My biggest concern with bike lanes

[noisebeam]

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 still think that the best compromise is no marked bike lanes, but instead lanes wide enough so that a truck can safely pass a cyclist. That is the pavement is wide enought to support a bike lane if one were to be painted.

This would still allow for novice cyclists to take to the street safety and also allows them to move/merge to the left of the lane, or travel in the center as they grow more experienced or the situation calls for it.

I have three main streets I can choose to ride to work every morning. One has a very narrow curb lane and I would be nuts to ride in the center of it during rush hour, one has a bike lane and I find to ride safety I am often not in it, not to mention it ends it odd places, the third and best choice is a road with a wide outside lane and it is easily the most comfortable to ride on.

Al

[drroebuck]

And you know what? Floaties may inhibit children from learning how to swim. So let's just throw them in the deep end and tell them we read about it in "Effective Swimming."

Better to give people a reasonably safe way to learn how to do something. If they want to get better, or expand their riding route options, then they can learn how to be more "effective" in traffic. That's probably what most of us have done anyway.

What makes me jumpy, Serge, is your use of the word "ALL." A well-designed bike lane does not have to inhibit one's learning, and can be safe and "effective." A city or town with no bike lanes, however, is a city or town with far fewer cyclists.

[Helmet-Head]

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).

You haven't said it umpteen times. We've been talking about "bike lanes" for weeks. The standard usage of the term includes the "silly" solid 5" wide stripe.

Without the stripe you have something else: a WOL (Wide Outside Lane).

When you are thinking and writing about WOLs but using the term "bike lane" that's very confusing, at least to me.

When there is no stripe identifying the bike lane, then it's not a bike lane. A bike lane is a specific area identified with a stripe where motorists are generally prohibited from driving (except for all the exceptions) even when cyclists are not present.

On the other hand, motorists are allowed to drive anywhere in a WOL, though they tend to keep closer to the left side away from the curb. The occasional motorists who do travel further right (when there are no cyclists present, of course), help cyclists by sweeping that part of the pavement. That sweeping never gets done by traffic when that pavement is demarcated from the rest of the lane as a bike lane with the solid white stripe.

Of course, debris collection is not the only problem that the white stripe causes. More importantly, the bike lane that comes into existence as a result of the white stripe inhibits learning, and discourages practicing, traffic cycling behavior that is safe (safe not according to John Forester but safe according to studies of car-bike collisions). And this is true for ALL bike lanes, not just the "dangerous" ones.

If you remove that "silly" stripe, I have no issues with the result, and it certainly wouldn't be a bike lane any longer.

Serge

[noisebeam]

Serge-
If you can say that you support and would advocate for WOLs, then I think we would be in full agreement on the 'bike lane' issue (otherwise its perhaps 90% ;) )
I only say this as I sense from some of your other comments that you perhaps also have some reservations about WOLs - if this is the case I'd like to further explore and understand this.
Al

[genec]

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?


Serge I think cars (or in reality bad drivers) inhibit riders from jumping right into the traffic lanes and practicing dynamic lane positioning (DLP). A new cyclist will look at a street and evaluate the situation... and may attempt to jump right into traffic using DLP if this is what they were taught... but the negative feedback from one or two unruly motorists will tend to push that cyclist back to what ever escape they can find... probably the dirty gutter, and cause them to question DLP methods. Bolder cyclists will venture out again. Others may stay as far right as they can.

Now you have mentioned that you have received honkings and even BT has been "tapped" by a bus... how long do you think a new rider would tolerate this? I have faced some of these jerks directly. Stupid radio stations have encouraged drivers to "take out cyclists." The general view of cyclists by society is not all that great these days. CM and the quest for oil and big autos tend to reinforce some motorists views that "them damn bikers jes' don' belong on my roads."

Experienced road warriors will take command of these negative situations... will act as the "Alpha dog" as DC says... but a new cyclist may cower away from these negative situations. Sure, the majority of drivers will give way to a competent cyclist... but all it takes is one bad driver... say once a week, and the newer cyclist may begin to question their developing skills.

That same new rider may find solace in a wider road... and wonder why they even tried to ride "out there." Finding solace on the side of the road reinforces the desire to ride in a separate place away from autos. A road warrior will simply assume that the driver was a jerk and get right out there. Not all bike riders want to face the negative reinforcement offered by some drivers out there... in spite of the fact that the cyclist is well within their rights. Some road warriors enjoy the game. But not all cyclist can be road warriors.

DLP is also a bit counter to the normal action of cycling... as cyclists (especially newer cyclists) tend to naturally ride in straight lines while balancing their bikes... constantly turning the handlebars to perform DLP requires more effort, as does keeping the head on a swivel to observe the bigger traffic picture. This all takes a more experienced rider... one more comfortable with cycling.

Remember the folks you address here on bike forums are generally experienced cyclists.

BTW regarding bike lanes... the first paved roads were built for cyclists. Autos came much later.

[Helmet-Head]

And you know what? Floaties may inhibit children from learning how to swim. So let's just throw them in the deep end and tell them we read about it in "Effective Swimming."

Better to give people a reasonably safe way to learn how to do something. If they want to get better, or expand their riding route options, then they can learn how to be more "effective" in traffic. That's probably what most of us have done anyway.


LOL. The "bike lanes are like floaties" argument. Bravo. Now that's a new one.

The problem is that using floaties is a reasonably safe way to learn how to do something, but using bike lanes is not a reasonably safe way to learn to do anything. Bike paths, maybe. But bike lanes, no way.

The "something" you might be able to learn reasonably safely from bike paths are basic bicycling skills (balancing, braking, riding a straight line, practicing looking back, etc.). But you can't learn any of that or anything else "reasonably safely" in a bike lane because a bike lane, by definition, is inherently entwined with motorist traffic. I realize there is some kind of fantasy out there about bike lanes being just like bike paths except they're on the street, but the fact is that they are radically different, and the very idea that they are similar (and in particular similarly safe), is deadly.

You still haven't answered me. How many cyclists must needlessly die because of bike lanes before cyclists finally are fed up with them, and realize the only function of bike lanes is to minimize trivial delays cyclists may occasionally and rightfully cause to motorists?


What makes me jumpy, Serge, is your use of the word "ALL." A well-designed bike lane does not have to inhibit one's learning, and can be safe and "effective." A city or town with no bike lanes, however, is a city or town with far fewer cyclists.
What characteristics of a "well-designed" bike lane keep it from being a monument to the dangerous idea that static lateral lane postioning is safe behavior for cyclists in traffic?

What evidence is there that there is any correlation between bike lanes and cycling popularity? I am aware of none. And even if there was any, how many cyclist lives are you willing to needlessly sacrifice in the name of increasing cycling popularity, by, say, 2% in a given city? How many? Is one worth it? 5? 10? One hundred?

[noisebeam]

No floaties does not mean the other choice throw 'em in the deep end. It means have a resonsible adult hold and stand by a new swimmer until they have developed the neccessary skills so that if you do throw 'em in the deep end they can safety swim to shore.

Likewise streets should have WOLs that can accomidate both experienced and new cyclists. Experienced cyclists will ride these streets and demonstrate safe riding skills. New cyclists can ride comfortably and observe the more experienced and also stick to low traffic low speed residential streets until they feel confident in self learned VC skills.

I also wanted to point our that when I decided to commute by bike I didn't just throw myself at the high speed roads. I spend time in my neighborhood and I found resources at the library and on the net (both forums like this as well as bike advocate site and even my city web site with cycling rules and city maps, etc.).

Bike lanes could cause the false sense of security to new cyclists who may throw themselves in the deep end but not have the VC skills that are still needed and more difficult to comprehend when bike lanes are present.

Al

[Helmet-Head]

No floaties does not mean the other choice throw 'em in the deep end. It means have a resonsible adult hold and stand by a new swimmer until they have developed the neccessary skills so that if you do throw 'em in the deep end they can safety swim to shore.

Likewise streets should have WOLs that can accomidate both experienced and new cyclists. Experienced cyclists will ride these streets and demonstrate safe riding skills. New cyclists can ride comfortably and observe the more experienced and also stick to low traffic low speed residential streets until they feel confident in self learned VC skills.

