Cyclists fare best?

[Helmet Head]

If you think infrastructure informs motorists of your presence, you're deluding yourself.

the denial is astounding.
Indeed.

[Bekologist]

off the top of my head, I can cite the 2007 Pucher/Rutgers University paper that cites accomodations and social programs key in cyclists 'faring best', the 2007 University of British Columbia/ Teschke study contradicting vehicular cycling and charting preferences among regular commuters that showed strong preference for facilities, and the LAB statistics that shows bike laned roads are safer than roads with bike lanes.

Guess what rated bottom choices for ALL bicyclists, experienced and occasional, in the UBC study? major streets and rural roads without shoulders.

Faring best? yes, when recognized as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics and accomodated as such.

[Bekologist]

a striped lane for bikes most definetly indicates the potential for bikes, dude! :roflmao:

[joejack951]

a striped lane for bikes most definetly indicates the potential for bikes, dude! :roflmao:

Sure, about as much as any bikeable area (paved street, trail, sidewalk, parking lot, etc.) indicates the potential for cyclists.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Um... again incorrect, the bike lane and it's lines are saying... "Please ride me...see I've even gotten a bike stencil tattoo for you." Whereas everywhere else is simply everywhere else. Completely bikeable yes, but not as open as willing as a bike lane.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'safe' that I wasn't previously aware of.
Douglas Adams, Arthur Dent in "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

[noisebeam]

BLs just look like shoulders. Many cyclists even have trouble telling them apart.

If you want to attempt to communicate that cyclists may be around to motorist I think large yellow 'Bicycle' signs on the road side would have a better effect. Signs like this can even be better as they don't communicate where (which is usually with BLs: out of the way, out of concern) the cyclist may be.

I'd like to know what unique benefit bike lane stripes provide over other facilities (wide lane, shoulder, signage)

Al

[Helmet Head]

BLs just look like shoulders. Many cyclists even have trouble telling them apart.

If you want to attempt to communicate that cyclists may be around to motorist I think large yellow 'Bicycle' signs on the road side would have a better effect. Signs like this can even be better as they don't communicate where (which is usually with BLs: out of the way, out of concern) the cyclist may be.

I'd like to know what unique benefit bike lane stripes provide over other facilities (wide lane, shoulder, signage)

Al
Such signs might be better, but even then they would only be as good as "deer crossing" signs actually cause motorists to "look for deer", "falling rocks" signs cause motorists to look for falling rocks, and those pictures of people running across the freeway cause motorists to look for people running across the freeway.

In other words, there might be some small effect on people driving there for the first time, but the effect on regular commuters will be negligible.

But yeah, most non-cyclist have no idea which roads have bike lanes and which do not. Ask around. Something about which they're not even aware can't communicate anything to them.

[rando]

this thread is classic. two big thumbs up. this is the kind of insanity I come to A&S for!

[noisebeam]

Such signs might be better, but even then they would only be as good as "deer crossing" signs actually cause motorists to "look for deer", "falling rocks" signs cause motorists to look for falling rocks, and those pictures of people running across the freeway cause motorists to look for people running across the freeway.

In other words, there might be some small effect on people driving there for the first time, but the effect on regular commuters will be negligible.

But yeah, most non-cyclist have no idea which roads have bike lanes and which do not. Ask around. Something about which they're not even aware can't communicate anything to them.
That is why I used the word 'attempt.' I don't advocate for (nor against) such signs, but only point out that if the desire is to communicate to other road users that cyclist may be around that a sign saying such may be better than a stripe of paint.

I do think that a regularly occurring signs with a large icon of a bicycle is more likely to register "Bicycle" with drivers than a continuous stripe that for a motorist serves the same purpose and gets no more attention than a fog line.

Al

[TRaffic Jammer]

How about spring mounted dummy bikes that will jump out of the bush onto the shoulder just to keep the motorists alert and on their toes? I like the signs idea but you'd have to blanket the country in 'em.

