Advocacy & Safety - Bike Lanes - good for cycling?

What are the pros and cons to cyclists of bike lanes?

Inexperienced cyclists who do not understand the rules of the road and their applicability to cycling, nor understand the causes of most car-bike collisions, feel intimidated riding on roads with cars. Because they mostly fear being hit from the rear -- a very uncommon form of car-bike collision -- bike lanes make them feel safer, even though they provide no protection from cross traffic and at intersections, where most car-bike collisions occur. Does a bike lane help an inexperienced cyclist be safe? Or does it provide a false sense of security that ultimately makes him less safe?

Few people will argue with the point that bike lanes help keep cyclists from slowing down motorists. Is this a benefit to just the motorists, or to the cyclists as well? Or are cyclists better off when there is no bike lane and motorists are more likely to slow down?

Motorists passing a cyclist riding in a bike lane are largely unaware of them, because the cyclist is not riding in the motorists' lane. This contributes to motorists not even adjusting their lane position when passing the cyclist - they feel as long as they remain in their lane, no matter how close they are to the right edge of their lane, everything is fine. At the same time cyclists tend to ride near the bike lane stripe due to debris collection in the bike lane (see below). These factors combine to fast/close passes by motorists of cyclists in bike lanes, typically faster and closer than passes that occur when there is no bike lane. Do these relatively fast/close passes of cyclists by motorists increase or decrease the safety of cyclists riding in bike lanes? What happens when the cyclist in the bike lane has to make a sudden unexpected adjustment to the left right before a motorist imakes a fast/close pass of him?

Few cyclists seem to know that the best and safest way to make a left turn is to start merging left hundreds of feet before the intersection. Do bike lanes help or hinder cyclists in learning how to make left turns properly?

Many cyclists do not seem to understand that riding near the right edge makes them less visible to cross traffic - and, hence, more vulnerable to being hit by cross traffic. Do bike lanes help or hinder cyclists in learning where the safest lane position is to maximize their visibility and safety?

Moving motorist traffic has a sweeping effect that constantly cleans the pavement of debris that can cause punctures and even crashes. Because motorists are prohibited from driving in bike lanes, this sweeping effect tends to end at the bike lane stripe, and the bike lane collects all of the debris. When there is no bike lane, and no stripe, motorists tend to drive at least occasionally when there are no cyclists present on the pavement that would be allocated to a bike lane if there was one there - in other words the area where cyclists tend to ride - and hence sweep it up too. Do bike lanes improve or hinder riding pavement surface cleanliness for cyclists?

In most states the law says that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as do drivers of vehicles. Some motorists and even some cyclists don't know or understand this. Many believe that cyclists are inferior users of the roadways as compared to motorists. Does the existence of bike lanes help or hinder communicating the message that cyclists have the SAME rights and responsibilities as other vehicle drivers?

Most everyone seems to understand that between intersections everyone should position themselves according to speed (slower traffic to the right). But at intersections, and at their approaches, positions should be selected based on destination (left-turners to the left, right-turners to the right, and thru travelers in between). Most cyclists don't seem to understand this, and stay near the right regardless of their destination. Do bike lanes help cyclists learn their proper positions (based on destination) on intersection approaches, or do they improperly encourage them to stay near the right regardless of their destination?

Everyone who is turning right is supposed to merge "as close as practicable" to the right side before the turn, and as they go through it. If there is a bike lane, even motorists are required to merge into the bike lane before turning right (this helps prevent cyclists from passing slowing/turning motorists on the right, and subsequently getting right-hooked). Do bike lanes help or hinder motorists in turning right properly in such a way as to reduce the possibility of collision with cyclists?

Bike lanes are inherently incomplete. They cannot continue through intersections, and often cannot continue through various sections due to parking and pavement width issues, among others. The sudden end of a bike lane often puts unprepared and inexperienced cyclists into dangerous situations. Do bike lanes make cycling more or less safe?

A relatively common type of car-bike collision is when the cyclist rides into an opening car door of a parked car, or in trying to avoid hitting an opening door, turns left in front of a passing car. Cyclists traveling faster than pedestrian speed should therefore ride outside of the so-called door zone, which means 3-4 feet from the edge of the parked cars. Bike lanes are often painted in door zones. Do bike lanes help or hinder cyclists in learning to ride outside of door zones?

Are bike lanes good or bad for cyclists and cycling?

Based on your posts, I'd say you were answering your own question.
Your name wouldn't happen to be Forester, would it?

No, my name is not Forester.

I crafted my post in the form of questions in order to hopefully spur discussion. Of course, I do believe I have answered by own questions, but I believe many cyclists disagree with me. However, I'm not clear as to why, or on which points, or whether the support of bike lanes is completely based on superstitution. I am hoping that this thread will help solve some of the bike lane conundrums.

I think cyclists need to be pro-active, not reactive. If you wait until something happens to react you are just adding to the possiblities of having an accident. However, if you think ahead, the same way drivers should be doing you stand a better chance of being prepared for something.

If you need to make a turn, don't wait till you get on top of the corner to turn, start your lane change for a left turn way ahead. Do not pull up parrell to a car stopped at a light, if the car makes an unexpected right turn your in trouble. Stay behind the first car on the right side, let the car move first. Adjust your speed to allow for a safe gap in traffic. Don't time coming to a corner with a car.

Don't wait until your on top of a line of parked cars to cut out, adjust your speed so you get there when there is a safe gap in traffic so you do not have to worry about trying to avoid getting hit by a car when a driver unexpectedly opens a parked car door.

Do things such as blinkies, lights, colorful clothing, etc to make your self more obvious.

Yes, it can be unerving to a cyclist having cars zipping by him/her at 40 or 50 MPH, but if you keep your head, plan, be constantly alert and use common sense you can reduce the odds of being in an accident.

