Commuting - Anti-bike lane people: what's wrong with this picture?

I'm having trouble understanding the argument against bike lanes. Here's a picture I took from my apartment balcony illustratiing what a typical road in my city (Davis, CA) looks like.

http://fox302.com/userdata/notfred/files/Biking/road.jpg

You can see that there are separate sidewalks for pedestrians. On each side of the street there is a bike lane. You can see that a car is parked in the bike lane on the close side of the street. The bike lane is wide enough for a cyclist to comfortably and safely ride in the bike lane, even with a car parked there. On parts of the street where there are no parked cars, the cyclist has as much room to ride in as cars do.

This system does not prohibit a cyclist from using the lanes whith cars when needed. If a cyclist needs to turn left, he can move out into the lane for example. This system does, however, make many cyclists more comfortable riding on the street, as they don't have to worry about being hit from behind by a bigger, faster moving car. This system is also good for motorists - they don't have to slow down behind cyclists very often and wait for appropriate places to pass.

I don't see the disadvantage here. This city, which has most of its streets laid out this way, has the largest group of bicycle commuters I've ever seen, and I've never seen any animosity between cyclists and drivers. Sure, it's not neccesarily the bike lanes that make this possible, but something seems to be working.

Good job pointing out the advantages to bike lanes. But I can see a couple disadvantages in the picture:


The silver Chrysler (or whatever) is parked in such a way that bike lane users have to travel in the "door zone." (EDIT: At least that's how it looks in the picture--but you said there is room.)
Looks like lots of driveways and (presumably) side streets empty into the bike lane. Some motorists don't watch for traffic in the bike lanes, but most do watch the motor traffic lanes.
In many states, you are required to use the bike lane if there is one, but you can use the regular lane if ther is no bike lane.

What happens if the car door suddenly opens? The bike lane dissappears. If a rider thinks they belong only in a bike lane, they either run into the door or have to swerve left into the traffic lane. If I were to ride on this street, I would be at least two feet to the left of the bike lane. That way a motorist would not be surprised by me suddenly appearing (out of nowhere) in front if him.

Also notice the left-turn lane. There's a potential for a serious accident if a bike , a car, and a a left-turning vehicle were all in the same place at the same time, and the car door opened. You might say that the odds of that happening are pretty remote, but I'll ride a little farther out into the lane and keep the car behind me for a few seconds rather than take the risk. Riding a little further into the lane also makes me more visible to the left-turning vehicle.

Bike lanes are much safer around here. Houston is definitely a cager city. Cars don't give a rats ass if you have the same rights as them, they want you off "their" road. I'll take a bike lane any day of the week. Especially nice ones like those in the pic. We only have one street in houston that has one like that that I can think of.

Good job pointing out the advantages to bike lanes. But I can see a couple disadvantages in the picture:


The silver Chrysler (or whatever) is parked in such a way that bike lane users have to travel in the "door zone." (EDIT: At least that's how it looks in the picture--but you said there is room.)
Looks like lots of driveways and (presumably) side streets empty into the bike lane. Some motorists don't watch for traffic in the bike lanes, but most do watch the motor traffic lanes.
In many states, you are required to use the bike lane if there is one, but you can use the regular lane if ther is no bike lane.


There's about 3-4 feet of space available inside the bike lane on the other side of the car, which for the most part DOES put you in that "door zone". However, I've never actually seen this be a problem. Generally, if someone is about to open thier car door, they are either standing outside the car, and you will avoid them anyway, or they just parked the car, which you watched from a few hundred yards behind on your bike, and you are aware that they will likely open thier door shortly, so you can give them space.

The bike lane is *right next* to the regular traffic lane. If a motorist doesn't look before he pulls out into the bike lane, it's his fault as a poor driver, not a fault of the road design. You'll see that the driveways also cross over the sidewalk, but it's not the fault of the sidewalk if a motorist hits a pedestrian because he wasn't looking where he was going. In my town, specifically, most motorists are pretty aware of bicyclists because there are so many around, but I know that doesn't apply everywhere.

California law regarding bike lanes:

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that such person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if such overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.

(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.

I do see value in using bike lanes sometimes. I think it helps those who are unsure get a little more confident about cycling in traffic. That said, one of the things that bike lanes do result in -- at least from what I've seen -- is the creation of bad habits. Namely, riding up on the right-hand side to the light by cyclists in areas where there are no bike lanes. And then blocking right-hand turning cars. The law says, to my understanding, that vehicles are NOT to pass on the right-hand side and that bicycles are vehicles.

From what I've seen, at least here in Toronto, is a lot of cyclists riding on the right-hand side, passing cars -- and not in a bike lane -- to the point where they "squish" by so they can get a "jump" on the car. I've even had this happen to me as a cyclist in a bike lane (geez. I was only in the middle of the lane -- they used part of the curb to get past me and then jump the light).

So simply: helps continue bad habits.

But that's my opinion.

The problem I see alot here in Chicago is the number of bikes going the WRONG WAY in the street bike lanes. My observation is that wrong way riding is more common with the bike lane ... I haven't done any scientific studies but it seems that way in my neighborhood. Overall, I mostly like bike lanes but I certainly feel free to ride in the car lane also ... when parked cars are too close. Our bike lanes also disappear at most intersections so we're on our own to pick the appropriate turn or straight lane.

