As Gene noted trailers can be wider, also buses and some large RVs.
While it's possible to monitor rearward (and I do) and adjust for traffic accordingly, a cyclist should not be required to do so, and should be able to ride where it's reasonably safe assuming he will be passed by a max width vehicle like a wide trailer or a bus... 8.5'.
The problem I am trying to point out is that we have a large difference in width of vehicles, so while a 12'-14' minimum lane width may be necessary for buses and emergency vehicles, if you put Joe average car on that the likelihood they are going to speed is high. If you narrow the lane down to 10' (AASHTO minimum) you get a slight speed reduction (2-4 mph if I remember right. I wish I can find that study and I swear I posted it on my site so I could find it latter but... heavy sigh.) Anyway (from memory) while speed reduction sounds good you are still talking about at least 10mph above the speed limit so if we are talking about a "good" effective narrowed lane speed reduction we are talking about ~48mph on a 35mph road and on a "bad" wide road we are talking about ~52mph. It all boils down to that our society has accepted that doing 15mph over the speed limit is fine and not much else really changes that, especially "narrow" lanes that still provide plenty of comfortable width for the typical car.

So for "improved" bike/ped safety they want to take away extra road width that cyclists can use so cars will now pass cyclists (with an increase of too close passing) at 48mph rather then at 52mph with fewer to close passing events. (Note I am talking about Joe average cyclist here and not a VC.)

It is my humble opinion that the stress on narrow lane speed reduction for "safety" is not a good thing. Though I have seen some effective narrow road designs for residential 25mph roads (that generally include on street parking.)

The problem I am trying to point out is that we have a large difference in width of vehicles, so while a 12'-14' minimum lane width may be necessary for buses and emergency vehicles, if you put Joe average car on that the likelihood they are going to speed is high. If you narrow the lane down to 10' (AASHTO minimum) you get a slight speed reduction (2-4 mph if I remember right. I wish I can find that study and I swear I posted it on my site so I could find it latter but... heavy sigh.) Anyway (from memory) while speed reduction sounds good you are still talking about at least 10mph above the speed limit so if we are talking about a "good" effective narrowed lane speed reduction we are talking about ~48mph on a 35mph road and on a "bad" wide road we are talking about ~52mph. It all boils down to that our society has accepted that doing 15mph over the speed limit is fine and not much else really changes that, especially "narrow" lanes that still provide plenty of comfortable width for the typical car.

So for "improved" bike/ped safety they want to take away extra road width that cyclists can use so cars will now pass cyclists (with an increase of too close passing) at 48mph rather then at 52mph with fewer to close passing events. (Note I am talking about Joe average cyclist here and not a VC.)

It is my humble opinion that the stress on narrow lane speed reduction for "safety" is not a good thing. Though I have seen some effective narrow road designs for residential 25mph roads (that generally include on street parking.)

I understand what you are saying... which is why I promote sharrows for such narrow far right lanes where there is fast traffic.

Well, according to you we should accept the fait accompli and all start wearing helmets even though we have a reasonable suspicion that there are problems with them and they may be dangerous. Jim Jones called, he's looking for some followers in the afterlife.;)

I started wearing a helmet years ago after I was hit by a car that ran a stopsign and I spent the day in the hospital and 6 months in physical therapy.

That you chose to not wear a helmet while cycling about in traffic where the other road users are protected by a metal shell, a metal frame, seat belts and in many cases, an air bag, shows perhaps a bit more faith in your fellow road users, and perhaps a bit too much faith in your own abilities.

I do however agree that mandatory helmet laws are a bit excessive... as are mandatory seat belt laws. The mommy state apparently needs something to do.

As far as the "fait accompli" comment... No I fully disagree... I think the environment can be vastly improved, but that we as cyclists continually send out divergent "voices," and I feel that Forester's opinion that "to achieve social acceptance that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" is far more unlikely than the odds of getting well designed bike facilities.

The former is bucking all the trends, while the latter is at least working with the entrenched system... and has shown forward progression in encouraging cycling.

I also envision a steady increase in road speeds and traffic density... where the frustration of motorists will continue to rise especially in the face of any perceived (however slight) delay. I do not relish "taking the lane" on crowded 60MPH arterials.

Right... now what would happen if the BL striped road had narrower lanes for auto traffic... and wider lanes for cyclists? (perhaps a buffer... )

That fantasy is not supported by AASTHO guidelines. If folks want to better promote BLs, help fix those guidelines (get rid of: DZ BLs, 4' BLs, BL stripes at 100'-200' before intersections), then talk.

Al

That fantasy is not supported by AASTHO guidelines. If folks want to better promote BLs, help fix those guidelines (get rid of: DZ BLs, 4' BLs, BL stripes at 100'-200' before intersections), then talk.

Al

Agreed!

From what I recall of the Texas study, bike lane stripes were added to existing roads without adding any new width; the outside lane was already wide enough to accomodate a ~4 ft. bike lane and a reasonable width traffic lane (I want to say about 11 feet but I don't remember the exact details). My point here is that this study wasn't looking to show the safety of widening a road to add a bike lane or to make a WOL. It simply looked at adding bike lane stripes.

Also, from what I remember from the conclusions, one of the "safety" increases they cited was that motorists were less likely to change lanes when approaching a cyclist riding in the road margin. The authors mischaracterized a safe lane change with no other vehicles around as a "swerve" to attempt to bolster their safety argument for which the only other justification was cyclist riding about a foot further left from the curb. Of course, no mention was made of the much lessened passing clearance being given by motorists nor was any mention made about the effects of the bike lane stripe at intersections. All conclusions and supporting photographs were taken from midblock observations. As far as I know, the streets used in the study had no prior record of significant collisions.

Hmmmm, I might be getting my wires crossed. I will have to look it up later.

-G

That fantasy is not supported by AASTHO guidelines. If folks want to better promote BLs, help fix those guidelines (get rid of: DZ BLs, 4' BLs, BL stripes at 100'-200' before intersections), then talk.

Is there any sort of national petition/protest going on to correct this? Some issues are in just how AASHTO is worded, AASHTO recommends 12' for a bike lane and sparse parking but is totally silent on full parking with frequent turn over and that is just so wrong.

