didjya see any other bicyclists out there riding head? I BET YOU DIDN'T
and did you ride in a bike lane for a while in a vehicular fashion? I BET YOU DID....
I don't recall seeing any other cyclists on my entire commute today. I did use the margin that happened to be demarcated by bike lane stripe temporarily to allow faster traffic to pass, but that's not on the 6 lane arterial. That road has no bike lanes.
For head, a solitary bicyclist with the skill set, attitude and ability to ride arterials doesn't prevent him from riding vehicularily in a bike lane. Head rides in bike lanes as a vehicular cyclist in a community that recognizes bikes as human powered devices and accomodates them along high speed arterials with bike lanes that are mostly vehicular in design.
There are no bike lanes on La Jolla Village Drive, except for one short block between the west point where it starts, and the intersection with Gilman.
When you start to see 'bicyclists' as more than just high mileage, skilled, savvyy, riders with techniques and mental training to act like a vehicle in traffic, maybe you'll understand, head.
You mean when I start seeing the ones who as adults still ride as I did as a child? The ones who ride on sidewalks and haven't bothered to take the 10 minutes or so required to learn to look back over their shoulder without uncontrollably swerving? These are the ones we need to provide "idiot proof" accommodations for? Why?
do you want my mom to not bike to the store if she'd doesn't want to bike amongst SUV's moving 60mph? What if she needs to use her bike for transportation? Tell her to 'suck it up' and get out there in high speed lanes of traffic? You've approach is ludricous for the majority of actual and potential bicyclists in this country.
If you can get your city to provide a segregated path, I'm all for it, Bek. My objection is to bike lanes, and the notion that it is not possible for anyone, even you, to cycle in traffic with reasonable safety, and, thus, idiot-proof physically separated paths are REQUIRED in order to accomodate safe bicycling.
however, in countries overseas, there are more bicyclists across all age and socio-economic brackets and safer bicyclists that ride in the vehicular manner for bicycles in their countries.
:rolleyes: Those countries had major bicyclist usage BEFORE all those accommodations were built.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
who's saying anything about 'segregated paths' or 'idiot proof"?
cyclists like yourself benefit from living in an accomodated community. even if you can't recognize it, bike specific facilities enhancements in San Diego DO make your environment and motorists safer for you as a bicyclist.
Head, your insistence on training and savvy and attitude as a predicate for bicycling your environment prove the elitism and fallacy of your 'faring best' criterea.
Remember, head. all riders that ride vehicularily do not ride all roads (I suspect the majority of riders that understand the vehicular rules of the road do not ride all speeds and types of roads).
Even john forestor hugs the edges of some types of narrow lanes and expects safe treatment from motorists even while riding far right. By virtue of his lane position being accomodated as a vehicle with unique operating characteristics.
and guess what: a 'vc' like john forestor would ride an adequate shoulder or in a well-provided bike lane before taking the lane of your high speed road. he'd likely position himself squarely in the bike lane and generally ride where you did not on your ride today, methinks.....he'd of been further right!
do bicyclists fare best when they act and are treated as vehicles? NO. Bicyclists fare best where they act and are treated as operators of human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics and accomodated as such.
a world-wide body of evidence abundantly proves this. (note to helmet head: cyclist share plummeted in european countries after WWII and has experienced a resurgence in countries that provided a series of social and engineering inducements for bicycling. cycling in countries that have provided less robust support for bicycling has seen a continued decline.)
randya
motorists first, cyclists last!
Runtnick
There are no bike lanes on La Jolla Village Drive, except for one short block between the west point where it starts, and the intersection with Gilman.
You're being disingenuous.
Here's what bekologist wrote:
"Head rides in bike lanes as a vehicular cyclist in a community that recognizes bikes as human powered devices and accomodates them along high speed arterials with bike lanes that are mostly vehicular in design."
His comment is obviously not limited to only La Jolla Village Drive. You also commute on Torrey Pines which is a perfect example of what Bekologist is referring to. Anyone that can figure out how to use Google maps can see the bike lanes along that high speed arterial.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Helmet Head
You're being disingenuous.
