Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike lanes are like sidewalks

I was going to respond to THC with the following reply, but it would have completely derailed the thread. I think there is something to this idea. (Perhaps not!:p) Be thankful I discarded the thought of making this into a poll! :D


We really need to oppose building sidewalks because they reinforce the notion that bikes do not belong on the road. :p

You seem to have swerved into the truth! (I am not implying that truth is unusual in your posts, rather; What you intended to be a humorous line is actually, in a way, true. ;))

Sidewalks absolutely do indicate that pedestrians ought not walk on the road. Sidewalks, by their very existence, say:

1) People on foot have their own special lane.

2) That lane is separated from the normal traffic lanes of the road.

3) The mode of travel that is expected to be used in that lane is in its name: sideWALK.

In light of the above facts, does that same reasoning also indicate that a bike lane is where bicycles belong, and not on the road proper? :D

I would say that bike lanes for cyclists are thought of in the same way that sidewalks are for pedestrians. Is that notion good for cycling advocacy?

I had always assumed that the idea for bike lanes springs from the "speed positioning principle". Could its origin actually be due to a "sidewalk principle"?

I think we should eliminate all sidewalks and make the peds share the lane with motorists.

I think we should eliminate all sidewalks and make the peds share the lane with motorists.

You need to start a movement. You could call it vehicular walking.

Honestly I do tend to agree. It is a tough call though. I would be willing to bet that the sidewalk was born out of a desire to make walking safer with the advent of the car, especially when the car could start achieving greater speeds.

Similarily bike lanes are mostly thought of for the same reasons.

The problem with both is that they have the secondary issue of giving motorists yet another reinforcement that the road is just for them.

Do I think we should eliminate all sidewalks? No. But we have to recognize that with the good also comes the bad.

-D

Actually, the main purpose of sidewalks originally was to get pedestrians out of the mud, muck and horse poop of early, unpaved roads-- before there were cars or bicycles and before the rules of the road became standardized. When the first bicycle craze took hold (before the motor car was common or practical) bicyclists demanded, and sometimes got, both paved roads and bicycle paths, well before the creator of the myth that bicycle facilities are some kind of motorist conspiracy was even born.

I think we should eliminate all sidewalks and make the peds share the lane with motorists.

absolutely! it's the only logical conclusion to the OP's analogy.

no more sidewalks. and no more of those messy crosswalks. and no more of those pesky "walk" signals-why should those peds get their own separate signal? everybody needs to get out there with the cars and mix it up.

and who pays for all those sidewalks? last time I heard they didn't tax those pedestrians, they don't pay registration fees for their shoes. Most people don't walk all that much why should we have to subsidize all those pedestrians with our hard earned tax dollars?

and sidewalks are often really poorly maintained, they're messed up and people leave the trash barrels on them all day blocking them. And people walk any which way they want. In NYC where the sidewalks are really crowded there's pushing and shoving and people could really use some training. That's the real solution pedestrian training! They should be more predictable and walk in a straight line. and where sidewalks intersect with roads it's really dangerous. Sidewalks, if they're going to make one's that I'd use, should never intersect with roads or streets.

absolutely, pedestrians would be much safer just walking in the street.

Chipseal, this is brilliant! thank you so much for drawing this to our attention.:rolleyes:

Buzzman you're a panic!

One thing I found interesting is they put a curb lane down a road in my neighborhood where there is no sidewalk and the joggers and strollers came out in droves. And I think the character of the road changed from "high speed motoring short cut" to a more civil neighborhood collector street as a result. Since there are many roads in MD with no sidewalks and narrow lanes I was thinking of trying to sell a multi-use wide curb lane as a way to minimize ROW requirements, give joggers something softer to run on and give cyclists some extra width.

Anyway while a lot of post were in jest I really wounder what a JF of pedestrian issues would uncover. I would not be surprised at all that vehicular walking would be found to be safer.

