Advocacy & Safety - Cycling advocates say [bike] tracks are the future.

http://seattlebikeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Screen-shot-2010-09-29-at-12.35.20-AM-600x419.png


Move over bike lanes, bike tracks are gearing up in Seattle.

Seattle has spent $35 million over the past five years on bicycle lanes, but now the city is changing direction.

...

Cycling advocates say tracks are the future.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Seattle-switching-gears-from-bike-lanes-to-bike-tracks-175882571.html

Rail Transit Manager for SDOT Ethan Melone said that the cycle track actually pays for itself, since there are utilities under the proposed track that would have to be moved otherwise. He called that a “win-win.” As for project details, separation methods SDOT is looking at includes curbs, planter boxes and paint (and combinations of these methods). SDOT has spent time studying bike signals and signage to the extent that they think the cycle track will be an “appealing and safe” facility.

He also pointed out that Broadway is a good place to innovate something like this because it’s not actually a bike commuter corridor. Instead, it’s a popular street that bikers may currently be avoiding due to lack of accommodation.

http://seattlebikeblog.com/2010/09/29/first-hill-streetcar-update-cycle-track-would-pay-for-itself/

I'm in favor of things that get more people on their bikes, for a lot of reasons, but among them is the fact that more cyclists make a safer riding environment for all of us.

http://seattlebikeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Screen-shot-2010-09-29-at-12.35.20-AM-600x419.png


I'm in favor of things that get more people on their bikes, for a lot of reasons, but among them is the fact that more cyclists make a safer riding environment for all of us.

If no turns are permitted on the street fine, otherwise it requires a multiphase signal (With very clear no right turn on red) or it is quite dangerous.

This is similar to what they have in areas of Stockholm. I didn't ride there, but I thought it looked pretty cool the way they had it laid out. Some areas even had their own little traffic lights.

I'm gonna go grab some popcorn for this.

If no turns are permitted on the street fine, otherwise it requires a multiphase signal (With very clear no right turn on red) or it is quite dangerous.

"The food was terrible, and there wasn't enough of it."

Is it just me, but does it seem like no matter how much time, thought and money is spent on cycling infrastructure, the resulting improvements are instantly judged to be extremely dangerous or deficient by the cycling community?

List of cycling facilities deemed to be extremely dangerous by cyclists
- Roads, wide, narrow, divided, with shoulder, without shoulder, 2 lane, 4 lane, containing pacelines
- Bike lanes, in door zone, separated, on right-side, 18", 24", 36", 60", with debris, on toll bridges
- Sharrows, hash marks on right, hash marks on left, hash marks in center, hash marks on some clueless place
- MUPs, with dividing lines, without dividing lines, shared with pedestrians, shared with equestrians, dogs, anyone whatsoever
- Bike paths, wide, narrow, straight, with curves, with traffic, abandoned, crossing live fire gunnery ranges
- Sidewalks, with handicap access, without handicap access, with live patrols to stop knuckleheads that walk
- High wires, tight, slack, suspended across the Grand Canyon
- Airstrips, international, dirt, with taxiways, uncontrolled, in Somalia
- Parking lots, empty, that permit automobiles, hosting autocross rallies, drivers-ed classes for blind people
- Other

Maybe bicycles future will be like the car future where the cyclists doesn't have to steer or brake, just pedal and let the wire in the ground guide us.

If no turns are permitted on the street fine, otherwise it requires a multiphase signal (With very clear no right turn on red) or it is quite dangerous.


We are getting similar things in NYC now, and they have multiphase signals which seem to work fine. I am very happy with most of the new infrastructure here.

Is it just me, but does it seem like no matter how much time, thought and money is spent on cycling infrastructure, the resulting improvements are instantly judged to be extremely dangerous or deficient by the cycling community?

People like to whine.

I'm gonna go grab some popcorn for this.

