For what heinous act were they banned? I see a lot of oblique references to a "dangerous link" being posted but everyone is very coy about exactly what happened. If there's a relevant thread with information from the moderators about specifics I'd appreciate a link to it. So far the impression given is that they committed The Offense Which May Not Be Named and having seen some of the hate speech posted in the bike helmet thread I find it hard to imagine what could be more offensive than that.

I think that they wrote something along the lines of send them a PM for more details.

You can still send them -- HH and JF -- an e-mail if you like. See what they say.

Thanks, no I didn't. But that doesn't really explain things. It's the equivalent of a COMINTERN directive saying that Comrade HHsky has been expelled for disrupting proletarian harmony. I don't see how a ban can be enforced anyway, all anyone needs is an anonymyzing proxy and a new user name.

Try this:
http://67.201.16.77/showthread.php?t=405273

or you could take your keyboard to a different playground where they play by your rules.

Why are anti-lane comments being placed in this lane specific thread ?

I suspect this is so because it is a thread asking for personal opinion of bike lanes with the question posed in a way that invites, no, requires each of us to answer based on our own understanding.

I would much rather have either a nice wide lane to share or a nice smooth low-traffic path than a bike lane, especially in areas with many intersections. I would much rather have a highway bike lane than be mixing it up with heavy high speed traffic.

In general, given the tough winter here in Illinois, I would settle for ANYTHING that is not a huge pothole.

Ya know, this has been asked and answered many times over the last few months. I'm sure that it's been discussed over the decades too. Bike lanes are perceived by some of us to create motorist hostility towards those of us who choose not to ride in them. The resulting pressure to use these facilities can place us in dangerous or awkward positions even if we know we should (and would rather not be there).

You may not be trying to be antagonistic, but you sure haven't been listening to what has been said. I get that you may not agree with the answers, but please don't keep asking the same questions.


You are not listening to what is being said.......
The answers I dont/wont/will never agree with belong in another thread.
Why are you posting anti-BL stuff to a BL rider related thread ?
It is very clear this thread is for people who use BL's.

On a typical ride I probably spend as much time out of marked AASHTO compliant bike lanes than I do fully within them.

If the stripe was not there I would in many cases be able to use more of the pavement space now marked as a bike lane.

Al

You are not listening to what is being said.......
The answers I dont/wont/will never agree with belong in another thread.
Why are you posting anti-BL stuff to a BL rider related thread ?
It is very clear this thread is for people who use BL's.

With all due respect, you are completely wrong.

The question for the poll is:

"after a riders criterea are met can they ride vehicularily in a bike lane?"

That question can be answered Yes. It can also be answered No. (for me I answered sure)

So are you saying for the people who feel the answer is no, they are not allowed to voice their opinion?

-D

You are not listening to what is being said.......
The answers I dont/wont/will never agree with belong in another thread.
Why are you posting anti-BL stuff to a BL rider related thread ?
It is very clear this thread is for people who use BL's.

I'm not anti bikelane. That would be an abstract, extremist position which makes no sense. I'm anti every bikelane I've experienced. The thread is by its nature an invitation to discuss the concepts of vehicularity, whether bikelanes promote or degrade that concept and other related issues. If you want a exclusive strokefest between yourself and Bek then you should probably hire a private chatroom for the night and get it off your chests. Meanwhile your petty whining is adding no clarity or definition to the problems or solutions. Good man.

"If the lane meets the riders criteria"

WP has stated many times no lane meets his criteria so the HH/JF reposted ad-nausium
is totally unneeded in this thread. Anyone who wants to read this stuff for the
4500,000,00000 millionth time can click on any number of previous threads and
get it verbatim.

I'm not anti bikelane. That would be an abstract, extremist position which makes no sense. I'm anti every bikelane I've experienced. The thread is by its nature an invitation to discuss the concepts of vehicularity, whether bikelanes promote or degrade that concept and other related issues. If you want a exclusive strokefest between yourself and Bek then you should probably hire a private chatroom for the night and get it off your chests. Meanwhile your petty whining is adding no clarity or definition to the problems or solutions. Good man.


Whos nature ?
Whining ?? No, frustration....
This stuff is ponderous and tiresome. Its been written
so many times before its beyond redundant. You 4 rabid
fanatics need to just post a link people can click on to get
this overused, tired diatribe and spare the people who wish
to discuss this stuff rationally.

