Are you happier without bike facilities?

[rando]

I do not do anything to try to "show my rights to the road." I'm just trying to make it home at the end of the day like anyone else.

me too. and to that end I will continue to stay on the sidewalk while cycling along the local 45 mph multi-lane arterial.

[gosmsgo]

me too. and to that end I will continue to stay on the sidewalk while cycling along the local 45 mph multi-lane arterial.

You know when I first started riding I did exactly that. I rode along the sidewalk along a 45 MPH 4 lane street. Twice in two days I heard screeching tires and had a car barely get stopped before hitting me as they were turning right. I went to the internet thinking that there must be a better way. It takes about 10 minutes of internet searching to find hard stats pointing out the dangers of sidewalk riding. Ever since then I have ridden tens of thousands of miles and have not had any close calls that I know of. When people are buzzing me I realize I need to move further to the left.

It works. I urge anyone to take a road 1 course from a competent instructor before dismissing it. If you have not then you really dont have much ground to stand on. I've done both ways and the non vc way scares me now. I was nervous in DC in the bike lane and I have not felt that way in a long time.

My two cents.

[noisebeam]

You know when I first started riding I did exactly that. I rode along the sidewalk along a 45 MPH 4 lane street. Twice in two days I heard screeching tires and had a car barely get stopped before hitting me as they were turning right.

Rando knows this from first hand experience. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5541795&postcount=5) That is why he now rides on the correct side of the roadway and stops and checks for right hooks before crossing all intersections.

Al

[The Human Car]

I've also thought I'd be nice if there was also a bell on every motor vehicle to be used for non-emergency communication, especially with other drivers who are not in an enclosed vehicle. Maybe a thank you type sound.

My thought's are 3 bell type sounds that can be played ascending, descending or the Close Encounters theme ;). Personally I think the stress should be stronger then "nice" but still without making it to the necessity level there will probably not be much movement on this.

[gosmsgo]

Rando knows this from first hand experience. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5541795&postcount=5) That is why he now rides on the correct side of the roadway and stops and checks for right hooks before crossing all intersections.

Al

Well now thats interesting.

He's been hit by a car, knows that riding on the sidewalk is more dangerous and yet his fear of angering motorists forces him to risk his life daily.

Hmmm.

Personally, I would rather pixx a few people off than get hurt and I know that overtaking crashes are very, very rare and can typically be avoided by taking the lane when its too narrow to share with another vehicle. Interestingly that is the law in nearly every state. In Missouri the law says that cyclists must ride as far to the right as safe except when.........the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle.

[noisebeam]

Well now thats interesting.

He's been hit by a car, knows that riding on the sidewalk is more dangerous and yet his fear of angering motorists forces him to risk his life daily.

I don't think so really. I don't generally support sidewalk riding, but if done with appropriate care (which I think Rando does) I think it can be done reasonably safely. For me that appropriate care needed introduces too much inconvenience to make sidewalk riding practical for me.

Al

[gosmsgo]

I don't think so really. I don't generally support sidewalk riding, but if done with appropriate care (which I think Rando does) I think it can be done reasonably safely. For me that appropriate care needed introduces too much inconvenience to make sidewalk riding practical for me.

Al

Thats the thing. Hardly anyone is going to stop at EVERY driveway or intersection and walk your bike across. Even though I am car free I still have places to go and if I'm going at walking speed well then I might as well walk.

If that is just a part of his route and he walks across every driveway and intersection than more power to him. Anything that keeps people out of their cars AND safe is a good thing in my book.

[genec]

The really large risk occurs at intersections.

THis is what you are talking about....

I'm riding my bike at 15 mph toward the right and a car passes me or almost passes me and turns right. That is rare and would involve the driver seeing me and still deciding to turn right. Yes, that happens but I ride everyday and that happens about once per year when not riding in a bike lane. Of course I may take a more left position than many of you.




So the bottom line is that motorists do see you, and still do decide to make that turn... So it only happens perhaps once a year, to you... a self proclaimed experienced rider...

Well it only has to happen ONCE... period and that incident could be the one time that you are crushed...

So how is your cycling any more special than that of someone who may have been killed by that ONE situation?

[RobertHurst]

... I went to the internet thinking that there must be a better way. It takes about 10 minutes of internet searching to find hard stats pointing out the dangers of sidewalk riding. .