Here's what bekologist wrote:
"Head rides in bike lanes as a vehicular cyclist in a community that recognizes bikes as human powered devices and accomodates them along high speed arterials with bike lanes that are mostly vehicular in design."
His comment is obviously not limited to only La Jolla Village Drive. You also commute on Torrey Pines which is a perfect example of what Bekologist is referring to. Anyone that can figure out how to use Google maps can see the bike lanes along that high speed arterial.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Disingenuous? Ashamed? Why the animosity?
I've stated for years that part of my commute is on Torrey Pines Road which includes bike lanes. This is no secret. But the context of this discussion was set a few posts back: "the 6 lane 45 mph (posted/ 50-55 mph actual) arterial". That's not Torrey Pines Road. That's LJVD. That's what I was talking about. I don't know why any other part of my commute would suddenly be relevant to this discussion.
Bekologist
hehehe. aside from providing an example of a bicyclist living in an accomodated community, it's NOT. in any way, shape or form.
why don't you do the forum a favor, go back and retract all the irrelevant parts?
Runtnick
But the context of this discussion was set a few posts back: "the 6 lane 45 mph (posted/ 50-55 mph actual) arterial". That's not Torrey Pines Road. That's LJVD. That's what I was talking about. I don't know why any other part of my commute would suddenly be relevant to this discussion.
Your commute is relevant because that's what Bekologist is discussing. If you are still struggling to comprehend this, read the last few pages of this thread once again.
You are wrong about the context of the discussion. The context was established before your post that you reference above. Here's the context:
" rememberr, head, don't predicate your fallacy of 'vc=allroad ability' because that is not the case. knowing the rules of the road doesn't automatically infer the ability to traffic dance a 50MPH arterial, dude. " (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6199868&postcount=436)
Until your recent "context" defense (which fails miserably), you have lumped LJVD, Torrey, etc. all together.
"Off the top of my head... Torrey Pines Road, Genessee, La Jolla Village Drive, Miramar Road, Pomerado Road, Pacific Coast Highway, Kearney Villa Road, Mira Mesa Blvd, Encinitas Blvd, SR 67, Highland Valley Road, El Camino Real, Via del Valle, Black Mountain, etc., etc., these are all roads which have 50 mph and frequent intersections, at least in some sections, and yet are excellent for bicycling. What's "auto-centric" about them?" (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4328090&postcount=243)
I think that it's shameful that you don't do the courteous thing and expend just a little more effort so that you actually understand, and remember, the context of this discussion that you are trying to participate in.
Bekologist
this thread is about cyclists faring best in communities that recognize bikes as human powered devices with unique operating characteristics and are accomodated as such;
San Diego has bike lane networks and path networks that helmet head uses. regardless if he thinks he's just 'using the space a bike lane demarcates' he's still physically riding IN a bike facility that makes his riding and motorists passing easier and more conveinent for both bike and car.
ANY denial of reaping the benefits from living in an accomodated community on the part of helemt head is disengenous.
Helemt head, although he can't see what's in front of his face, reaps the benefits of living in an accomodated community.
One more time: "bicyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" is incorrect. a worldwide body of evidence supports the contrary.
The correct statement: "Bicyclists fare best when the act and are treated as drivers of human powered devices with unique operating characteristics and accomodated as such."
head and his commute- exemplary.
TRaffic Jammer
Now you're using FACTS, how dare you? :lol:
Of course we will have all misinterpreted his TRUE meaning, rendering the above post moot.
Helmet Head
Your commute is relevant because that's what Bekologist is discussing. If you are still struggling to comprehend this, read the last few pages of this thread once again.
You are wrong about the context of the discussion. The context was established before your post that you reference above. Here's the context:
" rememberr, head, don't predicate your fallacy of 'vc=allroad ability' because that is not the case. knowing the rules of the road doesn't automatically infer the ability to traffic dance a 50MPH arterial, dude. " (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6199868&postcount=436)
Until your recent "context" defense (which fails miserably), you have lumped LJVD, Torrey, etc. all together.
