Bike Lanes - commuter poll

Google sponsored links

macteacher

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.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

JeffS

Why add the dangerous comment to the second option? That preference and opinion do not necessarily go together.

jaxgtr

Moved to VC

enbuyukfener

Why add the dangerous comment to the second option? That preference and opinion do not necessarily go together.

Bike lanes are often in the car door zone and can be problematic just before intersections where the road changes from [parking, bike lane, car lane] > [two car lanes]. Combined with people speeding up for yellow lights, it can be dangerous. Also, they give a false sense of security sometimes especially when morons drive into the bike lane unexpectedly or early for turns. But of course, they are much better than no bike lane.

As for me, I don't mind. Usually lanes are wide enough to fit me and a car even if it's not legal (I'm not the one breaking the law though).

macteacher

I added the dangerous comment, because people who don't ride in bike lanes often suggest they are dangerous

-=£em in Pa=-

I voted 'bike lanes' but it really it depends entirely on the prevailing mindset
of that areas population.
In Vermont or MAine, bike lanes are usually unnecessary.
In a lot of the southern states, SC and FL etc, they are a
necessity.

iltb-2

I added the dangerous comment, because people who don't ride in bike lanes often suggest they are dangerous

And some people who ride in bike lanes suggest that to ride otherwise is dangerous. So if you want to gain any knowledge by way of polling why not delete this poorly worded poll with its bias loaded responses and start over?

Bekologist

statistically, major roads with bike lanes are safer than major roads without bike lanes; the League of American Bicyclists considers an experienced bicyclist riding on roads with bike lanes to be the safest road bicycling scenario; infrastructure adds bicyclists and makes bicycling more visible in a community;

Only fools and forstorites would vote against well implemented bike infrastructure.

rando

I ride in bike lanes, I ride on roads, I ride on sidewalks. I use every option available to me. I would ride the busier roads more often maybe if they had bike lanes...

joejack951

I responded that "I don't care" but I think that response needs clarification. Bike lanes, just like shoulders, denote extra paved width outside of the main traffic lanes. If I can use that space to allow faster traffic to pass without causing any negative effects to myself, then I do. If not, then I don't. Same goes for a wide outside lane, the only difference being that that space is not clearly marked as being outside of the normally travelled roadway width.

balindamood

FWIW, I prefer bike lane when the posted speed is over 30 mph, but I voted for using whatever is available.

John Forester

With the recent discussions on bike lanes, I am curious to get a sampling of peoples feeling s with respect to bike lanes. I know some people hate them and some love them. Lets see what the numbers say.

As always in most of these discussions, the question fails to state the conditions. The question should apply to only the painted stripe, no other variables, and it does not so limit itself. Therefore, the answers are irrelevant because they probably reflect different experiences on different streets.

gcottay

It all depends on the details.

enbuyukfener

And some people who ride in bike lanes suggest that to ride otherwise is dangerous. So if you want to gain any knowledge by way of polling why not delete this poorly worded poll with its bias loaded responses and start over?
I think you are misunderstanding. The poll options are supposed to be read by the reader as applicable to them, i.e. the "bike lanes are dangerous" is supposed to be an option for those that think that, it's not from the author's bias.

e0richt

actually, I prefer wide shoulders... if not wide shoulders then bike lanes, with one caveat... I don't want to
be "forced" into a bike lane by law if the bike lane becomes a safety liability...

Bekologist

As always in most of these discussions, the question fails to state the conditions. The question should apply to only the painted stripe, no other variables, and it does not so limit itself. Therefore, the answers are irrelevant because they probably reflect different experiences on different streets.

:rolleyes: I'm sure there are more than a few real-life road 'conditions' where a curbhugger like john would appreciate a well implemented bike lane.

LittleBigMan

I ride wherever there is good pavement. If there's a bike lane, I'll ride in it, so long as it's good pavement. If I have to leave the bike lane to find good pavement, I'll do it.

Most of my commute is not "bike laned." I use what exists.

:beer:

VintageRaleigh

I like bike lanes because they give you defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on

Helmet Head

I like bike lanes because they give you defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on
How is that different from pavement that is not demarcated as a bike lane on which you are riding?

-=£em in Pa=-

I guess you didnt see this part of that sentance :

"they give you defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on"

Helmet Head

I guess you didnt see this part of that sentance :

"they give you defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on"
I saw it. That was my point. I guess I have to explain it in more detail.

