Vehicular Cycling (VC) - vehicular cycling in the bike lane

I'm an avid, daily, transportational bicyclist and very 'vehicular' in my operation. I take the lane a LOT.

At the same time, I can recognize well provided bike lanes and ride in them as a vehicular cyclist without issue. If a bike lane is well provided, they are often a 'natural' placement, very proper and 'flowy' for lack of a better terms. their use is very smooth, even thru intersections and past curb cuts. By my own eyes, I can see bike lane design and placements improving in america.

To me, it is readily apparant a vehicular cyclist can ride in a bike lane vehicularily. As Bike Forums examples,

1) noisebeam, one of the forums' best video posters of vc can endorse bike lanes IF they are only on high speed arterials and end 200 feet before all intersections- a bit excessive IMO but hey, for noisebeam, these criteria make for acceptable bike lanes for him.

2) john forestor endorses? or begrudgingly accepts, some limited application of bike lanes that do not contradict with vehicular positioning rules.

3) Helmet head would often use SOCAL bike lanes vehicularily in the presence of faster, passing traffic.

4) The recent video links provided by invisiblehand of cyclistlorax twostepping VC in SOCAL traffic unsuccessfully edited out a diehard VC riding in a bike lane past a driveway- even the most diehard vehicular cyclists can use use bike lanes vehicularily IMO.

Yet I pose it as a question : can a bicyclist, if their own criteria is met, use a bike lane vehicularily? QUALIFICATIONS ASIDE can a bicyclist ride vehicularily in a bike lane? By 'qualifications aside, I mean if the bike lane already meets the riders criterea.

This is not a debate about how or why or what disqualifiies a bike lane from it's 'vehicularity', I'm asking AFTER the riders' criterea are met, can a vehicular cyclist ride vehicularily in a bike lane?

If I understand the question, yes. I also want chocolate.

I'm an avid, daily, transportational bicyclist and very 'vehicular' in my operation. I take the lane a LOT.

At the same time, I can recognize well provided bike lanes and ride in them as a vehicular cyclist without issue.

That all sounds fine, but in another post you cited the Santa Monica Blvd bikelane in Hollywood, Los Angeles as an example of a bikelane which you like. Having ridden on that street quite a bit both before and after the redesign in circa 2005 I was appalled by the bikelane positioning. Before it's possible to discuss this topic (which you're very keen on doing) it would be useful to provide specifics, i.e. photos, videos, physical addresses and googlemaps links and other streetplans.

Otherwise this topic is all just hot air founded upon mutual misunderstandings and recriminations.

walt- dude. follow along. its possible to discuss this minus any glossy photographs with circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back explaining each one.

regards LA bicycling, santa monica better than sunset in hollywood, neither very appealing. many more bicyclists on santa monica. totally irrelevant to the topic, walt.

Walt - once a bike lane meets your criterea, can you ride vehicularily in it?

As a bonifide vehicular cyclist, walt, have you ever ridden in a bike lane?

walt- dude. follow along. its possible to discuss this minus any glossy photographs with circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back explaining each one.

regards LA bicycling, santa monica better than sunset in hollywood, neither very appealing. many more bicyclists on santa monica. totally irrelevant to the topic, walt.

Walt - once a bike lane meets your criterea, can you ride vehicularily in it?

As a bonifide vehicular cyclist, walt, have you ever ridden in a bike lane?


You've posed something of a "do you still beat your wife" question.

I mean hey if a bike lane meets all my requirements... sure I'd ride in it... (I do often) I don't know if that is or isn't "vehicular," but it works for me.

And I want chocolate.

I don't find 'do you still beat your wife?' as an appropriate or accurate analogy, gene.

I don't find 'do you still beat your wife?' as an appropriate or accurate analogy, gene.

Not an analogy... a example of a deadended question.

Your question was if a BL suited you, would you ride it... it is a dead end question... there is no answer that doesn't take explanation.

1) noisebeam, one of the forums' best video posters of vc can endorse bike lanes IF they are only on high speed arterials and end 200 feet before all intersections- a bit excessive IMO but hey, for noisebeam, these criteria make for acceptable bike lanes for him.

Thanks.

This is true, but additional qualification on the bike lane on higher speed roads/arterials is that they are wide (wider than AASTHO 4' minimum, 6' for example) and has a funded regular maintenance plan.

Also, while I don't believe a stripe dividing a WOL into a 'primary' lane and a bike lane is needed on slower than arterial roads, I won't argue against them if the stripes end 100-200' before all intersections.

Al

To answer Bek's question, in short - Yes!

By my way of thinking the bike lane is absolutely a part of the roadway. This is made clear in the highway/vehicle code (UK/Calif.). I'm happy to use it and make use of the advantages it can offer

I would not care for bike lane use to be mandatory.

