Are you happier without bike facilities?

[WaltPoutine]

Did you look at my use of a bike lane in the video? I move in and out of the lane

I just took a look at it now. I don't understand what you think it demonstrates. To me it shows that the bike lane does not even do what you say it should: provide a place where cyclists can procede in a straight line and motor vehicles will be absent. In at least one place it looks like a classic doorzone bikelane of insufficient width to prevent a dooring, even if you ride on the far left.

It's also very difficult to get a sense of exactly how you are positioned and what the relative distances are. That's why Dan Gutierrez's and Brian de Sousa's videos which add a view shot from behind are so good.

So the striping means leave that space for bikes. Don't drive your car there. And quite demonstrably by your own video that doesn't work.

In NYC it means when there's gridlock cyclists should have an advantage. Meaning that you'll definitely be overtaking in the doorzone because unless you have 8-inch wide chopped messenger-style bars you'd be clipping mirrors and the sides of cars if you rode "nearly on the stripe".

You see the problem is without the striping every possible inch of road space is filled with cars creeping their way along. It has more to do with keeping autos out of the bike lane than forcing bikes into it.

Your video shows no gridlock, relatively clearflowing conditions and thus no need for a bikelane. You may be able to make the appropriate judgment calls about how soon to pull out of the lane to get around trucks or how far out to stay from doors etc (given how much experience you have) but for the people that these lanes are explicitly designed to encourage onto the road those behaviors are probably a mystery. So again, it might be possible to make your bikelanes work IFF both motorists and cyclists are educated about how to use them. And if it is possible to do that then there's no need to have the bikelane.

Given that 93% of NYC cyclists report preferring streets with bike lanes

What sort of cyclists are they? Are they people that cycle several times a day nearly every day? Or are they aspirational cyclists who in practice hardly ever venture out? There is a similar study from some transportation unit in British Columbia which also sounds impressive until you examine the breakdown: most of the people surveyed (and it was a reasonably large number) don't actually cycle more than once a month. I don't consider their opinions on cycling very meaningful. Yours on the the other hand disturbs me as you have obviously a good deal of experience.

Perhaps in your area or other areas it's different. NYC is still adapting to bike lanes I'm just telling you what I've experienced, which is far removed from the "propaganda/fear mongering" that you describe.

That's fine. I accept that you've experienced that. I, and those near and dear to me, on the other hand have experienced mandatory bike lanes, and explicit reference by motorists (including cops) to their presence as a reason why we should be in a position which is dangerous and/or inconvenient to us.



BTW, I was riding 30 years ago (pre-bike lanes) and encountered drivers just as you described that honked at me stopped in the lane positioned where I should be

Yeah, and now you've just reinforced their belief. Thanks.

I suppose when your anti-bike lane argument is so weak you feel the need to bolster it with petty inaccuracies.

I think the pettiest thing so far in this discussion is that comment.

[WaltPoutine]

Now if the same space previously given to parked cars was fully devoted to cycling, one would have 8 foot bike lanes. But we "never" see that now do we?

Interesting point and it reminds me of another objection to bikelanes and a possible disincentive to cycling. Frequently as I cycle along with my wife and a few friends they've observed that if we were in a car we'd be able to chat more easily instead of being strung out in a long line bawling things back and forth to each other.

Depending upon the locale it's is of course possible to ride two up legally. Most bikelanes on the other hand explicitly are designed for a single file (if that) of cyclists. In other words they enforce an anti-social and atomized travel experience.

Similar problems can be seen in the design of many sidewalks.

Frankly I'd rather see a narrow "shared lane" with sharrows indicating a slow lane,.

This is something I wouldn't necessarily object strongly too, except that I'd want sharrows on just about every street surface.

[ChipSeal]

buzzman, there is a lot of overlap and areas of agreement between the bike lane advocates and the bike lane skeptics. (BLA and BLS- to coin a new A&S acronym! :D) Naturally these areas are obscured in all the dust and thunder as we wrestle over the margins.

We both agree that bike lanes can be useful. BLS folks reckon those spots to be so rare that BLA folks easily think we are never their allies.

We both agree bike lanes can be bad. BLA folks may even agree that majority of bike lanes are poorly executed. It is easy for my side to think BLA prefers bad bike lanes to no lanes at all.

We both have fears, and we both think the fears of the other camp are overblown. BLS think the other side is overly concerned with overtaking traffic. BLA think we exaggerate the danger bike lanes pose to our liberty.

We both think our opponents are naive. the BLA camp think we have "roadie" elitist attitudes, and that we want all cyclists to conform to what our image of cycling is. The BLS think that cycling advocacy has been hijacked by non-cycling forces to the detriment of all cyclists, and that you are either unaware of those forces or are willing to make implicit "deals with the devil", so to speak.

The BLA crowd knows in their heart that they are fighting the good fight, and their own motives are pure. Therefore, anyone in the BLS crowd is not pure, does not have good motives. Because it is unnecessary to reason with evil people, BLA can simply dismiss BLS arguments out of hand, rather than deal with the substance of their point. It would advance the conversation if BLA would start from a place that acknowledges BLS goals are the same as theirs: To advance cycling in a positive and constructive way.

BLS grants that courtesy to to BLA folks without question. BLS just think the methods BLA choose to advance the cause is misplaced.

I think both sides have a lot of common ground, and we ought to try to increase the acreage when we can! ;)

[dynodonn]

Interesting point and it reminds me of another objection to bikelanes and a possible disincentive to cycling. Frequently as I cycle along with my wife and a few friends they've observed that if we were in a car we'd be able to chat more easily instead of being strung out in a long line bawling things back and forth to each other.

Depending upon the locale it's is of course possible to ride two up legally. Most bikelanes on the other hand explicitly are designed for a single file (if that) of cyclists. In other words they enforce an anti-social and atomized travel experience.

Similar problems can be seen in the design of many sidewalks.

.

This is something I wouldn't necessarily object strongly too, except that I'd want sharrows on just about every street surface.


The family and I gravitate towards the quieter backstreets on our rides, even though they are chock full of stopsigns and far slower, and so we can avoid the conditions you described, ride side by side. I won't even try to hold a conversation with any of them unless it's for directions or a warning while single file.