This discussion really illustrates the identity crisis of cycling: Is it more like walking, or more like driving a car? While VC theory explicitly claims that it is more like driving, due to its speed and linearity, most of the public, including a portion of the cycling public, assume it to be more like walking, and ride accordingly. And guess what? Some people DO cycle at speeds more approaching walking than motoring, stop and look at intersections, and so on. So the reality seems that it is somewhere in between, and very dependent on the individual cyclist, and so the debate continues.

BTW, as a self-identified vehicular cyclist (but not ready to argue that it's best for everyone), I think the whole point of VC is that it's NOT like walking at all. Therefore separated facilities with minimal rules can and do work well for pedestrians, who CAN stop and change direction on a dime. Bikes are (or can be) different. The big question in "how different?"

It also makes sense to me that this confusion of biking and walking is what makes it natural for many people to make the leap from "pedestrians should stay on the sidewalk and out of the road" to "bicyclists should stay in their lane (or path), and out of the road."

i doubt that notion is effective for bicycling advocacy, chipseal, becasue it is innacurate. Preffered class road lanes for bikes are nothing like sidewalks- what would give someone that idea?

-Barry- pic bottom left of bike lane and ped lane striped on road.

You need to start a movement. You could call it vehicular walking.

Too late. Hans Monderman got there first. According to some observers it sucks for cyclists.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html



Several years ago, Monderman ripped out all the traditional instruments used by traffic engineers to influence driver behavior - traffic lights, road markings, and some pedestrian crossings - and in their place created a roundabout, or traffic circle. The circle is remarkable for what it doesn't contain: signs or signals telling drivers how fast to go, who has the right-of-way, or how to behave. There are no lane markers or curbs separating street and sidewalk, so it's unclear exactly where the car zone ends and the pedestrian zone begins. To an approaching driver, the intersection is utterly ambiguous - and that's the point.

Monderman and I stand in silence by the side of the road a few minutes, watching the stream of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians make their way through the circle, a giant concrete mixing bowl of transport. Somehow it all works. The drivers slow to gauge the intentions of crossing bicyclists and walkers. Negotiations over right-of-way are made through fleeting eye contact. Remarkably, traffic moves smoothly around the circle with hardly a brake screeching, horn honking, or obscene gesture. "I love it!" Monderman says at last. "Pedestrians and cyclists used to avoid this place, but now, as you see, the cars look out for the cyclists, the cyclists look out for the pedestrians, and everyone looks out for each other. You can't expect traffic signs and street markings to encourage that sort of behavior. You have to build it into the design of the road."

Actually, the main purpose of sidewalks originally was to get pedestrians out of the mud, muck and horse poop of early, unpaved roads-- before there were cars or bicycles and before the rules of the road became standardized. When the first bicycle craze took hold (before the motor car was common or practical) bicyclists demanded, and sometimes got, both paved roads and bicycle paths, well before the creator of the myth that bicycle facilities are some kind of motorist conspiracy was even born.

The Creation Myth according to the gospels of the True Believers! There is an heretical notion that there are actually two creative impulses at work within the transubstantiation of the One True Bicycle Facility. One of them was the desire for paved roads, a pure desire springing from the bosom of our earliest forefathers, which enabled them to swarm forth and roll their wheels upon All The Earth (Lo! even unto their children of today who are as mountain bikers). The other was a dark impulse, a malign outer spirit which saw and envied the Joy and Freedom of men and desired to banish our rubber to the Nether Regions of the road. This Spirit sowed Fear and Confusion upon the Highways, a dark seed of doubt which planted in the hearts of our earliest forebearers now bears fruit.

In NYC where the sidewalks are really crowded there's pushing and shoving and people could really use some training. That's the real solution pedestrian training! They should be more predictable and walk in a straight line. and where sidewalks intersect with roads it's really dangerous. Sidewalks, if they're going to make one's that I'd use, should never intersect with roads or streets.

What absolute and unmitigated rubbish! It's pretty obvious that the solution to crowded sidewalks with large, topheavy people travelling at dangerously high velocities (I heard in the paper the other day about someone that fell and hurt their head when they were knocked down from behind ... thank god they were wearing a helmet or they'd be dead now!) is to create a special inner stripe on the sidewalk where we can travel safely.