Ed

walt- dude. follow along. its possible to discuss this minus any glossy photographs with circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back explaining each one.

Yeah it's possible to discuss it but the discussion will be trivial, non-informative and ultimately merely divisive. If that's what you want then it would be nice if you'd mark the threads with: CONTENT-FREE FLAMEBAIT. PLEASE IGNORE. Thanks.


regards LA bicycling, santa monica better than sunset in hollywood, neither very appealing. many more bicyclists on santa monica. totally irrelevant to the topic, walt.

Better in what sense? I'd actually completely disagree with you. In order to move this on from pointless "yes it is, not i isn't", the specifics I'd point to are the pinch-point/bulb-outs on Santa Monica Blvd, the doorzone bikelane all through Hollywood, esp. WeHo with not a single attempt to put a control on the frequent intersections. It's worth describing this area for those not familiar with it. It's a very busy road with a lot of cafes, bars and restaurants. S.M.Blvd exiting WeHo and entering Beverley Hills /is/ a stretch which could conceivably have benefited from a bikelane for those who like such things. A bikelane is entirely inappropriate to the urban character of WeHo.


As a bonifide vehicular cyclist, walt, have you ever ridden in a bike lane?

I don't know that I'd claim to be a bonafide vehicular cyclist. I just find that it is more convenient and seems safer to me in nearly all situations to follow the basic traffic rules and that the facilities I've encountered either endanger or inconvenience me. I have done lots of dumb things: ridden inside HGVs, ridden alleycats, ridden on freeways, and ridden on bikepaths. I've learned from experience not to do them. I wouldn't take me as an example of anything other than someone that genuinely has never seen a nice bike facility. (I'll make the exception of the totally closed to traffic roads of Griffith Park, L.A.)

Better in what sense? I'd actually completely disagree with you. In order to move this on from pointless "yes it is, not i isn't", the specifics I'd point to are the pinch-point/bulb-outs on Santa Monica Blvd, the doorzone bikelane all through Hollywood, esp. WeHo with not a single attempt to put a control on the frequent intersections. It's worth describing this area for those not familiar with it. It's a very busy road with a lot of cafes, bars and restaurants. S.M.Blvd exiting WeHo and entering Beverley Hills /is/ a stretch which could conceivably have benefited from a bikelane for those who like such things. A bikelane is entirely inappropriate to the urban character of WeHo.



I don't know that I'd claim to be a bonafide vehicular cyclist. I just find that it is more convenient and seems safer to me in nearly all situations to follow the basic traffic rules and that the facilities I've encountered either endanger or inconvenience me. I have done lots of dumb things: ridden inside HGVs, ridden alleycats, ridden on freeways, and ridden on bikepaths. I've learned from experience not to do them. I wouldn't take me as an example of anything other than someone that genuinely has never seen a nice bike facility. (I'll make the exception of the totally closed to traffic roads of Griffith Park, L.A.)

Hey Walt head out to Malibu... right along the northern coast there is a 10 foot wide bike lane that anyone could love. ;)

Yeah I am being a bit sarcastic... apparently this was once part of the old coast hiway and they closed it to cars and now call it a bike lane... 10 feet of pavement (if it has not washed away yet)... a beautiful thing... and no intersections. Indeed a rare find. :D

I ride the same way I drive. Stop, look, signal etc.....
On the bike, I just do it in the lane, 9" to the right of all the chaos.

A bikelane is entirely inappropriate to the urban character of WeHo.

I am not sure what about an urban area precludes bike lanes? in fact, bike lanes seem to be ideally suited to an urban area where density allows you to cut out small trips in cars. Bike lanes give comfort to the lay user and encourage people to make more commuting trips by bike. Riding in the road clearly is not the preferred way to use a bike, hence why so many novice bike users ride on sidewalks. Only a relatively exclusive group have the courage to move into traffic.

I mean, the chief argument against vehicular cycling in my mind, is that not everyone wants to do it. Its very hard, that isn't to say it isn't rewarding but if we really want to lure the masses out of their steel cages do we want to make things harder or easier on them? I suppose the main point I am trying to make is that when bike lanes work, they are great. I don't think most vehicular cyclists would disagree that a good bike lane, is indeed a good thing. I happily concede that not every bike lane is as a good one, and very often a poorly designed one will do more harm than good.

But I think the to "bike lane, or not to bike lane" argument is a false one. The real question is not if bike lanes are good or not, but why do some bike lanes work, and why don't others. The people who design the lanes clearly don't have the answers to that question.

So to keep this constructive, what are some traits of good bike lanes?

