Planning is the key to the least costly addition of bike lanes...When I see roads repaved and bike lanes not added, I could almost cry.. It should be the standard.

I expect no less than the bike friendly ness of a place like Oregon. That is my personal goal...And since we demand our Constitutional rights of movement and bikes are our choice of transportation, we do all a favor of constructing bike facilities so we are safe and out of the way of motorists..Otherwise, upholding our right to the road as we will, all will suffer.

I'm having a hard time following your logic which, at times seems to be opposed to bike paths and bike lanes while at others clearly in favor of them. Also, reading your comments suggests that you aren't carefully reading what I've been writing nor what is actually in the bill or the analysis of the bill that is at the center of this discussion . Thus, we are not communicating.

Final Points:

1. These aren't my organizations and I have no interest in recreational trails projects; however, the bill that was vetoed in California was a poorly written bill that tried to be all things to all people including efforts to define requirements, funding, or land grants for recreational path initiatives. In short, it was merely working to codify a document called "The Blueprint" from which is pulled the following excerpt:

A. Objective – A Bicycle and Pedestrian-Friendly Network

Many bicycle and pedestrian trips in this country are for utilitarian purposes: to work, to places of education, for shopping, and other trips. Many people also walk and bicycle for exercise. Regardless of trip purpose, bicyclists and walkers prefer facilities that are convenient, safe, and equipped with appropriate amenities such as drinking fountains, picnic tables, benches, and shade. One of the primary objectives of the Blueprint is to encourage and enable transportation professionals to routinely include these facilities in transportation improvements.

Because designs have evolved over many years, some existing roads do not conform fully with current standards including accommodations for non-motorized travel. On these roads, additions or improvements (such as new or improved shoulders, sidewalks, striping, and other features) may enhance safety and encourage non-motorized travel. Accelerating programs to improve existing roads may require increases in resources.

Separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities also play a vital role in promoting walking and bicycling. Transportation agencies should take advantage of opportunities to reserve rights of way (such as abandoned rail lines) for eventual development of trail and path.

There's a politically incorrect statement that describes these types of alliances between advocacy groups where one or both groups opt to dilute their goals to achieve a compomise position and trying to please everyone usually ends up pleasing no one: "Be careful who you get in bed with...."

Anyway, I would suggest that if you have not done so you read "The Blueprint" in total so you understand what it addresses: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/bike/CABlueprintRpt.pdf To say it is ambitious is an understatement...

2. My point has been and will always be, the recreational aspects of integrating bicycling into the community should NOT be embedded in transportation funding projects. Paths and trails are a great resource and serve a purpose, but they aren't normally part of the transporation infrastructure. That being the case, I believe they should be paid for with whatever dollars are set aside for recreational and green space facilities OR by private concerns, which -- as I attempted to demonstrate with references -- are very effective at doing just that.

3. California law already addresses most of the transportation-related aspects of what was covered in the vetoed bill. It would be interesting to see just how the existing laws regarding incorporation of bicycle accommocations is addressed in new Caltrans projects and to find out what the current bicycle coordinator is doing with their time.

We are talking apples and oranges..I bemoan the bill vetoed about two legislative sessions ago..Setting California up as the way Oregon is..Mandates for bike lanes automatically built into new road construction projects.
That is the goal California needs. Considering we probably have the nations' greatest per capitia number of active cyclists .
In some of the older replies, it seems Livingood complains of the effectiveness of public tax money spent on bike alternatives incorporated into the transportation budget? That is my main argument...
A comprehensive transportation system is in the public domain. The recreation budget can incorporate both..But the commuting cyclist is not a recreational activity. So the concerns of the commuting cyclist is with Caltrans and Istea. That is my point.

I bemoan the bill vetoed about two legislative sessions ago..Setting California up as the way Oregon is..Mandates for bike lanes automatically built into new road construction projects..

Was that all that was addressed in the bill two legislative sessions ago or was it similar to SB1381, which again merely states, "full consideration of the needs of nonmotorized travelers in all planning, programming, project development, construction, maintenance, and operations activities" while the majority of the bill seems to focus on segregated path facilities, updating data bases, and hosting task force meetings to discuss how to secure access to and fund path projects for rail corridors?


In some of the older replies, it seems Livingood complains of the effectiveness of public tax money spent on bike alternatives incorporated into the transportation budget?.

No, my argument is that it is inappropriate to spend transportation dollars on recreational projects under the premise that they may have some benefit to transportation in the future. SB 1381 is a prime example of how what you seem to be most interested in gets subordinated to recreational projects where "the potential" benefit to transporation is a hook and not necessarily the driver. However, legislators continue to pursue these recreational beautification projects in the name of alternative "transportation" and claim credit for being bike-friendly while doing nothing to mandate bicycle accommodations in the urban transportation infrasture or, worse yet, while installing rumble-strips and making what would have otherwise been useful and inexpensive on-road accommodations for cyclists unusable and unsafe.

My failed attempt to find out from you (or anyone else) who funds recreational facilities in California, the line of questioning and examples of private concerns funding recreation facilities was intended to point out where things like rails-to-trails and recreational projects should reside. If a recreational project will also provide a transportation benefit that's gravy, but putting water fountains, park benches, flower beds, and picnic tables along an MUP is not going provide you with a viable substitute for the adjacent road that you'd rather be using for your morning commute or any other type of riding that can't be safely accomplished on an MUP. Now, that's not to say there aren't MUPs that don't serve an essential transportation need, e.g., the bicycle path that parallels PCH North of Monterey. But, that is often times the exception and not the rule.


That is my main argument... A comprehensive transportation system is in the public domain. The recreation budget can incorporate both..But the commuting cyclist is not a recreational activity. So the concerns of the commuting cyclist is with Caltrans and Istea. That is my point.

So perhaps we're in violent agreement, but it's taken a long time to get here. As I have indicated throughout this thread, I have a hard time understanding exactly where you're coming from in your arguments because, like many folks who are passionate about things and well-meaning politicians who want to please as many constituents as possible, what you see as your highest priority gets buried in your messages. The latter is what befuddles non-cyclists who occupy key positions in organizations like Caltrans or Georgia DOT when they are presented with these all-encompassing "bicycle initiatives" that get lumped together and where the person hired to sort through it all is given a job charter that is too broad to ever be effective. Thus, real transportation projects or meaningful road construction policy with teeth never seems to come about while private concerns pick-up the slack and move forward on recreational projects. When on-road users put pressure on our local and state government for on-road bicycle accommodations they quickly point to the lovely paths and trails and say they are doing something and, oh by the way, that's exactly what "our" national cycling lobby -- The League -- supports. From the non-cycling public perspective -- remembering that these are people who really do see the public road as unsafe and cyclists as a hazard or at least an impediment -- the calls for additional tax dollars or fencing-off more transportation dollars for cycling accommodations seem unwarranted, unjustified, and excessive because, after all, we just spent millions building you cyclists a lovely bike path that you won't even use.

Bottom Line: If you are an advocate of on-road cycling accommodations stay on that message and work to parse-out recreational projects from transportation projects at every opportunity. It's like giving career advice to a child: you can be anything you want to be, a great doctor, a great lawyer, a great engineer, or successful businessman. However, you can't be great at all of them: pick one and pursue that objective with razorsharp focus. You don't have to dis the other initiatives, but recognize that of the various ones being pursued, on-road bicycle accommodations are the high-fruit on the tree. So, when transportation gets lumped in with pedestrian needs and those of the recreational cyclist, you're more likely to see progress in those other two areas no simply no meaningful progress at all.

Planning is the key to the least costly addition of bike lanes...When I see roads repaved and bike lanes not added, I could almost cry.. It should be the standard.