[noisebeam]

THC,
The paragraph you quoted comes from the section "Bike Lanes and Turning Lanes" - that is where RTOL and LTOL are present. In these cases AASTHO shows merging to occur just as the turn lanes begin and mostly entail the motorist merging across the lane and the cyclist maintaining a static hopeful position. Such merging needs to occur before the RTOL begins. No diagram (including the photo in fig.) in AASTHO shows (ending) BL striping for this. The cyclist using the BL must rely fully on the motorist to not turn across their path, no different than a right hook condition.

I also am concerned with the idea that a good engineer knows these are minimums. How are they to know how to make ideal? Is a 12' bike lane better than a 4' one? Is it 'ideal' to end the bike lane stripe 20' or 200' before intersections? I find it curious that so many BL just meet the AASTHO minimum guidelines.

Al

[e0richt]

I've noticed a couple posts that have pretty passionate responses to the notion of biker inferiority, childish cycling behavior, anti-bikelane-ism and the like.

Didn't want to create another poll but am interested in what is the majority opinion.

I think that bike lanes, signs, signals, etc. are very important and can only help improve the safety and convenience of riding.

I believe I am part of the majority. I plan my rides around safe routes that include well marked bike lanes. Since I've retired I concede that my strategy may not be helpful for commuters but I'd guess that most commuters would prefer not to have to fight traffic for room on the road.

It isn't enough to add a stripe to the road. A bike lane requires a planned increase in width that is best achieved upon complete repaving or new routes.

This does require advocacy and a unified front. That's probably the biggest challenge....

On the other hand, do most think the more agressive 'it's my road too' will achieve more?

I prefer my facilities to be shoulders basically about bike lane width but not nessarily marked as a "bike lane" because I want to be out in the road sometimes to avoid right hooks from motorists...
I DO like "share the road" type of signs and enforcement of the traffic laws... I think that vehicular cycling is the "ideal" unfortunately, I don't think we have reached that with the way motorists act and the lack of involvement (or actual lack of knowledge of laws and bicycling...) by police...

[genec]

Interesting point and it reminds me of another objection to bikelanes and a possible disincentive to cycling. Frequently as I cycle along with my wife and a few friends they've observed that if we were in a car we'd be able to chat more easily instead of being strung out in a long line bawling things back and forth to each other.

Depending upon the locale it's is of course possible to ride two up legally. Most bikelanes on the other hand explicitly are designed for a single file (if that) of cyclists. In other words they enforce an anti-social and atomized travel experience.

Similar problems can be seen in the design of many sidewalks.

.

This is something I wouldn't necessarily object strongly too, except that I'd want sharrows on just about every street surface.

Right, so it comes down to poor bike lane design as being the biggest issue, rather then the bike lanes themselves.

As far as wanting them on every street... we have to admit that certain streets are plenty good enough for cycling... such as your typical 25MPH residential street... But that other streets may not be very bike friendly, such as high speed arterials with free merge turns... And thus, we need only target those "less then suitable streets" to have a complete network suitable for cyclists.

[genec]

THC,
The paragraph you quoted comes from the section "Bike Lanes and Turning Lanes" - that is where RTOL and LTOL are present. In these cases AASTHO shows merging to occur just as the turn lanes begin and mostly entail the motorist merging across the lane and the cyclist maintaining a static hopeful position. Such merging needs to occur before the RTOL begins. No diagram (including the photo in fig.) in AASTHO shows (ending) BL striping for this. The cyclist using the BL must rely fully on the motorist to not turn across their path, no different than a right hook condition.

I also am concerned with the idea that a good engineer knows these are minimums. How are they to know how to make ideal? Is a 12' bike lane better than a 4' one? Is it 'ideal' to end the bike lane stripe 20' or 200' before intersections? I find it curious that so many BL just meet the AASTHO minimum guidelines.

Al

I tend to agree... that the AASTHO standards are minimum, and indeed are often implemented poorly... For instance I had to laugh this morning as I passed a dashed BL that went past a certain one way hiway offramp... there is no right turning onto this offramp, (into oncoming traffic??) and it is light controlled... so there is no reason for the dashed lines... but there they were, as usual, as no one had really thought about what they are for or why they really belong.... as is the usual case for just slapping down the paint lines... IE no "engineering" had been applied.

I saw another lack of real engineering a few years ago when a BL was laid down to the right of an onramp... the BL lead right onto the freeway... but hey, it "followed" the AASTHO standard for painting of a BL. In the latter case, I talked to the engineer and was quite dismayed at his wave of the hand and proclamation that it was "to a standard." A few phone calls to the local advocacy group managed to get his mind changed... and the BL was re-routed to the left of the RTO on ramp.

Seems to me that a few days riding a bike in such design disasters might "educate" a few engineers.

[buzzman]

buzzman, there is a lot of overlap and areas of agreement between the bike lane advocates and the bike lane skeptics. (BLA and BLS- to coin a new A&S acronym! :D) Naturally these areas are obscured in all the dust and thunder as we wrestle over the margins.

We both agree that bike lanes can be useful. BLS folks reckon those spots to be so rare that BLA folks easily think we are never their allies.

We both agree bike lanes can be bad. BLA folks may even agree that majority of bike lanes are poorly executed. It is easy for my side to think BLA prefers bad bike lanes to no lanes at all.

We both have fears, and we both think the fears of the other camp are overblown. BLS think the other side is overly concerned with overtaking traffic. BLA think we exaggerate the danger bike lanes pose to our liberty.

We both think our opponents are naive. the BLA camp think we have "roadie" elitist attitudes, and that we want all cyclists to conform to what our image of cycling is. The BLS think that cycling advocacy has been hijacked by non-cycling forces to the detriment of all cyclists, and that you are either unaware of those forces or are willing to make implicit "deals with the devil", so to speak.

The BLA crowd knows in their heart that they are fighting the good fight, and their own motives are pure. Therefore, anyone in the BLS crowd is not pure, does not have good motives. Because it is unnecessary to reason with evil people, BLA can simply dismiss BLS arguments out of hand, rather than deal with the substance of their point. It would advance the conversation if BLA would start from a place that acknowledges BLS goals are the same as theirs: To advance cycling in a positive and constructive way.

