My biggest concern with bike lanes is based on the premise that in
order to ride in the safest manner in traffic, a cyclist must learn
"dynamic lateral lane positioning with a bias towards lane center".
Bike lanes, by their very existence, even the supposedly well-designed
ones, make cycling much more dangerous to almost all cyclists because
they inhibit novice cyclists from learning "dynamic lane positioning"
and discourage experienced cyclists from practicing it. Further, this
inhibition and discouragement applies to cyclists brainwashed by bike
lanes to ride dangerously ("statically positioned") even on roadways
without bike lanes.

Study after study shows that the safest and most effective way to ride
a bicycle in traffic involves dynamic lateral lane positioning by the
cyclist, where the appropriate lateral lane position at any particular
time varies depending on the current conditions, which are constantly
changing. The ever-changing factors that the traffic cyclist must
constantly re-evaluate include:

1. Destination of the cyclist.
2. Volume and speed of other traffic.
3. Speed of the cyclist.
4. Speed, lane position and destination of motorists in the
cyclist's immediate vicinity.
5. Response of nearby motorists to the cyclists' requests for the
motorists to yield the right-of-way.
6. Pavement condition (pot holes, presence of grease slick, water,
rubble, sand, trash, etc.)
7. Ambient light.
8. Weather.
9. Time needed to reach next intersection.
10. etc. etc.

Taking into account all these factors (and others) and adjusting the
cyclist's lateral lane position accordingly makes him much safer
because it makes him more visible and predictable, and being visible
and predictable is the cornerstone of safe cycling.

In general, whenever (but not only when) there is no one behind who
would be slowed down by the cyclist, the thru cyclist is safer riding
in the center of the lane (somewhere between the left and right tire
tracks of regular motor traffic). He is safer in the center than
along the edge of the road because he is more visible and predictable in
that position. He is more visible because he is riding where
motorists tend to look and focus: the area of the roadway where cars
are normally driven. He is more predictable because he is riding
where through motorists drive; off to the side is where turning
traffic tends to travel. If the thru cyclist rides along the edge of
the roadway he is more likely to be misjudged to be preparing for a
turn rather than continuing straight. A cyclist riding in the center
of the lane is more visible and predictable to motorists approaching
from behind (for whom the cyclist can move aside when they are close
enough and it is safe to do so), and he is more visible and
predictable to motorists in cross traffic that can potentially move
into or in front of him if they don't see him or misjudge his
destination intent.

A bias to riding in the center should make the cyclist safer even from
the rare but deadly motorist-passing-cyclist type collisions. In those
collisions it is often the case that the motorist was never aware of
the presence of the cyclist (or only became aware of his presence when
it was too late), and simply drifted into him. It is only logical
that such collisions would be avoided if the motorist could be made
aware of the presence of the cyclist. It also seems clear that a
motorist is much more likely to be aware of a cyclist who is riding in
the center of the lane in his path up ahead, and, only when noticed,
moves aside closer to the edge to allow the motorist to pass, than he
is likely to be aware of a cyclist who is riding near the edge (and
never in the motorist's path) the entire time.

The problem with bike lanes is that they inhibit novice cyclists from
learning dynamic lane positioning, and discourage even experienced
cyclists from practicing it. In fact, bike lanes encourage the exact
opposite: static lateral lane positioning, primarily at the edge of
the roadway (with the occasional supposedly "well-designed" BL placed
to the left of a right turn lane - but never-the-less communicating
that there is one particular "correct" static lateral lane position
for a cyclist, regardless of the factors outlined above). Worse, even
the best bike lanes are monuments to the concept that the cyclist's
primary directive is to stay out of the way of motorists, a dangerous
lesson conveyed by the very existence of bike lanes not only to
cyclists, but to motorists and law enforcement officers as well.

I don't know which came first: bike lanes, or the idea that cyclists
should keep to the side "out of the way" of motorists. But I do know
that bike lanes foster and propogate that dangerous idea. How many
cyclists must needlessly be injured or killed before cyclists finally
get fed up with these dangerous facilities?

Even the best bike lanes teach cyclists to ride unsafely, inhibit them
from learning to ride safely, and discourage cyclists from practicing
safe cycling. Bike lanes, even the best ones, teach motorists and law
enforcement officers that safe cyclist behavior is incorrect. That, in
a nutshell, is my biggest concern with bike lanes.

Serge

We paint a stripe on the road where we want you to ride. Nevermind that you rode there anyway, before we painted the stripe. Now, we are giving you your "own lane" to ride in (even though you already had it.) What do you call someone who "gives" you something you already had, while taking away the rest?

Soon, this "bike lane" becomes a substandard place to ride, filled with debris and parked cars, or worse, the "bike lane" was painted next to curbside parking to begin with, which is a death-trap. Motorists hate to see you leave your "bike lane" (to avoid the natural debris and the drain grates that fill them) and venture into "theirs," since you've already been given your "own lane." Bicycle riders should be more reasonable, after all we've given them.

(And if we need that space back, remember, we "gave" it to you in the first place, and so we can take it back.)

(Serge, you are too cool in my book, but I think the length of your posts chill some people down. :D )

I know. I can't seem to find a happy medium between the opening post in this thread, and simply writing:


Bike Lanes Kill!

My biggest concerns with bike lanes are twofold.

1) They do nothing to reduce collisions at (or near) intersections and,

2) drivers use bike lanes as an extra lane for them and drive, pass or park in them.

My biggest concerns with bike lanes are twofold.

1) They do nothing to reduce collisions at (or near) intersections and,

2) drivers use bike lanes as an extra lane for them and drive, pass or park in them.

Bike lanes do nothing to reduce collisions, period.

What's wrong with drivers using bike lanes? At least in CA, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane prior to making a right turn, and are allowed to do so up to 200 feet before the turn.

What's wrong with drivers merging into the bike lane to make a right turn if cyclists are supposed to merge left to go straight?

What's wrong with drivers merging into the bike lane to make a right turn if cyclists are supposed to merge left to go straight?


Ask closetbiker. He was the one expressing concern about motorists using bike lanes as an "extra lane" and for parking.

As far as I'm concerned, what's wrong is that most motorists see bike lanes as shoulders and don't understand that they're supposed to merge into the bike lane prior to making the turn, and most cyclists don't realize they are supposed to exit the bike lane and move to the left if they're not turning right. The fact that so many get it wrong indicates inherent poor design. To solve this particular issue with bike lanes alone, they should end at least 200 feet (think 10-12 car lengths) prior to every intersection (earlier at big multi-lane intersections). That still doesn't address the multitude of other problems with bike lanes.