I get mad when I see bike lanes added. Bike lanes make a lot of people feel better about themselves, especially politicians, transportation planners and unskilled cyclists. But they are almost always bad for cyclists, especially when coupled with mandatory sidepath laws.

We cyclists already have the right to use the road. Bike lanes take away that right by confining us to our own "special" lanes. Support for bicycle lanes is possibly the biggest fault of the Bicycle League. The League is betraying transportational cyclists in favor feel-good projects.

Livngood is right, when it comes to transportation policy, cyclists need to focus on getting cyclists from point a to point b, not on weekend frolics. Bike lanes are about weekend frolics. Instead of putting your energy into getting bike lanes, put your energy into learning how to ride in traffic. If you get involved with politics, start with the do-not-harm rule. Bike lanes harm.

I get mad when I see bike lanes added. Bike lanes make a lot of people feel better about themselves, especially politicians, transportation planners and unskilled cyclists. But they are almost always bad for cyclists, especially when coupled with mandatory sidepath laws. We cyclists already have the right to use the road. Bike lanes take away that right by confining us to our own "special" lanes. ... Bike lanes harm.

I purposely avoided the temptation to respond to the Bike Lane commentary as it was yet another red herring (see my other posts on Grammar & Spelling). I has been my hope to to keep this purposeful discussion from being derailed by the "Hummers" and other non-core issues related to the legislation that was vetoed. I think it is important for anyone who has either an active or passive interest in advocacy to be attentive to what is contained in proposed legislation and to be watchful for bills that blur the lines between "transportation" projects and "recreational" projects" as the funding associated with both.

Doing anything to promote cycling is like riding cross country without a map or a deadline. Yes, you may be making great progress, but that may not get you where you want to be any time soon. Moreover, unless you have an endless supply of money and no other responsibilities to attend to, you'll quickly run out of both time and money well before you reach your goal.

Doing anything to promote cycling is like riding cross country without a map or a deadline. Yes, you may be making great progress, but that may not get you where you want to be any time soon. Moreover, unless you have an endless supply of money and no other responsibilities to attend to, you'll quickly run out of both time and money well before you reach your goal.

The question is, if cycling groups don't agree, how can we get anything done? Like many other transportational cyclists, I'd rather see no law than a law that promotes bike lanes. Like many other bike commuters, I like a good bike/multi-use path, but not if it costs me access to the road. By contrast, many "recreational" cyclists want only bike lanes and bike paths. I can see how it would be easy for elected officials to throw up their hands and do nothing.

The question is, if cycling groups don't agree, how can we get anything done? Like many other transportational cyclists, I'd rather see no law than a law that promotes bike lanes. Like many other bike commuters, I like a good bike/multi-use path, but not if it costs me access to the road. By contrast, many "recreational" cyclists want only bike lanes and bike paths. I can see how it would be easy for elected officials to throw up their hands and do nothing.

Exactly, which is why advocacy efforts and advocates must make a clear distinction between meeting transportation needs and recreational ones and address them to their respective audience in separate forums and separate legislation. The gap between the two is where education and cooperative efforts can merge, but not at the expense of losing focus on maintaining our access to public roads. It's OK to be in favor of and a vocal advocate of both, but you must exercise discipline to address them each in their proper context and not blur the two when talking to non-cyclists. After all, most non-cyclists have neither the interest, motivation or time for riding a bicycle, let alone an appreciation of why you would want to do so on public roads.

Anecdote from GDOT Experience: A year or two back we were invited to come meet with the representatives from GDOT who draft and implement bicycle-related requirements for road construction in Georgia, e.g., rumble strips. The specific event was to evaluate a new type of milled-in rumble strip. Arrangements were made to provide the GDOT representatives with ATB-type bikes so that they could ride with a cross section of different cyclists along the road were these rumble strips were installed. As you would expect, the GDOT representatives were ducks out of water on bicycles and had little if any actual on-road riding experience. It was clear they had no desire to share the road -- a two lane highway with a continuous center turn lane (actually a good thing) -- with the cars and trucks passing by at 45 mph. To them, the 4' wide paved shoulder with it's 2' wide rumble strips placed just 6" or so from the fog line gave them a "barrier" from traffic that they thought was a good thing. In that this was a brand-new road, the 2' wide strip of asphalt that they preferred to ride on had not yet become covered by clag and other debris that was swept off of the road and held on the edge of the road by the soon to be encroaching grass and weeds. Moreover, they believed riding to the left of the fog line and in the right most part of the traffic lane as unsafe and in violation of the vehicle code. We had to explain to them that no, riding to the far right side of the lane meant just that... the far right side of the lane. Not to right side of the fog line that defined the edge of the lane. In practice, where there is a fog line and an adequate shoulder many cyclists will move onto that paved surface if it's in good repair and use it as a quasi-bike lane but, in doing so, they are not necessarily giving up their legal right to ride in the traffic lane. Again, it was an eye opening experience for both the cyclists and the GDOT representatives to see how differently we viewed how bicycles actually use the road as well as our application of the laws. Now, had any of the cyclists who ride exclusively on the PATH system in Atlanta been invited to participate I suspect their views would have been closer to those of the non-cyclist GDOT representatives.

Just something to consider... You always want to make sure you gain an appreciation for where your audience is coming from before assuming too much about how receptive they will be to your observations or arguments in a meaningful discussion.

Let me ask a few questions....

1. Why do you believe the state or federal government is better equipped to do a better job of addressing your local or regional transportation and recreational needs than local or private organizations?

2. Is it your belief that local government or private non-profits would not be able to generate sufficient revenues from their own constituents through local tax, bond, or fund raising efforts to pay for local infrastructure improvements and new recreational facilities?

3. If as outlined in the California Assembly's analysis of the bill there are already laws on the books in California that address bicycle and pedestrian issues using very similar language to what is contained in the bill just vetoed, what makes you believe the new laws would have been adhered to with any more rigor than the existing laws?

4. Given the state of the budget in California, just where should the Govenator and legislature be looking to make the necessary spending cuts or on which group should they raise taxes to pay for recreational pedestrian and bicycling facilities?

I have been hearing this "Privatization of Government task"(I don't know exact word you use.) This is a kind of question that either way is hard to answer. "Do you really believe that private organization is better equipped to do a better job of addressing your local or regional transportation and recreational needs?" I would say there are tasks better handled by the government and there are tasks better handled by private organizations. I believe research of how the road should be built are organized and funded by the government. Unless you are talking about the government pay the private organization to do the task, the money raising for the job is unreliable at best. Let me tell you a story how much of waste charity organizations operate on. When a children's charity founded by Michael Jackson, one that everybody knows as an entertainer, was found that it was sending no money to any organization that they are supposed to be sending money to, they came up with this defense. "As a common knowledge, average charity send 10% worth of goods or money to those who need it(10% out of the charity collects)." Actually Michael Jackson charity is saying, charity organization not sending anything is nothing out of ordinary but the cost to run the charity taking up 100% of the money it collects. Of course, there are many different charity organizations and if Bill Gates donated $10Million, probably majority of it would go to people who need it, but most charity organization is not like that. The organization has to survive first. I think it should be a mandatory for all the charity organizations to let people know what percentage actually goes to the needy before they take donations. And you know what, the organization have no responsibility to people who donate the money no matter how little they send to the needy. At least voters can vote off the government officials, if they waste 90% of tax dollars.

Now my question to livngood is, do you have any proof that the government operates less efficiently than this, taking 90% cost to send 10% worth of goods? Do you know any nation which transportation projects and its research are totally funded by private organization?

No.I do not trust a private organization to make public minded decisions about road/public transit.. Public control is just that . our input is possible. Our control is possible...Not, that private contracts are not possible for some specialized projects.
But total control. We are selling out ourselves to thieves..Here in California just look at Enron.
Remember that every time you cross a bridge in New York or pay a quarter into the Turnpikes about Chicago.After going just a couple miles.

