Google sponsored links
In another thread, many expressed the conviction that following the road rules provides optimum safety, when coupled with experience. I wish to ask another question: are "bike facilites" necessary?
In very many cases, bike lanes and "bike paths" violate the established principles of right-of-way and safety that have governed streets for so many decades. How can these "bike facilities" be safer if they:
-- don't follow the flow of traffic
-- create more intersecting points with other traffic
-- cross intersections on the wrong side of the road
-- allow right-turning (U.S.) traffic to turn across a lane
-- follow more complicated rules
-- create exceptions to the established rules
-- aren't designed with the bicyclist's safety as first and foremost?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
The only thing I want when I ride my bike is the respect due to all road users.
The best way to get that due respect is for the police to enforce the laws and ticket drivers who refuse to yield right of way, overtake without safe clearance, etc.
Put money that would go into bike facilities into increased enforcement of law and the roads would be safer than they would be if there were more facilities but no enforcement of law.
For every anecdote about a bike lane being a contributing factor in an accident, there are hundreds of cyclists who ride those bike lanes with greater safety and confidence. Expecting bikes to share with cars every single lane of every single road is simple-minded zealotry that would work to endanger and injure cyclists until they were finally chased off of the streets.
There are streets in which a cyclists is better off taking over a lane and riding in traffic. Downtown streets with traffic lights every block are perfect examples. In contrast, expecting a cyclist to ride in a traffic lane on a 35+mph road with heavy traffic is tantamount to getting a cyclist killed.
Bike facilities that balance cyclist safety and convenience against available space and roads gives cyclists safe and efficient routes with minimal conflicts with car trafic. That means sometimes building bike lanes, with signs and road markings to minimize conflicts at cross streets, sometimes routing cyclists off major thouroughfares that have no shoulder space and onto parallel streets, or sometimes making no specific bike facilities and having cyclists simply take a lane.
Badly planned bike facilities are just like blanket statements that all bike facilities are bad. They are both based on poor understanding what cyclists need.
Expecting bikes to share with cars every single lane of every single road is simple-minded zealotry that would work to endanger and injure cyclists until they were finally chased off of the streets.
Are you saying that all road users must be equal in speed and size? If so, how can someone drive a Ford Escort with a Ford Excursion and still be safe?
Traffic law allows different road users to travel differently and still be safe. If a road is too busy for some road users to be safe, local law can determine exclusions of that particular road for particular users. This happens all the time.
The best "bicycle facility" for me would be a safer place to park my bike. I don't know how much bike lockers cost, but I would guess it would be much less than the cost of a bike path. I'm always afraid to leave my bike locked up to a bike rack. I think that maybe it'll be missing something when I come back.
It seems that the people who design "bicycle facilities" think that we don't have a destination in mind, other than the bike path.
A lot of leisure bike paths in the UK seem to have too many lockup points. They put inverted U "sheffield" racks in the middle of nowhere, or alongside a couple of miles of cast-iron railings.
In one town I lived, there were about 30 unused racks where no-one wanted to park, and no racks at a local shopping arcade.
Bike facilities are usually paid for by the mile, with no real concern how they are used. There are exceptions, usually where you find an active cycle campaign group.
There are exceptions, usually where you find an active cycle campaign group.
Not all the time.
I live in an area that has quite an extensive and effective bicycle advocacy coalition, yet still we have municiple bicycle co-ordinators placing facilities in areas where not only they are not being used, but the co-ordinators don't know they aren't being used.
I had a talk with a co-ordinator in my area where we discussed an area facility and she admitted this was the case. There was no study of what was needed (they just made an educated guess) and no follow up on if what they installed was being used. (at least they tried to make things better)
What a waste of time, money, and effort.
My city has an extensive network of 'bike facilities'. It's called the road. Not only do they cover all possible destinations, but there are extensive choices based on how much you care for sharig them with motorised traffic.
The only facilities particular to cycling that are really required are decent end of trip facilities i.e. bike rack and showers, and again I have no real complaints there. It's been a long time since I worked in a building without these.
Are you saying that all road users must be equal in speed and size? If so, how can someone drive a Ford Escort with a Ford Excursion and still be safe?
Traffic law allows different road users to travel differently and still be safe. If a road is too busy for some road users to be safe, local law can determine exclusions of that particular road for particular users. This happens all the time.
