Google sponsored links
Guy's pros and cons of cycling in these bike lanes.
First Picture A14 in the wet. Traffic moves at 50-80 mph on this stretch. I like being seperated here and wonder how I would merge at this junction where it not for the bike lane. Oh did I say it was teaming wet. The week before it was dark when I cycled this.
Second picture Huntingdon road. Much nicer now the cycle lane is installed. I used to ride this before the lane was there and cars came much closer to you. The road also used to be two lanes in each direction now it has only got one! Much nicer
Third picture. Hyde Park. Almost feels like you are in the country. Got to say if I am in hurry I use the road, but if I want to be laid back it's the bike lane.
Fourth Picture Kings road. Doesn't look much does it but this bike lane makes cycling on the Kings road a much better experience. Vehicles give you more space and they don't try to form two lines of traffic they just sit in one line of traffic.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I'd be happy if we had ANY of those bike lanes where I live.
The only one we have here is a straight stretch down metro parkway, which is not the way I go to work.
I love the third lane myself, the further away from the fumes the better I can breath.
Guy's pros and cons of cycling in these bike lanes.
First Picture A14 in the wet. Traffic moves at 50-80 mph on this stretch. I like being seperated here and wonder how I would merge at this junction where it not for the bike lane. Oh did I say it was teaming wet. The week before it was dark when I cycled this.
That first picture looks like a very dangerous bike lane. It looks like the bike lane drops you off right in the middle of a high speed junction. I don't know but it could have been desinged better or not at all. I can see why people would avoid that lane. Anyway.
I don't have problems with the other bike lanes.
I wish we had lanes like that where I live, except on the right side of the road. ;)
That first picture looks like a very dangerous bike lane. It looks like the bike lane drops you off right in the middle of a high speed junction. I don't know but it could have been desinged better or not at all. I can see why people would avoid that lane. Anyway.
I don't have problems with the other bike lanes.
Funny enough the first bike lane is the most valuable to me. Absolutely right. The bike lane cuts right, and approaches the slip road (on ramp in the US) at right angles. The cycle lane has a halt sign. You wait patiently for a gap in the stream of traffic then cross the road and join a bike lane that runs along the left of the on ramp.
Not ideal but better than trying to merge in with the stream of traffic further ahead in the junction you can see in the picture.
Any ideas how you can do it better?
If it wasn't for this bike lane I wouldn't cycle on this road.
Disclaimer time: I'm one of the most ardent opponents of bike lanes that I know. (And I know a lot of bike lane opponents -- and supporters.) I have a slide show that argues against bike lanes, and in favor of other accommodations, on my website.
So here are my (astute? jaded?) comments:
Guy's pros and cons of cycling in these bike lanes.
First Picture A14 in the wet. Traffic moves at 50-80 mph on this stretch. I like being seperated here and wonder how I would merge at this junction where it not for the bike lane. Oh did I say it was teaming wet. The week before it was dark when I cycled this.
I agree with you. This looks to be one place where a bike lane is particularly effective.
It works because it gives access to a very particular, and relatively unusual kind of intersection, the merge from a ramp. These occur infrequently on roads, and a bike lane on a road with few intersections can be useful.
Second picture Huntingdon road. Much nicer now the cycle lane is installed. I used to ride this before the lane was there and cars came much closer to you. The road also used to be two lanes in each direction now it has only got one! Much nicer
You attribute the extra room given by passing motorists to a stripe of paint, rather than having had room added to the roadway? Unlikely.
My friend John Allen once noted that bike lanes sometimes give communities an excuse to do other things -- remove travel lanes and taking out on-street parking are two examples. Maybe that happened here. Maybe not. Either way, the extra room is what makes the difference, IMO.
Third picture. Hyde Park. Almost feels like you are in the country. Got to say if I am in hurry I use the road, but if I want to be laid back it's the bike lane.
Much like the sidepath along Kelly Drive in Philadelphia, and somewhat similar to some of the sidepaths we have here in Boston.
The difference between those two places is that, in Boston, I can do what you do: use the roadway if I choose. Given that our paths get iced-in for weeks at a time (even the ones that get plowed), that's a necessity.
But in Philly, cyclists can't use Kelly Drive during rush hours. They're required to use the path ... and if that's snowed in, icy, trod upon by walkers, animals, playing kids, and so on ... well, you take your chances.