Now my question to livngood is, do you have any proof that the government operates less efficiently than this, taking 90% cost to send 10% worth of goods? Do you know any nation which transportation projects and its research are totally funded by private organization?

The scope of my comments on local (government) or private organizations was related to transportation and recreational type facilities in general, so the scope of private organizations to look at would be the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, the League of American Bicyclists, the PATH Foundation, and similar groups. I will, when time allows, see if I can find out what their operating costs are vs. how much funding they are able to direct towards projects.

To entertain your second question, I will also do a check to see if there are any nations that have outsourced transportation planning and development, although I suspect there will be a fine line between 100% outsourcing vs. retaining decision making and funding allocation on projects that are "managed" by governments but where all the work is done by consultants or contractors. However, while I will look for that information, I will also note that the gist of my line of questions was to explore why the Federal or State government was being lobbied for funding to support local bicycle facilities instead of focusing on local government or, in regard to recreational facilities, private concerns such as the Atlanta PATH foundation. Perhaps I should have put a larger firewall between transportation and recreational paths to make that distinction clear. Cyclezealot has offered that Caltrans is responsible for all road construction projects in California so perhaps that skews California's model for local road construction projects to be out of the realm of local government. However, in either case, it was not my intent to suggest that a private agency take over Caltrans or manage public road construction projects. It was, again, more along the lines of exploring why groups like the Redlands Conservancy in California and PATH foundation in Georgia have made significant progress in addressing local recreational facilities without a state or federal mandate.

Livingood..I was recently reading about Argentin'a economy in the UK Independent, I think it was....Argentina got so carried away with privatitaziton, that even street signs were erected by private authorities..
Might check out Argentina, prior to the current Federal Administration as a case study in privitizing.

What is a "fog line?"

What is a "fog line?"

The "fog line" stripe is that solid, 100mm wide, white painted line placed at or near the outer edge of the road. http://www.montcopa.org/plancom/attathd.pdf

We all want lower taxes, but no-one wants to give up anything. (Me included)

Nicely said!

My city and county spends billions of tax payer dollars expanding and widening highways and tollways. However, when the subject of sidewalks and bikeways come up, the politicians always say, "Oh, we have a tight budget and don't have extra money for "frills".

Our local public hospital for low-income families is flooded by children with breathing problems. Over a third of the children in our industrial neighborhoos have pollution related illnesses. The cost to taxpayers for treating these illnesses?

Because it is so unsafe to walk or ride bikes in my town, people will get into their Suburban to go six blocks for a quart of milk. Outside the elementary school in my neighborhood, there is a three block line of cars, trucks, and SUV's picking up and dropping off over-weight, out-of-shape children. Unsafe to walk to school.

Any time a politician says "I am saving taxpayers money by vetoing this bill for sidewalks, bikeways, walking and biking", he is lying. Politicians run for office on the mega-bucks of government contractors. Contractors figured out a long time ago that there is more profit in building a freeway, at a cost of $100 million dollars per mile, than a bikeway at the cost of $20,000 per mile, or a sidewalk at a cost of $10,000 per mile. Road Contractors in my town have spend millions of dollars lobbying against proposals to expand mass transit, bikeways, and sidewalks.

America's addiction to freeways, highways, Hummers and Suburbans is killing our children. And, politicians take money from road contractors, and then say "we can't afford" mass transit, walking, and bike riding are the problem, not the solution.

My city and county spends billions of tax payer dollars expanding and widening highways and tollways. However, when the subject of sidewalks and bikeways come up, the politicians always say, "Oh, we have a tight budget and don't have extra money for "frills".

Our local public hospital for low-income families is flooded by children with breathing problems. Over a third of the children in our industrial neighborhoos have pollution related illnesses. The cost to taxpayers for treating these illnesses?

Because it is so unsafe to walk or ride bikes in my town, people will get into their Suburban to go six blocks for a quart of milk. Outside the elementary school in my neighborhood, there is a three block line of cars, trucks, and SUV's picking up and dropping off over-weight, out-of-shape children. Unsafe to walk to school.

Any time a politician says "I am saving taxpayers money by vetoing this bill for sidewalks, bikeways, walking and biking", he is lying. Politicians run for office on the mega-bucks of government contractors. Contractors figured out a long time ago that there is more profit in building a freeway, at a cost of $100 million dollars per mile, than a bikeway at the cost of $20,000 per mile, or a sidewalk at a cost of $10,000 per mile. Road Contractors in my town have spend millions of dollars lobbying against proposals to expand mass transit, bikeways, and sidewalks.

America's addiction to freeways, highways, Hummers and Suburbans is killing our children. And, politicians take money from road contractors, and then say "we can't afford" mass transit, walking, and bike riding are the problem, not the solution.
But most "bikeways" projects do nothing for transportational cycling. Bike paths are generally recreational, not transportational--they are pretty, but they don't help you to get from home to work or school. Bike lanes make novice cyclists feel better, but that feeling is usually wrong. Bike lanes often make cycling more dangeous.

Government can do five things to make tranportational cycling better:
1. Do no harm: Don't create bike ghettos, aka bike lanes (bike lanes actually exclude cyclists from 93% of the roadway).

2. Consider cyclists when designing roads and intersections: Leave extra space in the right lane; maintain the road; make traffic sensors sensitive enough to detect cycles.

3. Sponsor bike education: People can learn to ride in traffic. We shouldn't dumb down the roads to the level of ignorant cyclists; we should bring cyclists' knowledge up to the level that they can ride on the road.

4. Repeal dangerous biking laws: Repeal mandatory sidepath laws and other laws that imply that cyclists should stay on the extreme right side of the road.

5. Encourage schools, businesses, and employers to have safe, secure, sheltered places for people to lock bicycles.
From what I could tell, the bill Arnold vetoed violated rule 1 and did nothing for 3-5. If properly implemented, the bill could have helped with rule 2, but transportational cycling is probably better off because of the veto.

Alanbikehouston, you make good connections. My area (Clark County, WA) is making baby steps away from completely autocentric planning but the same whine usually creeps out about the "frills" that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are. What I don't get is why the means of transportation that enriches the proven enemies of our country, i.e. petrol burning private autos, are the favorite of right-wing politicians and their followers. Why don't we hear "starve a Saudi, bike to work" from Team R?

Alanbikehouston, you make good connections. My area (Clark County, WA) is making baby steps away from completely autocentric planning but the same whine usually creeps out about the "frills" that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are. What I don't get is why the means of transportation that enriches the proven enemies of our country, i.e. petrol burning private autos, are the favorite of right-wing politicians and their followers. Why don't we hear "starve a Saudi, bike to work" from Team R?
There is a difference between being anti-automobile and pro-bicycle.

Cyclists should watch out anytime they hear talk of "bicycle and pedestrian" facilities. That concept teaches that cyclists are not part of normal road transportation. We build sidewalks (facilities) for pedestrians. We let cyclists use the road like other drivers. The needs of tranportational cycling must be addressed seperately from pedestrian needs.

It agree that it's important to argue to make roads safe for cyclists, but I don't mean bike lanes. I mean adequate traffic sensors, wide curb lanes and good mainatenance. By "bicycle and pedestrian facilities," do you mean that you want to confine cyclists to ghettos labeled "bike lanes"?

I'm sorry for the harsh tone. I know Feldman and Alanbikehouston have good intentions. I just think their ideas would make the roads more dangerous and less convenient for cyclists.

[QUOTE=Daily Commute] Bike lanes often make cycling more dangeous.