No. I'm saying that different roads can accomodate cycling in different ways, and that some roads can't accomodate cycling very well at all. Roads that can be adapted with "bike facilities," like bike lanes, can make cycling safer and more enjoyable for most cyclists.
Some cyclists take the position that any bike facilities, including bike lanes, amounts to a separate but unequal status for cycling. My point is that in the current state of available roads, designated bike lanes are prefereable on many roads over cyclists of all speeds & abilities fending for themselves amonst cars traveling at moderate and high speeds.
Some roads are simply not safe to bicycle on. Cyclists are often not "exluded" from riding those roads, but do so at their own risk. In those cases, I think a reasonable accomodation can be a parallel route with much less, and much slower traffic. Some cyclist activists would disagree.
The difference between bikes and the Escort/Excursion example is that both the Escort & Excursion can get up to a 45 MPH speed limit on a flat road. No cyclist can. In the absence of space at the road edges (as in a shoulder or a bike lane), cyclists are better off on a designated parallel route. If there is room on the paved road, a designated bike lane can allow cyclists to coexist safely with cars traveling at high speeds.
My point is that bike facilities that allow cyclists to get everywhere safely and conveniently is much preferred to a world in which all streets are "equal," with no bike facilities, so every cyclist is free to fight a losing battle against cars for space on every street.
Necessary? Maybe not. Desirable, I say definitely yes. You list 7 points in your post, but don't explain any of them. In my area, I ride on roads that have a very wide right lane without a bike lane marking, and some that have one. There are bike lanes that are almost 8 feet wide, and sections where there is none. The reason I like that nice white stripe is that it takes away all question of who is at fault and liable if I get hit. Since I have a family of four besides myself, that leaves the wife and kids with a good lawsuit. The bikes lanes disappear, I believe 250 feet before intersections here, and this would be where the question of who owns the lane occurs. I still can't find anything in the Vehicle Code in California, but police have referred to "making your own lane" before. It's applied to automobiles, but bikes should be able to ride along the right side of stopped and slow moving traffic, just be careful. I like Ken Kifer's guidelines for riding, and some other links on the League of American Bicyclists.
-- don't follow the flow of traffic
Improper design
-- create more intersecting points with other traffic
Depends on design. Reducing a lane for multi-vehicle traffic and adding the bike facility does not increase the interseting points.
-- cross intersections on the wrong side of the road
Incorrect design
-- allow right-turning (U.S.) traffic to turn across a lane
Incorrect design
-- follow more complicated rules
There is only one additional rule. Bike lanes are for bikes only.
-- create exceptions to the established rules
Exceptions?
-- aren't designed with the bicyclist's safety as first and foremost?
Incorrect design
So there you have it. Just as simple as stating that enforcement would improve conditions, correct installation would also improve conditions. Straight and simple...
No. I'm saying that different roads can accomodate cycling in different ways, and that some roads can't accomodate cycling very well at all... in the current state of available roads, designated bike lanes are prefereable on many roads over cyclists of all speeds & abilities fending for themselves amonst cars traveling at moderate and high speeds.
..and we can all choose which route we want to take
Roads that can be adapted with "bike facilities," like bike lanes, can make cycling safer and more enjoyable for most cyclists.
most bike lanes I see have no resolution to the main cause of traffic accidents, intersections, therefore these facilities have as unsafe a record as before the facilities were installed.
The difference between bikes and the Escort/Excursion example is that both the Escort & Excursion can get up to a 45 MPH speed limit on a flat road. No cyclist can.
but the Excursion can and could crush the Escort if it so chose to. Why are motorists demanding the cyclist get out of the way because they could hurt them if they do not give the same reasoning to a larger, more powerful vehicle?
I think that "facilities" (by which I think we mean sidepaths) can serve a useful purpose. Here in the DC area, limited-access roads with high speed exitx/entrances and no curb area have been established all over. These are barriers to cycling.
Sidepaths (like the WO&D) can return the cycle access that was stolen by the freeway. Because they parallel a limited access highway (Route 66), they are free of cross intersections. I can ride a five mile stretch from my office to my car repair place without a single stoplight or stopsign!
I would say yes, if they restore connectivity.
Paul
I can actually see both sides of this argument. I don't think a blanket statement on "facilities" either way is accurate or appropriate. Personally I think on-road facilities that still provide the option to get into the "traffic lane" when the circumstances arise are actually useful provided that the cyclist in question knows when they should leave the facility to deal with a specific situation (much the same as learning to ride in traffic really).