That you chose to not wear a helmet while cycling about in traffic where the other road users are protected by a metal shell, a metal frame, seat belts and in many cases, an air bag, shows perhaps a bit more faith in your fellow road users, and perhaps a bit too much faith in your own abilities.

Let's not pollute this thread with the "helmet debate". I think you should revisit your belief in what helmets are able to do however -- there are none which are claimed by their manufacturers to provide anything like the protection obtained by a "metal shell, a metal frame, seat belts and in many cases, an air bag". Not even close and if you're relying on that then it's indicative of an irrational approach to the risk which you perceive.

As far as the "fait accompli" comment... No I fully disagree... I think the environment can be vastly improved, but that we as cyclists continually send out divergent "voices," and I feel that Forester's opinion that "to achieve social acceptance that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" is far more unlikely than the odds of getting well designed bike facilities.

You just linked to an example of uninformed reaction to the message which is promoted by "cycling experts". The conclusion of the good burghers of Vancouver, WA is that cycling is dangerous so they wear helmets and probably are big fans of bike lanes. Congratulations your work is done.

I understand what you are saying... which is why I promote sharrows for such narrow far right lanes where there is fast traffic.

Baltimore has been installing sharrows over the winter so it is going to be real interesting when cyclists come out of hibernation and see this stuff. So far I really like them and motorists seem to be able to deal with them just fine, amazing stuff.

roads can be redesigned with a 'diet' that includes BOTH sharrows and bike lane stripes. On some of the hills in Seattle the treatments include buffered 'climbing' bike lanes on the uphill portions and sharrows on downhill portions of some streets.

regardless, Canada needs to look beyond john forestors' prejudicial views and turn to proven and ever developing public space design that accomodates bikes as vehicles with unique operating characteristics.

Let's not pollute this thread with the "helmet debate". I think you should revisit your belief in what helmets are able to do however -- there are none which are claimed by their manufacturers to provide anything like the protection obtained by a "metal shell, a metal frame, seat belts and in many cases, an air bag". Not even close and if you're relying on that then it's indicative of an irrational approach to the risk which you perceive.

well aware of the limitations of helmets... I also agree that this is not the area for any such debate. My best helmet was a Bell V1-Pro... no longer made... that came with a very good hardshell.

I'll keep on wearing mine thanks.



You just linked to an example of uninformed reaction to the message which is promoted by "cycling experts". The conclusion of the good burghers of Vancouver, WA is that cycling is dangerous so they wear helmets and probably are big fans of bike lanes. Congratulations your work is done.

Yup this is the reaction the public has... so are vehicular cyclists really ever going to be able to convince the general public that cycling is as safe as driving.... I honestly doubt it... which is why I see that effort as fruitless and dead end.

On the other hand is it well accepted that the more cyclists out there, the more acceptance of cyclists there is... and vehicular cycling alone has not increased the numbers of cyclists anywhere.

It is not a matter of "fait accompli," but more one of understanding the public... right now it is quite acceptable to speed well over 10MPH over the limit... and the 85 percentile rules also encourage ever increasing speeds... the fact is the majority users of the road will win out no matter what laws are on the books...

You can fight all day long with logic, but the reality is that at best you are barely "treading water." Time to try a new tack.

I believe it will be far easier to change the AASTHO guidelines then it will ever be to "to achieve social acceptance that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles."

Good luck in your endeavors.

Yup this is the reaction the public has... so are vehicular cyclists really ever going to be able to convince the general public that cycling is as safe as driving.... I honestly doubt it... which is why I see that effort as fruitless and dead end.

On the other hand is it well accepted that the more cyclists out there, the more acceptance of cyclists there is... and vehicular cycling alone has not increased the numbers of cyclists anywhere.

It is not a matter of "fait accompli," but more one of understanding the public... right now it is quite acceptable to speed well over 10MPH over the limit... and the 85 percentile rules also encourage ever increasing speeds... the fact is the majority users of the road will win out no matter what laws are on the books...

You can fight all day long with logic, but the reality is that at best you are barely "treading water." Time to try a new tack.

I believe it will be far easier to change the AASTHO guidelines then it will ever be to "to achieve social acceptance that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles."

Good luck in your endeavors.

Genec, and others of his ilk, advocate advocating according to the public superstitions about bicycle transportation because, so they say, the public superstitions are the winning side. These bicycle advocates say that it will be easier to change the embodiment of those superstitions, as in the AASHTO Guide, than it will be to kill those superstitions. I think that they are correct in evaluating the likely probabilities of those specific outcomes. However, those are not the only possible outcomes, and, I think, neither is likely to occur in the USA. The view of the bicycle advocates is biased by their expectation of a great bicycling renaissance in the USA, so that conditions similar to those in the European cities that they admire will occur here. As I have written repeatedly, I think that that is a most unlikely outcome, and, if anything such as that does occur, it will be forced by such economic dislocation as will make all predictions as to the actual events completely unreliable.

Rather, the advocacy by the bicycle advocates as to the necessity of bikeways will simply reinforce the public superstitions about bicycle transportation, so that it will be less possible and more difficult to change the bikeway system into something that is better for vehicular cyclists, while encouraging the installation of more bikeways.

What we need is a system in which bicycle traffic is tolerated and in which vehicular cycling is seen as lawful and acceptable, even though not practiced by the majority of cyclists. That is what we had before bikeways. Indeed, those who created the bikeway designs repeatedly stated that they were not acting in the interest of vehicular cyclists (in those days they referred to us as "professional cyclists") who didn't need anything special, but because of the incompetence of the rest of the cycling population. This view has been officially expressed in the FHWA Manual "Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles". To return to such a system requires considerable reduction in the strength of the superstition saying that bikeways make cycling safe, particularly for beginners. If bicycle advocates limited their advocacy to that which is real rather than to superstitions and dreams, there would be less controversy, but then, of course, they wouldn't have any basis for their anti-motoring advocacy.

Can you expound on this, please?

When testifying in Annapolis a delegate expressed how dangerous it is to cycle on the road and how annoying it is when cyclists take the lane and then to require motorists to pass with a 3' clearance is too much too ask.

And I sincerely doubt how you ride or I ride or any lawful riding will change his opinions. It is just accepted that the roads should be a dangerous place for cyclists to ride.

