Originally Posted by heavily edited Roody
it's time that we find some common ground. Both sides need to give a little
The "anti-facility" people
-could concede a well-designed bike lane really does make cycling more comfortable and accessible.
-focus their energies on fighting mandatory use laws or attitudes
-educating motorists and fellow cyclists that bikes are traffic.
The "anti-VC" people
-could concede that most bike lanes as currently designed are either unneeded or downright dangerous for some cyclists.
-should focus on researching design aspects as well as encouraging local communities to apply better standards to facilities.
Originally Posted by rando
what a good point, Roody. I wish some people would give it some thought.
Firstly I do not know of any anti-facilities advocates, not here, not any I have met.
I do know that VC advocates have put much energy and attention into mandatory use laws
Motorist Education certainly has debate surrounding it, but I am not aware of anyone who opposes it (as in would fight against it vs. let it happen if it was done well), just folks who think it is not a priority over cyclist education and facilities design and wonder how it can really be effective.
The compromise primarily boils down to bike lane stripes and where (if at all) to place them.
I think I've offered a decent middle ground as in the 'good bike lanes' thread. This is it is simplistic terms with some other ideas thrown in:
-Advocate for extra pavement width for outside lanes. Stripe those wide lanes with a wide bike lane on faster higher volume roads (with some factor for cyclist use levels too) Don't stripe 200' before all intersections. - exception for intersections with additive RTOL. Don't ever place BLs in door zone. Insist on maintenance plans for bike lanes.
-After a period of use, say 1yr, allow cyclists to give input as to stripe placement in those 200' prior to intersections - that can be incorporated on a case by case basis for next road striping (after paving, etc.) - (I put this in as a specific case may be to allow for a filtering lane for an intersection that is typically backed up and its approach has no intersections.)
-Continue development of standards for BL design, sharrows, etc.
The concept is to start with a minimal striping guideline that eliminates 90% of the problems with bike lanes, but still provides 90% of the 'comfort' that bike lanes are said to provide, while maintaining appropriate discomfort at intersection approaches, then after careful study tweak existing implementations, but only on a case by case basis. Do this instead of starting with a complex and often unsuitable striping implementations that do not lend themselves to any flexibility.
Al