"Off the top of my head... Torrey Pines Road, Genessee, La Jolla Village Drive, Miramar Road, Pomerado Road, Pacific Coast Highway, Kearney Villa Road, Mira Mesa Blvd, Encinitas Blvd, SR 67, Highland Valley Road, El Camino Real, Via del Valle, Black Mountain, etc., etc., these are all roads which have 50 mph and frequent intersections, at least in some sections, and yet are excellent for bicycling. What's "auto-centric" about them?" (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4328090&postcount=243)
I think that it's shameful that you don't do the courteous thing and expend just a little more effort so that you actually understand, and remember, the context of this discussion that you are trying to participate in.
Well, if you can understand Bek's point, please explain it to me, because I honestly don't get it.
Anyway, I stand by my statement: "There are no bike lanes on La Jolla Village Drive, except for one short block between the west point where it starts, and the intersection with Gilman." It's true.
I also do not deny that there is 50 mph traffic and bike lanes (but not 6 traffic lanes) on parts of TP Road that is on my commute. Why that is relevant to anything we're discussing is what I don't get.
Bekologist
you live in an accomodated community and use bike lanes and bike paths, head. Biking infrastructure in your area is used by many, many bicyclists - even the trained ones! and help encourage more vehicular bicycling along both accomodated and unaccomodated roads.
Bike specific enhancements also accustom motorists to the presence of bikes on the road, potential bike traffic using roads, and bicyclists riding in a vehicular manner.
are you trying to make another thread all about you and your part time commute AGAIN???? Plueazee attempt to restrain yourself.....
That US cities like San Diego have less developed bike infrastructure and social progams than many european communities that enhance bicyclists' safety and participation is beside the point.
genec
Well, if you can understand Bek's point, please explain it to me, because I honestly don't get it.
I believe what he is saying is that while you deny accommodations, you none the less live in a community that has some accommodations and you use these accommodations... such as the bike lane on Torrey Pines Road... so in effect you benefit from the very things you deny.
Whether you believe you benefit or not is another issue.
RobertHurst
Maybe. Who knows? Who cares? What difference does it make?
The point is they respect my right to the road, even on a commute that is on roads (big suburban arterials) that Robert Hurst considers to be "probably the most dangerous places for cyclists to ride" [link (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6198853&postcount=270)].
If the 6 lane 45 mph (posted/ 50-55 mph actual) arterials are the most dangerous places to ride, then everywhere else must be cake, because it's not very difficult for a cyclist riding vehicularly to be quite safe on these roads.
To clarify, I was referring to the type of 'big arterials' with frequent entrance/exits to large parking lots. Super Targets, big box stores, grocery stores, malls, 7-11s and gas stations, lots of traffic chaos and intensity combined with a sense of driver entitlement that is more pronounced than in downtown areas. Just because an arterial has high speeds and lots of traffic doesn't mean it's difficult to ride; it could be cake without intensity of turning and crossing traffic.
Robert
Helmet Head
you live in an accomodated community and use bike lanes and bike paths, head. Biking infrastructure in your area is used by many, many bicyclists - even the trained ones! and help encourage more vehicular bicycling along both accomodated and unaccomodated roads.
I agree with the part in bold, especially with respect to paths. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether riding in the margin of a WOL is "using" a bike lane just because the margin happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe. As you know, to the extent that the stripe has any bearing on the utility of that space for bicyclists, I think it diminishes it. I also disagree with your implied distinction between "accomodated and unaccomodated roads". TP Rd would be just as "accomodated" if the stripe was not there. In fact, there were a few blissful days like that about a year ago after they repaved the road and repainted the traffic lane stripes, but not the bike lane stripe. I strongly disagree that the stripe (or the paths) encourage vehicular bicycling.
Bike specific enhancements also accustom motorists to the presence of bikes on the road, potential bike traffic using roads, and bicyclists riding in a vehicular manner.
I disagree (if and when you provide your reasons, I'll provide mine).
are you trying to make another thread all about you and your part time commute AGAIN???? Plueazee attempt to restrain yourself.....
No, but you apparently are.