To the people that argue against this idea (pointing out that this would expose us to the danger of suddenly opening store doors and cause confusion at each intersection) I'd just like to point out that this will only be the case initially. Later, when the idea catches on and there are great numbers of us using it everyone will get the hang of the idea. Also we can create a network of high-quality SidepedLanes which are off of the sidewalk and avoid some of these problems. I ask you ... who wouldn't want to commute to work listening to the birds singing on such a SidepedLane.

Later, after all these are filled up then we could add yet another special lane inside of the first special lane and so on... ;)

I just wanted to chime in that Segways are the only vehicle that enjoys a dual pedestrian and vehicle status.

PS. Walt your creation myth is a panic.

I just wanted to chime in that Segways are the only vehicle that enjoys a dual pedestrian and vehicle status.

Actually, it's a tri-status - vehicle, pedestrian, and dork.

I can kick your butt in a game of Ping-Pong (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-xEzGIuY7kw).

:D

Please allow me to quote myself from another thread:

"The more I think about it, the less I like Bicycle Lanes. Motorists need to be taught respect and to share the road. The three-foot passing law should be mandated in all states.
I brought up this question a while back: Aren't there a number of different kinds of bicycle lanes?

1) a slow lane for climbing a hill,

2) a fast lane for bikes to pass cars in downtown traffic-

(The two are complete opposites and a mutual contradiction, are they not?)

3) a continuous Bicycle Lane the whole length of the road, and

4) Short segments of road widening, just where there are "Choke Points" now, like on curves, or on a main road, when and where there are no back-roads to use as an alternate, e.g.: Between sub-divisions. You know what I mean? Sometimes you can ride back roads through a residential area, but only within any or each sub-division. Then there's a stretch of busy County or State road that you have to ride on for just-one block before you can get to the next sub-division. This would save the lives of many children, even if the Bike Lane is just a five foot wide sidewalk (with existing wheelchair ramps)."

[end quote]

Under #4, I said a bike lane could be a 5 foot wide sidewalk. But I said it's just to get around a choke point. Please don't lobby for, or suggest to your congressman, a twenty mile sidewalk to nowhere.

Actually, the main purpose of sidewalks originally was to get pedestrians out of the mud, muck and horse poop of early, unpaved roads-- before there were cars or bicycles and before the rules of the road became standardized. When the first bicycle craze took hold (before the motor car was common or practical) bicyclists demanded, and sometimes got, both paved roads and bicycle paths, well before the creator of the myth that bicycle facilities are some kind of motorist conspiracy was even born.

JRA, you claim that it is not true that the bikeway standard designs were designed by motorists as means by which to keep cyclists at the side of the roadway or off the roadway. Upon what information do you base your information? Were you present at the design meetings? Do you know any of the designers? Do you offer any historical account? If one is to believe your claim, you need to offer stronger historical support than that which has been known for thirty-five years.

john, who cares?

can you describe the differences between sidewalks and on road bike lanes?

you could describe how, at signallized intersections, bike lane stripes sometimes place bicyclists to the left of right turning motorists, quite unlike sidewalks, for example

JRA, you claim that it is not true that the bikeway standard designs were designed by motorists as means by which to keep cyclists at the side of the roadway or off the roadway. Upon what information do you base your information? Were you present at the design meetings? Do you know any of the designers? Do you offer any historical account? If one is to believe your claim, you need to offer stronger historical support than that which has been known for thirty-five years.

We all know that historical context is of the utmost importance as whatever the original purpose of a thing is (such as bike lanes) and that cannot be altered. We have proof of this historical importance in the fact that the bicycle was designed to be a toy and that can never change. Paved roads were first lobbied for by cyclists so their primary purpose to serve cyclists can never change.

In fact historical context is a critical argument in all forms of bigotry towards gender, race and religion so it has to be a valid argument.

[/sarcasm]

I'll remember this the next time I meet one of those joggers taking the lane, and treat them as a vehicular pedestrian.