Riding in the traffic lane also gives a "defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on". If you choose a sharing position in a wide lane, that defines a territory that "most motorists are quite good about not intruding on". If you choose a controlling position, that defines the entire traffic lane as a territory "most motorists are quite good about not intruding on".

I know that if you're curb hugging in narrow lanes the "defined territory" is so narrow that often motorists pass too closely, but that's a reason to not curb hug in narrow lanes which we should all know by now.

So, I ask again: How is the "defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on" "given by a bike lane" different from the "defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on" when riding in a sharing position in a wide lane, or in a controlling position in a normal traffic lane?

-=£em in Pa=-

buzzman

It all depends on the details.

yep.

I use 'em when it suits me and don't when they don't.
There are times I wish they were there and times I couldn't care.
In some cases they are a relief to have available and other times they are redundant due to other options, including riding right along with the traffic.

so I'm with those who say it's all in the details.

Bekologist

I saw it. That was my point. I guess I have to explain it in more detail.

Riding in the traffic lane also gives a "defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on". If you choose a sharing position in a wide lane, that defines a territory that "most motorists are quite good about not intruding on". If you choose a controlling position, that defines the entire traffic lane as a territory "most motorists are quite good about not intruding on".
---

BZZZZZZ. INCORRECT, sir.

I know that if you're curb hugging in narrow lanes the "defined territory" is so narrow that often motorists pass too closely, but that's a reason to not curb hug in narrow lanes which we should all know by now.

So, I ask again: How is the "defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on" "given by a bike lane" different from the "defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on" when riding in a sharing position in a wide lane, or in a controlling position in a normal traffic lane?
um, motorists drive all over wide lanes and intrude on all width of a wide lane.

head. wide lanes are ambiguous, and bike lanes define territory.

why are you even trying to argue the contrary?

Helmet Head

Your theories are wonderful and can be agreed upon, the problem is when
you add humans into the equation everything goes wack.
Human nature being what it is, in US culture people require being given
boundaries. You must live in a very pleasant and civilized place given the
high regard you have for the drivers in your area. Im not that fortunate.
The humans here have proven Darwin wrong. Id say more than less should
not be driving anything. These people require 'off limits' areas because they
are not evolved or civil enuff to figure it out for themselves.
The basic rules of right of way are understood by most drivers everywhere I've ever ridden a bike or driven a car, and that includes all over the U.S. That's what defines territories in wide lanes, though many cyclists don't seem to understand that.

Helmet Head

um, motorists drive all over wide lanes and intrude on all width of a wide lane.

head. wide lanes are ambiguous, and bike lanes define territory.

why are you even trying to argue the contrary?
It is true that stripes clearly define territory and that is a difference between WOLs with and without BL stripes.

Is that difference significant, and is it beneficial to cyclists?

Bekologist

:roflmao:

invisiblehand

um, motorists drive all over wide lanes and intrude on all width of a wide lane.

But do drivers wander all over the lane when cyclists -- which will probably be on the right 1/4 to 1/3 of the lane -- are present?

You want drivers to use the full lane when cyclists are not present to clear the lane of debris ... no?

Not that WOLs are widely available around here -- note that these appear to be "accidents" of construction in that there was no intention of building a WOL -- but anecdotally, drivers appear to use the space well to pass cyclists in these areas. Note that there are often issues in the suburbs where the WOL disappears forcing a merge. So the inconsistency of road design might cause more problems than they solve.

My guess is that as the motorized traffic velocity increases past some threshold -- not sure what that would be without experimentation -- that a wide shoulder or bike lane is the preferred choice. The road that I am thinking of is Coors Blvd in Albuquerque/Rio Rancho. The construction is quite good and the traffic is unyieldingly quick.

£em ... I understand your point. Few people want to be the first person to take the lane in an aggressive environment. What do you think would happen with a WOL in Southern Florida? Is there a point that you would want to toggle between the two? The question and answer probably makes little sense without thinking of specific roads -- unfortunately, I have not been to Miami since 2001 -- but it would be interesting to read your opinion.

invisiblehand

I know that if you're curb hugging in narrow lanes the "defined territory" is so narrow that often motorists pass too closely, but that's a reason to not curb hug in narrow lanes which we should all know by now.

So, I ask again: How is the "defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on" "given by a bike lane" different from the "defined territory that most motorists are quite good about not intruding on" when riding in a sharing position in a wide lane, or in a controlling position in a normal traffic lane?