I would much rather have a highway bike lane than be mixing it up with heavy high speed traffic.

That's something I could get behind too. In fact I don't see why I have to pay taxes to build freeways which I'm not allowed to travel on legally. If facilities advocates were pushing for bikelanes (with signalized intersections at on/off ramps) then I'd be happy to support that. In CA they already have signals on many of the on-ramps in order to stagger the load going onto the freeway and reduce jamming.

W.r.t. the more general, non-specific topic it is completely possible to ride in a safe manner in a bikelane, but only if one does so very, very slowly so that you can quickstop for opening doors, stop when there are obstructions in the lane (many of the bikelanes in L.A. which Bek praises are used as convenient places for garbage cans once a week) and then pull out into traffic after conducting whatever negotiations are necessary with other road users. Similarly for broken glass, dead cats and possums, tire width parallel cracks, people stepping out quickly around a large vehicle. Similarly for any place where a car might wish to turn right ahead of you or pull out. In other words nearly every meter in some places.

Other situations where there are few/no intersections for long stretches and no obstructions would allow higher speeds for people commuting reasonable distances in reasonable times.

So really the question is meaningless as it leaves out specific examples and situations and thus can't be answered.

Whos nature ?
Whining ?? No, frustration....
This stuff is ponderous and tiresome. Its been written
so many times before its beyond redundant. You 4 rabid
fanatics need to just post a link people can click on to get
this overused, tired diatribe and spare the people who wish
to discuss this stuff rationally.

Which 4?

Maybe the problem is there isn't much left to discuss, considering this isn't the first, second or even third time Bek has tried talking about riding vehicularily in a BL. Maybe we need something actually new to talk about.

-D

"If the lane meets the riders criteria"

WP has stated many times no lane meets his criteria s

You're definitely being unreasonable and antagonistic. You're also misrepresenting me. No lane which I have seen meets all my criteria. That's very different from "no lane meets my criteria", which only makes sense in some Platonic universe. I realize it's preferable for weaker minds to argue against strawmen but you should think about this not in terms of winning and losing but as an opportunity to learn something. Unless of course all your interested in is some sort of attempt to bolster your ego.

I know I'm not one of the 4, but I'll post the link anyway:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/blvswol.htm

Al

I know I'm not one of the 4, but I'll post the link anyway:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/blvswol.htm

Al

The problem with that link is that it says this: "BLs constrain bicyclists in the position where Drive Out, Left Cross, and Right Hook collisions are more likely..." and thus by implication suggests that WOLs prevent Drive Out, Left Cross, and Right Hook collisions... which is in fact not true. Any cyclist riding to the right of traffic is just as subject to Drive Out, Left Cross, and Right Hook collisions as a cyclist in the same position behind a stripe of paint.

"You're definitely being unreasonable and antagonistic. You're also misrepresenting me. No lane which I have seen meets all my criteria. That's very different from "no lane meets my criteria", which only makes sense in some Platonic universe. I realize it's preferable for weaker minds to argue against strawmen but you should think about this not in terms of winning and losing but as an opportunity to learn something. Unless of course all your interested in is some sort of attempt to bolster your ego."



^^^^^ Dont flatter yerself, Walt.
I read your stuff long before you got here and
your version isnt any more useful to me than the
others were. There is nothing you are going to teach
me or anyone else on this.
And, my ego is fine. I think you need to look at who is going
hale bop for thier agenda.

The problem with that link is that it says this: "BLs constrain bicyclists in the position where Drive Out, Left Cross, and Right Hook collisions are more likely..." and thus by implication suggests that WOLs prevent Drive Out, Left Cross, and Right Hook collisions... which is in fact not true. Any cyclist riding to the right of traffic is just as subject to Drive Out, Left Cross, and Right Hook collisions as a cyclist in the same position behind a stripe of paint.
The implication is only in your mind. The article continues to say:
"The educational countermeasure for these types of collisions is Use More Lane or Take The Lane. This message is thwarted by BLs because they restrict bicyclists to be in them"

I wouldn't use the terms 'constrain' and 'restrict' though. I prefer 'encourage' or 'guide' - at least for localities that don't have mandatory BL usage laws.

