PS. I thought that maybe one more shot that included the bike lane might be helpful.
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v197/199/49/513493075/n513493075_347435_1931.jpg
But where's the transition?
This is not an example of a bike lane routing cyclists from the right side of the road to a position that is to the left of right turning traffic, which is what the dispute was about, and what I thought you were going to show.

Yes, if all bike lanes ended 100-200' feet or so before any and all intersections and junctions, I, for one, would complain about them much less.

:beer:

I need to copy and save this. This is the problem in a nutshell.

Forester said the same thing not too long ago.

But here is the real catch-22. If these groups are both moving toward the same end, why not accept this, rather then stand nearly alone against this oncoming tidal wave?

It seems to me that cycling groups could leverage the larger motoring groups to create a proper cycling environment rather than to stand against the motorists by attempting to persuade them that cyclists should be sharing the road with 50MPH SUVs.

"Rights" be damned if the reality is that arterials are going to simply be these fast "urban freeways" that are springing up everywhere. No amount of legal rights are going to protect cyclists from distracted motorists moving over the speed limit on crowded high speed arterials... the evidence of 45,000 deaths a year is enough to show that motorists themselves are not even "safe."

Forester said the same thing not too long ago.

But here is the real catch-22. If these groups are both moving toward the same end, why not accept this, rather then stand nearly alone against this oncoming tidal wave?
Because I do not want to see cyclists lose our equal right to travel on surface streets, the inevitable outcome if we "accept this".

I also believe the creation of a segregated "proper cycling environment" is practically not possible in most if not all U.S. cities within the foreseeable future. Again, if we could underground all motor traffic, that would be great. Until then, we need to retain our equal rights to the same roads used by motorists.

In sequence now:
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v197/199/49/513493075/n513493075_347435_1931.jpg
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v197/199/49/513493075/n513493075_347407_8564.jpg
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v197/199/49/513493075/n513493075_347408_8904.jpg

The last pic is of a sharrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking)

FWIW I am responding to what can be best summarized by:
Several of us have described, at length, for decades, why bike lanes contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Okay, but a bike lane ending 100-200' feet before an intersection, which is what you show, is exactly what should happen. That's good. The problem is when the stripe (solid or dashed) extends all the way to the intersection, putting through cyclists to the right of right turning motorists, or, is discontinuous.

Because I do not want to see cyclists lose our equal right to travel on surface streets, the inevitable outcome if we "accept this".

If we could turn back the hands of time you might have a point but as it is we lost that battle decades ago. For me the best way for use to assert our right to the road is to have every motor vehicle driver at lest friends with a cyclists so they realize we are human beings and not potential road kill.

Okay, but a bike lane ending 100-200' feet before an intersection, which is what you show, is exactly what should happen. That's good. The problem is when the stripe (solid or dashed) extends all the way to the intersection, putting through cyclists to the right of right turning motorists, or, is discontinuous.

Can you draw or show a pic of a hazardous bike lane that is just discontinuous (not to the right of turning traffic)? It's the discontinuous terminology that I am having the most difficulty with.

Can you draw or show a pic of a hazardous bike lane that is just discontinuous (not to the right of turning traffic)? It's the discontinuous terminology that I am having the most difficulty with.

I don't have a picture handy B. But there are intermittent bike lanes on Lee Highway in Arlington where the extra width associated with the bike lanes appears and disappears with the stripes creating a lot of high speed merges. If I recall correctly, it happens two or three times and the switches occur at both major and minor intersections.

-G

some intersections need no cessation of the stripe; residential drives and minor curb cuts, even minor streets need no cessation of the stripe for motorists and bicyclists to continue to operate vehicularliy under crossing lanes and yielding to superior trafic rules.


minor intersections require no cessation of the stripe; discontinuous and dashing bike lanes to more major intersections are effective designs to accomodate disparate speeds of traffic mixing approaching them. these transisition zones can be well designed; the ones here on Maui that I've seen are quite well thought out with signage directing motorists to the proper 'rules of the road' operation of 'yield to bikes' etc....

without forestor and the 'vc's efforts to squelch developments of more accomodating 'vehicular' redesigns of traffic arterials, the safety and bicyclist share in the USA would be greater than it is today.