I'm all for bike lanes to be used like "bike sidewalks".
Meaning, like pedestrians are allowed to be on the sidewalk but also on the street, we should be allowed in the car lanes as well as in the bike lane. Everyone has to understand the dynamics involved and where everybody's place is (which isn't happening in america).
Riders have to know when and when not to use bike lanes, know to ride far enough from parked cars, know when to take the lane, know to keep their eyes open (which isn't happening for a lot of people).
When I'm going slow and there's a bike lane, I appreciate it because a) I know enough to judge how large doors are and ride far enough b) i'm not blocking cars c) i know enough to anticipate when to move into a car lane if a car is double parked.
OTOH, when I'm moving faster, I will be in the car lane, I won't take the bike lane even if there is one because the pedestrians eyes are usually focused on the car lane.
If I'm moving really fast, I will fully merge with the cars.

-- Speaking from my own urban commuting experience, I think that
BIKE LANES ARE GOOD.

At least the ones I have used.

Bike lanes do nothing to reduce collisions, period.

What's wrong with drivers using bike lanes? At least in CA, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane prior to making a right turn, and are allowed to do so up to 200 feet before the turn.

Technically, the drivers are not merging into the bike lanes here in California. The bike lane disappears 200 feet from the intersection here. Now you suddenly have a motorized vehicle and a bicycle, sharing one lane, even if it's a two vehicle wide lane. Who has the right of way? Legislated confusion??????
Most of our bike lanes are just a stripe establishing a 5-8 foot bike lane on the right side of a very wide road, but every driveway and intersection puts two vehicles suddenly in the same spot. I'm not worried about the bike lanes in between intersections, as I can take them and leave them, which I do when I need to. My observations are that most drivers don't know that they don't always have the right of way when they "overtake" a bicycle(I think they should be waiting behind us, especially when 15 of us are taking the entire right turn lane to make a right turn).
Even without bike lanes on a very wide road, drivers don't know what to do when they want to turn into a driveway. With a bike lane there, (you have an excellent point), even the cyclists coming up behind the driver think the car should wait until they all pass, even though the cyclists should be out far enough to be vehicles behind the turning car. (These are all just my opinions, and could be wrong, concerning where/how we should ride.)

What's wrong with drivers merging into the bike lane to make a right turn if cyclists are supposed to merge left to go straight?

I was talking about cars driving in bike lanes as a lane of traffic for cars. Not passing through them on the way to turn right. I mean, traffic backed up, driver moves on over and passes everyone on the right side of the road by driving in the bike lane.

The trick with bike lanes is to ride as if they aren't even there. . Use them like part of the road. The facile argument about being placed in the door zone, well, if you are riding right to let cars pass you are in the door zone anyway. Ride traffic side edge of the bike lane to stay out of the door zone. And if you need to take the lane, because of drivers, other bikes, turning traffic, merging traffic, do so. Bike lanes aren't rails. The bike lanes out here seem to work pretty well for cyclists. There's even a stretch of pretty fast four lane where the city took a lane away from the cars in order to make a bike lane (with parking as well, of course.) Every cyclist I've spoken to has, without exception, heartily endorsed the change.

I don't know which came first: bike lanes, or the idea that cyclists
should keep to the side "out of the way" of motorists.My guess is that the idea probably came first, as a natural evolution of having roads where vehicle speeds (maybe potential speeds) exceed the capabilities of cyclists by a considerable margin. I think about when I'm in a car going up a steep mountain road and get stuck behind a Winnebago struggling to maintain 15 MPH. I just want that sucker to get out of the way. As luck would have it, many such roads have developed "truck lanes" or turnouts to facilitate getting around. Perhaps bike lanes are an extension of that idea.

Not that I consider BIKE = WINNEBAGO or anything like that, but there is an obvious discrepancy in capability of both "Winnebagos on mountain roads" and "bicycles on roads where speeds exceed 20 MPH" and I could see how people could get the idea that there's a need for separation.

I'm not saying bike lanes are a good idea.

Or a bad one.

most motorists see bike lanes as shoulders and don't understand that they're supposed to merge into the bike lane prior to making the turn, and most cyclists don't realize they are supposed to exit the bike lane and move to the left if they're not turning right.

every driveway and intersection puts two vehicles suddenly in the same spot.

So...
Sharing space in a bike lane with cars = bad.
Sharing space with cars in the street = good.

I don't get it?

Confused motorists = bike lanes are bad.
Confused cyclists = bike lanes are bad.

Where does motorists' and cyclists' responsibility to be good drivers come in?

I think Bekologist has the most reasonable argument so far.

I understand Serge's point but I don't think things are quite as black and white as he and Forester make them out to be. Bike lanes/paths DO have some positive aspects. For one thing they make people FEEL safer. This means more people using bikes and a wider cross section of the community, i.e. young/ old/ male/ female. It makes it more difficult to for your average SUV driver to write off cyclists as annoying young punks who shouldnt be on the road.

Bike paths/ lanes also make a statement that bicycles have a place in the city. Maybe not always the place that they want to be but at least they are acknowledged as a legitimate form of transport.

They also reduce that particularly nasty and often fatal form of accident the rear end collision from a high speed car.

Of course bike lanes have many disadvantages as well (dooring / pedestrian/ cyclist inattention / intersections). You have to learn how to take action to minimise these risks. I have seen two cyclists down in Munich and both times they were lying on a cycle path and it looked as if a car had tried to right turn over the path and had failed to give right of way to the cyclist.

I just feel that the truth lies somewhere between the Serge/Forester position and the opposite position. On my commute through the city I choose a combination of roads, cycle paths and even the odd short stretch of pavement :eek: (walking pace only) . Some cycles paths I won't use at all as they are to dangerous. Some I use with appropriate caution at intersections and so on. Some I am quite happy to use where the road is high speed and there are no intersections. Sometimes I use the road and take the whole lane.

Cycling will never be 100% safe whatever approach is taken.

Just a little example from this morning.

There are several intersections where I cross a main road on a residential street. 80% of car traffic turns right. I always move out of the bike lane and position myself to the left of those right turning cars, like behind their left wheel. Then as the line of right turners moves forward I do to and often end up at the front of the lane on the left side and right turners keep turning right to my right.

This morning I did the same. Noted one bike rider on sidewalk ready to cross on the cross walk. A second bike rider was in the bike lane. Light turned green, I had to wait for right turning cars who were watching out for these cyclists in lane and the cross walk going straight. They passed and car started to turn right and I started to move. Suddenly a third bike rider came up in bike lane and went in front of right turning car which hit brakes hard. Bike passed and me and car went forward (on yellow)

Now if these riders had not be 'trained' by bike lane myself and the right turning cars would have spend much less time at intersection AND there would not have been the near collision. Now I realize that the problem is the bike riders who should not be going straight from the bike lane that is on the right side of the road, but I really blame the bike lane and its design as it gives the message that one must ride in it.