I also wanted to point our that when I decided to commute by bike I didn't just throw myself at the high speed roads. I spend time in my neighborhood and I found resources at the library and on the net (both forums like this as well as bike advocate site and even my city web site with cycling rules and city maps, etc.).

Bike lanes could cause the false sense of security to new cyclists who may throw themselves in the deep end but not have the VC skills that are still needed and more difficult to comprehend when bike lanes are present.

Al

Exactly. Thank you.

[genec]

WOL, bike lane... tomato, Tomotoe. You're hung up on semantics... and a stripe... not all "lanes" fit your definitions either.

"When we come to place where the road and the sky collide
Throw me over the edge and let my spirit glide
They told me I was going to have to work for a living
But all I want to do is ride...." -- Jackson Browne

[noisebeam]

(cut stuff about bad/agressive drivers and neg feedback to cyclist) Bolder cyclists will venture out again. Others may stay as far right as they can.

(cut stuff about negative interactions with cars and drivers bad attitude toward cyclists)

(more cut) but all it takes is one bad driver... say once a week, and the newer cyclist may begin to question their developing skills.

DLP is also a bit counter to the normal action of cycling... as cyclists (especially newer cyclists) tend to naturally ride in straight lines while balancing their bikes... constantly turning the handlebars to perform DLP requires more effort, as does keeping the head on a swivel to observe the bigger traffic picture. This all takes a more experienced rider... one more comfortable with cycling.

Remember the folks you address here on bike forums are generally experienced cyclists.

First you may be surprised to learn that I am quite inexperienced if measured by years of cycling. I only started to ride regularly on city/suburband roads since April '04. As a young kid I did ride a bike quite a bit, in my rural neighborhood, but also on fast rural windy streets downhill at high speeds, but I digress. As someone who has had to learn VC and DLP I am perhaps a novice.

In Feb-Mar'04 I learned all I could about cycling in a city. (see other posting I just made about this) I spend time riding neighborhood errands. I rode an old mtb and my max speed was perhaps 15mph. It quickly became obvious to me that sidewalks were not the place to be and riding in a predicable and dynamic way was required to stay safe - I followed all traffic rules. I soon learned how to ride one handed while looking behind me while staying in a straight line. When I first headed out on main high speed roads I still used the old bike and by then topped out at 16-17mph. I mention speed as I feel that it is not physical ability that is important for VC, but thinking and awareness.

Anyway, back to the earlier stuff I cut in your message. We must keep in mind that not only cyclists get intimidated by other drivers, but new (and experienced) car drivers do as well. There are many auto-auto accidents and near misses that happen every day due to bad drivers. This does not keep the vast majority of drivers off the road. (I did used to carpool with someone who stopped driving because they couldnt' handle the agressiveness of some drivers) I have been in car incidents that while didn't lead to an accident shook me up quite a bit and made me think twice about driving. I have had other cars cut me off, pull in front of me, etc. It is an unfortunate part of driving/cyclist with a vastly diverse set of people, many who care about the responsbility, but some who are reckless or careless and not thinking about the consequences. I do wish there was more driver education and related wish that more drivers considered the responsiblity that is required.

Al

[noisebeam]

Exactly. Thank you.
Serge - I did want to publicly say that I appreciate your dedication and focus and writing on this issue, but also that I think sometimes you come across somewhat abrasively or condecending - in specific the repeated question on how many will die and the 'bravos' of the last post, etc. There are many viewpoints on this issue and different backgrounds, but we are all cyclists with a common goal of wanting to make it safer. I think it is also important to realize that different geographies (cities and their specific traffic layouts, etc.) may require different solutions.
Al

[noisebeam]

I think there is a very big difference between WOLs and bike lanes. I also see it easier to ask traffic planners for bike lanes than WOLs. There are some roads built with WOLs here that have signs on the curb every 200yrds or so that show a bike in the WOL and a car passing with the text "Share the Road" - so obviously WOLs can be advocated for and comprehended by planners/designers.

Al

[genec]

I think there is a very big difference between WOLs and bike lanes. I also see it easier to ask traffic planners for bike lanes than WOLs. There are some roads built with WOLs here that have signs on the curb every 200yrds or so that show a bike in the WOL and a car passing with the text "Share the Road" - so obviously WOLs can be advocated for and comprehended by planners/designers.

Al

Beautiful...

I stated that to Serge about a week ago... he went into a tirade about government practices (re: "asking for bike lanes") verses honest corporations... sigh. I countered with Enron, Worldcom and others...

I am not so sure about Share the Road with the illustration you mention... as it does imply "bikes to the right." Just Share the Road... with a big Bike sign. I saw this today here in my town... somebody is listening... :D

[noisebeam]

Beautiful...

I stated that to Serge about a week ago... he went into a tirade about government practices (re: "asking for bike lanes") verses honest corporations... sigh. I countered with Enron, Worldcom and others...

I am not so sure about Share the Road with the illustration you mention... as it does imply "bikes to the right." Just Share the Road... with a big Bike sign. I saw this today here in my town... somebody is listening... :D
Didn't catch that 'discussion' you had with Serge- but anyway don't really care.

As to the 'Share the Road' sign - in this case it is on a 5 lane main road with posted 45mph speed limits, its not like anyone is going to ride anywhere but to the right unless merging to the left for a left turn, but I do see the point you made. I do think its better than nothing as it makes drivers aware that cyclist will and should be on road - but your sign idea would be better.

Al

[nick burns]

I am not so sure about Share the Road with the illustration you mention... as it does imply "bikes to the right." Just Share the Road... with a big Bike sign. I saw this today here in my town... somebody is listening... :D

The "Share the Road" signs & stickers around my area show a car & bike in line with each other. With the bike in front. Much better design in my opinion.

[genec]

First you may be surprised to learn that I am quite inexperienced if measured by years of cycling. I only started to ride regularly on city/suburband roads since April '04. As a young kid I did ride a bike quite a bit, in my rural neighborhood, but also on fast rural windy streets downhill at high speeds, but I digress. As someone who has had to learn VC and DLP I am perhaps a novice.

In Feb-Mar'04 I learned all I could about cycling in a city. (see other posting I just made about this) I spend time riding neighborhood errands. I rode an old mtb and my max speed was perhaps 15mph. It quickly became obvious to me that sidewalks were not the place to be and riding in a predicable and dynamic way was required to stay safe - I followed all traffic rules. I soon learned how to ride one handed while looking behind me while staying in a straight line. When I first headed out on main high speed roads I still used the old bike and by then topped out at 16-17mph. I mention speed as I feel that it is not physical ability that is important for VC, but thinking and awareness.

Anyway, back to the earlier stuff I cut in your message. We must keep in mind that not only cyclists get intimidated by other drivers, but new (and experienced) car drivers do as well. There are many auto-auto accidents and near misses that happen every day due to bad drivers. This does not keep the vast majority of drivers off the road. (I did used to carpool with someone who stopped driving because they couldnt' handle the agressiveness of some drivers) I have been in car incidents that while didn't lead to an accident shook me up quite a bit and made me think twice about driving. I have had other cars cut me off, pull in front of me, etc. It is an unfortunate part of driving/cyclist with a vastly diverse set of people, many who care about the responsbility, but some who are reckless or careless and not thinking about the consequences. I do wish there was more driver education and related wish that more drivers considered the responsiblity that is required.

Al


Agreed and understand... welcome to the biking world. The only real difference in the bike-auto crashes verses the auto-auto crashes are unfortunatly the potential level of injury. That is a rough learning experience. (talk about negative feedback... )

Sounds as if you are on the right track... Of course the reality is not all cyclists will approach cycling as you did.

Your statements reinforce one of my major issues... that drivers are a big part of the problem... society seems to have given drivers some permission to own the road... I would love to see signs and ad campaigns and ideally driver training that enforces driving courtesy and road users rights.

[genec]

The "Share the Road" signs & stickers around my area show a car & bike in line with each other. With the bike in front. Much better design in my opinion.

Cool. The one I just saw just had a huge bike. Maybe the size was supposed to intimidate motorists. :D

[bluejack]

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.

Well, ok, fair enough, but on the streets I ride, such a case only happens between 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM. So, I am thankful for the bikelanes & use them during most of my normal riding hours. When riding in the street.