You may well do so. Cycle tracks have enormous appeal to people who believe that by far the greatest danger to cyclists is that from same-direction motor traffic, and who, therefore, practically ignore the hazards of crossing and turning traffic. This belief is the exact opposite of the car-bike collision statistics. This belief was created by motordom to assist in clearing the roads of cyclists, as written in the FTR, MBP, and MBL laws and taught to the public through fear. The only principled opposition to cycle tracks will come from vehicular cyclists, unless and until the traffic engineers wake up to the traffic problems associated with making cycle tracks safe.

Is it just me, but does it seem like no matter how much time, thought and money is spent on cycling infrastructure, the resulting improvements are instantly judged to be extremely dangerous or deficient by the cycling community?
Cycling community? What cycling community? Ya don't mean a self appointed spokesman for the one (and only) true way with a few gullible disciples do ya?

Cycling community? What cycling community? Ya don't mean a self appointed spokesman for the one (and only) true way with a few gullible disciples do ya?

Actually not singling anyone out in particular -- I've just noticed that when a cycling-specific investment is announced somewhere, the local cyclists seem to come out of the woodwork to complain. I'm thinking of the bikeway on the Miami Causeway and various bikelanes and sharrows.

Cycling community? What cycling community? Ya don't mean a self appointed spokesman for the one (and only) true way with a few gullible disciples do ya?

This "cycling community" seems to be mostly made up of people who are rather new to riding bikes. They seem a bit like the new converts to a religion. They've found god and insist you find the same one.

I have a word for cycling advocates that would get me banned.

You may well do so. Cycle tracks have enormous appeal to people who believe that by far the greatest danger to cyclists is that from same-direction motor traffic, and who, therefore, practically ignore the hazards of crossing and turning traffic. This belief is the exact opposite of the car-bike collision statistics. This belief was created by motordom to assist in clearing the roads of cyclists, as written in the FTR, MBP, and MBL laws and taught to the public through fear. The only principled opposition to cycle tracks will come from vehicular cyclists, unless and until the traffic engineers wake up to the traffic problems associated with making cycle tracks safe.

Increasing evidence from the UK and the Netherlands is steadily refuting your circa-1965 studies, John.

Cycling community? What cycling community? Ya don't mean a self appointed spokesman for the one (and only) true way with a few gullible disciples do ya?

He means the cognoscenti.

Re: cycle tracks


Increasing evidence from the UK and the Netherlands is steadily refuting your circa-1965 studies, John.

On the contrary, that evidence from the Netherlands (I know of no evidence from the UK about cycle tracks) confirms what I wrote in the 1970s, in that cycle tracks are safe only when special measures are taken to prevent the collision-causing conflicting traffic movements produced by cycle tracks. The best that Americans have managed to do, to date, is a half-hearted imitation of Dutch practices. It is my opinion that typical American cities will not install the full Dutch system and, also, that Americans will not be making a transportationally significant switch from motor to bicycle transportation.

He means the cognoscenti.

(Self deluded) cognoscenti.
Datz wot I thought.

Actually not singling anyone out in particular -- I've just noticed that when a cycling-specific investment is announced somewhere, the local cyclists seem to come out of the woodwork to complain. I'm thinking of the bikeway on the Miami Causeway and various bikelanes and sharrows.
I don't doubt that any proposed cycling project brings out "complainers." Who those complainers represent is the question. I doubt that the complainers about proposed cycling improvements represent any significant percent of the population (cycling community) that would/could use/benefit from the project. The complainers are even less likely to represent the local cycling community when the complainers are not local, or are spokesmen for an extreme fringe of "enthusiasts."

You may well do so. Cycle tracks have enormous appeal to people who believe that by far the greatest danger to cyclists is that from same-direction motor traffic, and who, therefore, practically ignore the hazards of crossing and turning traffic. This belief is the exact opposite of the car-bike collision statistics. ...

...but not fatality statistics...