BLS grants that courtesy to to BLA folks without question. BLS just think the methods BLA choose to advance the cause is misplaced.

I think both sides have a lot of common ground, and we ought to try to increase the acreage when we can! ;)

well said.

[buzzman]

I just took a look at it now. I don't understand what you think it demonstrates. To me it shows that the bike lane does not even do what you say it should: provide a place where cyclists can procede in a straight line and motor vehicles will be absent. In at least one place it looks like a classic doorzone bikelane of insufficient width to prevent a dooring, even if you ride on the far left...

bike lanes in NYC are definitely a "work in progress". When I shot that video it was just an opportunity to try out a new camera and a rig I'd fashioned on my handlebars- not to demonstrate the effectiveness (or not) of bike lanes.

It does, however, give a real life example of one particular bike lane in NYC (on 8th Avenue). Since my intention when shooting is neither to prove or disprove the efficacy of bike lanes but just to ride it's maybe a more "honest" video than a "staged" one made by an advocate or opponent of bike lanes and I hope you will take it as such.

It does clearly demonstrate that NYC drivers blatantly ignore the bike lane markings and make use of them whenever they choose- especially for parking- this is something addressed in the NYC Bicycle Plan and is part of the survey, which is a link in my original post by the way and is quite specific as to the types of cyclists that participated in the survey. To attribute this as a problem with bike lanes to me seems a falsehood it is a problem of drivers knowing and obeying the law and the city enforcing those laws.

Regarding the door zone- it's hard to tell in the video but I'm pretty far removed from the door zone while I'm in the bike lane. I ride the far left edge (or right in the video) of the bike lane a good 5'-6' from parked cars. If there were no bike lane I might position myself roughly the same- basically it is a default position on a road like 8th Avenue.

One of the reasons that I posted the video was because there was some commentary that drivers expect bicyclists to ride in the lane only and will respond negatively if the cyclists leaves the lane for any reason. Obviously this was not a problem for me when I moved in and out of the lane. They could have cared less- I'm just a part of the traffic flow. *Keep in mind I posted my video in reference to this comment you made:

If you paint a bike lane stripe on the road then motorists are going to think that it means that we should not be leaving the lane.



As I read your comments I'm guessing, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I get the feeling you have not ridden in Manhattan. It's in many ways a unique experience- Chipseal and Forester make a good point when they say NYC is an anomaly (my feeling is each city is unique but I'll save that for another time). I've ridden in NYC with no bike infrastructure and I've ridden in NYC with bike infrastructure and I'm really liking riding in NYC now that it's adding more infrastructure. It's way better- what can I say- I'm not trying to convince anybody but I've ridden a lot of places and I've ridden a lot in NYC and the bike lanes are making it better. And I'll say it again and again and again, "are they perfect?-NO!" but is it better with them than without, "most certainly!" And 93% of the cyclists in NYC no matter how "experienced" agree and I think that carries some weight.

When I first started going down to NYC for work 20 years ago I would be the only one riding my bike to and from my places of employ or to visit friends. Friends looked at me like I was crazy. This summer I was leaving my job one night and watched as 7 of us out of the 21 working together rolled away on everything from folders to fixed gears. Why? and I'm not exaggerating- bike lanes. I asked them all- why do you ride now? "Oh, the cities putting in all these bike lanes." and the West Side bike path.

So we can beat the bike lanes no bike lanes thing into the ground but when I say they "work" I mean they "work" they get people riding and they give them a place to ride.

*added later for clarification

[The Human Car]

THC,
The paragraph you quoted comes from the section "Bike Lanes and Turning Lanes" - that is where RTOL and LTOL are present. In these cases AASTHO shows merging to occur just as the turn lanes begin and mostly entail the motorist merging across the lane and the cyclist maintaining a static hopeful position. Such merging needs to occur before the RTOL begins. No diagram (including the photo in fig.) in AASTHO shows (ending) BL striping for this. The cyclist using the BL must rely fully on the motorist to not turn across their path, no different than a right hook condition.

I also am concerned with the idea that a good engineer knows these are minimums. How are they to know how to make ideal? Is a 12' bike lane better than a 4' one? Is it 'ideal' to end the bike lane stripe 20' or 200' before intersections? I find it curious that so many BL just meet the AASTHO minimum guidelines.

Al

I'm not really sure what we are discussing (long weekend for me,) but IMHO AASHTO at it's worst is near equivalent to nothing at all. Without bike lanes mosts cyclists/motorists would be merging at the beginning of the turn lane anyway.

Also a lot of AASHTO examples rely on the existence of a pocket lane. Since this subtopic is about cyclists being to the right of a right hand turn lane (in violation of the rules of the road (because of a bike lane)) I am assuming no pocket lanes because they do not reinforce that. And without a pocket lane there is nothing to connect doted lines to so we should be left with bike lanes that end before the turn lanes as being the AASHTO "problem" bike lanes.

For me the rule of the road is if your lane is coming to an end you can merge into another lane before the end of the lane. Is that rule clear to cyclists in AASHTO? No. Is it clear to cyclists without bike lanes? No again.

Your comment about the "cyclist maintaining a static hopeful position" is valid but at the same time the dashed lines encourages motorists to yield so we have a minus and a plus score on this treatment so IMHO the net gain/loss is close to zero.

AASHTO has a major role in negligence law suites, if a bike facility is not up to AASHTO then a government agency can be sued if damages results (except in California.) So in a lot of ways the minimum AASHTO is set to perform no better then roads without bike lanes (because if Government actions made it worse that would be negligence.) So AASHTO has this dual personality to improve our safety yet at the same time protect Government which can be simplified as not making things any worse. So the end result is making sure the minimum is well defined and leaving the ideal up in the air so we get bike lanes that really don't do much.

I agree with you over the concern over what is ideal, this is why we really need a better national standard on these things. In Maryland we have been stressing getting someone who bikes into positions that influence road designs. It seems the better the cyclist we get the better the considerations. But we do have some exceptions where the people in charge seem to be responsive to cyclists issues and seem to get it without being (much) of a cyclist themselves.

[Allister]

Allister- in certain situtions bike lanes let a bicyclist pass stopped traffic with fair amounts of ease; done it many of times. Not just applicable in New York City.