Because I do not want to see cyclists lose our equal right to travel on surface streets, the inevitable outcome if we "accept this".

I also believe the creation of a segregated "proper cycling environment" is practically not possible in most if not all U.S. cities within the foreseeable future. Again, if we could underground all motor traffic, that would be great. Until then, we need to retain our equal rights to the same roads used by motorists.

Having the rights and being able to exercise them are two different things... or perhaps you haven't noticed.

Just ask JoeJack about having the rights to use the street and how the legal system interprets such rights in reality.

I don't have a picture handy B. But there are intermittent bike lanes on Lee Highway in Arlington where the extra width associated with the bike lanes appears and disappears with the stripes creating a lot of high speed merges. If I recall correctly, it happens two or three times and the switches occur at both major and minor intersections.

-G

Perhaps a Google map link? Or more important what do you think the fix should be?

[PS. Have we ridden together?]

without forestor and the 'vc's efforts to squelch developments of more accomodating 'vehicular' redesigns of traffic arterials, the safety and bicyclist share in the USA would be greater than it is today.

Which now brings me to the second phase of my Op.
The relative merits of these two styles of infrastructure from a safety perspective are the subject of a great deal of debate. As an example, a California transportation engineer, John Forester, has advocated cycling on roads in vehicle lanes with cars as the safest mode of travel (“vehicular cycling”). His thinking has been integrated in part into North American transportation planning.

http://www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities/injury.html

The skeptical side of me reads this as "No we did not have cyclists safety in mind when planing our roadways but John Forester says we don't have to so our rear end is covered."

So I am really courious what Canadians think about cyclists safety on Canadian roads without bike facilities.

some intersections need no cessation of the stripe; residential drives and minor curb cuts, even minor streets need no cessation of the stripe for motorists and bicyclists to continue to operate vehicularliy under crossing lanes and yielding to superior trafic rules.


minor intersections require no cessation of the stripe; discontinuous and dashing bike lanes to more major intersections are effective designs to accomodate disparate speeds of traffic mixing approaching them. these transisition zones can be well designed; the ones here on Maui that I've seen are quite well thought out with signage directing motorists to the proper 'rules of the road' operation of 'yield to bikes' etc....

For a lot of examples you give -- and something that you have agreed to in the past -- it seems like no bike lane is needed in the first place.

But you are right, they can be well designed. Whether the better design is executed is another story.

Perhaps a Google map link? Or more important what do you think the fix should be?

[PS. Have we ridden together?]

Yep. I rode up to Baltimore from DC with a few buds. We saw a political rally together and had lunch.

I can't see the bike lane(s) from space.

Personally, I would yank the bike lane from certain spots since there are good alternatives; i.e., when I ride there, my lonely butt is the only one there. A stretch that I would keep connects the local trail to locations that would require riding in poorly lit areas otherwise.

EDIT: Here is a picture http://maps.google.com/maps?q=lee+Highway+and+Spout+Run,+VA&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl

I was checking out some new development to the east of Spout Run when I ran across the spotty bike lanes. To the west of Spout Run is another bike lane that heads up Lee Highway towards Military Road. Note that the Custis Trail is just north of Lee Highway and crosses along with I-66. There is another bike lane running along Kirkwood up to the linked intersection.

Can you draw or show a pic of a hazardous bike lane that is just discontinuous (not to the right of turning traffic)? It's the discontinuous terminology that I am having the most difficulty with.
Sorry. What we mean by discontinuous in this context is that the bike lane ends, but then continues at a different lateral position not much further, usually to the left of a right only lane.

So basically the bike lane ends and dumps you into the right only lane right at the point where right turning motorists are entering into the same space, and you're supposed to negotiate/merge across this into the bike lane that restarts to the left of this new right only lane.

Of course, if you know what you're doing you negotiate/merge out of the bike lane way before it ends, just as you would negotiate/merge out of the margin at about that point if the bike lane stripe were not there. But note that this point is typically much earlier than where the bike lane ends.

I'll try to look for a photo.

Having the rights and being able to exercise them are two different things... or perhaps you haven't noticed.

Just ask JoeJack about having the rights to use the street and how the legal system interprets such rights in reality.
That is simply yet another detrimental-to-cyclists effect of the joint effort of anti-cycling motorists and anti-motoring cyclists trying to segregate cyclists from motorists which true cycling advocates like JoeJack are trying to correct. You're not helping.