-Accessibility is a key one I have noticed. will the lane let you get where you want to go
-Size, a 2 wide ft bike lane feels more like a prison than a lane
-Door Zone, a 4 ft. wide bike lane in he door zone can be just as dangerous as riding in regular traffic.
-Grade, when avoidable bike lanes should seek to avoid hills
-Land Use, I tend to feel land use has a lot to do with a good bike lane, this ties heavily into accessibility as well. a bike lane system that connects to commercial developments will get you to the store, to a restaurant, to a bar, not just from nowhere to nowhere.
-Connection to transit, lots of people talk about how bike lanes and paths should connect to transit corridors. this seems especially true in a city like LA where is is not possible to expect an average person to have the energy or time to bike for 20-30 miles to get to work.
-Inclusive, really when it comes down to it, a bike lane needs to facilitate the travel you choose, not try to direct where you want to go. The exclusive nature of many bike lane systems across the country I tend to feel is what inspires such ire about them.

I know there are many more factors that go into a successful bike lane, so help me out.

Does seem like a self-answering question to me. It's much like asking 'if you can ride vehicularly in the bike lane, do you ride vehicularly in it?'

so, this is self evident?

its within the scope of possibility for vehicular cyclists to ride in bike lanes vehicularily?

Otherwise this topic is all just hot air founded upon mutual misunderstandings and recriminations.

Mods, I think we found the perfect tagline for the VC subforum!!!



If that's what you want then it would be nice if you'd mark the threads with: CONTENT-FREE FLAMEBAIT. PLEASE IGNORE. Thanks.

It's easy. If Bek starts a thread in VC that is pretty much a given.


I like chocolate. But since the option didn't specify as to the type of chocolate I am having a hard time voting. My favorite right now would be extra dark.

-D

The VCealots are starting to regroup, I see.
Im starting to see how the new regime is going to shape up.

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

The VCealots are starting to regroup, I see.
Im starting to see how the new regime is going to shape up.

Funny. Everyone who maybe doesn't agree 100% is a zealot. Good preliminary strike.


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

Interesting. I re-skimmed the thread and so far I haven't seen any real anti-lane comments. Mostly comments seem to be of the "the topic is to vague to be debated in any useful manner" variety.


I still like chocolate.

-D

I guess I'm kinda baffled as to what is actually meant by the VC faithful when they say 'vehicular'. I get the feeling that they actually mean 'like a motor vehicle', which is not the definition I'd use at all. I think a bicycle is unique enough that it should be considered a vehicle type in it's own right. It's foolish to try and emulate exactly the way motor traffic operates on the road on a bike, simply because it's physically impossible.

I ride my bike 'vehicularly' in the simple sense that a bike is a vehicle, and I ride it according to the rules of the road for bicycles, which , whilst having many similarities to the rules for motor vehicles, are not quite the same. I don't think there's much usefulness in defining certain riding techniques as 'vehicular' or 'non-vehicular' as it's simply too vague, and everyone seems to have their own idea as to what that even means. I think it's better to just talk in terms of what is legal and safe and what is not.

For example: Footpath cycling is legal in some areas. I think it's better to discuss ways to do it safely than to just offer a carte blanche condemnation of it as 'non-vehicular'. Fact is, some people prefer it, and I'd rather help them than judge them.

its possible to discuss this minus any glossy photographs with circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back explaining each one...

Thanks to Arlo Guthrie. "I don't want a pickle; I just wanna ride on my motor sickle."

No offense, Bek, but you've beaten this topic to death. Of course it's possible to ride according to the vehicular rules of the road in a bike lane.

To even ask the question is to set up a straw man. Even the most fanatical VC-ists rarely deny that they sometimes use the extra road width represented by a bike lane.

A more relevant question is whether it's possible to design a bike lane that does not conflict with the vehicular rules of the road.

Forester has implied that it's impossible. The idea that bike lanes contradict thie rule of the road is a basic tenant of VC-ist dogma.

It's bull! One of the big lies of VC-ism.

Bike lanes that end before intersections are entirely consistant with the vehicular rules of the road, not to mention basic traffic principles. Such bike lanes, if they are treated as real lanes (which, unfortunately, some BL proponents have have argued that they shoudn't be), simply represent speed positioning between intersections. The fact that they end before intersections allows for destination position at intersections.

Bike lanes consistant with the vehicular rules of the road already exist, VC-ist obstructionism notwithstanding.

(begin rant)

A pox on both your houses!

by both your houses I mean:

--the pro-bike lane fanatics who are under the illusion bike lanes represent protected space and are willing to accept bike lanes that violate basic traffic principles

as well as:

--the foaming-at-the-mouth bike lane hating nutcases that have made VC-ism such a laughingstock.