A good example, the bicycle lane on a street I used to commute on was so full of gravel you couldn't tell that there was a lane. The traffic lane is wide enouth that I was able to share it with cars and wide trucks safely. I used it for a full winter. Last summer they resurfficed it and repainted the lane. In a few days there was enough gravel in it that I had to ride in the traffic lane again. (trucks come out of a gravel pit there). Now that drivers know that there is a bike lane some are not willing to share the lane with me. I have been yelled at, which I can ignore, but several times I have had cars and one Fed Ex truck try to do there civic duty and try to force me over into the bike lane. I finialy gave up and use another street.

The "fog line" stripe is that solid, 100mm wide, white painted line placed at or near the outer edge of the road. http://www.montcopa.org/plancom/attathd.pdf

It is indeed sad that so many motorists and cyclists believe we belong outside (to the right in North America and continental Europe) of the fogline, rather than to the inside. If a shoulder is wide and in good condition, I will move into it if there are no driveways or intersections, to be "nice" to motorists behind me, but I also fear that this sends the wrong message. I do monitor traffic, so that I can re-enter the traffic lane when the shoulder becomes obstructed or when approaching a driveway cut or intersection.

My reference to a "bike lane" was not to a "Texas bike lane". A Texas "bike lane" is a white stripe of paint next to the gutter. It is about two feet wide, filled with gravel, glass, and broken pavement in dry weather, and is underwater in wet weather.

My idea of a proper bike lane is like the ones in Holland. Ten to fifteen feet wide. Smooth enough for bikes to run at full speed. Reserved for "bikes only". And built next to every road and highway where the flow of traffic is moving at 40 mph or above.

Modern Texas neighborhoods are built so that there is only one or two ways to enter or leave a neighborhood. The exit from the subdivision is often onto a four lane/six lane road where the prevailing speed is usually from 40 mph to 60 mph, regardless of the "posted" speedlimit.

In "Utopia", bike riders could be out in the middle of one of those lanes, "sharing it" with Suburbans, and Expeditions. In REAL life, back in Texas, drivers will NOT share a lane with a bike when the prevailing flow of traffic is moving 40 mph and above. Drivers might honk, but they will NOT slow down. If the driver of the Suburban fails to knock you off the road on his first attempt, he is might circle back and make a second try.

Every rider I know who has attempted "sharing" a Texas road with trucks when the flow of traffic is above 40 mph has a scary story to tell. Some have not survived to tell their scary story.

So, in REAL life Texas, bikes can not safely "share" roads where the flow of traffic is moving faster than 40 mph. What those roads need is a ten or fifteen foor wide "road" reserved for bikes on each side of those kind of roads. It needs to be clearly separated from road traffic by a wall, or a grass strip. Why? In my experience, the few wide bike lanes I have seen in Texas next to highways are used by trucks as a passing lane.

If such a wide bike lane is used by bikes, and ONLY by bikes, they are cheap to build. Most highways are built to carry regular cars and trucks, but also must be strong enough for 18 wheelers, construction trucks, concrete mixing trucks, and so on. Such roads require a deep foundation, and are very expensive to build and maintain. A lane used ONLY by bikes does not require a deep foundation, and if properly built, last many years with a minimum of upkeep.

In older neighborhoods, the narrow sidestreets often have a flow of traffic moving just 20 mph or 25 mph. Drivers, even in Texas, are willing to treat a bike rider as an "equal" and streets where bikes and cars are able to move at relatively equal speeds. After a car turns off a wide main road onto a narrow side street, the driver is usually within three or four blocks of where he is headed. Slowing down to 15 mph behind a bike for a block or two does not seem to upset the average driver.

Bottom line: whether bikes get a "proper" bike lane, which is needed on high speed roads, or "equal rights", which is workable on roads with a slower flow of traffic moving 20 mph to 30 mph, every American ought to be able to use a bike to get to school, to their job, or to the store. It ought to be possible to safely ride a bike from any "A" in a community to any "B" in a community.

Politicians who say that a community can "afford" endless new freeways and tollways, but cannot afford bike ways, buses, or trains is lying. They have become addicted to the endless flow of "contributions" that the trillions of dollars spent on highway contruction generate. And, they become the paid stooges of the road construction industry. It is not surprising that a guy who owns two or three "Hummers" would claim California can not afford to promote bike riding.

Those who have defended "Arnold"...please update this thread when Arnold vetos a bill that is being promoted by the California highway construction industry. I won't hold my breath.

Here's (http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-9962) one thread about the so-called bike-friendly bike lanes in the Netherlands. But, as John Forester has explained here (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/TransQuart01.htm), the lanes are classic bikeways, and they create the illusion of safety, but create danger and inconvenience for cyclists:

Any ubiquitous urban bikeway system has to run largely along the existing streets, because these are the only spaces generally available. Practically all urban bikeways put the cyclist to the outside of the motor traffic, in a bike lane or sidepath.

Consider a cyclist traveling straight along the much-praised Dutch sidepath system. Every driveway becomes an intersection. At every normal intersection, motorists from his right fail to yield to him, but cross his path to yield to the motor traffic on the roadway. Motorists from his left are only too glad to cross the roadway when the roadway is clear, and don't look to yield to him coming fast along the path. At every normal intersection, the straight-through cyclist is at the right of right-turning motor vehicles, whose drivers don't see him until the moment of collision. Motorists from the opposite direction who turn left across his path see and yield to traffic on the roadway, but rarely to traffic coming fast along the path.

If the cyclist wants to turn left, he must make his left turn from far to the right of all the motor traffic, turning across those lanes of same-direction motor traffic while having to look ahead for the crossing and opposing-direction motor traffic. This is a situation that is beyond any, let alone just normal, human capability, because we don't have eyes in the backs of our heads and the brain system to comprehend all-around vision.

So, just realize that dutch-style bike lanes might make you FEEL more comfortable, but they would probably make your cycling more dangerous.

Since you're in Texas, maybe a conspicuous sidearm would be helpful, but that's another thread. Actually, it's at least two other threads, here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=59519) and here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=48936).

A question to folks who are "anti-bikelane" and "anti-bikeways". If you have a choice of riding in heavy traffic on a four lane road where the flow of traffic is between 40 mph and 60 mph, you really feel safer riding between and among cars and trucks than riding in a bikelane, dealing with the hazards of joggers, baby carriages, and cars easing out of driveways at 5 mph?

Many of the people who could tell you the most helpful stories about "sharing a lane" in traffic that was moving at speeds above 40 mph can NOT tell about their LAST ride...but it was not pretty. When cars and trucks are moving twice my speed, I'm happy to dodge the joggers.

A question to folks who are "anti-bikelane" and "anti-bikeways". If you have a choice of riding in heavy traffic on a four lane road where the flow of traffic is between 40 mph and 60 mph, you really feel safer riding between and among cars and trucks than riding in a bikelane, dealing with the hazards of joggers, baby carriages, and cars easing out of driveways at 5 mph?

Yes. In fact, the other day I did just that on a six-lane bridge with narrow lanes (10 feet) and no shoulder. The fact is, riding on roads like this is not nearly as dangerous as those who have never done it like to make out. Nor is riding on a path perfectly safe. I prefer the relative order of the road -- especially when it's the option that's going to get me to work on time.

A question to folks who are "anti-bikelane" and "anti-bikeways". If you have a choice of riding in heavy traffic on a four lane road where the flow of traffic is between 40 mph and 60 mph, you really feel safer riding between and among cars and trucks than riding in a bikelane, dealing with the hazards of joggers, baby carriages, and cars easing out of driveways at 5 mph?

Do I feel safer? Yes and no. When riding on public roads I don't feel unsafe. In fact, I feel quite comfortable for the most part regardless of the speed of traffic. In fact, on our West Coast tour from San Francisco to San Diego there were at least two segments of the ride -- one above Santa Barbara coming south from Solvang and a second near Camp Pendleton -- when we shared the Freeway with motorists and truck traffic whizzing by at 70 - 80 mph. Yes, there are drivers and situations that give me the willies, but there are just as many times when I get the willies while riding my motorcycle or driving my 6,000 lb truck: it's just part of being a road user. Now, with regard to shared use paths, that is where I feel uncomfortable. Instead of sharing a 20' wide road where on-coming traffic is 8' away and other users tend to behave somewhat predictably, paths place you in very close proximity (3' at best) to a myriad of users, few of whom can be considered predictable.