That is simply yet another detrimental-to-cyclists effect of the joint effort of anti-cycling motorists and anti-motoring cyclists trying to segregate cyclists from motorists which true cycling advocates like JoeJack are trying to correct. You're not helping.

Of course I am not helping... as I watch the inevitable changes to the the driving environment, I see that trying to maintain your course of action has me trying to take the lane on 60MPH+ busy arterials with heavy motor vehicle traffic...

On the other hand, if I join the "detrimental group," I get lanes and paths on which to ride.

Seems like a no brainer issue to me. :p

One group relishes in "rights and laws," yet the outcome is fewer cyclists. :mad:

The other group relishes in "separation and segregation," with the outcome of more cyclists. :D

Yep. I rode up to Baltimore from DC with a few buds. We saw a political rally together and had lunch.

I can't see the bike lane(s) from space.

Personally, I would yank the bike lane from certain spots since there are good alternatives; i.e., when I ride there, my lonely butt is the only one there. A stretch that I would keep connects the local trail to locations that would require riding in poorly lit areas otherwise.

EDIT: Here is a picture http://maps.google.com/maps?q=lee+Highway+and+Spout+Run,+VA&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl

I was checking out some new development to the east of Spout Run when I ran across the spotty bike lanes. To the west of Spout Run is another bike lane that heads up Lee Highway towards Military Road. Note that the Custis Trail is just north of Lee Highway and crosses along with I-66. There is another bike lane running along Kirkwood up to the linked intersection.

-G!!!

All along I've been thinking their is another cool guy in DC I would like to meet. You've got to come and hang out with some of the locals here: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=225536&page=62

I'm having a hard time seeing bike lanes, some things are hard to tell if it is a landscape panel next to a sidewalk or a bike lane, possibly an old photo. If they are bike lanes they seem like junk from the photo. I will also say that there can be issues in using a bike lane to reroute cycling traffic onto a busy road, it sort of throws everyone off on how to deal with this new situation.

One Less Car and myself have been talking to SHA about doing a showcase complete street project here in MD along such a road as you describe which would include limiting the number of driveways for a business, that issue alone is a joke along that stretch of road.

You really should talk to Allen about VA issues, PM me if you don't have his email address.

One group relishes in "rights and laws," yet the outcome is fewer cyclists. :mad:

The other group relishes in "separation and segregation," with the outcome of more cyclists. :D

You have little to no proof for either of those statements. And it can be demonstrated from traffic counts in several locations that the inverse is true for at least the second statement.

The idea that striping a few bike lanes results in an increase of the number of cyclists is, to put it politely, undemonstrated. When you add to this that many of the facilities can be reasonably shown to have contributed to the death and injury of cyclists then pushing the idea of facilities becomes peculiarly cynical.

If you want to get increased numbers of cyclists on the road (and we all agree that would be a good thing) then encouraging them with the knowledge that it is not particularly dangerous (e.g. special protective gear is not needed and special facilities are not needed) and that they can pick up the basic skills quickly will probably do more and will have a longer, lasting effect.

Sorry. What we mean by discontinuous in this context is that the bike lane ends, but then continues at a different lateral position not much further, usually to the left of a right only lane.

So basically the bike lane ends and dumps you into the right only lane right at the point where right turning motorists are entering into the same space, and you're supposed to negotiate/merge across this into the bike lane that restarts to the left of this new right only lane.

Of course, if you know what you're doing you negotiate/merge out of the bike lane way before it ends, just as you would negotiate/merge out of the margin at about that point if the bike lane stripe were not there. But note that this point is typically much earlier than where the bike lane ends.

I'll try to look for a photo.

Ok, so you are talking about AASHTO designed pocket lanes, on pg 29 here:
http://communitymobility.org/pdf/aashto.pdf

I assume it is design b that you have the most problem with especially if there is no on-street-parking so the bike lane starts against the wrong side of the beginning of the right hand turn lane. What about the other designs, what do you think of those?

If you want to get increased numbers of cyclists on the road (and we all agree that would be a good thing) then encouraging them with the knowledge that it is not particularly dangerous (e.g. special protective gear is not needed and special facilities are not needed) and that they can pick up the basic skills quickly will probably do more and will have a longer, lasting effect.