Helmet Head
I believe what he is saying is that while you deny accommodations, you none the less live in a community that has some accommodations and you use these accommodations... such as the bike lane on Torrey Pines Road... so in effect you benefit from the very things you deny.
Whether you believe you benefit or not is another issue.
What do you (or Bek) mean by "you deny accommodations"? To help me understand, perhaps you can give me an example of something I have said that you would characterize as me denying accommodations.
What makes you think I benefit from the bike lane stripe on TP Rd, the very same one that improved my commute immensely the few days it was missing a year or so ago?
Bekologist
Would you PLEASE stop continually derailling threads into a discussion about your commute in an accomodated metropolis?
Bekologist
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether riding in the margin of a WOL is "using" a bike lane just because the margin happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe.
:roflmao: yeah, do you mean physically or mentally? if you deny you are in a bike lane when you physically actually ARE using a bike lane, there's no help for you! you're experiencing a mental disconnect with the physical reality of your positioning!
Head, on road bike infrastructure largely does encourage more vehicular behavior and it carries over to unaccomodated roads.
I 've seen it here in Seattle, more and more bicyclists are correctly positioning themselves to the left of right turners at intersections. Barring the presence of educational materials doing this- obvious! it's a result of both greater numbers of intersections routing bikes this way with bike specific infrastructure, and more bicyclists positioning themselves that way when the lane is absent.
As more bikes get seen across town to the left of right hand turners, motorists ALSO get more accustomed to seeing bikes to the left of right turners , bike specific lanes or not.
Same with riding outside of the door zone in a buffered bikelane. If riders in a community get accustomed to NOT hugging the curb and riding in and out of parked cars because of a series of buffered bike lanes across town on select roads, they will be less likely to ride in and out of parked cars when a buffered bike lane is absent.
Correspondingly, when motorists begin to see greater numbers of bicyclists riding in a buffered, visible road position, motorists get MORE accustomed to seeing bikes in that position regardless of the presence of bike specific enhancements along any specific stretch of road.
(these are my personal observations and I apologize for using my specific city and commuting as an example)
you ride in an accomodated community, and receive a host of actual and inferred benefits from the accomodations San Diego has been implementing since the early 1970's.
IF you can't realize you reap the benefits riding in an accomodated community, again, there's no help for you head.
That US cities like San Diego have less developed bike infrastructure and social progams than many european communities that enhance bicyclists' safety and participation is beside the point.
Helmet Head
To clarify, I was referring to the type of 'big arterials' with frequent entrance/exits to large parking lots. Super Targets, big box stores, grocery stores, malls, 7-11s and gas stations, lots of traffic chaos and intensity combined with a sense of driver entitlement that is more pronounced than in downtown areas. Just because an arterial has high speeds and lots of traffic doesn't mean it's difficult to ride; it could be cake without intensity of turning and crossing traffic.
Robert
That makes more sense. I'd say the parts of TP Rd I commute on vary between low and medium intensity in terms of turning and crossing traffic, while LJVD is medium intensity to med-high intensity (med-high intensity being the freeway interchange crossing which I wouldn't characterize as high because while the onramps are freeflowing, the offramps are controlled by a right turn and a traffic signal).
Other arterials I ride on are high intensity, but they are not on my commute. Westbound Miramar Rd is a good example, I think. But the same techniques can be used to mitigate the dangers, primarily paying attention (of course) and riding further left where your conspicuousness, vantage and safety buffers are all improved relative to being just a few feet from the road edge or curb, except maybe to allow faster to pass, when it is safe and reasonable to do so.
In a way, high intensity arterials are easier to navigate because since you're constantly approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, you are never legally obligated to move into a conspicuous/vantage/space-compromising lane sharing position, and for good reasons of safety (this is explicit in states like CA which have a specific exception in the "keep right" law for right turn approaches, implicit in "as far right as practicable" states that don't - it's not practicable to ride in the "right turn zone" when you're going straight).
Helmet Head
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether riding in the margin of a WOL is "using" a bike lane just because the margin happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe.
