Umm, besides the fact that this did not happen in Oregon, making ORS irrelevant, the "I didn't see him" excuse puts the first cyclist further to the right than is practicable.

Almost all states have similar language in their statues. I'd be willing to bet that Florida probably does too.

"I didn't see him" is the standard motorist excuse/lie regardless of cyclist road position.

[...] no amount of evidence will shift that perspective [..] there will be strong resistance on the part of those who have a more "libertarian" view of such impositions and no amount of study will be enough to convince them that the loss of personal freedom and the ability to choose for themselves is worth the trade off.

Speaking as one particular libertarian I'd be first up to don a helmet and ride in a bike lane if either offered me a measurable increase in safety. I value my health. The fact that there has been eff all demonstration of either of those benefits despite the concerted attempts of know-all, interfering ,busybodies to prove them should make believers a little less certain that their correct.

In fact at this stage of the game with so much demonstrated about the limited effectiveness of either of these measures I think it would be fairer to formulate the discussion in a nearly inverse manner: specifically that the proponents of helmets and bike lanes have a quality of religious zealotry to their arguments which is impervious to reason and evidence. Instead of fairly and rationally evaluating the problems they have worked themselves into a lather of fear and emotion and flail from inconclusive study to inconclusive study in a futile attempt to bolster their pre-determined position.

The catch-22 for those who oppose these restrictions is that should they admit to the value of any demonstration of the efficacy of the safety standard then their libertarian argument is in serious jeopardy of collapse

No, you've conflated two separate positions. The libertarian argument is that regardless of the efficacy of the devices under question it's a personal choice and should be left that way. If parents want to leave their children unsupervised in the presence of drugs, politicians, firearms, poisons or religious leaders then that's their problem. Similarly if they wish to expose themselves to any of the aforementioned then again it's their own risk.

While I do not agree with those who see bike lanes/paths as a major threat to our right to ride on the road I do see it as a potential threat and worth keeping in check. This is why I think it's important for those of us who favor an occasional bike facility to continue to enlist strident vehicular cyclists to use as the attack dogs on that front. It's just a shame that they often turn on pro-facility cyclists as quickly as they do the non-cyclists who wish to restrict our rights to ride on the road.

Look, make your own argument. Don't presume to speak for those with whom you disagree. It's misrepresentation and you're better off leaving it to people that oppose bike facilities to do that and people that are libertarian to espouse that position. It would also be nice not to roll several divergent positions into one and also not to introduce the fraught subject of helmets into a discussion on bike lanes.

Practical reasons to oppose the introduction of unspecifiied "facilities" are:

1. Even if they're bad then their removal will likely not happen. I know of no instance where demonstrably dangerous facilities have been removed.

2. They obviously reinforce a belief among the more incompetent motorists and cyclist that bicycles should not and cannot be on the road.

3. They frequently impose serious delays on cyclists by routing us through circuitous byways, usually lack the same speedy entrance/exit to other routes which one gets with an intersection on the real road network

4. Their location on marginal/waste land and low traffic in many urban areas makes them dangerous for female cyclists.

In response to the OP, it all depends on the details of the situation. I am happy riding on some roads and highways and not so much happy on others. I am happy in some bike lanes and not in others. Happy on some MUPs for some purposes on some days. It all depends on the particulars.

In general, I am especially happy when planners act as if there were a significant number of regular bike riders to consider even though our numbers are still so small.

Don't presume to speak for those with whom you disagree. It's misrepresentation...

geez, maybe you should clue Serge and John in...

:)

"At different times in the last two weeks two cyclists have been left hooked while riding in bike lanes in Tallahassee. The first was hospitalized with critical injuries and later died. The second was transported to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Someone show some statistical data showing bike lanes make cycling safer.

Show some that says they make it more dangerous......
I would be interested to know what the traffic skill level of the people who
got hit was. I cannot imagine anyone who rides regularly in FL not to be
expecting a left hook at ANY intersection or divided highway.

"Let me save some time here. You can't. They don't. The de facto purpose of bike lanes is for the convenience of motorists by moving cyclists out of their way."

Exactly !

specifically that the proponents of helmets and bike lanes have a quality of religious zealotry to their arguments which is impervious to reason and evidence. Instead of fairly and rationally evaluating the problems they have worked themselves into a lather of fear and emotion and flail from inconclusive study to inconclusive study in a futile attempt to bolster their pre-determined position.

I see that on both sides of the bike lane/anti-bike lane fence.


If parents want to leave their children unsupervised in the presence of drugs, politicians, firearms, poisons or religious leaders then that's their problem. Similarly if they wish to expose themselves to any of the aforementioned then again it's their own risk.

That's funny +1 (but you forgot rock stars.)


Practical reasons to oppose the introduction of unspecifiied "facilities" are:

1. Even if they're bad then their removal will likely not happen. I know of no instance where demonstrably dangerous facilities have been removed.

2. They obviously reinforce a belief among the more incompetent motorists and cyclist that bicycles should not and cannot be on the road.

3. They frequently impose serious delays on cyclists by routing us through circuitous byways, usually lack the same speedy entrance/exit to other routes which one gets with an intersection on the real road network

4. Their location on marginal/waste land and low traffic in many urban areas makes them dangerous for female cyclists.

FWIW
1) We got a door zone bike lane un-bike laned
2) Much better for sidewalks to reinforce a belief among the more incompetent motorists and cyclist that bicycles should not and cannot be on the road and any positive reinforcement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1nYWIfwm7k) should be ignored.
3) They frequently allow expedited travel by avoiding frequent crossings and grade separation from busy roads.
4) By encouraging and making known major cycling routes makes it safer for all cyclists.

But it is completely appropriate to consider all contributers to a crash. In at least one of these cases the bike lane positioned the cyclist too far to the right for them to be conspicuous to the motorist. So, while the bike lanes didn't cause the wrecks, they directly contributed to the possibility of them happening.

