike lanes.

I think it's important for cycling advocates to understand and be able to explain the fundamental differences. It is about the crossing movements, and their prevalence.

HOV lanes and slow truck lanes are restricted to only very special
circumstances where crossing movement conflicts with traffic in other
lanes can be entirely avoided; bike lanes are not. The only HOV lanes
I know of are on restricted access divided highways (freeways). You'll
never find one on a surface street, much less in an urban or suburban
setting, and this is so not only due to a lack of space in such areas.
Note how careful and expensive are the designs supporting HOV lanes.
They often have their own exit offramps, separate bridges, etc.
Similarly, slow truck lanes are typically only found on relatively
long and steep stretches of road with no intersections. Despite all
the steep hills in San Francisco, there are no truck lanes on those
streets. If bike lanes were only painted in very special
circumstances (intersectionless climbs, tunnels, bridges, etc.), we
would not be having this discussion. Again, it's about the crossing
movements.

HOV lanes are on the left side of the road where no one EVER needs to
cross them. Most freeway on/off access is made on the right. In the
rare circumstances where there is a left side exit, special
engineering is used to handle the HOV lane traffic correctly. For
example, traffic in the HOV lanes at the I-5/ I-405 interchange in
Orange County are diverted onto a separate overpass bridge to cross
over the entire interchange and then merge back into the carpool lane
from the left. With HOV lanes they understand how critical it is to
avoid crossing movement conflicts. With bike lanes they do not.

Like bike lanes, truck lanes are almost always if not always placed on
the right side of the road. But unlike bike lanes, trucks lanes are
only used on stretches of road without intersections. Again, to avoid
crossing movement conflicts.

Another consider is the relatively high prevalance of bike lanes as compared
to these other special lanes, and the effect that has. As a comparison,
consider dedicated left turn lanes, which are also quite prevalent now. Have
you noticed that as left turn lanes
become more and more prevalent (almost every intersection in new
suburban communities), drivers seem to be getting less and less
comfortable, and less and less prepared for, making left turns without
them? But even then, the answer to "Why do we have left turn lanes if
drivers can turn left where there are no left turn lanes?" is pretty
obvious: because we don't have room to put left turn lanes everywhere
where left turns are made, but we would if we could.

And so it is with bike lanes. Again, if they were only used here and
there where they arguably actually made some sense (long
intersectionless stretches of relatively high speed roadway, ending
200' prior to any intersection), we probably wouldn't be having this
discussion. The problem with bike lanes contributing to thinking that
bikes do not belong on any part of the roadway normally used by motor
traffic stems from their widespread prevalence.

It is the widespread prevalence of bike lanes and their implementation
on almost any surface street that has the room for them, with little
if any regard for turning movement conflicts, that causes many people
to reasonably think to themselves, if not out loud: "Why DO we have
bike lanes if cyclists can ride on roads without bike lanes and no
separated space?" And the left turn lane answer, "we would if we
could, but there is not enough space to put them everywhere", is not
good for cyclists either, because it is based on the assumption that
the ideal is to separate cyclist traffic from motor traffic, even on
surface streets where crossing movements are the norm.

Have you asked your fellow victims (victims in your mind) if they even want your help?
I offer my help to those who may recognize and appreciate its value. It's ultimately up to them, of course. Everyone here is free to put me on ignore.

HOV lanes and slow truck lanes are restricted to only very special
circumstances where crossing movement conflicts with traffic in other
lanes can be entirely avoided; bike lanes are not. The only HOV lanes
I know of are on restricted access divided highways (freeways). You'll
never find one on a surface street, much less in an urban or suburban
setting, and this is so not only due to a lack of space in such areas.


Actually, I know of several HOV lanes that are also used as left turn lanes on the NON restricted access roadways that they're located on. Try again. ;)

edit: Meh... that didn't make sense... what I MEANT to say was that to turn left, you merge ACROSS the HOV Lane, into a left turn lane.... And yes, there are traffic lights.

I like bike lanes,gives a little breathing room.But you still have to keep an eye out for the right/left turn by cars.People will still stare right at you and run you over if you give them a chance.