:roflmao: yeah, do you mean physically or mentally? if you deny you are in a bike lane when you physically actually ARE using a bike lane, there's no help for you!
I never denied being in a bike lane. This is an example of deliberate distortion of the writer's intent in order to further one's goal (discredit the writer because you don't like his message), and not an example of a honest attempt to understand the writer's meaning, that makes civil discourse very difficult.
This is the part you ignored that explains why I object to the term "using" with respect to riding in space that happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe: "to the extent that the stripe has any bearing on the utility of that space for bicyclists, I think it diminishes it." You can disagree if you want, but my honest opinion is that the bike lane stripe diminishes the utility of the space that it demarcates because, if nothing else, it causes debris to collect there at a higher rate than it would if the stripe was not there.
However, I suppose I couldn't argue with you that there may be a few novice cyclists who would hug the curb if the stripe were not there, and, they, arguably are "using" the bike lane in that respect. Frankly, I don't see such riders on TP Rd very often, but to the extent that there must be some out there, I'll concede that point: there are some small number of bicyclists in my area that "use" the bike lanes. But I'll also add that of the two main routes out of La Jolla to the north, the steeper/slower 2-lane route (LJ Shores) with no bike lane is at least as popular as the less steep/faster 4-lane route (TP Rd) with the bike lane. So I don't see any evidence that the road with the bike lane encourages more cycling.
Head, on road bike infrastructure largely does encourage more vehicular behavior and it carries over to unaccomodated roads. slower traffic keep right, remember?
No, I don't remember. How does "on road bike infrastructure largely encourage more vehicular behavior"? You mean by encouraging novices to ride a bit further from the curb, bike lanes to the left of right only lanes, or something else?
you ride in an accomodated community, and receive a host of actual and inferred benefits from the accomodations San Diego has been implementing since the early 1970's.
IF you can't realize you reap the benefits riding in an accomodated community, again, there's no help for you head.
The emperor has no clothes, Beck. You can't even identify the benefits that you allege are there.
Bekologist
Even the most rudimentary look at bicycling advocacy and developments since the 1970's in your area disproves your 'emperor' comment. You are in classic denial.
Moving away from SD, I've repeatedly and adequately stated the varied benefits bike specific infrastructure brings to communities.
Additionally, the recent rutgers university study abundantly illustrated 'cyclists faring best in accomodated communities' and disproved the 'faring best as vehicles' fallacy.
This is a global phenomenon, helemt head. and you live and ride in one of the US's more accomodated communities, dude
Helmet Head
Even the most rudimentary look at bicycling advocacy and developments since the 1970's in your area disproves your 'emperor' comment. You are in classic denial.
I am part of that advocacy, Bek. I don't deny the developments.
What I deny are the benefits from the bike lane stripes, the benefits that you cannot identify.
Bekologist
the only one 'denying' you've been using bike lanes is you, head. :rolleyes:
Give the forum a little history of bike advocacy in San Diego in another thread, head. There's been a huge push accomodating bikes in your community for over 35 years.
Bekologist
I point out several bonifide advantages to both bicyclists and motorists from bike specific road infrastructure that carries over to unaccomodated roads, and you rebut with cries of 'debris?' :roflmao: or is it 'denial?'
Helmet Head
I point out several bonifide advantages to both bicyclists and motorists from bike specific road infrastructure that carries over to unaccomodated roads, and you rebut with cries of 'debris?' :roflmao: or is it 'denial?'
Claiming you've done something is not doing it. What are the benefits of bike lanes that you've identified in this thread?
Bekologist
are you even reading along???
Helmet Head
the only one 'denying' you've been using bike lanes is you, head. :rolleyes:
Stop distorting Bek.
I have not denied riding in bike lanes.
I have denied benefiting from the utility of bike lanes - that's why I object to the language, "using bike lanes".
Saying riding in space that happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe is "using bike lanes" is like saying being covered with leeches after stepping out of a swamp is "using leeches".
Bekologist
physical presence in a striped lane generally indicates it's 'use' by the vehicle, head. :rolleyes:
the leech analogy doesn't hold. being in a 'swamp' means 'you're in a swamp'.
