Commuting - OK, it's time to VOTE: Bike Lanes or Not

Make it short, sweet and quick! But feel free to explain AFTER the initial yes or no. I am really curious about the consensus of your esteemed readership (I'm not trying to be funny here). Here's hoping for a huge turnout.

Yes, geting run over is not fun.
~X-Zen~

Yes, I just feel like my fingers are safer with a bike lane.

No is my first reaction. For me personally, they are of little benefit and you have the disadvantages that are often cited (in the car door zone, a place for debris to collect, ambiguous and dangerous situations at intersections). However, my opinion is not a particularly strong one. I don't think I would ever lobby for bike lanes, but neither would would I lobby against them since some people feel more comfortable in a bike lane and I can ride in the regular lane when necessary as I did last night when the bike lane had snow and gravel pushed over by the cars and plows.

No is my first reaction. For me personally, they are of little benefit and you have the disadvantages that are often cited (in the car door zone, a place for debris to collect, ambiguous and dangerous situations at intersections). However, my opinion is not a particularly strong one. I don't think I would ever lobby for bike lanes, but neither would would I lobby against them since some people feel more comfortable in a bike lane and I can ride in the regular lane when necessary as I did last night when the bike lane had snow and gravel pushed over by the cars and plows.

Would you like 2000lb cars wizzing past you at 30+mph

NO
Bike lanes may solve a few problems, but I think they create more than they solve. Expecially at intersections.

Education of the public in the rules of vehicular cycling (riders & cagers alike) is the real solution.

Uh, what exactly is the question and where do we vote?

I think you meant to submit a poll but you didn't?

(I'll delete this post once this is fixed).

I would like to accomodate Serge, but I really don't know how to change this now. But, do you really mean you don't follow what I'm asking, or are you just taking issue with my use of faulty semantics? If you do follow, then please chime in. Actually, on further investigation, I'm really not sure if there is a way to change the title. If there is, it's not too apparent to me. But, I'll change it for you here: BIKE LANES OR NOT? THAT'S THE QUESTION. Hope that helped.

XzEn54321 - have you read this thread?

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=82599

I know it's long, but it has some great stuff in it about bike lanes.

I'm generally opposed to bike lanes, except on freeways. Here's my reasoning:


Bike lane proponents who think that bike lanes give cyclists more room confuse lane width with bike lanes. Consider any road with a bike lane. Removal of the bike lane means removal of the stripe - the pavement remains. Such a "wide outside curb lane" is far preferable to a narrower main lane and a bike lane within the same space delineated with a painted stripe for the reasons that follow.
All but the best-designed bike lanes make cycling less safe. Even the rare well-designed bike lanes don't make cycling safer. The government has been forced to stop claiming bike lanes make cycling safer years ago, but the notion that they do remains (unfortunately, even many cyclists still believe it, and, so, demand more and more of them).
Experienced/trained/educated cyclists don't need bike lanes, for they know to ignore them and choose their lane positioning based on all kinds of conditions. Sometimes that may put them in the bike lane, sometimes it doesn't, but the existence of the bike lane stripe makes no difference. In other words, you ignore the stripe and treat it like a wide outside curb lane.
Novice cyclists, motorists and law enforcement officers are mislead by bike lanes into thinking that proper and appropriate lateral lane positioning for a cyclist is a static issue, when, in fact, it is a constant dynamic process. The cyclist riding in traffic needs to be constantly evaluating current conditions and making his lateral lane position decisions accordingly. Factors to consider include: speed and volume of traffic, the cyclist's speed, ambient light, weather, road conditions, cyclist's destination, etc. etc. These factors are constantly changing. The idea that a static facility like a bike lane could delineate a cyclist's proper and appropriate position is wrong and dangerous in and of itself. The very existence of each and every bike lane screams this misguided lesson.
Novice cyclists, motorists and law enforcement officers improperly trained by the very existence of bike lanes on roads with bike lanes that proper and appropriate lateral lane positioning for a cyclist can be delineated in a static fashion is then applied even on roads where there are no bike lanes, where novice cyclists think they are required to keep to the right regardless of the conditions, and where motorists and police officers expect them to.
Motorist travel sweeps puncture and crash causing debris off the roadway. When no cyclists are present on the roadway, motorists tend to travel, at least sometimes, even near the right edge, thus sweeping that area as well. Unless, of course, if a bike lane stripe is present, in which all the debris is swept into... the bike lane. In other words, bike lanes suck.