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 believe so, but I believe that what you are advocating does not apply to most urban cycling.


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).

I think throughout the whole of my post I described a riding style that makes intelligent, dynamic use of the road. However, under ordinary conditions, my baseline is the position as I described it, just as in your post your "starting point" for dynamic riding is the middle of the vehicle lane. Perhaps that one sentence you refer to was poorly stated, but I don't think we disagree on what dynamic positioning means.


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.

You're quite the literalist, aren't you? I think you know what I mean.


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?


Yes. Do you understand that "until someone approaches from behind" can only refer to a road that has almost no traffic on it?


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?

As I mentioned in my post, it happens all the time, and I flow around such "motorists" (and the cars they are in) with whatever tactic is appropriate to the situation. I do not find it problematic.


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.

Sure. Or, inversely if you are on a one way street on the left side and the traffic is turning left. This is common sense. As is being aware of the position of all the cars in your vicinity and being alert to what the motorists in those cars appear to be intending, or could do if appearances are deceiving. Ride smart!


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.

I agree completely, except that it is not something I feel that I ever "learned" -- it is simply alert riding, aware to the dynamics of any interaction. And there are a ton of similar situations. I hate to think what it would take for you to describe the dynamics of making a left hand turn through a six-lane intersection without dedicated turn lights. There's a ton of rider-driver negotiation and smart-cyclist alert behavior required, but I am not sure I would care to attempt to write it all down!

[nick burns]

society seems to have given drivers some permission to own the road... I would love to see signs and ad campaigns and ideally driver training that enforces driving courtesy and road users rights.

Ironic too considering the initial push for improved roadways in the US (1880's-90's) was to facilitate better bicycle travel.

[bluejack]

The "something" you might be able to learn reasonably safely from bike paths are basic bicycling skills (balancing, braking, riding a straight line, practicing looking back, etc.). But you can't learn any of that or anything else "reasonably safely" in a bike lane because a bike lane, by definition, is inherently entwined with motorist traffic. I realize there is some kind of fantasy out there about bike lanes being just like bike paths except they're on the street, but the fact is that they are radically different, and the very idea that they are similar (and in particular similarly safe), is deadly.

Serge, it seems pretty clear that you have some sort of weird axe to grind with regard to these "deadly" bike lanes, and nobody is going to talk you out of it.

I don't know what conditions are like where you live, but I have ridden in cities with no bike lanes (most especially Philadelphia), while here in Seattle there are some bike lanes, some better than others. I don't know of anyone who thinks that bike lines are like bike paths: you would have to be in a strange fantasy world indeed to believe that. In fact, in most of Seattle, most riders will have to ride along many streets that have no bike lanes in order to get to the arterials that do. So this notion that bike lanes are training tools for learning "real" street driving also does not hold. But for any cyclist, of any level of experience, the bike lane is a valuable traffic tool, just as turn lanes, traffic signals, and crosswalks are valuable.


You still haven't answered me. How many cyclists must needlessly die because of bike lanes before cyclists finally are fed up with them, and realize the only function of bike lanes is to minimize trivial delays cyclists may occasionally and rightfully cause to motorists?

This specious question does not deserve an answer. Instead I'll ask you How many cyclists have ever died because of a bike lane? I would be astonished if you could prove a single one. However, if you have a child or loved one who died in some bike-lane related tragedy, then you have my sympathy. My sympathy, but not my agreement.

Your statement that the function of bike lanes is somehow to speed motorists is dead wrong, and your unproven assertions that bike lanes somehow result in poorly educated riders with inferior traffic skills scarcely deserves a rebuttal. Perhaps some anomalous circumstances in your locale make it manifestly different than any street-riding I have ever seen, but I will happily take my bike lanes where I can find them, as will just about every rider I know.


What characteristics of a "well-designed" bike lane keep it from being a monument to the dangerous idea that static lateral lane postioning is safe behavior for cyclists in traffic?

What characteristics of a bike lane make it such a monument? That's like saying cross walks are a monument to the dangerous idea that crossing the street is safe behavior for pedestrians! Sure, the law says that a car -- er, motorist, sorry -- must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, but does that mean people jump madly into traffic, trusting the law will shield them from being run down? Maybe where you live, but not even in law-abidinig Seattle are people quite that dumb.

[Helmet-Head]

bluejack - thank you for your detailed response. I believe we have a mutual understanding.

One thing though... Any road that has traffic controls (stop signs, signals), has gaps in traffic. Any gap greater than, say (I'm estimating), 20 seconds is plenty long enough for me to move back into my primary position in the center (between left and right tire tracks) of the lane. As soon as a car gets close to me from behind, I'm reasonably sure they are aware of me, and it is safe to do so, I move to the secondary position along the side of the road to let them pass. But as soon as there is another gap I bounce back to my primary position. That's why I call it lane center biased dynamic lateral positioning.

This works great on all roads in San Diego, and I can't imagine traffic patterns are so different in Seattle that it would only work there between 1am and 5am.

Serge

[Helmet-Head]

Apparently, I spoke too soon.


Instead I'll ask you How many cyclists have ever died because of a bike lane? I would be astonished if you could prove a single one.
You're right. I can't prove that even one cyclist died because of bike lanes. We do know that in almost all cross/hook collision situations, many of which are fatal, the cyclist entered the intersection far to the right. And we also know that bike lanes in general encourage "far to the right" cycling. To prove causation from bike lanes in general to a "far to the right" mentality to a particluar cyclist choosing to ride "far to the right" in any particular such fatality would be difficult. For one thing, the dead cyclist's mind cannot be examined at all, much less examined for how various ideas might have been formed in it.

Never-the-less, the argument I presented in the opening post of this thread stands.

I should also point out that the opposite has not ever been proven either: that even one life has been saved by bike lanes. Yet 100s of millions of dollars have been spent building these things.


Your statement that the function of bike lanes is somehow to speed motorists is dead wrong...
John Forester devotes pages and pages about the history of bike lanes in both Effective Cycling and Bicycle Transportation that explains this in great detail, if you're really interested. However, at least consider: if it is not the purpose of bike lanes to keep cyclists from impeding motorists, then why is it that cyclists are required to ride in bike lanes unless they are moving at the same speed as other traffic? If the purpose is to protect the cyclists, then why is the restriction lifted and they are allowed to "unsafely" move into the faster moving traffic if they are preparing for a left turn? And, if the purpose of bike lanes is cyclist safety, then why are cyclists not prohibited from speeding past motorists moving slowly or stopped to the left of the bike lane, a common cause of car-bike collisions (when a motorist decides to move right into a driveway without first checking that no one is in the bike lane, or when a motorist crosses three lanes of traffic stopped to let him into a driveway and a speeding cyclist in the bike lane slams into the side of his vehicle)?


your unproven assertions that bike lanes somehow result in poorly educated riders with inferior traffic skills scarcely deserves a rebuttal
You think my opening post should have been even longer? I would think you could at least address some of it before you write it off as "unproven assertions".

You ask what characteristics of a bike lane make it a monument to the dangerous idea that static lateral lane positioning is safe behavior for cyclists in traffic. I devoted a very long and detailed opening post to this idea. I'm not going to repeat it again. If, however, you wish to address what I actually said in the opening post, I would very much welcome that, for you would be the first.

Serge

[sbhikes]

Serge, the cross-posting is a bit annoying. As you can see, most of us are following all the related threads.

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.)

Link is broken.

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)

Published 1974. Outdated.


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.)

(Page 74) Cyclists rode less often on the sidewalk in Santa Barbara than the other cities. If cyclists had been avoiding the street by riding on the sidewalk perhaps they'd have had a lot more accidents like Gainsville.

Austin had a larger percentage of "advanced crossover" intersection maneuvers in advance of left turns resulting in a larger percentage of accidents for Santa Barbara, (11% vs. 3%) Is "advanced crossover" intersection maneuver the same thing as dynamic lane positioning (which is something I do, by the way.)

"During 1995, there were 158 reported bicycle-motor vehicle crashes in Gainesville, 173 in Austin, and 77 in Santa Barbara." (page 73) Santa Barbara appears to have had the lowest quantity of accidents.