My guess is that drivers do wander a bit more when the lane is wide than in a narrow lane; but that needs to be tested with experimentation (or does such research already exist). And that driver attention is subject -- in a statistical sense -- to a random process. Consider the model where drivers survey the environment and selectively pick moments to attend to other matters while driving. Say change the radio station, find a napkin, or check on the baby in the rear. I would not be surprised if a wider lane affected the likelihood that someone selects a particular moment to attend to other issues.

Anyway, as the vehicle moves faster, these small perturbations involve a greater horizontal vector making them more hazardous to the cyclist being passed.

Helmet Head

My guess is that drivers do wander a bit more when the lane is wide than in a narrow lane; but that needs to be tested with experimentation (or does such research already exist).
I don't know of anyone that challenges this point. The debris that collects in bike lanes is sufficient evidence to convince me.

And that driver attention is subject -- in a statistical sense -- to a random process. Consider the model where drivers survey the environment and selectively pick moments to attend to other matters while driving. Say change the radio station, find a napkin, or check on the baby in the rear. I would not be surprised if a wider lane affected the likelihood that someone selects a particular moment to attend to other issues.

Anyway, as the vehicle moves faster, these small perturbations involve a greater horizontal vector making them more hazardous to the cyclist being passed.
If I understand this correctly, the conclusion seems to be based on ignoring the effect a cyclist's presence in the road up ahead would have on a driver surveying the environment and selectively picking moments to attend to other matters. In particular, the argument seems to assume that a cyclist up ahead in the road ahead of the driver is just as likely to be overlooked or ignored (dismissed enough to affect the driver's decision of whether to attend to another matter) regardless of whether he is separated by a stripe from the driver's intended path.

invisiblehand

If I understand this correctly, the conclusion seems to be based on ignoring the effect a cyclist's presence in the road up ahead would have on a driver surveying the environment and selectively picking moments to attend to other matters. In particular, the argument seems to assume that a cyclist up ahead in the road ahead of the driver is just as likely to be overlooked or ignored (dismissed enough to affect the driver's decision of whether to attend to another matter) regardless of whether he is separated by a stripe from the driver's intended path.

There are several scenarios that can cause a waver in the driver's line. My guess is that an extra stripe probably reduces them and their magnitude.

I don't think overlooked or ignored is quite the right word. Attention given to an object, obstacle, and so on, is something continuous. The perturbations I reference are a function of that attention. So a driver can be semi-aware of the cyclist, make a quick evaluation, and then continue on in his/her thought process. I think that this is particularly true of a driver intending on driving straight. Although it certainly could be the case that a driver is clueless; i.e., attention = 0.

As I see it, there is a tradeoff in risks associated with driver velocity here. My personal observation -- read DC, NYC, and NM -- is that stripes are often used with little thought and that WOLs would perform better under many conditions. Note that I have ignored certain environmental factors since they can be quite specific. But I think that the pure deterministic framework is insufficient to answer some questions and instead we need a framework that considers the distribution of drivers (auto and cyclists) according various characteristics. So even while we seem to agree that most drivers perform adequately, it might be more important to consider how fat the tails of that distribution are and how the physical properties of the environment interact with that characteristic.

Mind you, part of the problem with much of the conversation is that advocates are trying to optimize different things.

Bekologist

i'm on vaca, you guys have fun debating the minuatae.

i think the reversal on the part of head at the top of this page shows he IS able to cut the bull and discuss rationally but those last few posts, epistimelogist and head, you guys are like, made for each other. what verbosity!

invisiblehand

Helmet Head

There are several scenarios that can cause a waver in the driver's line. My guess is that an extra stripe probably reduces them and their magnitude.
Again, no one disputes that, in general, stripes reduce the likelihood of driver wavering from their line of travel.

The issue is about whether it remains true independent of whether a cyclist is present riding up ahead; whether what is true in general remains true in a specific instance of having a cyclist riding up ahead.
In particular, given that the cyclist is riding up ahead and a bit to the right of the driver's intended path, does a stripe separating the driver's intended path from the cyclist's course affect the likelihood that the motorists will waver from his line, and, if so, does it make it more or less likely?

