How can vehicular cyclists reach people?

[Treespeed]

I've been riding bikes on roads for over 30 years.
I used to commute to jr high school in the 70s, but that was small town neighborhood stuff.
In college in the 80s I commuted a few years - about 5 miles each way.
I've been commuting regularly again for about 4 years, about 6 miles each way. Part of that commute is fairly heavy urban traffic, including a freeway crossing, 6 lanes of 50+ mph traffic (no bike lanes), etc.
Before I learned what VC was and how to do it, if I had about it here I would have decreed myself a vehicular cyclist, because, in general, I obeyed the rules of the road.
I really learned VC about a year ago, by studying EC and practicing it. I verified my own learning of it by taking a Road 1 course a couple of months ago. Had I taken that class a year earlier (before I learned VC on my own) I would have gotten much more out of it...



What specific contrary opinion(s) to you think I have a deficiency in listening to, and what makes you think this?

Serge, thanks for sharing your past experience. I was expecting maybe some time spent in a VC cult or some aversion therapy where your shown bicycle lanes and then subjected to electroshock.

You just have to understand that where I'm from (Seattle) the bike lanes meld into existing infrastructure, were free of debris, and motorists had a lot of respect for cyclists that used them and also for cyclists riding on roads without facilities. I guess I'm just at a loss for your negative experiences and testimony regarding bike lanes. Of all of my experiences, and of the fellow cyclists I knew I never heard one of them complain or confirm any of your accusations regarding bike lanes. The only complaint I've ever heard was that such and such lane or MUP was too crowded. A little like the saying that no one goes to that cafe anymore because it's too crowded.

So one contrary opinions you have trouble listening too is riders who have positive experiences with their use of bike facilities and no negative experiences. If your presumptions were correct then experienced cyclists who used facilities would have more accidents or near accidents, cyclists who used facilities would not graduate from being newbies to more experienced cyclists, and finally cyclists that used facilities would have more negative altercations with motorists. Yet it is painfully obvious that Seattle, and other cities' investment in cycling infrastructure has resulted in an increased popularity in cycling. Your dismissal of these experiences by claiming that bike lanes supporters are financially invested in bike lane production is laughable. I don't have the figures for bike lane facility investments in Seattle as a percentage of total road investments, but I would be willing to bet its less than 1% of the millions spent on normal roadway construction and repair at event the city level. And I know that the Seattle bicycle transportation plan includes a large portion for education, which of course could be credited for a portion of the popularity too.

You also will not acknowledge the fact that WOL's get taken over as either an additional lane of traffic or as parking. At least parking in a BL is illegal, try putting a wide lane in Los Angeles and not allowing parking at the curb. You argue that you have no problem with the WOL becoming another lane of traffic, while I most certainly do have a problem with this. Instead of a shoulder or a BL at rush hour there is another backed up lane of traffic right up to the curb. The one WOL in my neighborhood (Higland south of Wilshire) turns into a parking lot everyday at rush hour.

One of the main advantages of being a bicylist is not succumbing to the traffic problems that afflict automobiles.

[Bruce Rosar]

The only BL argument that makes any logical sense to me is the political defense of bike lanes: The only way we (can widen roads, get ride of on-street parking, whatever) is to get "them" to put in bike lanes.

But I reject that argument ...
FYI: Steve Goodridge (humantransport.org webmaster) does too:... many bicycle-related organizations have also become involved in stripe advocacy. These organizations believe either (1) that they cannot have the extra road space unless it comes striped, or (2) that the (false) promise of safety provided by the stripe will increase cycling by novices, and that this will sell more bikes and trickle down to greater respect for existing bicyclists. Unfortunately, (1) isn't true - wide lanes are just as good for cyclists as striped space, and if (2) novice cyclists ride with a false sense of the probable causes of collisions they will be more likely to get themselves into trouble. Education of basic safe cycling practices will do far more for safety than can segregation striping.

[Bruce Rosar]

Yet it is painfully obvious that Seattle, and other cities' investment in cycling infrastructure has resulted in an increased popularity in cycling. ... And I know that the Seattle bicycle transportation plan includes a large portion for education, which of course could be credited for a portion of the popularity too. Reminds me of Peter Rosenfeld's comment about a study which made similar claims:A bizarre conclusion from a group that should understand that correlation (i.e., anecdotal evidence of a connection between two variables) does not mean causation (one variable directly caused a particular change in the another variable). Most importantly, did they compare the number of commuters over time in Minneapolis covering the period before facilities were put in to the period after, normalized by the numbers for other, similar areas, that did not change their bicycling facilities status?

This is such an elementary statistical analysis requirement that I'm embarrassed to even mention it.

Otherwise, I could just as easily draw the opposite conclusion: that the number of bicycle facilities put in is driven by the number of commuters. That is, that large numbers of commuters stimulate the desire to put in facilities.
If your presumptions were correct then experienced cyclists who used facilities would have more accidents or near accidents ...
Steven G. Goodridge, Ph.D, has written that:Bike lane striping alone, assuming it does not direct cyclists into harm's way at intersections or into parked car doors, is not particularly dangerous to cyclists. However, the idea that it improves safety on ordinary wide streets with numerous intersections and driveways is far from the truth. Bike lane stripes teach an oversimplified message to the public: That bicyclists belong in bike lanes instead of the rest of the roadway, and that staying in them is safe while not doing so is unsafe. The truth is that safe positioning of cyclists on the roadway depends on factors including relative speed and relative destination at junctions.

You also will not acknowledge the fact that WOL's get taken over as either an additional lane of traffic or as parking. A narrow (say, 4' to 5' wide) travel lane would be even more effective than a BL in avoiding that problem.

One of the main advantages of being a bicylist is not succumbing to the traffic problems that afflict automobiles.If bicycles weren't traffic, perhaps. But just like motor vehicles, pedal vehicles are traffic. I've found this to be especially obvious when traveling with about 1,000 other bicyclists for a week. Every day as we leave camp, we create our own traffic problems!

[patc]

But the improvement then comes from added width (either to the pavement, outside lane, or both). The BL stripe is superfluous (and arguably counter-productive) to the benefits gained from the widening.

The only BL argument that makes any logical sense to me is the political defense of bike lanes: The only way we (can widen roads, get ride of on-street parking, whatever) is to get "them" to put in bike lanes.

Serge, I have repeatedly told you that I find the stripe does make a difference. It is not superfluous, it is productive, and it is more effective than a WOL in my opinion (and opinion is all you have to offer). I am also, generally, ignoring your posts and do not plan to respond to most of them, so you are wasting your time responding to me.