**** me, I don't know whether to laugh or cry sometimes.

Ed

Around 5,000 people are killed every year because of the improper lane positioning. Inattentional blindness cause cars stride from their lanes and kill pedestrians. We need to get rid of sidewalks to save peoples lives.

Wow, you should see what they are saying over at Pedestrianforums about this... :D

We all know that historical context is of the utmost importance as whatever the original purpose of a thing is (such as bike lanes) and that cannot be altered. We have proof of this historical importance in the fact that the bicycle was designed to be a toy and that can never change. Paved roads were first lobbied for by cyclists so their primary purpose to serve cyclists can never change.

In fact historical context is a critical argument in all forms of bigotry towards gender, race and religion so it has to be a valid argument.

[/sarcasm]

I understand that you think that you are being sarcastic. And I also thoroughly dislike your argument that "historical context is a critical argument in all forms of bigotry" applies to this discussion. And your sarcasm that since "the bicycle was designed to be a toy and that can never change" just shows your ignorance of history. The bicycle was invented by people who knew exactly what they wanted: a vehicle faster than walking and cheaper than horses. The miracle is they outdid horses in both economy and speed.

For your supposed sarcasm to be actual sarcasm, you have to demonstrate that the facts have changed. Bike lanes were designed by motorists to shove bicycle traffic to the side of the road out of the way of motorists. The facts have not changed: bike lanes keep cyclists to the side of the road out of motorists' way. So that invalidates your supposed sarcasm.What do you say?

What some people call 'keeping cyclists to the side of the road out of motorist's way', I call 'not unreasonably obstructing other road users', like it says in the road rules (remember them?). I ride to the side of car traffic if there's room, bikelane or not, not because I feel inferior or anything, but simply because it's common courtesy.

What some people call 'keeping cyclists to the side of the road out of motorist's way', I call 'not unreasonably obstructing other road users', like it says in the road rules (remember them?). I ride to the side of car traffic if there's room, bikelane or not, not because I feel inferior or anything, but simply because it's common courtesy.


i fully agree with this allister, i find it annoying when i am driving and there is space for a biker to move over and he chooses not to.
i ride bikes on atlanta roads and there is no one that knows how to handle bike riders around here.

What some people call 'keeping cyclists to the side of the road out of motorist's way', I call 'not unreasonably obstructing other road users', like it says in the road rules (remember them?). I ride to the side of car traffic if there's room, bikelane or not, not because I feel inferior or anything, but simply because it's common courtesy.

Courtesy is desirable, as I have always written. For which, Bekologist has accused me of being a curb hugger. I doubt that he will say the same about your statement, although I think your statement is stronger than that for which Bekologist accused me. However, being courteous to drivers who can go faster also is limited by the rules of the road when the circumstances indicate that they should either yield to you as a right or, when your are intending to make a left turn, it is courteous of them to modify their speed to allow you to do so. I am sure, Allister, that you do not always ride at the edge of the road, although your statement so indicates.

The trouble with the bike-lane stripe is that it was designed to shove incompetently discourteous cyclists aside (the designers said so, several times), and when courtesy is enforced by a physical stripe it just goes wrong. Courtesy depends on the situation at the place, time, and traffic, and cannot be enforced by a permanent stripe.

Around 5,000 people are killed every year because of the improper lane positioning. Inattentional blindness cause cars stride from their lanes and kill pedestrians. We need to get rid of sidewalks to save peoples lives.

:roflmao:

It's all on how you spin it.

'shove incompetantly discourteous cyclists aside?'

that's the guiding force for Bicycling Master Plans in cities like New York, Chicago, Vancouver, Seattle?

The trouble with the bike-lane stripe is that it was designed to shove incompetently discourteous cyclists aside
What's wrong with that?

I wrote: "The trouble with the bike-lane stripe is that it was designed to shove incompetently discourteous cyclists aside"

To which CTAC replied:

What's wrong with that?