What I find totally unacceptable and will boycott at every opportunity are the off-road facilities (i.e. those separated from the road by a physical barrier of some kind) that basically go nowhere in addition to all the other problems mentioned in the opening post to this thread.
However, I think the real problem here comes from cycling advocates themselves. Specifically, from their inability to say "no" to inappropriate facilities. How many times have we all heard the old "now that the council have gone to the trouble and expense of building this "facility" we really should show our gratitude by using it". It's this attitude that we have to lose pronto.
"Cyclists are often not "exluded" from riding those roads, but do so at their own risk."
Poor choice of words. Putting themselves at risk, perhaps. But at their own risk? If a car running a red light broadsides a cyclist on such a (hypothetical) road, is it then the cyclist's fault? Nah.
I regularly ride on roads where the posted limit is 35/45 mph, which means the cars are going faster, and I'm fine. If there were an alternate route, I'd take it.
I'm not, however, a big believer in bike lanes. In my experience they tend to be:
a) percieved as an area to double park in,
b) filled with joggers and people with baby strollers
c) convienently in range of the nearest car door
d) a place to dump debris or stick "open house" signs
and
e) a general nusiance.
That said, I'd like them on every bridge across the James, so I could legally ride across the bridge.
This is such a funny thread.
I mainly ride two types of bike facility on my daily commute: a bike boulevard and a bike lane. Let's first consider the bike boulevard.
The bike boulevard is one block from, and parallels, a city thoroughfare. Through car traffic is blocked on the boulevard where the boulevard crosses major streets. The bike boulevard has stop signs blocking cross traffic at all other intersections. The street carries local car traffic and through bike traffic. The bike traffic is greater than the car traffic.
The bike boulevard provides cyclists with a couple miles of protected intersections for fast safe riding. The alternatives are a hodge-podge of unprotected residential intersections or the 4-lane thoroughfare with parking and buses and no other shoulder. The bike boulevard is safer than either the thoroughfare or the 30-40 unprotected residential intersections that would otherwise have to be navigated. In addition, the boulevard blocks cut-through commute traffic that would otherwise move too fast parallel to the thoroughfare.
So what's wrong with that? Who wants to say that 30-40 uncontrolled intersections or a virtually unrideable thoroughfare is preferable for cyclists. Anyone?
OK. Now the bike lane.
After the bike boulevard comes a bike lane.
The bike lane begins shortly after the 4-lane road narrows to 2 traffic lanes and a center turning lane. Cars park along the curb, and the bike lane runs outside the curb-side parking. The street is descending (in one direction) so cars quickly accelerate to 30+ mph.
The street is a commute route and so car sometimes back-up at the stop lights during the morning commute. The traffic limit is the number of cars entering the downtown core at any given time. At other times, the cars on the 2-lane street match the carrying capicity of the connecting streets. This means that 4 lanes are not needed on this road.
Before the bike lanes were installed, this street had 4 traffic lanes. Riding the street was very difficult and dangerous because there was minimal space between parked cars and the fast moving (30+mph) cars. Cyclists we forced into a hodge podge of light industrial streets with lots of cross truck traffic moving to or from warehouses.
Now cyclists have plenty of room relative to both parked and moving cars. Cars do not squeeze over into an otherwise unmarked area in attempts to move forward during morning congestion.
There is the potential for conflicts at right turn intersections. At the main cross streets, the road is marked to notify car drivers and cyclists of the conflict area. Car drivers uniformly respect the bike lane.
What would be the alternative? A very narrow unmarked region between parked cars and fast moving cars or an unprotected meander through a light industrial area. OK, who wants to say these alternatives are better than the bike lane?
This is such a funny thread.
I mainly ride two types of bike facility on my daily commute: a bike boulevard and a bike lane. Let's first consider the bike boulevard.
The bike boulevard is one block from, and parallels, a city thoroughfare. Through car traffic is blocked on the boulevard where the boulevard crosses major streets. The bike boulevard has stop signs blocking cross traffic at all other intersections. The street carries local car traffic and through bike traffic. The bike traffic is greater than the car traffic.
Now, for the entertainment of real-world cyclists, I will provide the real world facts. The Stop signs "blocking" car traffic are routinely ignored, if they are there at all. Most of the time you will have a "cyclists dismount" sign, even at the intersections with minor roads which would be giving way to you if you were on the road.