Well, yes. I've posted a video of passing stopped traffic in a bikelane, myself. It's fine if there's room for it. Generally, at least around the Brisbane CBD, there isn't without removing a standard lane, which I wouldn't object to, by the way. In those cases, if I'm going to pass stopped traffic, I prefer not to do it between parked cars and the passenger side of kebside traffic.

[dynodonn]

I'm not really sure what we are discussing (long weekend for me,) but IMHO AASHTO at it's worst is near equivalent to nothing at all. Without bike lanes mosts cyclists/motorists would be merging at the beginning of the turn lane anyway.

Also a lot of AASHTO examples rely on the existence of a pocket lane. Since this subtopic is about cyclists being to the right of a right hand turn lane (in violation of the rules of the road (because of a bike lane)) I am assuming no pocket lanes because they do not reinforce that. And without a pocket lane there is nothing to connect doted lines to so we should be left with bike lanes that end before the turn lanes as being the AASHTO "problem" bike lanes.

For me the rule of the road is if your lane is coming to an end you can merge into another lane before the end of the lane. Is that rule clear to cyclists in AASHTO? No. Is it clear to cyclists without bike lanes? No again.

Your comment about the "cyclist maintaining a static hopeful position" is valid but at the same time the dashed lines encourages motorists to yield so we have a minus and a plus score on this treatment so IMHO the net gain/loss is close to zero.

AASHTO has a major role in negligence law suites, if a bike facility is not up to AASHTO then a government agency can be sued if damages results (except in California.) So in a lot of ways the minimum AASHTO is set to perform no better then roads without bike lanes (because if Government actions made it worse that would be negligence.) So AASHTO has this dual personality to improve our safety yet at the same time protect Government which can be simplified as not making things any worse. So the end result is making sure the minimum is well defined and leaving the ideal up in the air so we get bike lanes that really don't do much.

I agree with you over the concern over what is ideal, this is why we really need a better national standard on these things. In Maryland we have been stressing getting someone who bikes into positions that influence road designs. It seems the better the cyclist we get the better the considerations. But we do have some exceptions where the people in charge seem to be responsive to cyclists issues and seem to get it without being (much) of a cyclist themselves.


That says a lot about the large discrepencies between bike lanes in my area, and tells me that poorly designed bike lanes already implemented locally are not going to be changed anytime soon. No penalty, no need to change one's ways.


One of my longings has always been that every engineer must work on or use anything that they design.

[Bekologist]

and roads get redesigned and restriped in progressive cities around the world and the USA, particularily in the last 18 months seems like- there's been a synergystic proliferation of bicycling master plans in major metropolis in the last short few years, and implementated more and more everyday in more and more USA cities.

heck, just this week on the way to work I rode a street that went from in my opinion a weak bike lane design, got restriped and placed it to the left of right turning traffic at a signalized intersection. It's a complex intersection, a doglegged 5 way.

Monday AM I rode into this at speed coming off one of the four laned legs, in the inside lane no less. transistioning into the newly restriped bike lane -to the left of all right turning traffic, approaching the intersection, well, it rode, naturally, vehicularily, and smoooth like a roller coaster.

to stonewall in claims 'nothings' going to get done' is denial of what can happen in US cities. Why hasn't greater accomodation for bicyclists been done in YOUR major US city?

Anecdotally, well designed and implemented bike infrastructure systems of unaccomodated roads, wide lanes, sharrows, bike lanes, paths, MUPS and end of trip facilities, unique to each municipality, appear to be working in the USA.

[buzzman]

... Anecdotally, well designed and implemented bike infrastructure systems of unaccomodated roads, wide lanes, sharrows, bike lanes, paths, MUPS and end of trip facilities, unique to each municipality, appear to be working in the USA.

without a doubt that has also been my experience.

[noisebeam]

I'm not really sure what we are discussing (long weekend for me,) but IMHO AASHTO at it's worst is near equivalent to nothing at all. Without bike lanes mosts cyclists/motorists would be merging at the beginning of the turn lane anyway.

Also a lot of AASHTO examples rely on the existence of a pocket lane. Since this subtopic is about cyclists being to the right of a right hand turn lane (in violation of the rules of the road (because of a bike lane)) I am assuming no pocket lanes because they do not reinforce that. And without a pocket lane there is nothing to connect doted lines to so we should be left with bike lanes that end before the turn lanes as being the AASHTO "problem" bike lanes.


I too was a little confused as I thought we were originally talking about BL to the right of a lane from which other vehicles may turn right - and I quoted AASTHO in how to treat bike lane stripe at these type of intersection approaches (basically make it dashed some feet before major intersections and solid at all for minor.) Then you replied, quoting the AASTHO section (referencing fig.9/10) about how to implement BLs when there are R/LTRO lanes. So that confused me too as to what type of intersection we were talking about.

I am less concerned about what other cyclist do in the absence of bike lane stripes (keep the pavement space!) and more about the expectations of motorists on cyclist behavior when stripes are present at intersection approaches. I personally find negotiation to get out of badly (even if meeting AASTHO guidelines) implemented bike lanes to be harder than when there is no stripe at all for matched conditions.

Al

[The Human Car]

I am less concerned about what other cyclist do in the absence of bike lane stripes (keep the pavement space!) and more about the expectations of motorists on cyclist behavior when stripes are present at intersection approaches. I personally find negotiation to get out of badly (even if meeting AASTHO guidelines) implemented bike lanes to be harder than when there is no stripe at all for matched conditions.

I think discussing difficult negotiations out of bad AASHTO bike lanes may be of some use. I will comment that Baltimore seems to be using a combination of bike lanes then sharrows to continue the route/assert aprox cyclists position with no bike lanes (at times in intersections); so far I like the combo. Still too early to tell what the eventual opinion will be of motorists and cyclists.

[John Forester]

sniupped

AASHTO has a major role in negligence law suites, if a bike facility is not up to AASHTO then a government agency can be sued if damages results (except in California.) .

Slight correction here. The California court opinion, made in Carroll, Prokop etc., applies only to bike paths, which the court considered to have no more legal standing than do dirt paths across unimproved property. Those opinions do not apply to bike lanes.