There's about 3-4 feet of space available inside the bike lane on the other side of the car, which for the most part DOES put you in that "door zone". However, I've never actually seen this be a problem. Generally, if someone is about to open thier car door, they are either standing outside the car, and you will avoid them anyway, or they just parked the car, which you watched from a few hundred yards behind on your bike, and you are aware that they will likely open thier door shortly, so you can give them space.


notfred: are you joking? You've never seen this to be a problem? People DIE from being doored, and it's not as rare as you might want to think.

I was nearly doored once, luckily there was no traffic to the left of me and I was able to swerve. I had no idea that the driver was about to open his door; you can't scan every car when you're passing hundreds if not thousands on your way to work.

Being in the "door zone" is absolutely an issue and it is totally dangerous. For a city to encourage and REQUIRE bikes to ride there creates safety, for sure. For the CARS.

I love bike lanes most of the time.... yeah, I've seen some pretty crappy designs and yeah, I've seen both cyclists and motorists abuse them.... but that stuff happens on *normal* roads just as well.

Bike lanes are really great for slower cyclists...I ride about 10-12mph in a couple bike lanes all the time. I can and do ride faster and more agressively in traffic, but I *rest* in bike lanes. But what if I was old or fat or just slow and slogged along all the time? Isn't cycling for those folks?

Here the USA, cycling is a sport for thrill seekers, fitness junkies, hammerhead Lance wanna-be's. Go to N. Europe-- everybody rides bikes there and there's tons of bike lanes for all the old grannies, welfare moms, students, business people and all the other non-hammerheads riding along though life. Don't confuse riding a bike with anything in life that's really hard.... like finishing Med school, or getting your a$$ chewed by the boss for crap you can't control, or raising kids, or staying married to the same person for your whole life.

Riding a bike is child's play....why would anybody get so freaked out about a bike lane? You can still pretend you're passing Lance when you're riding in one! (I know this from personal exsperance)

So relax. Watch for parked cars so you don't get doored and ride at reasonable speeds to give yourself time to stop if something comes up. If you are in a bike lane or narrow street, you just have to use common sense.

Bike lanes are much safer around here. Houston is definitely a cager city. Cars don't give a rats ass if you have the same rights as them, they want you off "their" road. I'll take a bike lane any day of the week. Especially nice ones like those in the pic. We only have one street in houston that has one like that that I can think of.

Exactly. I'm back in Houston for another two weeks because of school break. I'm honestly scared to ride on the Houston road. I know Austinites are more considerate than Houstonian drivers.

When I posted earlier, I really mis-stated the width of the bike lanes. I guess I never really considered how wide they were before, and the above number seemed to fit about right in my head. I took a ride earlier with this topic in my mind, and realized that there's a lot more space in the bike lanes than I said there was.

Here's a picture showing cars parked in the bike lane.
http://fox302.com/userdata/notfred/files/Biking/road001.jpg

Even with the cars there, there's still a lot of space available. you could probably park two cars next to each other in the bike lane. And there's plenty of space to go around an open door. Maybe this is why I don't see such a prblem with car doors - I'm used to riding with plenty of space and not even realizing it.

Those are nice bike lanes. The ones around here are only about 2 feet wide and they tend to end unexpectedly. Last year the city had federal money to build bike lanes on one street. More than 100 motorists went to the city council meeting and complained that they did not want a bike lane because it would slow down semis making deliveries to local auto assembly plants! They know where their bread is buttered! The bike lane was not built and the federal money was forfeited.

It's hard to judge a bike lane from a photo that only shows a few metres of it. The main problems with bikelanes are:

1. they tend to end abruptly when the lane it too narrow to fit it.

2. they tend to end at intersections, or worse, direct cycle traffic into dangerous situations eg. to the left side of a left turn only lane (right for you yanks)

3. incomplete coverage, and poor connections to other facilities eg. bike paths, train or bus stations etc.

4. debris doesn't get swept up often enough, if at all.

... to name a few.

I use a bike lane on my regular commute. I could take photos of it that would make you think it's as nice as the photos above, but I could also take photos [i]of the same bike lane[\i] that highlight all of the above problems.

My view is that I treat bike lanes exactly the same as a wide shoulder. I adjust my riding according to total road width, not whether there's a bike painted on it or not. I certainly don't divert my route from the shortest possible one just to ride on 'em.

Your "bike lane" is more of a multi-use path than a lane reserved for bicycles. Cars regularly use the lane, and in the most dangerous situtations--parking and turning. The space would better be described as a bike travel/car turning/car parking lane. The pictured bike lane would also encourage drivers to right hook cyclists.

A San Francisco bike lane offical told me that when they have lanes as wide as the ones in your picture, cars use them as an additional travel lane. (Have you noticed this problem?) This creates a Catch-22. If the lane is wide enough for cyclists, cars will try to squeeze into it. If it is narrow enough to discourage auto traffic, it forces cyclists to ride in the door zone.

Finally, most standards state that bike lanes should taper off 50-200' before intersections (I can't remember the exact measurement) to permit lane adjustments. Your bike lane does not break for the curb in your picture. It's probably a driveway, but the same prinicpal applies at driveways as interestions. That's why bike lanes work best on high-speed roads with few intersections. But I've seen a lot worse bike lanes than yours.