Just how wide of a field of view do you think the human eye has? 'Too far right to be conspicuous'? Oh please :rolleyes:. Utter bollocks. What you have is drivers not performing their duty of being aware of their surroundings. A cylist a little outside of the line of travel is only in the blind spot of people with their heads up their arses. Is that how you drive? I certainly don't, and I certainly don't condone it in others.

Bottom line: Bike lanes do not make cycling safer. The assertion that they do is false. In fact, the opposite may be true.

OOOH, the Dreaded Bikelane Horror! Maybe they only seem dangerous to you because the VC training dogma refuses to teach people to use them (and paths) properly.

Whether they're safer or not is kind of irrelevant. The difference is marginal at best, and in my experience, there's no difference at all.

The simple fact is that better provision for bikes on the road (which sometimes means adding a bikelane) encourages more people to cycle, and that's the main reason to put them in. Deny it all you like, but it's happening in my city right now in front of my eyes.

...the proponents of helmets and bike lanes have a quality of religious zealotry to their arguments which is impervious to reason and evidence. Instead of fairly and rationally evaluating the problems they have worked themselves into a lather of fear and emotion and flail from inconclusive study to inconclusive study in a futile attempt to bolster their pre-determined position.

Look, make your own argument. Don't presume to speak for those with whom you disagree.

Oh, the irony.

Practical reasons to oppose the introduction of unspecifiied "facilities" are:

1. Even if they're bad then their removal will likely not happen. I know of no instance where demonstrably dangerous facilities have been removed.

I know of several, and of more than that that are mere inconveniences. Don't blame the facilities when the real problem is ineffective advocacy.

2. They obviously reinforce a belief among the more incompetent motorists and cyclist that bicycles should not and cannot be on the road.

No they don't. If anything they legitimise their presence. We are talking about on-road 'facilities' as well. I have never once been shouted at to "GET OFF THE ROAD" when riding in a bikelane.

3. They frequently impose serious delays on cyclists by routing us through circuitous byways, usually lack the same speedy entrance/exit to other routes which one gets with an intersection on the real road network

No-one's forcing you to use them.

4. Their location on marginal/waste land and low traffic in many urban areas makes them dangerous for female cyclists.

It seems you're talking about off-road paths here rather than 'unspecified facilities'. Changing the terms to suit your argument seems to be a common VC cult ploy. It just makes you look ridiculous.

geez, maybe you should clue Serge and John in...

:)

Why would I be a messenger boy for you? Talk to them directly yourself. You seem to know them better than I do.

Part of the majority of who?

I cycle a lot, all over various parts of the world, and I plan my routes based on places I want to ride to and see across the province, in the next town, in another country, etc., etc., or on specific distances I want to cover. Whether these routes are "safe" or not is a very low factor on the decision to ride there.

If I limited myself to "safe" routes and/or bicycle paths/lanes/etc., I'd never go anywhere!

I'm quite happy without cycling-specific stuff, and I know I'm not the only one.

Okay, my mistake using the word majority.:o

I'm really proud of you for biking anywhere as well as not needing any cycling specific stuff.:)

Evidently safe is a low factor for you. That's a different issue that has very little to do with bike facilities. Best wishes!:D

I'm not sure how things are where you live, Script, but I live in what Bicycling magazine rated as one of the worst places to ride a bike.

But for some reason unexplained by the experts in Bicycling mag, I've been riding my bike without the help of bike facilities to my job in Atlanta 15 miles away with no consequential incidents from motorists (and loving it. ;) ) for over 10 years (and I'm 48, not 28.)

I'm not against bike facilities, but they've offered no significant advantage to me, and I must say that some of them are downright problematic. That's not to say they won't work for other cyclists, but not everyone is cut out to stick to the path.

I just don't buy the argument that bike facilities are necessary, but I accept that many enjoy and prefer them. Just don't be so narrow-minded as to ascribe necessity to bike facilities for everyone, because there are many, many cyclists (who may not post on Bikeforums) that prefer the road, even when a facility exists.


Sorry if you thought I was suggesting that bike facilities are necessary for everyone. Not so. I just think more people will ride if there is an invitation to do so. Since the majority(I use that term with some trepidation) of cyclists are probably part timers, tourist, kids, just about anyone that rides that doesn't subscribe to bike forums, etc., it seems that by making it inviting and hopefully increasing ridership we are increasing visibility and perhaps leverage in making things better for all riders.

they're not cyclists, they're just bicycle users.


:eek:

;)

So...what is a cyclist?????

:rolleyes:

What about errands? Does every destination have a route that includes BLs? BLs go to your house?

What about errands? Maybe I made it appear that I only ride in bike lanes?

No, about half of my riding is in areas with zero bike lanes but low traffic density. When I'm in an area with bike lanes I plan around them, to some degree. Would be nice if they were continuous but that is rare. My experience has been that since we all learn to color within the lines, most people try to drive the same way. That may be my strongest rationalization for bike lanes and I admit that's pretty weak.

I'm working on that BL to my house.:D

actually, machka, the correct statements would be

1000's of [insert machka's indentifying qualifiers] are training, etc on roads with and without bike facilities.

Additionally, if you ask long distance cyclists, they would largely agree with the statement "well implemented bike facilities are a pleasure to ride."

some of the fleches and populaires and big rando rides in and out of Seattle use a big MUP as a path back to the city's core, helping riders bypass 20 miles of congested city streets, and the SIR group would likely UNANIMOUSLY endorse the use of an MUP as part of a sanctioned Rando event to 'add a pleasant interlude' of riding

Careful Bek, you may be accused of radical behaviors....like rational thinking or balanced thought processes.

:rolleyes:

In response to the OP, it all depends on the details of the situation. I am happy riding on some roads and highways and not so much happy on others. I am happy in some bike lanes and not in others. Happy on some MUPs for some purposes on some days. It all depends on the particulars.

In general, I am especially happy when planners act as if there were a significant number of regular bike riders to consider even though our numbers are still so small.

