Serge, I have cited Forester, "Freedom From Fear" and Allen in various threads and have shown where they all indicate that there is indeed increased danger at higher speeds in narrow lanes... you always respond in the same "NO LANES" manner... touting that all lanes are "bike lanes." I will also admit that the danger is not from overtaking type accidents... but simply in misjudgements by drivers that can, in the aforementioned close quarters, lead to accidents.

I find it quite amusing that while all the "experts" do recognize and find exceptions and note difficulties on certain road types, you dogmatically deny this.

I believe this is where we disconnect. We will never see eye to eye on this.

I am not denying that there is increased danger with narrow lanes. I agree with what Forester, et al are saying. However, what you keep ignoring is that the increased danger comes from cyclists riding improperly in the lanes. If cyclists did not ride along the right edge of lanes that are too narrow to be safely shared by a car and bike then there would be no increased danger. That's where the disconnect is. The solution does not have to be expensive roadway widening - it's just as effective for cyclists to take the lane. I would love to see signs on such roads (signs much cheaper than roadway widening) that said as much:

NARROW LANE
CYCLISTS: USE FULL LANE


Of course, the sign would be for novices. Experienced cyclists would already know to do that.

... There is a classic example of this on Vista Sorrento Parkway... near my office... a straight only bike lane sandwiched between two auto lanes with sensors. BTW this street is less than 10 years old and the faded stripes and BIKE LANE stencils exemplify the attention to infrastructure in this area (or lack thereof). ...

Demand a sensor in the bike lane. I believe the traffic engineering manual calls for one in this situation. At least the street now has bike lanes. A few years ago, it was restriped from two lanes with bike lanes to four narrow 50mph lanes without bike lanes or shoulders. I initiated a vocal, vehement email protest and got lots of San Diego County Bicycle Coalition (you are a member, right? If not, why not?) members to join me, and we were able to get the bike lanes reinstated, once the City of San Diego realized how big a potential litigatory can of worms they had opened. (Try jogging the northeast (nonfreeway) side of the road sometime. The blind curve and the 1/4 mile of missing sidewalk made jogging really exciting during the month the road was striped for 4 lanes.)

I never read the entire book but there's one concept I totally disagree with Forrester on and that's his disregard for the rear blinky. I don't know what the conditions of rear blinky's were in the 70's but they are very effective and can save your life today. Forrester thinks you become a bull's eye for drunk drivers and you're better off without a rear light. I don't think Forrester considers a steady rear blinky to be of any value. This is wrong.

Drivers do respond to the blinky and the more the better. Although Forrester is all for the front head lamp, he disregard the rear blinky and this in my opinion is outdated and dangerous information. ...

Lighting and reflector technology have advanced considerably over the years, and that is reason enough for an updated edition. We'll have to see whether Forester, still working and cycling at 74 years young, is interested. (I doubt he would entrust anyone else with the task.) Even if a blinky attracts drunk drivers, it does make one more visible to sober drivers. In dark, foggy, or dusky conditions, I wear them while jogging as well as while cycling.

I am not denying that there is increased danger with narrow lanes. I agree with what Forester, et al are saying. However, what you keep ignoring is that the increased danger comes from cyclists riding improperly in the lanes. If cyclists did not ride along the right edge of lanes that are too narrow to be safely shared by a car and bike then there would be no increased danger. That's where the disconnect is. The solution does not have to be expensive roadway widening - it's just as effective for cyclists to take the lane. I would love to see signs on such roads (signs much cheaper than roadway widening) that said as much:

NARROW LANE
CYCLISTS: TAKE THE LANE


Of course, the sign would be for novices. Experienced cyclists would already know to do that.

RE the sign... I would LOVE to see that... forget the experience of the cyclist, that sign tells motorists what to expect. The darn Bike Route sign doesn't mean squat to a motorist. Hey, we agree on this... that is a good start.


I agree that cyclists taking a lane must ride as if the entire lane is theirs, doing anything else may indicate (falsely) to a motorist that they have room to pass. I personally ride just to the right of the grease slick when holding a lane.

RE the sign... I would LOVE to see that... forget the experience of the cyclist, that sign tells motorists what to expect. The darn Bike Route sign doesn't mean squat to a motorist. Hey, we agree on this... that is a good start.

Hooray!

In the mean time, I figure my ***** on a bike in the center of the lane pretty much sends the same message as such a sign would...

Hooray!

In the mean time, I figure my ***** on a bike in the center of the lane pretty much sends the same message as such a sign would...

No your ***** on a bike just sends the message to a motorist that there is something in the way... the sign says we are supposed to be there. That is the positive reinforcement I want to send to motorists.

Far too many motorists think bikes are toys and do not belong on the road, anywhere.