No.
We have bike lanes on most major routes now but that doesn't keep the 3000 pound cars & 10,000+ pound trucks from "wizzing" past at 40 to 50 MPH! Installing the bike lane meant losing 1 traffic lane from the main Westbound route into downtown. Previously traffic would slow down & pass with caution but bike lanes seemed to encourage traffic to just roar past. Don

Yes, geting run over is not fun.

No, getting run over is not fun.

XzEn54321 - do you understand bostontrevor's response? He's voting NO for the same reason that you're voting YES: because "getting run over is not fun". (very clever, BT).

In other words, you seem to believe that bike lanes make it less likely for a cyclist to get run over, while BT believes bike lanes make it more likely for cyclists to be run over. I of course agree with BT. In essence, that's what the "Hey anti-bike laners... what's wrong with the picture" thread is all about, and I really don't want to rehash it here. I do hope to bring it to your attention however.

Many cyclists are unaware of all the arguments other cyclists have against bike lanes, and that thread covers many of them.

Serge

It's not just the title. There are (at least) two types of threads: regular and poll. A poll thread allows you to vote and tallies the votes automatically. I expected this thread to be a poll type.

Man, I really didn't know about any of this, I guess I'll be counting "by hand" now. I'll be more careful next time.

XzEn54321 - have you read this thread?

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=82599

I know it's long, but it has some great stuff in it about bike lanes.

Anyway, it appears we're not having a real poll thread on this. So, for the record, my vote is:

NO

My reasoning is:


Bike lane proponents who think that bike lanes give cyclists more room confuse lane width with bike lanes. Consider any road with a bike lane. Removal of the bike lane means removal of the stripe - the pavement remains. Such a "wide outside curb lane" is far preferable to a narrower main lane and a bike lane within the same space delineated with a painted stripe for the reasons that follow.
All but the best-designed bike lanes make cycling less safe. Even the rare well-designed bike lanes don't make cycling safer. The government has been forced to stop claiming bike lanes make cycling safer years ago, but the notion that they do remains (unfortunately, even many cyclists still believe it, and, so, demand more and more of them).
Experienced/trained/educated cyclists don't need bike lanes, for they know to ignore them and choose their lane positioning based on all kinds of conditions. Sometimes that may put them in the bike lane, sometimes it doesn't, but the existence of the bike lane stripe makes no difference. In other words, you ignore the stripe and treat it like a wide outside curb lane.
Novice cyclists, motorists and law enforcement officers are mislead by bike lanes into thinking that proper and appropriate lateral lane positioning for a cyclist is a static issue, when, in fact, it is a constant dynamic process. The cyclist riding in traffic needs to be constantly evaluating current conditions and making his lateral lane position decisions accordingly. Factors to consider include: speed and volume of traffic, the cyclist's speed, ambient light, weather, road conditions, cyclist's destination, etc. etc. These factors are constantly changing. The idea that a static facility like a bike lane could delineate a cyclist's proper and appropriate position is wrong and dangerous in and of itself. The very existence of each and every bike lane screams this misguided lesson.
Novice cyclists, motorists and law enforcement officers improperly trained by the very existence of bike lanes on roads with bike lanes that proper and appropriate lateral lane positioning for a cyclist can be delineated in a static fashion is then applied even on roads where there are no bike lanes, where novice cyclists think they are required to keep to the right regardless of the conditions, and where motorists and police officers expect them to.
Motorist travel sweeps puncture and crash causing debris off the roadway. When no cyclists are present on the roadway, motorists tend to travel, at least sometimes, even near the right edge, thus sweeping that area as well. Unless, of course, if a bike lane stripe is present, in which all the debris is swept into... the bike lane. In other words, bike lanes suck.