The bike lane debate is surely stupid. In the long run, it isn't going to mean squat.

I'm reminded of delegates to a peace conference who spend all their time arguing about the shape of the table.

Bike lanes, shmike lanes. Who give a rat's behind? Bike lanes are one of the biggest non-issues I've ever seen in my life.

Bike lanes aren't going to save the world, nor is it in the best interest of bicyclists to oppose bike lanes on principle (don't even get me started on the crackpot idea that bike lanes are some kind of motorist plot, and similar Forester-inspired VC-ist lunacy).

It's past time for bicyclists to find common ground and speak with one voice.

The real issues are protecting the rights of bicyclists and ensuring that bicyclists are taken into account when roads are designed and maintained.

(end of rant)

I guess I'm kinda baffled as to what is actually meant by the VC faithful when they say 'vehicular'. I get the feeling that they actually mean 'like a motor vehicle', which is not the definition I'd use at all. I think a bicycle is unique enough that it should be considered a vehicle type in it's own right. It's foolish to try and emulate exactly the way motor traffic operates on the road on a bike, simply because it's physically impossible.

I ride my bike 'vehicularly' in the simple sense that a bike is a vehicle, and I ride it according to the rules of the road for bicycles, which , whilst having many similarities to the rules for motor vehicles, are not quite the same. I don't think there's much usefulness in defining certain riding techniques as 'vehicular' or 'non-vehicular' as it's simply too vague, and everyone seems to have their own idea as to what that even means. I think it's better to just talk in terms of what is legal and safe and what is not.

For example: Footpath cycling is legal in some areas. I think it's better to discuss ways to do it safely than to just offer a carte blanche condemnation of it as 'non-vehicular'. Fact is, some people prefer it, and I'd rather help them than judge them.

It sounds to me like you are describing like what we can all agree are good cycling habits. How is vehicular any different from just being a good cyclist?

what is a 'good cyclist'?

The Only Good Cyclist (http://www.cars-suck.org/research/cyclists.pdf)

right, that is a valid question. certainly though I think it would include all of what allister included. But I don't consider myself a Vehicular Cyclist (nor am I anti-VC).

It sounds to me like you are describing like what we can all agree are good cycling habits. How is vehicular any different from just being a good cyclist?

It's not, but it is different than acting like a motor vehicle driver, which seems to be what VCists think of as vehicular, as though motor vehicles are the only valid users of the roadways, and cyclists need to emulate them as closely as possible just to survive. For me, there are times that that is appropriate, but other times I'll ride in a manner entirely unlike a motor vehicle (eg lane-splitting), but I still consider that as using my bike as a vehicle.

Funny. Everyone who maybe doesn't agree 100% is a zealot. Good preliminary strike.



Interesting. I re-skimmed the thread and so far I haven't seen any real anti-lane comments. Mostly comments seem to be of the "the topic is to vague to be debated in any useful manner" variety.


I still like chocolate.

-D


#10
#16

Again, what do these have to do with the way you ride a bike lane ?

Really, not trying to be antagonistical, but if one doesnt ride lanes why
would you post to this 'how do you ride lanes' thread at all ?

Funny. Everyone who maybe doesn't agree 100% is a zealot. Good preliminary strike.
But you are an anti-bike lane zealot, ain't ya? If not, you sure have been giving a good imitation for a long time.

#10
#16

Again, what do these have to do with the way you ride a bike lane ?

Really, not trying to be antagonistical, but if one doesnt ride lanes why
would you post to this 'how do you ride lanes' thread at all ?

#10 is dealing with the fact that this thread is dealing with such vague concepts that it is hard to discuss rationally. But it isn't ANTI LANE.

#16 has nothing to do with bike lanes. Sure it is largely useless to the task at hand, but entirely relevant to VC in general :D. But it still says nothing ANTI LANE.

Keep in mind I was responding to YOUR comment "Why are anti-lane comments being placed in this lane specific thread ?"

None of these have been ANTI LANE. If anti lane wasn't what you meant then you should have worded it differently.

-D

But you are an anti-bike lane zealot, ain't ya? If not, you sure have been giving a good imitation for a long time.

Perfect example ILTB. Great showing how people get completely mis labeled in this forum.

I have stated on numerous occasions that:

a. I am not VC, at least if you consider having read any books on VC. I have not. I may ride in a VC manner but that is just how I ride, nobody taught me it and nobody ever said it was a "method"

b. I am NOT anti bike lane. I am however anti BAD bike lane. I would rather have no lane than some horrible unsafe badly designed bike lane.