Hmmm. There are no 'hard stats' concerning any aspect of cycling that I'm aware of. Except maybe the annual number of deaths, and even that is suspect.

Robert

[rando]

Well now thats interesting.

He's been hit by a car, knows that riding on the sidewalk is more dangerous and yet his fear of angering motorists forces him to risk his life daily.

Hmmm..

more like I ran INTO the car as it pulled up over the crosswalk to execute a right turn. I would agree that riding on the sidewalk against traffic is pretty dangerous. That's when I had an accident (AND got cited, the cop was right there). I believe the risks are minimized when riding on the sidewalk with traffic, which is legal here. I do a lot of glancing back to see what's going on behind/to the left of me. I'm not scared of angering motorists... I just don't trust them with my life.

[WaltPoutine]

I've done both ways and the non vc way scares me now. I was nervous in DC in the bike lane and I have not felt that way in a long time.

Agreed completely. Any time I have succumbed to , e.g. riding companions' wishes, and ridden in a non-vehicular manner I've deeply regretted it. It always bugs me that some people on this forum argue that VC is for "daredevil" or "young foolhardy" cyclists when they're advocating doing something with an actual higher risk!

[genec]

Agreed completely. Any time I have succumbed to , e.g. riding companions' wishes, and ridden in a non-vehicular manner I've deeply regretted it. It always bugs me that some people on this forum argue that VC is for "daredevil" or "young foolhardy" cyclists when they're advocating doing something with an actual higher risk!

So riding on a road in the exact same position as you would if there were not a bike lane there is less dangerous than riding on the exact same road in the exact same position but now with a stripe?

[gosmsgo]

So the bottom line is that motorists do see you, and still do decide to make that turn... So it only happens perhaps once a year, to you... a self proclaimed experienced rider...

Well it only has to happen ONCE... period and that incident could be the one time that you are crushed...

So how is your cycling any more special than that of someone who may have been killed by that ONE situation?

I'm not arguing with you no matter how hard you might try.

[gosmsgo]

So riding on a road in the exact same position as you would if there were not a bike lane there is less dangerous than riding on the exact same road in the exact same position but now with a stripe?

Often times you would ride where the bike lane would be.

In a downtown setting you would not, in a traffic circle you would not (actually saw on in dc last week) and bike lanes pretty much mandate that you filter and that you stay to the right side of a possibly right turning car at an intersection which everyone should agree is a terrible spot to be.

Some people know of the danger and still choose to do it because they are in a hurry or whatever. Bike lanes mandate this type of behavior. The two dead cyclists in Portland were mandated to be in that position by law because of the bike lane. Anyone who has ever piloted a large truck knows you cant see crap behind you and right beside you.

I'm not saying I know all the answers.....I just hope that we can eventually come up with a system that gives new riders courage without increasing the danger to them. I think sharrows might be the key.

I actually like bike lanes that are on arteries without many intersections and where the bike lane ends before the intersection. That way most riders will continue to filter up to to the front where they are vulnerable to right turning cars (who never saw them....thats the key) but its not mandated by law.

[gosmsgo]

Agreed completely. Any time I have succumbed to , e.g. riding companions' wishes, and ridden in a non-vehicular manner I've deeply regretted it. It always bugs me that some people on this forum argue that VC is for "daredevil" or "young foolhardy" cyclists when they're advocating doing something with an actual higher risk!

Exactly, I've heard people say, "you just have something to prove."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Its also more stressful to filter and then have to worry about motorists turning right. Taking the lane at intersections is really a lot less stressful once you get the hang of it.

[genec]

I'm not arguing with you no matter how hard you might try.

I don't want to argue... my point is simple... often bike lanes are right where cyclists would ride... whether the stripe is there or not.

I have seen cyclists pull that same stupid move (moving up on the right of a large construction vehicle) when there wasn't a bike lane anywhere to be found. Who/what then do you "blame."

Blaming bike lanes for these situations is like blaming a stop light because someone ran it.

Now I will grant you that some bike lanes are very poorly designed and laid out... and I feel that it is up to us cyclists to push for proper engineering to get these things corrected. But by the same token, I have seen terrible street layouts too...

[noisebeam]

I don't want a bike lane stripes at intersection approaches to communicate to other drivers where the government provided paint indicates I should be. Other drivers then think and expect I should be staying in the bike lane - that doesn't help make me a predictable cyclist.
Al

[Bekologist]

Often times you would ride where the bike lane would be.........