[noisebeam]

How about spring mounted dummy bikes that will jump out of the bush onto the shoulder just to keep the motorists alert and on their toes? I like the signs idea but you'd have to blanket the country in 'em.

We have plenty of those here, although instead of machines, real humans volunteer for this without even being asked.

Al

[TRaffic Jammer]

:lol: I've seen some nice rock ridin' pics from your neck of the woods.

[genec]

That is why I used the word 'attempt.' I don't advocate for (nor against) such signs, but only point out that if the desire is to communicate to other road users that cyclist may be around that a sign saying such may be better than a stripe of paint.

I do think that a regularly occurring signs with a large icon of a bicycle is more likely to register "Bicycle" with drivers than a continuous stripe that for a motorist serves the same purpose and gets no more attention than a fog line.

Al

I wonder what large bike lane signs would do to the driving public... especially if there were no accompanying narrow striped region.

The sad thing is that most bike lane or bike route signs are simply too small for motorists to readily see and acknowledge... whereas every other sign on the road is set up to be read by all traffic. In fact one of the annoying trends I have noticed lately in my area is signs set quite high... I suppose to be read by SUV drivers, or by everyone when the sign might be behind an SUV.

[noisebeam]

I wonder what large bike lane signs would do to the driving public... especially if there were no accompanying narrow striped region.

I sorta like the idea of portable yellow diamond bicycle icon signs. They could be moved around the city placed on streets for a week at a time. As they would be rotated they would also be new and noted.

Or maybe portable StR signs like the attached:


Al

[Helmet Head]

On my way in today I decided to look for the yellow diamond signs. I spotted a ped crossing one and a school ped crossing one that I never noticed before, despite riding or driving by them literally thousands of times.

There is no question that a bike lane stripe is visible and conspicuous - the debris that collects on the other side of it is ample evidence of that. The question is to what extent is the space beyond it recognized to be a "bike lane" by motorists, and to what extent does that cause motorists to "look for" bicyclists more than they would if the stripe, markings and signs were not there. I say nil on both extents. Cyclists in bike lanes are hit all the time.

If bike lanes make motorists more likely to notice cyclists on the road the effect is slight at best, and any cyclist who thinks otherwise is endangering himself in a cloak of false security.

[WaltPoutine]

off the top of my head, I can cite the 2007 Pucher/Rutgers University paper that cites accomodations and social programs key in cyclists 'faring best', the 2007 University of British Columbia/ Teschke study contradicting vehicular cycling and charting preferences among regular commuters that showed strong preference for facilities, and the LAB statistics that shows bike laned roads are safer than roads with bike lanes.

Guess what rated bottom choices for ALL bicyclists, experienced and occasional, in the UBC study? major streets and rural roads without shoulders.

Faring best? yes, when recognized as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics and accomodated as such.

You emphasize "regular commuters" but the study actually surveyed people that were categorized as:

regular cyclists == ride at least once a week
frequent cyclists == ride at least once a month
occasional cyclists == ride yearly
potential cyclists

I feel that even defining someone that rides once per week as a "regular commuter" is stretching it a bit. Semantically it's true but I wouldn't value their experience as highly as someone that commutes every day, year round.

[TRaffic Jammer]

We wanted to try and approach the city here to create PSA's on billboards regarding the need to share the road and three foot/half lane pass laws.

[genec]

On my way in today I decided to look for the yellow diamond signs. I spotted a ped crossing one and a school ped crossing one that I never noticed before, despite riding or driving by them literally thousands of times.

There is no question that a bike lane stripe is visible and conspicuous - the debris that collects on the other side of it is ample evidence of that. The question is to what extent is the space beyond it recognized to be a "bike lane" by motorists, and to what extent does that cause motorists to "look for" bicyclists more than they would if the stripe, markings and signs were not there. I say nil on both extents. Cyclists in bike lanes are hit all the time.

If bike lanes make motorists more likely to notice cyclists on the road the effect is slight at best, and any cyclist who thinks otherwise is endangering himself in a cloak of false security.