And where has this been shown to be successful?

Even in England, where John Forester states that vehicular cycling was well understood and practiced, the number of regular cyclists making up any sort of mode share has been on a steady decline.


Otherwise you are going to try to convince me that if all cyclists were well trained and obedient in all the laws and rules, the 98% percent of the population that doesn't ride a bike is going to accept us willingly on "their roads?" :rolleyes:

You have little to no proof for either of those statements. And it can be demonstrated from traffic counts in several locations that the inverse is true for at least the second statement.

The idea that striping a few bike lanes results in an increase of the number of cyclists is, to put it politely, undemonstrated. When you add to this that many of the facilities can be reasonably shown to have contributed to the death and injury of cyclists then pushing the idea of facilities becomes peculiarly cynical.

One reason why I joined this forum is to find the evidence you just quoted and nothing has been shown that I consider valid evidence.

Just looking at Maryland's census data the higher rates of bike commuters are almost all near bike facilities or bike friendly roads with WOLs or shoulders. Forcing cyclists into narrow lanes with high volume traffic just does not work IMHO.

So far I think the following graph is the most profound and seems to hold true locally to the extent I have been able to test it:
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/images/bikecrashusebikewaybig.jpg


If you want to get increased numbers of cyclists on the road (and we all agree that would be a good thing) then encouraging them with the knowledge that it is not particularly dangerous (e.g. special protective gear is not needed and special facilities are not needed) and that they can pick up the basic skills quickly will probably do more and will have a longer, lasting effect.

+1 :beer:

And where has this been shown to be successful?

That I can't answer you. I could only cite anecdotal evidence concerning my personal acquaintance.

Even in England, where John Forester states that vehicular cycling was well understood and practiced, the number of regular cyclists making up any sort of mode share has been on a steady decline.

Britain is now awash with crap facilities lobbied for by eager advocates of "more bikes." Under the false flag of environmentalism this movement has even encouraged the removal of railways and their replacement with "bike trails". See e.g. "Sustrans".



Otherwise you are going to try to convince me that if all cyclists were well trained and obedient in all the laws and rules, the 98% percent of the population that doesn't ride a bike is going to accept us willingly on "their roads?" :rolleyes:

Yes.

That I can't answer you. I could only cite anecdotal evidence concerning my personal acquaintance.


OK, let's take a look at the other evidence... such as Portland, and the Rutgers paper... not just some anecdotal evidence... otherwise I can bring out my personal anecdotal evidence too...


Britain is now awash with crap facilities lobbied for by eager advocates of "more bikes." Under the false flag of environmentalism this movement has even encouraged the removal of railways and their replacement with "bike trails". See e.g. "Sustrans".


And such is also the case in the US... mainly because those that design such things don't ride, and have had little input from the cycling community at large, and the so called "experts" keep saying "oh the current roads are just fine... " (while automotive road speeds go up, and driver distractions increase... )




Yes.

Riiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

Our current road system is not designed with cyclists in mind... we are only borrowing space from motorists and trying to do so while poorly coping with the limitations of the auto-centric reality that has grown to this point.

Now imagine if we all banded together, and had the strength of one voice, demanded better facilities such that motorists could be well rid of us on the higher speed roads, and cyclists could have higher speed connecting networks that took advantage of the actual design of bicycles.

This "banning" is quite inevitable anyway.... (and has been attempted in various places) as the majority users will continue to push for higher speeds by the 85 percentile rule (which doesn't count cyclists anyway) and by their larger voice... Oh sure, the laws that allow cycling may remain on the books... but for the lack of awareness of said laws now, they hardly do any good. Thinking that cyclists will ever have real equality on the roads is a fools' game.

Ok, so you are talking about AASHTO designed pocket lanes, on pg 29 here:
http://communitymobility.org/pdf/aashto.pdf

I assume it is design b that you have the most problem with especially if there is no on-street-parking so the bike lane starts against the wrong side of the beginning of the right hand turn lane. What about the other designs, what do you think of those?
Designs a, b and c all have the same problem, "dumping" the cyclist into crossing traffic in a manner that encourages the cyclist to believe he has the right of way, in a situation that is likely to be in conflict with a motorist who is accustomed to having the right of the way at that same point.