Now this is just one small example and some could say it is the result of poorly designed bike lanes that don't end well before intersection. Also contributing is that there is a push button on the side of the road for cyclist to press to activate light signal - but clearly the only cyclists that need to push the button are ones going left or straight and this button forces them to the right side of the road - really stupid, not to mention the city won't tune the inductive sensors for bikes as the push button is there. The way I handle it every morning (and on several intersections like this) is if there is already a car in left turn lane, no need to push button. If there is a car waiting to turn right (which don't activate inductive sensors as they are biased toward left side of lane) then I squeeze between car and push button then wheel bike around back of right turning car. If there is no car I push button and then wheel bike to left side of lane. If there is no car, but one approaching I push button then hold up my hand and stop car and walk in front of it to get to left side of lane. Like I said 90% of cars turn right (10% left turners and 10% go straight) at these intersections so being on the left side is very helpful to me and them.

Al

Cycling will never be 100% safe whatever approach is taken.
Neither will driving, walking, etc. But this does not mean that road designs can not be optimized for the safety of all using them.

Al

Ask closetbiker. He was the one expressing concern about motorists using bike lanes as an "extra lane" and for parking.

As far as I'm concerned, what's wrong is that most motorists see bike lanes as shoulders and don't understand that they're supposed to merge into the bike lane prior to making the turn, and most cyclists don't realize they are supposed to exit the bike lane and move to the left if they're not turning right. The fact that so many get it wrong indicates inherent poor design. To solve this particular issue with bike lanes alone, they should end at least 200 feet (think 10-12 car lengths) prior to every intersection (earlier at big multi-lane intersections). That still doesn't address the multitude of other problems with bike lanes.


Hang in there, Serge....You've gotten many people thinking & communicating about a very important cycling topic.....we all owe a debt of gratitude to you for that....You've certainly helped me focus my thoughts.....as a recently retired 34 year transit bus driver, I agree with your ideas at least 95%.....

noisebeam Your logic is much better than your math -;)
Joe

noisebeam Your logic is much better than your math -;)
Joe
But, but I did say 80% at the begining of the message ;) Maybe its my typing, well probably 50% of the time it is, the other 60% its my math.

Al

I was talking about cars driving in bike lanes as a lane of traffic for cars. Not passing through them on the way to turn right. I mean, traffic backed up, driver moves on over and passes everyone on the right side of the road by driving in the bike lane.
Yes, I know. Whenever I see this, the guy passing everyone on the right side driving in the bike lane is (eventually) going to turn right. My point was that as long as he is within 200 feet (10-12 car lengths) of the turn, it's legal.


Hang in there, Serge....You've gotten many people thinking & communicating about a very important cycling topic.....we all owe a debt of gratitude to you for that....You've certainly helped me focus my thoughts.....as a recently retired 34 year transit bus driver, I agree with your ideas at least 95%.....
Wow! Thank you!

I do find it interesting that no one has even addressed, much less attempted to refute, the argument I presented in my opening post (that the very existence of bike lanes inhibits novice cyclists and discourages experienced cyclists from riding safely in traffic).

I agree with Bekologist (the trick with bike lanes is to treat them as if they are not there). That's what Forester says, and that's what I do, of course. But my point is novice cyclists don't do that, and even most experienced cyclists don't know to do that. After 30 years of cycling it never occured to me, until I read Effective Cycling.

I don't necessarily disagree with royalflash. Perhaps bike lanes do have some positive aspects. But the positive aspects are insignificant compared to the enormous negative aspects of bike lanes. And I do not agree that reducing rear-end collisions is one of those positive aspects - I am not aware of any study or evidence that shows that such collisions are reduced when bike lane stripes are painted on a street (street widening and/or restriping to accomodate bike lanes could have such an effect, but attributing the reduction to the painting of a stripe is without basis). So we should have bike lanes because they make novice cyclists FEEL safer, despite the fact that they inhibit most of them from ever learning to ride safely, and actually encourage unsafe behavior in traffic? Royalflash does acknowledge many (not all - does not even address the main one I raised in the opening post here) of the disadvantages of bike lanes, but seems to wave them aside with a casual, "you have to learn how to take action to minimise these risks." You? You who? You the novice cyclist who FEELs safer in a bike lane and is completely oblivious to all the additional dangers imposed on him or her by the bike lane? Like I asked in my opening post,
How many cyclists must needlessly be injured or killed before cyclists finally get fed up with these dangerous facilities?
Royalflash concludes by contending that "the truth" lies somewhere in between what Forester & I (though I've never read or heard Forester say what I've argued in the opening post of this thread) contend and the "opposite position". Presumably the two opposing positions are: "All bike lanes should be painted over" vs. "the more bike lanes the better, regardless of whether they are well designed or not" . So the "somewhere in between" position is something like "Many bike lanes should be painted over, but the well-designed ones should stay". Which of course ignores the argument in my opening post.

Royalflash then describes how he uses bike lanes, which is the Forester/Bekologist/******* "just ignore them" approach. That's great. That's great for the few of us who were lucky enough to learn this approach before we were maimed or killed from the miseducation we received from bike lanes. Goody for us, and too bad for all the rest. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it for me.

It's time for to go public with the big secret: cycling in traffic can be safe, though you have to learn a few things about it, and bike lanes have nothing to do with it. In fact, bike lanes, even the "well designed" ones, only make cycling in traffic less safe, because they encourage behavior that is contrary to what needs to be learned to cycle safely in traffic, and inhibit and discourage behavior that is consistent with safety.

Serge

It's time for to go public with the big secret: cycling in traffic can be safe, though you have to learn a few things about it, and bike lanes have nothing to do with it. In fact, bike lanes, even the "well designed" ones, only make cycling in traffic less safe.

Serge
Serge- your writing on these matters is clear and re-inforces my opinion that bike lanes only lead to trouble. Thank you.

An important point that I want to make that shifts the thinking from 'bike lanes are bad' to better accomidating cyclists is that while bike lanes are not wanted, curb side lanes that are wide enough to safely allow a truck to pass a cyclist while the cyclist is 3ft from curb do in my opinion make cycling safer and more enjoyable.

Al

Maybe its my typing, well probably 50% of the time it is, the other 60% its my math.



Don't feel bad. There are three types of people: those that are good at math, and those that are not.

Serge- your writing on these matters is clear and re-inforces my opinion that bike lanes only lead to trouble. Thank you.

An important point that I want to make that shifts the thinking from 'bike lanes are bad' to better accomidating cyclists is that while bike lanes are not wanted, curb side lanes that are wide enough to safely allow a truck to pass a cyclist while the cyclist is 3ft from curb do in my opinion make cycling safer and more enjoyable.



Thank you, and good point. However, I'm not aware of how WOLs (Wide Outside Lanes) make cycling safer. Are motorist-passing-cyclist collision types less frequent on roads with WOLs than on roads with narrow lanes? I'm not so sure.

