YES.
NO.
Chocolate.
why? I drive most of the time.
Can a vehicular cyclist advocate for bike specific infrastructure for their communities? Can vehicuar cyclists also advocate for bike lanes? can vehicular cyclists advocate for bike paths? can vehicular cyclists advocate for public service announcements to educate drivers?
can vehicular cyclists advocate for bike specific enhancements to their communities?
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
Not the ones who follow John Forester. They would lose credibility with their Lord and Master. But when I go to my local advocacy meetings, people who ride vehicularly do advocate for bike specific enhancements, including bike lanes and bike paths.
~Diane
Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.
that's my experience also in Seattle.
Vehicular cyclists and bike specific enhancements to communities are NOT mutually exclusive.
despite the rantings of a very, VERY small segment of the bicycling population, vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike lanes, bike paths, etc. in their communities.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
I checked yes.
I advocate for a lot of well-designed bicycle-specific facilities, such as bike parking, greenway bridges over highways/rail lines, greenway short cut paths, some rail-trails/streamside paths, bicycle-safe drain grates, and wide outside lanes on roads with significant traffic.
I don't support badly designed facilities like door-zone bike lanes.
Can I vote for two choices? I want chocolate.
Originally Posted by invisiblehand
Bay Area Chocolate Tour: http://travel.yahoo.com/trip-view-40...chocolate_tour
Chocolate Chip Cookie Ride:
http://www.tarwheels.org/favorite_rides/cookie.html
http://www.unc.edu/~uevans/bike_stor...okie.ride.html
Agreed, and sensors that detect bikes too.
But the question in the title of the thread is different than the question in the body.
The title asked about lanes and paths, while the body asked about bike specific infrastructure.
I can not advocate for lanes and paths in a generic sense. I would advocate for a very specific locatoin implementation of a specific design for a lane or path.
I would advocate against a bike lane or path implmentation design if it did not meet a wide range of criteria.
Al
Of course, and we do. See this thread.
Well, when bike lanes are inevitable on long intersectionless stretches, I advocate for widening the ones that of substandard width. But, in general, bike lanes, especially in states like CA where cyclists are required to use bike lanes, bike lanes are contrary to "same roads, same rights, same rules". Again, this is mostly moot on long intersectionless stretches, but where there are intersections (including midblock intersections), the concept of bike lanes is inherently in conflict with the concept of vehicular cycling.Can vehicuar cyclists also advocate for bike lanes?
Absolutely, and we do. See this thread.can vehicular cyclists advocate for bike paths?
Of course, and we do. See this thread.can vehicular cyclists advocate for public service announcements to educate drivers?
Of course, and we do. See this thread.can vehicular cyclists advocate for bike specific enhancements to their communities?
What an utterly foolish question. All kinds of people can, and do, advocate the most absurd agendas. That says nothing one way or the other.
It looks to me as though Bekelogist (didn't he start this?) is up to his old tricks of trying to make arguments based on semantic wordplay rather than on facts and reason.
Can surfers advocate for swimming pools?
I'd say these are related. A swimming pool doesn't normally do a surfer any good. At least not as a surfer. But a surfer might like to relax in the pool from time to time. Surely a VC type can anjoy a nice path. Lanes might be a different story. That might be like pools at the beach to replace lifeguards and beachj maintenance.
I for one still see a place for bike lanes. They provide a sort of starting place. And going back to pools at the beach, there are some beaches that sometimes have hazards, be they rip tides, jellyfish or sharks. In those cases a pool at the beach makes sense. Sometimes a bike lane makes sense, even for a vehicular cyclist. Just like truck lanes.
The problem is where the goal seems to be bike lanes everywhere. To me that is sort of like truck lanes everywhere. It just does not make sense.
I'd say the analogy is more like roping off an area in the ocean giving appearance it safer, even though it still allows access to sharks, jellies and may even have riptides during some seasons.
I'd say a pool is more like a MUP. Ever try and do laps at the city pool during a heatwave?
My brother is a surfer, he visits the pool several time a week to keep in swimming shape.
Al
Last edited by noisebeam; 04-26-07 at 01:02 PM.
Odd. I agree mostly with this as well.