Design d also has this problem, but can be most easily remedied. It can be fixed by ending the bike lane stripe 100-200' feet (depending on the normal speed and volume of traffic) before reaching the point where right turning motorists merge right across the bike lane. The heavier/faster the traffic on the street, the more room cyclists will typically need to negotiate/merge across to the other part of the bike lane, and so the bike lane should end sooner accordingly.

And where has this been shown to be successful?

Even in England, where John Forester states that vehicular cycling was well understood and practiced, the number of regular cyclists making up any sort of mode share has been on a steady decline.


Otherwise you are going to try to convince me that if all cyclists were well trained and obedient in all the laws and rules, the 98% percent of the population that doesn't ride a bike is going to accept us willingly on "their roads?" :rolleyes:
I would say that 99.98% already willingly accept cyclists who ride in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road on our roads. They may be annoyed by us every now and then, just as they are annoyed by anyone who slows them down from time to time, but, for all intents and purposes of using a bicycle to travel on the roads, they accept us.

So what's the problem?

I would say that 99.98% already willingly accept cyclists who ride in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road on our roads. They may be annoyed by us every now and then, just as they are annoyed by anyone who slows them down from time to time, but, for all intents and purposes of using a bicycle to travel on the roads, they accept us.

So what's the problem?

Your version of "willingly accept" is akin to finally getting a two year old to eat a spoonful of green beans.

:rolleyes:

Our current road system is not designed with cyclists in mind... we are only borrowing space from motorists and trying to do so while poorly coping with the limitations of the auto-centric reality that has grown to this point.

You should get and read Mione's book - Bicycling and the Law. He points out that the current system was designed before motor cars and even before bikes, all specifically to accommodate all varieties of vehicles. Rules were adjusted some to accommodate cyclists, and then again to accommodate motorists, but for the most part it's the same system we've always had - it's just a lot more of it. The notion that the road system is designed for any particular type of vehicle driver in mind is false. Yes, it's not designed with cyclists in mind, but it's not designed with any particular type of vehicle driver in mind - it's design with the "generic" vehicle driver in mind, and that includes cyclists as well as cement truck drivers, motorcyclists and horse and buggy drivers.


Now imagine if we all banded together, and had the strength of one voice, demanded better facilities such that motorists could be well rid of us on the higher speed roads, and cyclists could have higher speed connecting networks that took advantage of the actual design of bicycles.

Why imagine such a nightmare?


This "banning" is quite inevitable anyway.... (and has been attempted in various places) as the majority users will continue to push for higher speeds by the 85 percentile rule (which doesn't count cyclists anyway) and by their larger voice... Oh sure, the laws that allow cycling may remain on the books... but for the lack of awareness of said laws now, they hardly do any good. Thinking that cyclists will ever have real equality on the roads is a fools' game.
That this qualifies as "bicycling advocacy" is a travesty.

Your version of "willingly accept" is akin to finally getting a two year old to eat a spoonful of green beans.

:rolleyes:
Not a problem in my family either.

Your version of "willingly accept" is akin to finally getting a two year old to eat a spoonful of green beans.

:rolleyes:
A reasonably skilled and experienced cyclist can get anywhere in our county, for example, safely, comfortably and efficiently. So, again, what's the problem?

You should get and read Mione's book - Bicycling and the Law. He points out that the current system was designed before motor cars and even before bikes, all specifically to accommodate all varieties of vehicles. Rules were adjusted some to accommodate cyclists, and then again to accommodate motorists, but for the most part it's the same system we've always had - it's just a lot more of it. The notion that the road system is designed for any particular type of vehicle driver in mind is false. Yes, it's not designed with cyclists in mind, but it's not designed with any particular type of vehicle driver in mind - it's design with the "generic" vehicle driver in mind, and that includes cyclists as well as cement truck drivers, motorcyclists and horse and buggy drivers.


Riiiiiight... obviously the road in the picture below has horse and buggies, as well as cyclists, in mind.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/yaquinaguy/10.jpg

And 50MPH Miramar road... I see horse and buggies on it all the time... NOT! :rolleyes:

A reasonably skilled and experienced cyclist can get anywhere in our county, for example, safely, comfortably and efficiently. So, again, what's the problem?