I generally don't have issues with bikes lanes here in the Bay Area (mostly along the Peninsula). The local municipalities seem to do good job of keeping the bikes lanes that I use free of debris by sweeping them on a weekly basis.

I ride in the left-hand portion of the lane and ride a straight line at intersections and merge areas. I do not "zig" to the right and cut across the lane at a right-hand merge. I think it is much easier for motorists to calculate where I am going and where I will be if I keep a straight line.

Again, when I am going straight and there is a right-hand turn lane, I continue a straight path hoping that motorists will wait until I clear the intersection. Sometimes it works; other times it doesn't and they try and pass me on the left and turn right in front of me. If I moved to the right, however, this would happen every time.

Does a bike lane help an inexperienced cyclist be safe? Or does it provide a false sense of security that ultimately makes him less safe?
--Bike lanes helped me be safe when I bike-commuted in LA.
Is this a benefit to just the motorists, or to the cyclists as well?
--When I'm driving I like bike lanes 'cause the cyclists are out of my way. When I'm cycling, I like bike lanes 'cause I have my own space.
Do these relatively fast/close passes of cyclists by motorists increase or decrease the safety of cyclists riding in bike lanes?
-- Fast/close passes happen even when there are NO bike lanes and those are scary. I prefer the lanes.
What happens when the cyclist in the bike lane has to make a sudden unexpected adjustment to the left right before a motorist makes a fast/close pass of him?
--A "sudden unexpected adjustment" is always undertaken at my own risk, whether I'm driving my car or riding my bike or walking. I look well ahead to avoid having to do that. (good argument for the upright bicycling position)
Do bike lanes help or hinder cyclists in learning how to make left turns properly?
--The state Vehicle Code helps me make left turns properly.
Do bike lanes help or hinder cyclists in learning where the safest lane position is to maximize their visibility and safety?Do bike lanes help cyclists learn their proper positions (based on destination) on intersection approaches, or do they improperly encourage them to stay near the right regardless of their destination?
--Our local bicycle commuters association has helped me learn about safe lane positions in all situations.
Do bike lanes improve or hinder riding pavement surface cleanliness for cyclists?
--Bike lanes DO become a repository of glass and debris. Thank god for the street sweepers.
Does the existence of bike lanes help or hinder communicating the message that cyclists have the SAME rights and responsibilities as other vehicle drivers?
--Speaking as a motorist, the lanes don't hurt the message. But I'm most impressed by the cyclists who position themselves in the lane according to the VEHICLE CODE; e.g. making a left turn from the right side of the left turn lane and maintaining that position throughout the execution of the turn. VERY impressive.
Do bike lanes help or hinder motorists in turning right properly in such a way as to reduce the possibility of collision with cyclists?
--Hinder.

Do bike lanes make cycling more or less safe?

--On balance, MORE safe for me. My experience as a cyclist and as a motorist is that cars and bikes really don't mix well except in congested traffic where EVERYONE is going 15 mph. Otherwise the practical fact is that bicycles need their own lane as the Europeans have demonstrated for decades.

--Thank you for these excellent questions.--

Sorry, Serge, but I do believe in PROPERLY-ENGINEERED bike lanes on prime arterials and high-speed highways. I do not want them on 25mph local roads, or where they lie within the door zone of parked cars, or where they continue to the right of a right-turn-only lane. In many cases, a wide curb lane or a usable shoulder is just as good, but a bike lane can help discourage parking in the shoulder and tends to cause right lane motorists to give us more space. (Narrow lanes have been proven to calm traffic.)

Sorry, Serge, but I do believe in PROPERLY-ENGINEERED bike lanes on prime arterials and high-speed highways.

No need to apologize, John.

I wonder if you would acknowledge, however, that such bike lanes discourage proper motorist and cycling behavior.

As one example, would you not agree that Del Mar Heights Rd qualifies as a "prime arterial" (3 lanes in each direction, plus turn lanes, at least east and west of El Camino Real)? And based on the criteria that you provided, I think the bike lane there qualifies as "properly engineered". Yet I've seen a westbound experienced (ex-racer even) cyclist reluctant to leave the "safety" of the bike lane early in order to prepare for a left turn onto El Camino Real, and instead continued until he was almost to the intersection, and waited until there was a gap the width of the entire road, so he could take the straight shot from the bike lane across to the left turn lane. Do you agree that bike lanes encourage this type of incorrect left-turn behavior, and actually discourage the proper type of negotiation/merge that should start much earlier?

Can you think of any benefits to cyclists of bike lanes other than the two you noted:
1) discourages parking in the shoulder (how is that a benefit to cyclists - ride to the left of the parked cars, out of the door zone... what's the problem?)
2) tends to cause right lane motorists to give us more space (really? I experience the opposite - explained in the opening post - so we'll have to agree to disagree on that one)

And do you really believe these frankly trivial benefits outweigh all of the serious problems with bike lanes that I noted in the opening post?

Serge

I'm not aware of any statistics that show lower accident rates for cyclists in bike lanes versus similar roads or streets without them. However, I think bike lanes do have some benefit --

1. They are a constant visual reminder to motorists that bikes belong on the street, not the sidewalk.

2. If a motorist does not see me while overtaking, at least the lane lines gives guidance to motorist to stay to my left. Without a bike lane there's no visual clue to stop the motorist from drifting to the right and clipping me.

I rode in a bike lane for the first time in Austin, Tx today. It sucked fat monkey nut. Going through the residential area there were cars parked at every 3rd house that caused me to have to swing out into the car lane. Eventually i just jumped into the lane and threw caution, and whatever laws keep me confined to the bike lane, to the wind. I was just itching for one of those home-owners to come out so I could give them a few words. I guess it doesn't get used enough so the motorists have become forgetful.