I do find it funny that the main argument against HH is that he would simply restate his case over and over and over ad nauseum. Yet Bek here has beat this "VC in the bike lane" horse to death over and over and over ad nauseum but I guess that is ok?


Basically I guess I am anti double standard.

-D

Perfect example ILTB. Great showing how people get completely mis labeled in this forum.

b. I am NOT anti bike lane. I am however anti BAD bike lane. I would rather have no lane than some horrible unsafe badly designed bike lane.

Ever see or post about a bike lane that you didn't label "BAD" or "unsafe badly designed"?

so, derath, we're just on page 2, how is this being 'beaten to death?' :roflmao:
-and why SHOULDN'T we be discussing topics relevant to vehicular cycling in the VC sub-forum? IF you hadn't noticed, the VC forum had gone a little stale in the last week.... I decided to freshen up the discussion.

do you agree, then, if its so obvious? once unique-in-time criterea are met that it's possible for bicyclists to ride vehicularily in the bike lane?

just trying to reach a general consensus about the use of well designed infrastructure - can riders use it as vehicular cyclists? My argument, and one most all agree with, is that once a bike lane meets a riders' criterea, they can ride in it without contradiction of their methodology.

John forestor could, helmet head could. ride in bike lanes as vehicular cyclists, I mean.

I'm confident I could even find a bike lane Walt Poutine or derath could ride in and feel comfortable doing so!!

once a bike lane meets your standards, derath, do you ride in it? or have you convinced yourself otherwise?

Thanks to Arlo Guthrie. "I don't want a pickle; I just wanna ride on my motor sickle."

No offense, Bek, but you've beaten this topic to death. Of course it's possible to ride according to the vehicular rules of the road in a bike lane.

To even ask the question is to set up a straw man. Even the most fanatical VC-ists rarely deny that they sometimes use the extra road width represented by a bike lane.

A more relevant question is whether it's possible to design a bike lane that does not conflict with the vehicular rules of the road.

Forester has implied that it's impossible. The idea that bike lanes contradict thie rule of the road is a basic tenant of VC-ist dogma.

It's bull! One of the big lies of VC-ism.

Bike lanes that end before intersections are entirely consistant with the vehicular rules of the road, not to mention basic traffic principles. Such bike lanes, if they are treated as real lanes (which, unfortunately, some BL proponents have have argued that they shoudn't be), simply represent speed positioning between intersections. The fact that they end before intersections allows for destination position at intersections.

Bike lanes consistant with the vehicular rules of the road already exist, VC-ist obstructionism notwithstanding.

(begin rant)

A pox on both your houses!

by both your houses I mean:

--the pro-bike lane fanatics who are under the illusion bike lanes represent protected space and are willing to accept bike lanes that violate basic traffic principles

as well as:

--the foaming-at-the-mouth bike lane hating nutcases that have made VC-ism such a laughingstock.

The bike lane debate is surely stupid. In the long run, it isn't going to mean squat.

I'm reminded of delegates to a peace conference who spend all their time arguing about the shape of the table.

Bike lanes, shmike lanes. Who give a rat's behind? Bike lanes are one of the biggest non-issues I've ever seen in my life.

Bike lanes aren't going to save the world, nor is it in the best interest of bicyclists to oppose bike lanes on principle (don't even get me started on the crackpot idea that bike lanes are some kind of motorist plot, and similar Forester-inspired VC-ist lunacy).

It's past time for bicyclists to find common ground and speak with one voice.

The real issues are protecting the rights of bicyclists and ensuring that bicyclists are taken into account when roads are designed and maintained.

(end of rant)

:beer::beer::beer:

Well said JRA!

We'll I just glazed over most of this, I'm siding with Walt on this one, as it seems we can never pin down specifics of what makes bike lanes non-vehicular by those who assert that bike lanes are not vehicular.

+ 1 on the return of chocolate.

Ever see or post about a bike lane that you didn't label "BAD" or "unsafe badly designed"?

There are plenty of well designed bike lanes in the world. And if any existed around me I would use them.

I have also agreed at times that bike lanes can cause the problem that cagers will start to believe cyclists only belong in bike lanes. BUT at the same time a bike lane increases ridership it is worth this potential downside.

The best advocacy in my opinion is simply getting more people riding bicycles.

-D

I guess I'm kinda baffled as to what is actually meant by the VC faithful when they say 'vehicular'.

You might as well expand that to everyone. I get the sense that the term "VC", vehicular, bikeways, and so on have multiple definitions and that people tend to pick the definition that best fits their argument.

Bike lanes that end before intersections are entirely consistent with the vehicular rules of the road, not to mention basic traffic principles. Such bike lanes, if they are treated as real lanes (which, unfortunately, some BL proponents have have argued that they shoudn't be), simply represent speed positioning between intersections. The fact that they end before intersections allows for destination position at intersections.