I want someone with the same skill level as the average motorist to be able to ride a bike safely, comfortably and efficiently...

Design d also has this problem, but can be most easily remedied. It can be fixed by ending the bike lane stripe 100-200' feet (depending on the normal speed and volume of traffic) before reaching the point where right turning motorists merge right across the bike lane. The heavier/faster the traffic on the street, the more room cyclists will typically need to negotiate/merge across to the other part of the bike lane, and so the bike lane should end sooner accordingly.

So we are not that far apart in our views as I too prefer modified AASHTO designs. Steve (last name starts with a G) has been doing some good work in modifying these designs and I would love to see more.

Your version of "willingly accept" is akin to finally getting a two year old to eat a spoonful of green beans.

:rolleyes:

Just eat one more spoonful and then you can have dessert.

:beer:

The notion that the road system is designed for any particular type of vehicle driver in mind is false. Yes, it's not designed with cyclists in mind, but it's not designed with any particular type of vehicle driver in mind - it's design with the "generic" vehicle driver in mind, and that includes cyclists as well as cement truck drivers, motorcyclists and horse and buggy drivers.



The 85 percentile rule tells me that motorists are favored... if not directly by design, then by law.

Riiiiiight... obviously the road in the picture below has horse and buggies, as well as cyclists, in mind.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/yaquinaguy/10.jpg

And 50MPH Miramar road... I see horse and buggies on it all the time... NOT! :rolleyes:
You know, it probably hasn't been that long since there were horse and buggies on Miramar Road. I'll ask my father-in-law, and 90 year old San Diego native who remembers when most roads in San Diego were dirt.

No one said that that road, or any road, actually sees horse and buggies very often, if ever. So the undisputed fact that Miramar road does not see horse and buggies today is irrelevant.

You wrote: "Our current road system is not designed with cyclists in mind..."
The implication is that our road system should be designed with cyclists in mind. Why? Why should the driver of any particular type of vehicle be in mind when the road system is designed? What does vehicle type have to do with it at all, except maybe in a few isolated special cases here and there?

Just eat one more spoonful and then you can have dessert.

:beer:

I believe that is known as "arm twisting... " :D I would hardly call it "willingly."

The 85 percentile rule tells me that motorists are favored... if not directly by design, then by law.
Look, some vehicle type is bound to be the majority, and that vehicle type is going to drive the 85 percentile rule. Duh. So what?

I want someone with the same skill level as the average motorist to be able to ride a bike safely, comfortably and efficiently...
The skill level is comparable, but the content of the skill set is not the same.
But even if a bit more skill is required to operate a bike safely in traffic, then so it is. You can't change that, unless you plan on having a totally segregated bike system. But we're at least decades from that, probably centuries, if we'll ever get to it.

Design d also has this problem, but can be most easily remedied. It can be fixed by ending the bike lane stripe 100-200' feet (depending on the normal speed and volume of traffic) before reaching the point where right turning motorists merge right across the bike lane.

Not to nitpick but wouldn't you call your fix a "discontinuous" bike lane? Better terminology is needed to describe what the real issue/hazard is here.

Look, some vehicle type is bound to be the majority, and that vehicle type is going to drive the 85 percentile rule. Duh. So what?

So get rid of the 85 percentile rule which favors motorists... and set speed limits which are reasonable for all road users.

Freeways exist now that largely exclude cyclists... motorists should not have the expectation of driving at high speeds on non-freeway roads.

There is one example of a change that could be made.

Make laws similar to pedestrian ROW rules for more vulnerable vehicles, similar to the laws in some European countries, and similar to the laws that govern vessels at sea.

There is another example.

Right now a motorist only has to utter "I didn't see the cyclist," and just about any collision is then ruled in favor of who remains standing.

Not to nitpick but wouldn't you call your fix a "discontinuous" bike lane? Better terminology is needed to describe what the real issue/hazard is here.
When a lane ends and is relatively quickly resumed at a different lateral location, I call that discontinuous.
If a bike lane ends and then another one starts significantly later, I call that two bike lanes.