[Script]

and roads get redesigned and restriped in progressive cities around the world and the USA, particularily in the last 18 months seems like- there's been a synergystic proliferation of bicycling master plans in major metropolis in the last short few years, and implementated more and more everyday in more and more USA cities.

heck, just this week on the way to work I rode a street that went from in my opinion a weak bike lane design, got restriped and placed it to the left of right turning traffic at a signalized intersection. It's a complex intersection, a doglegged 5 way.

Monday AM I rode into this at speed coming off one of the four laned legs, in the inside lane no less. transistioning into the newly restriped bike lane -to the left of all right turning traffic, approaching the intersection, well, it rode, naturally, vehicularily, and smoooth like a roller coaster.

to stonewall in claims 'nothings' going to get done' is denial of what can happen in US cities. Why hasn't greater accomodation for bicyclists been done in YOUR major US city?

Anecdotally, well designed and implemented bike infrastructure systems of unaccomodated roads, wide lanes, sharrows, bike lanes, paths, MUPS and end of trip facilities, unique to each municipality, appear to be working in the USA.

:beer:

[The Human Car]

As I read your comments I'm guessing, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I get the feeling you have not ridden in Manhattan. It's in many ways a unique experience- Chipseal and Forester make a good point when they say NYC is an anomaly (my feeling is each city is unique but I'll save that for another time). I've ridden in NYC with no bike infrastructure and I've ridden in NYC with bike infrastructure and I'm really liking riding in NYC now that it's adding more infrastructure. It's way better- what can I say- I'm not trying to convince anybody but I've ridden a lot of places and I've ridden a lot in NYC and the bike lanes are making it better. And I'll say it again and again and again, "are they perfect?-NO!" but is it better with them than without, "most certainly!" And 93% of the cyclists in NYC no matter how "experienced" agree and I think that carries some weight.

Having ridden in NYC in the 80's I personally find little difference between NYC and the Central Business District in Baltimore. Ok fine, I am only talking about ~2 square miles here but still there are similarities with NYC.

[The Human Car]

I'll forgo commenting on the others as this is the one where I think you repeatedly don't appreciate the point. It doesn't matter what AASHTO standards or the actual rules of the road say in terms of motorist perception of what bike lanes mean. If you paint a bike lane stripe on the road then motorists are going to think that it means that we should not be leaving the lane. You can have all the bureaucratically mandated standards you like but if you create a confusing situation by adding complexity to the roadway markings then motorists will interpret the confusion to suit their own ends. (This is natural and not a behavior unique to motorists.)

Walt, It's not a matter of not appreciating your point, as I can totally relate to your comments about attitudes of drivers. Just one problem with me relating to those comments, I don't have any bike lanes where I (mostly) ride. You see I live in VC paradise with hardly a nare of bike lanes to speak of (that is till last Dec) and driver harassment abounds. If not installing bike lanes was a fix then Baltimore would be fixed.

I am of the opinion that stay right laws and allowance of motorists to unsafely pass us in the same lane is at the nature of driver harassment and confusing situations. If you have it all worked out how to uncomplicate the requirement to ride to the right then it's not much of a stretch how to uncomplicate the use of bike lanes.

[noisebeam]

THC - are these roads where you get harassment mostly with wide sharable lanes or narrow ones?
Al

[Allister]

Digging around the intertubes last night, I came upon this (http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_1389)page. Bikelane designs are primarily under the 'Traffic' link, bikepaths under 'Roads', ironically enough.

Of particular note is this (http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/lib161/ums%20877.pdf)design, which I see all over the place on busier intersections, and in my experience works very well in preventing left crosses from the traffic light. On the approach, motorists are crossing the lane when they're already slowing for the turn, minimising speed differentials, and at a red light, they can turn behind you. You can see one in use from about 6:50 in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42vk_cHlk00&feature=user)video. With or without the sliplane, bikelanes always have the stopline slightly forward of the 'carlane'.

[John Forester]

Digging around the intertubes last night, I came upon this (http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_1389)page. Bikelane designs are primarily under the 'Traffic' link, bikepaths under 'Roads', ironically enough.

Of particular note is this (http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/lib161/ums%20877.pdf)design, which I see all over the place on busier intersections, and in my experience works very well in preventing left crosses from the traffic light. On the approach, motorists are crossing the lane when they're already slowing for the turn, minimising speed differentials, and at a red light, they can turn behind you. You can see one in use from about 6:50 in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42vk_cHlk00&feature=user)video. With or without the sliplane, bikelanes always have the stopline slightly forward of the 'carlane'.

I examined the material presented, including the bicycling commute. In American terms the cyclist passed several right-turn-only lanes and one free-running right with a pork-chop island. Nothing unusual there. I started arguing for more right-turn-only lanes as a cyclist safety measure in 1973 or so, and that proposal was refused by the bike-lane designers as not being what they wanted. "The cyclist would have cars on both sides of him, something nobody wants" said the chief designer.

[buzzman]

Having ridden in NYC in the 80's I personally find little difference between NYC and the Central Business District in Baltimore. Ok fine, I am only talking about ~2 square miles here but still there are similarities with NYC..


I lived over on N. Calvert for a little while and rode around that section of Baltimore- down to the Harbor and E. Pratt. While it shared some similarities with NYC I would say it was more like the borough of Brooklyn than Manhattan. Grid like streets but a closer mix of residential commercial and traffic volume and pedestrian population like one would find in Brooklyn or the Bronx. Manhattan with it's exceptionally densely packed commercial areas mixed in with full time residents, daytime employees, deliveries and tourists all in a limited geographic space (an island)is like those areas on steroids.

Brooklyn now has it's share of bike lanes and they are filled with transportational bicyclists daily. A substantial number of NYC bike commuters begin and end their day in Brooklyn- and they, once again, prefer having the bike laned streets and it has definitely increased rider share.

If not installing bike lanes was a fix then Baltimore would be fixed.

Absolutely, and compare rider share in any part of Baltimore with NYC today and you will see that NYC is far outpacing other east coast cities- and the reason is infrastructure. All of that with no increase in accident or fatality rate given the large and dramatic increase in ridership.