...This belief was created by motordom to assist in clearing the roads of cyclists, as written in the FTR, MBP, and MBL laws and taught to the public through fear. The only principled opposition to cycle tracks will come from vehicular cyclists, unless and until the traffic engineers wake up to the traffic problems associated with making cycle tracks safe.

...and this making-safe is, among other measures, taken care of with separate lights.

But you know all this.

No matter what the "problems" may be, people are going to figure out how to use such a facility to their best advantage. No facility is going to be perfect for everyone. I like that they are trying it out.

...and this making-safe is, among other measures, taken care of with separate lights.



As long as it is strongly emphasized to US motorists(signage/red arrow right turn light) that they cannot make a right turn on a red light while operating near one of those cycling tracks. . I feel it's not going to be foolproof since US motorists are allowed/conditioned to make a right turn on red just about everywhere they drive.

I feel it's not going to be foolproof since ...

What road (or activity) is foolproof?

What road (or activity) is foolproof?



Ok, foolproof may not have been the best choice of words, but if a municipality implements this design of cycle track, they should consider taking the strongest of actions to limit as many motorists as possible from making right turns on red when operating near that cycle track.

http://seattlebikeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Screen-shot-2010-09-29-at-12.35.20-AM-600x419.png




I'm in favor of things that get more people on their bikes, for a lot of reasons, but among them is the fact that more cyclists make a safer riding environment for all of us.

My only problem with the image you included, is that, the concrete barrier is not hi enough to be effective.

EDIT: Just as with motorized vehicular traffic, traffic engineers would have to account for the land needed to build 'cycle tracks' within the same road space, when reconstructing the total width of the 'cycle tracks n' road combined.

Every time a state DOT determined a road needed widening, I don't see 'cycle tracks' being included in a road improvement project for widening the road(s).

Ok, foolproof may not have been the best choice of words, but if a municipality implements this design of cycle track, they should consider taking the strongest of actions to limit as many motorists as possible from making right turns on red when operating near that cycle track.
A reasonable clarification. It does help to avoid vague requirements like "foolproof" that can exclude everything. Just as vague as the next poster who claims that the proposed barrier is not high enough to be "effective." Whatever "effective" is supposed to mean; maybe it means foolproof to the poster.

Does anyone have rush hour video?

The two things required to make this scheme safe is for right turning by autos to be rigidly controlled (there are some new very arresting "do not turn right now" signs being deployed in Washington) and for cyclists to rigidly obey their own stop signals.

I fear that the former will be more achievable than the later. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies...

Living in the Seattle metro area, I am looking forward to seeing these lanes put in place. Then again, I do stop for red lights on my bike and in a car.

As long as it is strongly emphasized to US motorists(signage/red arrow right turn light) that they cannot make a right turn on a red light while operating near one of those cycling tracks. . I feel it's not going to be foolproof since US motorists are allowed/conditioned to make a right turn on red just about everywhere they drive.

I'm more concerned with left turns on green. Since the bike track will have riders coming the same direction as any cars which turn left across the track.

The proper signal pattern to provide safety will make this raod very ineffecient for auto traffic.

In some places that could be a good thing. If the roads real intent is to provide local access that is good. From a purely autocentric view that is better than blocking the road every mile or so to prevent it from being a hight speed shortcut.

But if the road was originally intended to carry a significant load of auto traffic the light pattern needed could be a problem.

BTW I think proving the lights needed to regulate auto traffic is pretty easy. Just add explicit red left and right arrows. Better still no solif greens at all, seperate green straight, left and right arrows.

Signage aside from the lights is easily missed, especially at dawn, dusk or night.

My only problem with the image you included, is that, the concrete barrier is not hi enough to be effective.

Well, I have witnessed jersey barriers being breeched by vehicle flipping over them after impact; however, that barrier looks to be at least 6", which will render most vehicles (passenger cars) inoperable if collision occurs at speed. My point is that is just about as good a performance as one can expect of any reasonable barrier...