Regarding enjoyment... if the cyclist is concerned about holding up others, which happens to some extent on roads with narrow lanes, then WOLs make cycling more enjoyable by alleviating the cyclist of that concern. To me, though, that's pretty minor. Roads where passing is so difficult that the "holding up" is significant are only a tiny portion of those with narrow lanes. In fact, I can't think of a single one that so qualifies in San Diego (doesn't mean there aren't any - I just can think of any). In any case, some cyclists are concerned even when the "holding up" is relatively insignificant (measured in 10s of seconds of delay for the motorist), and, so, for them, the WOL does make cycling more enjoyable. However, we do have to balance the real (and often enormous) costs of road widening against the value of making cycling more enjoyable for a very small group of people. It's hard to justify and be fiscally responsible at the same time.

Serge, you are a "road warrior." BT is a road warrior. I am sure there are scores of road warriors here in Bike Forums. The folks here take cycling as a serious thing.

I wonder what your age is... I imagine you are in the prime of your life, and you’re having a blast zipping about on the road, being sociable with the auto drivers, practicing your wonderful technique of dynamic whatever.

But... you are the few, the proud, the strong. In fact, just the fact that you are here on Bike Forums makes you unique among all the cyclists in the world.

To prove my point... I would like you to compare the statistics of the number of bikes sold at the local bike shop. Go ask the local bike shop owner... find out how many Huffys and Schwinns and campus cruisers and other fat tire cruisers... bikes under $300 were sold compared to the bikes over say $800. Yup these are arbitrary figures. Look at the number of bikes sold at KMART and Walmart.

Now go out there and look at the students that ride to the local colleges and JCs, look at the number of folks that ride without Lycra. Look at the number of folks that just need to get from point A to point B. They do it in bike lanes, sidewalks, back alleys. They get there by any means possible. They like bike lanes. Yes, those unsafe terrible “bike ghettos.” They like the lines and the comfort that the lines appear to give them. They like the fact that the auto drivers appear to stay on their side of the line. The auto drivers like the fact that these slow moving cyclists stay out of their way. There is comfort in this order. These folks use bicycles as a simple mode of transportation. They are not enamored with the love of bikes, but they need or want cheap transportation. They perhaps have little choice. They are similar to the mass peoples of Chinese that every day toddle down the designated lanes and the "dreaded" sidepaths of China to get to work to go home, to do chores. There are few few Lycra clad Road Warriors in China... in fact, on my 2 visits to China I saw no Road Warriors... yet I saw thousands and thousands of cyclists. There are few auto parking lots in China, and what do exist, are small... but there are racks and racks and racks of bicycles. I saw propane, water, wood and other commercial supplies being delivered by cyclists. I saw women in dresses, workers with cigarettes, and young adults all riding comfortably to their destinations… using bicycles.

These Chinese commuters, like the similar daily commuters here are not going 15, 20 or 25 miles to work every day at 22 or 17MPH... they perhaps are going as far as 4 or 5 miles, they are not likely to ever go over 12MPH, unless it is downhill and even then they are likely to use their brakes to control their speed. There is comfort in their camaraderie and in the way they ALL go together. They find comfort at 10MPH. 10MPH a speed that likely would find them in harms way on a busy 35MPH street. They are not even going 20MPH like perhaps a several ton cement truck, but they are using a bicycle, and they are getting from point A to point B.

While VC riding works beautifully for those that enjoy the "friendly" exchange with auto drivers and those that zip about dynamically changing lane positions and even lanes after their “negotiations” with the drivers... There are other bike riders.

There are many riders that would be quite happy in the ghettos of bike lanes... if only bike lanes were allowed to exist. These non VC folks will never attend a "Effective Cycling" seminar, they will never attend a sponsored ride, they will never wear Lycra, and they are not likely to break a sweat while riding in their street clothes.

How pray tell do you intend to reach these folks... this vast "silent majority" of the cycling set? What would you tell them... how will you evangelize to these "lost souls" that just need to get to the corner store... down to the office, who just want to get to class on time?

By eliminating the "dreaded evil" bike lanes, you will cast these folks into the abyss of the naked street... you will push them to either walk or drive. Rather than remove one car, you are likely to force them to find some junker... some pollution spewing dangerous clunker, some used, beat up, beyond repair heavy smoker just to go their few miles, as they feel there is no other way. Not "One less Auto," but one more auto...

Is that what you want… another bike rusting in a back yard, gathering dust in a basement?

All lanes are not bike lanes, to all bike riders.

Thank you, and good point. However, I'm not aware of how WOLs (Wide Outside Lanes) make cycling safer. Are motorist-passing-cyclist collision types less frequent on roads with WOLs than on roads with narrow lanes? I'm not so sure.

Regarding enjoyment... if the cyclist is concerned about holding up others, which happens to some extent on roads with narrow lanes, then WOLs make cycling more enjoyable by alleviating the cyclist of that concern. To me, though, that's pretty minor. Roads where passing is so difficult that the "holding up" is significant are only a tiny portion of those with narrow lanes. In fact, I can't think of a single one that so qualifies in San Diego (doesn't mean there aren't any - I just can think of any). In any case, some cyclists are concerned even when the "holding up" is relatively insignificant (measured in 10s of seconds of delay for the motorist), and, so, for them, the WOL does make cycling more enjoyable. However, we do have to balance the real (and often enormous) costs of road widening against the value of making cycling more enjoyable for a very small group of people. It's hard to justify and be fiscally responsible at the same time.
I am thinking of the 5-7 lane roads around here with speed limits 45-50mph. The ones with a wide outside lane are fine to ride on. It is very difficult to ride in the ones whose outside lane is so narrow it can not accomidate a car even unsafely passing a cyclist - that is to fit in the lane cars drive with tire 2ft from curb. There is no such thing as taking the lane in these cases when one can't even get into the lane with high speed 45mph traffic. If one can take the lane holding up traffic is not an option around here. Cars can not pass as there is high speed traffic on their right and if they do pass by suddenly squeezing into gap in right lane the car behind them likely wont see the cyclist until it is too late. This is a particulary sore spot for me as the road that heads east-west from my neighboorhood is one such road and I can not safely ride on it unless on weekends when traffic is lighter - to get to my eye dr. 2mi away during rush out I either need to ride on sidewalk or drive and I choose not to ride on the sidewalk. There are roads exactly like this one that do have a wide outside lane and these are not only rideable, but comfortable to ride on as well, but to get to them I need to ride on this particular road.

Al

I somewhat fit the category you put Serge in. I generally ride 20-25mph and position myself to accomidate flow of traffic and traffic rules, but not bike lanes.