Helmet Head
yes, physical presence in a striped lane generally indicates it's 'use' by the vehicle, head. :rolleyes:
Your need to continually try and deny this is really disengenous.
I am denying it to make a point, a point that you apparently disagree with.
Yes, in general, "physical presence in a striped lane generally indicates it's 'use' by the vehicle", but "use" of something generally also implies "getting utility" from that something.
When you use a hammer, fork, knife, computer, road, lane, etc., you're getting utility from it.
But if you ask me for the salt, and I hand it to you, am I "using" the salt?
For the last time, by denying that I'm "using" a bike lane when I'm riding in a bike lane all I'm trying to do is convey the point that I'm not getting any more utility out of the space demarcated by the bike lane stripe than I would if the bike lane stripe were not there, and, in fact, the stripe arguably reduces the utility of that space by causing more debris to collect in it, not to mention that the stripe arguably makes the foot of space to either side of it legally unusable by bicyclists (except when changing lanes).
That's why I deny "using" bike lanes, despite the fact that I ride in them, that's what I mean when I deny using them, and that's why I will continue to deny using them.
Now, can we please move on?
Helmet Head
the leech analogy doesn't hold. being in a 'swamp' means 'you're in a swamp'.
Fine. Then how about this: being in a swamp doesn't necessarily mean you're "using" the swamp, just like being in a bike lane does not necessarily mean you're "using" the bike lane.
Now do you get it?
Bekologist
doesn't fly. inaccurate. if you're using the properties of the swamp by physically treading water, you are treading water in a swamp and correspondingly 'using' the swamp.
Enough with your weak, obfuscatory analogies about you denying you use bike lanes, head-
bicyclists (fixed) fare best in communities where they are recognized as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics and acocmodated as such.
TRaffic Jammer
Trying to rewrite English? Taking advantage of the car-lessness of the BL, regardless of "why" has you "using the BL... stay well the the left of it and I'll give you "ignoring the BL". The swamp has no bearing on anything, unless you are standing in a swamp boat, then you are "using" the swamp.
Pssst hand me the salt would you please? I need to use it.
Helmet Head
bikes fare best in communities where they are recognized as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics and acocmodated as such.
No, bikes fare best when they are regularly and properly maintained.
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
TRaffic Jammer
Iyho
Helmet Head
Trying to rewrite English? Taking advantage of the car-lessness of the BL, regardless of "why" has you "using the BL...
Agreed. But I don't take advantage of car-lessness in the BL, no more than I would take advantage of the carlessness in the WOL margin if the stripe were not there. That's the point.
All lanes, including bike "lanes", do not physically exist. Lanes are concepts, not physical existents. What physically exists is the painted stripe and the road pavement, including the pavement between the stripes. The pavement demarcated by lane stripes is often referred to as a "lane", but that pavement would exist even if the lane stripe (and thus the lane) did not. When you're driving or riding in a "lane', what you're physically using is the pavement, not the "lane". If you would be using that pavement in exactly the same way if the stripe wasn't there, then you're not really "using" the lane, even though you are traveling in the lane. If, however, you are using the stripe for guidance, and relying on others to use it for guidance, then you are using the lane.
In that respect, I do not "use" bike lanes. That is, I don't rely on the stripe for guidance, nor do I rely on others to use it for guidance. That's the point. It's not rewriting English. It's being clear in what you mean with your English words.
Runtnick
All lanes, including bike "lanes", do not physically exist. Lanes are concepts, not physical existents.
I sure hope that you have nothing to do with teaching people to ride in traffic, or with any form of bicycle advocacy. If you do, that is tragic news.
TRaffic Jammer
Helmet Head himself doesn't actually exist. He's an incredible amalgamation of artificial intelligence systems and a self serve web based help desk system originally designed for net flix. HH your last post gave me the shudders.
AlmostTrick
If I'm using leeches while riding in the bike lane, does the swamp still exist?
Helmet Head
All lanes, including bike "lanes", do not physically exist. Lanes are concepts, not physical existents.