Is it bad that I wanted to key each and every car in the bike lane as I rode past it? <evil laugh>

[QUOTE=JamesV]I'm not aware of any statistics that show lower accident rates for cyclists in bike lanes versus similar roads or streets without them. However, I think bike lanes do have some benefit --

1. They are a constant visual reminder to motorists that bikes belong on the street, not the sidewalk.

[QUOTE]


unforunately they also cause some motorist to believe that bikes should only be on the roads that have bike lanes. So for some motorist no bike lanes = no bikes on that road.

with that being said I do however like having bike lanes for many reasons including the one I quoted.

I'm not much on them. In my limited experience they serve as:

1) A place for joggers and other pedestrians to walk/run, even when a sidewalk is available

2) A convienent place to double-park.

3) A good place for homeowners to place debris for pick-up

Of course, I live in a municipality with almost no bike lanes. My experience with them is largely limited to riding in Charlottesville, which actually has a connected network of them. I'm not sure what a properly engineered one looks like.

Bike lanes demonstrate that somebody is spending money on facilities for bikes. I would prefer it to be spent on fixing pot-holes and removing storm drains from the side of the road where cyclists are expected to ride (move them under the edge of the sidewalk).

I'm not aware of any statistics that show lower accident rates for cyclists in bike lanes versus similar roads or streets without them. However, I think bike lanes do have some benefit --

1. They are a constant visual reminder to motorists that bikes belong on the street, not the sidewalk.

2. If a motorist does not see me while overtaking, at least the lane lines gives guidance to motorist to stay to my left. Without a bike lane there's no visual clue to stop the motorist from drifting to the right and clipping me.

1. Granted, to the extent that some motorists still think bikes belong on the sidewalk. But I, for one, have never encountered this problem in 30 years of cycling on roadways.

2. Perhaps. Ironically, the only "drifting to the right and clipping/hitting a cyclist" incidents I am aware of all occurred when the cyclist was in a bike lane or shoulder. My theory on this is that motorists are more likely to be aware of a cyclist in THEIR lane, but may hardly notice, often do not notice at all, a cyclist outside of their lane, in an adjacent bike lane or shoulder. So when they are distracted due to drowsiness, drunkeness or some interruption, they are more likely to drift into a cyclist in a bike lane or shoulder since they are more likely to not be aware of them. Cyclists who typically ride to stay out of the way of motorists (in shoulders, bike lanes or along the right edge) are typically quite successful at doing this, and so have little experience riding in traffic in such a manner as to make motorists more aware of them, and the effect this has on motorists.

Regardless, the issue is not whether bike lanes have ANY benefits for cyclists (in terms of safety) and cycling (in terms of advocacy). The question is whether bike lanes have a NET benefit to cyclists and cycling.

In other words, do bike lanes cause more problems for cyclists than they solve?

From an engineering perspective, I like to ask: "What problem are we solving?" In this case, "what problem are bike lanes supposed to be solving?"

Problem: Cycling in traffic is unsafe for inexperienced/untrained cyclists. Do bike lanes make cycling in traffic safer for inexperienced/untrained cyclists? There is no evidence to support this notion. In fact, bike lanes arguably make cycling in traffic more dangerous, expecially for inexperienced/untrained cyclists. So bike lanes cannot be justified as a solution to this problem.

Problem: Cycling in traffic is unpleasant for inexperienced/untrained cyclists. Do bike lanes make cycling in traffic more pleasant, or at least less unpleasant, for these cyclists? What constitutes "pleasant" is clearly subjective. But, for what it's worth, many cyclists do seem to prefer riding in bike lanes, especially in heavy traffic. So, arguably, bike lanes do at least help alleviate this "problem". But how significant/important is this problem, and how do we measure it so we can compare it against the cost of the problems caused by bike lanes, including making cycling in traffic arguably less safe (see opening post)?

More importantly, are there any other less costly solutions to the problem of traffic cycling being unpleasant? By "less costly" I mean not only in terms of dollars but in terms of the solution causing fewer problems for cyclists than the bike lane solution causes.

Let's consider that experienced cyclists trained in vehicular cycling do not find traffic cycling unpleasant. We even find traffic cycling to be a pleasurable activity. In fact, we find roads without bike lanes to be more pleasant/pleasurable than roads with bike lanes, even in heavy traffic. What if cycling advocacy poured most of its efforts into training cyclists in vehicular cycling so that they too could learn to enjoy cycling in traffic without bike lanes? What would that cost be compared to the cost of building and maintaining more and more debris-filled false-sense-of-security-causing bike lanes? And in terms of a solution causing problems, wouldn't vehicular cycling training -- which should cause no problems to cyclists -- win hands down over bike lanes -- which cause all kinds of problems to cyclists (see opening post in this thread)?

Serge

Bike lanes are nice. If some one is parked or walking there, you are no worse off than if no path existed. I don't think the absence of a bike lane will teach riders and drivers how to ride or drive.

Bike lanes are nice. If some one is parked or walking there, you are no worse off than if no path existed. I don't think the absence of a bike lane will teach riders and drivers how to ride or drive.
Actually, you are worse off. The bike lane encourages you to weave around the parked cars. Further, parked cars drip oil into bike lanes, creating a hazard even when the parked cars leave.

Bike lanes are nice. If some one is parked or walking there, you are no worse off than if no path existed. I don't think the absence of a bike lane will teach riders and drivers how to ride or drive.

"Bike lanes are nice". This is the "bike lanes solve the problem of traffic cycling being unpleasant" argument (see my last post on this). It ignores all of the problems that bike lanes cause for cyclists (see my opening post).

"I don't think the absence of a bike lane will teach riders and drivers how to ride or drive." Nor do I, nor does anyone else I know of. But a problem with bike lanes is that the PRESENCE of bike lanes teaches riders and drivers how NOT to ride and drive.