However I do believe that where you live and ride can allow for this type of VC. I believe that there are roads that Serge would not ride on (or would with diminished safety) especially at night or during sunrise/sunset into sun on east/west roads. I described one such road in this same sub-thread.
Al

But, but I did say 80% at the begining of the message ;) Maybe its my typing, well probably 50% of the time it is, the other 60% its my math.

Al
I just looked back and yes you did use 80% at the beginning. My major point was agreeing with your logic not ot pick on your typing.

Joe
:beer:

I always thought this was all in humor with kind words and never once felt like there was any picking going on.
No worries, all fun. Can't wait to get on bike and ride home - the best parts of my day!
Al

All lanes are not bike lanes, to all bike riders.

Gene, I've read and responded to this duplicate post in the bike lane poll thread under commuting.

I would very much appreciate it if you would address the main point of the argument I have presented in this thread: that bike lanes inhibit (even ******) novice/folk cyclists from learning to ride safely in traffic, and bike lanes discourage experienced cyclists from riding safely in traffic, and, that the negative effect of bike lanes is insidious: that is, cyclists mistrained by bike lanes mimic the unsafe behavior even on roads without bike lanes.

But as to your statement quoted above, I'm not denying it. Where we apparently disagree is what, if anything, should be done about it. I contend that even doing nothing is MUCH BETTER than creating dangerous bike lanes (which includes so-called "good" or "well-designed" bike lanes) that inhibit learning and practicing safe traffic behavior, and actually encourage unsafe traffic cycling behavior. To put it bluntly, I believe that bike lanes lead to much more cyclist injury and death than there would be without bike lanes. Because of the difficulty in testing for the indirect effect of bike lanes on cyclist behavior, and the correlating that with cyclist injuries and deaths, this is practically impossible to prove either way, but it sure seems obvious to me. What the studies can and do clearly show is that bike lanes most definitely do not make cycling any safer.

I think all the time, resources and energy devoted to and focused on bike lanes prevents us from coming up with some real solutions to the problem that "all lanes are not bike lanes to all bike riders". Maybe it's training and education. Maybe it's marketing. Maybe it's licensing. Maybe it's something else. It's probably all of the above. But it's NOT bike lanes.

Serge

I would very much appreciate it if you would address the main point of the argument I have presented in this thread: that bike lanes inhibit (even ******) novice/folk cyclists from learning to ride safely in traffic, and bike lanes discourage experienced cyclists from riding safely in traffic, and, that the negative effect of bike lanes is insidious: that is, cyclists mistrained by bike lanes mimic the unsafe behavior even on roads without bike lanes.



Sure, design better bike lanes... a simple stripe does not a proper bike lane make. But that is really only a partial solution.



But as to your statement quoted above, I'm not denying it. Where we apparently disagree is what, if anything, should be done about it. I contend that even doing nothing is MUCH BETTER than creating dangerous bike lanes (which includes so-called "good" or "well-designed" bike lanes) that inhibit learning and practicing safe traffic behavior, and actually encourage unsafe traffic cycling behavior. To put it bluntly, I believe that bike lanes lead to much more cyclist injury and death than there would be without bike lanes. Because of the difficulty in testing for the indirect effect of bike lanes on cyclist behavior, and the correlating that with cyclist injuries and deaths, this is practically impossible to prove either way, but it sure seems obvious to me. What the studies can and do clearly show is that bike lanes most definitely do not make cycling any safer.



It is the "nothing" that I believe we have gotten... a dab of paint is not a panacea to a bad road. Having lived in this area since 1976, I have seen a number of new roads go into place that had no provisions for cyclists... only later to be narrowed with the addition of a stripe. Nice touch... NOT!



I think all the time, resources and energy devoted to and focused on bike lanes prevents us from coming up with some real solutions to the problem that "all lanes are not bike lanes to all bike riders". Maybe it's training and education. Maybe it's marketing. Maybe it's licensing. Maybe it's something else. It's probably all of the above. But it's NOT bike lanes.
Serge

I will agree that bike lanes are not the only answer... I will also agree that something has to be done... as long as you can face the issue that there are bike lanes (although perhaps not in this area) that do work and work well. Have you ever toured? You really should go and look at other areas, such as Santa Barbara.

Certainly we do agree that "all lanes are not bike lanes to all bike riders".

I would very much appreciate it if you would address the main point of the argument I have presented in this thread: that bike lanes inhibit (even ******) novice/folk cyclists from learning to ride safely in traffic, and bike lanes discourage experienced cyclists from riding safely in traffic, and, that the negative effect of bike lanes is insidious: that is, cyclists mistrained by bike lanes mimic the unsafe behavior even on roads without bike lanes.


Sure, design better bike lanes... a simple stripe does not a proper bike lane make. But that is really only a partial solution.


I've challenged this already in some other thread. Any bike lane, proper or not, IS just a simple 5-inch wide stripe painted 4-5' from the roadway curb, edge or gutter.

And I fail to see how your "design better bike lanes" statement addresses the main point of my argument. In fact, it ignores it.

Serge

I've challenged this already in some other thread. Any bike lane, proper or not, IS just a simple 5-inch wide stripe painted 4-5' from the roadway curb, edge or gutter.

And I fail to see how your "design better bike lanes" statement addresses the main point of my argument. In fact, it ignores it.

Serge

Go to Santa Barbara... then we can talk about proper bike lanes. Until then, you will continue to believe that a bike lane is simply "added paint."

A San Diego bike lane is to a Santa Barbara bike lane what a childs finger painting is to the Mona Lisa.

Gene - to clarify - is it fair to say that you are just as happy (dare I say more happy?) with a, say, 17 foot wide outside lane to be shared by motorists and cyclists without a dividing stripe, as you are the same road with that 17 feet divided into a 12 foot wide "auto" lane and a 5 foot wide bike lane by a 5-inch wide stripe of paint? (assume everything else remains the same, like whether parking is allowed).

Don't feel bad. There are three types of people: those that are good at math, and those that are not.


:roflmao: ......Oh, Serge, I :love: it when your :lol: !......(especially when you're brief)

Gene - to clarify - is it fair to say that you are just as happy (dare I say more happy?) with a, say, 17 foot wide outside lane to be shared by motorists and cyclists without a dividing stripe, as you are the same road with that 17 feet divided into a 12 foot wide "auto" lane and a 5 foot wide bike lane by a 5-inch wide stripe of paint? (assume everything else remains the same, like whether parking is allowed).

Sure... And that is primarily on roads over 25MPH, but especially on roads over 45MPH. The line doesn't mean anything to me... I just want a place (and I quote for the umpteenth time) were I can grind up a hill at 10 MPH without some driver trying to do 45MPH right on my butt cause I have taken the lane.

That to me is a lane... the silly stripe you keep worrying about does not a lane make (as I have said for the umpteenth time).

Ok so let's say Serge gets his wish and all bike lanes are removed. Now, road engineers no longer have to plan for them. What will the result be?