Makes sense to me. But what are the things that make for a 'happy' or 'unhappy' experience?

"At different times in the last two weeks two cyclists have been left hooked while riding in bike lanes in Tallahassee. The first was hospitalized with critical injuries and later died. The second was transported to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Someone show some statistical data showing bike lanes make cycling safer.

Show some that says they make it more dangerous......
I would be interested to know what the traffic skill level of the people who
got hit was. I cannot imagine anyone who rides regularly in FL not to be
expecting a left hook at ANY intersection or divided highway.

"Let me save some time here. You can't. They don't. The de facto purpose of bike lanes is for the convenience of motorists by moving cyclists out of their way."

Exactly !

I'm trying to understand.:)

Is it the Saudi's or the Trilateral commission that is conspiring to keep cyclists off the road by adding BL's? I kind of hope it's the Saudi's because we know they have enough of our oil money to pave the world with bike lanes.

As for riding in FL., I'm in complete agreement that one better be prepared like nowhere else for dangerous driving conditions.

The long string of disconnected posts is due to my engaging in some other, more pressing, pursuits for the last few days, like cycling. Wait...maybe that's the wrong term since I'd probably be identified as a user and not a cyclist.

Long live controversy!

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Wait...maybe that's the wrong term since I'd probably be identified as a user and not a cyclist.


This is a user:
http://www.geraldbrennan.com/Blog/junkie.jpg

Here are some cyclists:
http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/pm6s_amsterdam_bicycle_tie.jpg

I see that on both sides of the bike lane/anti-bike lane fence.

I'll give you that.

That's funny +1 (but you forgot rock stars.)

Thanks, but rock stars are generally OK as long as the children are pre-adolescent. Pop stars (especially with ranches) ... now they're the ones to watch out for ;)

FWIW
1) We got a door zone bike lane un-bike laned


I give you kudos for that and I'd be much less opposed to them if my experience showed that this was likely to happen. I think if you look around though you'll notice (e.g. with the Emma Foa death in London or the recent Portland deaths) that those who have lobbied and lobbied hard for dangerous bike facilities don't make quite the same amount of effort to remove them once installed. L.A. has miles of absolute crap installed due to the efforts of well-meaning people. This includes the L.A. River bike path whose implementation saw one cyclist swallowed by a sink-hole and another with his scalp torn off because of a "safety" chain link fence. There are further accidents waiting to happen on that path which are fairly visible to anyone that rides it.

2) Much better for sidewalks to reinforce a belief among the more incompetent motorists and cyclist that bicycles should not and cannot be on the road and any positive reinforcement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1nYWIfwm7k) should be ignored.[/QUOTE[

Sorry. I don't understand the above.

[QUOTE=The Human Car;6293627]3) They frequently allow expedited travel by avoiding frequent crossings and grade separation from busy roads.

Not the ones I've ridden on. And it seems that we're mixing up separate bike paths and bike lanes again. Almost invariably my travel times have been shorter on the real road network due to the shorter direct distance and the superior sight-lines and quality of road surface. And I ride with a punctilious attention to stop lights and signs.

4) By encouraging and making known major cycling routes makes it safer for all cyclists.

In the future we'll have flying cars and personal nuclear reactors. Right now we have little-traveled bike paths that in some cases *I* don't feel safe on during the daytime. The L.A. river bikepath is a dumping ground for bodies, a nesting place for the unfortunate crazies that can't live elsewhere and roost under the bridges, spreading a debris of broken glass, urine and faeces onto the path -- it's also closed at night for our own safety.

Maybe it would be just easier if we encouraged and made known the lawful place of cyclists on the road...

Maybe it would be just easier if we encouraged and made known the lawful place of cyclists on the road...

Make it known... shout it out to all those that use the roads that cyclists have the rights to use the same road.

Put it on billboards, take out radio and TV ads. Please do this.

Because to the best of my knowledge, few motorists really know this. I know... I've asked several... In fact, you can do this too. Next time you are in a public place, where folks don't know you as a cyclist, strike up a conversation and ask about bicycles on the streets and then just listen. You may be quite surprised at the responses.

In spite of all my years of cycling and several long tours... I myself was recently shocked to find that even my own father did not know that cyclists have actual rights to the road... he always thought everyone just did cyclists a favor... when it was convenient.

A co-worker who rides a motorcycle was also recently quite amazed at my posting (on my office wall) of the laws regarding cyclists on the road... he had no idea that we have nearly the same rights as everyone else.

So yeah... make it known... far and wide... Go ahead.

Oh, the irony.

You've lost me. I'm not presuming to argue for anyone but myself.

I know of several,

Oh you tease!

Don't blame the facilities when the real problem is ineffective advocacy.

OK. Everything is the fault of ineffective advocacy. Now can we have some advocacy which doesn't blindly assume that bike lanes make you safe even when there are specific ones known to do the opposite? How about some advocacy which doesn't cynically argue that it might be possible to coax more fearful folk onto the bike lanes and thus we'll all benefit from TheSafetyFromNumbersEffect even if some of the poor sods are killed in said bike lanes? How about some advocacy which is effective in preserving the currently safe and reasonable position of cyclists as equal road users?

No they don't. If anything they legitimise their presence. We are talking about on-road 'facilities' as well. I have never once been shouted at to "GET OFF THE ROAD" when riding in a bikelane.

If you ride your trainer in the livingroom while watching tv you won't have anyone shouting at you to get off the road either... it's because you ARE.

No-one's forcing you to use them.

Sure they are. They're compulsory in many countries. Go to Dublin and take a look where the last few cyclists have been crushed to death on the quays. If they'd been trained to ignore the laws and MORE IMPORTANTLY THE SOCIAL PRESSURE which said they had to ride there then they'd probably be alive today.