"In Gainesville, the most frequently occurring crash type was Motorist Drive Out at Stop Sign — nearly a fourth of its reported crashes. In three out of four of these crashes, the bicyclist was traveling on the sidewalk, facing traffic (i.e., approaching from the motorist’s right)." (page 73) Could bike lanes have kept cyclists off the side-walk?

Seems to me the chart also shows more accidents involving moving vehicles in Gainsville and Austin and more accidents involving parked cars in Santa Barbara. Hitting a parked car is cyclist error while hitting a moving car may be either's fault.

On page 69, Serious Mid-block accidents. State and Cabrillo is in high tourist territory with a lot of confused and inattentive cyclists and drivers. I am not sure, but the intersection may have been re-striped recently. Also, the accident on Las Positas and State happened in a WCL, not a bike path.

On page 71 " The bicyclist was approaching the intersection in the BL. A passenger in a motor vehicle opened the right rear door, and the bicyclist had to swerve to the right to avoid striking the door." If the driver opened the right rear door they opened the door into the bike lane from the traffic lane.

The other two accidents on page 71 involved WCLs, not BLs.

I could go on if you like ;)

[Helmet-Head]

I know there are some cyclists who feel so unsafe that unless there is a bike lane on certain roads, they'll ride on the sidewalk.

While sidewalk cycling is known to be dangerous, I don't want to be part of an effort that, with a white stripe of paint, encourages cyclists who feel unsafe riding in traffic to ride on the street.

[bluejack]

Warning. You asked for it. This will be long.


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".
Ok: this is your premise. I have already explained that I do not practice
your premise. I think we both agree that intelligent, alert riding involves
dynamic lane positioning, but our biases differ. However, in the kind of
traffic I find myself I cannot accept the bias toward the center. We can
go into this if necessary, but let's move on to other points about bike
lanes, because your premise is not your only argument.


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.
Let's be clear: we are specifically speaking of dedicated, marked lanes
on roads for bicyclists. If this is what we mean by bike lanes, I simply
cannot agree with you that they inhibit novices from anything in most
parts of the country where bike lanes are a rarity and -- many cyclists
would argue -- a luxury. In any part of the country I have ridden a
bicycle, novices will encounter all kinds of street conditions, and either
learn or develop approaches to each. Your claim that experienced
cyclists are discouraged from practicing your particular form of lane
positioning is only true given your premise -- that they want to -- which
I continue to dispute.


Further, this
inhibition and discouragement applies to cyclists brainwashed by bike
lanes to ride dangerously ("statically positioned") even on roadways
without bike lanes.
Brainwashed by bike lanes? Again, in no part of the country that I have
ever ridden have there been enough bike lanes to do any brainwashing.
Cyclists must learn to deal with all kinds of traffic conditions. Good
cyclists do so.


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.
Please provide references to at least three such studies and -- in particular --
direct us to the points where dynamic lateral lane positioning with a bias
towards the center is the safest way to ride on all roads. This statement
does connect to your premise, but again, I argue (only from my
personal experience -- I have never read a study on this) that different
roads will have different "best practices" -- I completely agree with a
bias towards the center on roads that do not have enough room for vehicle
and bicycle to coexist. Center or the sidewalk in that case. But there are many
other roads and many other factors including: everything you cite below plus
(very important in Seattle) the steepness of the incline.


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.
Oh, one other condition, especially with regard to predicatability
is the presence of a bicycle lane. None of this discussion of lateral
lane position has yet convinced me, in the slightest, that bicycle
lanes are hazardous.


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.
Is this part of the "study after study" or is this your opinion? Because
again, I simply disagree that it is safer. I will agree that it is more
visible, but that is at least partially counterbalanced by the simple
fact that bicycle is directly in the path of the oncoming vehicle.
If the motorist is not looking, which has been known to happen,
then the cyclist may well be toast. If the motorist experiences a sudden
bout of road rage at possibly having been slowed to her destination,
as the recent law professor mentioned in another thread was, the
cyclist may be toast. And what of sharp curves? If you imagine a
motorist barrelling down a 35mph street at 55mph at night, and
coming around a curve to find a cyclist toodling along in the middle
of the lane at 15mph, you may very well imagine bicyclist meat
spread over thirty or forty feet of road. Again, this "take the road"
approach has merits in some circumstances, but you are making
assertions that I simply cannot agree with.


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.
This scenario is only true in the last few yards approaching an
intersection, and the danger is only from turning traffic. The turning
traffic *ought* to have noticed that you did not signal a turn. The
turning traffic in any case cannot turn with you but must either
be safely ahead or behind. In slow traffic, we agree that the cyclist
should merge with through traffic to avoid confusion with a turn.
(And never, ever, as I see people occasionally do, barrel through on
the side, cutting in front of vehicles that are waiting to complete their
turn due to pedestrians or other obstacles -- dumbest move ever!!)
Other circumstances may vary.


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.
Indeed, this is the only scenario in which a bias to riding in the
center helps protect the cyclist, and I believe it is counterbalanced
by the dangers of being in the path of traffic. However, with proper
reflective and lighting, this risk is vanishingly small.


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.
I agree with your logic in the first sentence, but dispute that anything
else in this statement supports it. Because, again, I think that being
in the path of traffic is among the stupidest ways of making motorists
aware of your presence.


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.
Whew, there's a lot of redundant information in this post. You said all of this
at the beginning of the post.


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?
I vote for the idea that cyclists should be in the safest part of the road,
which -- when there is enough road to ride out of the path of vehicles
along the side of the road is where I believe the safest part of the road
is, depending on all the factors of dynamic lane positioning that I think
we actually agree on. The side is not always the safest or the right
place to be, but all things being equal, on a wide enough road, I believe
it is. However... it could be that I have been brainwashed by bike
lanes! (Joke.)


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.
Finally! A third argument! Bike lanes teach law enforcement officers that
safe cyclist behavior is incorrect. Let me get to that one.

Ok, Serge, we've gone through the whole original post. I see three arguments against
bike lanes, largely based on one premise.

PREMISE: Riding in the center of the lane is the safest place to be.

I find your arguments in favor of the premise to be patently unconvincing.
However, if you could point me to the "study after study" I am willing to read
someone else's arguments. Given that I reject your premise, it should be no
surprise that I reject your arguments.

1) Bike lanes teach novice riders learn bad habits.

Actually, even given your premise, I disagree with this. Novice riders
in parts of the country where some roads have bike lanes but most do not,
novice riders will have ample opportunity to learn to ride in all conditions.

2) Bike lanes encourage bad habits in experienced riders.

Only if you believe that an experienced rider riding in a bike lane where such
a lane exists is a bad habit can I possibly see the sense of this argument
at all -- experienced riders who, by any reasonable definition of "experience"
will be smart and competant in handling all traffic conditions, bike lane or no.

3) Bike lanes teach give enforcement an incorrect view of safe cycling behavior.

Here in Seattle, it's even worse. The law teaches law enforcement that
your ride-in-the-middle approach is incorrect. Or at least illegal:

"SMC 11.44.040 Riding on roadways.

Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed slower than
the normal and reasonable flow of motor vehicle traffic thereon shall
ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe,
except as may be appropriate while preparing to make or while making
turning movements, or while overtaking and passing another bicycle or
vehicle proceeding in the same direction. A person operating a bicycle
upon a roadway that carries traffic in one (1) direction only and that
has two (2) or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near to the left
side of the left through lane as is safe. A person operating a bicycle
upon a roadway may utilize the shoulder of the roadway or any specially
designated bicycle lane if such exists. (RCW 46.61770(1))"

In short, if the normal flow of traffic is faster than the bicycle, whether
or not the bicycle is actually blocking said traffic, the bicycle should
not take the center of the lane. So, you can object to this law,
but don't blame it on the bike lane! Around here, law enforcement get
their opinions straight from the law. (Admittedly, you could probably try
to make the argument before a judge that the farthest to the right you
felt safe was the center of the lane. I don't think a judge would buy it,
as it's clearly not the point of the law.)

Now, Serge, I don't really think you and I are that far apart. We both
agree about dynamic, thoughtful, alert bike riding. We both agree that
lateral position is dependant on a variety of circumstances.