Will they stop making lanes that suddenly become onramps to high-speed roads?

Will the right edge of the road suddenly be free of debris?

Will traffic speeds decrease?

Will drivers suddenly become more aware, stop talking on the damn phone, eating, drinking and spanking their kids in the back seat?

Will parents let their kids ride to school?

Will older people slower reflexes or diminished hearing or vision want to ride bikes anymore?

Will "novice" cyclists suddenly practice "lateral dynamic lane positioning (that'll be $15 please)"?

Will cyclists stop riding on sidewalks, in the cross walk or on the wrong side of the road?

Will cyclists never be doored again?

Will the DMV or the police or whoever start teaching safe biking skills? Will the same people start teaching drivers how to share the road with cyclists?

Finally, can you show me a place without bike lanes where there are lots of cyclists and those cyclists perceive the conditions to be praiseworthy and worth promoting to other cities?

Ok so let's say Serge gets his wish and all bike lanes are removed. Now, road engineers no longer have to plan for them. What will the result be?

Will they stop making lanes that suddenly become onramps to high-speed roads?

Will the right edge of the road suddenly be free of debris?

Will traffic speeds decrease?

Will drivers suddenly become more aware, stop talking on the damn phone, eating, drinking and spanking their kids in the back seat?

Will parents let their kids ride to school?

Will older people slower reflexes or diminished hearing or vision want to ride bikes anymore?

Will "novice" cyclists suddenly practice "lateral dynamic lane positioning (that'll be $15 please)"?

Will cyclists stop riding on sidewalks, in the cross walk or on the wrong side of the road?

Will cyclists never be doored again?

Will the DMV or the police or whoever start teaching safe biking skills? Will the same people start teaching drivers how to share the road with cyclists?

Finally, can you show me a place without bike lanes where there are lots of cyclists and those cyclists perceive the conditions to be praiseworthy and worth promoting to other cities?


Nope... the removal of a line of paint will not do any of the above... Only properly engineered roads will do that... And an entire change in the way that motorist are taught to drive. But Serge and others just don't seem to understand that concept. In fact, the biggest laugh is that if the roads were properly engineered, traffic in general would flow better, there would be less need for "lines" that need to be maintained and cyclists would have a wonderful time spinning at their highest speed over long uninterupped distances... it's all about flow... not "stop and go."

Of course this is in "connector" areas... in urban (downtowns) and residential areas, the speeds would be only 25MPH and cyclists would mix and mingle with traffic in situations similar to this:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/gallery/img9.jpg

But as long as Serge and others continue to spout "no lines, no lanes," engineers will give nothing. Until there is a loud unified voice that says make the streets safer for both autos and "alternative transportation," then engineers (who themselves tend to be drivers) will continue to make multilane urban hiways with no consideration for anything but motor vehicles.... similar to the situation in Houston.

Further, the current situation will only continue to lead to more congestion, poor traffic flow and more frayed nerves.

Frankly it is probably too late for San Diego as their whole approach to traffic engineering is quite poor as evidenced in the constant stop and go situations exemplified in the newer areas of a local area known as Mission Valley. The shopping centers have poorly designed parking lots with too few spaces, the accesses are terrible, and the roads too short and controlled by too many lights... which puts the area in constant gridlock which then backs up onto the freeways.

At one time in the aforementioned Mission Valley, there was a long uninterupted sidepath that was a joy to ride... but then the city stopped cleaning it, then lost interest in it and began chopping it up with driveways and streets... now it is just a dirt collecting ugly berm. Cyclists use only bits and pieces of it... and it is quite dangerous. No consideration was given to the intended use of that sidepath. (I wonder who said... "we don't need it?")

Sadly this is all new over the last 20 years or so... and similar situations also exist in the east county (near hiway 94 and 54 ... for locals) where new development has turned once open areas into dense congested soon to be traffic nightmares. There seems to be a affection in this area for stoplights... rather than merging lanes.

I cited previously as evidence of poor traffic engineering the change of a local road speed from 45 to 55 to recently 65. (Kearny Villa Road... again for locals) There is no reason for traffic flow at 65MPH on that road (it parallels a multilane freeway) . Rather it should be narrowed and beautified and made safer to encourage alternative traffic.

Until there is a loud unified voice that says make the streets safer for both autos and "alternative transportation," then engineers (who themselves tend to be drivers) will continue to make multilane urban hiways with no consideration for anything but motor vehicles

I would be very interested in hearing from traffic engineers who also happen to be cyclists on the topic of this thread. Any out there?

Link from Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition:

http://www.sbbike.org/SBBC/policies.html#anchor302718

The content of that page describes exactly the bike lanes and road engineering we have in much of the city. It has improved over time due to the excellent work of this group.

I can testify that the conditions described here are exactly what we have, that they make cycling a viable choice and an enjoyable one for people of all ages and abilities.

I'd like to hear from somebody who lives among facilities like this who can say they are not good for cycling (not speculation please, actual experience).

I would also like to hear from cyclists who live somewhere that has no bike lanes say that they are happy and satisfied and are promoting the idea to other places.

Here in New Orleans there's only one bike lane (we call it a path) that I come across regularly - it runs in the neutral ground between the opposing lanes (I think other parts of the country call it the median.) The median is maybe 25 feet wide, and the path is about 5 feet wide down the center of it. What do you feel about this sort of set up? Personally, I love it except that at night it's hard to see the concrete "separators" that have been placed in the middle of the on/off ramps at the intersections. Whoever thought of these things was a mascochist! At night it's hard to see them, even with my lights.

VIncent

In Seattle, the bike lanes are good, although some are better than others:

1) First of all, I rarely ride in the middle of the road because I usually ride in traffic that would be severely inconvencienced, perhaps enraged, by my doing so.

2) My personal dynamic location, then, is usually about 6 inches to the left of the glass-and-rubble snow drift along the right hand pavement on a road without a bike lane. On most Seattle streets, this means that a car that does not see me, and is driving in a "normal" range of the road, will not hit me. (But it will be close.) A car that does see me will usually take the outside of the lane.

3) On a road with a bike lane, my dynamic range is different, depending on: is the bike lane between car lane and parked cars, or between car lane and curb? If the former, I ride exactly on the bike lane line -- maximum flexibility for sudden hazards from either direction, and not in anyone's normal line of fire. If the latter, I just follow my usual location, but have the added comfort that there is a line signaling the edge of the road to most drivers.

4) Thus, given equal sizes of road, I am happier with a bike lane (which is usually 2-3 feet wide on most Seattle streets, and usually marked with a bicycle). Sure there are bad drivers who use the bike lanes improperly. I mutter curses at these drivers and circumnavigate as the situation warrants. The problem of turns through the lane is unavoidable, but I have never had the kinds of problems with bad drivers making bad, signalless turns in bike lanes as I have had on bike-laneless roads. My informal sense is that the bike lane enhances most drivers' awareness of cyclists, and improves their driving.