Actually, I know of several HOV lanes that are also used as left turn lanes on the NON restricted access roadways that they're located on. Try again. ;)
Intersection, city, zip, please.
Or link to google maps.

I like my bike lanes drizzled in lemon juice with a sprinkling of grated absurd.

Here's one:

Santa Fe and W. Dartmouth Ave (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=denver,+co&ie=UTF8&ll=39.66058,-104.998634&spn=0.002304,0.004367&t=k&z=18&om=1)

If you move north or south from there you can see the HOV lane markings (barely) ;)

Intersection, city, zip, please.
Or link to google maps.

Hah! I knew you'd want proof... I was already looking it up.

If that's the case, then why the 2" knobbies business?



What does your bike choice have to do with whether you would be riding there?



That can be said about all bike lanes.

*sighs* Because with 2" knobbies I wouldn't think twice about riding over that stuff. With 19mm racing tires I wouldn't even consider riding 'in' that lane. I'd do like you and go around it. CROSSING it perpendicular is another story... but then I'd be hopping a curb, either onto or off of a sidewalk, which I generally avoid.

And yes, that can be said about MOST bike lanes.

Intersection, city, zip, please.
Or link to google maps.

Broadway in Denver (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=denver,+co&ie=UTF8&ll=39.737105,-104.987468&spn=0.001151,0.002183&t=h&z=19&om=1)

See the southbound lane divided off by a solid line? Buses, right turns, and HOV only during certain hours.

Actually, I know of several HOV lanes that are also used as left turn lanes on the NON restricted access roadways that they're located on. Try again. ;)

edit: Meh... that didn't make sense... what I MEANT to say was that to turn left, you merge ACROSS the HOV Lane, into a left turn lane.... And yes, there are traffic lights.
But the left turn lane is on the other side of the HOV lane. This is similar to a bike lane being to the left of a right turn lane, which is much less problematic than the typical bike lane to the right of a lane that allows right turns (as well as through traffic).

Your example makes my point. "HOV lanes and slow truck lanes are restricted to only very special
circumstances where crossing movement conflicts with traffic in other
lanes can be entirely avoided; bike lanes are not. "

They would never put an HOV lane that allows through travel to the left of a regular traffic lane that allows left turns.
They would never put a truck lane that allows through travel to the right of a regular traffic lane that allows right turns.

But they put bike lanes that allow through travel to the right of regular traffic lanes that allow right turns all the time. See photo in OP for a particularly bad example, but the practice is quote common and exists at any intersection with bike lanes and no dedicated right turn lanes. It's insane, if you think about.

http://kunstler.com/eyesore_200404.JPG

I like the "death trench" in the middle of the lane, teeming with rocks and just waiting to take you into a whole new world of excitement!

Not a fan of bike lanes just for the simple reason that it helps to reinforce the drivers perception of bikes, that they're not really supposed to be on the road and now that they've got a "special spot" the car can feel free to treat them like dirt outside of that spot.

Not that i've ever been in a city where they exist though, so there are probably some advantages.

In Calgary there aren't any bike lanes, just sections of sidewalk where bikes are allowed. Usually, in more dangerous areas for bikes like bridges, big hills and such.

Don't be silly. I never argued that special facilties for bikes ALONE is what makes them seen as "second class users" of the roadway.
Yet you have argued that the mere presence of bike lanes, indeed the very concept of a bike lane, reinforces that notion cyclists are "second class users" of the roadway.

Indeed I have. But the use of the word reinforces in and of itself implies that there are other factors at play - hence it's not bike lanes ALONE that do this.


You have also proclaimed that even the best bike lanes teach cyclists to ride unsafely, inhibit them from learning to ride safely, and discourage cyclists from practicing safe cycling.

The implication is that a cyclist cannot ride safely in a bike lane, which is absurd.
What's absurd is that you see that absolute implication in my proclamation about what kind of behavior bike lanes tend to encourage.

Not a fan of bike lanes just for the simple reason that it helps to reinforce the drivers perception of bikes, that they're not really supposed to be on the road and now that they've got a "special spot" the car can feel free to treat them like dirt outside of that spot.

See Gene, Pete and others, it's not a difficult effect to see, at least for some.