Even where it's not explicitly against the law to leave a bikelane the pressure not to do so once it's striped is huge. Motorists appear to feel enraged that the "special area" created FOR cyclists is not being used. It looks selfish. And given that no one would surely construct a DANGEROUS facility it looks STUPID to leave it. Added to which large numbers of motorists genuinely have got no effing clue as to the rules of the road and believe that the lanes ARE compulsory and your trite statement is revealed for what it is.

My wife has been shouted at by cops who have tried to make her go onto the effing sidewalk to cross a freeway onramp. The reason these ******s believed that it was necessary was because the L.A. River Bike Path came out on the sidewalk and many of those exiting it are too scared to ride in the traffic. Luckily she was aware of at least two serious accidents (suffered by day laborers riding on the sidewalk) at exactly the spot -- a classic right hook without even the benefit of a signal or stop sign -- and she told them where to go.

I've had people try to argue that the parking lane on the exit from Griffith Park is a bikelane and I should get out of their way when I'm going 5mph ABOVE the speed limit downhill on the way to Hillhurst Ave.

Blithely stating "you don't have to use them" indicates to me that either you're not serious and are just arguing for the sake of it or else are completely clueless and happy to stay that way. If it's either then please let me know so I don't waste time talking to you.

It seems you're talking about off-road paths here rather than 'unspecified facilities'. Changing the terms to suit your argument seems to be a common VC cult ploy. It just makes you look ridiculous.

No. Completely wrong. Both bikelanes striped at the side of the road and bikepaths pose serious problems.

In general I'd agree with people like Robert Hurst or "genec" that a network of bikepaths could in theory, as a completely hypothetical proposition, if they were signalized at intersections and had no on/off delays more than a regular road intersection, and were policed, lighted, maintained etc provide a completely acceptable environment.

I also believe that the space to construct the above is not going to be found without a massive amount of money spent on compulsory purchase orders. It would also cost a huge amount to construct and maintain to a safe standard. That seems most unlikely to happen to me. So the reality is that bike paths are half-assed, throw-the-enviro-hippies-a-bone afterthoughts for government and in practice end up in some measure unpleasant, dangerous or inconvenient. Those that are attractive become unpleasant due to the large numbers of clueless cretins that are attracted to them.

An alternate approach is simply to defend our quite adequate rights on the road and concentrate in doing what we can to be safe and also to slam home the idea to motorists that we ARE allowed to use a lane whenever we deem it prudent.

Make it known... shout it out to all those that use the roads that cyclists have the rights to use the same road.

Put it on billboards, take out radio and TV ads. Please do this.

Because to the best of my knowledge, few motorists really know this. I know... I've asked several... In fact, you can do this too. Next time you are in a public place, where folks don't know you as a cyclist, strike up a conversation and ask about bicycles on the streets and then just listen. You may be quite surprised at the responses.

No I wouldn't be surprised at all. I have had many of these conversations. Several of them with those supposedly trained as the guardians of law and order. And while I do blame them for being ignorant I think part of their belief is made easier by the fact that bikelanes appear to them to be places which ALLOW bicycles. Ergo the absence of bikelane means to them that there should be an absence of bikelanes. One of the things which became popular in L.A. was a little sticker for the toptube of your bicycle which quoted the exact CVC provision and number which provided the "exception" rule allowing cyclists to not use the bikelane. Very useful at times.

So yeah... make it known... far and wide... Go ahead.

Can I have some ISTEA or TEA-21 money for a T.V. ad? No.... that's only available for constructing facilities to keep us off the road. ;)

Make it known... shout it out to all those that use the roads that cyclists have the rights to use the same road.
This does the job better than any stripe:
http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/nonstandard/images/Share600sm.gif
Or this:
http://www.trafficsign.us/650/warn/w11-1share.gif

Al

Wow ... you are replying to post #7. That is quite thorough of you.

In fact at this stage of the game with so much demonstrated about the limited effectiveness of either of these measures I think it would be fairer to formulate the discussion in a nearly inverse manner: specifically that the proponents of helmets and bike lanes have a quality of religious zealotry to their arguments which is impervious to reason and evidence. Instead of fairly and rationally evaluating the problems they have worked themselves into a lather of fear and emotion and flail from inconclusive study to inconclusive study in a futile attempt to bolster their pre-determined position.

As Barry pointed out, there is plenty of this to go around.

Practical reasons to oppose the introduction of unspecifiied "facilities" are:

1. Even if they're bad then their removal will likely not happen. I know of no instance where demonstrably dangerous facilities have been removed.

2. They obviously reinforce a belief among the more incompetent motorists and cyclist that bicycles should not and cannot be on the road.

3. They frequently impose serious delays on cyclists by routing us through circuitous byways, usually lack the same speedy entrance/exit to other routes which one gets with an intersection on the real road network

4. Their location on marginal/waste land and low traffic in many urban areas makes them dangerous for female cyclists.

I think that these are good points. Although many of these can be corrected through political action.

I know of specific instances here in Arlington and DC where bike lanes have been removed, altered, or the road re-engineered to correct the situation. It is important to note that along the lines of your argument, there are some inferior bike lane where no change has taken place.

While there are some bike lanes to nowhere, there are some along major and minor arterials which satisfy the most discussed requirements. Often one can travel faster in these lanes than the auto travel lanes.

I also doubt that bike lanes change anyone's cycling road-privilege-beliefs -- for better or worse -- in any significant way. In other words, there is a large mass who could really care less and give it close to zero thought. The people at the extremes are not really swayed much either. Perhaps it marginally reinforces their position but it has no practical meaning. Nor have I seen any non-anecdotal evidence that suggests otherwise. Mind you, these are of course my own personal (anecdotal) observations. So I don't know how much weight one should give them either.