One thing that is ambiguous in this original post is whether you believe
that the safest "standard" position on a road with a bike lane is still
the center of the automobile lane, or whether you only object to the
habits cultivated on other roads. If you believe the former, then, I am
sorry to say, I think you're a loony. If the latter, I will simply argue that
I don't think it is the bike lanes that are cultivating this "bad habit" -- I
think the tendency to keep right in faster traffic is natural common sense.
If there are studies that show that it is not common sense, I will be glad
to review them, but the arguments you make here, mostly pertaining to
visibility, simply don't persuade me. I think there are many, many better
ways to make yourself visible.

[bluejack]

You ask what characteristics of a bike lane make it a monument to the dangerous idea that static lateral lane positioning is safe behavior for cyclists in traffic. I devoted a very long and detailed opening post to this idea. I'm not going to repeat it again. If, however, you wish to address what I actually said in the opening post, I would very much welcome that, for you would be the first.

Ok, I have now addressed, in detail, your original post. I would like to clarify, I don't disagree that "static lateral lane positioning" is a dangerous idea -- I just don't think that the baseline for dynamic lane positioning should be the center of the road.

[bluejack]

I should also point out that the opposite has not ever been proven either: that even one life has been saved by bike lanes. Yet 100s of millions of dollars have been spent building these things.

Largely, Serge, at the request of cyclists! I don't know if bike lanes have saved any lives, but they sure make it more convenient to ride in traffic on certain roads. Call me brainwashed, but I like bike lanes where they exist, and will be happy to spend my tax money improving roads with better bike lines.

[sbhikes]

From: http://www.transalt.org/blueprint/chapter4/chapter4c.html
"One of the most comprehensive analysis of bicycling accidents examined 4,000 mishaps in Cologne, Germany. The study found that bike lanes dramatically reduced the incidence of “dooring” (cyclist struck by opening car door) while reducing the severity of cyclist accidents by 20%. Accidents involving cyclists in bike lanes were concentrated primarily where a lane ended and cyclists had to find their way in mixed traffic, and where motor traffic entering a roadway crossed the bike lane. [25]

In one of the few U.S. examples with before-and-after data, on-street bicycle lanes in the Tierrasanta section of San Diego reduced bicycle accidents. In 1989, after on-street parking on three roads was converted to bike lanes, bicycle accidents fell from nine crashes (including one fatality) in the 1988-89 school year, to three non-fatal accidents in 1989-90. Removing car parking has also improved the physical appearance of the streets. [26] "

---
From: http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Valencia_Street_Report.pdf
"This report provides travel data for the five arterials in the area before and after the bike
lane installation, with emphasis on Valencia Street. Collision data and Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) volumes for South Van Ness Avenue, Mission, Valencia, Guerrero, and
Dolores Streets are compared. Sections discussing bicycle traffic and public response are
also included.
A summary of the report’s findings follows:
• Bicycle usage on Valencia Street increased 144 percent during the PM peak hour.
• Motor vehicle traffic dropped by 10 percent on Valencia Street and redistributed to
parallel arterials.
• There was no statistically significant change in the number of collisions on Valencia
Street or the four parallel arterials in the period before and after the bicycle lanes
were installed.
• Muni has voiced concerns about routing cyclists along bus routes and reducing the
number of traffic lanes on transit streets.
• Public response has been positive.
Based on the findings of this report, the Department of Parking and Traffic recommends
permanently legislating the bicycle lanes."

---
From: http://www.bikelib.org/muniguide/
"Bike lanes have worked well around the country for over 30 years.

* Sample results from Corvallis (OR): large increase in bike use, crashes slightly down, bad bicycling habits decreased. (Michael Ronkin, Oregon DOT Bike/Pedestrian Program, 2002)
* Chicago "before/after" results for roads with bike lanes: 25-100% increase in cycling, accident rates (predominantly car-car crashes) decreased by 9.9% at intersections and 15.4% at mid-block. (Chicago DOT Bicycle Program, 2004)"

---
See this page: http://www.cambridgema.gov/~CDD/et/bike/bike_safety.html
I especially like this statement: "A comparison of crash rates of all types in major cities has shown that cities with higher bicycle use have lower traffic crash rates of all types than cities with lower bicycle use. 13" Coupled that with data showing more bike lanes = more cyclists.

---
---
All cherry picked for your reading pleasure, just like you would have done. ;)

[Helmet-Head]

bluejack - Wow, and thanks. Finally, this is what I was looking for.

What I claim studies show is actually inferred. It's mostly inferred from the simple fact that the studies show that the type of collision where a cyclist is hit from the rear is very, very rare. Yes, it happens, and the motorist often claims "I didn't see the cyclist", but even in those cases usually the cyclist was riding outside of the motorist's intended path, and the motorist drifted. Here's an example from the "Tell us about your bike-car crashes(s)" thread (Post #106) under Commuting:


Last September I was riding on a road that I've ridden dozens of times. It was 6:15 am, slightly dark, with 2 lanes in each direction. I was as far right as I could safely go. I had a blinking light on the back of my bike that anyone can see from 2000 feet behind. All of a sudden, a car behind me hit my back tire and I went down an slid on the road. I was going at least 25 mph. Numerous people stopped including one man who took my bike to his house and returned it to mine later that day. The police placed the blame on the driver but did not give him a ticket (go figure). The driver's insurance agent set aside money to pay my medical bills (a broken rib) and fixed my bike (which had very little damage). I now look like a flashing neon sign but I am still hesitant to ride in the dark, this is after over 10 years of riding in the early morning.
I believe the motorist "didn't see" the cyclist because he was only paying attention and aware of what was in his intended path. Visibility is more than bright lights and clothes. If you are outside of the motorist's path, he is likely to not pay attention. Have you read about the gorrilla suit study?


Scientists have gathered some remarkable evidence which shows that it is possible to see something without observing it, in research that sheds new light on traffic accidents that occur when a driver "looked but failed to see", and other examples of mayhem and mishap in everyday life.
...
Working with Christopher Chabris at Harvard University, Simons came up with another demonstration that has now become a classic, based on a videotape of a handful of people playing basketball. They played the tape to subjects and asked them to count the passes made by one of the teams.

Around half failed to spot a woman dressed in a gorilla suit who walked slowly across the scene for nine seconds, even though this hairy interloper had passed between the players and stopped to face the camera and thump her chest.

...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fconnected%2F2004%2F05%2F05%2Fecfgorilla05.xml

Time and time I see a similar effect between motorists and cyclists riding off to the side - they just don't see them.

In short, if the normal flow of traffic is faster than the bicycle, whether or not the bicycle is actually blocking said traffic, the bicycle should not take the center of the lane.

Ah, the CA law is slightly but very signficantly different: "Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall..."

The "at that time" wording is critical. If there is no other traffic "at that time", then the speed of traffic at that time is the speed of the cyclist, of which of course he is not moving at a speed less than.

But even in WA, I can't imagine that you'd get any problems as long as you moved over before you impeded anyone, which is exactly what I'm advocating.

As far as the importance of leaving the right side for safety reasons at intersections goes, the studies are so clear on this that intersection approaches are an explicit exception to the side-of-the-road rule written into the CA VC: "(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized."

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

In fact, it's true at any intersection, even one with a driveway, since a driveway is "a place where a right turn is authorized."

I don't have time to address much more of this, but I believe you're correct when you say, "Now, Serge, I don't really think you and I are that far apart. We both agree about dynamic, thoughtful, alert bike riding. We both agree that lateral position is dependant on a variety of circumstances." The center bias is not critical to my point, for I believe bike lanes discourage even reasonable movements from the right side.

Obviously, in places where there are few bike lanes, the bike lane "keep-to-the-right brainwash" effect is not as powerful as in some place like San Diego, where bike lanes have been placed on just about every road that can take them.

And I certainly agree with this, "I think the tendency to keep right in faster traffic is natural common sense." My issue is regarding what is the safe position in the (even temporary) absence of faster traffic. And at intersection approaches.

Perhaps bike lanes are not the underlying problem to why cyclists ride too far to the right too often, but I believe they are a key contributing factor.

Serge

[Helmet-Head]

Largely, Serge, at the request of cyclists! I don't know if bike lanes have saved any lives, but they sure make it more convenient to ride in traffic on certain roads. Call me brainwashed, but I like bike lanes where they exist, and will be happy to spend my tax money improving roads with better bike lines.