Therefore, the real question is, where do I feel I belong and where am I most comfortable... and that is without question on the road. Am I more likely to have an accident on the road? If you believe the data, the answer is actually no; you are more likely to have an accident on a shared use path or a bike lane. However, in the event of an accident on the road, am I more likely to suffer a serious or critical injury? Yes. In fact, I've had 3 encounters with cars over the years where the motorists either pulled-out or turned in front of me. We also have several close friends who have been involved in both minor and serious collisions with cars and have lost several members of our cycling community to motorists over the past several years. Despite it all, we and all of our friends who have been hit by cars continue to ride on the road because -- at least in our minds -- that is where belong given the way that we ride.

Many of the people who could tell you the most helpful stories about "sharing a lane" in traffic that was moving at speeds above 40 mph can NOT tell about their LAST ride...but it was not pretty. When cars and trucks are moving twice my speed, I'm happy to dodge the joggers.

No offense, but I don't believe you have a grasp of the statistics regarding cyclist fatalities. While many cyclists have been hit from behind or head-on, the vast majority of cycling accidents dont' fit the model that you are suggesting. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Mind you, there are far too many cyclist's run-down through no fault of their own each year and that is unexcuseable. However, your comments vastly overstate the number of incidents that involve people and teh circumstances don't necessarily support your argument.

I frankly do not like bike lanes. We as vehicles that are supposed to obey the same laws as automobiles and should not be restricted to any part of the pavement other than as slow vehicles we are supposed to stay as far right as is safe which applies to all slow vehicles. Bike lanes offer the biker no protection and may give you a false sense of security. The dangerous place for the bike is at intersections and bike lanes fade out there even before the intersection. I am surprised that the objections to these bike lanes has faded away.

A question to folks who are "anti-bikelane" and "anti-bikeways". If you have a choice of riding in heavy traffic on a four lane road where the flow of traffic is between 40 mph and 60 mph, (do) you really feel safer riding between and among cars and trucks than riding in a bikelane, dealing with the hazards of joggers, baby carriages, and cars easing out of driveways at 5 mph?

Many of the people who could tell you the most helpful stories about "sharing a lane" in traffic that was moving at speeds above 40 mph can NOT tell about their LAST ride...but it was not pretty. When cars and trucks are moving twice my speed, I'm happy to dodge the joggers. (red added)
Note the question alanbikehouston asks: Do we feel safer? He does not ask if we actually are safer. In a nutshell, that's what bike lanes are about--making inexperienced cyclists feel safer.

As a number of us have argued in this thread, the lanes certainly don't make cycling safer, and they probably make cycling more dangerous.

And yes, I would feel safer on a 40-60 mph road than in the urban bike ghettos many call "bike lanes." For one trip I regularly make, I have a choice between a 5-lane, 45 mph road (where cars go 55 mph) and a nearby bikepath. Even though the bikepath is nearly ideal as far as bikepath's go (along a river, little interaction with traffic, etc.), I generally take the road, especially when I need to get there quickly.

And sidewalk riding is EXTREMELY dangerous. It is also extremely rude. Pedestrians should be able to walk on a sidewalk without cyclists buzzing by.

When I mentioned riding "in" traffic, I meant riding "in" traffic, not riding "near" traffic.

John Forester has been the most effective advocate for riding "in" traffic, and he is very hostile to the idea of bike lanes and bike paths. In his book "Effective Cycling" he describes how riding "in" traffic can be very safe. He describes a world where the bike rider is riding as fast, or faster, than the vehicles behind him. A world where the vehicle behind him can easily move to the left and go around a bike. A world in which the bike rider has plenty of room to move to the right the avoid a vehicle approaching from the rear at high speed. John Forester's world is NOT Houston, Texas in the year 2004.

Forester's book says very few bike riders are killed by a vehicle approaching from the rear. He cites that statistic as proof that riding between vehicles is safe on ANY road. The flaw in his logic is this: very few people get killed going over Niagra Falls in a barrel.

Does that mean going over Niagra Falls in a barrel is safe? No, it means few people are crazy enough to try it, and most of them die. I go months without seeing anyone foolish enough to ride a bike "in" traffic on a Houston four lane road where heavy vehicle traffic is moving more than 40 mph.

Houston created four narrow lanes on roads, just by repainting a wide two lane road. Houston converted six lane roads by repainting four lane roads...each lane is about the width of a bus. So, a bus or truck runs with its right wheels two feet from the right curb and its left wheels on the divider lines to the next lane. The distance between the right hand mirror on the bus or truck and the curb is zero...the mirror may extend out over the curb.

Drivers going 40 mph must attempt to thread the needle between the bike on his right and the vehicles on his left. The heavy flow of traffic on these four lanes roads result in a bike being passed by 300 to 400 vehicles per hour. If just one driver in 300 fails to "thread the needle" with precision, the bike rider is dead.

Currently, the ten feet closest to the curb on the "safe" side of the curb is usually covered with a jungle of overgrown shrubs and trees in residential areas, and is a unused portion of commerical parking lots in business areas. The first ten feet on the "safe" side of the curb could be converted to a safe bike line - one on each side of the highway, protected from traffic by a two or three foot high curb or hedge.

Is it going to happen? No. Every proposal to expand sidewalks, bikeways, buses, or trains in Houston is attacked by multi-million dollar attacks from road contractors who are the largest source of funds for political candidates in Houston. Taxpayers are "on the hook" for billions of dollars in bonds to build more highways. Road contractors don't want a penny spent on anything that could reduce the number of vehicles on Houston roads. Politicians can not stop taking money from road contractors.

Four narrow, unshareable lanes and no shoulder are not going to be helped by any amount of bike lane paint. Widening the road is the only thing that will make it useful.

Here in the DC area, we have a number of four lane (or more) limited access roads. A number of them now have separated, parallel bikeways. As a rule, I am opposed to all cycle facilities, but these bikeways restore access that was stolen when the limited access road replaced the older, pre-existing "normal" roadway. On the WO&D trail, I can go for six miles or more without a single stop light or stop sign. That makes the trip to and from the place where we take our cars for service fast and efficient.

Paul

. . . A typical road design in newer Houston neighborhoods is a four lane road, marked as 35 mph, with a flow of traffic between 40 mph and 50 mph. There is no shoulder. There is a curb, and often behind the curb there is a tangle of shrubs and trees that make it difficult to escape over the curb in an emergency.

Further, the lanes are narrow, about the width of a large pickup truck. An 18 wheeler or city bus is wider than a typical lane. A bus runs with its right wheels two feet from the right curb and its left wheels on the divider lines to the next lane. . . .

The ultimate problem is, to get from Houston neighborhood "A", to Houston neighborhood "B", the four lane roads are often the only direct connecting roads. Given the factors I have mentioned, yes: I want, and would happily use, a bike lane separated by a wall or hedge to follow those four lane roads from my neighborhood to the next neighborhood.

Why wouldn't wide curb lanes work just as well without the drawbacks of striped lanes? And if they won't widen the road by 6-8 feet, what makes you think they'd build a 10-foot sidepath?

We cyclists already have the right to use the road. Bike lanes take away that right by confining us to our own "special" lanes. Bike lanes are about weekend frolics. Instead of putting your energy into getting bike lanes, put your energy into learning how to ride in traffic. If you get involved with politics, start with the do-not-harm rule. Bike lanes harm.