Personally, I share a lot of skepticism for grandiose bicycle planning. I get the sense that a lot of it is fairly haphazard without a firm relationship between facilities and specific/measurable goals and objectives. For instance, I think the objective "increase cycling commuting" is to vague to be worthwhile. The goal, "increase the cycle commuting share to 2%" is much better. Then at least one can sit down and figure out -- actually make lots of guesses -- on how to achieve such a goal; determine the resources needed, model behavior, look at the assumptions made, and then figure out whether the project is worthwhile. More than likely, a few test projects will be needed to make good inferences.

Over the last few years, DC Metro (subway/tube) has played with bicycle parking facilities. My understanding is that after a slow start, they are being used at capacity at many stations. These stations have different qualities such that one might be able to make inferences -- my take is that they have crappy car parking and some are more isolated than others -- on the determinants of usage.

Sure they are. They're compulsory in many countries. Go to Dublin and take a look where the last few cyclists have been crushed to death on the quays. If they'd been trained to ignore the laws and MORE IMPORTANTLY THE SOCIAL PRESSURE which said they had to ride there then they'd probably be alive today.

Even where it's not explicitly against the law to leave a bikelane the pressure not to do so once it's striped is huge. Motorists appear to feel enraged that the "special area" created FOR cyclists is not being used. It looks selfish. And given that no one would surely construct a DANGEROUS facility it looks STUPID to leave it. Added to which large numbers of motorists genuinely have got no effing clue as to the rules of the road and believe that the lanes ARE compulsory and your trite statement is revealed for what it is.

My wife has been shouted at by cops who have tried to make her go onto the effing sidewalk to cross a freeway onramp. The reason these ******s believed that it was necessary was because the L.A. River Bike Path came out on the sidewalk and many of those exiting it are too scared to ride in the traffic. Luckily she was aware of at least two serious accidents (suffered by day laborers riding on the sidewalk) at exactly the spot -- a classic right hook without even the benefit of a signal or stop sign -- and she told them where to go.

I've had people try to argue that the parking lane on the exit from Griffith Park is a bikelane and I should get out of their way when I'm going 5mph ABOVE the speed limit downhill on the way to Hillhurst Ave.

Blithely stating "you don't have to use them" indicates to me that either you're not serious and are just arguing for the sake of it or else are completely clueless and happy to stay that way. If it's either then please let me know so I don't waste time talking to you.

But there are anecdotal examples of lots of behavior. I think all of us have some story along these lines. What you don't know is whether you would have experienced some other type of aggressive behavior without the bike lane.

EDIT: Just to reiterate a point in a previous post, I can't prove you wrong either.

No I wouldn't be surprised at all. I have had many of these conversations. Several of them with those supposedly trained as the guardians of law and order. And while I do blame them for being ignorant I think part of their belief is made easier by the fact that bikelanes appear to them to be places which ALLOW bicycles. Ergo the absence of bikelane means to them that there should be an absence of bikelanes. One of the things which became popular in L.A. was a little sticker for the toptube of your bicycle which quoted the exact CVC provision and number which provided the "exception" rule allowing cyclists to not use the bikelane. Very useful at times.



Can I have some ISTEA or TEA-21 money for a T.V. ad? No.... that's only available for constructing facilities to keep us off the road. ;)

Well until even those supposed guardians of the law and everyone else knows... then bike lanes are about the only message we have that says bikes belong on the road.

This does the job better than any stripe:
http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/nonstandard/images/Share600sm.gif
Or this:
http://www.trafficsign.us/650/warn/w11-1share.gif

Al

unfortunately motorists have misinterpreted those signs as telling cyclists to share the road with motorists... so yes, even that message is muddled.

So...what is a cyclist?????
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rAOHhV1EFe4

:D

unfortunately motorists have misinterpreted those signs as telling cyclists to share the road with motorists... so yes, even that message is muddled.
Actual heard in real life:
Motorist: "The sign says share the road so get out of my way."

unfortunately motorists have misinterpreted those signs as telling cyclists to share the road with motorists... so yes, even that message is muddled.

Far less than with a stripe that tells motorists where cyclists should be when road sharing.

Also, these two signs were suggested by me specifically as they do not show or imply a cyclist to the side sharing position as many other 'Share the Road' type signs unfortunately do.

Al

L.A. has miles of absolute crap installed due to the efforts of well-meaning people. This includes the L.A. River bike path whose implementation saw one cyclist swallowed by a sink-hole and another with his scalp torn off because of a "safety" chain link fence. There are further accidents waiting to happen on that path which are fairly visible to anyone that rides it.

California is the only state in the union where they can install hazardous bike facilities and not get sued, so there is little incentive to do things right over there. Other states have to take more care. In general what I see is if the attitude is "It's not hard to lay some paint down to make cyclists happy, any one can do it." - cyclists get junk. If the attitude is "We want to do this right the first time so lets hire/train experienced engineers for the job." Things go a lot better.


2) Much better for sidewalks to reinforce a belief among the more incompetent motorists and cyclist that bicycles should not and cannot be on the road and any positive reinforcement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1nYWIfwm7k) should be ignored.

Sorry. I don't understand the above.

When we were soliciting comments about the Bike Master plan, a lot of comments came in about motorists harassing cyclists to ride on the sidewalk. It's not bike lanes that cause motorists to think the road is theirs and theirs alone, many, many factors come into play and no amount of non-bike lanes is going to fix that unless you start addressing all the how and why most public streets have turned into motorways.

There was an experiment by a community that put a basketball hoop in the middle of the road and it was an effective measure to slow motorists down because it changed the street from a motorway to a public space. It is all about the general perception of what is the purpose of a road.

http://www.completestreets.org/images/transform.gif
This image starts off with a typical street design that I call the auto mile ideal and a cyclist would looks very much out of place on that road. The image then transforms into a more pedestrian centric design and even without the bike lane a cyclist does not look out of place. I strongly assert that it is the built environment adjacent to the road has the most influence on the roads bike friendliness, the lack of bike lanes has very little to do with this.