I actually like bike lanes that are on arteries without many intersections and where the bike lane ends before the intersection......


interesting caveat there, gosmsgo. There's a move towards greater use of bike lanes along arterial routes, with more sharrow and bike avenue concepts in denser urban and downtown districts being utilized in forward thinking US cities working to better accomodate bicyclists.

Bike lanes on arterials and key routes, sharrows on more roads and bike avenue designs, better intersection designs, are being implemented AROUND THE COUNTRY, gosmsgo. and they work rather well. you like some of them bike lanes yourself!!!

[genec]

I don't want a bike lane stripes at intersection approaches to communicate to other drivers where the government provided paint indicates I should be. Other drivers then think and expect I should be staying in the bike lane - that doesn't help make me a predictable cyclist.
Al

That is generally NOT the case locally... it sounds as if the local department in your area is not following the AASHTO guidelines...

Perhaps a petition to have these changed may be in order.

[gosmsgo]

I don't want to argue... my point is simple... often bike lanes are right where cyclists would ride... whether the stripe is there or not.

I have seen cyclists pull that same stupid move (moving up on the right of a large construction vehicle) when there wasn't a bike lane anywhere to be found. Who/what then do you "blame."

Blaming bike lanes for these situations is like blaming a stop light because someone ran it.

Now I will grant you that some bike lanes are very poorly designed and laid out... and I feel that it is up to us cyclists to push for proper engineering to get these things corrected. But by the same token, I have seen terrible street layouts too...

You still do not understand what i wrote. I'm not a great writer so I apologize for that.

If a person filters to the front of the line when there is not a bike lane than that is their problem.

If someone filters in a bike lane than they were mandated by the government to do that.

See the difference?

I say to end the bike lane before the intersection. That way some people will still filter but its not required.

[gosmsgo]

interesting caveat there, gosmsgo. There's a move towards greater use of bike lanes along arterial routes, with more sharrow and bike avenue concepts in denser urban and downtown districts being utilized in forward thinking US cities working to better accomodate bicyclists.

Bike lanes on arterials and key routes, sharrows on more roads and bike avenue designs, better intersection designs, are being implemented AROUND THE COUNTRY, gosmsgo. and they work rather well. you like some of them bike lanes yourself!!!

I know I do.

People on here think if you are VC than you despise all bike lanes etc.

I find it hard to not argue with these people. In their minds you are either for bike lanes or against them and any bike lane is a good one.

[noisebeam]

That is generally NOT the case locally... it sounds as if the local department in your area is not following the AASHTO guidelines...

Perhaps a petition to have these changed may be in order.

AASHTO guideline is to change stripe to a dashed one 50-200' before heavily used intersections.
Here the bike lane stripe does change to dashed 20-30ft before many intersections. But some it is full all the way to the stop sign.

This is typical change to dashing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t04RKmSbD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvA6jQyPP98

Here the BL stripe ends only tens of feet before arterial intersection in on this road:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kQJyZmcBVM
Really it should end 100' before those business/gas station intersection before the arterial.

Here the bike lane stripe doesn't end at all before the several heavily used intersections in succession.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hir5oY-h10Y

To be effective bike lane stripes need to end 100-200' before all intersections.

Al

[gosmsgo]

AASHTO guideline is to change stripe to a dashed one 50-200' before heavily used intersections.
Here the bike lane stripe does change to dashed 20-30ft before many intersections. But some it is full all the way to the stop sign.

This is typical change to dashing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t04RKmSbD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvA6jQyPP98

Here the BL stripe ends only tens of feet before arterial intersection in on this road:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kQJyZmcBVM
Really it should end 100' before those business/gas station intersection before the arterial.

Here the bike lane stripe doesn't end at all before the several heavily used intersections in succession.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hir5oY-h10Y

To be effective bike lane stripes need to end 100-200' before all intersections.

Al


My town, Columbia Missouri, is saying "I dont care" to AASHTO's guidelines.

We are building SIDEPATHS!!!!!

Yes, it is 1960 here.

: (

[Script]

I know I do.

People on here think if you are VC than you despise all bike lanes etc.

I find it hard to not argue with these people. In their minds you are either for bike lanes or against them and any bike lane is a good one.

Not to argue, but I find the opposite to be true of these people.... that any bike lane is a bad one.

:D

Seems the VC position is that all BLs are bad.