The cyclist must constantly answer the question: "where do I ride?" The bike lane is always one answer to that question, and is often (dare I say usually?) the WRONG answer. The problem is that the question of "where do I ride?" is not so simple that it can be answered by a static facility like a bike lane. The cyclist must constantly be asking himself this question, and using the rules of the road and the current conditions and circumstances to answer it. Bike lanes are like a crutch that inhibits the cyclist from going through the necessary process of learning how to ride properly in traffic.

Serge

Sorry, Serge, but I do believe in PROPERLY-ENGINEERED bike lanes on prime arterials and high-speed highways. I do not want them on 25mph local roads, or where they lie within the door zone of parked cars, or where they continue to the right of a right-turn-only lane.

I agree 100%

The only real advantage I see to "bike lanes" is that they usually mean the street is a bit wider than otherwise might be the case. This, I believe is generally a good thing. This is true only when the street is designed with a bike lane in mind. On streets where a bike lane has been added by using paint, the effects are generally terrible. My comments apply only to bike lanes on roadways. "Bike lanes" which are actually seperate "multi-use" paths are, in my view only marginally useful to cyclists if they are trafficed by pedestrians as well.

I also believe that proper signage and marking of bike lanes or bike routes helps remind everyone that they may encounter a bike occasionally. This too is a good thing. There should be more "Share the Road" signage everywhere.

Yes, by "bike lane" I mean, well, a bike lane, a bikeway that is part of the roadway, not a bikeway separate from the roadway, which is a bike path.

Signage is okay, except I think there might be a tendency to start thinking one only has to "share the road" when prompted to do so by a sign.

Also, "share the road" seems to imply to many side-by-side sharing rather than cyclists riding in a position such that passing by motorists in cars means moving at least a certain amount into the adjacent lane to the left (be it oncoming or same-direction).

My presence in the road is all the reminding I need to give motorists that they may encounter a bike occasionally.

Signage is okay, except I think there might be a tendency to start thinking one only has to "share the road" when prompted to do so by a sign.

Also, "share the road" seems to imply to many side-by-side sharing rather than cyclists riding in a position such that passing by motorists in cars means moving at least a certain amount into the adjacent lane to the left (be it oncoming or same-direction).

I think we're going to have another agree to disagree moment. You're making a lot of assumptions about how people will interpret signage.

I'm only assuming that different people will interpret the signs differently, and that some of those interpretations will include the interpretations I listed.

At least for me as a cyclist, these signs convey nothing to motorists that I need or want them to convey.

The interpretation to "share the road" signs I've heard this year include: bicycles MUST share the rode with other traffic. Bicycles must pull off the road to allow other vehicles go by. This from at least 3 cars and a motorcycle in different situations.

The interpretation to "share the road" signs I've heard this year include: bicycles MUST share the rode with other traffic. Bicycles must pull off the road to allow other vehicles go by. This from at least 3 cars and a motorcycle in different situations.

Good point. I've run into folks with that interpretation as well, and forgot.

Speaking of cycling signage, let's think of the purpose. Alerting motorists to the possible presence of cyclists with "share the road", "bike lane" and "bike route" signs, along with the alleged alerting effect of bike lanes themselves, may seem like a good idea at first. After all, there are signs that alert motorists about pedestrians, deer and falling rocks... why not alert them about bike and cyclists too?

First of all, pedestrians, deer and falling rocks do not travel on the roadway in accordance with the rules of the road. That's very critical. The reason it helps to alert motorists about them is because they are exception to the rules of the roads. Now, if you want to alert motorists about incompetent and untrained cyclists riding with less adherence to the rules of the road than a deer has, then, yes, perhaps signs alerting motorists about the presence of cyclists makes sense. But is that what everyone is talking about? Cyclists cutting into the roadway without looking?

That's the point, there is no need to alert motorists about anyone who is traveling according to the rules of the road. That's why we have those rules. That's also why an emergency vehicle driver does not need to turn on the lights and sirens unless he is violating the rules of the road.

The only logical justification for bike lanes and bike alert signage is the assumption that cyclists can't and/or won't travel along the roadway in accordance with the rules of the road. As someone who knows how easy it is to learn vehicular cycling, and how safe it is, I reject that notion.

Sorry, Serge, but I do believe in PROPERLY-ENGINEERED bike lanes on prime arterials and high-speed highways.

Ay, there's the rub! There's almost always a compromise in any urban environment.


I do not want them on 25mph local roads, or where they lie within the door zone of parked cars, or where they continue to the right of a right-turn-only lane.

Depending upon where you live, that might exclude any or all urban roads. Large older cities, such as Boston, Chicago and New York have loads of on-street parking, frequent intersections, and non-standard intersections.

Cyclists might like bike lanes, but it's important to know how to ride properly when they're not available, or when they're not "properly engineered." Problem is, bike lanes are sold as the solution for novice cyclists, yet they're the ones who're least likely to understand when they should not be used. That's why some bike lane contrarians have suggested that the lanes make traffic cycling more complicated, not less.


In many cases, a wide curb lane or a usable shoulder is just as good, but a bike lane can help discourage parking in the shoulder and tends to cause right lane motorists to give us more space. (Narrow lanes have been proven to calm traffic.)

I'd be interested in seeing that proof. Can you offer me a reference?

I like bike lanes personally, when i went down south for vacation i saw a lot of htem, up here in NH theres nothing :(. The closest we have is Wildcat bike path which is basically some signs off the road that say wildcat bike path, its just a route on the road you take. I got to ride in the lanes in VA and they were nice and you didnt get to breath car exhaust so much. Ide rather be with than without

Actually, you are worse off. The bike lane encourages you to weave around the parked cars. Further, parked cars drip oil into bike lanes, creating a hazard even when the parked cars leave.

I don't swerve into traffic, when necessary I will change lanes safely. I will use the car lane just like I would have to if the lane wasn't there. Double parked cars drip oil whether or not there is a bike lane.