There's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. I ride in all environments, but a bike lane (in certain situations, of course) definitely is a place to relax a little. I mean, I still keep wary, but I don't need to hawk every car around my slow mass.
Being able to ride in all environments is the purpose for learning vehicular cycling. It's so I don't have to be deterred from any destination I need to get to, just because the road is this way or that. But if the road is going to be rebuilt anyway, why not rebuild it to make it easier to bicycle on? Bike lanes work, to a certain extent at least, but any additional space is okay by me. And if a side path is the only option available, I'll call upon my powers of creativity to suggest something different, but I know that I don't need any certain accomodation to ride any road, no matter the configuration. If I disagree with the accomodation provided, and I have in certain circumstances, I just take to the road.
As for beginners, I don't think any bicycle accomodation is implicitly hazardous. Bike paths with signalized intersections are, by far, the safest for beginners. Bike lanes are easier to understand as long as they are routed to avoid conflicts. Left turns can always be made in two parts utilizing the crosswalks.
Bike lanes everywhere? Well, where they are necessary or not is a matter much debated, but does an entire city need to be papered over, buildings moved, streets redesigned, tomorrow just to cram in some bike lanes? No. Infrastructure of any sort is an evolving process. Certain streets don't need accomodation, just cyclist education on how to use them. Certain streets are very much in need of accomodation.
Anyway, that's my take on this subject; from the mouth of a vehicular cyclist, though not of the VC club.
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Kinda depends, doesn't it? Here we are arguing about analogies now.
Just as a side note, that bike lanes tend to collect debris means that motorists don't drive in them. But we've been through this before. To each their own; and particularly you. I've seen how drivers are in Pheonix. I'm not envious.
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Bike lanes collect debris because motorist don't usually drive in them. I do find the outer 1' of a BL to be usually debris free.
BLs to the left of RTOLs as one gets closer to stop line and beyond until the x-traffic lane have the most debris, also the place motorist are least likely to drive.
Al
Sounds right to me. A weekly sweeping seems to keep the debris levels down around here. Like I said, I've found the debris issue overblown for the cycling I've done. I mean, it's there, but it's not much of an issue.
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Sweeping (in the more funded cities that make up Phx-metro) is done every 2-3wks on a published scheudule.
I've ridden just after a sweeping. Three days later there was already fairly thick acculmulation of hard debris, car bits, rocks, glass in the zones that rarely see a car tire. I guess 50k cars a day leaves and pushes around a lot of material.
Another local consideration is perhaps that the landscape and landscaping is harder, less organic. Made of rocks. Vegitation tends to be more durable too (less leafy and more stemmy). Harder material is both more of a concern for a cyclist and gets less easily blown off road by vehicles or weather.
Area between sidewalk and road is most often landscaped with 1/2" rock. These rocks makes their way into roadway. A specific problem area is by bus stops. Waiting passengers seem to pass time kicking rocks into road.
Overblown, yes if presented as the only issue, but it is one of many and it plays a part.
Al
Ah, I see, especially about the landscaping aspect. Around here, there is little landscaping using rocks or pebbles; most of the landscaping is done using barkmulch, fine dirt, and vegetation. This explains some things. Here, debris is only a bit of crushed rock in very limited quantities, which is just from gravel driveways mostly. These little bits are easy to dodge and easy to sweep up and slow to accumulate. So, debris is a minor issue.
However, if you are constantly dodging rocks, glass and other big debris which builds up quickly and densely, then I can see how it can become a real concern.
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Just as a continuation of an off topic aside... debris
Debris is not only a BL problem. It can accumulate in infrequent drive areas on regular streets.
One place is similar to the end of BL zone when the BL is left of a RTOL. There is often a triangle of debris in the space between right turning vehciles, thru vehicles and thru x-traffic. This is an area easily avoided by riding vehicularly center biased thru the intersection.
Another place I find debris is a place I would otherwise choose to ride - the preferred vehicular location: The thru lane for a collector road leaving a residential neighborhood. People rarely leave one residential area to go to another directly adjacent (exceptions are primaily mail carriers and such) So the RT and LT lanes get 95% of traffic as people are turning onto the arterial, not crossing it - they sweep debris to the middle thru lane. Of course a cyclist who uses a back vs. arterial route does travel from hood to hood, so uses this thru lane.