The second point in above is that I have seen two types of reactions to bike lanes while only one type of reaction gets noted here. In neighborhoods where there are no bicycling facilities there can be a lot of hostility toward a cyclists and in neighborhoods where there are some good bicycling facilities it can be a flip of a coin positive or negative acceptance of cyclists on all roads. Which I personally feel is in direct relationship with how many people bike. Once we get to the point where almost everyone knows at least one cyclist the situation is positive for cyclists.

Maybe it would be just easier if we encouraged and made known the lawful place of cyclists on the road...

This is similar to what I was saying but make known a preferred route ether through signage or by a bike map. The more people on one route the safer it is. I will also note that we have the same problem on city streets as you do on trails, bike-jacking is a serious issue here.

unfortunately motorists have misinterpreted those signs as telling cyclists to share the road with motorists... so yes, even that message is muddled.

exactly. To many motorists 'Share the Road' means 'Get the F*ck Out of My Way'

...(SNIP) This image starts off with a typical street design that I call the auto mile ideal and a cyclist would looks very much out of place on that road. The image then transforms into a more pedestrian centric design and even without the bike lane a cyclist does not look out of place...(SNIP)

I love those bike lanes in the door zone! :rolleyes:

I love those bike lanes in the door zone! :rolleyes:

I'm afraid that's the very first reaction I had when I looked at the images. To me the "after" is a significant disimprovement and is typical of the bike lanes to which I object. I would definitely prefer the earlier road "sans bike lane" and feel comfortable cruising down it occupying a center-rightish position of the righthand lane. In general such 4 lane roads are reasonably posted in terms of speed and depending upon density of traffic I'd be more/less assertive about how far out I needed to be in order to communicate to motorists that they needed to pass in the other lane.

I'm afraid that's the very first reaction I had when I looked at the images. To me the "after" is a significant disimprovement and is typical of the bike lanes to which I object. I would definitely prefer the earlier road "sans bike lane" and feel comfortable cruising down it occupying a center-rightish position of the righthand lane. In general such 4 lane roads are reasonably posted in terms of speed and depending upon density of traffic I'd be more/less assertive about how far out I needed to be in order to communicate to motorists that they needed to pass in the other lane.

Really there is not much different on the roadway between the before and after, the only changes I see are addition of the bike lane and bulb-outs (with tree on them) between sets of parking spaces.

The 'after' would be preferred just for the aesthetics and potential traffic calming due to shrubbery and landscaping over the 'before' if it were not for the door zone bike lane.

Al

Can I have some ISTEA or TEA-21 money for a T.V. ad? No.... that's only available for constructing facilities to keep us off the road. ;)

That is not correct, Safe Routes to School (part of TEA) specially says that a percentage has to be spent on non-infrastructure. CMAQ funds can also be spent on non-infrastructure. From looking into the federal funding process in a little more detail I discovered something very disturbing. The reason why we have trouble getting funding for the various projects we want is ....


Are you sitting down?


They are too cheep. At least this is how it works in MD, the State administers the Federal Funds through the Capital Improvement Projects budget and if it's not expensive it's not a capital project so no Federal Funds. A work around is to group projects together and apply for funding of that group (We just got $1.4 million for phase 2 of the Baltimore City Bike Master Plan.)

California is the only state in the union where they can install hazardous bike facilities and not get sued, so there is little incentive to do things right over there.

And to extend the discussion out of the USA it's interesting to look at what other countries have implemented when there's been a happy-clappy approach to making such fundamental changes to the long-established practices of road use. I don't know why anyone assumes that this is going to be anything other than an extremely difficult problem to solve. In essence bikelanes require the overlaying of a separate traffic-flow onto the already ricketty, shambolic system that exists.

Other states have to take more care. In general what I see is if the attitude is "It's not hard to lay some paint down to make cyclists happy, any one can do it." - cyclists get junk. If the attitude is "We want to do this right the first time so lets hire/train experienced engineers for the job." Things go a lot better.

Quebec, Canada went to a fair amount of trouble to create a special bikelane system. It involves dedicating one side of each road to a bi-directional, split bikelane. When you see what happens with this at intersections you would wonder why no one sat down to think about it, or even more distressingly why people continue to use it. I have footage of a particular intersection which shows people making the most insane choices because they have to work out the completely novel situation with many more sensory inputs than is easy to deal with. Unfortunately there are still those here who defend these insane facilities. Similarly in Dublin it's completely obvious that the narrow, old streets don't have space for such lanes and that many people are being crushed by heavy trucks due directly to being funneled into the hook position. The UK has some truly horrendous facilities too. The point of this short litany is that these things are hard to get, hard to change and apparently even harder to get rid of. I wonder does the Sunset Blvd door zone bike lane outside the 99c store still have a width of 1.5 feet? I know of one person that was doored there and another that was told by yet another cop to get into that specific bike lane.

When we were soliciting comments about the Bike Master plan, a lot of comments came in about motorists harassing cyclists to ride on the sidewalk. It's not bike lanes that cause motorists to think the road is theirs and theirs alone, many, many factors come into play and no amount of non-bike lanes is going to fix that unless you start addressing all the how and why most public streets have turned into motorways.

I'm not going to dispute that there are many factors but I really can't see why you disbelieve that the provision of a bikelane would indicate to most people that this is where bicycles must be. At the very least it helps reinforce attitudes originating in other factors. I suspect that it has to be a primary factor in many ignorant road users' beliefs though. As a slight aside there was an interesting study which observed passing distances were decreased by the presence of bikelanes. This is referenced in the Warrington(UK) Cycling Campaign's own study showing a similar effect [1]: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf

In those studied cases the bikelanes actually causes vehicles to come closer and take less care than if the driver simply saw another road user occupying a "vehicle volume" ahead of them which required attention and careful negotiation.

There's also another study to which I can't find the reference which showed that on a road without a bikelane the passing distance was on average the same as the distance which the cyclist was from the visible margin of the road. Stay in one foot from the curb and they'll pass you by a foot. Stay out by 3 feet and you'll get 3 feet. All on average of course.