I know this is one of your primary reasons for being anti-BL, but I would think the debris would be a very good indicator that BL do work to keep motorists out. As far as notifying motorists... mixed message at best.

[noisebeam]

I know this is one of your primary reasons for being anti-BL, but I would think the debris would be a very good indicator that BL do work to keep motorists out. As far as notifying motorists... mixed message at best.

I find that the pavement is swept ~6-12" over the BL stripe toward the curb. Either tires are going over stripe or the wind from vehicles is strong enough to push both small pebbles and larger rocks, sticks, glass, etc. well over the stripe.

The photos here (especially fig.4) generally show that as well:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/Debris.pdf

Al

[TRaffic Jammer]

Part of the BL debate in this city is that they are completely ignored by city crews vis-a-vis sweeping and winter clearing. For a city with a good cycling population considering it's Canada, the treatment the BL's receive is abysmal. If there is a path on the road I am riding I'll generally ride the painted line. Lowers the rolling resistance, allowing a couple KPH more an hour in speed and it's good handling practice to stay on the painted line.

[noisebeam]

Even BL sweeping every 8-12 days per a published schedule in my city is not sufficient to keep heavy debris out of BL, especially at intersection approaches where a BL is to the left of a RTOL and BL gets debris swept into it from RTL, Thurlane and X-Traffic lanes.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Part of the BL debate in this city is that they are completely ignored by city crews vis-a-vis sweeping and winter clearing. For a city with a good cycling population considering it's Canada, the treatment the BL's receive is abysmal. If there is a path on the road I am riding I'll generally ride the painted line. Lowers the rolling resistance, allowing a couple KPH more an hour in speed and it's good handling practice to stay on the painted line.
Me too, but white lining is a legal gray area. Just like lane splitting between traffic lanes, probably no one is going to pull you over for it, but if you ever get hit it could work against you.

If the bike lane stripe is not there, the motor traffic will do a much better job of sweeping that debris for you, continuously 24/7, and there is no legal gray area. If you're hit, you might still get accused of swerving in front of them, but that is possible with or without the stripe. If there are neutral witnesses who can testify you were riding straight about 5 feet from the curb, you're legally better off if there is no BL stripe 5' from the curb.

But if you want to count the ability to ride on the BL stripe and thus reduce rolling resistance as a benefit of bike lanes, I gotta give you that one.

[TRaffic Jammer]

The line is debris free/clean too, whereas the lane, ah..not so much..least not in this city. Though I generally don't have a path on my regular routes. BL placement just seems to be an extension of traffic calming design for the most part around here.

[Helmet Head]

I know this is one of your primary reasons for being anti-BL, but I would think the debris would be a very good indicator that BL do work to keep motorists out. As far as notifying motorists... mixed message at best.
There is no question that the BL stripe influences same-direction motorists to stay out of the space to the outside of the stripe than they would if the stripe were not there. No question. Again, the debris that collects there is ample evidence of that. The question is whether that effect is a benefit to cyclists.

To the extent that the BL stripe keeps same-direction motorists out of the road margin there are two main contexts to consider in determining whether that effect is a benefit to cyclists:
When cyclists are not present.
When cyclists are present.Again, the collection of debris is evidence that the BL stripe works to keep motorists out when cyclists are not present (a), but the value of this effect to cyclists is moot when cyclists are not present. Of course, the fact that the stripe so causes the debris to collect is a disadvantage to cyclists.

But when cyclists are present (b), I am not aware of any evidence that motorists are any more likely to be in the margin if the stripe is not there. That is, the presence of the cyclists keeps the motorists out of the margin even when the stripe is not there, so the effect of the stripe to keep motorists out is moot in this case, and, thus, its value to cyclists (in that respect) is also moot.

Further, to the extent that the stripe causes motorists (as well as cyclists) to be more comfortable with the overtaking, motorists are less likely to find cyclists riding in the margin to be relevant to them when the margin is demarcated by a stripe. This means the stripe makes the cyclists less likely to be noticed, and more likely to be overlooked and drifted into. As you know, this is why I believe the problem of inadvertent drift into cyclist crashes appears to be much more prevalent on roads with bike lanes and striped shoulders than on roads with NOLs or WOLs and no stripes demarcating the road margin.