In any case, when a lane crosses another same-direction traffic lane, whether it's a discontinuity or continued with striping changing from solid to dashed (as in designs a and b), I call that insane.
There is a good reason engineers don't do this with ordinary traffic lanes - to prevent carnage. Too bad that they don't design bike lanes with the same concern.

NOTE: Bike lanes that adhere to designs a-d, all of which are insane per the above, are normally considered examples of "good" or "well-designed" bike lanes by most bike lane advocates.

Freeways exist now that largely exclude cyclists... motorists should not have the expectation of driving at high speeds on non-freeway roads.
They don't. Limited access freeways have an actual speed of 85-90mph. The fastest arterials where I live 55-60mph actual. From a motorist perspective that is quite a bit slower.

Al

So get rid of the 85 percentile rule which favors motorists... and set speed limits which are reasonable for all road users.

Freeways exist now that largely exclude cyclists... motorists should not have the expectation of driving at high speeds on non-freeway roads.

There is one example of a change that could be made.

Make laws similar to pedestrian ROW rules for more vulnerable vehicles, similar to the laws in some European countries, and similar to the laws that govern vessels at sea.

There is another example.

Right now a motorist only has to utter "I didn't see the cyclist," and just about any collision is then ruled in favor of who remains standing.
I don't understand the problem that all these motorists cause you when you're not there.
When you are there, don't suddenly cut in front of them. Wait until they yield, then move in front of them.
If you merge/negotiate/signal your lateral moves properly and they slow down for you (they do for me), why do you care how fast they are going otherwise?

They don't. Limited access freeways have an actual speed of 85-90mph. The fastest arterials where I live 55-60mph actual. From a motorist perspective that is quite a bit slower.

Al

So you don't consider 55-60 MPH "high speed?" ;) Try cycling that fast. :eek:

I've hit 55 downhill. :rolleyes:

And, no, relative to freeway speeds, 55-60 mph is not high speed.
The fact that it's rare to be able to go that fast on a bike is irrelevant.
You seem to think it's important to be able to go the same speed, or close to, as everyone else. Why?

I don't understand the problem that all these motorists cause you when you're not there.
When you are there, don't suddenly cut in front of them. Wait until they yield, then move in front of them.
If you merge/negotiate/signal your lateral moves properly and they slow down for you (they do for me), why do you care how fast they are going otherwise?

Here you go mixing up my 30+ years experience and assuming that all cyclists have the same level of skill.

You are talking apples and oranges.

Not all cyclists are going to have the experience that you, John F, and I, and even noisebeam have.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of a 19 year old co-ed for 10 seconds... remember she can readily drive anywhere... with only 3 years behind the wheel, and only so many weekends of driver's ed. And she does this without reverting to any belief system, nor copping any attitude...

Now put this co-ed on a bike with the same level of training and experience, and ask if she is comfortable among the SUVs and cell phone toting drivers moving by at 45-50MPH.

Ask your dentist again why he doesn't bike commute.

Quit trying to put the onus on me... try thinking about all the other folks out there that are not here on BF and ask why there are so many dusty bikes sitting unused in so many garages.

What is it going to take to get folks to consider using a bike to go 1/2 mile to the store to pick up a carton of milk?

What is it going to take to get elementary school kids to ride bikes to school instead of being taxied by worried moms in oversized SUVS?

Try putting a touch of empathy to work... and consider what newbie cyclists face. Still haven't taught that first class yet and dealt with actual newbie cyclists, eh?

When a lane ends and is relatively quickly resumed at a different lateral location, I call that discontinuous.
If a bike lane ends and then another one starts significantly later, I call that two bike lanes.

Let's see if I am getting this straight, a revised design D is like two bike lanes so it is not a hazardous discontinuous bike lane. If we revised design C like what we did with D it is now a hazardous discontinuous bike lane because of the existence of the pocket lane that resumes relatively quickly.

Here you go mixing up my 30+ years experience and assuming that all cyclists have the same level of skill.

You are talking apples and oranges.
And you're confusing what can be learned by any reasonably healthy adult, and even many children, in a few weeks when accompanied with a little training (from a class or a good book) with 30+ year experience.


Not all cyclists are going to have the experience that you, John F, and I, and even noisebeam have.

Not anywhere near that much experience is required.