I sure hope that you have nothing to do with teaching people to ride in traffic, or with any form of bicycle advocacy. If you do, that is tragic news.
I do teach.
What did I write that made you think this would be tragic?
Surely you do not think that a lane has physical attributes. If so, what are they?
Bekologist
nonethless you live in one of the more accomodated large cities in america;
cyclists fare best in communities with robust bike specific enhancements and social policies that recognize bicycles as unique human powered vehicles and accomodated as such.
urban_assault
Agreed. But I don't take advantage of car-lessness in the BL, no more than I would take advantage of the carlessness in the WOL margin if the stripe were not there. That's the point.
All lanes, including bike "lanes", do not physically exist. Lanes are concepts, not physical existents. What physically exists is the painted stripe and the road pavement, including the pavement between the stripes. The pavement demarcated by lane stripes is often referred to as a "lane", but that pavement would exist even if the lane stripe (and thus the lane) did not. When you're driving or riding in a "lane', what you're physically using is the pavement, not the "lane". If you would be using that pavement in exactly the same way if the stripe wasn't there, then you're not really "using" the lane, even though you are traveling in the lane. If, however, you are using the stripe for guidance, and relying on others to use it for guidance, then you are using the lane.
In that respect, I do not "use" bike lanes. That is, I don't rely on the stripe for guidance, nor do I rely on others to use it for guidance. That's the point. It's not rewriting English. It's being clear in what you mean with your English words.
Just when I thought this discussion was as strange as it could get... :lol:
The problem is that I understand what HH is saying.
joejack951
I sure hope that you have nothing to do with teaching people to ride in traffic, or with any form of bicycle advocacy. If you do, that is tragic news.
How does teaching cyclists to "use" bike lanes (in the sense that HH is using the word "use" and assuming you understand his meaning) help them in any way over and above teaching them how to ignore the bike lane stripe and ride as if it was not there (but not as if the space it demarcates were not there)? If I'm off base in assuming that you think this line of teaching is worthwhile, then please correct me and explain why you are giving HH such a hard time.
Bekologist
try to keep it on topic, joe!
joejack951
try to keep it on topic, joe!
I'm trying. My question has to do with whether "cyclists fare best" when they are taught to "use" bike lanes (and I repeat, by "use" I mean "use" in the way that HH has described it). I ask this because it seems to me that Runtnick thinks that cyclists being taught to ride as if the stripe did not exist does not help them fare best. I disagree but want to hear him out first.
Bekologist
I believe what he is saying is that while you deny accommodations, you none the less live in a community that has some accommodations and you use these accommodations... such as the bike lane on Torrey Pines Road... so in effect you benefit from the very things you deny.
Whether you believe you benefit or not is another issue.
Not only does helmet head directly benefit from bike specific enhancements when he's riding in a bike lane, he indirectly benefits 24-7 from the physical infrastructure in place around San Diego and 35 years of bicycling advocacy, accomodations and social programs that preceded his recent entry into 'vehicular' bicycling.
What indirect benefits? Bike lane infrastructure that informs motorists of bikes on the roads, also positioning to the left of RTO lanes. this simple physical presence and use of by other bicyclists informs motorists of bikes on road and destination positioned.
Additionally, even without bike lanes on every street-(something no one is advocating for anyway-)
the existance and presence of bikes destination positioned carries over to motorist recognition and proper bicyclist positioning on streets in the absence of bike lanes.
Seattle, for example has less than 4% bike laned streets but bicyclists and motorists alike are getting accustomed to and seeing bicyclists using destination positioning on streets with or without bike lanes.
Same holds with the effects of a well buffered bike lane along streets with parking- with enough key streets with bike infrastructure that gets bikes better positioned, directly confers greater motorist recognition, and the carryover effects onto roads with or without bike lanes.
however, bike lanes are only one of the many and varied bike specific enhancements and social programs that are in effect in communities bicyclists fare best in.
joejack951
Additionally, even without bike lanes on every street-(something no one is advocating for anyway-) the existance and presence of bikes destination positioned carries over to motorist recognition and proper bicyclist positioning on streets in the absence of bike lanes.