Al

^^^^^ Dont flatter yerself, Walt.
I read your stuff long before you got here and
your version isnt any more useful to me than the
others were. There is nothing you are going to teach
me or anyone else on this.
And, my ego is fine. I think you need to look at who is going
hale bop for thier agenda.

You're thinking about this the wrong way. At the very least you can look upon my posts as examples of the crazy thought which some other people have and which you'll have to counteract in whatever political associations you're active in. I know that's how I take yours, so they're not totally wasted. ;)

I know I'm not one of the 4, but I'll post the link anyway:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/blvswol.htm

Al

No...you are not one of the 4, Al.
We have disagreements and you might think Im an @$$ but stuff
stays civil in the threads. You always post relevant, useful stuff, too.

One problem I have with the fanatics is that they assume BL proponents
are bound to lanes. Period. I look at lanes a tool. Another option you never
know when you might need. Im a huge BL fan and I ride to the left when
I need to and the lane when it is prudent. Anyone who is on this forum would
know the difference. How can having another option be a bad thing ?

You're thinking about this the wrong way. At the very least you can look upon my posts as examples of the crazy thought which some other people have and which you'll have to counteract in whatever political associations you're active in. I know that's how I take yours, so they're not totally wasted. ;)

Im off to the meeting to fight banning roadie groups on Jupiter Island.
Anything I should tell them for you, Walt ?

Ill exchange pleasantries with you tomorrow in another thread. ;)

You are not listening to what is being said.......
The answers I dont/wont/will never agree with belong in another thread.
Why are you posting anti-BL stuff to a BL rider related thread ?
It is very clear this thread is for people who use BL's.

Isn't this "VC land"?

I don't know what that means to you, but my interpretation is that one should expect a "VC" discussion of bike lanes in a poll titled "vehicular cycling in the bike lane".

No...you are not one of the 4, Al.
We have disagreements and you might think Im an @$$ but stuff
stays civil in the threads. You always post relevant, useful stuff, too.

One problem I have with the fanatics is that they assume BL proponents
are bound to lanes. Period. I look at lanes a tool. Another option you never
know when you might need. Im a huge BL fan and I ride to the left when
I need to and the lane when it is prudent. Anyone who is on this forum would
know the difference. How can having another option be a bad thing ?

Well thanks £em. Maybe it is because my approach to BL or not is more driven by my experience than by anything else. I am practical. I feel strongly about it as I deal with the issue every single day (well once in a while I miss a day) I know that for me (and I know that its not just about me) if the bike lanes ended before all intersections where I have cycled it would clear up 99% of the communication mess I sometimes get at intersections and 99% of the issues I have with bike lanes.

Sometimes I feel like it is me and my waving merge arm or my centerish position out of the bike lane trying to be more of an authority to other drivers than the government provided lane. How can the stripe be wrong in motorists eyes? Frankly many motorists see a cyclist out of the bike lane and think they are an idiot.

I strive to be a predictable cyclist. How can I be predictable if I am not riding where it is marked I should be?

I ride intersection approaches with WOL but no BL stripe and I experience first hand the benefit. How can I ignore that?

I do often say: End all bike lanes stripes (but not the pavement space) well before all intersections. That should be the baseline default implementation and a very easy one to implement without error. But that also does not mean that that if for a specific intersection it is found the stripe will be better for most cyclists than it can not as an exception be placed at an intersection approach. But these should be justified on a case by case basis with local cyclist input and only after the intersection approach has not had a bike lane stripe for a period of time.

Al

The implication is only in your mind. The article continues to say:
"The educational countermeasure for these types of collisions is Use More Lane or Take The Lane. This message is thwarted by BLs because they restrict bicyclists to be in them"

I wouldn't use the terms 'constrain' and 'restrict' though. I prefer 'encourage' or 'guide' - at least for localities that don't have mandatory BL usage laws.

Al

I'll accept your use of language if you'll accept that motorists pretty much "encourage or guide" cyclists to be in the very position that they would ride if BL were not there.

If a road is nice and wide I dare say that the average cyclist is just as likely not going to "use more lane or take the lane... " BL or no BL.