Fourth Picture Kings road. Doesn't look much does it but this bike lane makes cycling on the Kings road a much better experience. Vehicles give you more space and they don't try to form two lines of traffic they just sit in one line of traffic.
Too dark to evaluate, but I get the idea. Plenty of roads in old European towns and cities are like this. I was in Ireland in November with my bike, in cities and towns like Galway, Carlow, Kilkenny, and it's much that way.
While I realize that getting by on the inside of stopped motorists can be an advantage for cyclists, I think that practice is done too frequently and too flagrantly by cyclists. Hook-type collisions at intersections occur when same direction traffic turns across the cyclist's path, or opposite direction traffic turns into the cyclist are not uncommon. The only way to cycle safely in these narrow areas is to go barely faster than a walking or jogging pace, perhaps 8 MPH tops, often less, so that you'll be able to stop quickly if any danger threatens.
It's for this reason I'm still not a fan of putting a bike lane on a very narrow street. They're intrinsically dangerous, and the extra care you have to take doesn't give you much advantage over traffic speed. And for sure, I don't think I want to ride butt-up against that bus!
:D
But in Philly, cyclists can't use Kelly Drive during rush hours.
Would anyone want to cycle on Kelly Drive during rush hour?! :eek:
I can't stand even driving on it.
Would anyone want to cycle on Kelly Drive during rush hour?! :eek:
I can't stand even driving on it.
I bicycle commuted for over 5 years in the 70's on the bike path alongside Kelly Drive and never had a problem except for avoiding light poles knocked down by cars that couldn't even stay on the road, let alone within their own narrow lane, if it was wet. When it rained I always took the path on the west side since it had fewer sharp curves.
The only cyclists I ever saw who used the Drive itself were the lycra clad "roadies" who came by car on the weekend and were always in training mode. I NEVER saw a cyclist commuter who used the Kelly Drive during the rush hour or any other time and it WAS legal then. I never met a cyclist who expressed any interest in Kelly Drive except for "training" purposes until the road was closed to motorists for weekend cycling activities.
This looks to be one place where a bike lane is particularly effective.Looks like yet another place where a narrow travel lane would be more effective than a BL.
I was in London at the beginning of March and in many places I saw a narrow (2') bike lane painted in the door zone of cars. However I think motorists are more careful in England about opening their doors, because there is likely to be a fast car coming up in the door zone.
Guy's pros and cons of cycling in these bike lanes.
Mike, first let me say that I've read some of your posts and respect the fact that you enjoy bike lanes.
Whenever I see a new bike lane, I think, "There goes another perfectly good route ruined." The first thing that pops into my mind is the sand, trash and broken glass that will soon force me to ride outside the bike lane, or cause me to merge in and out of it.
I enjoy riding where car tires have been, it tends to be very clean.
Looks like yet another place where a narrow travel lane would be more effective than a BL.
Bruce, the narrow travel lanes concept has merit, but such lanes will enhance safety only if motorists (and nonvehicular bicyclists) can be properly trained in their use. For example, I can easily envision motorists (illegally, I hope) using the outer lane to pass other vehicles at high speeds, just as I can envision motorists turning right, across the curb lane and the path of a cyclist, from the next lane over.
... It works because it gives access to a very particular, and relatively unusual kind of intersection, the merge from a ramp. These occur infrequently on roads, and a bike lane on a road with few intersections can be useful. ...
... but where they do occur, high-speed free merges and diverges represent serious safety problems for cyclists.
Looks like yet another place where a narrow travel lane would be more effective than a BL.
Bruce. Which one where you refering to 1,2,3, or 4 and what do you mean by a narrow travel lane.
Interestingly considering the other thread we where posting in it maybe that an experiment with a reprofiled road with no pavement and no markings gets tried in Kensington in London. Hopefully this will be conducted with proper before and after statistics for user satisfaction, and safty. It's not a sure thing yet though.
Bruce. Which one where you refering to 1,2,3, or 4 First Picture A14 in the wet.
... and what do you mean by a narrow travel lane.
If a narrow lane for traveling is going to be striped, then the design should be the same as that of an ordinary travel lane (except for the width, of course) :)
Guy's pros and cons of cycling in these bike lanes.
Why give the zealots more space to spout their ideology by starting a thread like this?
Mike, first let me say that I've read some of your posts and respect the fact that you enjoy bike lanes.