The sign avoids the issue of each biker having to teach each motorist individually the CVC. That sign is far far more effective than the "share the road sign" I mentioned a few days ago. It really is a good idea!

Far too many motorists think bikes are toys and do not belong on the road, anywhere.

Where are these phantom fantasists? I don't doubt that few exist here and there, but they do seem to be rare enough for me to never encounter them.

And how do you know what they think anyway?

And why do you care?

San Francisco is posting "bikes allowed use of full lane - change lanes to pass signs"
See: http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Article_BAUFL_Sign.pdf

For more info on the SF bike program, see: http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=18784

On a related note:

"I know many people who have learned good urban riding skills, found solidarity with other cyclists, and overcome their fear of suburban cycling to the point where they have given up their cars. All inspired by Critical Mass. Not by John Forester. - Mark Motyka"

If you like that sign, check out the penultimate (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=penultimate) paragraph on page 30 [edit] of this PDF document (http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/buildingservices/crossroads/pub_comment.pdf).

Exactly which paragraph was that? Please copy and post...

How much more exact can I be about which paragraph it is than by identifying it as the penultimate paragraph?

Come on, Randya, I even linked "penultimate" to its definition at m-w.com. Just click on it.

I know how to read, TYVM.

"It would just make shopping there more appealing for my kids and me" is what I come up with, according to your instructions and the link you provided.

If you wanted me to find something else there, again, please copy and post.

Where are these phantom fantasists? I don't doubt that few exist here and there, but they do seem to be rare enough for me to never encounter them.

And how do you know what they think anyway?

And why do you care?

Well not to beat that dead horse again... but...

Where I used to work was down a single lane road with parked cars, after a right turn... I would always take the lane.

I was harassed by essentially co-workers (different divisions) while riding down that lane. (honking and the calling of names) I followed the offendees to where they parked and confronted them in order to educate them with a copy of the CVC (which I used to carry... single sheet that listed the bike rules). It was like talking to a wall. Sad thing is, one of these people was a motorcyclist.

I have also been yelled at by folks in other areas, where again there were no bike lanes and it was a single lane road... in one particular case, I took the lane as there were a series of commercial driveways along the right side and I wanted to make myself very visible for cars coming out of the driveways (proper CV riding). One lady suddenly came to a stop in a driveway and honked and started yelled at me... so I stopped to educate her. It was shortly after that incident that I started carrying the single sheets of the bike rules. It had a "Share the Road" title on the top... it was a single sheet with the rules written in simple form.

Now of course others might say I was being confrontational...

Indeed the confrontations are rare... or at least direct face to face confrontations are rare. Just for grins though sometime ask some folks that do not know you ride what the rules are for bikes on the road, or "do bikes belong on the road." You will get some surprising answers.

A friend of mine was actually hit by a motorist that thought she should not be in the road... no injuries, but he then got out of the car and threw her bike off the road in anger. Left her standing there. Early in the morning... hardly any traffic, guy would just not go around.

Had an equally strange event about a month ago... Was riding down Clairemont Mesa Blvd... early on a Saturday morning... just out for a quick out and back spin. Was on my way back and just had gotten to Ruffin Road... I was in the right lane... taking the lane... on my right was a right turn lane. I am stopped at the light. Now this is early... maybe 7 -7:30 AM. Nobody around... road is wide open. Car pulls up into the right turn lane and the guy rolls down the window... he is lost. He is trying to find Kearny Mesa Road... and the area is full of Kearny this and Kearny that. So I am giving directions. In a minute or two another car pulls up behind the first car. There is NO other traffic. I am talking to the guy in the right turn lane... there are 3 other lanes to the left. Not another car in sight. The guy that just pulled up starts laying on the horn... and shaking his fist.

I finish giving directions and ride off going west. The first guy drives off... straight, in the direction I gave... past me. The horn honker looks like he is going to blow a gasket... he suddenly speeds off right, down Ruffin Road.

I don't think I saw another car until I got to 163.

Some folks are just wound too tight.

Sorry! My bad.

It's the penultimate paragraph on page 30:

For added encouragement, it would also be desirable to post "Cyclists use full lane" signs as are currently used around Boulder on some downhill lanes.

My suggestion: learn to ignore the rare agitated honkers. Enjoy the ride.

I know how to read, TYVM.

"It would just make shopping there more appealing for my kids and me" is what I come up with, according to your instructions and the link you provided.

If you wanted me to find something else there, again, please copy and post.


Maybe he is refering to this bit about bike signs on page 30 of the 35 page document.


My biggest remaining concern for bikes in the plan is the consideration of putting bike lanes next to diagonal parking, specifically on 29th St. This sounds like a bad idea. I don't believe it's safe to ride on the right side of the lane next to diagonal parking, because a bike is much less visible there to cars backing out. Most experienced cyclists know this and would ignore bike lanes. Inexperienced cyclists might not know this, and shouldn't be encouraged to ride on the right where they are in jeopardy.