7.Paint on pavement is slicker than pavement, especially when it is wet or icy.



NO

I support bike lanes just because they will get more people cycling. And also everyone who is driving with learn that cyclists are on the roads and are there legally. Go to a town with bike lanes and cyclists get a lot more respect.

Yes of course. Having a dedicated space for bikers provides a visual barrier to autos and an additional 5-6 feet of traveling sapce for bikers. Its a no brainer.

Yes, but only if they do not run right where cars can open their doors, people bother to plow them, and they arn't the most rutted, nasty part of the road.

Would you like 2000lb cars wizzing past you at 30+mph

I'm kind of neutral to the idea. 2000lb cars wiz by me at 30+ mph all the time. It is part of sharing the public roads. It would be nice if everyone road a bike, but that's not going to happen any time soon. Car drivers are generally more predictable than the runners and strollers who share the bike lane with me.

Edited to add: Someone else's post reminded of one other point. Cars wiz past me at 30+ mph in the bike lane as well. Actually, sometimes a bike lane encourages them to wiz past at speed when no bike lane will encourage some caution.

I support bike lanes just because they will get more people cycling. And also everyone who is driving with learn that cyclists are on the roads and are there legally. Go to a town with bike lanes and cyclists get a lot more respect.

Because a dead cyclist is better than a living motorist any day. Progress through body count.

I would vote in Serge's poll but there isn't an option I agree with.

I don't hate bike lanes. I think they're an unnecessary expenditure as appropriate bike lanes are striped where the lane is already shareable, but I won't oppose them in those cases if it gets more people riding.

I do hate badly designed bike lanes which is most. They range from a little more to WAY more dangerous than riding in the street while trading on the misperception that they're safe, especially for novice cyclists.

It seems a little cynical to promote cycling at the cost of cyclists' safety.

I would vote in Serge's poll but there isn't an option I agree with.

Sbhikes, since you already made it over, please let me know if you liked bike lanes, in general, or not, or that they are irrelevant altogether. Again, if you just checked off on one of the aforementioned three options, I would be tickled to death.

sbhikes - just pick the one that is closest to your position, and clarify in a post. Okay?

Bike lanes? Well, I don't really know. I haven't seen one in a long time now.

Probably not though, I have had much better rides when I go a bit into the lane as opposed to the shoulder. The last bike lane I rode in (different city, about a year ago) I was passed once by a truck moving at 45ish mph and close enough I could stick out my pinky and touch it.

Didn't like that much.

I've long felt it's a real waste not to allow cyclists on freeways where there's usually an 8-10 ft unused shoulder...good sightlines, good grading, good paving, no dangerous crosstraffic, even the occasional (or not so occasional) encouraging airblast boost from passing semis.... Of course, not every multi-lane is amenable, but most of the rural interstates seem OK...

Sometimes it's hard to visualize the dangerous areas, since here in California, at least in my area, most bike lanes are fairly wide. We do have some where cars are parked next tot he curb, but the lane is then just about 6 feet out from the cars. We do have the exception written into the law that says we can go outside the bike lane if it's dangerous. I believe we can also ride on the freeways unless it's specifically marked. The intersections seem kind of crazy though. When they paint the lanes, I don't think they end them far enough back from the intersection for us to maneuver properly if we stay in them.

Here are the choices in Serge's poll:


The more bike lanes, the better (even on residential streets).

That's a bit extreme.


The fewer bike lanes, the better (even on freeways).

Also too extreme.


BLs are good on high volume/high speed roads with few intersections and driveways.

Your options seem to be bike lanes everywhere or only on the freeway and high/volume high speed roads. This is still too extreme.


The fewer bike lanes the better, but they are okay on freeways.

I wouldn't pick this option. Still too extreme. It's the same as the second one, really.


Bike lanes are good or at least a necessary evil because they are the only way we can get politicians to eliminate parking on some streets.

There's a brand new argument/discussion being tossed into the mix: what politicians will do or not do, and whether parking on streets is good or not.