If bicycle advocates limited their advocacy to that which is real rather than to superstitions and dreams, there would be less controversy, but then, of course, they wouldn't have any basis for their anti-motoring advocacy.
It is much of a superstition (irrational belief arising from ignorance) and a dream to believe that teaching VC to adults who sign up for a course will have any significant impact on society's belief system. But then of course, they wouldn't have any basis for their pro-motoring advocacy.

From what I recall of the Texas study, bike lane stripes were added to existing roads without adding any new width; the outside lane was already wide enough to accomodate a ~4 ft. bike lane and a reasonable width traffic lane (I want to say about 11 feet but I don't remember the exact details). My point here is that this study wasn't looking to show the safety of widening a road to add a bike lane or to make a WOL. It simply looked at adding bike lane stripes.

Also, from what I remember from the conclusions, one of the "safety" increases they cited was that motorists were less likely to change lanes when approaching a cyclist riding in the road margin. The authors mischaracterized a safe lane change with no other vehicles around as a "swerve" to attempt to bolster their safety argument for which the only other justification was cyclist riding about a foot further left from the curb. Of course, no mention was made of the much lessened passing clearance being given by motorists nor was any mention made about the effects of the bike lane stripe at intersections. All conclusions and supporting photographs were taken from midblock observations. As far as I know, the streets used in the study had no prior record of significant collisions.

Joe, are you thinking of a study in Florida instead of Texas?

I am still looking through my links.

-G

We had a long thread about the study from the university of texas up in the A&S forum.

We had a long thread about the study from the university of texas up in the A&S forum.

I am trying to remember the specific details. But I need to refresh my memory. All of the studies get jumbled in my head ...

Yup this is the reaction the public has... so are vehicular cyclists really ever going to be able to convince the general public that cycling is as safe as driving.... I honestly doubt it... which is why I see that effort as fruitless and dead end.

I don't have quite such a belief in my ability to gauge the reactions of "the public". I'd argue that all we can do is provide a perspective on how safe and enjoyable cycling is and offer the opportunity to learn whatever small tricks have been gleaned through experience to anyone that is interested. That seems to me to stand a much higher chance of attracting and maintaining a cyclist population than the paradoxical course which you seem to advocate: namely scaring people so badly about cycling that they will counter-intuitively demand bikelanes so they can do more of this horribly dangerous sport. If ever there were a dead end that sounds like it to me.

On the other hand is it well accepted that the more cyclists out there, the more acceptance of cyclists there is... and vehicular cycling alone has not increased the numbers of cyclists anywhere.

You keep saying this without any backing. It's a bit dishonest unless you have a case-control study to hand which shows a significant difference.

You can fight all day long with logic, but the reality is that at best you are barely "treading water." Time to try a new tack.

You won't get anywhere with illogic either. What's needed, as you've pointed out, is a consistent unified message from cycling advocates. However a significant majority (who appear to be the ones that are fed on government rations and actually get to implement their agenda), disagree with the rest of us and are busy propagandizing to that effect. It would appear that they have chosen a path which is inimical to co-operation and efficiency.

Just to make it clear what I'd see as a potentially workable situation: I'd like to see the removal of all the dangerous facilities which litter the continents. Heck, let's just stick to N.America. In fact if you want me to shut up I'll agree to do so if you start lobbying your Quebec contacts to remove the moronic facilities which were installed here. And I like visiting Dublin so if you could use the power of illogic to rip out the mandatory death traps there (they pre-stain them a nice red shade of asphalt -- possibly so the blood doesn't show up?) I'd appreciate it.

After that's been done you can start building the bike superhighway of the future.

I'm going to speculate that Joeack's mystery study is the one that compared the effectiveness of WOL vs bike lanes. I seem to recall some statements in that that gave some support for bike lanes that I was not exactly thrilled about.

Genec, and others of his ilk, advocate advocating according to the public superstitions about bicycle transportation because, so they say, the public superstitions are the winning side. These bicycle advocates say that it will be easier to change the embodiment of those superstitions, as in the AASHTO Guide, than it will be to kill those superstitions. I think that they are correct in evaluating the likely probabilities of those specific outcomes. However, those are not the only possible outcomes, and, I think, neither is likely to occur in the USA. The view of the bicycle advocates is biased by their expectation of a great bicycling renaissance in the USA, so that conditions similar to those in the European cities that they admire will occur here. As I have written repeatedly, I think that that is a most unlikely outcome, and, if anything such as that does occur, it will be forced by such economic dislocation as will make all predictions as to the actual events completely unreliable.

Rather, the advocacy by the bicycle advocates as to the necessity of bikeways will simply reinforce the public superstitions about bicycle transportation, so that it will be less possible and more difficult to change the bikeway system into something that is better for vehicular cyclists, while encouraging the installation of more bikeways.

What we need is a system in which bicycle traffic is tolerated and in which vehicular cycling is seen as lawful and acceptable, even though not practiced by the majority of cyclists. That is what we had before bikeways. Indeed, those who created the bikeway designs repeatedly stated that they were not acting in the interest of vehicular cyclists (in those days they referred to us as "professional cyclists") who didn't need anything special, but because of the incompetence of the rest of the cycling population. This view has been officially expressed in the FHWA Manual "Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles". To return to such a system requires considerable reduction in the strength of the superstition saying that bikeways make cycling safe, particularly for beginners. If bicycle advocates limited their advocacy to that which is real rather than to superstitions and dreams, there would be less controversy, but then, of course, they wouldn't have any basis for their anti-motoring advocacy.

Indeed the economic issues may be at hand to create just the situation that John Forester hopes does not occur... there is a strong growing green movement in this country due in part to the issues of Global Climate change. There is also the ever rising price of gas, which as I write this is 3.45 at the local pump, and predicted to hit 3.75 in just a few weeks. And this is well before the "summer driving season." Oil has hit $100 a barrel and it is not likely to drop below $80 in the near future.

The current economic trend is hardly upward, with the housing issues, the ongoing war effort, and the destabilization of the dollar relative to other currencies.

To assume that we can just continue with the current somewhat unsustainable status quo over the next 20-30 years is probably not a good bet.