:rolleyes:

[genec]

My town, Columbia Missouri, is saying "I dont care" to AASHTO's guidelines.

We are building SIDEPATHS!!!!!

Yes, it is 1960 here.

: (

LOL... having spent a bit over a week in Missouri several years ago... I tend to agree with your assessment of the local date. ;)

[John Forester]

Not to argue, but I find the opposite to be true of these people.... that any bike lane is a bad one.

:D

Seems the VC position is that all BLs are bad.

:rolleyes:

One needs to separate the physical from the advocacy. I think that some of us are agreed that a bike lane that does not contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles might be a good thing. However, the possible locations for such are very few, say long bridges or tunnels where there is no turning or crossing traffic, either by cyclists or by motorists. Under such circumstances, one could categorize such bike lanes as mere conveniences. However, the advocacy for bike lanes covers bike lanes in many more places, bike lanes that contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and because that advocacy cannot demonstrate that movements contradicting the rules of the road are better than the movements that agree with the rules of the road, that advocacy advances superstitions instead of facts and reason, as we have read throughout these discussions. Advocacy, in a field that involves dangerous vehicular conflicts, must be based on facts and reason rather than on superstition, particularly when the superstition is in direct contradiction with the known facts and known engineering principles.

That is the basis for a vehicular cyclist reaching the conclusion that all bike lanes are bad; it is politically impossible to get one good bike lane, where needed, without getting all the many bad ones, because the advocacy that gets any bike lane is not more than superstition, with some modicum of motorist conveniency thrown in.

[Bekologist]

ah, but that basis is flawed.

[gosmsgo]

Not to argue, but I find the opposite to be true of these people.... that any bike lane is a bad one.

:D

Seems the VC position is that all BLs are bad.

:rolleyes:

What people are "these people."

What you probably do not know is that VC is really the law in most places. In Missouri the state bicycle laws read like a road 1 course.

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of
traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care
when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn,
when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle or when on a
one-way street.

Well hell, they just explained "taking the lane."

[genec]

What people are "these people."

What you probably do not know is that VC is really the law in most places. In Missouri the state bicycle laws read like a road 1 course.

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle or when on a
one-way street.

Well hell, they just explained "taking the lane."

The reality is that both VC and bike lane design and use depend on obedience of the law.... which is why both can fail when pushed to extremes as the majority road users don't know the applicable laws. (Neither do many cyclists, frankly... )

The strictly VC crowd touts that the "the rules of the road" are the basis for the VC method... but that essentially means that bigger and faster rule the road, and the slow guy (cyclist) gets shunted to the side... right where the bike lanes go... The bike lane crowd says that BL work just fine as long as the laws are obeyed... but the laws are not widely known, and motorists flout enough laws each year to kill 45,000 of their fellows.

Sort of puts it all in a strange spin, eh?

[Script]

What people are "these people."

Evidently you?

[Script]

One needs to separate the physical from the advocacy. I think that some of us are agreed that a bike lane that does not contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles might be a good thing. However, the possible locations for such are very few, say long bridges or tunnels where there is no turning or crossing traffic, either by cyclists or by motorists. Under such circumstances, one could categorize such bike lanes as mere conveniences. However, the advocacy for bike lanes covers bike lanes in many more places, bike lanes that contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and because that advocacy cannot demonstrate that movements contradicting the rules of the road are better than the movements that agree with the rules of the road, that advocacy advances superstitions instead of facts and reason, as we have read throughout these discussions. Advocacy, in a field that involves dangerous vehicular conflicts, must be based on facts and reason rather than on superstition, particularly when the superstition is in direct contradiction with the known facts and known engineering principles.

That is the basis for a vehicular cyclist reaching the conclusion that all bike lanes are bad; it is politically impossible to get one good bike lane, where needed, without getting all the many bad ones, because the advocacy that gets any bike lane is not more than superstition, with some modicum of motorist conveniency thrown in.

Trying to achieve a goal by using an extreme position that alienates even some potential supporters is probably not a good idea.

Couldn't there be another way to accomplish safe cycling for all that is inclusive instead of extreme?

Maybe not, just a hope. Yeah...hope isn't a very good strategy either.