I strongly assert that it is the built environment adjacent to the road has the most influence on the roads bike friendliness, the lack of bike lanes has very little to do with this.

I think the built environment has a lot to do with it and the presence of a bikelane can decrease the bike friendliness of the road. Instead of complicating the established paths of traffic effort would be better spent on lowering speed limits and producing a more calming environment.

Which I personally feel is in direct relationship with how many people bike. Once we get to the point where almost everyone knows at least one cyclist the situation is positive for cyclists.

I wonder. I guess it depends on who the cyclist is ... ;)

1. Owens, Pete 2005 "The Effect of Cycle Lanes on Cyclists' Road Space" (Warrington, UK)

Instead of complicating the established paths of traffic effort would be better spent on lowering speed limits and producing a more calming environment.



I would like to see this too... but it doesn't seem to be happening much around here. Certainly if the speeds are low enough, there is no need for facilities.

But as long as surface roads are built to resemble Freeways... then they are anything but bike friendly.

And to extend the discussion out of the USA it's interesting to look at what other countries have implemented when there's been a happy-clappy approach to making such fundamental changes to the long-established practices of road use. I don't know why anyone assumes that this is going to be anything other than an extremely difficult problem to solve. In essence bikelanes require the overlaying of a separate traffic-flow onto the already ricketty, shambolic system that exists.







I'm not going to dispute that there are many factors but I really can't see why you disbelieve that the provision of a bikelane would indicate to most people that this is where bicycles must be. At the very least it helps reinforce attitudes originating in other factors. I suspect that it has to be a primary factor in many ignorant road users' beliefs though. As a slight aside there was an interesting study which observed passing distances were decreased by the presence of bikelanes. This is referenced in the Warrington(UK) Cycling Campaign's own study showing a similar effect [1]:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf

In those studied cases the bikelanes actually causes vehicles to come closer and take less care than if the driver simply saw another road user occupying a "vehicle volume" ahead of them which required attention and careful negotiation.

There's also another study to which I can't find the reference which showed that on a road without a bikelane the passing distance was on average the same as the distance which the cyclist was from the visible margin of the road. Stay in one foot from the curb and they'll pass you by a foot. Stay out by 3 feet and you'll get 3 feet. All on average of course.

1. Owens, Pete 2005 "The Effect of Cycle Lanes on Cyclists' Road Space" (Warrington, UK)
There was an experiment by a community that put a basketball hoop in the middle of the road and it was an effective measure to slow motorists down because it changed the street from a motorway to a public space. It is all about the general perception of what is the purpose of a road.



I think the built environment has a lot to do with it and the presence of a bikelane can decrease the bike friendliness of the road. Instead of complicating the established paths of traffic effort would be better spent on lowering speed limits and producing a more calming environment.



I wonder. I guess it depends on who the cyclist is ... ;)

Even though I still have trouble with a bike lane decreasing the bike friendliness of the road, the balance of your comments are quite on target.

Those instances where I'm traveling a two lane road with no BL and no shoulder, passing seems to be a function of the agressiveness of the driver, not my lane position. Not to stereotype, but it seems like most minivan drivers don't care if they have to confront an oncoming vehicle...they'll still attempt to pass wherever I place myself.

Lowering speed limits and calming efforts as a way to make cycling safer. Those rank somewhere below eliminating poverty on the reality continuum although I sure hope it starts to happen.

I spend a good deal of time in an area with a pretty active advocacy group. The interesting part is that while they are trying to get bikelanes installed virtually everywhere, the leaders of the group have a real problem with minding those silly laws like stopping at signs and signals. Why do they do that?

:):)

...there was an interesting study which observed passing distances were decreased by the presence of bikelanes. This is referenced in the Warrington(UK) Cycling Campaign's own study showing a similar effect [1]:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf

In those studied cases the bikelanes actually causes vehicles to come closer and take less care than if the driver simply saw another road user occupying a "vehicle volume" ahead of them which required attention and careful negotiation.

There's also another study to which I can't find the reference which showed that on a road without a bikelane the passing distance was on average the same as the distance which the cyclist was from the visible margin of the road. Stay in one foot from the curb and they'll pass you by a foot. Stay out by 3 feet and you'll get 3 feet. All on average of course.

Interesting that these studies show exactly what I experience on the road.

A bike lane invites closer and higher speed passing. it's also a set up for left and right hooks and an invitation for oncoming traffic to pass each other by squeezing between me and the vehicle being passed.

Up to a point, being the center of the lane, the more room I keep on my right, the more I am typically given on my left by passing motorists. In the presence of oncoming traffic, they slow and wait.

Really there is not much different on the roadway between the before and after,
...
the only changes I see are addition of the bike lane

To me that makes a huge difference in the rideability of the street. The addition of that simple line of paint means that if I ride out of it in order not to have a door opened into me then ignorant motorists assume that I'm being a jackass. It's turned into a higher confrontation situation thanks to that bikelane. If I were riding the "after" I'd be bucking to meet the people that put that bikelane in.

Walt is the new Serge

Its almost laffable that VCealots arguments are based mostly
on over-the-top hypothetical situationing as opposed to reality.
Really....how many times has any one person gotten into a bikelane/doorzone
confrontation ? More than once ?? Put me down for zero.

Its almost laffable that VCealots arguments are based mostly
on over-the-top hypothetical situationing as opposed to reality.
Really....how many times has any one person gotten into a bikelane/doorzone
confrontation ? More than once ?? Put me down for zero.