Really what I would like to see is that a cycling trend does grow; and continues in such a manner that it does become very socially acceptable to ride a bike as a driver of a vehicle AND support grows for making the roads (not paint and path) much more friendly to cyclists... The latter due to pressure from cyclists that become fed up with the current AASHTO standards.

Only time will tell.

I don't have quite such a belief in my ability to gauge the reactions of "the public". I'd argue that all we can do is provide a perspective on how safe and enjoyable cycling is and offer the opportunity to learn whatever small tricks have been gleaned through experience to anyone that is interested. That seems to me to stand a much higher chance of attracting and maintaining a cyclist population than the paradoxical course which you seem to advocate: namely scaring people so badly about cycling that they will counter-intuitively demand bikelanes so they can do more of this horribly dangerous sport. If ever there were a dead end that sounds like it to me.



You keep saying this without any backing. It's a bit dishonest unless you have a case-control study to hand which shows a significant difference.



You won't get anywhere with illogic either. What's needed, as you've pointed out, is a consistent unified message from cycling advocates. However a significant majority (who appear to be the ones that are fed on government rations and actually get to implement their agenda), disagree with the rest of us and are busy propagandizing to that effect. It would appear that they have chosen a path which is inimical to co-operation and efficiency.

Just to make it clear what I'd see as a potentially workable situation: I'd like to see the removal of all the dangerous facilities which litter the continents. Heck, let's just stick to N.America. In fact if you want me to shut up I'll agree to do so if you start lobbying your Quebec contacts to remove the moronic facilities which were installed here. And I like visiting Dublin so if you could use the power of illogic to rip out the mandatory death traps there (they pre-stain them a nice red shade of asphalt -- possibly so the blood doesn't show up?) I'd appreciate it.

After that's been done you can start building the bike superhighway of the future.

Better yet... let me know when you have convinced all those that put the "moronic facilities" into place that the public doesn't want them.

That is the inertia you are fighting... And since it is somewhat supported by the majority users of the road... you are swimming against a pretty strong current.

Rant on all you want.

Meanwhile hundreds and hundreds of kids just jumped on new bikes... with nary a lesson on vehicular cycling... and thousands of feet of new bike lane was just painted somewhere...

I am trying to remember the specific details. But I need to refresh my memory. All of the studies get jumbled in my head ...

Just a reminder that the UT study and many others are available on my Research Page (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html).

Robert

Better yet... let me know when you have convinced all those that put the "moronic facilities" into place that the public doesn't want them.

That is the inertia you are fighting... And since it is somewhat supported by the majority users of the road... you are swimming against a pretty strong current.

Rant on all you want.

Meanwhile hundreds and hundreds of kids just jumped on new bikes... with nary a lesson on vehicular cycling... and thousands of feet of new bike lane was just painted somewhere...
Gene, essentially you're arguing we're just lemmings in the middle of the herd headed for the cliff and that since there is nothing we can do to cause them to reverse course, we might as well join them in running for the edge of the cliff. Thanks, but I see no point in that.

Better yet... let me know when you have convinced all those that put the "moronic facilities" into place that the public doesn't want them..

Wait ... that's YOU isn't it?

Every time a child untrained in VC jumps on one of those new bikes and is lured under a bus we have YOU to thank. Lest you think I'm exaggerating your individual importance please take "YOU" to mean "everyone who knowingly advocates installing bikelanes and had done nothing to remove the death traps which they admit exist".

I think I'll bow out from this discussion. I can't see how I can possibly convince you that you're wrong as you already admit the central facts which I take to lead only to the conclusion that most bikelanes are bad for cyclists.

Better yet... let me know when you have convinced all those that put the "moronic facilities" into place that the public doesn't want them.

That is the inertia you are fighting... And since it is somewhat supported by the majority users of the road... you are swimming against a pretty strong current.

Rant on all you want.

Meanwhile hundreds and hundreds of kids just jumped on new bikes... with nary a lesson on vehicular cycling... and thousands of feet of new bike lane was just painted somewhere...

Probably because they have no reasonable arguments for the superiority of their desired cycling system, anti-motoring bikeway advocates use arguments very similar to those of other ideologues. The Communists argued that the immutable forces of history, discerned through what they considered to be scientific knowledge, would end up producing the society that they desired, so it was best to help history work a little quicker and get in on the ground floor of the winning side. The Apocalyptic Christians argue that the immutable forces of history, discerned through their study of the holy book, would end up producing the society that they desire, so it is best to help history work a little quicker and get in on the ground floor among the winning elect. Very similar structures to all three of these arguments, are there not?

Canada could learn a few things from Maui's transportation department- I have seen VERY SOPHISTICATED road designs that ensure vehicularity of all road users, accomodations for bicyclists, combination sharrow/ bike lane treatments, fairly consistent intersection treatments for bicyclists to the left of RTO lanes, and a very interesting use of large broken lines as merge areas for bikes and cars to mix.

The bike specific road treatments are in excess of minimun AASHTO standards, some of the bikelanes are 6 feet wide, not including stripes or gutterpan. gutterpan is striped out of the bike lane on many of the larger roads here.


I think the illusion of bikes' vehicular parity with motorized vehicles is in its' dying breath. Savvy vehicular cyclists recognize the benefits bike specific infrastructure bring to the transportation grid.

Gene, essentially you're arguing we're just lemmings in the middle of the herd headed for the cliff and that since there is nothing we can do to cause them to reverse course, we might as well join them in running for the edge of the cliff. Thanks, but I see no point in that.

No, it's more like we are leaders (not lemming like followers) that have the choice to charter our own path...

Consider that as John Forester puts it "the motoring establishment" created bike lanes; and the unknowing public clamors for them... so what I see is that perhaps the best route to take is to guide these two overwhelming groups to do a better job... Otherwise we will continue to get the crap that has caused so much hand wringing in the past by the likes of the tiny voice represented by the VC crowd.

Yes, often bike lanes are poorly designed... as are paths... so who is providing input on their design? Skilled cyclists???

What I am proposing is that we guide those such as the AASHTO on how to do a better job.

That better job should consist of better designed roadways (which John has already mentioned as a goal), better paths where possible, and better bike lanes, if the latter are to be part of the picture. We already know that the laws vary from state to state with respect to bike lanes... so let's change that. We already know that some bike lanes are quite poorly designed... let's change that.