So, yeah, the debris is evidence that the stripe works to keep motorists out - when it doesn't matter to cyclists - when cyclists are not present (a).

When it does matter to cyclists - when cyclists are present (b) - if the bike lane stripe has any effect in this area at all, it seems to reduce the conspicuousness of the cyclists, and makes them more likely to get hit.

How is the effect of making it more likely for the cyclist riding in the margin to get overlooked and hit (or at least get a tire puncture from the increase in debris) a benefit of bike lanes to bicyclists?

[Helmet Head]

The line is debris free/clean too, whereas the lane, ah..not so much..least not in this city. Though I generally don't have a path on my regular routes. BL placement just seems to be an extension of traffic calming design for the most part around here.
There is the claim that unless the bike lane stripe also makes the adjacent traffic lane very narrow (like about 10'), the effect of the bike lane stripe is the opposite of calming. By creating a frictionless buffer space on the outside edge of the road, there is the "oiled gun barrel" effect, causing motorists to feel safer driving at higher speeds.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Well the one I'm thinking of they've taken a four lane gun barrel, created a path on each side, added on/off turn lanes and created a single drive lane for each direction. Normally that would sound terrible, but it's through a residential part of town albeit one of the main roads through town. Hit it spot on they did, traffic has slowed considerably. It used to be a terrible place for the kids to walk home from school, as there are schools all over the place within a block or two of this street. The path isn't a great design for riding..but as a calmer of cars?, BINGO.

[Helmet Head]

Well the one I'm thinking of they've taken a four lane gun barrel, created a path on each side, added on/off turn lanes and created a single drive lane for each direction. Normally that would sound terrible, but it's through a residential part of town albeit one of the main roads through town. Hit it spot on they did, traffic has slowed considerably. It used to be a terrible place for the kids to walk home from school, as there are schools all over the place within a block or two of this street. The path isn't a great design for riding..but as a calmer of cars?, BINGO.
Well, that's a lot different from the typical removal of onstreet parking and adding bike lanes, which usually increases speeds.

[genec]

Well, that's a lot different from the typical removal of onstreet parking and adding bike lanes, which usually increases speeds.

they should try making the main travel lanes even narrower then... Funny how when removing parking cyclists don't get that full 8.5 feet of left over width. So in effect the "automotive lanes" are widened and then the bike lanes are added... no wonder automotive traffic moves faster.

[ChipSeal]

they should try making the main travel lanes even narrower then... Funny how when removing parking cyclists don't get that full 8.5 feet of left over width. So in effect the "automotive lanes" are widened and then the bike lanes are added... no wonder automotive traffic moves faster.

In Dallas it works great. Multiple narrow lanes with no parking: Presto! A 8' to 14' bike lane! (And no debis collecting in the lane.) ;)

[randya]

that's the same Dallas where cycling is considered highly dangerous, correct?

[TRaffic Jammer]

forgot to mention the parking stays

[Bekologist]

with considerate engineering, a bike lane addition does not necesarily lead to the 'gun barrel' effect. another foretorite fallacy-


bicyclists fare best in communities that recognize bikes as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics and accomodated as such- helemet head stands as an excellent example (despite his denial)of a bicyclist that fares best living in a community that has been planning for bikes in the transportation mix for over 35 years!

[ChipSeal]

That's the same Dallas where cycling is considered highly dangerous, correct?

Yes. Most Americans think cycling on any roadway anywhere is dangerous. Dallas is not considered dangerous at all by me, and since I am actually doing it for about 450 hours a year, that makes me an expert! :p

[Bekologist]

we're real happy for you and your chestbeating skills, chip. I mean, bicycling abilities!

[EliteTempleton]

eschew

This word always makes me want to go to the store and buy a can of cashews, which makes me hungry.