5) I very much agree with those who say that bike lanes are a step in the direction of better designed roads, overall. It's clear, here in Seattle, where many of the older bike lanes are poorly thought out and occasionally useless, and most of the newer bike lanes are better thought out, and usually good.

6) I also agree with those who observe that bike lanes are just one more option for cyclists. When cruising down Second Ave, for example, I can sometimes use that left-side bike lane, cut around the lines of left-turning traffic, and make the street end-to-end hitting all the green lights. Other times, especially in heavier, slower traffic, I am better served by dodging among all lanes in order to avoid the many hazards of double parked cars, block-long turn queues, etc. (Which is particularly true if I am aiming for a right hand turn along the way somewhere.)

Conclusion: Bike lanes are good. Bike lanes are getting better. Bike lanes should not be considered a replacement for alert, aware, intelligent riding. Bike lanes are just one option to the good cyclist.

...

And to those of you who are going to berate me for not riding in the center of the lane, don't bother. With urban traffic and steep hills, I rarely believe it is best for me to ride in the center-of-the-lane here in Seattle, although if the occasion warrants, then I do. I have been riding urban traffic long enough to have my own style and to be comfortable with it. I have never had a collision of any sort, I can count the close-calls on one hand. Perhaps someday it will be the death of me... but if it's not cycling it will just be something else. No one lives forever.

sbhikes - did you see what bostontrevor posted over in the bike lane poll thread?


Here's some comparative evaluations of Santa Barbara's facilities:

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/fac...es/meredith.htm (why does Austin, TX have a substantially lower dooring rate than SB? The jury's still out.)

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm (the classic 1974 Cross, Fisher study which showed the detrimental impact of SB's lanes... perhaps dated)

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/99034.pdf (a 1999 study based on 1995 police data of SB; Gainesville, FL, and Austin. The #1 accident type in SB is cyclist strikes parked car, this is the coding for a dooring. #2 is motorist right turn. This is only an issue if the cyclist is cycling wrong way or if the cyclist is in a position to the right of right turning traffic as bike lanes often end up, it accounts for about the same as #1. The #3 is drive out at midblock, this would be things like pulling out of a driveway, also an accident type that is exacerbated by bike lanes. These three accident types account for nearly half of all cycling accidents in SB. BTW, SB had the highest rate of motorist overtaking accidents even though it also had the most miles of bike lanes. Still, the rate was under 10% of all accidents, exactly half the number of running into parked cars.)


http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=869893&postcount=153

Bravo, genec. I agree with you 100 percent. Especially where I live (westside of L.A., near the beach), a lot of people see cycling as purely fun and recreational. To them, the very idea that there's a 400-page book on "effective cycling" is laughable. To them, proper bike fit means they can reach the pedals. To them, the fun aspect is out the window if all of a sudden they have to ride in the "vehicular" manner. If you take the bike lanes away, they will simply stop riding. As annoying as they can be, I don't want that to happen. I want more people on bikes, not less.

Serge seems to have a hard time seeing things from other people's perspectives. As you said, genec, cycling is not a way of life for everyone who rides a bike. For some, it's just something to do. And as their skills and confidence increase, then maybe someday they'll feel more comfortable riding in traffic. But if we throw them to the fire their first time out ... you can forget it.

And you're right. It's not all black-and-white. Some bike lanes are terrific, and some are horrendous. An experienced cyclist, the same one who feels comfortable riding in traffic, will know the difference and respond accordingly.

Of course, like anything else, bike lanes will be more "effective" if their facilities are better conceived and executed. Yes, it would be better if, in some cases, right-turn lanes are better designed. Yes, it would be better if we were not required by law to ride in bike lanes. (Frankly, I don't know if we are or not, and I don't care.)

But by crusading against bike lanes, you're alienating a large segment of the biking population. They will stop cycling. Period. And that is not a good thing.

1) First of all, I rarely ride in the middle of the road because I usually ride in traffic that would be severely inconvencienced, perhaps enraged, by my doing so.

2) My personal dynamic location, then, is usually about 6 inches to the left of the glass-and-rubble snow drift along the right hand pavement on a road without a bike lane. On most Seattle streets, this means that a car that does not see me, and is driving in a "normal" range of the road, will not hit me. (But it will be close.) A car that does see me will usually take the outside of the lane.

No berating :) ... just a few questions...

I don't understand your point in #1, unless you think someone (me?) is advocating riding in the center of the lane when there are motorists behind and it is safe to be further to the right so that you are not inconveniencing, or perhaps enraging, them. I, for one, am most certainly not advocating that, and I don't think anyone else is.

What I am advocating is that while there is no one behind you that would be inconvenienced by your riding in the center of the lane, and, until someone does approach from behind that is close enough to be inconvenienced by your centered position, that the center of the lane is where you should be riding because this makes you more visible to cross-traffic as well as to whomever is approaching from behind. Further, when someone does approach from behind and is close enough to almost be inconvenicenced by your centered position, that is the time to move over, provided it is safe to do so at that point. Do you understand what I am advocating and what I am not advocating with respect to when a cyclist should be in the center of the lane?

I also don't understand your first sentence in #2. You describe your "personal 'dynamic' position", statically - a fixed position 6 inches left of the the drift. How is that "dynamic"? Certainly you don't mean it in the same sense that I have been using in this thread, referring to the dynamic lateral positioning of the cyclist who adjusts his lateral lane position depending on ever-changing conditions (see opening post).

In #2 you also refer to "cars" (though I'm sure you mean "motorists") that do see you and "cars" that do not see you, and how that affects how closely they pass by you.

Do you understand that one of the main reasons I advocate riding in the center of the lane until someone approaches from behind is precisely to increase the likelihood that they see you, and, after you move aside, are aware of you as they pass you so that they do it with a safe speed and passing distance?


I have been riding urban traffic long enough to have my own style and to be comfortable with it. I have never had a collision of any sort, I can count the close-calls on one hand.
The cycling you describe appears to be very safe. In fact, any cyclist who simply does follow the very basics (ride on the right, not left, side of the road; don't ride at night without lights/reflectors; generally obey stop signs/lights; don't ride on sidewalks) is generally very safe. It worked for me for 30 years, also without any collisions and hardly any true close calls, though I fairly often found myself in "awkward" situations with motorists at intersections, particularly when they were turning right and I was going straight. Does that happen to you?

But I did have a few close calls, and, thinking back as I was learning the type of vehicular cycling advocated by the experts, I realized in every case I could have avoided even the close calls had I been riding more vehicularly. The single most important difference between the way I used to ride (which sounds very similar to what you describe above) and the way I ride now, is that I am much more consistent about using destination positioning at intersections. In particular, I always merge (see below) away from the right side as I approach any intersection where I am not turning right, even if there is a bike lane, even (especially) if there is motorist traffic in the rightmost through lane. The effect is that I no longer have those "awkward" encounters at intersections any more, which should make me even less likely to have close calls, much less actual collisions.