I don't think Daily Commute meant you personally, qmsdc15.

The point is that where parking is allowed in bike lanes (which is the default in CA, for example - where explicit signs forbidding parking have to be posted or parking is allowed in the BL) the cyclist in general is encouraged to weave in and out of the main traffic lane as he alternates between riding in the bike lane and going around parked cars. The correct line of course is to ignore the bike lane and to proceed straight in the main thru lane following a line that is outside of the door zone of the parked cars, and to never merge back to the bike lane or near the curb when riding between cars, unless they are parked at least 100 feet apart. Even then, once you leave the main lane you have to merge back in when you reach the next parked car - it's often preferable to just stay out there.

Bike lanes discourage proper traffic cycling in countless situations.

Serge

"Bike lanes are nice". This is the "bike lanes solve the problem of traffic cycling being unpleasant" argument (see my last post on this). It ignores all of the problems that bike lanes cause for cyclists (see my opening post).

"I don't think the absence of a bike lane will teach riders and drivers how to ride or drive." Nor do I, nor does anyone else I know of. But a problem with bike lanes is that the PRESENCE of bike lanes teaches riders and drivers how NOT to ride and drive.

The cyclist must constantly answer the question: "where do I ride?" The bike lane is always one answer to that question, and is often (dare I say usually?) the WRONG answer. The problem is that the question of "where do I ride?" is not so simple that it can be answered by a static facility like a bike lane. The cyclist must constantly be asking himself this question, and using the rules of the road and the current conditions and circumstances to answer it. Bike lanes are like a crutch that inhibits the cyclist from going through the necessary process of learning how to ride properly in traffic.

Serge

I've read your arguments and they are not without merit. I disagree with your conclusion but your points are valid. My opinion is based on twenty years as bike messenger in DC where we only recently have more than a few bike lanes. They don't solve the problem of traffic cycling being unpleasent (or dangerous) but they help. Much better than the common practice of riding on the right hand side of regular lane. I've pretty much abandoned that tactic. I'm usually in the middle of the right hand lane, if that is a bike lane, I'm less likely to be shot or intentional run over by an irate motorist. I know people who were shot or hit by hit and run (he heard them laughing as they drove off so I guess it was on purpose). No one I know got hurt using the bike lanes yet.

You know cyclists who were shot by irate motorists, or intentionally hit by irate motorists?

It's funny how on generic cycling lists you run into folks who claim that in their area, be it DC, Jersey, Chicago, Boston, NYC, or New Zealand, motorists are particularly hostile towards cyclists and intolerant of cyclists riding vehicularly in traffic.

But on vehicular cycling lists, such claims are unheard of. On the contrary, vehicular cyclists find that no matter where they ride, they are tolerated by motorists with no problems.

They don't allow parking in bike lane in DC. Your opinion is well founded, as you say there are pros and cons of bike lane. I guess for me the pros outweigh cons. Less experienced cyclist will hug the right edge of roadway if bike lane isn't there which is more dangerous. We have a long way to go before drivers accept us in their lanes. I go there but I did get my rear wheel folded up when I slowed down in front of a crazy driver to make a point. I lost that little pissing match, now I try to go fast when I'm blocking and ignore honks, jeers etc.

I go there but I did get my rear wheel folded up when I slowed down in front of a crazy driver to make a point.

Holy cow! Sounds like assault and battery to me. Did you get his plate and pursue that path?

You know cyclists who were shot by irate motorists, or intentionally hit by irate motorists?

It's funny how on generic cycling lists you run into folks who claim that in their area, be it DC, Jersey, Chicago, Boston, NYC, or New Zealand, motorists are particularly hostile towards cyclists and intolerant of cyclists riding vehicularly in traffic.

But on vehicular cycling lists, such claims are unheard of. On the contrary, vehicular cyclists find that no matter where they ride, they are tolerated by motorists with no problems.

Bagman got shot, tight lungs Timmy got run over, I got rear ended. I'm sure it's the same in other cities. I'm getting a lot of heat for blocking lanes, its not tolerated, there are problems. Many would run me over but they know there would be some paper work if they did, so they honk, yell at me. Only assaulted the one time when I intentionally obstructed and got rear ended. They aren't throwing things at me. I think it is safer in the middle of the lane usually. Middle of bike lane safer than middle of car lane by a long shot.

"In fact, we find roads without bike lanes to be more pleasant/pleasurable than roads with bike lanes, even in heavy traffic. "
--Mr. Serge *******, kindly speak for yourself only.

Do bike lanes make cycling more or less safe?

I reiterate my own answer:

--On balance, MORE safe for me. My experience as a cyclist and as a motorist is that cars and bikes really don't mix well [in major thoroughfares] except in congested traffic where EVERYONE is going 15 mph. [I have no problems in lightly traveled residential streets.]
Otherwise the practical fact is that bicycles need their own lane as the Europeans have demonstrated for decades.
--

Mr. 77Univega, kindly understand that when I say "we find roads without bike lanes to be more pleasant/pleasurable than roads with bike lanes, even in heavy traffic", by we I am not referring to you or all cyclists in general, but I am speaking for all vehicular cyclists who believe that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" and truly support the notion of "same rights; same roads; same rules".

Countless numbers of cyclists have learned vehicular cycling techniques by reading books like Effective Cycling or Cyclecraft, or taking a VC course like Road 1 offered by the LAB (bikeleague.org) or the equivalent CANBIKE course (sorry, the name escapes me). Most of us started out like you with decades of cycling experience and believing that "bikes and cars don't mix well". But with some education and/or training we evolved to understanding that cars and bikes mix quite effectively as long as the bicycle is operated consistently in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road. In the spirit of the season, I invite you to join us in safety, comfort and joy riding as part of busy traffic (hint: it's really not that hard to learn, and more about attitude than skills). It's not too late to ask Santa for your own copy of Effective Cycling.