[patc]

You just have to understand that where I'm from (Seattle) the bike lanes meld into existing infrastructure, were free of debris, and motorists had a lot of respect for cyclists that used them and also for cyclists riding on roads without facilities.

As usual, word of wisdom from Treespeed.

I'll second what you said... your words apply to Ottawa as well. I'll make a point of looking up Seattle's bike network at some point to compare and do a little industrial espionage.

[noisebeam]

Trust me, I have noted and appreciate your common-ground position. I do know some VC advocates who want anything resembling a bike lane, WOL, or any special bike facility removed, and I do consider that to pose a risk to (at least some) cyclists. Amusingly one of these people admitted to using the special bike priviledge on "no right on red except buses and bikes" intersections.

I do see a problem with converting a WOL to a narrow lane plus a bike lane, if that results in one or both lanes being significantly narrower than normal. On the other hand, I prefer a bike lane to a WOL as long as the other lanes are normal width, not narrow. I would not say this is a big preference for me, but I feel the bike lane does a better job of increasing the visibility of bikes in general as a mode of transportation, and I feel that the white line on the pavement with the accompanying diamond shape and signage does a better job of keeping drivers clear of the right edge of the road. I have seen WOL blocked by traffic thanks to car drivers who drive to the extreme right of the lane, or legitimately blocked by parked cars, making it impossible for me to zoom by as I usually could in a bike lane. In other words, the line seems to make drivers behave a bit more (and you are not allowed to park in a bike lane here).

Having said all that, a bike lane is a stupid waste on a small residential street. I do like bike lanes, but I see no need to drop them on every roadway. Rather I see them like any other special-use lane: something you use when the situation calls for it.

If I figure out why our streets are so much cleaner and I never see this debris others comment on, I'll bottle it and send you a free sample.

In general I would oppose that conversion, unless some specific situation seemed to call for it. When I think of bike lanes being added, I associate it with major construction projects that completely re-build a road or bridge, and is often done hand-in-hand with added bus lanes, extra general lanes, wider side-walks, etc. In other words, I very much associate "adding bike lanes" with "modernizing an urban street". I'm not saying that Ottawa is perfect, and we do have bike lanes that seemed to have been added by a monkey with a paint brush, but that doesn't seem to be the norm.
I think we have more common ground than not. Any differences are more likely due to regional differences due to how cities are planned, traffic is managed, weather, etc.
As to debris, I think that this part of AZ probably is better than many places. Right now with all the rain we have been having it is worse than normal. I do find a lot of glass and rocks, palm fronds, but I have seen much worse in more northerly cities, espeically around winter/spring.
I guess one of the reasons BLs get me so worked up it that it seems very easy for cities to put them in wide slow residential streets and pat themselves on the back about it, while ignoring anything for the fast urban multilane roads - mainly because to add WOL or BL to these roads requires digging and curb moving, while painting as you say can be done my any monkey. Of course without WOL on the multilane roads one can not get anywhere in comfort on a bike around here. But I do think the BL on 20-25mph residential streets are somehow appreciated by folks living in those neighborhoods. Those are the folks I really should be discussing the issue with, not y'all.

Al

[noisebeam]

You also will not acknowledge the fact that WOL's get taken over as either an additional lane of traffic or as parking. At least parking in a BL is illegal, try putting a wide lane in Los Angeles and not allowing parking at the curb. You argue that you have no problem with the WOL becoming another lane of traffic, while I most certainly do have a problem with this. Instead of a shoulder or a BL at rush hour there is another backed up lane of traffic right up to the curb. The one WOL in my neighborhood (Higland south of Wilshire) turns into a parking lot everyday at rush hour.

I don't quite understand the WOL being taken over by traffic. I've never seen a WOL that is wide enough for two cars to be side by side - if it is, it has been designed wrong. As to parking, putting no parking signs along a WOL should be a deterent as much as no parking signs along a BL. Also in my local experience the WOLs where parking may occur are in quiet residential streets (20-35mph) - places where is it no problem to take the lane. The high speed multilane roads where WOLs are most needed never have on street parking, it simply is done done, illegal and if you saw these streets would know why it would be absurd to park on them.

Al

[Treespeed]

Reminds me of Peter Rosenfeld's comment about a study which made similar claims:

Steven G. Goodridge, Ph.D, has written that:

A narrow (say, 4' to 5' wide) travel lane would be even more effective than a BL in avoiding that problem.

If bicycles weren't traffic, perhaps. But just like motor vehicles, pedal vehicles are traffic. I've found this to be especially obvious when traveling with about 1,000 other bicyclists for a week. Every day as we leave camp, we create our own traffic problems!

But Steven Goodridge is referring to Minnesota, not Seattle where the study was done over a period of years after facilities were implemented. Yes, it is correct that you can't point to one variable for causation of something like bike commuting. But you can explore the positive effects that facilities have on a bicycling community. Namely that over 50% of commuters travelling into Seattle utilized roads with facilities even though some of these routes are hillier. That even though most facilities stop in the urban core most cyclists still feel confident enough in their abilities to finish their journeys without a bike lane dispelling the myth that cyclists who use bike lanes can't graduate into being experienced cyclists. Finally, why is it that Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco all rainy, wet and hilly have so many more bike commuters than a flat and sunny place like Los Angeles? It certainly can't be for lack of roads in Los Angeles, nor motorist attitudes which seem similar across the country (well except in Boston, where they really are trying to kill you.)

What I can't figure out is the assumption by anti-bike lane folks that first, bike lane advocates just don't know any better or don't know what is best for them. Which is just a ridiculous premise. No one has a bike lane that starts at their front door, so most cyclists navigate roads without BL's and know the difference and what they are advocating for. Second, that motorists and Bike Lane users are morons and can't negotiate when a car or a bicycle can merge or negotiate a bike lane. I saw cyclists merging out of the bike lane daily when passing slower cyclists going up Dexter Ave. the cyclists negotiated these interactions just like any VC cyclist advocates for all of the lateral transitioning they are always doing. Why is it that VC cyclists can negotiate their space and yet BL users are somehow exempt from this practice? And finally that any obvious benefits of Bike Lanes or praise by their users is misguided and can be always be attributed to some other factor such as the lane is wider, the road naturally has lighter traffic, your just scared of traffic, you would get the same benefits from a WOL, and the worst, that BL users are financially invested in cycling infrastructure.