Whenever I see a new bike lane, I think, "There goes another perfectly good route ruined." The first thing that pops into my mind is the sand, trash and broken glass that will soon force me to ride outside the bike lane, or cause me to merge in and out of it.
I enjoy riding where car tires have been, it tends to be very clean.
Get your local district to clean the bike lanes if they need it. I don't know where this idea that bike lanes are inherently filled with clutter comes from. I cycle literally 100's of miles a month in bike lanes and they aren't filled with trash, sand, broken glass.
First Picture A14 in the wet.
If a narrow lane for traveling is going to be striped, then the design should be the same as that of an ordinary travel lane (except for the width, of course) :)
Bruce still don't get your point on this one. To my mind the cycle lane is the same texture etc as the road way it's just narrower. Thw strips in the photo delinate and area no traffic is meant to stray into. Whats the essential thing I am missing?
Why give the zealots more space to spout their ideology by starting a thread like this?
Some of the language appears extreme and I can understand why it would turn off some people, me included, but I think these guys have some good ideas. I don't buy the way they promote them as the only ubiqitous solution to cycling, but in these threads having drilled beneath the retoric I don't think they are extreme as they appear and also I am begining to get a sense of what the essential elements of the ideas are.
Now if we keep debating endessly and propogandise a position continuously, that would get boring.
In London. LCC started asking cyclist and pedestians what they wanted. They got some surprising answers initially but many of them made sense, some didn't and where just daft and extreme. But this info, (and it keeps evolving) is being feed into local councils and central government and cycling in London is becomming much more accessable. If these guys have some ideas that are useful then great, if not I have wasted time.
To my mind the cycle lane is the same texture etc as the road way it's just narrower. Thw strips in the photo delinate and area no traffic is meant to stray into. Whats the essential thing I am missing?
Since I (and about 290,000,000 other residents) live in the USA, let's have a look
at some definitions from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/html-index.htm) (MUTCD):
Bicycle—a pedal-powered vehicle ...
Traffic—... vehicles, streetcars, and other conveyances ... while using any highway for purposes of travel.
Roadway—that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel
and parking lanes, ...
Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway ... for ... use by bicyclists
Traveled Way—the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of the ... parking lanes.
Edge Line Markings—... lines that delineate the ... edge(s) of a traveled way.
The traveled way is what vehicular traffic is supposed to use when traveling from one destination to another. Travel lanes are marked within the traveled way. Notice that a "Bicycle Lane" isn't defined as being part of the traveled way, or even as a lane (which you might expect from the name), but rather as a portion of the roadway.
The MUTCD goes on to state in Chapter 3 that:Edge line markings may be excluded ... if the traveled way edges are delineated by curbs, parking, bicycle lanes ...Since "bicycle lanes" may mark the edge of the traveled way, they must (like curbs and parking) lie outside it. In other words, a "bicycle lane" marks for bicyclists part of the roadway other than the area that vehicular traffic is supposed to use when traveling from one place to another.
Sometimes "bicycle lanes" in the USA are now positioned to the left of right turn lanes, but only because the following patch was applied to the MUTCD:A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane.
To summarize: the roadway can have multiple portions the traveled way is the portion for travel by vehicular traffic pedal vehicles are vehicular traffic travel lanes (no matter what the width) lie within the traveled way "bicycle lanes" are outside of the traveled way (but do lie within the clear zone)
What's the clear zone? OK, here's the MUTCD definition:Clear Zone—the total roadside border area, starting at the edge of the traveled way, that is available for an errant driver to stop or regain control of a vehicle.
Get your local district to clean the bike lanes if they need it. I don't know where this idea that bike lanes are inherently filled with clutter comes from. I cycle literally 100's of miles a month in bike lanes and they aren't filled with trash, sand, broken glass.
This is very common in winter time. Also potholes tend to like the edge of the road. Finally, another BL associated hazard is the accumulation of leaves in the fall. There is no more an insidious hazard than wet leaves. In the summer time toronto's BL's are generally clear.
That being said, there are several BL's that I regularly use, but traffic lanes work for me just as well. I just use them when they're convienient.
Why give the zealots more space to spout their ideology by starting a thread like this?
If you don't start threads like this, the anti-bike-lane zealots will start their own. Then the pro-bike-lane zealots will post there too, and it'll be just as crazy as before.