This system does, however, make many cyclists more comfortable riding on the street, as they don't have to worry about being hit from behind by a bigger, faster moving car. This system is also good for motorists - they don't have to slow down behind cyclists very often and wait for appropriate places to pass.

How do the bike lanes accomplish either of these things? By cyclists not having "to worry about being hit from behind", and by motorists not having "to slow down" to pass, I take it you mean that there is ample room in the right lane for the cyclist and overtaking traffic to share it. Ok, the lane is wide enough to be shared easily. That is just to say something about the width of the roadway, not the bike lane.

Where I lived once, I was near the border between two cities. A wide road ran in each city, crossing this border. In one city, there was a bike lane on the right hand side of the road. In the other city, there was no bike lane, and the road was otherwise unchanged. Was it any more comfortable to ride in the bike-laned city than in the other city? No. Not at all.

In fact, one of the best places to ride is on a busy street that allows parking on the right hand side of the road, in the right-most lane. I'm talking about streets with no bike lanes, of course. Some streets are set up like this at non-rush hours, and in NYC some streets are always like this, from what I could tell.

It's nice to ride in the space between the left side of parked cars and the traffic lane to the left. (I did it on the motorcycle, too, when traffic was heavy.) Since the street is busy, you get the lights more often than on bike-laned streets, too. Again, this is just to say that when there is an extra wide right hand traffic lane, it's easier to cycle. This is not a point about bike lanes.

But what would the disadvantages be of bike lanes on wide roads? They don't do any harm, do they?

Well, I think they do. For one thing, the city's got to paint the things, and maintain the paint. That's not a lot of money by road maintenance standards, of course, but it's more than not painting at all. It would add up to a lot of money too if many streets had the lanes. Then people who aren't that comfortable riding in traffic get the idea that there's something especially safe about the bike laned road, as opposed to other roads. So, they're not all that comfortable riding on other, perfectly useable roads because those roads *don't* have bike lanes. And these riders go out on roads without knowing how to deal with intersections properly, just because there are bike lanes. Some motorists get the idea that cyclists don't belong on roads without bike lanes. And so on.

I've just never been convinced that alleged benefit of "encouraging" cycling is worth the trouble of bike lanes. I can't say, either, that the problems of bike lanes have made my life a lot harder in places where they do exist, though.

This system does not prohibit a cyclist from using the lanes whith cars when needed. If a cyclist needs to turn left, he can move out into the lane for example.
Yes, it does. At intersections, or at any time a car might be tempted to try a right-hook, cyclists should take the lane. The pictured bike lane discourages this basic safety maneuver. The bike lane also encourages cyclists to wait until the last minute to move into the lane to turn left. In heavy traffic, a cyclist should plan blocks in advance for a left turn (and if the road is lightly traveled, having a bike lane is just silly).



This system does, however, make many cyclists more comfortable riding on the street. . . .
Bike lanes do make many cyclists feel more comforatable, but they generally don't actually make the road safer. In fact, the comfort level can actually make cyclists less safe because cyclists let their guard down.

I used to be strongly pro-bike-lane. I became a skeptic when I noticed that pro-bike-lane people focused on making cyclists feel better about themselves. Bike lanes skeptics focused on efficiently and safely designing roads to get cyclists from Point A to Point B.



. . . cyclists . . . don't have to worry about being hit from behind by a bigger, faster moving car.
Getting hit from behind is one of the least-frequent accidents cyclists face. So, at their best, downtown bike lanes mitigate one of the least-frequent hazards cyclists face. Bravo.



This system is also good for motorists - they don't have to slow down behind cyclists very often and wait for appropriate places to pass.

This is why transportation engineers like bike lanes.

>>>Originally Posted by notfred
This system does, however, make many cyclists more comfortable riding on the street, as they don't have to worry about being hit from behind by a bigger, faster moving car. This system is also good for motorists - they don't have to slow down behind cyclists very often and wait for appropriate places to pass. <<<<<<

When roads are constructed for the motorist to maintain a high velocity, your chances of getting killed are much greater. I do not like riding on roads where the cars are capable of exceeding 40 mph or greater. This is why I dislike bike lanes because it enables the motorist to bullet past you expecting the cyslist to maintain inside the bike lane at all times.

The bike lane on the opposite side of the street (In the picture) forces you to ride in the gutter with all the glass and road debris. Did anyone notice this? The gutter with all the glass is not the place to put a bike lane.

>>>>>Originally Posted by notfred
There's about 3-4 feet of space available inside the bike lane on the other side of the car, which for the most part DOES put you in that "door zone". However, I've never actually seen this be a problem. Generally, if someone is about to open thier car door, they are either standing outside the car, and you will avoid them anyway, or they just parked the car, which you watched from a few hundred yards behind on your bike, and you are aware that they will likely open thier door shortly, so you can give them space.<<<<

Any bike lane that puts you in the door zone is a bad bike lane. Your assumption that you can safely ride in the door zone by scanning inside upcoming cars is folly. Eventually, someone will make a mistake and get doored into an oncoming bus and end up killed like that woman in Boston.