There are good bike lanes and bad bikelanes. In Minneapolis, we have the former. Most of the bike lanes are unidirrectional paths that are seperate from walking and driving lanes. I like them, because I think that a higher concentration of cyclists along a route makes each individual cyclist more noticable, and I like to see my comrads in saddles. I freely leave the lanes when I need to turn, and it's convenient.

Most of our rails to trails paths are wonderful, because one can ride long distances without crossing intersections. This makes my commute safer and faster than when I battle idiots in cars.

I sort of wish that there were designated bike routes without paths in some places, that would be much more convenient for cyclists than drivers. Drivers would shun these routes and cyclists would have more pleasant rides.

There are good bike lanes and bad bikelanes. In Minneapolis, we have the former. Most of the bike lanes are unidirrectional paths that are seperate from walking and driving lanes. I like them, because I think that a higher concentration of cyclists along a route makes each individual cyclist more noticable, and I like to see my comrads in saddles. I freely leave the lanes when I need to turn, and it's convenient.

Twisting your words, I agree that some bike lanes are less harmful than others, but I don't understand the layout of the lanes you are talking about enough to comment. What kind of road are they on? Why wouldn't a wide curb lane work? How often are the lanes crossed by intersections (you can't call a bike lane truly "seperate" if cars are allowed to turn through it)? Are these seperate bike paths with a ridiculous 15 mph speed limit? What seperates the lane from the road (stripes, rumble strips, grass)?

Glad I live in Northern San Diego county. Our bike lanes are usually seperated by a white line..But, the bike lane is usually at least 3 feet wide..That might even be enough for California drivers, so as to normally keep them out of the bike lane..
In adjacent Riverside county, it is common there are no bike lanes, but for the most part, (luckily) the lanes of the highways are quite wide...And you can often go out of the way and re-locate yourself to a road which has bike lanes..
Personally, a bike lane makes me feel far more secure...

Glad I live in Northern San Diego county. Our bike lanes are usually seperated by a white line..But, the bike lane is usually at least 3 feet wide..That might even be enough for California drivers, so as to normally keep them out of the bike lane..
In adjacent Riverside county, it is common there are no bike lanes, but for the most part, (luckily) the lanes of the highways are quite wide...And you can often go out of the way and re-locate yourself to a road which has bike lanes..
Personally, a bike lane makes me feel far more secure... (reb bold added)
A three-foot lane really gives you only about a foot of space. That's because handlebars often stick out almost a foot on each side of the bike.

And I concede that bike lanes make some cyclists feel safer. But behind the perception is the reality that bike lanes generally make riding more dangerous.

Daley..If it were not for bike lanes, I can think of lots of roads, where cyclists would not frequent...Lets take the old California Coastal Hwy. 101.., Out of the towns, average speed is 55 mph..Don't think motorists would slow down and respect vehicles traveling at 18 mph..It would be like being out on the freeway amongst the motoring public..
We just would not be there. ..Makes me feel like I have somewhat of a right to be there

Daley..If it were not for bike lanes, I can think of lots of roads, where cyclists would not frequent...Lets take the old California Coastal Hwy. 101.., Out of the towns, average speed is 55 mph..Don't think motorists would slow down and respect vehicles traveling at 18 mph..It would be like being out on the freeway amongst the motoring public..
We just would not be there. ..Makes me feel like I have somewhat of a right to be there
Roads with few intersections (like Highway 101) are about the only place you can put a decent bike lane. As I've said in other threads, the most dangerous parts of bike lanes are intersections. That's why bike lanes are almost always dangerous in cities.

But I've ridden on two-lane highways, so I know it can be done. The bias should be against, not for, bike lanes and bike paths. Promoters must be required to show that all other alternatives (like wide curb lanes) are unfeasible.

No matter what, no one should be able to say a place is bike friendly merely because it has bike lanes. The Ohio Bike Federation (http://www.ohiobike.org) is pretty much on target by requiring cities to justify bike lanes before becoming eligible for their Cyclist Friendly Community Award (http://www.ohiobike.org/cyclist-friendly.html).

What kind of road are they on? Why wouldn't a wide curb lane work? How often are the lanes crossed by intersections (you can't call a bike lane truly "seperate" if cars are allowed to turn through it)? Are these seperate bike paths with a ridiculous 15 mph speed limit? What seperates the lane from the road (stripes, rumble strips, grass)?

Sorry it's taken so long to respond. I've been biking and working alot. I messured one of the paths with my 12 inch shoe, and determined that it's 4 feet wide. after that is a 6 feet parking lane. The setiing is very urban, with a posted speed limit of 25mph. The other side of the road is the same, but without any car parking. This is fairly typical for Minneapolis. Part of my daily comute is along a road that goes one way around Lake Hariet. I ride in the road to get to work, and along the path, that goes the opposite dirrection, to get home. Bikes are thus able to go whichever way they wish, which is part of why I can get to work almost as fast as my car driving wife.

I actually enjoy road riding, but I like the paths too. Where a path goes along an old railroad bed, and has many overpasses and few intersections I'm especially enthusiastic about using them. It's nice to ride with fewer wories and without having to slow down. But one of the things that I most, like is two wheeled company that I have on the paths. I'm even happy to tame my frenzied rush to work for the occasional preschooler, using training wheels, who is blocking my way.

Sorry it's taken so long to respond. I've been biking and working alot. I messured one of the paths with my 12 inch shoe, and determined that it's 4 feet wide. after that is a 6 feet parking lane. The setiing is very urban, with a posted speed limit of 25mph. The other side of the road is the same, but without any car parking. This is fairly typical for Minneapolis. . . .
Do I have this right, the bike lane starts 6' from the curb and ends 10' from the curb? If so, it has you WAY too close to the parked cars. A lot of urban bike lanes tend to stop where they should start.

Roads with few intersections (like Highway 101) are about the only place you can put a decent bike lane. As I've said in other threads, the most dangerous parts of bike lanes are intersections. That's why bike lanes are almost always dangerous in cities.

The problem is as I have mentioned before, in the cities there are boulevards (long stretches of urban multil-lane road) where the traffic load is such and the speed limit is such (45MPH+) that you cannot get out there to "share the lane." In these cases any type of wide area on the side of the road becomes usable space and a default "bike lane." You will be forced to the side! This is particularly true where hills are involved... in which case the bike might possibly make 10MPH going up the hill and autos are doing close to 50MPH. Now you and Forrester advocate taking a lane where it is too narrow. You will find inspite of all the laws and rules and even the occasional supporting driver, that situation very uncomfortable as honking cars ride on your tail, and jeering drivers pass you in full rage. Just how long do you think you would continue that commute?

BTW I fully agree that intersections are the danger points, as these are decision points for drivers.

But I've ridden on two-lane highways, so I know it can be done. The bias should be against, not for, bike lanes and bike paths. Promoters must be required to show that all other alternatives (like wide curb lanes) are unfeasible.

I too have ridden on two-lane highways... rural highways where the traffic load is low enough so that when you get 5-6 autos stacked up behind you can give way. In fact, I have done the route from San Francisco to San Diego. But this is quite different from a highspeed urban boulevard without a shoulder or bike lane. I am speaking of an "urban highway" with steady traffic flowing in excess of 45MPH and longer than a mile with no cross streets.

No matter what, no one should be able to say a place is bike friendly merely because it has bike lanes. The Ohio Bike Federation (http://www.ohiobike.org) is pretty much on target by requiring cities to justidy bike lanes before becoming eligible for their Cyclist Friendly Community Award (http://www.ohiobike.org/cyclist-friendly.html).

OK quite agreed, and there are poorly designed bike lanes... those are just an invitation for accidents. So the real solution is to have bike qualified advocates agree that lanes can work in some areas (rather than deny them entirely) and work to establish some sort of standard.