The bike boulevard provides cyclists with a couple miles of protected intersections for fast safe riding.
But no more than that. Too bad if your commute is 5 miles or more.
The alternatives are a hodge-podge of unprotected residential intersections or the 4-lane thoroughfare with parking and buses and no other shoulder.
Which are easily navigated if one is assertive in claiming their place in the lane.
The bike boulevard is safer than either the thoroughfare or the 30-40 unprotected residential intersections that would otherwise have to be navigated. In addition, the boulevard blocks cut-through commute traffic that would otherwise move too fast parallel to the thoroughfare.
Assuming of course, that everyone follows the rules. We all know, that in the real world, this doesn't happen.
So what's wrong with that? Who wants to say that 30-40 uncontrolled intersections or a virtually unrideable thoroughfare is preferable for cyclists. Anyone?
Can I be the first?
OK. Now the bike lane.
After the bike boulevard comes a bike lane.
The bike lane begins shortly after the 4-lane road narrows to 2 traffic lanes and a center turning lane. Cars park along the curb, and the bike lane runs outside the curb-side parking.
Placing the cyclist in perfect position to be flattened by an opening car door with a momentarily blind operator.
Before the bike lanes were installed, this street had 4 traffic lanes. Riding the street was very difficult and dangerous because there was minimal space between parked cars and the fast moving (30+mph) cars. Cyclists we forced into a hodge podge of light industrial streets with lots of cross truck traffic moving to or from warehouses.
Again, something that's easily and safely navigated with a little assertive lane-claiming.
Now cyclists have plenty of room relative to both parked and moving cars. Cars do not squeeze over into an otherwise unmarked area in attempts to move forward during morning congestion.
Lest they fear being zapped by the tooth fairy.
There is the potential for conflicts at right turn intersections. At the main cross streets, the road is marked to notify car drivers and cyclists of the conflict area. Car drivers uniformly respect the bike lane.
...Or maybe the Easter bunny.
What would be the alternative? A very narrow unmarked region between parked cars and fast moving cars or an unprotected meander through a light industrial area. OK, who wants to say these alternatives are better than the bike lane?
It depends which bike lane we're talking about -- one in the real world or one in fantasy land? You've just described the latter category, but unfortunately many of us have to deal with the former. So I will again be the first to say "yes".
Necessary? Maybe not. Desirable, I say definitely yes. You list 7 points in your post, but don't explain any of them.
In very many cases, bike lanes and "bike paths" violate the established principles of right-of-way and safety that have governed streets for so many decades. How can these "bike facilities" be safer if they:
-- don't follow the flow of traffic
-- create more intersecting points with other traffic
-- cross intersections on the wrong side of the road
-- allow right-turning (U.S.) traffic to turn across a lane
-- follow more complicated rules
-- create exceptions to the established rules
-- aren't designed with the bicyclist's safety as first and foremost?
Traffic (U.S.) always flows on the right. "Bike facilities" are often built on whichever side of the street designers have arbitrarily chosen.
Intersections become hazardous, to say the least. Even when "bike facilities" flow in the direction of traffic, they create a second intersection parallel to the main intersection, which is more complicated and dangerous. In addition, at every intersection where a bike lane exists, the possibility for cyclists to be cut off by right-turning traffic is created, a situation that is never permitted in normal, accepted safe road design.
Also, bike lanes are often filled with debris which make them unusable, due to the lack of automobile traffic that normally sweeps this debris aside. Bike lanes are often painted on roads that were previously wide enough to accept bicycle and car traffic side-by-side, but the usable part of the road for the cyclist has become narrower due to the presence of this debris. The cyclist can find him/herself riding outside the bike lane to avoid debris. I must also mention that some "bike lanes" are painted on margins of the road that are unsuitable for bicycles to begin with, due to the presence of rough/uneven pavement, potholes, drain grates/covers, spilled cement/asphalt, etc.
On roads where parking is permitted immediately to the right of a bike lane, the bike lane automatically puts the cyclist in danger of drivers exiting their cars and opening their doors into the cyclist's path. There has been at least one recent, highly-publicized death (Boston) of a cyclist because of this design.