The trouble should be obvious. When the stripe is painted on the road, it applies to all cyclists, be they competent or not. It assumes that all cyclists should be treated as unlawfully incompetent regardless of fact. Its psychological force dissuades the development of cycling competence. Its psychological force persuades motorists that cyclists don't belong on the normal roadway, are not drivers of vehicles. It's punishing everybody for the unlawful behavior of some, instead of trying to produce the understanding of proper behavior.

I understand that you think that you are being sarcastic. And I also thoroughly dislike your argument that "historical context is a critical argument in all forms of bigotry" applies to this discussion. And your sarcasm that since "the bicycle was designed to be a toy and that can never change" just shows your ignorance of history. The bicycle was invented by people who knew exactly what they wanted: a vehicle faster than walking and cheaper than horses. The miracle is they outdid horses in both economy and speed.

For your supposed sarcasm to be actual sarcasm, you have to demonstrate that the facts have changed. Bike lanes were designed by motorists to shove bicycle traffic to the side of the road out of the way of motorists. The facts have not changed: bike lanes keep cyclists to the side of the road out of motorists' way. So that invalidates your supposed sarcasm.What do you say?

Headline news: John Forster gets top national experts to meet to find ways to shove cyclists into the way of motorists.

There, is that better sarcasm? I'm just saying you can spin anything to seem highly negative.

You can spin anything, even your own advocacy for WOLs and shoulders can be spun as shoving bicycle traffic to the side of road. Despite all your carefully worded explanations it still comes down to some sort of separation of space and time as desirable by MOTORISTS.

To add validity to your spin you add original design intent that cannot ever change. That comes across as "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings." I'm sorry but I am at a loss to find any sort of valid argument that is dependent on original historic design intent taht can make or break an argument. If something fails, failure under current conditions is far superior then failure in the past. The only time I see this form of argument of original intent is from a highly biased point of view.


So the original intent of bicycles comes down to how we choose our words, was the intent to create a sport that was faster then walking and cheaper then horses like skiing or was it to create a valid transportation mode that would replace the horse by first confining the sport of cycling to exclusive country clubs and space reserved solely for use by the bicycle as an ideal transportation model. It was here in exercise of sport that the engineering of the bicycle was refined so it could compete with horse as a means of travel, the design of the bicycle adapted and changed as did peoples attitude about the bicycle. Most items in this discussion have changed from their original design intent, the bicycle and paved roads created by the Good Road Movement. You argue about the "facts" in meetings with road engineers but what are the "facts" about government attitude that help convene the meetings or the "facts" about public attitudes that influenced the government? Who's attitude takes precedent for the "intent" of the outcome? The facts are such that they are so many facts anyone can spin them to whatever their agenda is. Bicycles have a dual sport/transportation intent, public roads/bike lanes have a dual accommodating cyclists/motorist intent. To cite "facts" that spin this one way or the other denies other "facts" about the other way. The balance between two intents or public perception (which is what we really are concerned about) changes over time and that is the "facts."

I wrote: "The trouble with the bike-lane stripe is that it was designed to shove incompetently discourteous cyclists aside"

To which CTAC replied:


The trouble should be obvious. When the stripe is painted on the road, it applies to all cyclists, be they competent or not. It assumes that all cyclists should be treated as unlawfully incompetent regardless of fact. Its psychological force dissuades the development of cycling competence. Its psychological force persuades motorists that cyclists don't belong on the normal roadway, are not drivers of vehicles. It's punishing everybody for the unlawful behavior of some, instead of trying to produce the understanding of proper behavior.

please try to remain on topic.

if we provide sidewalks for pedestrians and freeways for motorists, why shouldn't we provide bike lanes for cyclists?

Conversely, if we aren't going to provide bike lanes, shouldn't we also remove the freeways and sidewalks?

I wrote: "The trouble with the bike-lane stripe is that it was designed to shove incompetently discourteous cyclists aside"

..... It assumes that all cyclists should be treated as unlawfully incompetent regardless of fact...

NO, John, actually not.