Ok, you're brainwashed (along with the vast majority of all cyclists, just like I was until I came out of the hypnosis a little over a year ago)!

Now, do me a favor. The next few times you're riding in a bike lane think about what that road would be like if they removed the white stripe demarcating the bike lane. Note you'd still have the same width - no pavement loss. In the absence of cyclists, motorists might travel further to the right. That's actually a good thing, for the sweeping effect would clean up that part of the pavement too. With the stripe, the trash and puncture causing rubble is swept into the bike lane. And, of course, with the stripe, there is the "keep to the right" brainwash effect...

Just think about it.

Thanks,
Serge

[sbhikes]

Brainwashed by bike lanes
Hey y'all, there's a spaceship leaving at 11pm tonight. First 10 to take a cyanide capsule get to ride shotgun!
:)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Please provide references to at least three such studies and -- in particular --
direct us to the points where dynamic lateral lane positioning with a bias
towards the center is the safest way to ride on all roads.
...

Is this part of the "study after study" or is this your opinion?

Three studies? I'd be amazed if Serge can refer to ANY credible study that supports his unique theories on this subject.

Sorry, dewy-eyed quoting by Serge or one of the other Effective Cycling proselytizers of Forester's wisdom or sophomoric analyses, won't make the cut. Especially quoting Forester "studies" where Forester draws conclusions made possible by his own conjured WAGS about cyclists who MIGHT be vehicular cyclists, who MIGHT be more likely to allegedly practice some undefined percentage of undefined vehicular techniques, and who MIGHT have an alleged safety record different than any other similar cycling population.

Perhaps Serge or Boston-Trevor can reference the "study after study" that describes the behavior and safety record of a discrete population of cyclists who are identified with specific characteristics as vehicular cyclists. Of particular interest would be what specific behaviors did the alleged VC population in "study after study" routinely practice that differentiated them from the riff raff, and who measured it. And what study measured the safety record of this identified (by measurable characteristics) population of vehicular cyclists and with what reasonably comparable population of cyclists was it compared?

Frankly "Forester said it; I believe it; and that settles it" may work for a zealot who has had an epiphany after reading the Great One's tome; but it does not pass for "study after study."

[Helmet-Head]

I-Like-To-Bike ... does your name happen to be Stanley Batt?

Did I quote a "Forester study"? Where?
Did I mention any studies having anything to do with "vehicular cyclists"? Where?
Did I ever say anything even close to, "Forester said it; I believe it; and that settles it".

I don't care who says what. I only care about what is said, and whether it make sense to me. Much (but far from all) of what Forester says makes sense to me.

I predict that I-Like-To-Bike will have no substantial response to my questions.
Bluejack provided a very thoughtful response to my opening post of this thread. I don't think I-Like-To-Bike is capable of doing the same.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Did I quote a "Forester study"? Where?
Did I mention any studies having anything to do with "vehicular cyclists"? Where?
Did I ever say anything even close to, "Forester said it; I believe it; and that settles it".

I don't care who says what. I only care about what is said, and whether it make sense to me. Much (but far from all) of what Forester says makes sense to me.



Unbelievable! Ok if you say so! You aren't regurgitating what you read somewhere in Forester's book or from your vast knowledge of cycling gleaned from the Internet; this "stuff" is all your own making.

OK don't quote a Forester study; quote any study, report, or anything else that has any possibility of being validated that confirms or substantiates any of your theories about the safety improvement brought about by weaving in and out of the center of a traffic lane whenever traffic approaches while commuting. Direct all of us incompetent cyclists to any study that describes and measures behavior of "vehicular cyclists" or measured the safety record of the same population. Or better yet just preface every one of your cycling truth pronouncemnts to be just another opinion; worth no more and probably a lot less than that of any cyclist capable of evaluating their own circumstances.

[Helmet-Head]

Goodbye


Or better yet just preface every one of your cycling truth pronouncemnts to be just another opinion; worth no more and probably a lot less than that of any cyclist capable of evaluating their own circumstances.
All my posts are my own opinion, of course. However, I try very hard to explain the reasons for why I hold the opinions that I do. These reasons are compelling to me. If they're not compelling to you, there is nothing I can, or need to, do about it. To each his own.

Whatever little study information my opinions rely on, they are conclusions that Jeffrey Hiles, a Forester "challenger", agrees with and cites in his essay, "Listening to Bike Lanes". In particular, he does not dispute the fact that studies agree that the motorist-passing-cyclist type of collision is very rare, and that intersection hooks and crosses (which almost always involve a cyclist riding to the right of normal traffic flow) are much more common.

Now, is the cyclist riding to the right of normal traffic flow a significant factor, or just a coincidence emanating from the fact that that's simply where most cyclists ride? Of course, I don't know. But I believe, because it makes sense to me, that the lateral position is a very important factor.

I cited the gorilla study. It's not my conclusion that people don't see what they're not looking for. It's common sense that motorists have a much stronger tendency to pay attention to what is in their intended path than to anything outside of their intended path. Do I have a study that proves that? No. But it make sense to me. I believe it. If you don't want to believe it, don't. To each his own.

I believe the premises upon which my argument is based are reasonable. I also believe my argument follows logically from the premises. Few others seem to agree. I understand that. I respect it.

But I also know that when I ride in traffic consistent with my hypothesis, it works. I find motorists to be very cooperative with me. I truly enjoy riding in fast/busy traffic. It doesn't bother me. After decades of not enjoying traffic cycling, and finally learning how to enjoy it, it's actually become quite a treat. That's my experience.

I'm done with this thread. I'm done with this topic. I believe my argument speaks for itself, to anyone willing to take the time to understand it, think about it, and try it.

I'm outta here.

Serge

[Mars]

I believe the premises upon which my argument is based are reasonable. I also believe my argument follows logically from the premises. Few others seem to agree. Serge[/QUOTE]

I have been following this thread from the beginning and I agree with Serge that there is sound logic behind his practices. If he "sinned" I would say it was implying that "study after study" supported his center bias ideas as opposed to VC in general. Be that as it may, I find his concept intriguing. There has been a lot of snow and below zero temps here in Vermont/NY and the right side of the roads are now impassable. I have no choice but to ride where Serge advocates.... and it works. I have definitely seen an increase in driver cooperation with me and a decrease in drivers turning into me at intersections or while changing lanes.

The gorilla study that Serge refers to is the most spectacular in a long string of studies about perception and selective attention. As cds, cell phones, and even tv :O enters vehicles, all cyclists need to consider whether they are being "noticed and attended to" vs beng "visible". Serge offers an interesting way to increase the probabilityof being noticed.

For those of you who are resisting Serge's arguments, ask yourself this question: When you are driving your car, do you notice the peds walking on the sidewalk? I know that I don't. Even though they are right beside me, the sidewalk creates a psychological boundary that I don't attend to. I am guessing that bike lanes have the same effect.

It would be interesting to try a "gorilla" study where a tape of cyclists riding in bike lanes are noticed. then do another where they are riding like Serge discusses..... hmmm, wonder if a grad studentof mine might like to try this. Serge, if you read this, PM me. I would like to discuss this more with you.

[nick burns]

I'm done with this thread. I'm done with this topic. I believe my argument speaks for itself, to anyone willing to take the time to understand it, think about it, and try it.

I'm outta here.

HOORAY!!

[nick burns]

When you are driving your car, do you notice the peds walking on the sidewalk?


I've been known to almost drive into a tree "noticing" certain pedestrians :D

[Mars]

I've been known to almost drive into a tree "noticing" certain pedestrians :D

Yeah baby! That is a version of the "cocktail party" phenomenon. You are at a party with a lot of noise. Someone is talking to you. Then somewhere else in the room, someone says the word "sex" or something like it and your attention zooms to that conversation - even though you might still be looking and nodding at the person who was/is still talking to you. How did you pick out that one word form all the other chatter in the room?

It seems like we are "tuned" to picking out certain stimuli from the flood of perceptions that we receive every second. And babes are one of them. But think to yourself, how many guys do you notice on the sidewalk? And this is where Serge and his ideas come in. Drivers are not "tuned" to looking for bikes on the road. If you are right in front of them, you are more likely to be noticed than if you are off to one side. At least that is my understanding of his model.