Agreed with some conditions which I've already noted in this thread (not on low speed roads, priority for higher speed roads, wide, maintained and not in door zones)

So I think this is closest to common ground we can get - there are some at each extreme who either still want no bike lanes no matter what and some who insist on putting bike lane stripes at intersection approaches.

So perhaps it is time to discuss the pro/cons of having a bike lane stripe for the 100-200' approach to every intersection. It seems that is really what the debate is or should be about.

Al

so, derath, we're just on page 2, how is this being 'beaten to death?' :roflmao:

Bek, as always you are great with using subtle distinctions to bend the obvious. This thread is another beating of the horse. How many threads and posts have you repeated your mantra "VC cyclsists can ride vehicularily in the bike lane"? I would say probably as many times as HH used to post his drivel. There are threads where the 2 of you go round and round basically repeating the same mantras back and forth.

THAT is the beaten to death issue.



-and why SHOULDN'T we be discussing topics relevant to vehicular cycling in the VC sub-forum? IF you hadn't noticed, the VC forum had gone a little stale in the last week.... I decided to freshen up the discussion.

Freshening up would probably require a fresh topic. Not a rehashing of your same argument you have made multiple times already.


do you agree, then, if its so obvious? once unique-in-time criterea are met that it's possible for bicyclists to ride vehicularily in the bike lane?

Sure


just trying to reach a general consensus about the use of well designed infrastructure - can riders use it as vehicular cyclists? My argument, and one most all agree with, is that once a bike lane meets a riders' criterea, they can ride in it without contradiction of their methodology.

How many threads do you need to restate this question in order to get consensus?


I'm confident I could even find a bike lane Walt Poutine or derath could ride in and feel comfortable doing so!!

once a bike lane meets your standards, derath, do you ride in it? or have you convinced yourself otherwise?

I'm sure you could. You have constantly mischaraterized my arguments however. As I have said many times in other threads...

In my area where I ride I have NO bike lanes. None, zilch, nada. I have a 32mile commute to work. I do have large sections that have a nice wide shoulder, which I ride in when there is traffice. BUT i also sometimes leave the shoulder, when there is no traffic. This is usually because the road is cleaner than the shoulder.

So the problem for me is not that no Bike lane meets my criteria. I have no bike lanes. That being said for me I don't feel the need to add bike lanes on the roads for me to feel comfortable riding either.

HOWEVER, if adding bike lanes increased ridership, put em in.

I am not sure what about an urban area precludes bike lanes?

Frequent intersections. Lack of space to implement desirable bike lanes.


Riding in the road clearly is not the preferred way to use a bike,

I'm unsure how to parse the above. I find it highly desirable and it's how I've always ridden. The safety and convenience of being predictable and visible to other road users and having traffic signals favor my relatively (compared to sidewalk traffic) high speed travel makes it lovely.


hence why so many novice bike users ride on sidewalks. Only a relatively exclusive group have the courage to move into traffic.

It's probably best to drop the use of words like "exclusive", given that much of the discussion on this subject has sought to paint an unfair picture of road-using bicyclists as "elitist". I'd argue that so many people ride on the sidewalk because they're taught by the provision of bike lanes that you're not supposed to be on a normal road surface. Hence if there's no bike lane they ride on the sidewalk because they've been scared off the road.


I mean, the chief argument against vehicular cycling in my mind, is that not everyone wants to do it. Its very hard,

It's not hard. It's bloody easy. It relies on common sense and following the same rules of the road as everyone else. Many of those that describe their cycling style as VC came to it independently of any EC training or reading up on it or arguing on internet forums.


if we really want to lure the masses out of their steel cages

That's entirely the wrong starting perspective. The masses are going to do whatever they're going to do. The steel cage is attractive to many because they like to hide inside it. A bicycle will never offer the degree of anonymity and feeling of security and privacy that a house on wheels does. Cycling advocacy should instead be concentrating on improving the conditions for those that actually cycle. Even optimists like Pucher are only shooting for 3-5% as a probable result from an extensive bike facilities program. On the other hand, given the example of the vast majority of bike facilities in N.America current transportational cyclists will be endangered and inconvenienced by the "lures" which you're proposing, i.e. bikelanes in dense urban environments (with frequent intersections, low traffic speeds anyway, often on-street parking, high distractions etc).


do we want to make things harder or easier on them?

If we knowingly advocate for and construct facilities which in fact increase the danger to cyclists then we're really making things much harder for ourselves and for the innocents lured out with no training into facilities which experienced cyclists may know when to ignore, but they won't.