Now the tree being rendered as being planted IN the cycleway would clearly cause a more significant problem... :lol:

Looks fantastic to me, but requires it on all roads, with separate signals for the bike track to facilitate left turns. I don't think we'll ever see it outside of big cities.

I'm more concerned with left turns on green. Since the bike track will have riders coming the same direction as any cars which turn left across the track.

The proper signal pattern to provide safety will make this raod very ineffecient for auto traffic.



With the proper signal pattern,and if a cyclist adheres to them, green left turning motorists should not pose a problem to cyclists. As for efficiency, sometimes people just need to throw away their autocentric thinking cap, since this type of thought process has brought us the "inner city freeway/arterial".

Looks fantastic to me, but requires it on all roads, with separate signals for the bike track to facilitate left turns. I don't think we'll ever see it outside of big cities.

a key item is that there will always be a mix of levels of infrastructure/labeling from this level, to bike lanes, to sharrows, to none and people will still need to know how to negotiate all unless they only limit their travel to areas with more sophisticated infrastructure.

Looks fantastic to me, but requires it on all roads, with separate signals for the bike track to facilitate left turns. I don't think we'll ever see it outside of big cities.

Why would you need such outside of big cities? The fact is that cyclists are not likely to bike from city to city, and small towns with low traffic can handle cyclists just fine. Dense cities are where auto traffic starts to fail due to not enough space and too many individuals each driving a vehicle... and thus these are the perfect environment for bicycles, for short trips within a city.

Look at London and NYC as examples.

Why would you need such outside of big cities? The fact is that cyclists are not likely to bike from city to city, and small towns with low traffic can handle cyclists just fine. Dense cities are where auto traffic starts to fail due to not enough space and too many individuals each driving a vehicle... and thus these are the perfect environment for bicycles, for short trips within a city.

Look at London and NYC as examples.

While Lancaster city only has 60,000 residents, it has several major highways going through it as well as lots of commuter traffic. Traffic can get just as bad as in bigger cities, and short trips are just as common.

When out in the suburbs, it gets even worse. 40mph cars, few traffic lights, lots of distracted drivers. I still use my bike to take short trips to the supermarket, to get to work, to go to the library, etc. A protected cycle track would be fantastic along the major roads through the suburbs.

With the proper signal pattern,and if a cyclist adheres to them, green left turning motorists should not pose a problem to cyclists. As for efficiency, sometimes people just need to throw away their autocentric thinking cap, since this type of thought process has brought us the "inner city freeway/arterial".
So there are never any mid-block left turns or intersections without traffic lights?

So let's see...

We already have the RIGHT to share the road with all other vehicles...

...but nah, let's trade that in for bike lanes and isolated bike lanes.

Which is an exercise of privilege....which means that once large numbers are in and only a few are out:

- licensing
- taxes
- regulation
- inspection fees
- tolls where bridges are involved
- fines

And then when some try to go back to exercising their old liberty and right to share the road - harassment by LEO's.

I am and always will be suspicious of any "self-appointed" bicycling community "leader" who take this idea and starts to promote it. Me suspects they are in the back pockets of long term thinking politicians with a "plan" to further restrict our liberties and rights.

=8-)

So there are never any mid-block left turns or intersections without traffic lights?


Judging by the photo in the original post, the concrete barrier blocks any mid block turn, and I was responding to intersections with traffic lights and green light left turning motorists.

Judging by the photo in the original post, the concrete barrier blocks any mid block turn, and I was responding to intersections with traffic lights and green light left turning motorists.Yeah, it is a nice picture as most artist renderings are. Your kidding yourself if you think they will not cross the path for parking lots and driveways.

Yeah, it is a nice picture as most artist renderings are. Your kidding yourself if you think they will not cross the path for parking lots and driveways.

If a municipality does implement a cycle track, it should not be installed where driveways would intersect across it, but if they happen to do so, then a cyclist would have to treat it as a typical painted bike lane at those points.