I used the term "merge" above rather than "move" quite purposefully. Merging away from the right side is different from moving away from the right side in that merging involves looking back, and making sure it's clear before you move. If it's not clear, merging also involves negotiating for the right-of-way before moving left (typically looking back is enough, but sometimes you have to stick out your l;eft arm before a motorist slows down to yield the right-of-way to you and lets you in). Learning to be comfortable doing this is what enabled me to avoid all those awkward encounters at intersections.

Serge

Serge seems to have a hard time seeing things from other people's perspectives. As you said, genec, cycling is not a way of life for everyone who rides a bike. For some, it's just something to do. And as their skills and confidence increase, then maybe someday they'll feel more comfortable riding in traffic. But if we throw them to the fire their first time out ... you can forget it.


Or others seem to have a hard time seeing things from my perspective. I assure you, I understand what you're saying and I understand the perspective of folk cyclists. You guys, on the other hand, continue to completely ignore the argument I presented in the opening post of this thread. Does that not indicate that you're not understanding my perspective? If you do, why don't you address it?

What you and Gene et. al. don't seem to understand is the implication of statements like, "But if we throw them to the fire their first time out ...", where "the fire" is riding in traffic without bike lanes.

I understand that riding in traffic without bike lanes SEEMS like "the fire" to folk cyclists.
But what I'm saying is that it is irresponsible to cater to that FEELING by providing facilities like bike lanes that actually make riding in traffic MORE DANGEROUS for these people. It's like sending a soldier to the front with the equipment he is asking for even though YOU KNOW that using that equipment will make him more likely to die.

I ask again...

How many cyclists must needlessly be injured or killed before cyclists finally get fed up with these dangerous facilities?

Really. What's the number? Is 100 needless cyclist deaths tolerable in the name of believing that bike lanes make cycling more popular (despite no studies showing that to be true), but 1,000 is not? So, how many?

sbhikes, here's another perspective on Santa Barabara bike lanes posted in another forum in response to my request for a VC perspective.


Yeah, I can give the VC perspective. Just say no to door zone bike lanes,
which are the bulk of bike lane miles in Santa Barbara. I did my LCI
certification in Santa Barbara, so I was able to spend a few days cycling
all manner of non-vehicular special facilities as part of the road training
and on a few recreational rides. My most comfortable cycling in the city
was done on roads without facilities, usually using the full lane. It has
been a few years since I've been there, but I do remember a few gems, like
the bike lane routed to the right side of a right turn pocket where a major
4-lane road tees into another major 4-lane road at the ocean (here's a
picture of this monstrosity from the PBIC:

http://http://www.pedbikeimages.org/searchResult.cfm?searchType=shared&shared=2,24&fromCategory=2

go to the third page of images and click on the third image
from the left in the top row). I also recall speed humps on a so called
"bike boulevard", and some of the narrowest door zone bike lanes that I've
ever seen; worse then anything I have experienced in LA County.
.
Downtown Santa Barbara is in many ways like city core of old Long Beach,
built-out, with a dense grid of often narrow and often congested roads, and
there is on-street parking nearly everywhere. On these routes, I find the
lack of special facilities to make Long Beach much easier for a VC, since
instead of being encouraged to stay to the right and inevitably in the door
zone, I ride in the middle of narrow travel lanes. This way I'm more
visible to motorists making all manner of turning movements, and I'm well
clear of car doors. Santa Barbara has a rather Schizophrenic approach to
cycling. The city and the local bike coalition promote cycling education to
teach cyclists to act as vehicle drivers, yet they also promote special
facilities that encourage cyclists to not act as vehicle drivers. I do
understand that those that are either afraid of traffic and/or believe in
the magical powers of painted stripes and/or view themselves as something
other than vehicle drivers, may prefer the bike facilities, but I don't find
that they make traffic negotiation and therefore transportation cycling
easier, and in most cases make it less safe/more difficult.

Or others seem to have a hard time seeing things from my perspective. I assure you, I understand what you're saying and I understand the perspective of folk cyclists. You guys, on the other hand, continue to completely ignore the argument I presented in the opening post of this thread. Does that not indicate that you're not understanding my perspective? If you do, why don't you address it?

What you and Gene et. al. don't seem to understand is the implication of statements like, "But if we throw them to the fire their first time out ...", where "the fire" is riding in traffic without bike lanes.

I understand that riding in traffic without bike lanes SEEMS like "the fire" to folk cyclists.
But what I'm saying is that it is irresponsible to cater to that FEELING by providing facilities like bike lanes that actually make riding in traffic MORE DANGEROUS for these people. It's like sending a soldier to the front with the equipment he is asking for even though YOU KNOW that using that equipment will make him more likely to die.

I ask again...

How many cyclists must needlessly be injured or killed before cyclists finally get fed up with these dangerous facilities?

Really. What's the number? Is 100 needless cyclist deaths tolerable in the name of believing that bike lanes make cycling more popular (despite no studies showing that to be true), but 1,000 is not? So, how many?

But some bike lanes are certainly NOT more dangerous. Just because some are, doesn't mean they should be obliterated altogether. It just means that, like anything else, we should work on making the lousy ones better.

To someone who wants to coast along at 7 mph, who's just happy to be outside, throwing them into traffic is tantamount to throwing them to the fire.

I appreciate your concern for cyclists' safety. But with all due respect, you could do a lot more good by finding some particularly dangerous bike lanes in your area and lobbying to get them improved, rather than trying to proselytize everyone into seeing things the way that John Forrester told you to see them.

But some bike lanes are certainly NOT more dangerous. Just because some are, doesn't mean they should be obliterated altogether


I understand that you disagree with me. But this statement again completely ignores the argument I laid out in the opening post of this thread. Your statement makes sense in response to someone who is claiming some (or many or most) bike lanes are dangerous. While that's part of my argument, for sure, in this thread my focus is how ALL bike lanes inhibit learning and discourage practicing traffic cycling behavior that is safe (safe not according to what John Forester says, but safe according to what the statistics and studies say), and, therefore, ALL bike lanes (not just the "bad" ones) contribute signficantly to causing countless needless deaths and injuries of cyclists.

Again, I understand you (and Gene and others) probably don't agree. But can you at least address this argument and explain WHY you disagree?

By the way, I "coast along at 7mph" with my child in tow in a trailer quite often. I do it in bike lanes, I do it outside of bike lanes - keeping to the side in accordance with "speed positioning" to let faster drivers pass, unless the lane is too narrow to safely share, in which case I take the lane.