Based on my own observations of driver behavior (observing myself, observing other drivers on the road, including drivers of cars in which I'm a passenger, and observing drivers from the perspective of a cyclist on the street), plus noting the plethora of cyclists who are hit by same-direction motorists when riding in bike lanes and striped shoulder, and the relative dearth of such collisions involving cyclists riding in the margins of wide lanes, I'm quite confident that motorists are much more likely to waver from their line and hit a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane, than one up ahead in a WOL. I believe that this is because a cyclist up ahead in the driver's lane is much more attention-grabbing (especially if he is not curb-hugging, but riding about 3' to the right of the typical course occupied by motor traffic) than is a cyclist up ahead in an adjacent space that is separated from the driver's lane by a painted stripe.

I don't think overlooked or ignored is quite the right word. Attention given to an object, obstacle, and so on, is something continuous. The perturbations I reference are a function of that attention. So a driver can be semi-aware of the cyclist, make a quick evaluation, and then continue on in his/her thought process. I think that this is particularly true of a driver intending on driving straight. Although it certainly could be the case that a driver is clueless; i.e., attention = 0.

Whether a driver completely overlooks a cyclist up ahead, or notices but dismisses him as irrelevant because he has no intention of wavering from his line, does not matter much to the cyclist who is hit by such a driver who inadvertently drifts into the cyclist. In either case, the likelihood of this happening depends on whether the cyclist's presence grabs the driver's attention due to the perceived relevance of the cyclist's presence to the driver. Again, I believe being in the driver's lane up ahead accomplishes this much more effectively than being in the same space when it is separated from the driver's lane by a stripe. I believe this for the reasons stated above, but if you could figure out a way to test for it, that would be great.

As I see it, there is a tradeoff in risks associated with driver velocity here. My personal observation -- read DC, NYC, and NM -- is that stripes are often used with little thought and that WOLs would perform better under many conditions. Note that I have ignored certain environmental factors since they can be quite specific. But I think that the pure deterministic framework is insufficient to answer some questions and instead we need a framework that considers the distribution of drivers (auto and cyclists) according various characteristics. So even while we seem to agree that most drivers perform adequately, it might be more important to consider how fat the tails of that distribution are and how the physical properties of the environment interact with that characteristic.
All I know is that when the stripe is absent, my presence reduces overtaking speed differentials substantially. The faster the traffic on the road, the more significant is this effect. That's one of the reasons I believe riding on the other side of a stripe inhibits my relevance to overtaking drivers.

Mind you, part of the problem with much of the conversation is that advocates are trying to optimize different things.
I'm trying to optimize safety - that is, reduce the incidence of car-bike collisions.
If someone is trying to optimize motor traffic flow, to increase traffic speeds and flow, then, yes, the argument for the bike lane stripe makes sense.

Consider normal lane stripes. Have you ever been on a road after it was recently paved and before the new stripes were painted? What is the effect? Chaos? Hardly. Everyone slows down and pays more attention. In fact, eliminating striping is more and more advocated as a traffic calming technique - it enhances safety. The only reason to have lane stripes separating multiples lines of same-direction traffic, is not to increase safety, but to encourage travel at higher speeds; to increase traffic throughput.

I mean, yeah, at a given speed, a road with lane stripes is probably safer than a road without lane stripes. But that's an invalid comparison, because that assumes that when you remove the lane stripes, nothing else changes. Driver attention stays the same. Driver behavior stays the same. But that's not reality. The reality is that driver attention and behavior is very different on a road without lane stripes than on the same road with lane stripes. Again, that's why lane stripe is removal is advocated for traffic calming and slowing reasons.

Similarly, when you're comparing a road with and without a bike lane stripe demarcating the road margin, it's unrealistic to assume that driver behavior (in terms of attention and speed in particular) remains the same, particularly if one or more cyclists are present up ahead of the driver in the road margin in question.

scattered73

I ride wherever there is good pavement. If there's a bike lane, I'll ride in it, so long as it's good pavement. If I have to leave the bike lane to find good pavement, I'll do it.
:

+1

I like them when they are maintained, usually threy are covered in debris and lots of gutters missing chunks of pavement:(

tradtimbo

invisiblehand

I believe this for the reasons stated above, but if you could figure out a way to test for it, that would be great.

I was going to respond to John's comment in another thread. Something on the scientific basis of transportation and human-factor principles associated with transportation engineering; i.e., what is it? But the boy demanded attention.

I assume that these things could be tested via simulation or camera. But I am not up to date on this research nor the readily available technology. Until then, however, we don't have an answer nor their marginal effects. I agree with your point that using real world observations of drivers to make inferences about driver attention and behavior is problematic since those roads were chosen to have stripes or no stripes according to other environmental conditions. That is, it makes it difficult to identify the true effect.