I'll accept your use of language if you'll accept that motorists pretty much "encourage or guide" cyclists to be in the very position that they would ride if BL were not there.
I don't know what you mean that motorists guide cyclists if you mean at the moment. But yes, the concern about fast large heavy moving objects approaching from the rear can result in the response to move right.

I get a different treatment at intersection approaches even when I ride in the BL position when the stripe is not there. Without going into examples I can just say that without the stripe there is more 'friction' between me and other drivers at the approach resulting in them being a bit further away and sometimes slowing than if the stripe had been there and I was in the exact same place. This effect is most notable on drivers who desire to turn right at that intersection, which means more often they will slow down and wait to turn instead of zooming by and turning in front.


If a road is nice and wide I dare say that the average cyclist is just as likely not going to "use more lane or "take the lane... " BL or no BL.
Between intersection approaches on high speed roads I agree based on my own and others examples and data. Actually in this case they tend to use less.
Education can help having more cyclists using more of the lane at intersection approaches on high speed roads or high volume roads. Right now bike lanes at approaches are only teaching the wrong thing, removing the stripe eliminates a barrier to both cyclists and motorist learning and communication.

On lower speed roads especially with lower levels of motor vehicles, I don't see this and also see a higher level of destination positioning when the stripes are not there. The 'guiding' effect of BLs vs. naturally destination positioning is most clearly seen on low speed roads.

(For simplicity for the moment only consider simple intersections with no changes in lane configuration - such as additional L/RTOL lanes)

Al

If bike lanes and incompetent cyclists proliferate then the reverse seems likely to happen.

I just don't see a correlation between the two. If anything bikelanes encourage people to get onto the road rather than stay on the footpath, and given that the bikelane system here falls a long way short of being continuous, they'll inevitably end up on non-bikelaned roads as well. It doesn't take all that long to reach a reasonable level of competence.

I'm not all that pro-bikelane, actually, despite how it may appear. It's mainly wide lanes and lower speed limits that make for a more pleasant ride for me. Whether or not they have a stripe is really irrelevant to where I ride. It's all the theorising about how bikelanes 'cause crashes' or 'encourage incompetent cycling' that I find to be so much hooey and not at all useful.

There are some places that bikelanes can be a useful addition, but they are usually on roads that really need extra width added too, and that is an uphill battle. The tendency here is to add bikelanes to roads that are wide enough that they don't really need them and when it gets narrow they end. It's just lazy design purely designed to score political points. They do accidentally get it right occasionally though

Frankly many motorists see a cyclist out of the bike lane and think they are an idiot.

I strive to be a predictable cyclist. How can I be predictable if I am not riding where it is marked I should be?

Are you sure being predictable is a good thing and are you sure being perceived as idiot is a bad thing?

While my experience is not related to bike lanes, I got some comment about being an idiot for taking the lane on a busy 4 lane arterial. So that gave me an idea, so I started singing a happy tune and sashaying down the center of the right lane and everyone stayed FAR away from me and no one hassled me after that. I thought it was a funny experiment, YMMV of course but it did get me to question the validity of some assumptions. I strongly believe that there is not one size fits all to dealing with traffic and some road conditions and we really need to think outside the box from time to time.

Whos nature ?
Whining ?? No, frustration....
This stuff is ponderous and tiresome. Its been written
so many times before its beyond redundant. You 4 rabid
fanatics need to just post a link people can click on to get
this overused, tired diatribe and spare the people who wish
to discuss this stuff rationally.
Now, Lem, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but please don't forget that is why this subforum was created in the first place.

... please don't forget that is why this subforum was created in the first place.

So people can be disrespectful to people with other opinions??? :eek: :(

So people can be disrespectful to people with other opinions??? :eek: :(

Vehicular Cycling™, as promulgated by its chief proponent and his most fervent acolytes, IS all about disrespect for cyclists who don't share their iron clad belief in the "effectiveness" of VC™ training/technique, or the validity of its basis - EC™/Forester Brand Science.

Respect for cyclists with differing opinions/priorities is not a word or concept in the Vehicular Cycling™ lexicon; the terms "incompetent" and "mendacious" are often used instead.

I just don't see a correlation between the two. If anything bikelanes encourage people to get onto the road rather than stay on the footpath, and given that the bikelane system here falls a long way short of being continuous, they'll inevitably end up on non-bikelaned roads as well. It doesn't take all that long to reach a reasonable level of competence.