Gene, please stop playing dumb. No one has challenged the point that the notion existed long before the concept of a BL came along. So what?

Racial prejudice existed long before buses came along, yet racial segregation on buses reinforced the notion that racial prejudice was the norm.

You can hardly begin to address the problem of racial prejudice in a culture where buses are racially segregated, even though the prejudice existed long before the concept of a segregated bus even came along. In fact, a good place to start addressing racial prejudice is to get rid of cultural icons that are based on the prejudice, like the segregated buses.

Similarly, you can hardly begin to address the problem of the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of way in a culture which paints official areas on the road which cyclists are required to use specifically to get them out of the way, even though the notion existed long before the concept of a bike lane even came along. In fact, a good place to start is to get rid of cultural icons that are based on the notion, like the bike lanes.

Edit: Please take a minute to read the quotes in noisebeam's post a couple back from this one. Don't just skim them. Read them, and then please take another minute or two to really think about them. Try to understand the mentality of the people writing these things. How on Earth can we ever change their minds while at the same time we're clamoring for more bike lanes to keep us and our toys separated?

I read them, and I noticed that I could highlight in several of them issues relating to the "toy nature" of bicycles where Noisebeam chose to highlight the bike lane issues...

Now interestingly enough this bike lane attitude doesn't exist in places where bikes are not seen as toys but as part of the regular transit system, such as Finland, where motorists actually look for and stop for cyclists (rather than harass them as has been known to happen here) and where in fact more extensive networks exist to support cyclists rather than just a simple flimsy line of paint on the road.

You are somewhat right in that BL may reinforce some negative concepts, but the concepts themselves do not stem from the presence of BL any more than the "back of the bus" notion created racial segregation. But you are trying to deal with a symptom of a much larger problem... and you are pointing fingers at that symptom as if it is the cause.

The problem is the autocentric attitude of motorists and road system here in America... not the BL themselves.

Personally I think bike lanes are good when they provide plus value to bicycle users. Plus, they have to be used with additional legislation giving anyone in the bike lane additional right-of-ways and a no-fault cover that helps increase the protection (as is the case in the Netherlands).

Generally, bike lanes are so badly designed in North-America than they are not of any great advantage to anyone.

boy, this thread sure took off.

I like bike lanes for the benefits well implemented bicycling infrastructure brings communities.

bike infrastructure can be well or poorly engineered.

that first photo octopus posted is an example of a bike lane that needs remedy.

I like bicycling infrastructure when it is well designed. some municipalities have it well in hand, and some do not.

But the left turn lane is on the other side of the HOV lane. This is similar to a bike lane being to the left of a right turn lane, which is much less problematic than the typical bike lane to the right of a lane that allows right turns (as well as through traffic).

Your example makes my point. "HOV lanes and slow truck lanes are restricted to only very special
circumstances where crossing movement conflicts with traffic in other
lanes can be entirely avoided; bike lanes are not. "

They would never put an HOV lane that allows through travel to the left of a regular traffic lane that allows left turns.
They would never put a truck lane that allows through travel to the right of a regular traffic lane that allows right turns.

But they put bike lanes that allow through travel to the right of regular traffic lanes that allow right turns all the time. See photo in OP for a particularly bad example, but the practice is quote common and exists at any intersection with bike lanes and no dedicated right turn lanes. It's insane, if you think about.

If the bike lane is considered as just another lane, then the motorist is required to merge into it to make their turn. In some places it's required by law to do so.

That's how I look at bike lanes: They're just another lane of travel. They have special rules attached to using them, just like HOV lanes, bus lanes, and passing lanes.... but in the end, they ARE a lane of travel, and as such, should be treated as such.

We have bike lanes here like you mention: The right turn lane is to the right of the bike lane... the intersections are just as dangerous... the only problem is that now instead of right hooks, you have people just driving across them without looking... so you're apt to get side swiped or rear ended...

In the end the problem is that driver's in America don't respect cyclists on the road. (Nor on sidewalks, bike paths, driveways, parking lots, etc) And not JUST cyclists... pedestrians are in just as much (if not, arguably MORE) danger from unobservant motorists who think the world revolves around them and that EVERYBODY should 'get out of their way' (Oh... and that INCLUDES cars that are driving slower than what THEY want to go)

This problem goes far beyond interactions with cyclists... it includes interactions with EVERYBODY, including other drivers.