Well designed bike lane networks largely assume and treat bicyclists as lawful and competent users of the road.

NO, John, actually not.

Well designed bike lane networks largely assume and treat bicyclists as lawful and competent users of the road.

Your argument is rather silly because it assumes the impossible. It is practically impossible to have a well-designed bike lane network that does treat bicyclists as lawful and competent users of the road. If it were designed so that it never contradicted the rules of the road, so little of it would exist that one could not call it a network.

please try to remain on topic.

if we provide sidewalks for pedestrians and freeways for motorists, why shouldn't we provide bike lanes for cyclists?

Conversely, if we aren't going to provide bike lanes, shouldn't we also remove the freeways and sidewalks?

Your argument is no more than a play on words without regard to the physical realities.

Your argument is no more than a play on words without regard to the physical realities.

and you can't stay on topic; all you do is repeat the same tired old crap over and over.

Headline news: John Forster gets top national experts to meet to find ways to shove cyclists into the way of motorists.

There, is that better sarcasm? I'm just saying you can spin anything to seem highly negative.

You can spin anything, even your own advocacy for WOLs and shoulders can be spun as shoving bicycle traffic to the side of road. Despite all your carefully worded explanations it still comes down to some sort of separation of space and time as desirable by MOTORISTS.

To add validity to your spin you add original design intent that cannot ever change. That comes across as "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings." I'm sorry but I am at a loss to find any sort of valid argument that is dependent on original historic design intent taht can make or break an argument. If something fails, failure under current conditions is far superior then failure in the past. The only time I see this form of argument of original intent is from a highly biased point of view.


So the original intent of bicycles comes down to how we choose our words, was the intent to create a sport that was faster then walking and cheaper then horses like skiing or was it to create a valid transportation mode that would replace the horse by first confining the sport of cycling to exclusive country clubs and space reserved solely for use by the bicycle as an ideal transportation model. It was here in exercise of sport that the engineering of the bicycle was refined so it could compete with horse as a means of travel, the design of the bicycle adapted and changed as did peoples attitude about the bicycle. Most items in this discussion have changed from their original design intent, the bicycle and paved roads created by the Good Road Movement. You argue about the "facts" in meetings with road engineers but what are the "facts" about government attitude that help convene the meetings or the "facts" about public attitudes that influenced the government? Who's attitude takes precedent for the "intent" of the outcome? The facts are such that they are so many facts anyone can spin them to whatever their agenda is. Bicycles have a dual sport/transportation intent, public roads/bike lanes have a dual accommodating cyclists/motorist intent. To cite "facts" that spin this one way or the other denies other "facts" about the other way. The balance between two intents or public perception (which is what we really are concerned about) changes over time and that is the "facts."

You keep repeating that the bicycle was invented to create the as then unimagined sport of cycling, despite my telling you of the truth of the matter. Your persistence in repeating error simply shows the strength of prejudices. Inventing the bicycle to create some sport that was undreamed of at that time? Ludicrous, that is.

However, more to the point. You argue that original design intent can change over time. It cannot, because it is a historical fact. Anyway, the point I was arguing was the consistency in function over time. The original bike lane designers designed a system to push cyclists to the side of the road. They succeeded in producing that result. Because the system has not had significant redesign, it still does that. You admit as much, only you now call it separation.

I consider your argument using separation, as you call it. "You can spin anything, even your own advocacy for WOLs and shoulders can be spun as shoving bicycle traffic to the side of road. Despite all your carefully worded explanations it still comes down to some sort of separation of space and time as desirable by MOTORISTS." In that you are entirely wrong. WOLs allow motorists the space to overtake cyclists without delay, in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, but without imposing any separation that contradicts the rules of the road and applies a stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road. WOLs provide sufficient space, without generating any other complication. That is their virtue. The same goes for shoulders, because there is no implication that cyclists should be limited to shoulders.

One would think that these matters are readily understandable. That they are not, for many people, demonstrates the obduracy of unthinking prejudices.