Bike lanes are good or at least a necessary evil because they are the only way we can prevent the politicians from adding more lanes to certain roadways and thus losing the wide outside curb lane.

Again, why cloud the vote with what politicians will do or not do?

My personal experience is that I like bike lanes (real ones, not just painted stripes in the side of the road) when they are there, and when they are not there, there seems to be an implied bike lane to the right of all the car traffic, and that's where I happily ride. I also like separated bike paths for those times when I want to go out sightseeing and relaxing (traffic noise can be stressful), or for when I want to whiz in and out of the pedestrians (I think that's fun sometimes.)

You know, it's not really the bike lanes that I like--the painted lines in the street--it's the engineering of the roads to accomodate bike traffic and not make it so complicated you need to come to a place like this for advice. That's what I like, whether it takes special painted lines in the street (which sometimes I think it does) or not. Oh, and the best is when they make a separated bike path with no cross traffic, no car traffic and no pedestrians that you can just get on and ride for miles as fast and as brain-dead as possible.

Bike lanes would soon equal bike slums. As has been stated time and time again.

Ok, two threads merged to one. Everyone vote!

Koffee Brown

Forum Mod

Why are truck lanes installed on freeways with steep grades?
Why are bus lanes put on some freeways and expressways?
Why do some two-lane highways have passing lanes?

Answer: sometimes it makes sense to separate high speed and low speed traffic into their own lanes using traffic stripes. This is called "channelization." It was proven decades ago that channelization works. That's why a busy two-lane highway with a centerline stripe is safer than a two-lane without one. Or why some highways have separate merge lanes or turning lanes. When properly engineered the presence of a traffic stripe can cause a measurable decrease in the accident rate.

Under the right circumstances, a bike lane is a good thing if it is done to channelize faster cars from slower bikes. And using a bike lane in this way is still "vehicular cycling" in the same way a truck is still a vehicle while in a truck lane.

Properly engineered, bike lanes have their place in the world.

To many absolutes in the poll. I think there are more shades of grey.

I would change "BLs are good on high volume/high speed roads with few intersections and driveways." to "Properly designed BLs are one possible solution for high volume/high speed roads with few intersections and driveways."

Why are truck lanes installed on freeways with steep grades?
Why are bus lanes put on some freeways and expressways?
Why do some two-lane highways have passing lanes?

Answer: sometimes it makes sense to separate high speed and low speed traffic into their own lanes using traffic stripes. This is called "channelization." It was proven decades ago that channelization works. That's why a busy two-lane highway with a centerline stripe is safer than a two-lane without one. Or why some highways have separate merge lanes or turning lanes. When properly engineered the presence of a traffic stripe can cause a measurable decrease in the accident rate.

Under the right circumstances, a bike lane is a good thing if it is done to channelize faster cars from slower bikes. And using a bike lane in this way is still "vehicular cycling" in the same way a truck is still a vehicle while in a truck lane.

Properly engineered, bike lanes have their place in the world.
One example of this would be providing climbing lanes for bikes in the uphill direction on certain roads. Downhill a bike lane is not only not necessary, it is often very dangerous. A one-way lane like this is easier to install if there are right of way width constraints, too.

One factor in Portland is that the city hardy ever agrees to remove parking to install a bike lane.

i can take em or leave em. wide roads with room for both cars and bicycles is best for me. i prefer cars "whizzing by" than being "whizzed on". regards, henry

Why are truck lanes installed on freeways with steep grades?
Why are bus lanes put on some freeways and expressways?
Why do some two-lane highways have passing lanes?

Answer: sometimes it makes sense to separate high speed and low speed traffic into their own lanes using traffic stripes. This is called "channelization." It was proven decades ago that channelization works.

Yes, but it's also understood that the vehicles that have special use lanes also have unrestricted access to the other lanes. Buses are not restricted to bus lanes, HOV aren't restricted to HOV lanes, etc. Additionally those lanes are engineered, built, and maintained to the same standards as the rest of the roadway.

Imagine how it would be received if an HOV lane were installed adjacent to on-street parking the way most bike lanes are.