I can point to many wonderful and heavily used Bike Lanes in Seattle, Dexter Ave, the Pike Pine Corridor, Eastlake, the Burke-Gilman, 23rd Ave., So. Jackson, and Madison. Someone post a pic., one of those cool diagrams, or a decent description of a working WOL.

[patc]

I think we have more common ground than not. Any differences are more likely due to regional differences due to how cities are planned, traffic is managed, weather, etc.

I agree, and I think there is something to be learned from those differences.


As to debris, I think that this part of AZ probably is better than many places. Right now with all the rain we have been having it is worse than normal. I do find a lot of glass and rocks, palm fronds, but I have seen much worse in more northerly cities, espeically around winter/spring.


How wide are your bike lanes? I'm not sure what the Ontario mandated width is (if there is one), but the city guideline is 1.5m to 2m. Even if, worst case scenario, gravel and sand accumulate over the winter that still leaves a lot of room. I'm not saying that bike lanes are always useable (we just had a snow storm, I bet they aren't right now!) but the usually are.


I guess one of the reasons BLs get me so worked up it that it seems very easy for cities to put them in wide slow residential streets and pat themselves on the back about it, while ignoring anything for the fast urban multilane roads - mainly because to add WOL or BL to these roads requires digging and curb moving, while painting as you say can be done my any monkey. Of course without WOL on the multilane roads one can not get anywhere in comfort on a bike around here. But I do think the BL on 20-25mph residential streets are somehow appreciated by folks living in those neighborhoods. Those are the folks I really should be discussing the issue with, not y'all.

I think you hit on an important point- there are different types of cyclist, and they differ on their needs. As to politicians, I think those are the same the world over. While I mostly like Ottawa's policies, we have a major case of on-again/off-again priorities. They re-built two bridges downtown, adding bike lanes to each and bus lanes to one... but a year later rebuilt an even more travelled bridge with neither bike lanes nor WOL. I think the "share the road" sign is supposed to make us feel better.

[Paul L.]

I don't quite understand the WOL being taken over by traffic. I've never seen a WOL that is wide enough for two cars to be side by side - if it is, it has been designed wrong. As to parking, putting no parking signs along a WOL should be a deterent as much as no parking signs along a BL. Also in my local experience the WOLs where parking may occur are in quiet residential streets (20-35mph) - places where is it no problem to take the lane. The high speed multilane roads where WOLs are most needed never have on street parking, it simply is done done, illegal and if you saw these streets would know why it would be absurd to park on them.

Al

Every wide shoulder between here and Globe disappears everytime a passing lane is made. I find it quite frustrating to have a shoulder go from 5 ft to 0 feet with the slow lane still being utilized by 60 mph + traffic (one would think that the same problems requiring a wide shoulder on the flat portions of highway would also occur on hills but I guess Traffic Engineers have some special understanding of this). Anyway, that is one example I know of. As for inside the Phoenix Metro area the tendency here seems to be adding BL as they widen roads. I have not seen a road shoulder be widened without the additions of a bike lane though. As far as the whole VC thing goes I am 99% for it as riding the right way makes sense (as proven in many studies). Staying off the sidewalk makes sense to me too as well as utilizing enough lane to be visible and safe. The only area of disagreement for me is the "bike lanes are evil" thought as my experience of the ones here has been positive over the last 13000 miles of commuting (most of those being on 5 lane roads, Guadalupe rd, Chandler Blvd, Broadway Rd, Salt River Parkway/8th street, brown rd, McKellips ).

[noisebeam]

Every wide shoulder between here and Globe disappears everytime a passing lane is made. I find it quite frustrating to have a shoulder go from 5 ft to 0 feet with the slow lane still being utilized by 60 mph + traffic (one would think that the same problems requiring a wide shoulder on the flat portions of highway would also occur on hills but I guess Traffic Engineers have some special understanding of this). Anyway, that is one example I know of. As for inside the Phoenix Metro area the tendency here seems to be adding BL as they widen roads. I have not seen a road shoulder be widened without the additions of a bike lane though. As far as the whole VC thing goes I am 99% for it as riding the right way makes sense (as proven in many studies). Staying off the sidewalk makes sense to me too as well as utilizing enough lane to be visible and safe. The only area of disagreement for me is the "bike lanes are evil" thought as my experience of the ones here has been positive over the last 13000 miles of commuting (most of those being on 5 lane roads, Guadalupe rd, Chandler Blvd, Broadway Rd, Salt River Parkway/8th street, brown rd, McKellips ).
Paul, I was wondering when you'd join the discussion ;) I thought you were avoiding it due to common sense, but I also thought you would have a lot to share given the thousands of miles you have cycled throughout AZ.
I don't think BL are evil, but I often find them unneccessary - especially the ones that are popping up on residential streets (not the multilane roads you refer to) I also find roads with WOLs (like Rural in Chandler) to be just as (if not more) comfortable to ride on as those other roads you list that have BLs.

Al

[Paul L.]

Paul, I was wondering when you'd join the discussion ;) I thought you were avoiding it due to common sense, but I also thought you would have a lot to share given the thousands of miles you have cycled throughout AZ.
I don't think BL are evil, but I often find them unneccessary - especially the ones that are popping up on residential streets (not the multilane roads you refer to) I also find roads with WOLs (like Rural in Chandler) to be just as (if not more) comfortable to ride on as those other roads you list that have BLs.

Al

I agree. Especially on the residential streets. Often I don't see a single car on some of the residential roads with Bike lanes as I ride them. Guess there is not one answer to all problems. :) As far as Common Sense goes some days are better than others! I usually don't jump in but thought I would as my experience tends to backup Treespeed's point of view. I agree with VC most of the time but also have the philosophy that most rules have appropriate exceptions (of course police officers don't usuall see it that way unfortunately :( ). I haven't ridden Rural, will have to try that one some time this week on my commute. Tomorrow I can't though as I am riding to work via Coolidge as training for a Brevet coming up.

[noisebeam]

I agree. Especially on the residential streets. Often I don't see a single car on some of the residential roads with Bike lanes as I ride them. Guess there is not one answer to all problems. :) As far as Common Sense goes some days are better than others! I usually don't jump in but thought I would as my experience tends to backup Treespeed's point of view. I agree with VC most of the time but also have the philosophy that most rules have appropriate exceptions (of course police officers don't usuall see it that way unfortunately :( ). I haven't ridden Rural, will have to try that one some time this week on my commute. Tomorrow I can't though as I am riding to work via Coolidge as training for a Brevet coming up.
Of course, the reason one must learn the rules is so one knows when, why and how to break them. But anyway I think of VC as a guideline, a principle, not a rule.
Commuting from Gilbert to Chandler thru Coolidge - Wow, does't that add 30mi or so to your commute?