The "European" system is not nearly as prevalent as you make it sound, and works primarily in small regions where the vehicular infrastructure cannot be compared to what we have in this country (and would not work if they had the vehicular infrastructure that we do have).

Every lane is a bike lane. Let's keep it that way.

Holy cow! Sounds like assault and battery to me. Did you get his plate and pursue that path?

No, I should have. I guess I was a little shook up. I didn't fall down or get hurt. He drove off. It was a long time ago, I think I may have actually stopped and turned around to give him some lip for honking at me or something. Maybe I was at a stop sign, I really don't remember the details. That was about 20yrs ago. I haven't been hit intentionally after that, but they do honk and yell. Very irate at times, they just aren't used to it, they cannot believe that I am riding in their way! It's different in California, for real?

It's different in California, for real?

I ride in the lane in front of cars all the time and it's a non-issue. I typically don't stay there for very long, and move out of the way as soon as it is safe and prudent to do so. I try to establish eye contact with the motorist behind me. But I don't think this is a CA vs. DC issue. All vehicular cyclists report the same types of experiences with motorists regardless of where they ride.

The differences between how I rode for almost 30 years and how I now ride after learning vehicular cycling are all subtle, but make huge difference. Here's but one example: I used to think of the roadway traffic as consisting of cars. I now think of it as consisting of motorists who happen to be operating cars. Subtle difference, isn't it? But the difference it made in my riding is profound. Most importantly, you cannot communicate with cars, but you can with motorists. When you think of traffic as a bunch of motorists rather than as a bunch of non-sentient cars you are much more likely to try to communicate with them, and you do. Smiling and waving is a big part of my repertoire, as well hand signals, include the "slow/stop" hand signal to let the motorist behind me know that I know he is there, and that I'm asking him to slow down.

Serge

Serge, do you split lanes when the traffic is backed up at a light? Or do you hold your place in line? I split the lanes when the cars are going slow and block the lane when they are moving at an acceptable speed. Obviously this could upset the motorists when I pass them, then get in their way but it doesn't account for all the grief I get. It's very competetive, they try just as hard to pass each other, I'm just someone else in the way.

I think I am operating vehicularly when these drivers vent at me. How can you say all vehicular cyclists have the same type of experience if I am reporting different type of experience? If I get a lot of attitude from motorist because I'm riding in the middle of the lane does that mean I'm not a vehicular cyclist? A lot of times the angry driver hasn't seen me do anything illegal although I do break traffic laws (as do all motorists if you include speed limit). I'll try the slow hand signal, maybe that's the difference?

I find that lanes near intersections are typically too narrow to share with cars safely side-by-side, primarily because they are narrowed by traffic engineers in order to make room for turn lanes. So at red lights I usually just stop in the middle of the lane behind the last stopped car. Others stop behind me (an important vehicular traffic rule is : "first come, first served"). I ride with traffic until I'm through the intersection, and then peel off to the right if there is room to do so safely. But even when there isn't, I do at least move to the right tire track. I don't want to move any further to the right, because that communicates to the motorist behind me that I believe the lane is wide to safely share side-by-side. But the right tire track is far enough to the right to allow the motorist behind me to pass me without having to do a complete lane change - though he does have to cross the stripe into the adjacent lane on the left to some extent to pass me. A side benefit of this is that once a motorist is resigned to the fact that he cannot pass me within the same lane and has to cross that stripe, he is likely to do it with a much greater passing space than he would leave if he was passing me within the lane.

When there is a long line of stopped cars and passing them will make a significant difference, I will split lanes and pass cars to get to the front. But this is typically back so far from the intersection that the lanes are still relatively wide. Often there is even a bike lane to use at that point, which I do (but very carefully and slowly because passing on the right like that is very dangerous - no one expect you to be there).

In short, as long as what I'm doing is reasonable and done assertively, motorists seem to respect me out here.

Serge

I think I am operating vehicularly when these drivers vent at me. How can you say all vehicular cyclists have the same type of experience if I am reporting different type of experience? If I get a lot of attitude from motorist because I'm riding in the middle of the lane does that mean I'm not a vehicular cyclist? A lot of times the angry driver hasn't seen me do anything illegal although I do break traffic laws (as do all motorists if you include speed limit). I'll try the slow hand signal, maybe that's the difference?

Vehicular cycling is more than just obeying the law, but obeying the law is a big part of it. It's also much more than "taking the lane" when necessary. Think of it as legal-defensive-driving for cyclists, perhaps.

I've described vehicular cycling to others like this, and they seemed to understand, but when we rode together it was obvious they didn't. But assuming you are riding vehicularly, it's hard to say what the difference is. I'm not saying I never get honked at, but it's very rare. I can't remember the last time - it has been a few months for sure. Are you riding in the middle of the lane when there is no good reason to do so? It's impossible to tell like this.

I'm not into riding on the right half of the lane. Drivers will still try to get passed me in that lane. I ride in the middle of the lane or slightly left of center which might be why I make them so angry. It feels safer to me. I'll try to find out more about what vehicular cyclists recommend. First come, first served isn't going to work for me but maybe I can adopt some of your ideas into my riding.

I think there is always a good reason to ride in the center of the lane, but I usually ride on streets that have two or three lanes going my way. You said you peel off to the right to let cars through. Does that mean riding on the shoulder or very carefully the bike lane?

2. Perhaps. Ironically, the only "drifting to the right and clipping/hitting a cyclist" incidents I am aware of all occurred when the cyclist was in a bike lane or shoulder. My theory on this is that motorists are more likely to be aware of a cyclist in THEIR lane, but may hardly notice, often do not notice at all, a cyclist outside of their lane, in an adjacent bike lane or shoulder. Regardless, the issue is not whether bike lanes have ANY benefits for cyclists (in terms of safety) and cycling (in terms of advocacy). The question is whether bike lanes have a NET benefit to cyclists and cycling.