The only problem I see with bike lanes is in the car drivers mind.

I have come across Car drivers who believe that if there is no bike lane on the street they are on, then Bikes are not allowed on that street.

The ones I have talked to who believe this, say it is because they see bike lanes on some streets but not others. So they believe this is by design to keep bikes only on streets with bike lanes.

So in this case the problem is once again education of drivers.

I still belive that one of the biggest problems with the car culture in the USA is the fact that it is VERY easy to get a driver's license.

Here are the issues I have with that style of bike lane:

(1) It encourages unsafe cycling. Experienced riders will stay well to the left, out of the door zone. Inexperienced riders will ride in the door zone (I see this ALL the time), since the think it is safer to be "out of traffic." You could solve this by double striping the lane such that the left stripe is out of the door zone, I suppose.

At the same time, by increasing the confidence of inexperienced cyclists, it is luring them into traffic patterns which they are not ready to handle.

(2) In your case, it is plenty wide to ride out of the door zone, but hereabouts, that is rarely the case. That forces safe riders out of the lane - in some cases, in violation of the law, in all cases risking the ire of cagers.

(3) Bike lanes are rarely, if ever, kept clear of road trash. Maybe not a major issue in Davis, CA but here in Boston, MA, right now, the bike lanes are full of ice except for the leftmost few inches. When they are not full of trash, you've got sand, leaves, etc in there. Not good.

(4) It encourages right hooks, since drivers can pass a cyclist without noticing them. Very dangerous.

(5) It enourages staying in the bike lane as long as possible before making a left turn. Also quite dangerous. It also encourages waiting until the end and then riding across in a sidewalk. In many cases illegal and in all cases unsafe.


This city, which has most of its streets laid out this way, has the largest group of bicycle commuters I've ever seen, and I've never seen any animosity between cyclists and drivers

That's the point of lanes like this. To make cyclists second class citizens and to push as of the responsibility and danger onto them as possible. Uneducated drivers are never "inconvenienced".

Sloth is absolutely correct.

The best thing for cyclists and motorists is nice wide lanes. In some cases, this can be done by simply getting rid of parallel parking on streets where it is not needed.

I don't care for bike lanes, but I do want wide right lanes.

Most bike lanes around here end 100ft before the intersection. Many don't account for the right turn lane, etc. Most put one in the door zone. I find with bike lanes I am weaving in and out of them to ride safer. Sure if they were well designed from the get go (including signs that indicate bikes merging left for left turn lanes, a separator buffer for door zones, etc.) they might be OK - but this will never be a reality given the road infrastructure already in place.

I do like the idea I've heard of before which is called a hybrid bike lane - the right lane is extra wide, but there is no line to separate bike lane, but it is still labeled with paint on the pavement as a bike lane every few hundred yards or so.

Al

In fact, the comfort level can actually make cyclists less safe because cyclists let their guard down.

In fact? Tell me what facts please.


It encourages unsafe cycling.

No bike lane discourages cycling.



o make cyclists second class citizens and to push as of the responsibility and danger onto them as possible. Uneducated drivers are never "inconvenienced".

Do bus lanes make drivers second class citizen too? I can't walk in the middle of the road either, or bike on the sidewalk. How about saying bike lanes make bikes legitimate. Yeah, I know, the law says bikes have a right to the road but obviously, many drivers don't think so. When you say bike lanes are there to put bikes out of the drivers' way, I say they exists to put cars out of cyclists' way.


It also encourages waiting until the end and then riding across in a sidewalk. In many cases illegal and in all cases unsafe.

It's a crosswalk, not sidewalk. It's rather inconvenient for cyclists, never illegal and as unsafe as walking a crosswalk.

Every argument I hear from the anti-bike lane people are about "feel" and "encouraging this and that" with no substance to back it up. There was a study here saying there were more serious injuries to cyclists on road with no bike lane than roads with bike lanes. I never mentionned it because it's something I got on the radio and have no link.

My biggest problem with bike lanes is the complete lack of standard.

Bike lanes do make many cyclists feel more comforatable, but they generally don't actually make the road safer. In fact, the comfort level can actually make cyclists less safe because cyclists let their guard down.

I used to be strongly pro-bike-lane. I became a skeptic when I noticed that pro-bike-lane people focused on making cyclists feel better about themselves. Bike lanes skeptics focused on efficiently and safely designing roads to get cyclists from Point A to Point B.

Getting hit from behind is one of the least-frequent accidents cyclists face. So, at their best, downtown bike lanes mitigate one of the least-frequent hazards cyclists face. Bravo.


If you aren't interested in whether cyclists feel safe or not, you're going to be stuck with the same type of roads you have now, so I hope you like them, bike lanes or not.

People in general don't care about things they don't know about. The average driver who hasn't ridden a bicycle since he was 11 years old, and has never ridden one in traffic, doesn't really concern himself with the safety of bike lanes. This person is not going to show up at city council meetings and support bike-safe roads, whether they have bike lanes or not. He's not going to do anything that goes out of his way to help cyclists, because he doesn't care.