But to clamor (and make no forward progress) that nothing need be done ("as the roads are just fine..." ) is also a misnomer... the general public is not buying it.

And as long as there is a divide in the cycling community... we're going to get the status quo... poor second class treatment... and politicians doing photo ops of stripes that none of us really want.

Meanwhile John is considered something of an anachronism by the likes of those doing this Canadian study... and they have already looked at such studies as the Pucher paper et. al. which do nothing to support vehicular cycling as the sole answer.

More and more John's ancient data is looked upon in disbelief as researchers travel to places where cycling is obviously enjoyed by a large portion of the population... and those researchers observe for their own eyes what works and what does not.

Go on and work as hard as you want to buck this trend... in the end you will be (if not now) considered just as a anachronistic as John. Meanwhile, others will make the design decisions for you... and you will be left with the results.... which you could chose to guide... but probably won't.

Wait ... that's YOU isn't it?

Every time a child untrained in VC jumps on one of those new bikes and is lured under a bus we have YOU to thank. Lest you think I'm exaggerating your individual importance please take "YOU" to mean "everyone who knowingly advocates installing bikelanes and had done nothing to remove the death traps which they admit exist".

I think I'll bow out from this discussion. I can't see how I can possibly convince you that you're wrong as you already admit the central facts which I take to lead only to the conclusion that most bikelanes are bad for cyclists.

And most bikelanes were not designed by cyclists... so if you expect there to be any change in the future, you can either contribute or continue standing by while others put in what they think is best.

Your lack of contribution is just as damning as those that know no better. So be it.

Probably because they have no reasonable arguments for the superiority of their desired cycling system, anti-motoring bikeway advocates use arguments very similar to those of other ideologues. The Communists argued that the immutable forces of history, discerned through what they considered to be scientific knowledge, would end up producing the society that they desired, so it was best to help history work a little quicker and get in on the ground floor of the winning side. The Apocalyptic Christians argue that the immutable forces of history, discerned through their study of the holy book, would end up producing the society that they desire, so it is best to help history work a little quicker and get in on the ground floor among the winning elect. Very similar structures to all three of these arguments, are there not?

Speaking of ideologues... :rolleyes:

Canada could learn a few things from Maui's transportation department- I have seen VERY SOPHISTICATED road designs that ensure vehicularity of all road users, accomodations for bicyclists, combination sharrow/ bike lane treatments, fairly consistent intersection treatments for bicyclists to the left of RTO lanes, and a very interesting use of large broken lines as merge areas for bikes and cars to mix.

The bike specific road treatments are in excess of minimun AASHTO standards, some of the bikelanes are 6 feet wide, not including stripes or gutterpan. gutterpan is striped out of the bike lane on many of the larger roads here.


I think the illusion of bikes' vehicular parity with motorized vehicles is in its' dying breath. Savvy vehicular cyclists recognize the benefits bike specific infrastructure bring to the transportation grid.

Where in Maui are you? When I stayed there last November in Ka'anapali, the bike lane treatments I saw were terrible. Most were simply shoulders with bike stencils which greatly varied in width (from useable to almost nothing) and were littered with debris (thanks to heavy rains and falling rocks). When a right turn lane overlapped the shoulder/bike lane, the right ~3 feet of the 9-10 foot wide lane was marked for cyclists. What good does that do? Motorists can't use the 6 foot wide right turn lane while cyclists are going straight, or if they do, they'll squeeze the cyclist out of the lane to the left (not that being outside of that bike lane would be a bad thing). I didn't see any cyclists trying to use those lanes but I imagine motorists would be as likely to right hook them as they would in a bike lane without the right turn lane.

Oahu had the worst bike lane treatments I've ever seen, far worse than Maui's. Oahu literally had 1 foot wide sections of pavement next to a curb marked as a bike lane. Ridiculous. I guess that's what an extreme overpopulation of tourists gets you.

Just a reminder that the UT study and many others are available on my Research Page (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html).

Robert

First, a big thanks to Robert for hosting all of these studies and listing them out in a nicely organized fashion.

Second, here's the abstract from the University of Texas study which so far agrees with what I remember of it:

Abstract
Many local and regional transportation authorities in Texas are proposing retrofitted bicycle facilities those added to existing roadways without changing the curb-to-curb width—under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program and the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP). As custodian of the federal money for these programs, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) must approve or reject these proposals according TxDOT design standards, which are based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1999) Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities. This research was undertaken to provide additional tools to evaluate the suitability of an on-street bicycle facility for both motorists and cyclists, especially as the tools apply to the approval or rejection of bicycle facility retrofits. The additional tools for evaluation of this study developed primarily from approximately 3,500 observations of motorists passing cyclists and over 4,000 observations of motorists unaffected by cyclists at 24 sites across Texas. These observations led to multivariate regression models of the lateral position of motorists and cyclists based on geometric and traffic characteristics such as motor vehicle lane width, percentage of truck traffic, presence and width of bicycle lane, and presence of a center turn lane. The research also included a review of roadway design literature relevant to bicycle facility retrofits and an analysis of bicycle-car crash data from the Houston-Galveston Area Council for the years 1999-2001. The results of this research and that of another bicycle facility evaluation tool, the Bicycle Compatibility Index developed by the Highway Safety Research Center at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, were used to create the Written Guide to Selecting Among Limited Right-of-Way Streets and Designing Geometric Solutions for the Provision of Bicycle Lanes, later renamed the Texas Guide for Retrofit and Planned Bicycle Facilities.

And most bikelanes were not designed by cyclists... so if you expect there to be any change in the future, you can either contribute or continue standing by while others put in what they think is best.

Your lack of contribution is just as damning as those that know no better. So be it.

Don't worry I'll be contributing as I have been: making sure that I do my bit to work against any local politican that advocates bike lanes or bike paths. I just won't be continuing trying to convince you that you're wrong when you're so obviously dead set on pursuing your course of action no matter what. Before we started discussing this I was under the mistaken impression that you were unaware of some of the facts which you now admit to be true. My mistake.

I think JF is wrong: the attitude is more similar to Trotskist entryism than anything else and just as doomed to failure.