Try to put yourself in the shoes of a 19 year old co-ed for 10 seconds... remember she can readily drive anywhere... with only 3 years behind the wheel, and only so many weekends of driver's ed. And she does this without reverting to any belief system, nor copping any attitude...

Right. A little instruction, and a little practice, and she's ready to go.


Now put this co-ed on a bike with the same level of training and experience, and ask if she is comfortable among the SUVs and cell phone toting drivers moving by at 45-50MPH.

Before the training, she will probably not be comfortable.
After the training, maybe still.
But after a few weeks of practice, no problem.
People do it all the time.


Quit trying to put the onus on me...

Then stop writing as if you're writing about you.


try thinking about all the other folks out there that are not here on BF and ask why there are so many dusty bikes sitting unused in so many garages.

I've been thinking and writing about the problem of dusty bikes in garages longer than you.
As far as writing goes, here's a reference to the concept from almost two years ago:

Good question.

I care because, as a bicycling advocate, I believe one the biggest impediments to cycling being more popular, if not the biggest, is the prevalence of The Notion that cyclists riding on the road have an obligation to stay out of the way of same-direction motor traffic, simply because they are on bikes. Whether it's out of courtesy, safety, or whatever, the belief that cyclists have such an obligation is very prevalent out there, and, I believe, the prevalance of this belief is a major factor for dust collecting on bikes in garages all over our nation. People who believe they have an obligation to stay out of the way of same-direction motor traffic - for whatever reason - are understandably very reluctant to go riding on streets with motor traffic.

While I agree that like all drivers of slow moving vehicles, we should yield to faster same-direction traffic when it is safe and reasonable to do so (e.g., only between intersections), that's a far cry from feeling obligated to get and stay out of their way, simply because we're on bikes, period. But that's how I believe most people feel when they're on bikes, which gets in the way of them being able to learn to ride safely in traffic, and to enjoy bicycling on most of our roads (assuming they bother to even try in the first place).

Therefore, I believe the most important initiative of bicycling advocates, in terms of making cycling more popular, should be to reduce the prevalence of "The Notion". I believe an excellent place to start doing so is to oppose official sanctions of The Notion, including bans of cyclists on roads where other slow moving vehicles are not banned. Like College.

I also care because I believe that rights are rarely lost all at once, but rather, a bit at a time, on a slippery slope. In this case, the rights in question are those of cyclists to travel on public roadways. I think it's critical to "draw our line in the sand", if you will, at roads where all slow moving vehicles are prohibited (freeways, and certains bridges and tunnels). So if they prohibited all slow moving vehicles from College, not just bikes, I wouldn't care. Once we accept the banning of bicyclists on roadways they deem "unsafe" simply because we know there is a reasonable alternative, it's only a matter of time before they start banning bicyclists for the same "reasons" whether there is a reasonable alternative or not. After all, if banning is justified on College because of the NOL/high volume condtions, why is banning not justified on any other street with similar NOL/high volume conditions?

So, those are the two main reasons why I care.

With those two reasons in mind, my question to you is, why don't you care?

And here's one from 2 1/2 years ago:

OK, let me put it this way...

The only way to address whatever motorist problem there is is by getting more people interested in riding bikes in traffic. As soon as you have more interest in that, you have more people doing it, the more people will know of people who are cyclists, and, in general, the more accepting motorists will become of it. Might there be some backlash effect too? Sure, but eventually, just like men have gotten used to doing business and politics with women, whites with blacks, straights with gays, the best approach to fighting discrimination -- and that is what you're talking about - discriminatory behavior by motorists against cyclists -- has been coming out of the closet, so to speak. For cyclists, it's more like coming out of the garage.

Hmm, that might be a new thread... "Coming out of the garage...".

Anyway, to get more people to come out of the garage on their bikes and riding in traffic, we need to spread the knowledge about how to be safe in traffic, about how to enjoy bicycling in traffic.

To me, no matter how you look at it, it always comes back to the onus in behavior change being on those who want the change (cyclists), not on those who we may want to change (motorists). That is to say, we need to change first, the motorists will follow. We can't get them to change on their own, they have no reason to do so. We do.

Get out of the garage, get on the road, on your bike, in traffic.

Not that I haven't been thinking about this problem much longer than that. So don't tell me to start thinking about why there are so many dust bikes in garages and how to get them out of there.