Now, there are plenty of people who might ride a bike to work, but they don't, and they often give a reason like "It's not safe to ride on the street". Now, it doesn't really matter whether it's actually safe to ride on the street or not - what matters is thier perception. When they perceive the road as safe, then they might actually get on the bike and ride to work. Once they do that, they are cyclists. They start to take an interest in the way that motorists treat them, and they're a lot more likely to show up at that city council meeting and demand more support for cyclsits on the roads. If enough people do this, city councils will actually start to listen.

You are not going to win converts to cycling with John Forester's "Effective Cycling". It doesn't matter how good the book is, because only cyclists read it. People don't walk into Barnes and Noble and think "hmm, maybe I'll get a book that will teach me to ride my bike to work safely!" However, there's a better chance that someone will drive 2 miles to work next to a nice wide bike lane and think "Hey, these bike lanes are pretty wide, and it's only two miles to work - I could get in shape if I rode a bike to work!"

The fact is, if people don't feel an activity is safe, they're not going to start doing it. So, if you can't make novice cyclists feel safe, you will not have the number of cyclists on the road grow, and you will not have the number of supporters for bicycle commuting grow.

I find that the amount of space provided with a normal lane plus a bike lane is usually better left unstriped as a single extra-wide lane. This provides the advantages of a bike lane (extra passing space) without the disadvantages (debris accumulation, motorist and police harassment for riding left of the stripe, encouragement to ride in the door zone, etc.. We had a lot of roads here in Cary, NC that had nice, clean 16' lanes until they got striped with bike lanes. Now they are often filled with debris and I get a lot more harassment when I ride, because I am often to the left of the stripe.

It's important to separate the issue of striping from space. More space makes it easier for drivers to pass safely. But segregation striping probably creates more problems than it solves on most roads.

Now, there are plenty of people who might ride a bike to work, but they don't, and they often give a reason like "It's not safe to ride on the street". Now, it doesn't really matter whether it's actually safe to ride on the street or not - what matters is thier perception. When they perceive the road as safe, then they might actually get on the bike and ride to work.


You may be right. They "might" actually get on a bike. I suspect though that most will simply develop a different excuse for not doing so. :(

I find that the amount of space provided with a normal lane plus a bike lane is usually better left unstriped as a single extra-wide lane. This provides the advantages of a bike lane (extra passing space) without the disadvantages (debris accumulation, motorist and police harassment for riding left of the stripe, encouragement to ride in the door zone, etc.. We had a lot of roads here in Cary, NC that had nice, clean 16' lanes until they got striped with bike lanes. Now they are often filled with debris and I get a lot more harassment when I ride, because I am often to the left of the stripe.

It's important to separate the issue of striping from space. More space makes it easier for drivers to pass safely. But segregation striping probably creates more problems than it solves on most roads.
All above very well said! This is my experience as well.

Al

All above very well said! This is my experience as well.

Al

I used to be a big fan of bike lanes. Now I'm leaning toward above view of more space without striping. Still if there is a lane, it makes me feel better and I try to stay in it. There are so few lanes in St Louis it is not really an issue.

I am so ambivalent about this issue. Just when I think I am totally against bike lanes, I read a good argument (like not fred above) for them, and my thinking changes again. I keep coming back to people I know who do not ride bikes because thay are scared of traffic. It doesn't even seem to help them to see me successfully negotiate all kinds of traffic every day. I think the only thing that will get them biking on city streets is the perceived (or misperceived) safety of marked bike lanes.

One other point. Here in Michigan cities are starting to put white stripes down the right hand side of roads, leaving about 3 feet of pavement that motorists do not use. However, these are not marked as bike lanes or anything else. They do make a pretty good place to ride--similar to a paved shoulder on wider suburban and rural roads.

If you aren't interested in whether cyclists feel safe or not, you're going to be stuck with the same type of roads you have now, so I hope you like them, bike lanes or not.
Almost all of the time, I'd rather have my roads as they are than with bike lanes, so I guess I'm on track.



Now, it doesn't really matter whether it's actually safe to ride on the street or not - what matters is thier perception.
So we'll make the roads less safe in order to make people feel safer? Yours is the argument that turned me away from supporting most bike lanes. Bike lanes could also result in cyclists being permanently ghettoized--afriad to leave the confines of their comfortable, but dangerous, lanes. Then, at best, we can expect them to argue for even more bike lanes. What a vicious circle.



You are not going to win converts to cycling with John Forester's "Effective Cycling". It doesn't matter how good the book is, because only cyclists read it. People don't walk into Barnes and Noble and think "hmm, maybe I'll get a book that will teach me to ride my bike to work safely!" However, there's a better chance that someone will drive 2 miles to work next to a nice wide bike lane and think "Hey, these bike lanes are pretty wide, and it's only two miles to work - I could get in shape if I rode a bike to work!"
But if the price is making the ride less safe, then we aren't doing anyone a favor.



The fact is, if people don't feel an activity is safe, they're not going to start doing it. So, if you can't make novice cyclists feel safe, you will not have the number of cyclists on the road grow, and you will not have the number of supporters for bicycle commuting grow.
The novice cyclists should start on roads they feel safe on, and work their way up to more difficult roads. It's really not all that hard. And if they're afraid of the road, they can always use the bike path on the weekend.