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Why does all VC vs. World discussions end up being a BL vs. WOL discussion? There are far more parts of the idea of vehicular cycling than just what to advocate for. In fact, unless I read the first post wrong, the thread was supposed to be about the cycling habits of VC cyclists (who do tend to be more experienced and have cycled harder roads) and teaching more people about those habits.

The article quoted from at the top of this thread touched on something neat. It mentioned that cyclists who were integrated in traffic are more in touch with drivers. This is the beauty of vehicular cycling. This is what we should be teaching newbies.

[Helmet-Head]

The article quoted from at the top of this thread touched on something neat. It mentioned that cyclists who were integrated in traffic are more in touch with drivers. This is the beauty of vehicular cycling. This is what we should be teaching newbies.
That's correct. And the connection to bike lanes is that THE WICKED EVIL STRIPE inhibits cyclist integration with traffic and inhibits cyclists being in touch with drivers.

That's why I thought the "bike lane angle" would be an effective way to reach other cyclists about vehicular cycling. Bzzt. Try again.

It's like trying to reach a junkie by preaching the evils of heroin: they don't want to hear it!

[Paul L.]

Of course, the reason one must learn the rules is so one knows when, why and how to break them. But anyway I think of VC as a guideline, a principle, not a rule.
Commuting from Gilbert to Chandler thru Coolidge - Wow, does't that add 30mi or so to your commute?

Al

adds about 60 mi. (It will be 84 miles total) Taking Ironwood South to AZ 87 and then over and up to Chandler. Can only do this now as they have showers at my work (the other location I worked at didn't so long morning rides were out). I have run out of weekend time so squeezing the long rides into the commute is the only way.

[Treespeed]

That's correct. And the connection to bike lanes is that THE WICKED EVIL STRIPE inhibits cyclist integration with traffic and inhibits cyclists being in touch with drivers.

That's why I thought the "bike lane angle" would be an effective way to reach other cyclists about vehicular cycling. Bzzt. Try again.

It's like trying to reach a junkie by preaching the evils of heroin: they don't want to hear it!

Serge, is it productive to compare us to Junkies. I thought you were trying to elevate the debate?

Have you considered more drastic measures as I've mentioned before, maybe blacking out bike lane stripes, kidnapping bike lane users and subjecting them to aversion therapy? Show them a picture of a nice pleasant bike lane and then throw bike lane debris in their face.

There's no other way Serge we just can't comprehend your reasoned and enlightened arguments.

[Helmet-Head]

Right, Treespeed, like that was a typical post for me. Come on, lighten up a little. Can't I exaggerate a bit too?

[LittleBigMan]

The "old Curmudgeon"--

One entry found for curmudgeon.


Main Entry: cur·mud·geon
Pronunciation: (")k&r-'m&-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 archaic : MISER
2 : a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man

--said this on his website:

"When you do it right, cycling is enjoyable. The enjoyment of cycling is the most important reason for doing it. For some people, it is economical transportation, or a way to exercise for health, or competitive racing, or provides the means of entering areas from which motor traffic is excluded, or transportation that doesn't use petroleum, but, in today's U.S.A., if you don't enjoy cycling you won't long continue doing it. Like any other activity, if you do it wrong you will find it unpleasant and unsatisfactory. The important thing is to cycle properly so that you do enjoy it.
How many ways are there to enjoy cycling? Well, there is motoring out into the country to find a deserted road or a rail-trail, so you can cycle without, so you think, any worries at all. That seems to be the most prevalent hope about cycling. If you stay in town, most people hope for a bikeway to keep you away from traffic, to make cycling safe, again so you can cycle with few worries. The lack of safe places to ride is the most frequent reason people give for not cycling, and, therefore, for not getting the enjoyment that cycling would give them. Does that make sense? To tell the truth, it does not make sense, not when you know the facts and feel the enjoyment of cycling properly. When you cycle properly in traffic, you find the traffic no more annoying than if you were motoring; indeed, if congestion is bad, you are less delayed when cycling than when motoring.
There are many skills associated with cycling, some having to do with the bicycle itself, others with the match between you and your bicycle, others explaining how to ride with least fatigue, others with how to handle the environmental conditions of heat and cold, rain, darkness, winds, and hills. Several books provide instruction in these skills, although I think that the most comprehensive is my Effective Cycling (The MIT Press).
However, most people are most concerned about what they consider to be the dangers of motor traffic. Staying away from traffic is how they describe safe cycling, and if you cannot stay away from it you have to fight it, which makes cycling worrisome and dangerous, so they say. Fighting with cars would be utterly foolish, but that's not what you do. Instead of fighting with cars, you cooperate with other drivers, so that you all get home safely. Participating in, cooperating with the traffic system, obeying the same rules of the road as other drivers, acknowledging their rights while claiming your own, that's the key to safe and confident cycling in traffic. Vehicular cycling, so named because you are acting as the driver of a vehicle, just as the traffic laws require, is faster and more enjoyable, so that the plain joy of cycling overrides the annoyance of even heavy traffic."

I don't see the offense in any of that. To quote Edith Ann, "...and that's the truth! Ppppppppth!"

:D

(Who is "Edith Ann??") Well she is none other than Lily Tomlin, which proves my point, of course.

[Brian Ratliff]

Good thought, "old Curmudgeon." (your words, not mine;))

How about, dare I say it, manditory training put on by, say, the DMV? Require a license which involves a test you can take over the web and a very nominal fee, say $5. Maybe include a "cycling test" as well. This could get cycling some respect from drivers who have to study for the priviledge of driving. It would also increase the expectations on cyclists and eliminate the complaint that drivers have about us wanting the right to the road but none of the responsibilities which drivers bear. With a license, our rights will be cemented in stone, but also our responsibilities to ourselves and to other road users.

[LittleBigMan]

When I boil down all of Forester's offensive rhetoric, all I get is this:

If people are forced off the roads through fear of cycling there, too many people will never ride at all.

That's a crime in itself.

[Treespeed]

Right, Treespeed, like that was a typical post for me. Come on, lighten up a little. Can't I exaggerate a bit too?

I know you were kidding, but the time for debate is over, I want to see action. The Wide Outside Lane Liberation Front, Foresterites black masked in the dead of night taking back the bike lanes.
Just like the rival gangs in my neighborhood.