Maybe I'm just having a problem thinking clearly here but can you give one example of a how a bike lane indicates proper cyclist destination position at location other than where a right turn only lane is marked?
Wait, I remember you showing pictures of a bike lane striped on the right side of a left turn only lane but I hardly consider that proper destination positioning.
So can you give any examples other than those two?
Helmet Head
Not only does helmet head directly benefit from bike specific enhancements when he's riding in a bike lane, he indirectly benefits 24-7 from the physical infrastructure in place around San Diego and 35 years of bicycling advocacy, accomodations and social programs that preceded his recent entry into 'vehicular' bicycling.
Again, your claiming there are benefits without saying what the benefit is doesn't make it true.
The disbenefit is debris in the margin.
What indirect benefits? Bike lane infrastructure that informs motorists of bikes on the roads, also positioning to the left of RTO lanes. this simple physical presence and use of by other bicyclists informs motorists of bikes on road and destination positioned.
Empty bike lane infrastructure does not inform motorists of bikes on the road. :rolleyes:
Bikes on the road informs motorists of bikes on the road, whether the infrastructure is there or not.
If you think infrastructure informs motorists of your presence, you're deluding yourself.
This is no benefit.
And bike lanes are horrible at destination positioning.
At an intersection with no right only lane, the bike lane improperly routes through bike traffic to the right of right turning motorist traffic, setting up the cyclist for a right hook. :(
Even at intersections with right only lanes, a bike lane to the left of the right only lane routes cyclists into a separate line of traffic between lines of motorists. That's not proper destination positioning - that's teaching cyclists and motorists that they should remain separate, and implies there is something wrong, or at least less than ideal, when they can't be separate. But cyclists fare best when they line up with all other drivers at traffic stops, not beside them where they're easily overlooked and hit.
This is no benefit.
Additionally,
Additionally? You have to have something before you can have something in addition to it. We're still at zilch with respect to the great bike lane benefit count.
even without bike lanes on every street-(something no one is advocating for anyway-)
the existance and presence of bikes destination positioned carries over to motorist recognition and proper bicyclist positioning on streets in the absence of bike lanes.
Actually, the only effect that bike lanes on some streets has on streets without bike lanes is that on those streets motorists expect cyclists to be in the non-existent bike lane, i.e., "out of my way".
Still no benefits.
Seattle, for example has less than 4% bike laned streets but bicyclists and motorists alike are getting accustomed to and seeing bicyclists using destination positioning on streets with or without bike lanes.
Yeah well that probably due to the 96% of streets with bike lanes, not the 4% that have them. Believe me, the higher percentage of streets with bike lanes, the more conflict and tension you'll have between cyclists and motorists. The bike lanes set up false expectations of separation and thus make the crossing conflicts that much more problematic and dangerous.
Still no benefits.
Same holds with the effects of a well buffered bike lane along streets with parking- with enough key streets with bike infrastructure that gets bikes better positioned, directly confers greater motorist recognition, and the carryover effects onto roads with or without bike lanes.
A street with room for "well buffered bike lanes" and onstreet parking means you probably have at least a 6 foot bl next to a 12 foot traffic lane... 18 feet!. That 18 feet is what provides the buffering, not the bike lane. :rolleyes:
Still no benefits.
however, bike lanes are only one of the many and varied bike specific enhancements and social programs that are in effect in communities bicyclists fare best in.
Yeah, efforts to make sure traffic signal loops pick up bicyclists are good too.
Bekologist
w
bike lanes are a very, very small portion of the community enhancements to bicycling that get bicyclists faring best like yourself, head.
Helmet Head
Maybe I'm just having a problem thinking clearly here but can you give one example of a how a bike lane indicates proper cyclist destination position at location other than where a right turn only lane is marked?
Nobody can do that.
Helmet Head
w
bike lanes are a very, very small portion of the community enhancements to bicycling that get bicyclists faring best like yourself, head.
Seriously, the only benefit I'm aware of is to discourage novices from hugging curbs a bit. That indeed is a
very, very small portion of just about anything.