On roads where bike lanes are seemingly "perfect," the pavement is smooth and there is no parking to the right of the bike lane, motorists logically treat the bike lane as they would a car lane, so that they give little thought to how close they pass. Before the bike lane was painted, motorists would have given the cyclist a wide berth when passing, but after the bike lane was painted, motorists cease to be concerned about allowing three feet of passing space.
Bike paths in urban settings not only produce a multiplication of intersections at every road junction, which is inherently more complicated and dangerous, but they create additional intersections at every driveway, often adorned with stop signs for the cyclist. This removes the cyclist's right-of-way, which is necessary both for safety and convenience. In addition, bike paths are almost always accessible to pedestrians, violating the safety rule of segregating cyclists from pedestrians, a long-held principle of safe traffic design. The safety of cyclists (and pedestrians) is compromised whenever any "bike facility" is built for mixed use.
Large sums are spent building "safe" facilities for cycling, often in place of educating cyclists and motorists about what cycling safety is really all about. In place of a valuable cycling education (which motorists should be required to have,) we get separate facilities with a suggestive notion that cycling has now been made "safe." Given that so many cycling injuries are from falling, this false sense of security can give rise to even more accidents and injuries. This is not unbelievable, given that so many "bicycle facilities" are even more unsafe than the roads they were built to avoid.
Lastly, if a "bicycle facility" is built which is purely recreational, but serves no practical transportational service, such as connecting one's quiet, residential street to nearby shopping, theaters or workplaces, it cannot substitute for the road in any way, and becomes totally unnecessary to cyclists who wish to use cycling for those purposes.
I arrived at these conclusions independently, as I began my cycling on "bike facilities." I was overjoyed to find these same conclusions echoes by seasoned cyclists, such as John Forester and John S. Allen. I am not prejudiced by indoctrination, but by experience.
This forum should be renamed. This isn't cycling advocacy.
No-one responding to my posts gives a single description of what a good road for cyclists would look like. Not one. The only retort is that cyclists should take a lane. Apparently in all circumstances. Regardless of traffic volume and speeds. And in that lane cars won't miss stop signs or make bad lane changes or pass using half your lane or any of the other things cars do - even if they are traveling at 45-50 mph and the cyclist is moving at 12 mph. Who's in a fantasy world here?
Apparently it's Critical Mass uber alles here. Ineffective advocacy that renders roads unsafe and unrideable for all but the hardest fastest cyclists. The point not being to provide safe efficient cycling for all, but to fight the bigger battle against a destructive car culture.
Well, have at it boys. I'm glad that with my 8 mile commute and 5000+ miles/year in and around the best bicycling city in the US I don't have you guys as traffic planners.
As much as I like riding the roads, I do feel that bike "facilities" are necessary. I can't imagine the average family out for a ride on the road with youngsters. Nor can I imagine those youngsters learning all the necessary rules and regulations that are pretty much second nature for we adults who know enough to look a driver in the eyes at an intersection before proceeding. I am taking the time to teach my boys the finer techniques of sharing the roads with cars, but there are time where we hit the trails and just ride without having to fret the whole time about someone in their car narrowly missing us. I am opposed however to having "facilities" that are a designated lane shared with autos. As has been mentioned many a time in many a thread, designated bike lanes are typically strewn with the trash blown off the roads by cars and trucks, the pavement patches when utilities are installed are sub-par and would never be accepted in the "car portion" of the lane, drivers have a tendency to use the bike lane as a "panic" lane, where they go when they can't stop fast enough to miss the car that stopped in front of them because they weren't paying attention while talking on the phone, applying their make-up just plain day dreaming. Trails have their place, it's where to go with the family when you don't want to worry about cards, pedestrians and dogs who share the trail can easily be avoided. Sure there is a trade-off but at least there is a choice. I have yet to see a well designed bike lane adjacent to a car lane, and even if it were it would have the obstacles mentioned above.
This forum should be renamed. This isn't cycling advocacy.
Personally, I'm glad you have posted your opinions here. It would be pretty boring if there weren't some different views put forth. And though we differ, we have cycling in common. We can agree to disagree.
Apparently it's Critical Mass uber alles here.
I would consider that an overgeneralization.
I'm glad that with my 8 mile commute and 5000+ miles/year in and around the best bicycling city in the US I don't have you guys as traffic planners.
Mark, I'm also glad you enjoy your commute, as do I, even though by your standards, my city is probably "the worst bicycling city in the U.S." It's a tragedy: the perception that cycling can't be enjoyed safely in cities like mine is what keeps so many from making the joy of cycling a permanent part of their lives.