On a side note, I have a solution for drifting motorists and cyclists claiming their space. A fellow cyclist showed up years ago at a critical mass gathering with PVC pipe in a large square around his bike basically delineating the amount of space he would take up if he was a car. He hung blinkies at all 4 corners and claimed the lane. After years of hauling a trailer I'll tell you motorist give you a lot of space if they think there is a chance hitting you might scratch their car.

[Helmet-Head]

I like the PVC "car" idea!

[Treespeed]

I'm just holding out for the day we get force fields. I mean it's 2005 and I still don't have my jetpack. Or what about airbags on the outside of cars? Kind of like the dynamic armor on a tank?

[Helmet-Head]

How about airbags on the outside of cyclists... Hmm... all the compressed air could be stored inside the frame...

[sbhikes]

When you cycle properly in traffic, you find the traffic no more annoying than if you were motoring;

I find traffic extremely annoying all the time. I hate to drive. I hate cars. I hate the way other people drive. It's aggravating. Noise. Fumes. Parking lots. Ugly suburban sprawl. Anonymous aggression is fostered rather than face-to-face human community. NOTHING can make me like traffic. NOT liking traffic is the REASON I ride two-wheeled vehicles. The open road, the open hiking trail and the open bike lane represent freedom from the confinement of the car, which is then doubly confined by the traffic, which is all wrapped up in the confinement and slavery of the middle-class American lifestyle.

It has nothing to do with fear or safety. Forrester misses the point for me.

On a side note, I have a solution for drifting motorists and cyclists claiming their space. A fellow cyclist showed up years ago at a critical mass gathering with PVC pipe in a large square around his bike basically delineating the amount of space he would take up if he was a car. He hung blinkies at all 4 corners and claimed the lane. After years of hauling a trailer I'll tell you motorist give you a lot of space if they think there is a chance hitting you might scratch their car.

May I interest you in a velomobile?

[Helmet-Head]

I find life to be more pleasant and worth living when I learn to like the things I cannot change.

[Bruce Rosar]

The article quoted from at the top of this thread touched on something neat. It mentioned that cyclists who were integrated in traffic are more in touch with drivers. This is the beauty of vehicular cycling. This is what we should be teaching newbies.From David Smith's Looking Sharp! (http://homepage.mac.com/bicycle_driver/) site:
Successful, competent traffic cyclists learn good social skills for the traffic environment.
1. Sharing: the bicycle ... can share lanes of suitable width.
2. Communication: a bicycle ... can take different positions within a lane while the cyclists body is visible to other drivers. The visual effects of looking, positioning, signaling and pedaling can be enhanced so intentions become far more transparent.
3. Cooperation: with sharing and communication, cyclists have a superior ability to cooperate with other traffic.

TRAFFIC IS MORE FUN FROM A BICYCLE
The cyclists ability to share, communicate and cooperate allow successful traffic cyclists to have more fun driving in traffic, allowing them to drive confidently while soliciting, receiving, and returning cooperation.

POSITIVE ATTITUDE AND LEARNING
When cyclists have a positive attitude about traffic and their ability to cooperate with other drivers, their ability to learn is greatly enhanced, enabling and encouraging more cycling, and more learning. This transforms the opportunity to enjoy bicycle transportation and more than any other investment.

LOOKING SHARP!
When driving is done well it looks sharp, as good driving is easier to understand and cooperate with.

[Bruce Rosar]

... the time for debate is over, I want to see action. The Wide Outside Lane Liberation Front ... taking back the bike lanes. They're not very wide, but they're long and there were quite a few of them, and they had to go somewhere (http://www.geocities.com/nonmotorized/carlane.jpg)

[Bruce Rosar]

Yes, it is correct that you can't point to one variable for causation ...

... over 50% of commuters travelling into Seattle utilized roads with facilities ...

... why ... rainy, wet and hilly have so many more bike commuters than a flat and sunny place ...?

I can point to many wonderful and heavily used Bike Lanes ...

How do we know that there weren't other engineering changes, or changes in the other three "4-e" components (http://www.bikeplan.com/4epaper.htm) (education, encouragement, enforcement) as well? Assuming that we somehow learned the details of every change that took place, how would we know which of all the changes made a positive contribution to the asserted results, and how important each of those changes was? How do we know that some other set of changes (such as narrow travel lanes) would not have allowed better results, especially in the long term?

Here's some general information about the Conclusion step of the scientific method (http://www.ncabr.org/educators/edu_faq/FAQ_general/faq_gen_1.html)
4. CONCLUSION - judging ... if your hypothesis is right or wrong.

Your conclusion usually falls into one of two categories:
a) CORRELATION - two things that tend to happen together.
b) CAUSE-EFFECT - one thing or event actually causes the other to happen.

For example:

Correlation: Every time I go ice skating I get cold
I bruise my bottom. I know that both of these things happen when I go ice skating, but I don't know if one causes the other.

Cause-Effect: Every time I go ice skating;
I fall down and
I bruise my bottom In this case, I notice that if I can prevent the first one from happening, I can prevent the second...therefore, A causes B!

Correlation can be established through observation. You just need to notice two things always seem to occur together.

Cause-effect is tougher to establish. Once you've noticed two things occurring, you need to TEST to see if they are actually linked to each other.

Cause-effect is a better predictor than correlation.

[patc]

It has nothing to do with fear or safety. Forrester misses the point for me.

Amen! Whenever possible I use pathways, even if that means a longer ride. I don't really care if I ride for 10 minutes more... actually I care, I love being on the bike. I pick the most pleasant way possible unless time is a real issue (i.e. I was dumb and let myself run late) or I am carrying a lot of cargo (and want the shortest trip possible).

As to safety... I think an accident may be somewhat more likely on the pathways (we have homicidal squirrels) but that accident is less likely to result in serious injury than on the roads. Besides, safety isn't everything.

[molten]

I find traffic extremely annoying all the time. I hate to drive. I hate cars. I hate the way other people drive. It's aggravating. Noise. Fumes. Parking lots. Ugly suburban sprawl. Anonymous aggression is fostered rather than face-to-face human community. NOTHING can make me like traffic. NOT liking traffic is the REASON I ride two-wheeled vehicles. The open road, the open hiking trail and the open bike lane represent freedom from the confinement of the car, which is then doubly confined by the traffic, which is all wrapped up in the confinement and slavery of the middle-class American lifestyle.

It has nothing to do with fear or safety. Forrester misses the point for me.


May I interest you in a velomobile? You sound alike the danger of a road -raged motorist, but now concealing Yourself on a bike. Yu sound ready to blow up at any time.