So let's see...

We already have the RIGHT to share the road with all other vehicles...

...but nah, let's trade that in for bike lanes and isolated bike lanes.

Which is an exercise of privilege....which means that once large numbers are in and only a few are out:

- licensing
- taxes
- regulation
- inspection fees
- tolls where bridges are involved
- fines

And then when some try to go back to exercising their old liberty and right to share the road - harassment by LEO's.

I am and always will be suspicious of any "self-appointed" bicycling community "leader" who take this idea and starts to promote it. Me suspects they are in the back pockets of long term thinking politicians with a "plan" to further restrict our liberties and rights.

=8-)

This is a deeply disquieting post. The paranoia it shows is incomprehensible to me, and I hope for the rest of you that it is so for you too.

Yeah, it is a nice picture as most artist renderings are. Your kidding yourself if you think they will not cross the path for parking lots and driveways.

It's a problem that will solve itself as more people ride, as this will make drivers more aware of the risks. And though it is a risk, it's one of the minor in traffic.

So let's see...

We already have the RIGHT to share the road with all other vehicles...

...but nah, let's trade that in for bike lanes and isolated bike lanes.

Which is an exercise of privilege....which means that once large numbers are in and only a few are out:

- licensing
- taxes
- regulation
- inspection fees
- tolls where bridges are involved
- fines

And then when some try to go back to exercising their old liberty and right to share the road - harassment by LEO's.

I am and always will be suspicious of any "self-appointed" bicycling community "leader" who take this idea and starts to promote it. Me suspects they are in the back pockets of long term thinking politicians with a "plan" to further restrict our liberties and rights.

=8-)

Wow, you'd really rather ride out in traffic than on a purpose-built bike track? I'd love to be able to commute to work and not have to worry about distracted drivers.

Quotes:

"This is a deeply disquieting post. The paranoia it shows is incomprehensible to me, and I hope for the rest of you that it is so for you too."

"Wow, you'd really rather ride out in traffic than on a purpose-built bike track? I'd love to be able to commute to work and not have to worry about distracted drivers."


I like to "think big" and look at the "big picture" when addressing things like the topic of advocacy for bike lanes...

We already have our RIGHT to share the public roads financed and paid for by OUR taxes. When we share the existing roads we are exercising our liberty to move about freely and our liberty to use that property we publicly hold with others.

When we ride our bikes in the manner that most of us currently do - we are exercising our RIGHTS.

I do not want any politician legislating away my rights, nor do I want any an "community activist" who claims to be speaking on my behalf doing the same. When a politician does so AND a community activist does so - whether purposely or coincidently - they are in collusion.

When politicians, community activists, and those who go along with them to successfully bring about the creation of bicycle lanes, you bring out the substitution of a RIGHT with a PRIVILEGE.

When you ride in that bike lane that cars, motorcycles, and pedestrians are not supposed to use, you are exercising a PRIVILEGE.

And when you exercise a PRIVILEGE, government is then enabled to regulate almost without limit and tax you for exercising that privilege:

1. Licensing and Fees
2. Inspection and Fees
3. Tolls
4. Ticketing for a whole new set of static and moving "violations".
5. Set limits on when the lanes can be used.
6. Require insurance.
7. (I'm sure others can add to this list...)

The saddest part is that once there has been a passing of the threshold whereupon most cyclist are in the lanes, LEOs will start operating on the assumption that EVERYONE is supposed to be in the bike lanes - and start harassing and ticketing those who continue to try to exercise their right to share the road as we currently do.

I am constantly amazed at the number of cyclists I run into who claim to be libertarians or anarchist, and take pride in their riding their bicycle as and act of civil disobedience or and exercise of liberty - who at the same time advocate for bike lanes or special treatment for cyclists.