Get your local district to clean the bike lanes if they need it. I don't know where this idea that bike lanes are inherently filled with clutter comes from. I cycle literally 100's of miles a month in bike lanes and they aren't filled with trash, sand, broken glass.
Like I said, I don't have any problem with normal lanes. They are usually very clean, while the bike lanes I've seen are not.
If you build a bike lane, you should plan to clean it regularly. Otherwise, don't build it. (They apparently clean yours.)
There seems to be this notion that "anti bike lane" cyclists all stick religiously to some teaching handed down from the anti bike lane cycling gods. In reality, I don't like bike lanes in my area because they are less fun to ride in, or appear dangerous. I don't stick with any anti bike lane teaching any more than I stick with pro bike lane teaching. I just do what works best for me. It just seems that my experience tends to justify the arguments of the anti bike lane cyclists most often. But I want to keep an open mind.
And certainly, I cannot say that others' experiences with bike lanes have not been wonderful. They speak for themselves, and more power to them.
Since I (and about 290,000,000 other residents) live in the USA, let's have a look
at some definitions from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/html-index.htm) (MUTCD):
Bicycle—a pedal-powered vehicle ...
Traffic—... vehicles, streetcars, and other conveyances ... while using any highway for purposes of travel.
Roadway—that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel
and parking lanes, ...
Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway ... for ... use by bicyclists
Traveled Way—the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of the ... parking lanes.
Edge Line Markings—... lines that delineate the ... edge(s) of a traveled way.
The traveled way is what vehicular traffic is supposed to use when traveling from one destination to another. Travel lanes are marked within the traveled way. Notice that a "Bicycle Lane" isn't defined as being part of the traveled way, or even as a lane (which you might expect from the name), but rather as a portion of the roadway.
The MUTCD goes on to state in Chapter 3 that:Since "bicycle lanes" may mark the edge of the traveled way, they must (like curbs and parking) lie outside it. In other words, a "bicycle lane" marks for bicyclists part of the roadway other than the area that vehicular traffic is supposed to use when traveling from one place to another.
Sometimes "bicycle lanes" in the USA are now positioned to the left of right turn lanes, but only because the following patch was applied to the MUTCD:
To summarize: the roadway can have multiple portions the traveled way is the portion for travel by vehicular traffic pedal vehicles are vehicular traffic travel lanes (no matter what the width) lie within the traveled way "bicycle lanes" are outside of the traveled way (but do lie within the clear zone)
What's the clear zone? OK, here's the MUTCD definition:
Got where you are comming from. Seems like the MUTCD has an inherent contradition in it. Surely the simple solution is to get the MUTCD to change the definition of the travelled way to include bike lanes then the problem goes away.
In the UK we don't have this problem. Don't know about the rest of Europe.
Seems a very theoretical agruement though then we are talking about the best and safest way to get from A to B.
Is this effectively the nub of the anti bike lane argement for VC cycling?
Like I said, I don't have any problem with normal lanes. They are usually very clean, while the bike lanes I've seen are not.
If you build a bike lane, you should plan to clean it regularly. Otherwise, don't build it. (They apparently clean yours.)
There seems to be this notion that "anti bike lane" cyclists all stick religiously to some teaching handed down from the anti bike lane cycling gods. In reality, I don't like bike lanes in my area because they are less fun to ride in, or appear dangerous. I don't stick with any anti bike lane teaching any more than I stick with pro bike lane teaching. I just do what works best for me. It just seems that my experience tends to justify the arguments of the anti bike lane cyclists most often. But I want to keep an open mind.
And certainly, I cannot say that others' experiences with bike lanes have not been wonderful. They speak for themselves, and more power to them.
Cool way of looking at this as it seems to match mine. Some bike lanes good some bad, use them when they are convenient for me. A bunch of my friends have the same view and its interesting to see how and why they make their decision when to use bike lanes and when not to.
Depending on where you cycle I can easily see how you could form the view that the majority of bike lanes offer no advantage. I now cycle in Wales, Cambridge and London on a daily basis and in general the bike lanes are useful. Have cycled in SF when I lived there. Much the same thing.
Holidayed in Holland (Which it totally brilliant in the places I've been) and Europe. Also South America I didn't see a single bike lane and where the roads are tarmaced the lorries try to shove you off into the dirt. Rest of the drivers seemed pretty respectful and often there was nothing but me on the road for literally 10's of miles.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.