:):):)

[gosmsgo]

The reality is that both VC and bike lane design and use depend on obedience of the law.... which is why both can fail when pushed to extremes as the majority road users don't know the applicable laws. (Neither do many cyclists, frankly... )

The strictly VC crowd touts that the "the rules of the road" are the basis for the VC method... but that essentially means that bigger and faster rule the road, and the slow guy (cyclist) gets shunted to the side... right where the bike lanes go... The bike lane crowd says that BL work just fine as long as the laws are obeyed... but the laws are not widely known, and motorists flout enough laws each year to kill 45,000 of their fellows.

Sort of puts it all in a strange spin, eh?


I am starting to question if you are reading what I am writing or if you just hit "reply."

The rules of the road do not in any way say that the bigger and faster win. They say that the slower traffic stays to the right. Ever been on an interstate? That is the normal traffic flow in the united states.

Here is a typical road from right to left.

Parked cars - they are the slowest

bicycles - they are usually the next slowest vehicle.

autos


Tell me what is so wacky about the way that I ride.

I ride in the right tire track 95% of the time.

I "take the lane" when approaching an intersection, when the lane is too narrow to share with a motor vehicle, when I am going the speed limit or when I am about to turn left.

I never filter....even if the line of cars is 999999 miles long.

I know, crazy isnt it.

[gosmsgo]

Do you guys understand why someone would think that having a possible straight thru cyclists on the right side of a possible right turning car at an intersection is dangerous?

Lets start with that.

[John Forester]

The reality is that both VC and bike lane design and use depend on obedience of the law.... which is why both can fail when pushed to extremes as the majority road users don't know the applicable laws. (Neither do many cyclists, frankly... )

The strictly VC crowd touts that the "the rules of the road" are the basis for the VC method... but that essentially means that bigger and faster rule the road, and the slow guy (cyclist) gets shunted to the side... right where the bike lanes go... The bike lane crowd says that BL work just fine as long as the laws are obeyed... but the laws are not widely known, and motorists flout enough laws each year to kill 45,000 of their fellows.

Sort of puts it all in a strange spin, eh?

You are wrong, genec. Either you don't understand, or you are deliberately pretending that you don't. The VC principles are not based on the traffic laws, but on the physical and human-factors realities that are expressed in the principles of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and in the traffic laws which are legislators' best effort at expressing the physical principles. You, genec, are expressing the view that, in the physical sphere, if a legislature passed a law that G = 1000 cm/sec/sec the universe would comply. Just as, apparently a true account, some rural legislature in the American heartland passed a statute that the ratio between the diameter and the circumference of a circle was 3.0.

We in the VC field know only too well what happens when legislatures enact bicycle traffic statutes that contradict the real physical principles of traffic operation: trouble, that's what.

[WaltPoutine]

Trying to achieve a goal by using an extreme position that alienates even some potential supporters is probably not a good idea.

Agreed completely. Extremist advocacy of bikelanes that funnels most bicycle advocacy energy and funding into the construction of facilities instead of education (of bicyclists, motorists and law enforcement) is an alienating position.

Couldn't there be another way to accomplish safe cycling for all that is inclusive instead of extreme?

Hear hear. Time for the bikelane zealots and extermists to pipe down and unite with the rest of us in pushing for a pragmatic, reality-based program of education and start undoing some of the damage caused by 30 years of construction of dangerous facilities ;)

[-=£em in Pa=-]

..........and we should start floating witches again instead of
the lengthy and costly method of trying them using actual evidence.

[gosmsgo]

Agreed completely. Extremist advocacy of bikelanes that funnels most bicycle advocacy energy and funding into the construction of facilities instead of education (of bicyclists, motorists and law enforcement) is an alienating position.



Hear hear. Time for the bikelane zealots and extermists to pipe down and unite with the rest of us in pushing for a pragmatic, reality-based program of education and start undoing some of the damage caused by 30 years of construction of dangerous facilities ;)

The LAB with their "bicycle friendly communities" awards are not helping. Cities are rewarded partly based upon sheer miles of bike lanes regardless of if they are in door zones or any other awful place.

Once cities realize they can get publicity by simply mindlessly painting lines on their road they get hooked on it like a drug. Even the blood on the street is not a wake up call anymore.

[gosmsgo]

Hey John,

If thats really you and I assume it is....

I met a chap named Peter Boor while in D.C. He was telling me about the original effecting cycling course that was 33 hours long. I would love to take something like that. I am an LCI and while I really like the road 1 curriculum and have had ridiculous results with it I feel like their are many "LCI's" out there who really do not know that much. I feel like practically anyone could show up at an LCI seminar and "pass." At least thats the way I felt at mine. I think anytime 15 people are at something and everyone passes it probably does not mean that much.