Where in Maui are you? When I stayed there last November in Ka'anapali, the bike lane treatments I saw were terrible.

I'm sorry, joe. your perspective is radically different from reality, dude. if you think no bike specific pavement redesigns would behoove maui bicyclists,

you clearly can't recognize good clean pavement on which to ride safely in a vehicular fashion to the right of faster traffic.

No, it's more like we are leaders (not lemming like followers) that have the choice to charter our own path...

Consider that as John Forester puts it "the motoring establishment" created bike lanes; and the unknowing public clamors for them... so what I see is that perhaps the best route to take is to guide these two overwhelming groups to do a better job... Otherwise we will continue to get the crap that has caused so much hand wringing in the past by the likes of the tiny voice represented by the VC crowd.

Yes, often bike lanes are poorly designed... as are paths... so who is providing input on their design? Skilled cyclists???

What I am proposing is that we guide those such as the AASHTO on how to do a better job.

That better job should consist of better designed roadways (which John has already mentioned as a goal), better paths where possible, and better bike lanes, if the latter are to be part of the picture. We already know that the laws vary from state to state with respect to bike lanes... so let's change that. We already know that some bike lanes are quite poorly designed... let's change that.

But to clamor (and make no forward progress) that nothing need be done ("as the roads are just fine..." ) is also a misnomer... the general public is not buying it.

And as long as there is a divide in the cycling community... we're going to get the status quo... poor second class treatment... and politicians doing photo ops of stripes that none of us really want.

Meanwhile John is considered something of an anachronism by the likes of those doing this Canadian study... and they have already looked at such studies as the Pucher paper et. al. which do nothing to support vehicular cycling as the sole answer.

More and more John's ancient data is looked upon in disbelief as researchers travel to places where cycling is obviously enjoyed by a large portion of the population... and those researchers observe for their own eyes what works and what does not.

Go on and work as hard as you want to buck this trend... in the end you will be (if not now) considered just as a anachronistic as John. Meanwhile, others will make the design decisions for you... and you will be left with the results.... which you could chose to guide... but probably won't.
These are not new ideas. Many have been in place for years and the execution is just not perfect. There are experienced cyclists advising AASHTO. There are experienced cyclists advising at the state, county and city levels. In the end, often we just get ignored because we have so little political power. We need more people, and we need more power, and we also need fewer of them arguing that we need bike lanes in order to have "more space".

I'm sorry, joe. your perspective is radically different from reality, dude. if you think no bike specific pavement redesigns would behoove maui bicyclists,

you clearly can't recognize good clean pavement on which to ride safely in a vehicular fashion to the right of faster traffic.
FYI, in the thread where you said the guy was taking the lane... he was one foot from the fog line.

and that has nothing to do anything with 6 foot wide buffered bike lanes on Maui OR Canadian disdain for john forsters' engineering prejudices, head.


I Did think of you today, head. I pictured you swerving 10 feet in and out of the travel lane to position yourself in a vehicular position in the 6 foot widebike lane that a savvy vehicular bicyclist would be defaulted in, and i laughed.

Looking at the consistent & well thought out road designs that accomodate vehicular cycling quite nicely here on Maui, the lunacy of the anti-accomodationalist platform collapses like a hot air balloon in hell. Canada will be well served ignoring the anti-accomodation prejudices that haunt forestor.

These are not new ideas. Many have been in place for years and the execution is just not perfect. There are experienced cyclists advising AASHTO. There are experienced cyclists advising at the state, county and city levels. In the end, often we just get ignored because we have so little political power. We need more people, and we need more power, and we also need fewer of them arguing that we need bike lanes in order to have "more space".

Is the lack of political power perhaps due to the huge dichotomy in cycling... so huge in fact that it created the rift in LAB and fostered the reform LAB movement?

Is our own in-fighting here a reflection of that stagnation and division that essentially pits us against one another with no positive forward movement for either side?

It is like an ongoing religious war that cripples both sides while accomplishing nothing overall.

I would love to give one side or the other full support... what I have seen in other countries and in Oregon tells me that:
a) while vehicular cycling does work... my own personal experience is that it fails at higher road speeds, is not appreciated by motorists, and is misunderstood by cyclists...
b) whereas well designed facilities are a joy to use, encourage new cyclists, and satisfy both motorists and help foster smoother traffic flow overall.

Therefore I choose b.

First, a big thanks to Robert for hosting all of these studies and listing them out in a nicely organized fashion.

Second, here's the abstract from the University of Texas study which so far agrees with what I remember of it:

Abstract
Many local and regional transportation authorities in Texas are proposing retrofitted bicycle facilities those added to existing roadways without changing the curb-to-curb width—under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program and the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP). As custodian of the federal money for these programs, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) must approve or reject these proposals according TxDOT design standards, which are based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1999) Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities. This research was undertaken to provide additional tools to evaluate the suitability of an on-street bicycle facility for both motorists and cyclists, especially as the tools apply to the approval or rejection of bicycle facility retrofits. The additional tools for evaluation of this study developed primarily from approximately 3,500 observations of motorists passing cyclists and over 4,000 observations of motorists unaffected by cyclists at 24 sites across Texas. These observations led to multivariate regression models of the lateral position of motorists and cyclists based on geometric and traffic characteristics such as motor vehicle lane width, percentage of truck traffic, presence and width of bicycle lane, and presence of a center turn lane. The research also included a review of roadway design literature relevant to bicycle facility retrofits and an analysis of bicycle-car crash data from the Houston-Galveston Area Council for the years 1999-2001. The results of this research and that of another bicycle facility evaluation tool, the Bicycle Compatibility Index developed by the Highway Safety Research Center at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, were used to create the Written Guide to Selecting Among Limited Right-of-Way Streets and Designing Geometric Solutions for the Provision of Bicycle Lanes, later renamed the Texas Guide for Retrofit and Planned Bicycle Facilities.

Note what I have always written about governmental research regarding bicycle facilities. The whole study is almost completely irrelevant to the study of the problems of cycling, being wholly taken up with the very minor problem of same-direction motor traffic and the convenience of motorists. Any serious study of the traffic safety problems as affected by the type of facility must needs be directed at the turning and crossing movements that are involved in about 95% of car-bike collisions. Such a study was tried in Florida, but it was a failure through bad design.