More generally, I would say that you can't just be optimizing safety. We could make a very safe system if we made it very slow ... including cyclists. Under certain situations it is politically feasible to slow traffic down. Otherwise, I think that some minimum amount of traffic flow is a constraint instead of a choice. More than likely, there is a tradeoff between speed and safety -- applied to both cyclists and autos -- that we are trying to optimize.

invisiblehand

Helmet Head

If bicylce lanes were designed properly then they would be safe and the best option for riding. The standards of bicycle lane design are changing for the better. Being a civil engineer, I occasionaly see such designs and have a say (albeit a small one) on how the design should work. One option which I have heard being discussed which I like a lot is a lane similar to what we see now, except just to the right is a strip that is crossed striped between the bike lane and the parking stalls. This additional area would be for doors and pedestrians leaving/coming to their vehicles. My point is that with proper design, we would all choose bike lanes.

That sounds better, but unless the cross hatching extend to a point about 4' from the edge of the parked cars, it's not actually any better. And good luck finding streets with enough space for that.

Remember, on streets with onstreet parallel parking, speed differentials are usually not that high (there are exceptions, of course). Consider the effect on traffic that a driver driving a car or truck as wide as a lane who slows down, stops and backs up (to park) has. That's way worse than the effect of a narrow cyclist steadily moving along at 15 mph. Is it really desirable (in terms of safety) to route these guys in a separate lane so as to encourage overtaking motorists to pass them as if they are not there?

I think we're better off when our presence is noticed and perceived to be relevant, and causes motorists to slow down and/or adjust laterally.

I think the best solution is cross-hatching the door zone area, and not having a bike lane at all, or maybe putting a shared lane symbol out in the traffic lane.

LittleBigMan

With the recent discussions on bike lanes, I am curious to get a sampling of peoples feeling s with respect to bike lanes. I know some people hate them and some love them. Lets see what the numbers say.
I like your question, it provokes thought. However, I prefer to answer openly without the multiple choice, it gives me more leeway.

I'm not against a well-designed bike lane, which in my opinion would be:

1) Five or more feet wide.
2) Kept as clean as the adjacent road by sweeping debris from it as often as is necessary.
3) Far enough from curbside parking to avoid opening car doors without moving left.
4) Not mandatory. Any bike lane that is mandatory is an insult and a ridiculous infringement upon my freedom as an adult cyclist.

VintageRaleigh

John Forester

If bicylce lanes were designed properly then they would be safe and the best option for riding. The standards of bicycle lane design are changing for the better. Being a civil engineer, I occasionaly see such designs and have a say (albeit a small one) on how the design should work. One option which I have heard being discussed which I like a lot is a lane similar to what we see now, except just to the right is a strip that is crossed striped between the bike lane and the parking stalls. This additional area would be for doors and pedestrians leaving/coming to their vehicles. My point is that with proper design, we would all choose bike lanes.

Please excuse me when I say that civil engineering is not quite the best basis for evaluating bike lanes. Maybe the subbase condition, or the durability of the paint, but not its effects on drivers. Remember my frequent advice to cyclists about bike lanes? Ride properly just as if the lane-stripe were not there. I can do that, as can many contributors to this list, because we are supremely confident as to how to ride properly and of our ability to outwit the bike-lane designer when our needs differ from his preconception. Remember, no bike lane can provide for all the standard traffic movements.

However, the bike-lane stripe arouses in more typical drivers a set of expectations that always differ from the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and frequently contradict those rules. I postulate that it is impossible to produce a society that both wants bike-lane stripes and considers that they should be ignored. Would there be any real debate on this postulate? (Beke's on vacation, I have just read, but his contribution would probably not be significant).

-=£em in Pa=-

(Beke's on vacation, I have just read, but his contribution would probably not be significant).

poor taste.
very low.

CommuterRun

I have found that bike lanes and paved shoulders invite closer and higher speed passing.

They also invite oncoming vehicles to pass each other in the absence of oncoming motor vehicles. A very bad situation for the cyclist, to have two oncoming cars taking up to entire roadway. The closer one moving significantly faster than the other.

These things alone are enough to make bike lanes more dangerous to the cyclist.

JohnBrooking

Why add the dangerous comment to the second option? That preference and opinion do not necessarily go together.

I second that. So I didn't answer.

My definition of a "good" bike lane is one that is placed exactly where I would be riding if the bike lane weren't there. So if there IS a bike lane there, I will use it.

Previous - Top - Next