I suppose the main point I am trying to make is that when bike lanes work, they are great. I don't think most vehicular cyclists would disagree that a good bike lane, is indeed a good thing. I happily concede that not every bike lane is as a good one, and very often a poorly designed one will do more harm than good.

Again, all the above is trivially true. The problem is that without specific examples it means nothing. It's just a truism. When I see concrete examples of lanes I'm frequently horrified by what other people believe is a "good" facility.


But I think the to "bike lane, or not to bike lane" argument is a false one. The real question is not if bike lanes are good or not, but why do some bike lanes work, and why don't others. The people who design the lanes clearly don't have the answers to that question.

I agree to the extent that we're talking about the immediate effect on the safety and convenience of cyclists using that lane. I think that's a useful line of enquiry. You are however ignoring the psychological effects of the provision of bike lanes, both on motorists and novice cyclists. Both these groups are encouraged to believe that bicycles should not be anywhere except in specific bike facilities and both learn only how to behave under this conditioning. To me this aspect is very important and totally neglected in your discussion.


So to keep this constructive, what are some traits of good bike lanes?

SNIP GOOD POINTS.


-Door Zone, a 4 ft. wide bike lane in he door zone can be just as dangerous as riding in regular traffic.

Actually a lot more dangerous. Dooring is one of the prime hazards in an urban environment. Getting run down from behind is very rare.

I really agree with most of your desiderata, but you've also left out safety and maintenance. Bike lanes signalized at intersections would reduce the #1 hazard of the right-hook. But that's probably not going to happen. They also need to be swept of debris. That's also unlikely to happen due to parking in urban areas and expense. They also need (per your point above) to be wide enough to allow swerving to avoid avoidance of obstacles. All of the above are unlikely to happen due to the land use issues you mentioned. That's why I say that bike lanes are inappropriate for urban environments. I can see their use on a very high speed road with slip-lanes for exit and egress as possibly useful as long as those intersections are not timed prejudicially against cyclists.

I guess I'm kinda baffled as to what is actually meant by the VC faithful when they say 'vehicular'.

To me it means that I can ride on the vehicular road network instead of the pedestrian sidwalks.


For example: Footpath cycling is legal in some areas. I think it's better to discuss ways to do it safely than to just offer a carte blanche condemnation of it as 'non-vehicular'. Fact is, some people prefer it, and I'd rather help them than judge them.

I commend you for your open-minded helpfulness. I've taken the same approach and pointed out to these people (when they ask, otherwise I mind my own business) that the safest way is to travel at no more than walking speed because that's what the sidwalk is designed for -- unless its a non-typical urban sidewalk with few intersections, no other users (who will feel aggrieved and threatened by higher speed vehicles sharing their space). A related problem is that when you help all those people to ride on the sidewalk you're going to find that motorists will encourage and advise you to get there too.

So perhaps it is time to discuss the pro/cons of having a bike lane stripe for the 100-200' approach to every intersection. It seems that is really what the debate is or should be about.
Al

Either can work, if people use them correctly. I ride a bikelane on my commute that continues up to and through intersections, and I don't experience any conflict with turning traffic. I reckon if you're gonna have a lane, make it continuous. Besides, if there's a lot of traffic backed up at the lights, I like to have the room to breeze up to the front.;)

But, weirdly, they also have the tendency here to add a short bike lane just before and after an intersection on an otherwise bikelaneless road. That is just plain stupid and pointless.

They do it with car-width lanes too - just a short section of extra lane at intersections. I call them queue-jumping lanes, because that's how people use them (same way I use bikelanes, actually) - they breeze up the left side as the light turns green and then have to muscle back into the lane with all the sensible people that waited their turn. It's a really stupid and dangerous design, but apparently some kind of standard here. I think it's some ham-fisted attempt to get more cars though the intersection per light cycle

I always take the full lane in those cases, and doesn't it upset the queue-jumpers. :D

I agree to the extent that we're talking about the immediate effect on the safety and convenience of cyclists using that lane. I think that's a useful line of enquiry. You are however ignoring the psychological effects of the provision of bike lanes, both on motorists and novice cyclists. Both these groups are encouraged to believe that bicycles should not be anywhere except in specific bike facilities and both learn only how to behave under this conditioning. To me this aspect is very important and totally neglected in your discussion.

totally untrue, walt. Seattle, for example, a city with relatively high rider share, has bike lanes on only 3 percent of its streets- yet people bicycle all over town. motorists are 97 much more accustomed to seeing bikes on roads without bike lanes. in seattle, bike lanes on arterials and as parts of key commute routes make sense for traffic flow.

In seattle, all skill levels of bicyclist- "novice" and "expert" alike, and motorists share road space both with and without bike lanes. mostly without.