[molten]

[QUOTE=patc] No one says anything about pedestrians interfering/usining our bike lanes. Be it joggers, rollerbalders, walkers. And then there's the one with the dogs on the leash; the mothers jogging with the 3-wheels baby strollers. In which they won't get out of lane/way. 'Causing us bikers moving into the car lane --- so that We may progress with Our biking. And they are intentionally wanting us to get into a collison with an oncoming motor vehicle. As the pedestrians goal/intent is to be the "winner" of their "game." There = a vehicle code against pedestrian in the bike lane; PEDESTRIANS ENJOY IN ABUSING THEIR "RIGHTS" (notice how they never look around them, as they cross the road?)

[Treespeed]

How do we know that there weren't other engineering changes, or changes in the other three "4-e" components (http://www.bikeplan.com/4epaper.htm) (education, encouragement, enforcement) as well? Assuming that we somehow learned the details of every change that took place, how would we know which of all the changes made a positive contribution to the asserted results, and how important each of those changes was? How do we know that some other set of changes (such as narrow travel lanes) would not have allowed better results, especially in the long term?

Here's some general information about the Conclusion step of the scientific method (http://www.ncabr.org/educators/edu_faq/FAQ_general/faq_gen_1.html)

Bruce,

please spare me the logics lesson. I understand the difference between correlation and causation. Like I said you can't narrow down reasons for bike commuting to a single variable. What can be argued is that there was significant investment in supporting and promoting bicycle investsment in Washington State and Seattle in particular, notice where the bike lane ad you posted came from. What needs to be addressed is not whether it was a bike lane that increased commuter traffic, but that accomodations for cyclists were engineered into roadways that made commuting on them safer and more desirable for commuters. As an example, which I've posted before is Dexter and Westlake both of which go from Seattle's Fremont district to downtown. Dexter has a wide shoulder that is designated as a bike lane and Westlake is 3 narrow lanes with parking in the right lane. Westlake is flat, while Dexter has a significant hill, yet if the VC edict held then cyclists would prefer the flat narrow lanes of Westlake to the dangerous bike lane of Dexter. Yet Dexter is a variable bicycle freeway. There may be a number of reasons that a cyclist begins commuting, but when they continue commuting using a particular route over other available routes one needs to look at what the differences are between the two routes. Education may get someone on a bike, but a safe route is what keeps someone at it for the long haul. To sit and pick apart every possible variable is only so much nitpicking.

[LittleBigMan]

I find traffic extremely annoying all the time. I hate to drive. I hate cars. I hate the way other people drive. It's aggravating. Noise. Fumes. Parking lots. Ugly suburban sprawl. Anonymous aggression is fostered rather than face-to-face human community. NOTHING can make me like traffic. NOT liking traffic is the REASON I ride two-wheeled vehicles. The open road, the open hiking trail and the open bike lane represent freedom from the confinement of the car, which is then doubly confined by the traffic, which is all wrapped up in the confinement and slavery of the middle-class American lifestyle.

It has nothing to do with fear or safety. Forrester misses the point for me.



I can understand this sentiment, and all the problems Sbhikes mentions above. Also, Forester is not a god, and he is not the end of all arguments.

Cyclists have many wants. Not all of us want the same thing. I don't have the slightest feeling of superiority over anyone who prefers a bike lane, bike path or trail to riding the road. I want every cyclist to ride where they enjoy riding. I'm happy for anyone who likes to drive to a secluded recreational bike path to ride, and for people that enjoy bike lanes.

But conflicts arise when those who advocate changing the road design don't take into account other ways of providing good cycling infrastructure, such as wide curbside lanes. When Atlanta implemented bike lanes on Edgewood Avenue, it had mixed results.

On the positive side, the city completely repaved Edgewood Ave., which had been one of the worst road surfaces in the city to ride on. At the same time, though, the surrounding low-income neighborhood was transformed into an upscale, intown professional neighborhood, so the repaving would probably have happened anyway, like it has in other such places.

On the negative side, the "bike lanes" are now curbside parking areas for yuppie residents, and they gather debris and dead vegetation constantly (we have trees galore in this town.) The last time I left that bike lane to avoid obstacles (which is my right,) I was harrassed for a couple of miles by a motorist who thought I had no business leaving the bike lane.

Other benefits for some cyclists, such as bike paths for those cyclists who enjoy them, have resulted in laws that allow local police from small towns to force cyclists to use these paths instead of allowing cyclists to enjoy the swiftness, smoothness and convenience of the nearby road. Again, I've had motorists who didn't understand this harrass me and yell at me to "get on the path" (which is nothing more than a very wide sidewalk, dangerous in my book.)

I am not against other cyclists having their cake, but I want to eat mine, too. Too often, when bike lane or bike path advocates get their pleasure, it's at my expense.

Forrester misses the point for me.
Forester hits the nail on the head, for me, when he points out that if cyclists continue to choose not to ride on the roads as other traffic does, those rights will continue to disappear. I believe those rights would have been even more aggressively snatched away from cyclists if old farts like Forester had not fought tirelessly for them.

[genec]

I am not against other cyclists having their cake, but I want to eat mine, too. Too often, when bike lane or bike path advocates get their pleasure, it's at my expense.



What about a compromise... such as BL only on roads that exceed a posted speed of 45MPH?

[LittleBigMan]

What about a compromise... such as BL only on roads that exceed a posted speed of 45MPH?
This brings up a valid point which many who disapprove of the bike lane concept too often ignore.

We cyclists accept that motor traffic is much faster than we are. We are used to traffic breezing past us twice as fast as we are going, or many times faster, depending on the circumstances (like hills.) This is a normal expectation for cyclists who share the road with cars.

But it's not a normal expectation for motor traffic. Speed differentials of several magnitudes are not what traffic engineers plan for. When someone flys past me at twice my speed when I'm in my car, I just about **** a golden brick. Now that's fast! So, we cyclists accept a speed differential that is far outside the norm. We expose ourselves to a greater relative risk in that respect, because of that speed differential.

If a bike lane could be devised that would offer me greater protection from that additional risk, that would indeed be a positive thing.

Overall, I think the whole question of how to accomodate transportational cyclists is under construction. We need continued expert input into the dialogue, which means listening to all cyclists, not just those who think that separating cyclists from motor traffic is the central safety issue, and not just those who think bike lanes and paths are intrinsically evil. We need to objectively examine all the safety factors, just as we try to do when designing roads for motor traffic. Speed differential is an important factor in all traffic planning.

This is all the more important given a "bike lane" I saw on Briarcliff Rd. in Atlanta. I tell you no lies, this thing had to be two feet wide, tops. Now who designed that? Dr. Evil himself?