Thanks for the thoughtful thread, Serge.

My experience has been the opposite -- the two near-clip occurrances happened on streets that had no bike lane. In each case, the drivers were both elderly and shared that trait where they have trouble judging the spatial position of the right-hand side of the car. Would bike lanes have helped in these cases? I really don't know.

The problem here is we can share anecdotal stories about bike lanes all day but it means nothing. We really need to see proper traffic studies that compares bike lanes and no bike lanes on similar streets and roads. I'm surprised more studies like this haven't been done already.

Is there a "net" benefit to cyclists and cycling? To a small degree, yes, but only because they are so cheap to install. Low cost strategies need only a small benefit to have a net positive impact...

The best "proper studies" were done by John Forester and he adamantly advances the concept of vehicular cycling. He also adamantly opposes the use of bike lanes. In fact, one might even say he is a zealot about these issues.

On balance, I side with Serge regarding most of his points. However, my experience is that no matter how politely or vehicular you ride, you will make some drivers angry. I think of it as a statistical fact. Let's suppose .5% of drivers loath cyclists and will do whatever thye can to make life miserable for us (by the way, I made that fugure up). If you encounter 200 cars a day on your rides, you will run into one of these meanies every day. Add human error, stupidity, distractions, PMS, alcohol, and who knows what else into the mix. The result - a classically chaotic situation where it is impossible to compute all the variables that will govern the emotional tenor of your interactions. I believe that this is where Serge and vehicular cycling come in. By behaving in the most predictable way and blending with the herd as much as possible, you lessen the chances of targeted aggression from the various nuts and bullies behind the wheel. Does it eliminate the risk? No, but it does reduce it, I believe.

On balance, I side with Serge regarding most of his points. However, my experience is that no matter how politely or vehicular you ride, you will make some drivers angry. I think of it as a statistical fact.

I wholeheartedly agree. Let's face it, there are many motorists who get pissed when the car in front of them is only going the speed limit. Taking the whole lane is very appropriate when traffic flow is 20mph or less. Other times if you don't allow faster traffic to safely pass you, without impedence, you run the risk of bodily injury. There are a lot of insane people out there. Serge's adament activism is most definately admirable, however I genuinely hope we don't end up reading about him someday.

I think there is always a good reason to ride in the center of the lane, but I usually ride on streets that have two or three lanes going my way. You said you peel off to the right to let cars through. Does that mean riding on the shoulder or very carefully the bike lane?

I almost never ride in shoulders. Between intersections, if there is a bike lane I will often use it, if it's not too filled with debris and if it's not too far to the right from the rest of the thru traffic. But the type of roadway I had in mind is fairly common around here, where the right lane is wide enough to safely share side-by-side by bike and car between intersections, but not at intersections (because of the narrowing of lanes that happens in order to accomodate right and left turn lanes at intersections).

There are two basic vehicular rules to lane positioning:

(1) BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS, choose your position according to SPEED (slower traffic keeps to the right).
(2) AT INTERSECTIONS (and their approaches), choose your position according to DESTINATION.

Note that these are not cycling-specific rules; they apply to all vehicular users of the road, including cyclists.

So when I "peel off to the right" after I've gone through an intersection, I'm once again adhering to rule (1) above, which puts me in the right lane, and, if it's wide enough to safely share (say 14+ feet with no parallel parking; 22+ feet if there is parking), then I ride about 3 feet to the right of car traffic.

That's another tip I learned from Effective Cycling:

a) If the lane is NOT wide enough to share, then don't share (ride in the middle, or at least the right tire track - far enough to the left to make it clear that you're not inviting motorists to share the lane).
b) When a lane IS wide enough to safely share side-by-side, choose your position relative to the position of thru car traffic, rather than relative to the right edge/curb/shoulder of the road. Specifically, ride about 3 feet from the cars:


On wide roads, ride just outside the actual traffic lane -- not along the curb, but about 3 feet from the cars. On narrow roads, ride generally just inside the traffic lane, allowing room for a car to pass you by going partly over the far lane line. ... When the lane is so narrow that an overtaking motorist must use the next lane over, then openly take the whole lane by riding down its center John Forester, Effective Cycling pp 294-295

The thing I see most cyclists overlook is that even minor intersections are still intersections and you should be positioning yourself according to DESTINATION (per rule (2) above) when you go through them. For example take two identical roadways, except one has a driveway on the right every 50-75 feet. On the first road, with no driveways, just a curb, I am willing to ride fairly close to the curb. But on the second road, with driveways, I need to take a line further from the curb so anyone going in or out of those driveways will see me and will not mistakenly assume I am turning into one of those driveways.

One trick I use is ask myself: where would I ride if I WAS turning right into that driveway? Whatever the answer to that question is for the given circumstances, I need to be riding significantly LEFT of that lane position if I'm NOT turning right into that driveway.

This principle is even more true for intersections with minor side streets. I see through cyclists approach these intersections along a line that would indicate they are turning right. That's confusing (to others) and can be very dangerous. Ride to be visible and choose your position accordingly. That means when you're going straight through an intersection, even an intersection with a minor side street, ride to the LEFT of where you would be riding if you were turning right at that intersection: make it clear visible that you are there, you're not turning right, and you are going straight. Cyclists get hit at intersections by motorists who didn't see them - this is often because the cyclists are riding "conservatively", not assertively, and are choosing to ride where motorists are not looking, and, so don't see them.