In fact, the comfort level can actually make cyclists less safe because cyclists let their guard down.
In fact? Tell me what facts please.
When Portland Oregon made its bike lanes even more distinctive (going from striped to striped and painted), they found that cyclists looked back, yielded, and used turn signals about half as often as they had before. John Allen, a board member of the League of American Bicyclists, has more on his web site (http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/lanes/amiblue.htm).


Now, I'm not opposed to all bike lanes everywhere. They have their place on roads with few intersections and high speeds (> 35 mph). But they are not the universal solution some people make them out to be.

I find that the amount of space provided with a normal lane plus a bike lane is usually better left unstriped as a single extra-wide lane. This provides the advantages of a bike lane (extra passing space) without the disadvantages (debris accumulation, motorist and police harassment for riding left of the stripe, encouragement to ride in the door zone, etc.. We had a lot of roads here in Cary, NC that had nice, clean 16' lanes until they got striped with bike lanes. Now they are often filled with debris and I get a lot more harassment when I ride, because I am often to the left of the stripe.

It's important to separate the issue of striping from space. More space makes it easier for drivers to pass safely. But segregation striping probably creates more problems than it solves on most roads.

After reading everyone's responses to this thread, I'm starting to see this viewpoint, too. The problem with bike lanes isn't the extra space, but rather the difinitive left edge of that space. It might be better to leave off the white line, or maybe to make it a dashed line (indicating that switching lanes is allowed when neccessary).

When they perceive the road as safe, then they might actually get on the bike and ride to work. Once they do that, they are cyclists.
But not experienced ones. If they are soon hit by a car, that will once again set the cause back, for them, their friends and family, and anyone else who hears about it in the media, and probably set it back more than the bike lanes moved it forward. You make a good point about perceived safety being important to encouraging new cyclists, but if bike lanes are not actually as safe as they make cyclists and drivers feel, it will be a very fleeting advantage.

FYI, I'm not taking sides, because I'm not very experienced myself yet and my opinion on bike lanes is still forming. I've only been riding for 2-1/2 years as an adult, all commuting, and I don't have any bike lanes on my route. So I've never even actually had to use them. But I do think that the actual safety of bike lanes is more important than the perceived safety, for the reason I just said.

...The novice cyclists should start on roads they feel safe on, and work their way up to more difficult roads. It's really not all that hard. And if they're afraid of the road, they can always use the bike path on the weekend....

There is a touch of elitism here that I don't care for. Don't we all benefit when more people ride?



...Now, I'm not opposed to all bike lanes everywhere. They have their place on roads with few intersections and high speeds (> 35 mph). But they are not the universal solution some people make them out to be.

This is an interesting point...Bike lanes: good on some roads, not good on other roads. Maybe I feel ambivalent about this issue because it is not a black and white issue. Food for thought.

There is a touch of elitism here that I don't care for. Don't we all benefit when more people ride?
I think it's the unflinchingly pro-bike lane people who are elitist. (Edit: I'm not lumping you in that category.)

I believe that anyone who wants to can learn how to ride in traffic. The unquestioning pro-bike-lane lobby seems to think most cyclists are too stupid to do that.

I treat other cyclists as adults. The unquestioning pro-bike-lane lobby treats cyclists as perpetual children.

Also prefer cycle awareness signs in addition to wide (but unmarked) right lanes.

For example there is a stretch I ride every day with a wide right lane, but no bike lane marked, but every 200yrds. is a 'share the road' sign - this is a great stretch to ride, even though passing cars are traveling at 50mph. Other signs or paintings on road could include a 'cyclists merge left for left turn' type sign. Anything that gets cars more aware throught frequent signage that bikes are and should be on road would help. As I said before putting those bike lane symbols on the right side of road (but no lane marked) would also be fine.

Al

I think it's the unflinchingly pro-bike lane people who are elitist.

I believe that anyone who wants to can learn how to ride in traffic. The unquestioning pro-bike-lane lobby seems to think most cyclists are too stupid to do that.

I treat other cyclists as adults. The unquestioning pro-bike-lane lobby treats cyclists as perpetual children.
So some money saved from not striping bike lanes (which is unbelievably, astronomically expensive)could be used for cyclist education.

After reading everyone's responses to this thread, I'm starting to see this viewpoint, too. The problem with bike lanes isn't the extra space, but rather the difinitive left edge of that space. It might be better to leave off the white line, or maybe to make it a dashed line (indicating that switching lanes is allowed when neccessary).

I had to make this realization before I finally started connecting all the dots. With a little more time you will realize that even a dashed stripe sets up enough of a false sense of security to warrant being a hazard in and of itself, and still has almost all of the other disadvantages of solid-striped bike lanes (debris collection, door zones - except perhaps in the extra-wide Davis ones, though those are rarely physically possible, putting cyclists a second-class road user category as compared to motorists, etc., etc.). After that you should really start wondering whether even extra width really has much value to the cyclists, or is it really more for the motorists so that they don't have to slow down when passing cyclists?

While thinking about all this consider whether the relatively high cycle commute rate in Davis is due to the bike lanes, or it being flat as a pancake and full of college students without cars (and a climate conducive to year-round riding)? Talk to some old-timers about how popular cycling already was there in the 60s before all the stripes got painted.

Serge

There is a touch of elitism here that I don't care for. Don't we all benefit when more people ride?