[genec]

This brings up a valid point which many who disapprove of the bike lane concept too often ignore.

We cyclists accept that motor traffic is much faster than we are. We are used to traffic breezing past us twice as fast as we are going, or many times faster, depending on the circumstances (like hills.) This is a normal expectation for cyclists who share the road with cars.

But it's not a normal expectation for motor traffic. Speed differentials of several magnitudes are not what traffic engineers plan for. When someone flys past me at twice my speed when I'm in my car, I just about **** a golden brick. Now that's fast! So, we cyclists accept a speed differential that is far outside the norm. We expose ourselves to a greater relative risk in that respect, because of that speed differential.

If a bike lane could be devised that would offer me greater protection from that additional risk, that would indeed be a positive thing.

Overall, I think the whole question of how to accomodate transportational cyclists is under construction. We need continued expert input into the dialogue, which means listening to all cyclists, not just those who think that separating cyclists from motor traffic is the central safety issue, and not just those who think bike lanes and paths are intrinsically evil. We need to objectively examine all the safety factors, just as we try to do when designing roads for motor traffic. Speed differential is an important factor in all traffic planning.

This is all the more important given a "bike lane" I saw on Briarcliff Rd. in Atlanta. I tell you no lies, this thing had to be two feet wide, tops. Now who designed that? Dr. Evil himself?


Very well put, we are in agreement.

[LittleBigMan]

Very well put, we are in agreement.
Thanks for your patient consideration, Gene.

You know, when I think about my earlier comments about "phobias," it sounded a bit preachy. I guess my point was simply that you can't argue someone out of their fears of motor traffic, but it's something they have to gain through personal experience. Even so, the risks are real.

For example, I met a cyclist on the train recently. He turned out to be the Safety Director for the Southern Bicycle League, I think his name was Tommy Lupo. He logged 12,000 last year, he said. He's an avid cyclist, from what he said, riding to work and on tours, like the Bicycle Ride Across Georgia (BRAG.)
But on this dark, rainy morning, he was shortening his bicycle trip using the train. He mentioned falling on the same RR crossing I fell on, only he broke a leg--I only scraped my thigh. He mentioned how his helmet saved his life in the past, and how he doesn't ride without one--neither do I, mine saved my life (or ability to think abstractly) too. It's caution, not fear. He believes in riding on the road, but he knows how to use good judgement to minimize his risks. That's what I discerned from our brief conversation. Live to ride another day.

[randya]

This is all the more important given a "bike lane" I saw on Briarcliff Rd. in Atlanta. I tell you no lies, this thing had to be two feet wide, tops. Now who designed that? Dr. Evil himself?
Believe it or not, there are some standards for bike lanes, but I don't see how a two foot wide bike lane would meet any reasonable standard. Musta been designed by someone who got a 'D' in traffic engineering in college.

[genec]

Thanks for your patient consideration, Gene.

You know, when I think about my earlier comments about "phobias," it sounded a bit preachy. I guess my point was simply that you can't argue someone out of their fears of motor traffic, but it's something they have to gain through personal experience. Even so, the risks are real.

Unfortunately fears can be re-acquired... If there is a steady outside negative influence, then one can be conditioned to respond in kind.

Simply put: too many close calls can make anyone jumpy. I think fighter pilots may have a term for it.

[LittleBigMan]

Unfortunately fears can be re-acquired... If there is a steady outside negative influence, then one can be conditioned to respond in kind.
You mean like morons flying past your elbow? Most people pass me with a wide berth, even if they don't slow down. But I've had a few who thought they'd whiz past as close as they could cut it.

Sort of takes your breath away.

[genec]

You mean like morons flying past your elbow? Most people pass me with a wide berth, even if they don't slow down. But I've had a few who thought they'd whiz past as close as they could cut it.

Sort of takes your breath away.

Yeah like those latter morons you describe... whizing past your elbow trying to teach you a lesson... Or morons that "buzz" you for thrills.

Those things do more than take your breath away.

Motorists whizzing past you in a normal manner just become part of the "accepted risk" you described. Just road noise.

But yeah, you generally have the idea.

Ya know it's kinda funny in a way... we cyclists want to "teach" motorists that we have rights and that they should respect those rights... certain rare motorists sometimes try to "teach" lessons to cyclists... too bad those motorists never studied the lesson plan. ;)

[LittleBigMan]

I doubt some motorists studied basic road rules, much less practiced them.

Believe in the best of human nature; be prepared for the worst.

[Bruce Rosar]

... accomodations for cyclists were engineered into roadways that made commuting on them safer and more desirable for commuters. Some engineering (such as paving the roads) certainly helped make travel by vehicle (whether pedal or motor) safer and more comfortable. As to whether striping bicycle-specific lanes does that too, here's a letter that was sent to a traffic Planning Department by Steven G. Goodridge, Ph.D. There was a time when I believed that striped bicycle-specific lanes were a good idea, but this was before I became familiar with the problems with bicycle-specific roadway markings in the real world. As I began to study the various bicycle-specific facility designs that have been proposed and implemented, I discovered that what I really wanted was an improvement over narrow travel lanes with heavy, fast traffic, but without creating new operational/social problems or making existing problems worse. I have spent considerable time studying the causes of car-bike collisions, including analysis of car-bike crash data compiled by NCDOT and review of the actual police reports from Cary for a six-year period. I have also studied alternative vehicles such as Neighborhood Electric vehicles and various types of motor scooters. All of this has led me to believe that wider outside through lanes are a simple, elegant, effective solution for providing safe, comfortable, and efficient accommodation of a diversity of vehicle types with varied speed capabilities and widths on urban streets. Wider outside through lanes are especially good for bicyclists. I believe that bicycle-specific segregation markings, however, have operational and social disadvantages that likely outweigh any possible operational or social advantages when employed in most urban areas.

The idea of bicycle-specific lanes/markings is alluring to many people, especially to inexperienced cyclists. But the professional standard applied to installation of traffic control devices is that the operational advantages must be estimated to exceed the operational disadvantages, regardless of popular demand. I have therefore spent a great deal of time studying the existing research on bicycle lanes, car-bike collision data, and pro-bike-lane advocacy articles in attempts to ascertain what operational advantages may be provided by the stripe, and to determine where striping may be warranted. My efforts to make conclusions about the advantages of the stripe have been thwarted because of the following observation:

All of the available publications and advocacy materials promoting operational and safety benefits for bicycle-specific lane markings fail to properly differentiate the effects of striping from the effects of total shared pavement width, motor traffic characteristics, or both.