Your thoughts?

Do you know Peter?

[Allister]

One needs to separate the physical from the advocacy. I think that some of us are agreed that a bike lane that does not contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles might be a good thing. However, the possible locations for such are very few, ...

And that's where I believe you are mistaken. I think it is possible to provide bikelanes in many more places, and to do it in a manner that doesn't contradict the rules. Problems with turning traffic can readily be designed out, (including not adding a bikelane, or even removing one, if that is the most appropriate option).

That is the basis for a vehicular cyclist reaching the conclusion that all bike lanes are bad; it is politically impossible to get one good bike lane, where needed, without getting all the many bad ones, because the advocacy that gets any bike lane is not more than superstition, with some modicum of motorist conveniency thrown in.

Bad bikelanes exist, no doubt, but i think it's unfair to blame bikelane advocates for that. The experience in this city shows that bad bikelanes happen despite the efforts of advocates, not because of them.

Instead of all this pointless bickering about whether or not bikelanes are good, to which the answer is, and always has been, 'it depends...', how about settling down and figuring out together the best design for bikelanes that a)comply with the rules of the road b)provide a level of safety equal to or greater than riding in the 'normal' lanes and c)results in minimum conflict between vehicle classes ie. bikes and cars. If you think it's impossible, you are more than welcome to remove yourself from the process.

I've been carefully observing various intersections around here, and taking alternate routes to work to see some other configurations. They are all on major commuting routes into the city. There is not a single one, except the ones that are already adequate, where a simple, carefully considered treatment of paint (be it bikelane or not) could easily improve the safety and visibility of cyclists using the route, and at the same time encourage them away from getting left of left turning vehicles (right for US). In some cases, that would mean removing a section of bikelane.

For any desired outcome in designing an intersection or road, there are always going to be various options, each with their pros and cons. Saying that a bikelane treatment should never be used is just as poe-eyed as saying they should always be used, and both attitudes should be dicouraged.

[ChipSeal]

To be effective bike lane stripes need to end 100-200' before all intersections.

Al

Al, by the term "intersection", are you meaning driveway entrances as well?

Also, the AASHTO guidelines are finally being revised, due for publication in 2009.

[ChipSeal]

Bad bike lanes exist, no doubt, but I think it's unfair to blame bike lane advocates for that. The experience in this city shows that bad bike lanes happen despite the efforts of the advocates, not because of them.


Well, perhaps bike lane advocates ought to stop advocating for more bike lanes in your city, until they get the existing bike lanes fixed! Otherwise it will be even more bad bike lanes.

Why can't bike lane advocates enlist those who oppose bike lanes (Like me.) to help them remove existing bad bike lanes? It seems that it would be a natural alignment of interests.

It seems to me that bike lane advocates do not seek to fix bad bike lanes, but rather clamor "more please!" Is it any wonder then that I am suspicious that bike lane advocate's primary interest lies somewhere other than with cyclists safety?

[genec]

Well, perhaps bike lane advocates ought to stop advocating for more bike lanes in your city, until they get the existing bike lanes fixed! Otherwise it will be even more bad bike lanes.

Why can't bike lane advocates enlist those who oppose bike lanes (Like me.) to help them remove existing bad bike lanes? It seems that it would be a natural alignment of interests.

It seems to me that bike lane advocates do not seek to fix bad bike lanes, but rather clamor "more please!" Is it any wonder then that I am suspicious that bike lane advocate's primary interest lies somewhere other than with cyclists safety?

I like your idea.

On the other hand... while bike lane advocates tend to clamor for more bike lanes... it is usually politicians that seem to grandstand about putting in "something." When cycle facilities are constructed with the same care that goes into designing the best roads, then cyclists can rejoice... but right now that is not the case. Of course it might help if were more cyclists... designing poor facilities or insisting on only vehicular cycling is NOT going to promote cycling one bit.

Build bad roads and I bet motorists drive less. ;)

[gosmsgo]

I like your idea.

On the other hand... while bike lane advocates tend to clamor for more bike lanes... it is usually politicians that seem to grandstand about putting in "something." When cycle facilities are constructed with the same care that goes into designing the best roads, then cyclists can rejoice... but right now that is not the case. Of course it might help if were more cyclists... designing poor facilities or insisting on only vehicular cycling is NOT going to promote cycling one bit.