[The Human Car]

THC - are these roads where you get harassment mostly with wide sharable lanes or narrow ones?
Al

From what I have experienced and what has been reported it seem the majority of the problem (of harassment) exists on multi-lane (same direction) narrow lanes (9'-10') with traffic light enough that opportunities for motoring traffic to change lanes is abundant, speed limit is 30-35mph. Parking lanes may have some showing in this as it seems to be expected for cyclists to ride in the door zone.

[noisebeam]

From what I have experienced and what has been reported it seem the majority of the problem (of harassment) exists on multi-lane (same direction) narrow lanes (9'-10') with traffic light enough that opportunities for motoring traffic to change lanes is abundant, speed limit is 30-35mph. Parking lanes may have some showing in this as it seems to be expected for cyclists to ride in the door zone.

That matches my experience as well. As to motorist negative reaction to my presence I find in decreasing order:
-Bike Laned Road (at intersections, rarely an issue between them)
-Narrow outside lane between intersections (never an issue at them)
-Wide Outside lane (never)

Al

[Script]

From what I have experienced and what has been reported it seem the majority of the problem (of harassment) exists on multi-lane (same direction) narrow lanes (9'-10') with traffic light enough that opportunities for motoring traffic to change lanes is abundant, speed limit is 30-35mph. Parking lanes may have some showing in this as it seems to be expected for cyclists to ride in the door zone.

Agreed to some degree.

My wide lane experience with light traffic is fine, but add some volume and things change. Seems many people aren't sure where in the wide lane they're supposed to ride and so kind of weave back and forth. (Seems like they're trying to protect their lane position.)

Many seniors will also ride as far to the right as possible, not the best place when cyclists are present.

Motorists appear more worried about the cars in the left lane than the bikes to the right.

Urban WOL's cause drivers to create an extra lane threreby changing a WOL into two narrow lanes.

[rando]

Agreed to some degree.

My wide lane experience with light traffic is fine, but add some volume and things change. Seems many people aren't sure where in the wide lane they're supposed to ride and so kind of weave back and forth. (Seems like they're trying to protect their lane position.)

Many seniors will also ride as far to the right as possible, not the best place when cyclists are present.

Motorists appear more worried about the cars in the left lane than the bikes to the right.

Urban WOL's cause drivers to create an extra lane threreby changing a WOL into two narrow lanes.

I have noticed this also. in the office park area I work in, if you try to leave at rush hour you will run into this exact situation. motorists are splitting the WOL into two Narrow lanes, one to turn one way onto the arterial, the other to turn the other way.

[joejack951]

I have noticed this also. in the office park area I work in, if you try to leave at rush hour you will run into this exact situation. motorists are splitting the WOL into two Narrow lanes, one to turn one way onto the arterial, the other to turn the other way.

Have you given some thought to what the alternatives would be to turning like this? What would you prefer them to do? What do you think is the legal way to turn from a WOL? [Depending on your answer, it may be the same for all three here but I just wanted to make sure.]

[The Human Car]

That matches my experience as well. As to motorist negative reaction to my presence I find in decreasing order:
-Bike Laned Road (at intersections, rarely an issue between them)
-Narrow outside lane between intersections (never an issue at them)
-Wide Outside lane (never)

Al

I am curious about the bike laned road at intersections, are lights that are red or motorists turning over represented in the negative reactions or are thru motorists on green just as likely to have a negative reaction?

[The Human Car]

Urban WOL's cause drivers to create an extra lane threreby changing a WOL into two narrow lanes.

I hate WOLs where that happens, no real way to control the lane, if you control the right most of two lanes you get sideswiped by the guy who thinks it's only one lane, if you go far right you get sideswiped by people who think it is two lanes.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

If you give car drivers 6 extra feet of unmarked road, they will take 6 extra feet.
With clearly lined BL's you will ahve maybe only one out of 10 cars crowding you.
With WOL's, I would expect about 8 out of ten cars crowding especially on opposing, two lane roads.

[patc]

If you give car drivers 6 extra feet of unmarked road, they will take 6 extra feet.
With clearly lined BL's you will ahve maybe only one out of 10 cars crowding you.
With WOL's, I would expect about 8 out of ten cars crowding especially on opposing, two lane roads.

Exactly my experience.

[rando]

Have you given some thought to what the alternatives would be to turning like this? What would you prefer them to do? What do you think is the legal way to turn from a WOL? [Depending on your answer, it may be the same for all three here but I just wanted to make sure.]

I have no idea. Just reporting what happens. and the lines go pretty far down the block.

[John Forester]

I hate WOLs where that happens, no real way to control the lane, if you control the right most of two lanes you get sideswiped by the guy who thinks it's only one lane, if you go far right you get sideswiped by people who think it is two lanes.

There's no need to control a WOL. Your presence controls the section that you are using; let others, motorists or cyclists, use the rest.

[The Human Car]

There's no need to control a WOL. Your presence controls the section that you are using; let others, motorists or cyclists, use the rest.

Yah right, no need to control a narrow lane. Great advice, try reading in context.

[ChipSeal]

If you give car drivers 6 extra feet of unmarked road, they will take 6 extra feet.
With clearly lined BL's you will ahve maybe only one out of 10 cars crowding you.
With WOL's, I would expect about 8 out of ten cars crowding especially on opposing, two lane roads.

On a NRL (narrow right lane) street I have zero out of ten cars crowding me.

[randya]

On a NRL (narrow right lane) street I have zero out of ten cars crowding me.

we know you're superman, but you're still missing the point

try to keep up, the discussion is about motorists who treat a WOL as two lanes

[Script]

There's no need to control a WOL. Your presence controls the section that you are using; let others, motorists or cyclists, use the rest.

C'mon JF, I thought the VC mantra was 'Control the Road' or 'Take the Lane'. :eek:

How have you dealt with a WOL turning from a two to a three lane road? :D

That little stripe for the BL helps keep the motorists where they belong...

[Helmet Head]

C'mon JF, I thought the VC mantra was 'Control the Road' or 'Take the Lane'. :eek:
Where did you get that idea? Just curious.


How have you dealt with a WOL turning from a two to a three lane road? :D

Does the third lane just "grow" out of the shoulder, or come in from another road with traffic in it? In the latter case, yes, it may be useful to control the lane prior to reaching the point where the new lane comes in. But, if it remains wide, continuing to share the lane, then moving to the left of the new lane, then the right side of the new lane (assuming it is wide too - and with an appropriate look back. yielding, signaling, negotiation as required prior to each lateral move) is often the most reasonable vehicular approach.