Forrester is right, in that in the right situations, bikes can and should be part of the regular traffic... but this is not always feasible with the current roads everywhere. This is where we cyclists have to demand some form of road improvement.

not going to read through 4 pages of replies to make sure nobody has said it...

but Arnold didn't follow the "civilians with hummers" trend... he started it

Genec,
My main point is that bike lanes must be the exception, not the rule. Before putting in a bike lane, the government should have to show that all other potential solutions won't work, especially unmarked wide curb lanes, unstriped lanes with chevrons, and just leaving well-enough alone.

I don't think I have ever seen a bike lane plan that explained why other methods wouldn't work better. I think this is becaise a lot of bike-lane advocates are well-meaning but ignorant. It's amazing how many people have never thought that bike lanes might just be a bad idea.

Remember, if there are no marked bike lanes, all lanes are bike lanes. Once the government starts striping lines, we start losing our right to use the rest of the road.

And yes, there is an "urban highway" that I use on a semi-regular basis. It has 4-5 lanes and a 45 mph speed limit. There is a bike path nearby that follows a similar route. I prefer the road. It's shorter and the faster traffic encourages me to ride harder.

Genec,
My main point is that bike lanes must be the exception, not the rule. Before putting in a bike lane, the government should have to show that all other potential solutions won't work, especially unmarked wide curb lanes, unstriped lanes with chevrons, and just leaving well-enough alone.

As long as there is some form that allows me to ride a bike uphill at 10 MPH along beside fast traffic... then I am satisfied... be it unmarked wide curb lanes etc.

The problem I have with an "anti bike lane" mentality ("Until the lanes are perfect!") is that this seems to discourage governments from doing anything. I would really rather see some form of marking on a road (that does not force me to a secluded bike only place) that lets autos know I have every right to be on that road... whether it is a lane with BIKE in it or SHARE THE ROAD with a bike symbol.

While we cyclists know the rules full well... it is the drivers that need the education... just look at the issues that come up from time to time on various threads: "driver told me to get a car," "cop told me to ride on sidewalk," "driver told me to get off of road."

I want the road marked and the drivers reminded that we have the right to be there. Lanes at least give some awareness... however imperfect.


I don't think I have ever seen a bike lane plan that explained why other methods wouldn't work better. I think this is becaise a lot of bike-lane advocates are well-meaning but ignorant. It's amazing how many people have never thought that bike lanes might just be a bad idea.

Unless we as advocates can educate them, and support them, then the well-meaning will do what they think best... and an attitude that bike lanes should not exist, fostered by Forrester et. al. just breeds confusion. At a bare minimum, I want roads built wider... wide enough so that a biker has a choice to ride either in traffic or out, depending on the situation.

Primarily that is the issue... it is a situational thing. The same road I have to ride UP on with no shoulder and take a lane with 45MPH traffic is also the same road I can cruise down at 40MPH with traffic, easily. Provide me an out either way.

Dense city traffic is another scene... if the speed limit is 25MPH, then a rider doing 18 MPH on flats is hardly an impediment to traffic... and rush hour traffic barely moving allows a rider snaking between cars to be the defacto best mode of transport. Even in this latter situation a lane at the side of the road is safer... except at intersections.

Sure intersections don't work. We need a new plan for that... and forcing bikers against parked cars also doesn't work. But mixing 10 MPH hill climbing bikes into 45MPH dense traffic doesn't work either.


Remember, if there are no marked bike lanes, all lanes are bike lanes. Once the government starts striping lines, we start losing our right to use the rest of the road.

Riiiiiiight.... based on the theory that auto drivers understand that we have the right to use the road. Hell, even newbie cyclists don't know this. That is the flaw in that thinking. I know Forrester says educate cyclists... But heck, even cops don't know... Sheriff says ride on sidewalk (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=72157), and Police gives ticket for taking lane at turn. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=69274)
.


And yes, there is an "urban highway" that I use on a semi-regular basis. It has 4-5 lanes and a 45 mph speed limit. There is a bike path nearby that follows a similar route. I prefer the road. It's shorter and the faster traffic encourages me to ride harder.

I agree that bike paths tend to be too narrow, and too slow... and too often overrun by runners and others.


But a 4-5 lane "urban highway" deserves to give one lane over to cyclists! A 2 lane "urban highway," especially going uphill, becomes a nightmare of obstruction when a cyclist has to take a lane!
.
.
.

Genec,


And yes, there is an "urban highway" that I use on a semi-regular basis. It has 4-5 lanes and a 45 mph speed limit. There is a bike path nearby that follows a similar route. I prefer the road. It's shorter and the faster traffic encourages me to ride harder.

On THAT sort of road in my neighborhood, a single lane might move as many as 500 to 1000 vehicles per hour. So, for me to be riding at 15 mph in a lane of vehicles moving 45 mph, each of those vehicles would need to slow to 15 mph and wait (and wait, and wait) for a safe opportunity to go around me. (Lanes in my town are often narrower than the vehicles using them). If just one vehicle in a thousand messes up, there is gonna be a dent on their front bumper and a mess in the road.

So, in YOUR town, those folks going 45 mph just slow down to 15 mph and follow you down the road wearing friendly smiles? Must be a very nice place to ride and live.

So, in YOUR town, those folks going 45 mph just slow down to 15 mph and follow you down the road wearing friendly smiles? Must be a very nice place to ride and live.

EXACTLY! my point... ain't gonna happen... and discourages riders from even trying to become commuters. Of course as Daily Commute says... a bad bike lane doesn't help much either... as they kill cyclists.

But I would rather have at least an attempt at a bike lane, than try to endure all those "friendly smiles."

Daily Commuter and John Forrester (http://www.johnforester.com/) would have you belive that it is just the lack of education of cyclists that prevents you from riding 15MPH in that 45 MPH traffic and smiling back at all those "friendly smiles" from the frustrated cage drivers.
.
.

This is from Forrester himself, and emphasizes my point:

"It is commonly said that because road designers did not consider cyclists to be typical road users, the roads they designed are unsuitable for cycling. This is false. Roads that are suitable for motoring are generally also suitable for cycling; it is just that the resources have not been used to best advantage. Critical considerations are width of the outside lane between intersections and channelization at intersections. Roads with narrow outside lanes require cyclists to take the whole lane, a situation which many cyclists are reluctant to accept, and which, where speeds are high, is more dangerous. This has two effects: it discourages many cyclists while those it does not discourage cause more delay to motorists than they otherwise would. Instead, roads with wide outside lanes allow motorists to overtake cyclists without the cost of an entire new lane.

(section 3.3.2.6 Road Design, http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Education/univcyc.htm)

Further, Forrester (in section 3.3.2.8) goes on to support "paths", as required:

The street and highway system is the basic facility for cyclists. However, it can be improved and also some kinds of special facilities for cyclists are desirable. Wide outside lanes are good for cyclists and for motorists, and other improvements have been discussed under road design. In some locations bicycle paths can provide useful shortcuts. The cycling transportation engineer needs to know how to calculate which path locations would provide a time-saving route considering the lower speeds that such a route would require. Then he needs to be able to design it properly and to design proper connections with the road system at each end.

With particular respect to paths, the cycling transportation engineer needs to know about the speeds produced by descents, the difference between flow capacity and transportation productivity, and the particular conditions presented by places with large cycling populations, such as university campuses. If high-speed bicycle paths are proposed, the cycling transportation engineer needs to know how to calculate the catchment areas of such paths in order to estimate their value.

This supports what I have been saying... and even John Forrester believes that the government requires further education.

I fully believe that auto drivers need it too... they need a broad awareness that bikes are, and will be, sharing the road with them.

. . . I would really rather see some form of marking on a road (that does not force me to a secluded bike only place) that lets autos know I have every right to be on that road... whether it is a lane with BIKE in it or SHARE THE ROAD with a bike symbol.
Generally, we don't get both bike lanes and access to the roads.