Government has spent some tens of millions of dollars doing research to try to establish benefits from bikeways, and it has not succeeded yet.

No, it's more like we are leaders (not lemming like followers) that have the choice to charter our own path...

Consider that as John Forester puts it "the motoring establishment" created bike lanes; and the unknowing public clamors for them... so what I see is that perhaps the best route to take is to guide these two overwhelming groups to do a better job... Otherwise we will continue to get the crap that has caused so much hand wringing in the past by the likes of the tiny voice represented by the VC crowd.

Yes, often bike lanes are poorly designed... as are paths... so who is providing input on their design? Skilled cyclists???

What I am proposing is that we guide those such as the AASHTO on how to do a better job.

That better job should consist of better designed roadways (which John has already mentioned as a goal), better paths where possible, and better bike lanes, if the latter are to be part of the picture. We already know that the laws vary from state to state with respect to bike lanes... so let's change that. We already know that some bike lanes are quite poorly designed... let's change that.

But to clamor (and make no forward progress) that nothing need be done ("as the roads are just fine..." ) is also a misnomer... the general public is not buying it.

And as long as there is a divide in the cycling community... we're going to get the status quo... poor second class treatment... and politicians doing photo ops of stripes that none of us really want.

Meanwhile John is considered something of an anachronism by the likes of those doing this Canadian study... and they have already looked at such studies as the Pucher paper et. al. which do nothing to support vehicular cycling as the sole answer.

More and more John's ancient data is looked upon in disbelief as researchers travel to places where cycling is obviously enjoyed by a large portion of the population... and those researchers observe for their own eyes what works and what does not.

Go on and work as hard as you want to buck this trend... in the end you will be (if not now) considered just as a anachronistic as John. Meanwhile, others will make the design decisions for you... and you will be left with the results.... which you could chose to guide... but probably won't.

Nobody argues that the roads are just fine so nothing need be done. What is argued is that the roads should not be made worse by painting bike-lane stripes.

Consider the latest changes in the bike lane design area, mandatorily continuing the bike-lane stripe right up to the intersection. That was opposed by those who know, but insisted on by the motoring contingent and some others. Getting better designs has been very difficult, because bike lanes contradict the rules of the road and standard traffic-engineering principles. They are made that way for reasons of motorist convenience and public superstition. You, genec, think that you should go along with public superstition because you think that you can turn it your way? That's most unlikely; you'll get run over as has occurred so many times in the history of bikeways.

The fact that Pucher's paper does not support vehicular cycling is no surprise to anyone. Pucher doesn't even know what it is, based on his descriptions of what he thinks it is.

This business of going to places where bicycle transportation has a large modal share and then assuming that that large share is caused by bikeways and then concluding that if America builds bikeways we will produce the same results is so full of scientific holes that no scientific body would accept that argument if presented in a paper. Planners, particularly those who write, are largely ideologues and faddists, not scientists.

You also assume, genec, that far better designs for bike lanes are possible, and that space for more properly-situated paths can be found in major urban centers. We've had thirty-five years to work these out, and the progress has been dismal. Dismal in design, because the design is fundamentally unsound; dismal in locations, because the locations are very few. You have a pipe dream.

The fact that Pucher's paper does not support vehicular cycling is no surprise to anyone. Pucher doesn't even know what it is, based on his descriptions of what he thinks it is.




Apparently no one but yourself understands "vehicular cycling." You criticized even your strongest proponent here not too long ago when you declared his entries on wikipedia as written by someone that doesn't understand "vehicular cycling" at all.

Sorry John... it appears that unless we pass some secret set of standards known only to you... apparently no one knows "vehicular cycling."

Consider the latest changes in the bike lane design area, mandatorily continuing the bike-lane stripe right up to the intersection.

Are you SERIOUS? Bike lane treatments have advanced significantly. Are you completely out of touch with modern road redesigns seen in multitudes of US cities that accomodate bikes in excess of minimum AASHTO standards?

with statements like the one above, It's obvious you haven't a clue, john, honestly.

You repeatedly showcase how out of touch you are with actual transportation engineering, john. Will you be recommending the 'modern' acetelyne lamps you are fond of o the Canadians next?

Every time a child untrained in VC jumps on one of those new bikes and is lured under a bus we have YOU to thank. Lest you think I'm exaggerating your individual importance please take "YOU" to mean "everyone who knowingly advocates installing bikelanes and had done nothing to remove the death traps which they admit exist".

I think I'll bow out from this discussion. I can't see how I can possibly convince you that you're wrong as you already admit the central facts which I take to lead only to the conclusion that most bikelanes are bad for cyclists.

A bike lane induced right hook, ya we all know that right hooks were not a serious problem before bike lanes came along. :rolleyes: It would have been sooo much better if cyclists could just get right hooked by riding against traffic, riding on the sidewalk or being a gutter bunny that would be such an improvement. :rolleyes:

The real issue is not that the bike lane failed but that VC training has failed to such a gross extent that we have to resort to bike lanes. We have YOU to thank just as much and even more so then the bike lane advocates.

The bike lane in question can be changed to improve cyclists safety but VC training can never hope to make any significant improvements in safety for the general cycling population unless some drastic changes are made.

Gene, essentially you're arguing we're just lemmings in the middle of the herd headed for the cliff and that since there is nothing we can do to cause them to reverse course, we might as well join them in running for the edge of the cliff. Thanks, but I see no point in that.

Like it's better to be a lone voice in the wilderness. I really don't get why the main focus of VC should be to be against bike facilities. In the worst case they are no skin off my nose and in the best case they are a pleasure to ride. The VC camp is so busy slinging mud that it appears to many to have nothing of substance to offer.

First, a big thanks to Robert for hosting all of these studies and listing them out in a nicely organized fashion.