So I'm not opposed to bike lanes, but I think even if properly built and maintained, they can only be designed into the street in the same sort of cases as those other types of special purpose lanes. That's rarely what bike lane proponents have in mind.

Ok, two threads merged to one. Everyone vote!

Koffee Brown

Forum Mod
Your above action of tacking on Serge's thread which was hardly getting any responses, at the top of mine which was doing well enough on its own, is unbecoming of a moderator worth his salt and is a major turnoff. Hope you improve. You could start by removing the long-winded and uninvited poll from the top of these pages. It runs opposite the spirit of my thread and just doesn't fit in, this shoud've been obvious to someone in your position. Please unmerge the two. Thank you.

Bike lanes are great when implemented as "considerate road design" - here in the UK a simple extra solid or broken line at the edge of the road. It indicates the potential presence of bikes and is generally well respected by motorists. Unfortunately the help these offer usually disappears when one approaches any difficult junction or roundabout which is not ideal. This is the case even in Oxford, where cycling has a high prominance compared to many places in the UK.

However, almost worse than the lack of "considerate road design" there has been a tendancy to put overdesigned bike lane designs into practice, including dangerous seperator bumps, bollards, impossible routing around car parking spaces etc. A case of someone who never rides a bike thinking they have done a wonderful job at providing facilities. My other pet hate is bike lanes routed on the pavement (sidewalk) that are, in my view unusable, above 5 mph and force the cyclist to stop in order to cross side streets.

Cheers,

Ed

There are places I ride were a bike lane is a blessing that keeps me out of the way of speeding rednecks. These are long stretches of rural roadways with few intersections and driveways, where no one would ever consider parking on the side of the road. I can go out on training rides and put my head down, focus on the ride, and forget cars are even on the same road as me. There are other places I've seen where bike lanes are a complete waste of paint & signage. These include residential & city areas with many intersections & parked cars. In the latter I rarely ever see anyone use them anyway.
As long as there is no law requiring me to use one, I couldn't give a crap whether they're there or not. I'll always ride in the manner in which I feel safest.

Imagine how it would be received if an HOV lane were installed adjacent to on-street parking the way most bike lanes are.

On Highway 101 between Ventura and Santa Barbara there is not only on-street parking but a bike lane as well, right next to 65 mph high-speed, high-volume traffic. Thankfully the bike lane keeps the cars out and keeps you away from the door zone. I think that is why it's there.

I'm a middle of the roader. (Not literally!) I think if lane widths are generous, then bike lanes are not needed. Commuting in Cleveland was challanging at times, even with wide dual lanes. I think bike lanes can be novel in some cities and can get driver's used to bikes on the road. maybe. ("get on the sidewalk!") I have to say, after a few months of a 35-40 mile round trip Cleveland commute, I am very happy with my 12 mile round trip colorado commute mostly on a multi-use trail. It's like a permanent vacation. It's ironic, of course, that cycling is much more accepted here in colorado, and I am sure I would have far fewer problems on the roads here, now.

No matter how wide the road is, cars think you belong on the sidewalk in Houston. So when i have a bike lane with the painted logo/arrow, it is much safer because it is now obvious to the cars that I am where I am supposed to be. They have their lane and I have mine. Plain and simple.

No Bike lane.

Lanes wide enough for a car and a bike are what I prefer. Cars help keep the lane clear of junk.

Bike lanes on a highway? I may be crazy but I'm not getting on an interstate on my bike with people doing 70+.

Yes, geting run over is not fun.
~X-Zen~

I think he summed up what i was going to say,

Also they should make them bigger, there are parts in my town where there is just a line and the dirt, and i have been cut off because the lin ended and have fallen in the mix of rocks and dirt in the side of the road and it sucks, ALOT.

I’m surprised at the number of people that are opposed to bike lanes. I have not ridden in many other cities in the US, but here in Portland we have great bike lanes and a lot of them. If I am in Portland metro or any of the surrounding suburbs on any kind of high traffic volume road, give me a bike lane and I’m happy. As a motorist and as a cyclist, I like the visual separation of the two lanes. I think motorists respect the lane because it is easy to see.