Well, we'll just have to disagree. I've seen plenty of people riding on the sidewalk in areas with partial bikelane coverage. Perhaps they eventually migrate onto the road, but from knowing a couple of people that explicitly choose the sidewalk or bikelaned routes (and they've got many years of experience cycling) their main stated reason for being there is that they're afraid of the cars and the drivers. I don't think that's a reasonable fear, especially given some of the situations they put themselves into on the sidewalk. I think it's this fear and its promotion (albeit unintentionally) that is the biggest obstacle to getting people cycling.

I'm not all that pro-bikelane, actually, despite how it may appear. It's mainly wide lanes and lower speed limits that make for a more pleasant ride for me. Whether or not they have a stripe is really irrelevant to where I ride. It's all the theorising about how bikelanes 'cause crashes' or 'encourage incompetent cycling' that I find to be so much hooey and not at all useful.

I've never got the impression that you're pro-bikelane. I understand that you feel that they have no impact on your cycling, but thanks for the clarification anyway. I'd also agree that the theories on both sides about the effect of facilities are only weakly supported by evidence. In reality it would require massive and extended studies to achieve a reasonable amount of statistical power for any study as many of the effects are probably quite weak. So, all that's going to happen is that based upon our individual experiences we'll have different beliefs about bikelanes and their effect on motorist and cyclist attitudes. Mine most definitely suggests that motorists are encouraged by their presence to believe that bicycles have no place on the road. I'm also fairly sure that the majority of urban bikelanes are doorzone bikelanes (and to repeat ad nauseam the point that if you're travelling at a speed which allows you to stop in one of those then you're going to slowly to get anywhere in a reasonable time. And yes, I can and do leave such lanes and my personal experience is that motorist hostility is huge as a result even when I'm travelling as fast as other traffic.)

There are some places that bikelanes can be a useful addition, but they are usually on roads that really need extra width added too, and that is an uphill battle. The tendency here is to add bikelanes to roads that are wide enough that they don't really need them and when it gets narrow they end. It's just lazy design purely designed to score political points. They do accidentally get it right occasionally though

No disagreement, apart from the fact that I've never personally been on one which I feel gets it right. I admit the possibility that they may exist (like white crows).

What blows my mind is that bike coalitions know that they have helped in implementing hundreds and thousands of miles of facilities which you and I would choose to ignore and they've done little to nothing to rectify egregious mis-design. I hope that a serious law suit will happen some time to hold them accountable.

Well, we'll just have to disagree.
[SNIP]

No disagreement, apart from the fact that I've never personally been on one which I feel gets it right. I admit the possibility that they may exist (like white crows).

What blows my mind is that bike coalitions know that they have helped in implementing hundreds and thousands of miles of facilities which you and I would choose to ignore and they've done little to nothing to rectify egregious mis-design. I hope that a serious law suit will happen some time to hold them accountable.

See today's Dilbert strip (4/13)

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/index.html

Reminded me of several of the I-Know-Best-VC-Promoter's methods at reaching a consensus on advocacy issues.

What blows my mind is that bike coalitions know that they have helped in implementing hundreds and thousands of miles of facilities which you and I would choose to ignore and they've done little to nothing to rectify egregious mis-design. I hope that a serious law suit will happen some time to hold them accountable.

I think there is a little misinformation here... while some groups have worked to get bike lanes, the actual implementation of the BL is by road engineers and road crews... the bike coalitions have little say in what actually gets put into place.

I know for a fact that here in San Diego, for example, some bad bike lanes have been protested and have been eventually "fixed." But in the long run, cyclists have little say over the actual implementation of what hits the street.

I personally have fought some situations that were clearly short sighted in implementation, and at every level there is entrenched bureaucracy that had to be battled. In one case I'm still waiting for a simple "Share the Road" sign as a compromise to what I really asked for.

On the other side of any coalition is the public official that is "just doing their job," or (the excuse I heard) "we followed the standards... " or "well the kiddos on bikes just don't need that...." the latter said in response to a request to a wide bike path... the "kiddos" in that meeting were adult cyclists wanting a path to replace the once shareable road that had been removed and replaced with a limited access freeway. (Road removed, Freeway put in, cyclists no longer had access to whole communities).