It's just too damn easy to get and keep a driver's license in America, and people think that driving is their RIGHT... so even if they DO lose their license, they'll continue to drive. But Judge, how ELSE am I supposed to feed my family if I don't drive?

Want a good example of BAD laws? You can LEGALLY drive with a suspended license in many areas! How??? Simply go and apply for special permission to drive to/from work. They'll essentially give you a restricted license that only allows you to drive between your home and work (Though I think they'll give you other possible destinations, if you justify it to them)

See Gene, Pete and others, it's not a difficult effect to see, at least for some.

Uh did you read the entire quote... especially the part where he goes on to say "Not that i've ever been in a city where they exist though, so there are probably some advantages."



Funny thing is I like bike lanes as they indicate to motorists that the street is exactly where I belong, not the sidewalk.

Amazing how things can be spun, eh?

I like to see them. They're a good sign that a community is taking riding and alternative modes of transport seriously. I ride in them when they are safe, which is almost never. Why are they always in door range?

I read them, and I noticed that I could highlight in several of them issues relating to the "toy nature" of bicycles where Noisebeam chose to highlight the bike lane issues...


Two of them exact, with one being 'you ride toys, so stay in the bike lane,' the other 'bike riders are hazards, you ride your toys in the car lane' (which to me implies, instead of the bike lane)

Al

If the bike lane is considered as just another lane, then the motorist is required to merge into it to make their turn. In some places it's required by law to do so.

That's how I look at bike lanes: They're just another lane of travel. They have special rules attached to using them, just like HOV lanes, bus lanes, and passing lanes.... but in the end, they ARE a lane of travel, and as such, should be treated as such.

We have bike lanes here like you mention: The right turn lane is to the right of the bike lane... the intersections are just as dangerous... the only problem is that now instead of right hooks, you have people just driving across them without looking... so you're apt to get side swiped or rear ended...

In the end the problem is that driver's in America don't respect cyclists on the road. (Nor on sidewalks, bike paths, driveways, parking lots, etc) And not JUST cyclists... pedestrians are in just as much (if not, arguably MORE) danger from unobservant motorists who think the world revolves around them and that EVERYBODY should 'get out of their way' (Oh... and that INCLUDES cars that are driving slower than what THEY want to go)

This problem goes far beyond interactions with cyclists... it includes interactions with EVERYBODY, including other drivers.

It's just too damn easy to get and keep a driver's license in America, and people think that driving is their RIGHT... so even if they DO lose their license, they'll continue to drive. But Judge, how ELSE am I supposed to feed my family if I don't drive?

Want a good example of BAD laws? You can LEGALLY drive with a suspended license in many areas! How??? Simply go and apply for special permission to drive to/from work. They'll essentially give you a restricted license that only allows you to drive between your home and work (Though I think they'll give you other possible destinations, if you justify it to them)

BINGO! +1000 Give this person the prize!!!

If the bike lane is considered as just another lane, then the motorist is required to merge into it to make their turn. In some places it's required by law to do so.

Then they should be designed to allow a maximum legal width vehicle to merge into with that merge occuring well before the intersection.


That's how I look at bike lanes: They're just another lane of travel. They have special rules attached to using them, just like HOV lanes, bus lanes, and passing lanes.... but in the end, they ARE a lane of travel, and as such, should be treated as such.
If they are just another lane for travel, they should be designed as such and follow the same rules of travel as all other lanes are designed to accomidate.


We have bike lanes here like you mention: The right turn lane is to the right of the bike lane... the intersections are just as dangerous... the only problem is that now instead of right hooks, you have people just driving across them without looking... so you're apt to get side swiped or rear ended...

The problem is that drivers have to cross that narrow strip of pavement. They can't travel within it. Again a problem with the design of a lane that doesn't allow for uniform usage by all users.