Yes, but getting people to use unsafe bike lanes, thinking they are safer than an open road will result in fewer people riding.

When someone biking in a "bike lane" gets doored, the implication is that they were "doing everything right" and yet they still got injured or killed. The reality, of course, is that they weren't doing *anything* right, but the bike lane led them into danger. According to one coworker who used to work at a company, in front of which a woman was killed after being doored in a bike lane, that was the end of bike commuting there. Makes sense, too.

Take the money spent on striping unsafe lanes and spend it on advocacy.

So we'll make the roads less safe in order to make people feel safer?

That's just your opinion, Daily, not a fact. Nobody has ever shown me data that bike lanes are less safe. And except for the radio repport, I've never been shown data saying were more safe either. But if bike lanes can get more people on their bikes, I'll take them.

Actually there is data.. The data that comes from well-conducted studies (as opposed to those conducted by bike lane advocates with the intent of proving their point) shows that a street with a well-designed bike lane can be as safe as your average unstriped street. It only gets worse from there. Here's some now: http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/research.html

I won't get into the myriad ways that bike lane designs, implementation, and maintenance make them unsuitable and unsafe facilities, many others have covered most of these already. However, I will say that a friend of mine likes to refer to it as the Pickett's Charge mentality. Build lanes, safe or otherwise, and start chucking novice cyclists in there--they make them feel safe, right? Eventually we'll establish a cycling culture. How soon? How many injuries and fatalities? Well let's just hope sooner rather than later, eh?

Myself, I'd like to take a more optimistic approach. How about we focus a little more on education. Make it clear to people that bicycles are lawfully entitled to the public way except in a very few cases. Make it clear to cyclists that the safest place they can be is in travel lane with other vehicles, not a bike lane or the sidewalk. The Massachusetts Bicycle coalition has managed to get information into the driver's manual to this effect, over the governor's veto even. In like fashion, they're in the process of developing training material for use nationwide in law enforcement agencies talking about cyclists rights and responsibilities and proper police interaction with cyclists.

Here's an analogy for you if you're unconvinced: one of the big selling points for SUVs is their supposed safety. Of course the fact of the matter is that SUVs are among the deadliest vehicles on the road, both for those involved in accidents with them as well as their passengers. Yet the people who buy them feel that they're safer. That being the case, would it be the responsible thing for the NTSB to advocate that people purchase SUVs or is it better that they try to educate people on their relative dangers and encourage more rational decision making?

Oh, and apart from the small stretch of Ruggles St. by Northeastern Univ. (mitigation for their parking building as I recall), Boston has no bikelanes, some MURPs, and a few sidepaths. Thankfully. I much prefer riding in Boston than dealing with Cambridge.

That's just your opinion, Daily, not a fact. Nobody has ever shown me data that bike lanes are less safe. And except for the radio repport, I've never been shown data saying were more safe either. But if bike lanes can get more people on their bikes, I'll take them.
I cited statistics that cyclists become more careless in better marked bike lanes. I've seen no valid stats going the other way. And it is not an unquestionable good to have more cyclists any more than it is to have more, say, mountain climbers. What we need are more competent cyclists. And nearly everyone can become competent, if they chose.

Now that Bostontrevor and I have cited statistics, it's your turn. Why are out sta

Your analogy doesn't work. SUV are sold based on safety but they are not. Bike lanes are sold on safety and, as you said it yourself "as safe as your average unstriped street". All things being equal, I'd rather have more cyclists.

BTW, I'm not a bike-lane nut. I don't care much for bike lanes in narrow downtown streets or quiet suburbia. But I'd like to see them on long boulevard connecting different neighborhoods and between city center and suburbs.

So relax. Watch for parked cars so you don't get doored and ride at reasonable speeds to give yourself time to stop if something comes up. If you are in a bike lane or narrow street, you just have to use common sense.

That's all well and good in a happy utopia. In other news, I would like to get to work. I shouldn't have to slow myself down intentionally so I don't GET KILLED.

That's utter BS.

I cited statistics that cyclists become more careless in better marked bike lanes. I've seen no valid stats going the other way.

First, there's little about how this study was conducted.

Second, the study is about the plain lane vs blue-painted lane, not lane vs no lane.

Third, it has no numbers about increased or reduced crashes. It refers to a European study saying that the blue-painted lane did see a reduced number of crashes but the author says the European installations are not comparable with the Portland installations. I'm beginning to question the author at that point

Fourth, look at the 5th and 6th rows. Cars did yield and slow down more. It's funny that the author says That motorists slowed more is an indication of reduced efficiency, when it's the cyclists who have right-of-way. Cars slowing down is what is supposed to happen! At the same time, on 2nd and 3rd row, cyclist yielded and slowed less,which is perfectly normal since they have right-of-way.

I agree that the numbers in row N°1, 4 and 7 are unnacceptable. You can say that lanes feel or seem less safe as much as you want but the only real indicator of safety here is the reduced numbers of crashes in the European study.

Your analogy doesn't work. SUV are sold based on safety but they are not. Bike lanes are sold on safety and, as you said it yourself "as safe as your average unstriped street". All things being equal, I'd rather have more cyclists.