[bluejack]

Be that as it may, I find his concept intriguing. There has been a lot of snow and below zero temps here in Vermont/NY and the right side of the roads are now impassable. I have no choice but to ride where Serge advocates.... and it works. I have definitely seen an increase in driver cooperation with me and a decrease in drivers turning into me at intersections or while changing lanes.
I am not sure that heavy snow conditions are the best general test case for the question. Although things are probably different in Vermont where drivers are more accustomed to snow, my experience has been that in the snow: (1) Visibility increases, (2) Motorist speed decreases, (3) Motorist attention and alertness increases, (4) A general spirit of "we're in this together" prevails.

Once the snow is gone, the same principles may not apply.


The gorilla study that Serge refers to is the most spectacular in a long string of studies about perception and selective attention. As cds, cell phones, and even tv :O enters vehicles, all cyclists need to consider whether they are being "noticed and attended to" vs beng "visible". Serge offers an interesting way to increase the probability of being noticed.
Interesting, but -- at least to me -- not convincing. My common sense suggests there are better ways to be noticed.


For those of you who are resisting Serge's arguments, ask yourself this question: When you are driving your car, do you notice the peds walking on the sidewalk? I know that I don't. Even though they are right beside me, the sidewalk creates a psychological boundary that I don't attend to. I am guessing that bike lanes have the same effect.
There are two issues here: one, do bike lanes have the same effect? Without a study, your guess is as good as mine. Two: do the "training" of bike lanes have an impact on driver and or cyclist behavior for roads where there are no bike lanes? I think this is a harder point to actually gather evidence on. My hunch is no.

On the former point, though: my guess is that bike lanes do have some effect on the psychology of drivers: a driver will treat a car in a neighboring lane differently than a car in the same lane, and this would be true of bicycles as well. I don't think cyclists in a bicycle lane become non-information, the way pedestrians do, I think they become vehicles in a neighboring lane. But again, that's a hunch based on my own driving.


It would be interesting to try a "gorilla" study where a tape of cyclists riding in bike lanes are noticed. then do another where they are riding like Serge discusses..... hmmm, wonder if a grad studentof mine might like to try this. Serge, if you read this, PM me. I would like to discuss this more with you.
I agree. It would be interesting. Almost all of this is rank speculation without some controlled study.

Despite my general opposition to the bias towards the center, I do wonder about articles like this (http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=147232), from another thread. Clearly, the driver was grossly negligent, and the cyclist should have been safe. Had the cyclist been in the center of the road, would the driver have noticed her? Without knowing why the driver was so negligent it's impossible to say... the results may very well have been the same. But this is the very rare case that provides at least a smidgen of support to Serge's theory. I still think that there are better ways to improve visibility, and ultimately very little defense against a driver who's totally out of it. But without better information, we just don't know, do we?

[Helmet-Head]

But this is the very rare case that provides at least a smidgen of support to Serge's theory.
You catch on quick.. Jack. This is of course exactly what I was referring to in the opening post in this paragraph:


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.

I think drivers unintentionally drift much more often than cyclists want to think about. The only reason this type of collision is as rare as it is is because a drift has to coincide with an unnoticed cyclist for it to occur.

Remember, the gorilla suit and beating the chest in the middle of the basketball game did not make the woman "visible" to half the people in the study. What makes you noticed is relevance. A cyclist off to the side is not relevant to a huge percentage of motorists.

You don't need a study to verify this. Just try riding this way. I guarantee you will feel motorists take notice of you.

[Helmet-Head]

Another example.

Consider this statement from post #28 in the "What do you do..." thread in Commuting...


I smack the back of a car with my hand almost once a day for drivers who didn't see me because they didn't look.
"Because they didn't look"? Why do the drivers have to look? What does that mean? Drivers are looking all the time. What this typical cyclist expects drivers to do is look for cyclists the way they look for pedestrians - an "exception look", if you will. An exception from looking where they normally look... where vehicles are.

This is a key point. When cyclists ride in the pedestrian style (slow on sidewalks, walk across crosswalks, etc.), they fall into being seen where drivers are already looking for pedestrians (at intersections).

When cyclists ride vehicularly they fall into being seen where drivers are already looking (almost constantly) for vehicles.

But when cyclists ride in some third hybrid manner I believe they are putting an unreasonable burden on the drivers, which is what pedal is doing (and what the style of riding I-like-to-bike advocates does).

Pedal would not need to smack the back of cars regularly because the drivers didn't see him because they "didn't look", if he was riding where the drivers were looking in the first place.

This point is fundamental to my whole argument. And, to relate it to bike lanes in these terms: the problem with bike lanes is that they encourage cyclists to ride where... motorists are not looking.

[bluejack]

I think drivers unintentionally drift much more often than cyclists want to think about. The only reason this type of collision is as rare as it is is because a drift has to coincide with an unnoticed cyclist for it to occur.
However, we lack two important pieces of information: (1) in these very rare cases where cyclists are hit by drifting motorists, would the cyclist-in-the-middle-of-the-road have been better off? Here my intuition differs from yours; I think no, you think yes. We need some facts. (2) are there additional hazards to a biad towards the center? Again, my intuition says there are: very substantial ones in some circumstances.

Conclusion: I understand your argument, and the scenarios you worry about. But I am not convinced that your practice is overall any safer. I would need to see some controlled studies involving drivers at all levels of inattention and/or frustration to be persuaded that this was safer.


You don't need a study to verify this. Just try riding this way. I guarantee you will feel motorists take notice of you.
And for the motorists who do notice you, and have to take special precautions to avoid hitting you, I have absolutely no doubt that I would feel their notice. But this would not make me feel safer, nor do I believe I would be safer.

I presume you have followed this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=59635), in which a law professor runs over a lawyer (a story that can only please those who dislike lawyers). There is no question that the motorist saw the cyclist, the only debate is whether she ran him down in a fit of rage because he was blocking her (his argument), or whether she was just an incompetant driver (her argument). To me, this is the kind of anecdote that outweighs the Utah girl story, as I can imagine it being a far more likely -- and common -- event.

[bluejack]

I smack the back of a car with my hand almost once a day for drivers who didn't see me because they didn't look.
"Because they didn't look"? Why do the drivers have to look? What does that mean? Drivers are looking all the time. What this typical cyclist expects drivers to do is look for cyclists the way they look for pedestrians - an "exception look", if you will. An exception from looking where they normally look... where vehicles are.

I am not sure I can accept that "pedal" is a typical cyclist. Anyone who is in the business of smacking cars once a day cannot be riding in a typical manner, at least not around here, nor even in Philadelphia where I also did a lot of urban riding. I am demonstrably overlooked by motorists on average 2-3 times per year, and I ride daily, in the very manner you disapprove of.

[Helmet-Head]

I'm glad you understand my argument. Now help me understand yours.

What do you see as the downside to what I am suggesting? If you adopted what I suggest in your own riding, how do you think it might make you less safe? Are you saying the type of riding I suggest is more likely to enrage motorists into intentionally crashing into the cyclist? Even though he moves out of the way whenever it is safe and reasonable to do so before his center bias impedes anyone?

By the way, this sentence makes me wonder whether you do understand what I'm saying: "And for the motorists who do notice you, and have to take special precautions to avoid hitting you, ..." Since (when it's safe and reasonable to do so) I move out of the way before I impede them, there are no special precautions they have to take to not hit me. By the way, the only times when it is not safe and reasonable to move out of the way, it would not be safe and reasonable to ride along the right side in the "traditional manner" anyway.

By the way, I still think you are underestimating the correlation between lane position and visibility, especially at intersections. The main point is that motorists coming from all directions in an intersection are all looking for vehicles in vehicle locations. A cyclist approaching an intersection off to the right of where vehicles normally drive is easily overlooked. I know that when I started taking the center of the lane at intersection approaches it made a huge difference in how much more I was noticed, not just by those behind me looking to turn right, but also those coming from the right and looking to turn right (right on red) who are likely to only look in the center of the lane, not along the edge where many cyclists ride.