That little stripe for the BL helps keep the motorists where they belong...
Tell that to all of the cyclists and their surviving family members who have been hit by drivers who did not notice the cyclist up ahead (arguably because he was not in the driver's "zone of attention" - his own lane up ahead), decided to attend to a distraction (after all, his intended path up ahead is clear - good time to unwrap that burger or whatever), and inadvertently drifted into the unnoticed cyclist across the stripe while attending to that distraction.

And how does the stripe help at all in your 2 to 3 lane scenario?

[Allister]

I hate WOLs where that happens, no real way to control the lane, if you control the right most of two lanes you get sideswiped by the guy who thinks it's only one lane, if you go far right you get sideswiped by people who think it is two lanes.

I've got a short section like that on my commute. It's as annoying to use in a car as it is on a bike, maybe moreso. It's about to be re-striped, possibly with a bikelane it appears, so it'll be interesting to see what it's like afterwards.

Anyway, my approach is to take the same line, more-or-less, that I'd take if it was striped - take the whole of the kerbside 'lane', riding a metre or so to the side of the other lane, or just enough to prevent anyone passing on the kerbside. I find that if there's room to pass, drivers very rarely buzz me, and they never try to overtake on the kerbside.

You can see it from about 4:00 on this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoPaTLOxTdw) video. There's 2 lanes approaching the pedestrian light, and only one after it. Stupid layout, I agree.

[The Human Car]

I've got a short section like that on my commute. It's as annoying to use in a car as it is on a bike, maybe moreso. It's about to be re-striped, possibly with a bikelane it appears, so it'll be interesting to see what it's like afterwards.

Anyway, my approach is to take the same line, more-or-less, that I'd take if it was striped - take the whole of the kerbside 'lane', riding a metre or so to the side of the other lane, or just enough to prevent anyone passing on the kerbside. I find that if there's room to pass, drivers very rarely buzz me, and they never try to overtake on the kerbside.

You can see it from about 4:00 on this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoPaTLOxTdw) video. There's 2 lanes approaching the pedestrian light, and only one after it. Stupid layout, I agree.

My issue is some motorists treat as two lanes and some treat it as one lane (generally the big cars or trucks and they seem reluctant to open up a "lane" one the side) in that inconsistency and the mad rush of motorists to be the first in the cue when the road goes narrow... its just crazy.

[Script]

Where did you get that idea? Just curious.


Does the third lane just "grow" out of the shoulder, or come in from another road with traffic in it? In the latter case, yes, it may be useful to control the lane prior to reaching the point where the new lane comes in. But, if it remains wide, continuing to share the lane, then moving to the left of the new lane, then the right side of the new lane (assuming it is wide too - and with an appropriate look back. yielding, signaling, negotiation as required prior to each lateral move) is often the most reasonable vehicular approach.


Tell that to all of the cyclists and their surviving family members who have been hit by drivers who did not notice the cyclist up ahead (arguably because he was not in the driver's "zone of attention" - his own lane up ahead), decided to attend to a distraction (after all, his intended path up ahead is clear - good time to unwrap that burger or whatever), and inadvertently drifted into the unnoticed cyclist across the stripe while attending to that distraction.

And how does the stripe help at all in your 2 to 3 lane scenario?

I'm sure JF is appreciative that you stand in for him. :)

I'll type slowly so you understand...

There is no third lane. It's a created phenomenon by the drivers that see this big, wide way and decide there's room for another vehicle. Maybe this has never happened to you?

And help me understand this 'negotiation' you refer to. In my experience, I've never been able to 'negotiate' without some type of direct communication such as talking or typing or writing. I'm sure eye contact or a wave is a great negotiating tool, but I prefer something more concrete than that. I'm unwilling to risk life and limb by assuming that by looking and waving a motorist will understand my 'negotiation'.:D

Show me some data to support your implication that a bike lane stripe has caused even one accident.:mad:

[Helmet Head]

I'm sure JF is appreciative that you stand in for him. :)

I'll type slowly so you understand...

There is no third lane. It's a created phenomenon by the drivers that see this big, wide way and decide there's room for another vehicle. Maybe this has never happened to you?
Oh, you mean when a wide lane is shared by two lines of cars? Sure, I've seen that, usually at intersection approaches where the rightmost line is turning right. Is that what you mean? What's the problem? You asked JF how he dealt with that. What's to deal with? If there is a red light you just take your turn in the appropriate line. If it's slow/stopped traffic for a long way, you can lane split. Perhaps you have a particular situation in mind?


And help me understand this 'negotiation' you refer to. In my experience, I've never been able to 'negotiate' without some type of direct communication such as talking or typing or writing. I'm sure eye contact or a wave is a great negotiating tool, but I prefer something more concrete than that. I'm unwilling to risk life and limb by assuming that by looking and waving a motorist will understand my 'negotiation'.:D
Negotiation in traffic cycling normally refers to using signaling (with your arm or just a head-turn look-back) to indicate intent to move laterally or turn, waiting for someone to yield (usually by slowing down to let you in), and then moving. When they slow down in response to your signaling, that's about as concrete as it gets. There is no assuming that the motorist will understand - you don't move unless it's obvious that he has understood... which he indicates by slowing down to let you in (often accompanied by a wave and/or a nod - but that's really superfluous to the slowing down).


Show me some data to support your implication that a bike lane stripe has caused even one accident.:mad:
I know of no data that shows that a bike lane stripe caused a crash, just as I know of no study data that shows a bike lane stripe ever prevented a crash.

But the anecdotal data sure seems convincing to me. Lane-controlling and wide-lane-sharing cyclists rear-ended are practically unheard of (even crashes with cyclists hit by oncoming motorists who drift onto their side of the road seem more common), but incidents of unnoticed cyclists in bike lanes (or marked shoulders) being drifted into by same-direction traffic are all too common.