Instead, I think the best solution is to engineer the street for very slow traffic speed, so bikes feel safe using the general purpose lane. The street already has some curves, which is a good start towards breaking up the line of sight and keeping auto speeds down. The next step would be to make the street cross-section as narrow as possible. I would prefer to see the street narrower than west Walnut St. between 9th and 11th, which similarly has diagonal parking on both sides.

Marked pedestrian crossings, center bollards, etc. would also help to make sure the street feels very slow to cars. For added encouragement, it would also be desirable to post "Cyclists use full lane" signs as are currently used around Boulder on some downhill lanes.

It's always difficult to engineer a single feature to accommodate all types of cyclists: fast, slow, experienced, inexperienced. But in this case I think bike lanes would be a disservice to all of them.

My suggestion: learn to ignore the rare agitated honkers. Enjoy the ride.

Right, like ignoring a barking dog just before it bites.

San Francisco is posting "bikes allowed use of full lane - change lanes to pass signs"
See: http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Article_BAUFL_Sign.pdf

For more info on the SF bike program, see: http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=18784

On a related note:

"I know many people who have learned good urban riding skills, found solidarity with other cyclists, and overcome their fear of suburban cycling to the point where they have given up their cars. All inspired by Critical Mass. Not by John Forester. - Mark Motyka"

Great signs!!! Would love to see those all over CA!

So, how do y'all feel about 'shared lane markings', per this other SF study?

http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=22747

BTW - thanks for the clarification / correction, I knew something wasn't right...

Right, like ignoring a barking dog just before it bites.
More like ignoring a bully who's attempting to bluff you into submission.

While ignoring agitated drivers may not be as much fun as some other options,
it is one of the "10 Suggestions for Avoiding Road Rage"
http://www.foremost.com/PRODUCTS/RV/safety/RAGE.HTM

So, how do y'all feel about 'shared lane markings' ...
My opinion is very close to Fred Oswald's, which he describes in the "Alternatives to Separate Facilities" section of his "Appropriate Facilities & Best Practices" page
http://www.labreform.org/blunders/b9.html

I think these discussions, however heated, are helpful and necessary.

I've discovered two things:

1) The commonality among cyclists in their experiences;

2) The differences among cyclists in their experiences.

If we keep open minds, we might hash out future solutions to developing problems. We don't throw out the old, but integrate it into new and developing situations.

Someone will make decisions regarding how and where cyclists will ride in the future. I just hope it's cyclists, not politicians with freeways on the brain.

For like the 5th day in a row, rubberneckers on the 101 have rear-ended each other. What happens is one guy slows down to look at the mudslides in La Conchita and someone behind, not paying attention, rear-ends someone in front. It may be the car behind the guy or a couple cars back. Today the rear-ender was fatal to the rubbernecker.

I don't doubt that the car behind me while taking a lane can see me, but what about the car behind him? I know that while I'm driving if I was on a fast road and suddenly found myself behind somebody going like 15 miles per hour, it would be a shock. Somebody going 35 on the freeway is a shock. I haven't hit anybody in a situation like that (ok maybe way back when I was 16), but it wouldn't be that hard for some cellphone junkie or drunk to hit somebody in a situation like that.

It probably doesn't happen very often, but is a real danger. I would prefer not to ride a narrow road that would put me in the situation where I was in front of a car that then got rear-ended. The force could push them into me.

In my area people also ride on the freeway regularly. There's one bend in the freeway out at Gaviota that seems to be a magnet for cars killing bikes. It's always a drunk driver, too, who drifts into the shoulder and plows into the cyclist(s). There was a guy in town you'd see riding around with a prosthetic leg from one of those accidents.

I just don't think high-speed traffic and cyclists are a good mixture. It's not about VC or bike lanes. It's just not a good mix. There's no way I'd take a lane on a 65 MPH road. It's not worth it, whether the risk is death or merely abuse, or even just the noise. I don't ride a bike to be some kind of saint or to support any kind of cause or prove I have rights. I do it because it's enjoyable. If it wasn't enjoyable I wouldn't do it. If I lived in Houston, well, I'd move out of there. Sounds unlivable. 65MPH city streets sound unlivable.

That doesn't answer the question, though. It doesn't sound like VC advocates or Forrester would ever change their opinion just because there are more driver distractions and faster roads because VC is probably the only way to negotiate an unlivable city.

... VC is probably the only way to negotiate an unlivable city.
VC is to cycling for transportation as democracy is to forms of Government:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947

My opinion is very close to Fred Oswald's, which he describes in the "Alternatives to Separate Facilities" section of his "Appropriate Facilities & Best Practices" page
http://www.labreform.org/blunders/b9.html
The key to any proposal like this an appropriate and safe design. I agree that is often easier said than done.