I run into them sometimes at San Jose Bike Party, in schools and in shops. When I point out the contradiction - they get rather flustered and try to argue - no matter how obvious the contradiction is.

If you are a true anarchist or libertarian - you don't ask for any special treatment from government - nor do you expect any. You simply exercise your preexisting RIGHTS.

=8-)

@mrrabbit: You have free speech, but you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Similarly, you can travel on public roads, but you need to follow the local laws and regulations. I have to stay on the righthand side of the road. I can't pass on a double-yellow. I can't exceed the speed limit. I have to stop at stop signs.

Let's go through your paranoid list (and it is paranoid):
1. Licensing and Fees - this would be nice. It would cut down on salmoners, ninjas, and crazy hipsters with no brakes. It would also let those of us who do try to follow the rules to report those who aren't.
2. Inspection and Fees - If a bike breaks down, it's not a threat to the public safety. If a car's brakes fail, it can cause a lot of damage, injury, and death. I don't see this happening, and I don't see a reason for it.
3. Tolls - tolls help pay for road maintenance. I don't have a problem with all road users paying them, as long as they're relative to the size of the vehicle.
4. Ticketing for a whole new set of static and moving "violations" - I'm not sure what you mean. Cyclists can be and are ticketed for violations of traffic laws.
5. Set limits on when the lanes can be used. - this would violate freedom of travel, and I can't think of any parallels in the auto world. Can you explain?
6. Require insurance. - the reason for this is due to the amount of damage a motor vehicle can cause. Most people don't have $10,000 sitting around to pay for fixing the car they smashed. A bike accident would cause minimal damage.

@mrrabbit: You have free speech, but you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Similarly, you can travel on public roads, but you need to follow the local laws and regulations. I have to stay on the righthand side of the road. I can't pass on a double-yellow. I can't exceed the speed limit. I have to stop at stop signs.

Let's go through your paranoid list (and it is paranoid):
1. Licensing and Fees - this would be nice. It would cut down on salmoners, ninjas, and crazy hipsters with no brakes. It would also let those of us who do try to follow the rules to report those who aren't.
2. Inspection and Fees - If a bike breaks down, it's not a threat to the public safety. If a car's brakes fail, it can cause a lot of damage, injury, and death. I don't see this happening, and I don't see a reason for it.
3. Tolls - tolls help pay for road maintenance. I don't have a problem with all road users paying them, as long as they're relative to the size of the vehicle.
4. Ticketing for a whole new set of static and moving "violations" - I'm not sure what you mean. Cyclists can be and are ticketed for violations of traffic laws.
5. Set limits on when the lanes can be used. - this would violate freedom of travel, and I can't think of any parallels in the auto world. Can you explain?
6. Require insurance. - the reason for this is due to the amount of damage a motor vehicle can cause. Most people don't have $10,000 sitting around to pay for fixing the car they smashed. A bike accident would cause minimal damage.

Sure I can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater...unless you prefer everyone to slowly roast to death.

Furthermore, you obviously aren't thinking the points I've listed through thoroughly - nor reading them correctly. Nor are you examining your own reasoning - because you are making my point for me in some cases..

See book listed in the disclaimer of my sig...

=8-)

The saddest part is that once there has been a passing of the threshold whereupon most cyclist are in the lanes, LEOs will start operating on the assumption that EVERYONE is supposed to be in the bike lanes - and start harassing and ticketing those who continue to try to exercise their right to share the road as we currently do.

Hate to break it to you, but you live in California, where it is has been illegal to ride outside the bike lane for 15 years (although I've never heard of this actually being enforced).

V C Section 21208 Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes

Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes

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

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

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

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

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

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

Amended Sec. 5, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.

Quotes:

"This is a deeply disquieting post. The paranoia it shows is incomprehensible to me, and I hope for the rest of you that it is so for you too."

"Wow, you'd really rather ride out in traffic than on a purpose-built bike track? I'd love to be able to commute to work and not have to worry about distracted drivers."