Build bad roads and I bet motorists drive less. ;)

Come to my town. Give me a call. I will have you meet the dozens of people who VC changed their life last year.

Or you could just keep talking and not listening. : )

[Bekologist]

some US cities are hiring design teams with bicyclists to help with their master plans, gene. To design well thought out and implemented bike infrastructure.

I'm thinking Toole ? Design is one team?

[MarkS]

Do you guys understand why someone would think that having a possible straight thru cyclists on the right side of a possible right turning car at an intersection is dangerous?

Of course we do. But that just means that you have some badly implemented lanes. You should be advocating for lanes to be correctly implemented. Here (same county as genec) most of the lane lines turn to dotted lines long before the intersection.

[Allister]

Well, perhaps bike lane advocates ought to stop advocating for more bike lanes in your city, until they get the existing bike lanes fixed! Otherwise it will be even more bad bike lanes.


You don't think they're doing both? Do you think cyclists are so stupid as to accept sub-standard facilities without a fight, or at least a lengthy complaint? You're pointing your finger at the wrong people.

And thanks for ignoring the meat of the post, particularly 'In some cases, that would mean removing a section of bikelane.', but you will go on your little anti-bikelane-advocate tirade nonetheless. :rolleyes:

[John Forester]

Hey John,

If thats really you and I assume it is....

I met a chap named Peter Boor while in D.C. He was telling me about the original effecting cycling course that was 33 hours long. I would love to take something like that. I am an LCI and while I really like the road 1 curriculum and have had ridiculous results with it I feel like their are many "LCI's" out there who really do not know that much. I feel like practically anyone could show up at an LCI seminar and "pass." At least thats the way I felt at mine. I think anytime 15 people are at something and everyone passes it probably does not mean that much.

Your thoughts?

Do you know Peter?

Yes, I remember Peter; I suppose that I last saw him some ten years ago. He sold Dorris and me our Santana tandem.

The original Effective Cycling course took 10 Saturday mornings, teaching several cycling skills, including traffic cycling, and providing enjoyment as well. In those days there were people who wanted to learn about cycling as a useful and enjoyable skill, and were prepared to spend the time to learn it. Nowadays it doesn't appear that there are many such people. They want something provided over one weekend, instead. If you look at my website, johnforester.com, and follow the leads to the Bicycle Transportation Engineering Organization, and then to the articles on education, you will find the course described in the Effective Cycling Instructor's Manual. And articles describing the courses and the training of instructors.

The true measure of the difficulty of a course is not the passing/flunking proportions. If a course is well-constructed and well-taught, then nearly all the students should pass. The criteria for passing the course is the real measure of the course. My final examination consisted of a multiple-choice test, an essay test, and a bicycle driving test that included easy traffic, dense traffic, diagonal railroad tracks (when available), left and right turns with multiple lanes and multiple turn lanes, right-turn-only lanes, wide lane to narrow lane, and some other traffic oddments as available. For each test, the minimum passing score was 70%. I don't remember the distribution of scores for the written tests, but on the bicycle driving test almost everybody who took the whole course earned 90% or above, average about 95%. Using the same scoring system, the population average scores of the morning commuter cyclists was about a flunking 55%.

[John Forester]

Of course we do. But that just means that you have some badly implemented lanes. You should be advocating for lanes to be correctly implemented. Here (same county as genec) most of the lane lines turn to dotted lines long before the intersection.

Dotted lines don't do the required job. The problem with bike lanes is that they contradict the rules of the road. The problem with bike-lane advocacy is that it contradicts the principle of the rules of the road. There is no political way to get only good bike lanes as long as bike-lane advocacy is based on superstition, and if it were not based on superstition there would be very few bike lanes. When you advocate unreason, you necessarily produce unreasonable results. There is no way to correct that problem.

[noisebeam]

Al, by the term "intersection", are you meaning driveway entrances as well?


Of course.

[noisebeam]

Dotted lines don't do the required job.
Very much agreed. When the line changes from solid to dotted it marks a bike lane. Cyclist are always allowed to leave the space marked as a bike lane for a variety of 'ride to the right' exceptions which vary by US state - changing the line from solid to dotted does not change that.

The only thing the solid to dotted changes in Arizona is that motor vehicles are permitted to cross the line.

Al