The complaints about faded bike lane markings and problems with traffic sensors bring up a major problem with bike lanes--to have a chance of being useful, bike lanes must be designed, built and maintained nearly perfectly. I don't trust any city to do that.

Perhaps the most important thing I learned from reading Effective Cycling is how, instead of waiting "for a large enough gap", to create the gap where you need one. Forester does not put it in those terms, but if you apply his negotiated/merge techniques on these types of roads, that's what happens.

We've already established that claiming an entire (right-most) lane is easy regardless of posted speed. Once the lane is claimed and you need to start merging left, just move near the left edge of this claimed lane and look back. In fast traffic you probably have to also stick out your arm. You're not indicating that you are moving left - you are indicating that you would like to move left, and you are asking for permission to do so. Some will ignore the request. Others will assume that you're moving left and will slow down. Still others will recognize what you are doing and also slow down to your speed to let you in. At any rate, motorists will slow down for you and let you in. Now the rightmost lane that you originally claimed is available for fullspeed motorist travel. In the mean time, you have claimed the second lane, and are now moving to the left edge to prepare to negotiate a merge into the third lane. This process is repeated until you are in the left turn lane, regardless of how many lanes there are. The only way the number of lanes matters is in determining how soon you have to start the merge-left process.

At no time are you passively waiting for a gap. You are actively creating one, by looking back and signaling with your left arm. And the whole time you are moving left, there is a motorist behind you "blocking". Never do you move out in front of someone who has not granted you the right-of-way first. This works for me regardless of the posted speed.

Serge

I do this all the time, but as other posters have said, it becomes more difficult as speeds increase. First, the negotiation time-window with each driver is reduced as their speeds increase. Second, drivers are less likely to invite/let you in when the speed delta is greater and they must slow more. Third, it becomes more unsettling to extend a hand near high-speed traffic and look back while also keeping a straight line over a substantial time required to obtain the gap. This does require a bit more physical skill to become confident at it. That's why I think that vehicular left turns near high speed traffic are one of the few vehicular techniques that do require significant physical as well as mental skill development. But on the other hand, those who promote segregated facilities for "non-elite" cyclists don't have a better solution for left turns. Anybody can make a "pedestrian" left turn if they want to, segregated bike facility or not. Vehicular left turns are just more convenient, and therefore worth mastering.

VC is to cycling for transportation as democracy is to forms of Government:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947
I like that. I like something else he supposedly said (paraphrased) when a woman who disliked him intensely remarked, "If you were my husband, I'd put poison in your tea."

"If I were your husband, I'd drink it," said he.

What were we talking about? :D

Reminds me of something Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) once supposedly said to a woman seated next to him at a formal dinner at the White House:

Clemens: (joking) "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Woman: (joking) "Well, yes..."
Clemens: (seriously) "Would you sleep with me for five dollars?"
Woman: (mortified) "Of course not! What do you think I am!?"
Clemens: (seriously): "We've already established what you are, ma'am. Now we're just haggling for price."

I do this all the time, but as other posters have said, it becomes more difficult as speeds increase.
Just to make it obvious, I'd like to point out to readers that the speed of overtaking traffic isn't the only significant factor. For example, if the volume of high-speed traffic is low enough and the sight line is long enough, then low-speed traffic can (after looking and yielding) use the visible gaps to change lanes without having to negotiate, speed up or wait for long periods of time.
Ref: Effective Cycling, "Changing Lanes in Traffic" (chapter 31 in the first MIT edition)

The key to any proposal like this an appropriate and safe design. I agree that is often easier said than done.

Obviously what really compounds this issue the the variety of voices from the biking community... one of which says "all lanes are bike lanes, we don't need separate lanes."

Now as a municipality, given that obviously cheaper alternative (all lanes... etc ) and hearing that it has "great support" in the cycling community, what would you choose to do?

Obviously what really compounds this issue the the variety of voices from the biking community... one of which says "all lanes are bike lanes, we don't need separate lanes."

Now as a municipality, given that obviously cheaper alternative (all lanes... etc ) and hearing that it has "great support" in the cycling community, what would you choose to do?

Well, I can dream, can't I? Do you know of any instance where this wonderful thing actually happened (where a municipality decided not to paint even one bike lane because enough in the cycling community said "all lanes are bike lanes")?

...where a municipality decided not to paint even one bike lane because enough in the cycling community said "all lanes are bike lanes"?
Actually, this wouldn't be a bad thing to keep repeating to many people in government, from the mayor, to the police chief, to the consultants, and to the traffic engineers, for starters...although I think the hardest people to convince might be those cyclists and cycling orgs that are vested in the bike lane system...and the motorists as well...big job, good luck!