Lanes wide enough for a car and a bike are what I prefer. Cars help keep the lane clear of junk.


What makes you think this? Cars stay a certain distance from the curb, period. And all the junk will blow towards the curb. If there are cars wizzing by, I am near the curb, bike lane or not. If there are no cars to be seen, I'm out in the lane, bike lane or not. Having a painted white line doesn't change how much junk/dirt. At least that's my experience around here.
We could definitely use more street sweeping.
Anyone know who to contact about that?

Seeing as most motorists are not skilled enough to drive in the center of the lane or give me enough room but generally do have the skills to drive between two lines, I like bike lanes. I far prefer driving on roads with a bike lane, or a well defined wide shoulder. The bikelane usually makes sure that that space of the road is reserved for bikes. Granted there are a few stupid lanes around where they try to merge parking and bike lane but for the most part I like the bike lanes. I get yelled at and harrassed a lot less on roads with bike lanes because the stupid motorists think I have a right to be there (right or wrong this is their thought and until you get a superbowl commercial that says otherwise it will always be that way). I say stupid motorist because smart ones don't yell at and harass legal cyclists.

Why are truck lanes installed on freeways with steep grades?
Why are bus lanes put on some freeways and expressways?
Why do some two-lane highways have passing lanes?

Answer: sometimes it makes sense to separate high speed and low speed traffic into their own lanes using traffic stripes. This is called "channelization." It was proven decades ago that channelization works. That's why a busy two-lane highway with a centerline stripe is safer than a two-lane without one. Or why some highways have separate merge lanes or turning lanes. When properly engineered the presence of a traffic stripe can cause a measurable decrease in the accident rate.

Under the right circumstances, a bike lane is a good thing if it is done to channelize faster cars from slower bikes. And using a bike lane in this way is still "vehicular cycling" in the same way a truck is still a vehicle while in a truck lane.

Properly engineered, bike lanes have their place in the world.

WOW! Excellent! Great! Bravo!. This is the only intelligent argument I've seen presented here in support of bike lanes.

I suspect where we disagree is where "under the right circumstances" applies. In particular, I don't think a bike lane on any roadway with relatively frequent intersections and/or driveways is "under the right circumstances" (for reasons I've outlined in numerous posts here), which eliminates most every bike lane in an urban environment, which is almost every single existing bike lane. However, I do agree that bike lanes along freeways might very well be "under the right circumstances". And I'll admit that on "expressway" type urban arterials with infrequent intersections and no driveways, mall entrances, etc. bike lanes do not present as many problems as they do on other types of roadways.

Except under the very rare "right circumstances", the idea that it is possible to channelize slower bikes from faster cars is preposterous, and dangerous in and of itself. The underlying concept of channelization is the essence of the problem with bike lanes. Appropriate and proper lane positioning by the cyclist is a dynamic process dependent on ever-changing factors like the cyclist's destination, speed and volume of traffic, the speed of the cyclist, ambient light, weather, road condition, quanitity of debris and other obstacles, etc. etc. The idea that all these factors can be ignored and cyclists can be "channelized" flies in the face of the very thing that cyclists and motorists (not to mention law enforcement officers) need to learn about the proper behavior of cyclists on the roadway.

Just say no to (at least most) bike lanes.

Serge

I’m surprised at the number of people that are opposed to bike lanes. I have not ridden in many other cities in the US, but here in Portland we have great bike lanes and a lot of them. If I am in Portland metro or any of the surrounding suburbs on any kind of high traffic volume road, give me a bike lane and I’m happy. As a motorist and as a cyclist, I like the visual separation of the two lanes. I think motorists respect the lane because it is easy to see.

Are you riding in them this week? They suck when you need to ride outside them because everyone else on the road unleashes their resentment and anger (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=857492#post856762). I live in Portland, I've been riding a long time here, and I wish the bike lanes never existed.

Too funny. These posts were one after the other...





Lanes wide enough for a car and a bike are what I prefer. Cars help keep the lane clear of junk.