This forum should be renamed. This isn't cycling advocacy.
Um, yes it is. Advocacy: NOUN: The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support.
Seems to me, we're doing that here.
No-one responding to my posts gives a single description of what a good road for cyclists would look like. Not one.
Well, look below at the attached image and you'll have a picture of a good road that has all we need. We just need everyone to follow the law and we'll all be fine. Simple as that.
I'm glad that with my 8 mile commute and 5000+ miles/year in and around the best bicycling city in the US I don't have you guys as traffic planners.
Don't think you're the only one with experiance. We have ours too and what we're talking about are ideas. We can all have different ideas and learn from others with different ideas. I don't think all facilities are bad. Some are good.
For me, all I want is due respect I deserve.
Traffic (U.S.) always flows on the right. "Bike facilities" are often built on whichever side of the street designers have arbitrarily chosen.
Intersections become hazardous, to say the least. Even when "bike facilities" flow in the direction of traffic, they create a second intersection parallel to the main intersection, which is more complicated and dangerous. In addition, at every intersection where a bike lane exists, the possibility for cyclists to be cut off by right-turning traffic is created, a situation that is never permitted in normal, accepted safe road design.
I arrived at these conclusions independently, as I began my cycling on "bike facilities." I was overjoyed to find these same conclusions echoes by seasoned cyclists, such as John Forester and John S. Allen. I am not prejudiced by indoctrination, but by experience.
I took out the middle of your post LBM. I can see how you arrived at these conclusions, since I see this many times myself. Experience can teach us a lot. I'm still puzzled about them adding to the problems at intersections. Do you "take" the right hand through lane at every intersection? Even if it's plenty wide for a bike and a car? Maybe I'm not doing it correctly. In California the bike lanes end 250 feet before the intersection, so that's usually where the problems are. I've been riding straight through "on the right" at intersections. It seems it would be more dangerous to "take the lane" on a high speed road where there is room. In some of the links to cycling safety, I don't see them proposing we move over, but ride through on the right. Cars turning right are indeed a problem.
How do you approach this? Thanks in advance.
No-one responding to my posts gives a single description of what a good road for cyclists would look like.
The same as a "good road" for anyone else would look like. I regard the most important trait as taking me to wherever it is I am going, regardless of appearance.
The only retort is that cyclists should take a lane. Apparently in all circumstances.
Only in the circumstances you describe in your post.
Regardless of traffic volume and speeds. And in that lane cars won't miss stop signs or make bad lane changes or pass using half your lane or any of the other things cars do - even if they are traveling at 45-50 mph and the cyclist is moving at 12 mph. Who's in a fantasy world here?
On the contrary, I accept that cars do these things. I am, however, realistic enough to realise that they do them outside the lane, too. Thus, I regard the most important things to be making myself visible and giving myself as much space as possible. How do you suggest I go about this?
Ineffective advocacy that renders roads unsafe and unrideable for all but the hardest fastest cyclists.
No road is unrideable. In fact, if you had taken the time to read any statistics, you would have realised that most (if not all) roads are closer to being undriveable than unrideable. Don't think for one minute that your the only one on this forum who rides. I ride roads like this everyday. I find them about as close to being perfectly safe as anything in this imperfect world.
I'm glad that with my 8 mile commute and 5000+ miles/year in and around the best bicycling city in the US I don't have you guys as traffic planners.
And rest assured that on my 365 days of riding and 20,000+ km/year, the feeling is more than mutual.
Do you "take" the right hand through lane at every intersection? Even if it's plenty wide for a bike and a car? Maybe I'm not doing it correctly. In California the bike lanes end 250 feet before the intersection, so that's usually where the problems are. I've been riding straight through "on the right" at intersections. It seems it would be more dangerous to "take the lane" on a high speed road where there is room. In some of the links to cycling safety, I don't see them proposing we move over, but ride through on the right. Cars turning right are indeed a problem.
How do you approach this?
Firstly, let me define "taking the lane" as positioning myself in the rightmost part of the lane so that if the lane is too narrow for passing, overtaking vehicles can't pass without using at least a portion of another lane. Taking the lane on a road with adequate width for both motorists and cyclists, by contrast, allows motorists to pass safely within the lane; but it does not mean moving toward the center of the lane to take exclusive control of it.