In the end the problem is that driver's in America don't respect cyclists on the road. (Nor on sidewalks, bike paths, driveways, parking lots, etc) And not JUST cyclists... pedestrians are in just as much (if not, arguably MORE) danger from unobservant motorists who think the world revolves around them and that EVERYBODY should 'get out of their way' (Oh... and that INCLUDES cars that are driving slower than what THEY want to go)

The vast majority of drivers I encounter when I am driving a bicycle act as if they respect me. That what is important to me. What they really think I don't care, it's what they do.


This problem goes far beyond interactions with cyclists... it includes interactions with EVERYBODY, including other drivers.

Yeah, there are some major jerks in this world. But they stand out and most people are not.


It's just too damn easy to get and keep a driver's license in America, and people think that driving is their RIGHT... so even if they DO lose their license, they'll continue to drive. But Judge, how ELSE am I supposed to feed my family if I don't drive?

I too think the standards for having a drivers license should be higher. I'd like to see a reduction in the 45k people killed and the many more thousands maimed in the US every year due to traffic accidents. Higher standards won't get the jerks off the road, but it will get the incompetent and if better enforced more of those who broke the laws.


Want a good example of BAD laws? You can LEGALLY drive with a suspended license in many areas! How??? Simply go and apply for special permission to drive to/from work. They'll essentially give you a restricted license that only allows you to drive between your home and work (Though I think they'll give you other possible destinations, if you justify it to them)
That is an issue that affects all road users. As I said above, it should be better than this.

Al

genec, do you think that a motorist in Finland has not looked for a cyclist and/or not stopped for a cyclist before?

I think that your very limited experience in Finland makes it kind of silly to repetitively describe Finland as a cycling utopia where all car drivers are polite and stop, etc.

I don't understand the wording of your first question... and yes, I do agree that I have limited experience in Finland.

I think you are asking if there is a possibility that some motorist has not stopped for or not looked out for cyclists in Finland. If that is the question, the answer is yes, I am sure that has probably happened. However the laws in Finland (as explained to me) would make doing so a clear violation... unlike the case here in the US where apparently even hitting and killing a cyclist is not considered a violation of a three foot law. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=348994) (at least at this time)

Now the reason I bring up Finland over and over again is first and foremost it is quite unlike anything for cyclists I have ever experienced... and it is not a system that depends on Vehicular Cycling, and cyclists fare very well over there. The latter is counter to everything certain cycling advocates constantly harp about here.

BTW in spite of my limited experience there, I have kept up communication with my colleagues there, and have continued to research it on the web. No, I am far from an expert, but indeed I have seen it with my own eyes... and experienced it. The latter a situation quite unlike that which many here on BF have, while yet acting like they are "experts."

You don't have enough control over your bike to stay within the stripe yet avoid the gravel and the grate?


Again... It's physically impossible to stay within the lane and yet avoid the gravel and grate. My bike WON'T FIT. Nor will ANY bike I've EVER seen. Much less rider. Yes, my TIRES might be within the space between the line and the grate, but my handlebars (Or, at least, the left portion of them) would not. Nor would my body. Therefore I'm not IN the lane.

I mean, hell... I KNOW I'm skinny... but 6"????

I fail to see why you're still attacking my bike handling skills.

Slower Traffic Keep Right. I wish more drivers understood this simple concept. Lane discipline the the US is very poor.

Slow-Moving Vehicles

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.

OK but what about the prima facie speed limits... how about if a few motorists respected those too. (not the basic speed laws... which many motorists are also probably unaware of)

If the bike lane is considered as just another lane, then the motorist is required to merge into it to make their turn. In some places it's required by law to do so.
That's not true in states like OR and AZ.
Even in states where it is technically true, it is so contrary to every other rule on the road to enter that narrow stripe-demarcated space, that most right-turning drivers don't. In practice, it doesn't work.


That's how I look at bike lanes: They're just another lane of travel.
Yes, and that's typical of cyclists who like bike lanes. But it's atypical for just about everyone else, including most motorists, police officers, lawmakers, and traffic engineers.