When the stripe is painted on the road, it applies to all cyclists, be they competent or not. It assumes that all cyclists should be treated as unlawfully incompetent regardless of fact.

Dude, that the idea behind all road markings. Competent drivers do not need any lanes, they would drive perfectly fine without them on a multilane highway, stop where stop line is supposed to be, and park their cars without stall lines at a mall in an orderly fashion.



Its psychological force dissuades the development of cycling competence. Its psychological force persuades motorists that cyclists don't belong on the normal roadway, are not drivers of vehicles. It's punishing everybody for the unlawful behavior of some, instead of trying to produce the understanding of proper behavior.
I used to share that opinion, but since I wrapped my helmet with tin foil it helped a lot.

Dude, that the idea behind all road markings. Competent drivers do not need any lanes, they would drive perfectly fine without them on a multilane highway, stop where stop line is supposed to be, and park their cars without stall lines at a mall in an orderly fashion.


I used to share that opinion, but since I wrapped my helmet with tin foil it helped a lot.

There is a great deal of difference between normal lane stripes, which simply allow drivers to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and the bike-lane stripe, which distinguishes between one type of driver and another type of driver, with the result of sometimes contradicting the rules of the road.

There is a great deal of difference between normal lane stripes, which simply allow drivers to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and the bike-lane stripe, which distinguishes between one type of driver and another type of driver, with the result of sometimes contradicting the rules of the road.
I know that you do not ride bicycle much, but if you drive a car you should have seen many examples of the same markings that has no relation to bicycles. Carpool lanes, passing lanes, turnovers, bus lanes. All of them are designed to separate different kind of traffic.

I know that you do not ride bicycle much, but if you drive a car you should have seen many examples of the same markings that has no relation to bicycles. Carpool lanes, passing lanes, turnovers, bus lanes. All of them are designed to separate different kind of traffic.

None of these examples with some exceptions for bus lanes, violate the rules of the road, in fact they mostly enhance/support them.

Carpool - faster traffic left, no turning conflicts
Passing - slower traffic right, right turns (if they exist) are made my all types of vehicles from that lane.

how do properly destination positioned bike lanes violate the rules of the road?

how do properly destination positioned bike lanes violate the rules of the road?

Two reasons.

1: No installation with which I am familiar is properly destination positioned for all moves.
2: Practically no installations allow sufficient weaving distance.

1: No installation with which I am familiar is properly destination positioned for all moves.

sounds like catch-22 to me.

Are HOV or bus-only lanes properly destination positioned for all moves?

sounds like catch-22 to me.

Are HOV or bus-only lanes properly destination positioned for all moves?

Of course not, but it has never been argued that there is a safety imperative in obeying those lanes, as is the case for bike lanes. The lanes that you mentioned are no more than conveniences, to be used or not as works out best. That is not the case for bike lanes, for which the safety imperative enforced by laws is the dominant opinion.

bike lanes are simply a convenient and less stressful alternative to sharing the MV lanes on high speed arterials, no one's ever claimed they are safer to use than the adjacent travel lane.

bike lanes are simply a convenient and less stressful alternative to sharing the MV lanes on high speed arterials, no one's ever claimed they are safer to use than the adjacent travel lane.

Go back to the library and read the literature before sounding off again.

Go back to the library and read the literature before sounding off again.

:roflmao:

why don't you humble yourself and offer to help design better bike lanes and paths, John? That would actually be a useful contribution.

bike lanes can have better destination positioning if done right, and paths can be done better too with careful route selection and selective use of grade eliminations and other treatments. The money might actually be out there in the near future to do it better.

fact that the bicycle was designed to be a toy and that can never change

Really? I'd be interested in an original source citation about the motivations of Drais de Sauerbrun, or any other early pioneers.

It seems to be that non-velocipedists tried (consciously or otherwise) to denigrate those machines by likening them to the children's toy "hobbyhorse" (just a stick with a horse's head) but that seems to be par for the course for the non-cycling public and not any indication of a lack of practicality on the part of the creators and developers.

john, who cares?

I think you've answered your own question by asking it.