This conversation reminds me of a person who does not want to take a flu shot but doesn't want to get the flu either so they want to know what would be the safest, hanging out in a hospital or hanging out in a crowded bar. And there is all this shock value in how you would think hospitals would be safer but they are not and because of this shock value they come to the erroneous conclusion that hanging out in a crowded bar one would be less likely catch the flu. And for the proof that bars are safer they offer testimony that after taking a flu shot and hanging out in a bar they did not get the flu. The superiority of this logic cannot be denied. :rolleyes:

This conversation reminds me of a person who does not want to take a flu shot

It reminds me more of a conversation I once had with a Jehova's Witness who wanted to save me. Accept Bike Lanes as The Saviour and The Kingdom Of Cycling shall come unto you! Believe. Believe. :grin:

vehicularity parity is an illusionary metric for traffic interactions with bicyclists.

two things, walt: better design of bike lane, more numbers of bicyclists on street in and out of bike lane actually would make road more bike friendly, not less like you postulate.

you are complaining about bad design and hypotheticals that play out less with more riders on roads (widely seen around the country and world as a positive side effect of bike lanes!)

It reminds me more of a conversation I once had with a Jehova's Witness who wanted to save me. Accept Bike Lanes as The Saviour and The Kingdom Of Cycling shall come unto you! Believe. Believe. :grin:


The only time I see "Bike Lanes as a saviour" type statements they are being made by VC zealots in order to create a straw man argument. Those of us who support bike facilities support their implementation only when needed and only when well designed. They are not the end all and be all of cycling- we know that- and we ride on the road just as much as the all VC all the time crowd. We do know the difference.

Juxtapose this with the constant harangue that those of us who support the occasional bike lane/path are subject to that VC is all that is needed to manage any road at any time and take a cyclist to any destination with the same level of safety.

two things, walt: better design of bike lane, more numbers of bicyclists on street in and out of bike lane actually would make road more bike friendly, not less like you postulate.

you are complaining about bad design and hypotheticals that play out less with more riders on roads (widely seen around the country and world as a positive side effect of bike lanes!)

Here is a depressing link that supports Beks post:

http://www.bicycling.com/article/1,6610,s1-3-12-16637-1,00.htm

The "Is it getting Worse ? " has somethig buried in it about areas with more bike and
ped areas have lessening effect on accident statistics. I didnt read all of it though....


What I did read I feel duty bound to inform the reality challenged
that its heavy on actual statistics and not hypo-ganda :eek:

OK. Everything is the fault of ineffective advocacy. Now can we have some advocacy which doesn't blindly assume that bike lanes make you safe even when there are specific ones known to do the opposite?

Who's putting words in anyone's mouth here? I agree bike advocates have an uphill battle in getting bike facilities installed to a safe and useful standard, but it's not impossible. Better is to get involved at the planning stage. Left to their own devices (at least here in Brisbane) road designers haven't had the best track record in providing ideal facilities, but it's changing, and Bike Queensland is starting to be sought out prior to any ground being broken.

Can we have some advocacy that doesn't blindly assume that all bike lanes are dangerous too?

How about some advocacy which is effective in preserving the currently safe and reasonable position of cyclists as equal road users?

Nothing anyone has said in favour of bike facilities precludes doing that. I'd even go so far as to say that should be the primary focus of bike advocacy.

If you ride your trainer in the livingroom while watching tv you won't have anyone shouting at you to get off the road either... it's because you ARE.

Look, if you're going to make silly statements like that, I'm not going to be able to take anything you say seriously.

Sure they are. They're compulsory in many countries. Go to Dublin and take a look where the last few cyclists have been crushed to death on the quays. If they'd been trained to ignore the laws and MORE IMPORTANTLY THE SOCIAL PRESSURE which said they had to ride there then they'd probably be alive today.

Which is where good education comes in. Isn't that the main VC focus?

Added to which large numbers of motorists genuinely have got no effing clue as to the rules of the road and believe that the lanes ARE compulsory and your trite statement is revealed for what it is.

That was in reply to your statement "3. They frequently impose serious delays on cyclists by routing us through circuitous byways, usually lack the same speedy entrance/exit to other routes which one gets with an intersection on the real road network". Doesn't sound like any bikelane I know, but it's certainly true of off-road paths around here, none of which are compulsory to use.


I've had people try to argue that the parking lane on the exit from Griffith Park is a bikelane and I should get out of their way when I'm going 5mph ABOVE the speed limit downhill on the way to Hillhurst Ave.

What makes you think because I don't automatically condemn every bike facility, that I also condone ignorant and dangerous attitudes from car drivers? Tell 'em they're morons and what the actual law is, and move on.

Blithely stating "you don't have to use them" indicates to me that either you're not serious and are just arguing for the sake of it or else are completely clueless and happy to stay that way. If it's either then please let me know so I don't waste time talking to you.

You described off-road paths. I stand by the statment that no-one's forcing you to use them, unless you are that readily manipulated by 'social pressure'.

So the reality is that bike paths are half-assed, throw-the-enviro-hippies-a-bone afterthoughts for government and in practice end up in some measure unpleasant, dangerous or inconvenient. Those that are attractive become unpleasant due to the large numbers of clueless cretins that are attracted to them.

In many cases, I'll give you no argument there. I've seen some pretty ordinary bikelane implementations here, not necessarily dangerous, just kinda pointless. But they're getting better, and there there are some outstanding facilities (even one notable off-road one) that do provide outstanding LOS for cyclists.

All I'm saying that they CAN be made useful, safe and practicable, IF they are designed by people that know what they're doing, or at least ask the people that do (i.e. bike advocacy groups). The fact is, it's a trend to put the things in as being a vote winner (for better or worse). You can complain about them all you like, but unless you get involved in an advisory role, you're just gonna get more of the same boneheaded designs, and I INCLUDE the possiblilty that the best option can be to change nothing. I just don't buy into the Forester rhetoric that it's impossible to make them safe.

An alternate approach is simply to defend our quite adequate rights on the road and concentrate in doing what we can to be safe and also to slam home the idea to motorists that we ARE allowed to use a lane whenever we deem it prudent.

Why does it have to be either/or with you? Why can't it be a concurrent approach? I'm just as big a proponent of establishing cyclists rights to use any road as the most vehement VC cultist, including leaving the bikelane when necessary, and have never said anything to the contrary.