What makes you think this? Cars stay a certain distance from the curb, period. And all the junk will blow towards the curb.


Seeing as most motorists are not skilled enough to drive in the center of the lane or give me enough room but generally do have the skills to drive between two lines, I like bike lanes.
Anyone else see how Paul L's post is an inadverdent rebuttal to d2create's contention that debris is not swept any differently regardless of the existence of a bike lane stripe?

Paul L is correct. When there is no bike lane stripe, some significant percentage of cars are driven further to the right, thus sweeping off the debris near the edge all the way to the edge. When there is a bike lane stripe, then the "debris zone" is basically the whole bike lane - 4 to 5 feet. When there is no bike lane stripe, then the debris zone is just a few inches near the edge. Granted, there are some cyclists who try to ride along the very edge at the curb, and, to them, this won't make much difference. But for those of us who recognize that the safest place to ride is about 3 feet to the right of motorist traffic, we prefer not having the bike lane stripe so that where we ride is free of crash and puncture causing debris.

Also, something that Paul seems to overlook is that while some motorists drive nearer to the right sometimes on roads without bike lanes (and thus sweep up the debris where there would be a bike lane), they only do this when no cyclists are presents. When cyclists are present (on a road with no bike lane), motorists tend to pass the cyclists with at least as much room as the cyclist has established between himself and the edge of the roadway. Try it: On a roadway without a bike lane ride within inches of the curb edge. You fill find that at least some motorists will pass you within inches on your left. Now ride the same stretch of roadway, this time 4-5 feet from the edge. You will find that motorists will tend to pass you with 4-5 feet of clearance on your left.

Because of the way bike lanes tend to fill with debris, cyclists often ride on or right next to the bike lane stripe, which is ironically further left than they might ride if there was no stripe (and thus no debris). In the mean time, motorists are generally less careful about keeping a safe distance between their vehicles and the cyclists when they are separated by a white stripe. Hence, motorists tend to pass cyclists with less passing distance on roadways with bike lanes than on roadways without bike lanes (assuming same width of roadway, of course, and that the cyclist is not riding along the curb edge - see previous paragraph). This might not seem obvious to some cyclists since the wide roadways are where the bike lanes tend to be, and where they are passed very closely by motorists is on the narrow roadways with insufficient room for bike lanes. But that's not an apples to apples comparison. While they credit the bike lanes for causing motorists to give them more space, it's really the extra pavement width that's causing it.

Serge

The money spent on bike lanes would be better spent on education and enforcement of current traffic laws.
The few bike lanes available in/around Cleveland are always filled with debris and many of them end abruptly. I continue to ride in the appropriate lane and indicate my turns with hand signals regardless of whether a BL is present. The law allows this and I am within my rights to do so.

The seperate lanes described earlier in this thread are installed to reduce congestion and are in no way intended to protect a particular type of vehicle. Bikes in the U.S. do not cause congestion.

The seperate lanes described earlier in this thread are installed to reduce congestion and are in no way intended to protect a particular type of vehicle. Bikes in the U.S. do not cause congestion.


Thanks for this very succinct and powerful rebuttal to JamesV's comparison of bike lanes to truck and bus lanes. The fact that bikes do not cause congestion in the U.S. is an excellent and very relevant point.

The original basis for establishing bike lanes was safety. But that has proven to be false to the point where no one has officially claimed safety as a basis for bike lanes in years. What remains is the desire of some motorists to not be ever delayed, not even temporarily or insignificantly, by a bicycle, and the false perception of many cyclists that bike lanes provide a safe sanctuary for them. Also, some cyclists like bike lanes because they believe they enable safe passage of slow and stopped motorist traffic (they may enable such passage to some degree in some cases, but it's hardly "safe" to pass on the right in these situations at any significant speed). These are the main factors I am aware of that form the basis for bike lane support.

The cycling community must come together and realize that bike lanes are bad for cycling, and start fighting them tooth and nail.

Serge

Bike lanes are like training wheels. Both give a false sense of security and are quickly outgrown.
Enjoy