This is where in some respects John Forester is right... the motoring community at large really does control many aspects of road design, and they frankly don't give a hoot about cyclists... and the result shows.

Bottom line; don't blame the coalitions... they are cyclists that have their own best interests in mind. Someone else actually puts the paint on the roads.

You make a valid point, Gene, although I think there is a tendency for advocacy groups to get into an 'anything is better than nothing' mindset. It's certainly true of Bicycle Queensland from what I can see. Given the way the BCC and Main Roads 'design' bike infrastructure here, sometimes nothing is better than something, but you never hear that from BQ. They seem to accept any old dross, and never seem to particularly mind that they either get ignored or not even asked during the consultation stage of projects.

Well, we'll just have to disagree. I've seen plenty of people riding on the sidewalk in areas with partial bikelane coverage. Perhaps they eventually migrate onto the road, but from knowing a couple of people that explicitly choose the sidewalk or bikelaned routes (and they've got many years of experience cycling) their main stated reason for being there is that they're afraid of the cars and the drivers. I don't think that's a reasonable fear, especially given some of the situations they put themselves into on the sidewalk. I think it's this fear and its promotion (albeit unintentionally) that is the biggest obstacle to getting people cycling.

I see the same thing, I just don't necessarily equate footpath cycling with incompetence. The ones I see all ride fairly slowly, and treat intersections with the necessary caution. They seem quite competent at footpath cycling to me. I see it simply as a matter of personal choice rather than any conscious effort to encourage them to stay off the roads, and I certainly don't feel any pressure to get off the road.

I also think fear of cars and drivers is a reasonable fear for many people, and can take quite a leap of faith to overcome, and I accept that not everyone will make that leap. I try to dispell that if asked, but I don't think they believe me. That said, I don't see anything wrong with providing for those people too.

well, even in this very limited poll, 14 to 1 "yes its possible to ride vehicularily in the bike lane"

The ability of vehicular operation in a bike lane IS a very important distinction. Perhaps the nuance is lost on some of us, but the admittance of vehicular operation in a bike lane is quite fundamental to the approach of infrastructure redesign in communities.


its funny. Talk of competant, vehicular cycling and the vc foot soldiers turn to claims of blanket incompetancy and motorist discrimination by page three.

The disqualifications of bike lanes not meeting criterea ( bike turning left, debris, unsafe conditions) are codfied in ALL state laws regards to bicycling on public roads with bike lanes.....and motorists not following the rules of the road is not a damnification of facilites but a damnification of the motorists.


I see more and more well designed vehicular bike lanes on roads in America every day. Bicyclists, even diehard vehicular cyclists, can generally ride vehicularily in a well provided bike lane.

So people can be disrespectful to people with other opinions??? :eek: :(

Certainly one should have thick skin to wade through these waters. But the sub-forum is also a place to argue over the minutiae of cycling advocacy and safety. Given that one has to be of a "special mind" to argue over this, one might expect tempers to flare a little more often than in the vanilla A&S.

Vehicular Cycling™, as promulgated by its chief proponent and his most fervent acolytes, IS all about disrespect for cyclists who don't share their iron clad belief in the "effectiveness" of VC™ training/technique, or the validity of its basis - EC™/Forester Brand Science.

Respect for cyclists with differing opinions/priorities is not a word or concept in the Vehicular Cycling™ lexicon; the terms "incompetent" and "mendacious" are often used instead.

I agree that the language used is particularly unkind. Especially since -- at least in my opinion -- the dangers and optimal techniques are speed dependent.

I also think that your emphasis "as promulgated by" is important. In my opinion, "VC" is thrown around here too loosely. For instance, there is the strategy for cycling from point A to B that is labeled "VC". There is also an advocacy position also labeled "VC". Personally, I think that there are a lot of people that would benefit from cycling with a VC strategy in many instances. However, I don't think that strident VC advocacy is a very productive one in many instances.

...

I understand that you feel that they have no impact on your cycling, but thanks for the clarification anyway. I'd also agree that the theories on both sides about the effect of facilities are only weakly supported by evidence.

...