I agree that the stripe generally keeps motorists out of the margin - whether cyclists are present or not - the debris that collects in the bike lane is ample evidence of that. But what's relevant to cyclist safety is the degree to which the stripe helps keep motorists from hitting cyclists. I understand that it seems logical to assume that if the stripe keeps motorists out of the margin -- whether cyclists are there or not -- that it should also help keep them out of the margin when cyclists are there, but this assumption ignores the effect the cyclist's presence has in keeping the motorist's out. That is, if all of the motorists stayed out of the margin when cyclists were riding in the margin, then the relevant effect of the stripe (on cyclists safety from being hit from behind) would be nil. My experience and anecdotal evidence indicates that that is pretty close to the truth. Further, experience and anecdotal evidence also seems to indicate that the stripe makes cyclists in bike lanes more likely to be overlooked - causing motorists to behave indistinguishably whether cyclists are present or not. Being more likely to be overlooked makes cyclists less likely to inhibit a motorist approaching from behind choosing to attend to a distraction - an act which can lead to inadvertent drift into the unnoticed cyclist. I realize that is conjecture, but it's more sound than any claim that the stripe makes cyclists less likely to be hit. More importantly, conflicts with cross traffic are much more likely to cause a crash, and the bike lane clearly guides cyclists and motorists into such conflicts.

[Script]

Oh, you mean when a wide lane is shared by two lines of cars? Sure, I've seen that, usually at intersection approaches where the rightmost line is turning right. Is that what you mean? What's the problem? You asked JF how he dealt with that. What's to deal with? If there is a red light you just take your turn in the appropriate line. If it's slow/stopped traffic for a long way, you can lane split. Perhaps you have a particular situation in mind?

But the anecdotal data sure seems convincing to me. Lane-controlling and wide-lane-sharing cyclists rear-ended are practically unheard of (even crashes with cyclists hit by oncoming motorists who drift onto their side of the road seem more common), but incidents of unnoticed cyclists in bike lanes (or marked shoulders) being drifted into by same-direction traffic are all too common.

I agree that the stripe generally keeps motorists out of the margin - whether cyclists are present or not - the debris that collects in the bike lane is ample evidence of that. But what's relevant to cyclist safety is the degree to which the stripe helps keep motorists from hitting cyclists. I understand that it seems logical to assume that if the stripe keeps motorists out of the margin -- whether cyclists are there or not -- that it should also help keep them out of the margin when cyclists are there, but this assumption ignores the effect the cyclist's presence has in keeping the motorist's out. That is, if all of the motorists stayed out of the margin when cyclists were riding in the margin, then the relevant effect of the stripe (on cyclists safety from being hit from behind) would be nil. My experience and anecdotal evidence indicates that that is pretty close to the truth. Further, experience and anecdotal evidence also seems to indicate that the stripe makes cyclists in bike lanes more likely to be overlooked - causing motorists to behave indistinguishably whether cyclists are present or not. Being more likely to be overlooked makes cyclists less likely to inhibit a motorist approaching from behind choosing to attend to a distraction - an act which can lead to inadvertent drift into the unnoticed cyclist. I realize that is conjecture, but it's more sound than any claim that the stripe makes cyclists less likely to be hit. More importantly, conflicts with cross traffic are much more likely to cause a crash, and the bike lane clearly guides cyclists and motorists into such conflicts.

I mean miles of wide lane that alternate between numbers of vehicles abreast, not just at intersections. You picked the easy rationale...people wanting to turn right or left and 'squeezing' by another vehicle. My experience has been that in the presence of a bike stripe, people will not generally try to squeeze by but in the absense of that stripe, they will choose to 'add' a lane.:rolleyes:

I completely disregard anecdotal data. You are welcome to disregard my experience as well. 'Anecdotal' and 'experience' are ways to justify positions in the absence of facts. Whenever one starts referencing 'anecdotal' or 'my experience' my ***** alarm goes off. :)

You admit conjecture than say it is 'more sound'?

Why use facts for a position when you can use Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?:D

[MarkS]

Another advantage of bike lanes is transportation under adverse light conditions.

The principles of VC depend heavily on visibility. Or perhaps its superstition that cars will run into objects that can't be seen. So what happens during fog or other low-light conditions? Most drivers will use the lane markings as their guides. Which means that without a BL a cyclist will be in the gutter or on the shoulder on broken asphalt or gravel.

Once again, Bike Lanes facilitate the use of roads by ordinary people and not just hyper-charged cycle jocks.

[noisebeam]

I have noticed this also. in the office park area I work in, if you try to leave at rush hour you will run into this exact situation. motorists are splitting the WOL into two Narrow lanes, one to turn one way onto the arterial, the other to turn the other way.

At what intersection are you having this issue? I've seen nothing like it locally.

Or are you talking about most residential/collector streets which have an unmarked thru and RT lane at intersections, wide enough for thru vehicle to line up on the left leaving the right side open for right turning vehicles. That is a good thing.

Al

[noisebeam]

I am curious about the bike laned road at intersections, are lights that are red or motorists turning over represented in the negative reactions or are thru motorists on green just as likely to have a negative reaction?

I don't quite understand your question. The negative comes from motorists who are resistant to let me leave the bike lane and when I do give me a hard time about it.

Al

[John Forester]

I'm sure JF is appreciative that you stand in for him. :)

I'll type slowly so you understand...

There is no third lane. It's a created phenomenon by the drivers that see this big, wide way and decide there's room for another vehicle. Maybe this has never happened to you?

And help me understand this 'negotiation' you refer to. In my experience, I've never been able to 'negotiate' without some type of direct communication such as talking or typing or writing. I'm sure eye contact or a wave is a great negotiating tool, but I prefer something more concrete than that. I'm unwilling to risk life and limb by assuming that by looking and waving a motorist will understand my 'negotiation'.:D

Show me some data to support your implication that a bike lane stripe has caused even one accident.:mad:

Your answer shows your ignorance of normal traffic operation. For example, when changing lanes one must yield to those in or approaching in the lane you desire to enter. However, that person may decide to yield to your request, whether that request is transmitted by a car's turning signal, by a outstretched arm, or by a turned head. The driver changing lanes must not move laterally simply because he has made such a signal, but only when that signal has been seen, acknowledged, and agreed to. If you are the driver who wants to change lanes, the proof that such a negotiation has succeeded is that the other driver slows down to make a place for you. It's that simple, much simpler than the explanation.