Just as one example - consider how normal lanes are striped relative to the center of the road. That is the, lane stripes parallel the next lane stripe to the left, creating lanes of consistent width, except the outside lane. The left stripe of the outside lane typically parallels the center lane of the road, but the right edge stripe (if any) typically parallels the right edge of the road - so the width of the normal outside traffic lane often varies. By the left edge stripe of the bike "lane" is not treated like an outside lane in which the left edge stripe parallels all the other center and lane stripes - it follows the outside edge, just like a shoulder does. This shows that traffic engineers don't see a bike "lane" as "just another lane of travel", but more like a shoulder.

They have special rules attached to using them, just like HOV lanes, bus lanes, and passing lanes.... but in the end, they ARE a lane of travel, and as such, should be treated as such.
Nice example of wishful thinking. Bike "lanes" are SO different that it is unrealistic to expect this. They are so different that bike lane is arguably a misnomer. In fact, most people interchange the terms bike lane and bike path, indicating that they more closely associate these terms with "space for bicyclists" than a traffic lane.

We have bike lanes here like you mention: The right turn lane is to the right of the bike lane... the intersections are just as dangerous... the only problem is that now instead of right hooks, you have people just driving across them without looking... so you're apt to get side swiped or rear ended...
Oh, please. This is pure irrational fear talking. Right hooks account for a real known high percentage of bike-car collisions. What you fear above is relatively unheard of. That you equate them speaks volumes.


In the end the problem is that driver's in America don't respect cyclists on the road.
As someone who is respected by almost every driver I enounter, I strongly disagree. What drivers disrespect are the vast majority of cyclists who treat their bikes like toys, including feeling more comfortable riding them in toy lanes.

(Nor on sidewalks, bike paths, driveways, parking lots, etc) And not JUST cyclists... pedestrians are in just as much (if not, arguably MORE) danger from unobservant motorists who think the world revolves around them and that EVERYBODY should 'get out of their way' (Oh... and that INCLUDES cars that are driving slower than what THEY want to go)
You have a vivid and fearful imagination. No wonder you like toy lanes.

This problem goes far beyond interactions with cyclists... it includes interactions with EVERYBODY, including other drivers.
Even if what you talk about was a problem that could not be effectively addressed through cyclist behavior alone (which it can be, but whatever), how does riding in toy anes, and having more toy lanes, help this "problem"?

It's just too damn easy to get and keep a driver's license in America, and people think that driving is their RIGHT... so even if they DO lose their license, they'll continue to drive. But Judge, how ELSE am I supposed to feed my family if I don't drive?

Want a good example of BAD laws? You can LEGALLY drive with a suspended license in many areas! How??? Simply go and apply for special permission to drive to/from work. They'll essentially give you a restricted license that only allows you to drive between your home and work (Though I think they'll give you other possible destinations, if you justify it to them)
Tangent alert.

Slower Traffic Keep Right. I wish more drivers understood this simple concept. Lane discipline the the US is very poor.

Slow-Moving Vehicles

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.

What is the 'normal' speed... What's 'slower' if the left lane is moving 5 mph faster than the right lane, and a motorist rear ends another because he wanted to go FASTER than that... What then????

Yes, there was a case of that... and the driver felt entirely justified in teaching the other driver a lesson!
Never mind that the 'slow' traffic to the right was doing more than 10 miles over the speed limit already.

OK but what about the prima facie speed limits... how about if a few motorists respected those too. (not the basic speed laws... which many motorists are also probably unaware of)
What part of "Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits" do you not understand?

Allow me to explain. Consider a 6 lane arterial with 45 mph speed limit and most traffic moving at 65. You're in the fast lane moving 45. You're violating the law.

What part of "Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits" do you not understand?

Allow me to explain. Consider a 6 lane arterial with 45 mph speed limit and most traffic moving at 65. You're in the fast lane moving 45. You're violating the law.

And everyone going 65 is violating the law. What happened to that?

If the speed limit doesn't matter, and only the basic speed law applies, then why are the darn signs there and why do speeding tickets exist at all.

There is a strong contradiction going on here regarding speed limits.

Now apply a cyclist to the picture... moving at 15MPH, wanting to make a left turn... how does that fit into your picture. Is that cyclist not also violating the same law as the motorist going 45MPH? (what if the 45MPH motorist wants to turn left?)