I take the lane at intersections just as I would otherwise, except that if I anticipate stopping, I claim a position in the traffic queue by moving toward the center of the lane so that when traffic starts moving again, I can move safely through the intersection and avoid motorists cutting me off when they turn right. After passing through the intersection, I resume taking the lane as before.
One must realize that there is no guarantee against a motorist cutting one off when turning right, bike lane or not. One must always be prepared for this possibility, though taking the lane helps prevent it. The problem with bike lanes at intersections is that motorists don't always get the hang of turning right across a through-lane, but they seem to better understand queuing up in the through lane. Some planners may have discovered this, which might be why the bike lane ends before the intersection you describe.
Thank you for your thoughtful inquiry. I believe our safety is best served by discussing these issues open-mindedly. Just as there are many different roads and traffic situations, we all must use our skills, experience and intuition when dealing with them.
Firstly, let me define "taking the lane" as positioning myself in the rightmost part of the lane so that if the lane is too narrow for passing, overtaking vehicles can't pass without using at least a portion of another lane. Taking the lane on a road with adequate width for both motorists and cyclists, by contrast, allows motorists to pass safely within the lane; but it does not mean moving toward the center of the lane to take exclusive control of it.
I take the lane at intersections just as I would otherwise, except that if I anticipate stopping, I claim a position in the traffic queue by moving toward the center of the lane so that when traffic starts moving again, I can move safely through the intersection and avoid motorists cutting me off when they turn right. After passing through the intersection, I resume taking the lane as before.
LBM, I respectfully note that your definition of "taking the lane" differs from the conventional meaning of "positioning oneself to preclude side-by-side lane sharing with a motor vehicle." According to your description, you indeed take the lane as you approach an intersection, to avoid being right-hooked, but you share (rather than take) a wide lane mid-block, as many/most of us do.
As I have said many times before, it all comes down to speed. On a 25mph/40kph residential or business district street with curbside parking, I flow with traffic and specifically do not want bike lanes, particularly if they set me up for dooring or right-hooking. On a high-speed arterial, I want a wide curb lane or well-maintained shoulder, with or without bike lane demarcation. At a freeway-style intersection with high-speed free turns, merges, and/or diverges, I want a bypass path, even if I have to share it with pedestrians and 'bladers.
LBM, I respectfully note that your definition of "taking the lane" differs from the conventional meaning of "positioning oneself to preclude side-by-side lane sharing with a motor vehicle."
Thank you, John, for correcting me. Let me rephrase my post to avoid confusion.
Firstly, let me define "taking the lane" as positioning myself in the rightmost part of the lane so that if the lane is too narrow for passing, overtaking vehicles can't pass without using at least a portion of another lane. Sharing the lane on a road with adequate width for both motorists and cyclists, by contrast, allows motorists to pass safely within the lane.
I take/share the lane at intersections just as I would otherwise, except that if I anticipate stopping, I claim a position in the traffic queue by moving toward the center of the lane so that when traffic starts moving again, I can move safely through the intersection and avoid motorists cutting me off when they turn right. After passing through the intersection, I resume my position in the lane as before.
One must realize that there is no guarantee against a motorist cutting one off when turning right, bike lane or not. One must always be prepared for this possibility, though taking the lane helps prevent it. The problem with bike lanes at intersections is that motorists don't always get the hang of turning right across a through-lane, but they seem to better understand queuing up in the through lane. Some planners may have discovered this, which might be why the bike lane ends before the intersection you describe.
On a high-speed arterial, I want a wide curb lane or well-maintained shoulder, with or without bike lane demarcation. At a freeway-style intersection with high-speed free turns, merges, and/or diverges, I want a bypass path, even if I have to share it with pedestrians and 'bladers.
I'm not against the idea of bypass paths, though I wonder about safe and convenient re-merging with traffic. Nevertheless, such solutions are creative and worth considering the merit of, much like the idea of cut-through paths connecting residential streets to provide access for cyclists who can't otherwise conveniently navigate neighborhoods whose street designs are notoriously made up of no-through streets and high-speed arterials.
But again, I would prefer that bike lanes were not painted on wide curbside lanes as they tend to narrow the usable part of the lane. In addition, a bike lane gives motorists the idea that they don't have to allow sufficient passing room, a problem that is made even more dangerous on a high-speed arterial.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.