No, I said the very best bike lanes are almost as safe as the average street. Many (most? certainly in my experience) bike lanes do not approach this "very best" level while many streets (about half, even!) are safer than average. All things are not equal.

Fourth, look at the 5th and 6th rows. Cars did yield and slow down more. It's funny that the author says That motorists slowed more is an indication of reduced efficiency, when it's the cyclists who have right-of-way. Cars slowing down is what is supposed to happen! At the same time, on 2nd and 3rd row, cyclist yielded and slowed less,which is perfectly normal since they have right-of-way.

I agree that the numbers in row N°1, 4 and 7 are unnacceptable. You can say that lanes feel or seem less safe as much as you want but the only real indicator of safety here is the reduced numbers of crashes in the European study.
Cars yielded and slowed about 20-25% more with the enhanced lanes, but used their turn signals about 25% less. The effect on cyclist bad behavior was even stronger: Cyclists were 2-3 times more likely to engage in dangeous behavior in well-marked bike lanes.

Unfortunately, these are the best kind of study we will likely find. It is extraordinarily difficult to statistically study bike lanes. Different locations have different characteristics, so comparing a wide curb lane on one street to a bike lane on another is usually not helpful. Likewise, it is rare that a city simply stripes a lane without making other changes, so it is difficult to tell what change accounts for safety differences. Finally, reported cycling accidents are, fortunately, relatively rare. You can't make valid statistical measures when you have only a handful of pre- and post-bike lane accidents.

So the most interesting studies are on how bike lanes affect the behavior of cyclists and drivers. Are they making behavior less or more dangerous? When looking at a proposed bike lane design for any qiven road, we have to ask, is this the best way of getting cyclists from one end of the road to the other? Does it provide for proper road positioning for cyclists turning right, left or going straight? Does it permit cyclists to ride at 25-30 mph, or is it a glorified multi-use path? Does the proposed bike lane position cyclists properly at intersections? Etc. And, most importantly, should we just leave well enough alone?

Please also understand the point of my comments about the risks of bike lanes. As I said above, I do not oppose all bike lanes. But, when deciding whether to stripe a lane on any given street, planners must think about the considerable drawbacks of bike lanes, as well as the strengths. I get the impression that some planners and some bike facilities advocates think striping a lane is always the best solution.

Unfortunately, these are the best kind of study we will likely find. It is extraordinarily difficult to statistically study bike lanes. Different locations have different characteristics, so comparing a wide curb lane on one street to a bike lane on another is usually not helpful. Likewise, it is rare that a city simply stripes a lane without making other changes, so it is difficult to tell what change accounts for safety differences. Finally, reported cycling accidents are, fortunately, relatively rare. You can't make valid statistical measures when you have only a handfull of pre- and post-bike lane accidents.

Additionally it's quite rare to have before and after studies at a particular site. Many of these studies are conducted casually or with the intent to prove something or the other (usually that the installation of the bike lane has had some positive effect).

I too am not dead set against bike lanes, in theory. In practice they are often so flawed that I would have to count myself as an anti-bike lane guy because those people who design and build them often have no idea what they're doing.

bike lanes are great, but most of the time I need to a lot of places where there are no bike lanes ( off the beaten path, you might say) I dont think its possible for a city to have bike lanes everywhere that you might need to go. However, a few main drags or principal streets for commuter purposes, would be nice. kansas city is not a bike friendly town. Probably a bit like Houston.

I too am not dead set against bike lanes, in theory. In practice they are often so flawed that I would have to count myself as an anti-bike lane guy because those people who design and build them often have no idea what they're doing.

I'm not dead set against them either, for the same reasons...and because when there are decent bike lanes (or at least bike lanes that can be ridden safely outside the door zone), so many riders ride them incorrectly - right against the parked cars.

I understand your point Daily. Actually, I think we mostly agree on where bike lanes work and where they aren't a necessity (I won't say don't work ;) ). Much more important to me is not putting lanes everywhere but better overall infrastructure for cyclists, mainly access to bridges, over freeways, on light train, etc.

bike lanes are great, but most of the time I need to a lot of places where there are no bike lanes ( off the beaten path, you might say) I dont think its possible for a city to have bike lanes everywhere that you might need to go. However, a few main drags or principal streets for commuter purposes, would be nice. kansas city is not a bike friendly town. Probably a bit like Houston.

Bike lanes seem to be great because the only places they existing are on roads that are already wide enough for them. Its easy for a city to paint a bike lane if there is enough room, far more difficult to widen the right lane.

Round here there are bike lanes everywhere, but most on busy streets end 100ft before intersections (to make room for right turn lane) or disappear under freeway underpasses which are too narrow.

My commute is about 75% bike lane. Of that 75% I find I actually ride in the lane 80% of the time -the other 20% is spend swerving out of bike lane to get out of car door zone, make left turns, and avoid debris in the bike lane and when I am riding faster than traffic. The 25% of my commute with no bike lane is on a 7 lane road with cars traveling at 50mph with an intersection every 1 to 1/2mi - here the right lane is wider and makes for a comfortable ride in traffic. There is a parallel similar road that has intermittent bike lanes - this is far more annoying as I have to constantly swerve into traffic lanes when the bike lane ends or is debis filled.

Al