Second, here's the abstract from the University of Texas study which so far agrees with what I remember of it:

Abstract
Many local and regional transportation authorities in Texas are proposing retrofitted bicycle facilities those added to existing roadways without changing the curb-to-curb width—under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program and the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP). As custodian of the federal money for these programs, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) must approve or reject these proposals according TxDOT design standards, which are based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1999) Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities. This research was undertaken to provide additional tools to evaluate the suitability of an on-street bicycle facility for both motorists and cyclists, especially as the tools apply to the approval or rejection of bicycle facility retrofits. The additional tools for evaluation of this study developed primarily from approximately 3,500 observations of motorists passing cyclists and over 4,000 observations of motorists unaffected by cyclists at 24 sites across Texas. These observations led to multivariate regression models of the lateral position of motorists and cyclists based on geometric and traffic characteristics such as motor vehicle lane width, percentage of truck traffic, presence and width of bicycle lane, and presence of a center turn lane. The research also included a review of roadway design literature relevant to bicycle facility retrofits and an analysis of bicycle-car crash data from the Houston-Galveston Area Council for the years 1999-2001. The results of this research and that of another bicycle facility evaluation tool, the Bicycle Compatibility Index developed by the Highway Safety Research Center at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, were used to create the Written Guide to Selecting Among Limited Right-of-Way Streets and Designing Geometric Solutions for the Provision of Bicycle Lanes, later renamed the Texas Guide for Retrofit and Planned Bicycle Facilities.

I found the UT study, yesterday. But "Texas" is still stuck in my head. Perhaps there was another study in Texas? Anyway, I am sporadically searching through my links. I remember that there was another comparison of the two; however, they tested them on different roads and there was suspicion that those roads were chosen selectively.

Like it's better to be a lone voice in the wilderness. I really don't get why the main focus of VC should be to be against bike facilities. In the worst case they are no skin off my nose and in the best case they are a pleasure to ride. The VC camp is so busy slinging mud that it appears to many to have nothing of substance to offer.

Thanks HC... BTW good response on the right hook issues.

I think the other most interesting thing that comes out of the strict VC camp is all the additional "things" one must do to avoid being hit that really have nothing to do with being vehicular... and in fact are simply ploys and tricks to be noticed or improve visibility... that in reality have nothing to do with "vehicular." That alone tells me that "vehicular" is not all it is cracked up to be.

A classic example is of course the list of things often touted here on BF to avoid right hooks.

Like it's better to be a lone voice in the wilderness. I really don't get why the main focus of VC should be to be against bike facilities. In the worst case they are no skin off my nose and in the best case they are a pleasure to ride. The VC camp is so busy slinging mud that it appears to many to have nothing of substance to offer.
The main focus of VC is not to be against bike facilities. That's a secondary focus. The main focus is the promotion of the right of cyclists to act like vehicle drivers on the road. Another secondary focus is the advocacy of cyclists acting like vehicle drivers when riding on roads.

The reason opposition to segregated bike facilities is a focus at all is because to act like a vehicle driver it is essential to think and feel like a vehicle driver, and segregated facilities work to inhibit and discourage that.

A bike lane induced right hook, ya we all know that right hooks were not a serious problem before bike lanes came along. :rolleyes: It would have been sooo much better if cyclists could just get right hooked by riding against traffic, riding on the sidewalk or being a gutter bunny that would be such an improvement. :rolleyes:

Careful, your eyes will fall out of their sockets with all that rolling.

In any case I'm unsure as to what you're arguing here. Are you arguing that bikelanes stop cyclists riding against traffic, on the sidewalk or being a gutter bunny? Because if you are then you've not been watching how the novice cyclists whom "genec" wants to lure out onto the road with no VC training behave.

The real issue is not that the bike lane failed but that VC training has failed to such a gross extent that we have to resort to bike lanes. We have YOU to thank just as much and even more so then the bike lane advocates.

I think that's entirely illogical. I've attempted (albeit in a small way) to educate friends and family about some basic VC principals. It's been effective with some of them. You and "genec" on the other hand seem to be doing your darndest to denigrate VC training as the primary focus of bicycling advocacy.

There has been no massive amount of government funding going into promoting VC. As soon as tens of millions of dollars are trickled through the eager paws of the functionaries (currently promoting bikelanes which they know increase the chances of some poor kid being squashed by a bus or a truck) into the active teaching of VC then you can declare it a failure.

As things stand the vast majority of funding either obtained through government infrastructure projects or raised by 501c3 organizations is spent on lobbying for, or constructing weird experimental bikelanes and bikepaths. You've had your shot at that for over 30 freakin' years. How long will it take you to admit that this is a misguided course? For ever?

While you roll your eyes so that you can't see the evidence you're setting back the chances of N.America ever having a realistic chance of a cycling population.

The bike lane in question can be changed to improve cyclists safety but VC training can never hope to make any significant improvements in safety for the general cycling population unless some drastic changes are made.

What "bike lane in question?" If you think only one person has been murdered by their local bike coalition's dumbcluck "facility" then you're sadly mistaken. This is a general conversation about "what Canadians think about Forester's VC versus some unspecified facilities". But whatever, pick a path, any path and tell me how you'd improve it so that I can get a level of safety on a par with that achieved by riding according to the rules of the road. Oh ... and don't forget that you excluded "drastic changes" such as those specified by "genec" which involve extensive networks of bike superhighways routed through hyperspace to connect Utopia to the suburbs of Never-never Land.

Sigh ... why can't we all just work along together to the same goal and speak with a unified voice demanding the removal of bikelanes and the introduction of Road 1 and Road 2 training in high-schools and for any interested adults? I wish we could all get along. *Rolls eyes, tucks head into sand and adopts passive aggressive posture*

While you roll your eyes so that you can't see the evidence you're setting back the chances of N.America ever having a realistic chance of a cycling population.
*Rolls eyes, tucks head into sand and adopts passive aggressive posture*



walt- some of us choose to observe bonifide results from other nations and strive to increase bicyclist safety and modal share using PROVEN public space treatments. you think increasing modal share and safety thru public space redesign isn't beneficial? , right, you are choose to ignore the world body of evidence that contradicts the fallacies of the forestorites

yes, your head is tucked into the sand.

walt- some of us choose to observe bonifide results from other nations

Bek, I've seen firsthand the results of people putting in bikelanes. It's bad. Really bad. There are bonafide studies showing correlations between the introduction of facilities and the decline in cycling. That's what bike facilities thinking has accomplished over thirty years: a failure. There has been NO comparable attempt in terms of funding and promotion to make VC a priority and judging by the rhetoric here that will continue to be the case.

hhahahahaha.