Riiiiiiight.... based on the theory that auto drivers understand that we have the right to use the road. Hell, even newbie cyclists don't know this. That is the flaw in that thinking. I know Forrester says educate cyclists... But heck, even cops don't know...
Lanes make these problems worse by teaching that cyclists and motorists that cyclists don't belong on the road.



I want the road marked and the drivers reminded that we have the right to be there. Lanes at least give some awareness... however imperfect.
Bike lanes promote exactly the opposite perceptions.



The problem I have with an "anti bike lane" mentality ("Until the lanes are perfect!") is that this seems to discourage governments from doing anything.
I take this as a compliment. In most cases, I'd rather the government do nothing than put in bike lanes.



Sure intersections don't work. We need a new plan for that... and forcing bikers against parked cars also doesn't work. But mixing 10 MPH hill climbing bikes into 45MPH dense traffic doesn't work either. . . .

But a 4-5 lane "urban highway" deserves to give one lane over to cyclists! A 2 lane "urban highway," especially going uphill, becomes a nightmare of obstruction when a cyclist has to take a lane!
I'm glad we're narrowing the discussion about the value of bike lanes to 45+mph roads. When I talk about the dangers of downtown bike lanes, people move quickly to discussing 45 mph roads. Have I won the argument about lanes on 25-35 mph roads?




On THAT sort of road in my neighborhood (45 mph 4-5 lane road), a single lane might move as many as 500 to 1000 vehicles per hour. So, for me to be riding at 15 mph in a lane of vehicles moving 45 mph, each of those vehicles would need to slow to 15 mph and wait (and wait, and wait) for a safe opportunity to go around me. (Lanes in my town are often narrower than the vehicles using them). If just one vehicle in a thousand messes up, there is gonna be a dent on their front bumper and a mess in the road.
Then the problem in your neighborhood is not the lack of a bike lane. The problem is that the roads are too narrow to start with. The solution is wider lanes. Why do you think it would be easier to get a bike lane than an unmarked wide curb lane?



I agree that bike paths tend to be too narrow, and too slow... and too often overrun by runners and others.
We agree on something!


. . . .There are poorly designed bike lanes... those are just an invitation for accidents. So the real solution is to have bike qualified advocates agree that lanes can work in some areas (rather than deny them entirely) and work to establish some sort of standard.

Forrester is right, in that in the right situations, bikes can and should be part of the regular traffic... but this is not always feasible with the current roads everywhere. This is where we cyclists have to demand some form of road improvement.
Your citation to Forester shows our point of disagreement. You say that, "in the right situations, bikes can and should be part of the regular traffic." Your qualifier "in the right situations" makes it sound like riding with traffic should be the exception. I argue that riding with traffic should be the norm. And I don't think Forester would agree that you correctly paraphrased his position.

Riding with traffic is the norm. Bike lanes and bike paths should be constructed only "in the right situations." So yes, there are very limited situations in which paths or lanes can be helpful. But these are the exception, not the rule. Too often, local governments use striping a lane as an easy, feel-good way to make it look like they are pro-bike. But there are very serious downsides to bike lanes that must be considered when deciding whether to stripe a lane.

Finally, thanks for reading the sources I cited. I don't think Forester is perfect, but he has some important contrarian ideas.

Generally, we don't get both bike lanes and access to the roads.

We do in California... where Forrester lives... perhaps you need to address this issue with your local government.



Lanes make these problems worse by teaching that cyclists and motorists that cyclists don't belong on the road.

This can be argued both ways... yes, lanes tend to indicate to cars that there is a "proper place" for bikes... but at the same time, they also indicate the presence of bikes... again I really would prefer no specified lanes, but with wide shoulders and some other indicator that indicates to autos that bikes ARE allowed on the roads and have the right to be there. This gets back to the education of drivers and even police.


Bike lanes promote exactly the opposite perceptions.

See above.


In most cases, I'd rather the government do nothing than put in bike lanes.

That is the problem with the anti-bike lane mentality... it promotes no action on the part of the government... including no promotion of the use of bike at all. Sorry, but no action = inattention.

I want to increase the awareness of folks at all levels of bicycles as viable transportation... from folks "just running to the store for a few items" to the local cop that looks for traffic infractions, to even the Governor, who in CA drives a too wide vehicle, once promoted healthy living, and now vetos Bicycle bills set before him.


I'm glad we're narrowing the discussion about the value of bike lanes to 45+mph roads. When I talk about the dangers of downtown bike lanes, people move quickly to discussing 45 mph roads. Have I won the argument about lanes on 25-35 mph roads?

Careful on approaching 35 mph... my main issue is with the speed difference between autos and bikes... as roads have been improved and road engineers tend to design higher and higher speed roads... bicycle access to roads diminshes. 25 MPH is a very reasonable speed to focus on shared roads... Most expert cyclists can sprint up to and over 25 MPH and can easily maintain 18MPH... thus the speed difference between autos and bikes is minimal. So for the most part... sure, 25-30 MPH urban streets do not need lanes, and in fact in the dense "intersection rich environment" of a downtown, a rider is far safer taking a lane and being part of traffic... but an occasional Share the Road sign wouldn't hurt. :)


Then the problem in your neighborhood is not the lack of a bike lane. The problem is that the roads are too narrow to start with. The solution is wider lanes. Why do you think it would be easier to get a bike lane than an unmarked wide curb lane?

Without the requirement for a bike lane, then as far as those unenlightened government officals are concerned, there is no need for road improvement.



We agree on something!

Yes, generally bike paths are built for "park riders." However as Forrester pointed out a "path is often a shortcut," and in San Diego County there are a few well designed bike paths. Note: this is the rare exception... and is probably due to Forrester living in the area and hounding the government officials.


Your citation to Forester shows our point of disagreement. You say that, "in the right situations, bikes can and should be part of the regular traffic." Your qualifier "in the right situations" makes it sound like riding with traffic should be the exception. I argue that riding with traffic should be the norm. And I don't think Forester would agree that you correctly paraphrased his position.

Forrester says, and I quote directly: "Roads with narrow outside lanes require cyclists to take the whole lane, a situation which many cyclists are reluctant to accept, and which, where speeds are high, is more dangerous. This has two effects: it discourages many cyclists while those it does not discourage cause more delay to motorists than they otherwise would."

I even provided the URL and paragraph: section 3.3.2.6 Road Design (http://www.johnforester.com/Article...ion/univcyc.htm) where he states this SITUATIONAL problem. I emphasized the wording I want you to notice... especially the "where speeds are high" part as that is exactly my point. "Urban Freeways" which are really boulevards, are being designed more and more, and these are exactly the roads of which I am speaking. Yes, this is indeed where the speed limit is generally 40-50 MPH and where (at least locally) hill climbing on a bike may further increase the speed differental of bikes compared to autos, thus making the hazard mentioned by Forrester even greater. These areas demand bike lanes.
.

Riding with traffic is the norm. Bike lanes and bike paths should be constructed only "in the right situations." So yes, there are very limited situations in which paths or lanes can be helpful. But these are the exception, not the rule. Too often, local governments use striping a lane as an easy, feel-good way to make it look like they are pro-bike. But there are very serious downsides to bike lanes that must be considered when deciding whether to stripe a lane.

OK we do agree, but even in the non-lane situations, I would like to see bicycle "road sharing" awareness increased... to promote the fact that we bikes should be there.

Finally, thanks for reading the sources I cited. I don't think Forester is perfect, but he has some important contrarian ideas.

I don't agree with him 100% either... I would like to see more attention paid to educating the driver... and encouraging "Share the Road" to drivers; the latter which quite agrees with your thinking. :)

.
.
.