I like to "think big" and look at the "big picture" when addressing things like the topic of advocacy for bike lanes...

We already have our RIGHT to share the public roads financed and paid for by OUR taxes. When we share the existing roads we are exercising our liberty to move about freely and our liberty to use that property we publicly hold with others.

When we ride our bikes in the manner that most of us currently do - we are exercising our RIGHTS.

I do not want any politician legislating away my rights, nor do I want any an "community activist" who claims to be speaking on my behalf doing the same. When a politician does so AND a community activist does so - whether purposely or coincidently - they are in collusion.

When politicians, community activists, and those who go along with them to successfully bring about the creation of bicycle lanes, you bring out the substitution of a RIGHT with a PRIVILEGE.

When you ride in that bike lane that cars, motorcycles, and pedestrians are not supposed to use, you are exercising a PRIVILEGE.

And when you exercise a PRIVILEGE, government is then enabled to regulate almost without limit and tax you for exercising that privilege:

1. Licensing and Fees
2. Inspection and Fees
3. Tolls
4. Ticketing for a whole new set of static and moving "violations".
5. Set limits on when the lanes can be used.
6. Require insurance.
7. (I'm sure others can add to this list...)

The saddest part is that once there has been a passing of the threshold whereupon most cyclist are in the lanes, LEOs will start operating on the assumption that EVERYONE is supposed to be in the bike lanes - and start harassing and ticketing those who continue to try to exercise their right to share the road as we currently do.

I am constantly amazed at the number of cyclists I run into who claim to be libertarians or anarchist, and take pride in their riding their bicycle as and act of civil disobedience or and exercise of liberty - who at the same time advocate for bike lanes or special treatment for cyclists.

I run into them sometimes at San Jose Bike Party, in schools and in shops. When I point out the contradiction - they get rather flustered and try to argue - no matter how obvious the contradiction is.

If you are a true anarchist or libertarian - you don't ask for any special treatment from government - nor do you expect any. You simply exercise your preexisting RIGHTS.

=8-)

So, you're on a high theoretical and ideological horse, not caring if your ideas match reality in the parts of the world where bike paths are wide-spread.

Yeah. I recognize a libertarian when I see one.

Hate to break it to you, but you live in California, where it is has been illegal to ride outside the bike lane for 15 years (although I've never heard of this actually being enforced).

V C Section 21208 Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes

Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes

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

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

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

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

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

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

Amended Sec. 5, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.

The reason it isn't enforced is that everytime a major push occurs - a certain cycling legal group sues to stop enforcement. Forget the name - Fremont Wheelman, American Wheelman....

The are other ad-hoc group lawsuits as well.

The same group would also sue whenever County authorities would try to ban cyclists from "expressways" by designating them as "highways"...it's the reason why Capitol Expressway right here in my neighborhood has signs with the "bicycle" portion blanked out on them.

If memory serves my correctly - there are lawsuits going on now in the SF / Marin area where LEOs are aggressively enforcing the above - as of last year or two years ago. Don't know the latest as I don't actively follow them.

Also, note 21208a:

1. Has a speed parameter - i.e., it recognizes the right to stay in a regular lane at speed.
2. In doing so, it is consistent with the other part of the VC slower traffic stays right - and/or pulls over to allow 5 or more followers to get by.
3. In this case the bicycle lane is simply an extension of the "invisible" lane of slower bicycle traffic that is to stay as close as is possible to the right anyway.

If you think about, it's your typically very carefully worded legaleaze. It recognizes the right to share all aspects of the road without stating it explicitly...

=8-)

So, you're on a high theoretical and ideological horse, not caring if your ideas match reality in the parts of the world where bike paths are wide-spread.

Yeah. I recognize a libertarian when I see one.This from the socialist riding high on his theoretical and ideological horse.

This from the socialist riding high on his theoretical and ideological horse.

Nice reply. I'm still waiting for facts to back it up, though.