It is my understanding that the most common type of car-bike collision is when the motorist and cyclist are going in opposite directions, the cyclist is going straight, and the motorist is turning left (across the cyclist's path). This collisions happens usually because the motorist does not see the cyclist, probably because the cyclist is not riding where the motorist is looking, but to the right of where the motorist is looking.

it goes on and on, but it all points to the fact that lane position is a major factor in determining cyclist visibility, and, in general, a cyclist riding in the center is much more likely to be noticed by motorists than is a cyclist off to the side.

Serge

[Helmet-Head]

I am not sure I can accept that "pedal" is a typical cyclist.


Good point. However, his comment is typical of cyclists.

[genec]

It is my understanding that the most common type of car-bike collision is when the motorist and cyclist are going in opposite directions, the cyclist is going straight, and the motorist is turning left (across the cyclist's path). This collisions happens usually because the motorist does not see the cyclist, probably because the cyclist is not riding where the motorist is looking, but to the right of where the motorist is looking.

Serge I don't want to keep beating this... but you just described the typical motorcycle accident. Motorcyclists ARE VC riders... even to the point of maintaining speed, they also are "big" in a real way and have better lighting (now it is mandatory for their headlights to be on, even in the daytime) yet motorcyclists easily go "unseen" as they are not cars. A driver can look right at you and like your gorilla video model, not see you. This is what I believe others are trying to point out. Further, at higher traffic speeds a driver scans faster, therefore you have less of a chance of being observed, even if you are right in front of the driver... you may be easily "tuned" out.

Yes, I was a motorcycle rider before I went back to cycling. And yes I did receive advanced training on motorcycle riding... both from the Navy and from the CHP... I am not just spewing my own private thoughts here.

[Mars]

Serge I don't want to keep beating this... but you just described the typical motorcycle accident. Motorcyclists ARE VC riders... even to the point of maintaining speed, they also are "big" in a real way and have better lighting (now it is mandatory for their headlights to be on, even in the daytime) yet motorcyclists easily go "unseen" as they are not cars. A driver can look right at you and like your gorilla video model, not see you. .

Good point, Gene. Do you know of any studies where the most common causes of motorcycle accidents are tabulated? That would be an indirect test of some of Serge's claims.

Serge, I had a thought. Do you think that the amount of signalling that a cyclist does has anything to do with how often they are noticed? I think that you are a cyclist who communicates more than most with the drivers around you. can you recall a time when you didn't and compare?

[Helmet-Head]

Gene - Have I claimed that riding in the center of the lane guarantees visibility? Of course not. You keep accusing me of being "black & white", yet it's your misrepresentations of what I say that are so, not what I actually say.

For another example, you think you are addressing my argument when you point out that not all bike lanes are dangerous, and you do not support the dangerous ones, but you do support the good ones. The implication being that my black & white position is that ALL bike lanes are dangerous. Yet I've never said that, not in the direct sense of "dangerous" that you imply (where the bike lane directs the cyclist into a dangerous situation). I do argue that all bike lanes are dangerous in an indirect sense, a subtlety you don't understand or choose to ignore (thus inhibiting our communication), in that all bike lanes inhibit learning, and discourage practicing, dynamic lateral lane positioning. All bike lanes, even the "good" ones, do that. And that makes all bike lanes dangerous in this indirect sense, but not in the direct sense that you imply in your misrepresentations of my position.

Anyway, of course a cyclist (motorized or not) is less visible than a car. Sometimes drivers don't see CARS in this situation, for that matter, much less motorcycles and or cyclists. However, I still contend that lane positioning is a BIG factor in cyclist visibility. I don't need a study to tell me that a motorist is more likely to see a cyclist where he is looking (where cars are driven) that he is likely to see one where is not looking (off to the side from where cars are driven). It's plain common sense, if you just think about it for a bit. And it is trivial to verify on any bike ride with more than a handful of just semi-busy intersections.

Mars - I know I communicate much more with motorists around me now that I have incorporated "center biased dynamic lane positioning" into my riding, than I did for the almost 30 years of cycling I did prior to learning and developing it. Does that signaling make me more noticed? Absolutely. From reading Forester's Effective Cycling I learned about and was amazed, even shocked, to experience how much just a semi-lengthy (a few seconds) look over the shoulder communicates to motorists behind me. That's a signal. In some cases it's not enough though, like when I'm trying to merge across multiple streams of fast/busy traffic to get to a left-turn lane, and I need to extend my left arm while I'm looking back to get them to notice. And that works every time. They yield the right-of-way to me by slowing down and letting me in (Jack - note that since this is all part of turning left, it's legal even in Seattle, despite moving slower than the posted speed and the flow of traffic). As I've described before, if there are multiple lanes, I just repeat the right-of-way negotiation process for each lane, until I'm in the left turn lane. At each step, the motorist behind me has agreed to slow down and yield the right-of-way of way to me to let me in... which precludes aggression and road rage from happening.

Serge

[Dchiefransom]

Gene - Have I claimed that riding in the center of the lane guarantees visibility? Of course not. You keep accusing me of being "black & white", yet it's your misrepresentations of what I say that are so, not what I actually say.

For another example, you think you are addressing my argument when you point out that not all bike lanes are dangerous, and you do not support the dangerous ones, but you do support the good ones. The implication being that my black & white position is that ALL bike lanes are dangerous. Yet I've never said that, not in the direct sense of "dangerous" that you imply (where the bike lane directs the cyclist into a dangerous situation). I do argue that all bike lanes are dangerous in an indirect sense, a subtlety you don't understand or choose to ignore (thus inhibiting our communication), in that all bike lanes inhibit learning, and discourage practicing, dynamic lateral lane positioning. All bike lanes, even the "good" ones, do that. And that makes all bike lanes dangerous in this indirect sense, but not in the direct sense that you imply in your misrepresentations of my position.

Anyway, of course a cyclist (motorized or not) is less visible than a car. Sometimes drivers don't see CARS in this situation, for that matter, much less motorcycles and or cyclists. However, I still contend that lane positioning is a BIG factor in cyclist visibility. I don't need a study to tell me that a motorist is more likely to see a cyclist where he is looking (where cars are driven) that he is likely to see one where is not looking (off to the side from where cars are driven). It's plain common sense, if you just think about it for a bit. And it is trivial to verify on any bike ride with more than a handful of just semi-busy intersections.

Mars - I know I communicate much more with motorists around me now that I have incorporated "center biased dynamic lane positioning" into my riding, than I did for the almost 30 years of cycling I did prior to learning and developing it. Does that signaling make me more noticed? Absolutely. From reading Forester's Effective Cycling I learned about and was amazed, even shocked, to experience how much just a semi-lengthy (a few seconds) look over the shoulder communicates to motorists behind me. That's a signal. In some cases it's not enough though, like when I'm trying to merge across multiple streams of fast/busy traffic to get to a left-turn lane, and I need to extend my left arm while I'm looking back to get them to notice. And that works every time. They yield the right-of-way to me by slowing down and letting me in (Jack - note that since this is all part of turning left, it's legal even in Seattle, despite moving slower than the posted speed and the flow of traffic). As I've described before, if there are multiple lanes, I just repeat the right-of-way negotiation process for each lane, until I'm in the left turn lane. At each step, the motorist behind me has agreed to slow down and yield the right-of-way of way to me to let me in... which precludes aggression and road rage from happening.

Serge



Interesting, Serge. If you follow California law by staying in the bike lane until it ends, you wouldn't be able to safely and effectively negotiate across the lanes for a left turn.
I DO see what you are saying, but please try this on for size. When someone says that bike lanes make many cyclists "feel" safe, I believe those cyclists have a very large mental block that needs to be overcome. I don't think it's just the matter of training as you are suggesting, and that it would take more experience that most things. If I suggested we take a revolver and play Russian Roulette, what feelings and thoughts cross your mind? I mean the ones after you think I'm a total kook( ya never know ;) ). Do you think I would ever get you to play? That solid concrete mental block of how stupid a person would be to play that, and how dangerous it is, is exactly the size of the mental block that needs to be overcome by many of those cyclists that "feel" safe in the bike lane. Until that block is overcome, and not just by the cyclists, but by all those people in power that "know" what's good for us, then your style of cycling probably will not be promoted by those that could really get it off the ground.
On another note, isn't the term for "center biased dynamic lane positioning", "Vehicular Cycling"? :D