Uh did you read the entire quote... especially the part where he goes on to say "Not that i've ever been in a city where they exist though, so there are probably some advantages."

Funny thing is I like bike lanes as they indicate to motorists that the street is exactly where I belong, not the sidewalk.

Amazing how things can be spun, eh?
For crying out loud, Gene, you've had some dense days, but today has to top them all.

Almost all issues have pro and con sides. Merely pointing out that your side of an issue has some advantages is plain stupid.

And everyone going 65 is violating the law. What happened to that?
Nothing. It's still there. It's not for you to enforce. What you are supposed to do is get the hell out of the fast lane.



If the speed limit doesn't matter, and only the basic speed law applies, then why are the darn signs there and why do speeding tickets exist at all.

They matter, just not with respect to your obligation to get out of the fast lane when you're going slower than others.


There is a strong contradiction going on here regarding speed limits.

Not for those of us who can integrate principles that are related but not contradictory.

Now apply a cyclist to the picture... moving at 15MPH, wanting to make a left turn... how does that fit into your picture. Is that cyclist not also violating the same law as the motorist going 45MPH? (what if the 45MPH motorist wants to turn left?)
Unbelievable. Did you skip breakfast today or something? What part of except ... when preparing for a left turn did you miss when you read 21654 (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm)?

You should really learn what these laws say, Gene.

For crying out loud, Gene, you've had some dense days, but today has to top them all.

Almost all issues have pro and con sides. Merely pointing out that your side of an issue has some advantages is plain stupid.

You mean like what you did by only including part of the "testimony" you quoted earlier, eliminating that part where the person you quote then went on to admit they never even had any experience with BL... Thereby negating their quoted negative opinion simply through their lack of experience?

Nothing. It's still there. It's not for you to enforce. What you are supposed to do is get the hell out of the fast lane.



There is no "fast lane" Find a CVC document that defines "fast lanes" on surface streets.



They matter, just not with respect to your obligation to get out of the fast lane when you're going slower than others.



What's a "fast lane?"



Not for those of us who can integrate principles that are related but not contradictory.

Apply the same "integrate principles" to BL. Should be no problem.



Unbelievable. Did you skip breakfast today or something? What part of except ... when preparing for a left turn did you miss when you read 21654 (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm)?

You should really learn what these laws say, Gene.

Then the 45MPH motorist has every right to be in the left lane, moving at 45MPH right? (as you so "eloquently" point out in your reply.)

+1 on the there is no fast lane. It driives me nuts when folks round here talk about the fast lane on urban arterials where there are possible left turns and entering traffic every 1/4mi or more and the so called 'slow lane' is already moving along above the 45mph SL.

When talking about 'fast lanes' on restricted access freeways I cut some slack. There the outside lane should be reserved for passing only.

AZ Statutes use different language:
"B. On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. "

and: (my bold)
A. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

Al

Pete:

Here's why I believe cycling in America is in such bad shape:

Leaving aside any issues with driver's who are full of rage, or a misbelief that bicycles don't belong on the road... Let's look at a tiny section of the population: The cyclists themselves!

Now... we all know we have the right to use the roads. That other driver's should treat us with respect.

But... look around you. Look at how even WE can't come to any kind of consensus as to what that means, or how best to improve the current situation.

Even two people who LIKE and USE bike lanes regularly get in a fight involving personal attacks... over something so stupid as what one considers being 'in the lane' as opposed to 'not using the lane'

Now we have the VC cyclists who appear to always want to be in a traffic lane, regardless of their surroundings and appear to feel that ANY special accommodations for bicycles are anti-cycling.

Then we have the bike lane vs. no bike lane camp, filtering vs. 'don't ever filter for any reason', I'm sure there are plenty of others...

Is it any wonder that we can't get any respect from anyone?

Because you have claimed that you can't ride in that area without 2" knobbies.

Now your claiming that you can't ride there because your handlebars would be on the stripe/outside of the stripe. What is the problem with that?

My point was that I don't feel that I'm 'in the lane' if I'm half (Or mostly) out of it. So no... I wouldn't ride 'in the lane'.

BUT I'D PROBABLY FOLLOW THE EXACT SAME LINE AS YOU!!!!!