It is only natural for surveyed cyclists to say they feel more comfortable and safe on roads with bike lanes when the only roads chosen for bike lane striping have lower traffic volumes and/or extra-wide pavement. But this doesn't mean the segregation marking itself is a net benefit. When I have reviewed actual car-bike collision data, what jumps out right away is that the vast majority (>90%) of urban car-bike collisions involve right-angle junction hazards that cannot possibly be reduced by bicycle-specific roadway markings. Rather, these collisions may be exacerbated by cyclists positioning themselves by vehicle type rather than as their destination or speed requires. Meanwhile, the rare overtaking collisions offer no correlation with striping or lack thereof. Rather, the overtaking collision events I have looked at in Triangle correlate with travel lanes narrower than 12 feet wide with a posted speed limit of 45 mph, or gross negligence from the motorist or cyclist that could not be affected by a bike lane stripe. In my own experience, close (especially uncomfortably close) overtaking correlates with cycling on the edge of narrower lanes; wider lanes (14' to 16' or even wider) effectively minimize this. Another way to eliminate close overtaking is to ride in the center of narrow lanes, but I understand that some cyclists prefer not to do this due to some motorists' expression of displeasure at such, and so I support initiatives to increase the pavement space on important roads.

I believe that 14' wide outside through lanes provide reasonably good separation between normal-width cars and normal-width cyclists on 4-lane streets where overtaking drivers can move safely up to the left lane line to pass. I believe 16' or wider lanes are preferable on busy two-lane roads in order to provide extra shy distance between opposite-direction lanes of traffic. 16' or wider outside lanes may also be desirable on multi-lane roads where there is significant tractor-trailer, bus, or bicycle-trailer traffic. Note that the extra lane space should be incorporated into the through-lanes at intersections, not the right-turn-only lane, since the speeds and volumes are usually highest in the through-lane.

I believe that bike lane striping may have operational advantages in some cases, but that we cannot conclude what these are and how important they are. One potential advantage is that the least problematic bike lane stripe installations make it easier to tell upon initial inspection that a roadway provides adequate overtaking space without motorists changing lanes. This increases both motorist and cyclist confidence, which may or may not be a good thing. On the same pavement width without the stripe, both cyclists and motorists sharing the lane will use greater caution initially, and so there is no net increased danger, and possibly a decreased danger. Meanwhile, I believe that bicycle-specific lane striping creates the following operational and social problems:

1. Bike lane markings very frequently conflict with safe and legal cyclist and motorist positioning at intersections and other junctions, where most car-bike collisions occur.

2. Bike lane markings conflict with safe and legal cyclist positioning when cyclists are traveling at significant speed.

3. Bike lane markings usually increase the rate of accumulation of debris at the right side of the road by directing farther away the normal sweeping action of cars.

4. Bike lane markings tell motorists that bicyclists should ride somewhere other than in the normal travel lanes, inviting increased harassment of competent cyclists who operate in normal travel lanes in order to position themselves appropriately based on context or to avoid debris or the door zone of parked cars.

5. Bike lane markings reinforce inexperienced cyclists' unwarranted fear of overtaking collisions and foster psychological dependency on separation by stripes that offer no known safety benefit.

6. Bike lane markings confuse the public about a basic principle of the state vehicle code, which is that every street and every travel lane is a bicycle facility where cyclists operate according to the rules for drivers of vehicles.

Bicycle facilities are not something that a road engineer can add to a roadway, in any legal sense. By law, the bicycle facility is already there. Every travel lane of every street already provides a uniform, reasonably easy to use bicycle facility. What the road engineer can do is provide improved overtaking facilities on those street sections where motor traffic speed and/or volume warrants it. In my opinion, promotion of bicycle-specific roadway markings and segregation by vehicle type on urban streets confuses the issue of protecting lawful cyclists' legal right to safe access to every destination on every street. I believe it distracts public attention from things that can provide real improvements in safety, comfort, and efficiency, such as:
Better design and maintenance of smooth, clean roadway surfaces
Detection of bicycles by demand-actuated traffic signals
Provision of adequate overtaking clearance space on the most popular roads for transportation, in particular those with the highest average travel speeds
Education and enforcement about best bicycle driving practices and the rights and responsibilities of all road users

Thank you for your time and attention,
Steven Goodridge, Ph.D.
Member, Tau Beta Pi engineering honor society
Webmaster, http://humantransport.org

[Bruce Rosar]

Believe it or not, there are some standards for bike lanes, but I don't see how a two foot wide bike lane would meet any reasonable standard. Musta been designed by someone who got a 'D' in traffic engineering in college.The wide variations in BL design aren't all that surprising, given the MUTCD definition (that's the one that the engineers use) Bicycle Lane - a portion of a roadway ... for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.
Notice that: a BL isn't a lane; it's a "portion" (would you like fries with that? :)
cyclists just get first dibs on the BL (preferential use) or they get the BL to themselves (exclusive use). Which one is it?Software engineers have an acronym for such situations: GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

[randya]

The wide variations in BL design aren't all that surprising, given the MUTCD definition (that's the one that the engineers use)
Notice that: a BL isn't a lane; it's a "portion" (would you like fries with that? :)
cyclists just get first dibs on the BL (preferential use) or they get the BL to themselves (exclusive use). Which one is it?Software engineers have an acronym for such situations: GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
Oregon and Portland have minimum widths for bike lanes, six and five feet, respectively, I think. I just figured one or the other has some basis in national standards, but not two feet.

[randya]

How about a direct link to that Goodridge piece, I know it's there but I couldn't find it on the web site. Good link, BTW! Human Transport is the sort of organization we need to stop bad bike improvements from happening, and it's more or less in your neck of the woods, LBM. I did find this critique of AASHTO standards and door zone bike lanes:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/AASHTO_DZBL.pdf

Lots of other good stuff there, too, thanks Bruce!

[closetbiker]

The thing that bothers me is the money that is attached to "add" BL's to roadways.

It's really quite extravagant, and if that money was spent on public education of cycling I think the net safety results would be superior.

[genec]

The thing that bothers me is the money that is attached to "add" BL's to roadways.

It's really quite extravagant, and if that money was spent on public education of cycling I think the net safety results would be superior.

Don't forget to educate the drivers too.

Some of the monies for BL actually go to improve the roadways with WOL... So riders are not forced to "take a lane." The funding mechanism is set up such that to get this funding, one has to put in a BL.... but the net result is a wider road.