I don't know how much this will add to this really excellent thread, but it is a point of view I haven't seen expressed yet. I'm a retired transit bus driver in the 5-college area of Western Massachussetts(+/- 30000 college students seasonally descending on Amherst, non-student pop. 15000 & Northampton 30000). In season, the usual lively entertaining student scene, lots of bikes, pedestrians, jay walkers, cars. double parked delivery trucks & at the right time of night/week crowds of drunks & other assorted revelers both on & off the bus. The bus driver's starting mantra is "Eyes on a swivel, expect the unexpected." Come to think of it, I use the same mantra when cycling, "Eyes (& ears) on a swivel, expect the unexpected....Attention, Attention, Attention..."

Anyway, a few years ago the town of Amherst opted to add bike lanes to an already much painted main drag. When cycling in rain or snow, I view paint in the road like strips of ice laid on for my special close attention. As a bus driver, when I first saw these bike lanes, I was aghast. "Holy crap! I'm going to have to take my huge immoveable object in & out for my every block bus stops across a road space where at least some of the bike riders think they have an invisible shield!!!" Picture a large university campus when classes pass...every other student on a cell phone (as diverting of attention as being drunk). Cell phone or not, at a pedestrian crosswalk, almost every student unconsciously(!) caught up in an apparent student ethos: "It's a cross walk. Cars stop for ME. It's uncool, perhaps even cowardly, to look before stepping out..." An invisible shield... Give me a jaywalker! At least they look! As a bus driver, that's the context I put the new bike lanes in... As it turned out I never had an incident. Maybe bike riders are different.... they know they're playing in traffic...

I always enjoyed "reading" bike riders...Are they riding in a predictable vehicular manner or are they stunting or worse, wobbling & unsure...etc. Driving a bus is like a large scale 3-dimensional video game. The kind where hazards & bad guys pop out at you unexpectedly...except in the real world you can lose more than points. Despite that,its FUN! Just like cycling!

Oh, before I stop, a bus driver admonition. Please, never pass a stopped bus on its right. There's a huge blind spot directly behind the bus. "If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you." The bus may be stopped away from the curb to deploy the wheelchair lift, cars may be parked in the bus stop.... DOUBLED DOORED! left & right...PEDESTRIANED TOO!!!

Thanks for the thoughtful thread, Serge.
...
I'm surprised more studies like this haven't been done already.

Thanks James, I'm getting a lot out of this thread too. I agree we need more studies. However, it is my understanding that there have been quite a few studies with regard to bike lanes, and none show them to make cycling safer, and many indicate they make cycling less safe.

To the extent that bike lanes discourage cyclists from riding vehicularly, keeping cyclists out of traffic and out of where motorists are looking, it is not surprising to me that cyclists in bike lanes are more likely to be not noticed and hit.

Part of the problem is that bike lanes end before intersections, yet their effect - encouraging cyclists to keep to the right - persists through the intersection. This effect encourages cyclists to violate the vehicular rule of choosing lane position according to destination at intersections (see my previous post in this thread for more on this). So if a cyclist is hit in an intersection where there are no bike lanes, the bike lane study would count this as an incident of a cyclist being hit who is not in a bike lane. But what it misses is the factor the bike lane played in discouraging him from learning how to ride correctly in traffic, and, thus, contributing to his choosing a poor visibility position as he crossed the intersection.

A blatant example of this is when a through cyclist transitions from riding in a bike lane between intersections to crossing an intersection in the crosswalk - continuing at a cyclist speed of 8+ mph, not slowing to pedestrian 2-3 mph speeds. But more common are the more subtle examples of cyclists simply staying too far to the right -- where no vehicular traffic is expected -- as they go through an intersection.



Is there a "net" benefit to cyclists and cycling? To a small degree, yes, but only because they are so cheap to install. Low cost strategies need only a small benefit to have a net positive impact...

You're assuming the only "cost" to bike lanes is the cost to install them. You're ignoring the following "costs" of increased bicycle-car crashes and related injuries and deaths due to:

1) Bike lanes providing a false sense of security about riding in traffic to inexperienced and unskilled cyclists who would ordinarily have the sense to not ride in busy traffic, but decide it's "safe" because they can ride in the bike lane (which many of whom can't differentiate from a bike path and think is approximately as safe). Then they get to an intersection, panic, do something stupid, etc....

2) Bike lanes discouraging left-turning cyclists from properly preparing early for their left turn. Instead, they ride within the "safety" of the bike lane until they're at the intersection, and then cut straight across all the lanes to the left turn lane. When they're hit, this counts as a collision where the cyclist was not riding in the bike lane, of course.

3) Bike lanes encouraging straight-thru cyclists to stay right at intersections, instead of correctly merging left to increase their visibility (by riding where others are looking for vehicular traffic) and predictability (by choosing a lane position that makes it clear they are going straight, not right). When they're hit, these incidents also don't count as bike lane collisions.

4) Bike lanes encouraging cyclists to unsafely pass stopped or slow motorists on their right.

5) Bike lanes encouraging cyclists to ride in door zones.

6) Cyclists being discouraged and inhibited by "crutch" bike lanes from learning how to ride vehicularly in traffic in general.

These costs are difficult to measure, true, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and are not significant. Yet you must ignore these hidden costs of bike lanes altogether in order to calculate your "to a small degree" "net" benefit of bike lanes.

Serge

I wholeheartedly agree. Let's face it, there are many motorists who get pissed when the car in front of them is only going the speed limit. Taking the whole lane is very appropriate when traffic flow is 20mph or less. Other times if you don't allow faster traffic to safely pass you, without impedence, you run the risk of bodily injury. There are a lot of insane people out there. Serge's adament activism is most definately admirable, however I genuinely hope we don't end up reading about him someday.

I have almost no experience with "bike lanes" per se as I live in an exurban area. The only situation I fear are some of the very busy 2 lane roads with essentially no shoulder (not even unpaved) where cars are going 40+MPH.

Serge - are you against having paved shoulders? I would be pretty happy with that (yes, the debris can be an issue).

Interesting thread :)