What blows my mind is that bike coalitions know that they have helped in implementing hundreds and thousands of miles of facilities which you and I would choose to ignore and they've done little to nothing to rectify egregious mis-design. I hope that a serious law suit will happen some time to hold them accountable.

What I find particularly frustrating is that the roads that, in my opinion, would benefit most from bike lanes are often the roads where they are omitted and vice versa. Anecdotally, I do think that bike lane design is getting better. That is, more recent bike lanes are often constructed without the perverse sitations often discussed here.

The ability of vehicular operation in a bike lane IS a very important distinction. Perhaps the nuance is lost on some of us, but the admittance of vehicular operation in a bike lane is quite fundamental to the approach of infrastructure redesign in communities.

Well ... yes and no.

Personally, I think that if one can demonstrate that travel in a particular bike lane design is safe, convenient, and fast then whether one thinks that the bike lane is vehicular or not is irrelevant. It just so happens that many people think that vehicular travel is the optimum combination of safety, convenience, and speed.

I also think fear of cars and drivers is a reasonable fear for many people, and can take quite a leap of faith to overcome, and I accept that not everyone will make that leap. I try to dispell that if asked, but I don't think they believe me.

I think it was Chipcom that had a great line about trying to commit suicide for years and still could not get it right. But us being out there I think it does help change peoples mind especially as gas prices increase and other factors that are making the over use of the car less desirable then decades ago.

I also think fear of cars and drivers is a reasonable fear for many people, and can take quite a leap of faith to overcome, and I accept that not everyone will make that leap. I try to dispell that if asked, but I don't think they believe me. That said, I don't see anything wrong with providing for those people too.

I concur. If someone is willing to ride in a different manner but accept the alternative's limitations -- note that riding VC has its own limitations -- to get from point A to B, then there is nothing to "fix" in my opinion.

well, even in this very limited poll, 14 to 1 "yes its possible to ride vehicularily in the bike lane"

The ability of vehicular operation in a bike lane IS a very important distinction. Perhaps the nuance is lost on some of us, but the admittance of vehicular operation in a bike lane is quite fundamental to the approach of infrastructure redesign in communities.


its funny. Talk of competant, vehicular cycling and the vc foot soldiers turn to claims of blanket incompetancy and motorist discrimination by page three.

The disqualifications of bike lanes not meeting criterea ( bike turning left, debris, unsafe conditions) are codfied in ALL state laws regards to bicycling on public roads with bike lanes.....and motorists not following the rules of the road is not a damnification of facilites but a damnification of the motorists.


I see more and more well designed vehicular bike lanes on roads in America every day. Bicyclists, even diehard vehicular cyclists, can generally ride vehicularily in a well provided bike lane.


Well, I donno... I can easily go along with blanket motorist incompetency right off the bat... why wait until page 3. Motorists prove that incompetency annually by killing 40,000 of their fellow drivers. Amazing that we start wars over the death of 3000, but seem to readily accept the annual death of 40,000...

But us being out there I think it does help change peoples mind

On the individual level, I think that's the best advocacy there is, plus, I don't have to attend any boring meetings.

I do get the chance to talk about riding occasionally with coworkers, and my main 'angle' is to talk about it as though is a perfectly normal activity performed by perfectly normal people with a perfectly acceptable level of safety. Sometimes they even say they're thinking about riding as well, and on even rarer occasions they take it up. I see my riding as more of a catalyst, if that, for someone that's on the brink of taking it up anyway rather than any great persuasion.

When I started riding I was the only one out my bike on a regular bases in my neighborhood and riding on intimidating streets. Now there is almost 10 of us out there and one other car free person that I have heard about but I still have not met. No discussions what-so-ever just show that it can be done.

I also think the neighborhood "bike lane" (actually a curb lane) has also been a contributer to this though we all are using (mostly) streets without bike lanes. A little encouragement goes a long way.

barry, seattle has less than 4 percent bike laned roads, but bike lanes contribute somewhat to cyclist participation, visibility of bicyclists, etc.

on a cycling commute route with a big break -mile + in its bike lanes, yet serving as a main route for N-S cycling traffic in the city, showed bicycling counts of 10 percent mode share during rush hour! on the unaccomodated sections - much higher than other N-S routes thru the city. a strong implication that bike lanes contribute to the use of that road, IMO.