A related problem is that when you help all those people to ride on the sidewalk you're going to find that motorists will encourage and advise you to get there too.

'All those people'? I think you over-estimate my influence. I think you also under-estimate the level of driver acceptance of on-road cycling (although it could be different there than here). A few noisy whingers on newpaper comment pages and the occasional shout from a passing car are aberrations, not a trend. You'll be much happier if you just ignore them.

... a city with relatively high rider share, has bike lanes on only 3 percent of its streets- yet people bicycle all over town. motorists are 97 much more accustomed to seeing bikes on roads without bike lanes.

Do all streets have an equal amount of cycling and motorized traffic? Why were certain streets picked to have bike lanes? I assume it was not random.

You are however ignoring the psychological effects of the provision of bike lanes, both on motorists and novice cyclists. Both these groups are encouraged to believe that bicycles should not be anywhere except in specific bike facilities and both learn only how to behave under this conditioning.

I keep hearing this claim, but have yet to experience anything that backs it up. In my experience, if I have to leave the bikelane for whatever reason, say a right turn, people seem to understand and carry on as though it was normal. Of course I don't just bolt out of the bikelane without looking, no sensible person would, but I guess that would tick people of - is that what you're referring to?

The good thing about novice cyclists is that all they need to become experienced cyclists is time. I think you worry too much about them, and don't credit them with enough ability or willingness to learn.

I keep hearing this claim, but have yet to experience anything that backs it up.

I guess that's why there's debate and argument about this. It'll all be down to personal experience.


Of course I don't just bolt out of the bikelane without looking, no sensible person would, but I guess that would tick people of - is that what you're referring to?

No.


The good thing about novice cyclists is that all they need to become experienced cyclists is time. I think you worry too much about them, and don't credit them with enough ability or willingness to learn.

I actually don't worry about them at all and I agree completely with the above. Figuring out how to ride sensibly isn't rocket science -- we all worked it out after all. The only reason I referred to them was in reaction to the suggestion that we need to do the opposite and worry about them to such an extent that we have to design our physical and legal environment to accommodate them to our detriment (or what I perceive as my detriment and I think you would too if you lived where I do.) People that aren't complete morons will figure it out over years. People that take some sort of training could achieve sane enough behaviors in a matter of months.

'All those people'? I think you over-estimate my influence.

You're too modest ;) Take the use of "you" to refer to an exemplar of a general behavior.


I think you also under-estimate the level of driver acceptance of on-road cycling (although it could be different there than here). A few noisy whingers on newpaper comment pages and the occasional shout from a passing car are aberrations, not a trend. You'll be much happier if you just ignore them.

Most places don't have bike lanes. So most drivers have been exposed to sane, predictable well-behaved cyclists such as yourself. Every time you ride you're educating and training them. If bike lanes and incompetent cyclists proliferate then the reverse seems likely to happen.

Anyway, once again this is old ground and the horse is being flogged so hard that the rotting flesh has been stripped from its battered skeleton.

Really, not trying to be antagonistical, but if one doesnt ride lanes why
would you post to this 'how do you ride lanes' thread at all ?

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.

The best advocacy in my opinion is simply getting more people riding bicycles.

I agree with you on that!:)

It is my opinion that that the strident rhetoric of the anti-facility obstructionists/VC "training" proselytizers as represented by the two recently banned posters and their apologists is counterproductive to the advocacy goal that we both agree upon.

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).



Sadly the resulting pressure of motorist hostility can exist whether BL exist or not... at least with a decent BL in place, motorists do perceive that you do have some rights to the road.

I agree with you on that!:)

It is my opinion that that the strident rhetoric of the anti-facility obstructionists/VC "training" proselytizers as represented by the two recently banned posters and their apologists is counterproductive to the advocacy goal that we both agree upon.

I would disagree only slightly. In my opinion it is the strident rhetoric on both sides of the debate that have caused the problem. I believe it is disingenuous to characterize the problem to be strickly one sided.

It is imperative to always attempt to find common ground. Like it or not there are pieces of arguments on the VC side that hold some merit, just as on the other end of the spectrum.

This is a problem I would have with both HH and JF. But it is also a problem I would have with say Bek.

If we keep simply keep going around saying

I'm right
No I am
No you aren't I am

this board will continue to be as useless as it has been. We need to find common ground.

Imagine, it looks like you and I have done just that:eek:


-D

Sadly the resulting pressure of motorist hostility can exist whether BL exist or not... at least with a decent BL in place, motorists do perceive that you do have some rights to the road.

Only if one stays in the BL. Otherwise the bike lane stripe reduces the perception that bicyclists have a right to the road outside of that marked bike lane.

Al