Al
False.
That bike lanes tend to collect debris means that motorists tend to drive less in the space demarcated by the bike lane stripe than they would if the stripe were not there. There is no disagreement on that point, so far as I know. It doesn't mean that they don't drive in that space at all (which is the false implication of your statement).
What's most important to cyclists, of course, is that motorists not drive in that space when cyclists are in that space. So the key question is not what do stripes do in general with respect to keeping motorists out of that space, but what effect they have when cyclists are in that space.
Now, one seemingly logical argument goes like this:
IF the bike lane stripes makes motorists less likely to be driving in that space in general
THEN motorists are less likely to be in that space when cyclists are in that space.
But what matters here is to consider the effect of the stripe not in general, but ONLY when cyclists are in that space.
That is: what is the likelihood of motorists driving in that space, with and without the stripe, when cyclists are in that space?
In particular, if the presence of a cyclist in that space makes the likelihood of a motorist driving in that space be practically nil, as we have ample reason to believe it is, without the stripe, then the advantage of the stripe in tending to keep motorists out of that space in general is moot.
The ample reason to believe that the presence of a cyclist in that space makes the likelihood of a motorist driving in that space be practically nil is that the incidence of cyclists being hit from behind in wide outside lanes (no bike lane stripes) is no higher than it is when riding in bike lanes or shoulders (where cyclists are allegedly "protected" by the stripe's ability to tend to keep motorists out of that space). In fact, the incidence of cyclists riding in shoulders and bike lanes being hit from behind is all too high, while the incidence of cyclists being hit from behind while riding up ahead within the motorist's lane (wide or narrow) is so rare as to be almost unheard of. This makes sense given that motorists pay most attention to whatever is up ahead in their own lane.
This could be because cyclists ride many more miles of roads with bike lanes than on roads without stripes. But we have no reason to believe that to be true.
What seems more likely to me is that motorists are more likely to pay attention to a cyclist up ahead in their lane, and so less likely to choose to attend to a drift-causing distraction while a cyclist is up ahead, than when the cyclist up ahead is outside of their lane, where he is more likely to not even be noticed.
Last edited by Helmet Head; 04-26-07 at 01:52 PM.
The little space which doesn't get driven on by either right turning cars or straight through cars is an extremely bad debris collection spot around here. Whereas in a bike lane, even a bike lane to the left of a right turn lane, there is debris but at a very low density and is easily dealt with, the little triangle where neither turning cars nor the straight through cars touch accumulates debris at much higher densities. It is enough to cause a wheel to slid out if one isn't careful. Fortunately, the 1 foot rule you've noticed at bike lanes also applies to the triangle, so by biasing leftward a little, a cyclist can miss the triangle.
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
So you agree that riding center biased in a BL in this above case you describe is a recipe for riding thru this high density debris field?
Similarly riding right biased in a WOL thru an intersection will lead one thru this debris field.
I attached diagram, with red area being the location (not the shape) of the high intensity debris field zone.
Al
Last edited by noisebeam; 04-26-07 at 02:04 PM.
Yes. This is a practical matter and happens at select, high traffic intersections. Like you pointed out though, this doesn't necessarily means that the bike lane needs to be exited, as the one foot clear area seems to still apply in most situations.
Like you said, WOLs (and NOLs) suffer this same problem. A cyclist who is informed in how to deal with it in both types of facilities is not bothered much by this situation. A cyclist who is ill informed is not seriously threatened by it, in my opinion, and will soon learn that it should be avoided. The only real solution for this is street sweeping.
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
If one is riding in the leftmost 1' of a BL, one is not within the BL. It would be much clearer to other road users if one signaled and purposfully and clearly left the BL. Or are motorists who are driving in outside lane expected to anticiapte a cyclist suddenly hanging over stripe and adjust before they do move leftward?
Al
I can only say that in practice, this has never been a problem. That's all I have to say about that.
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
BTW, noisebeam, you do realize that if you ride, say 6" to the right of the bike lane line, and the line is 8" wide, you are not actually impinging on the adjacent lane, right? A cyclist is roughly 2" wide, take half of that is 12", 6"+8"=14" means that you are not intruding into the adjacent lane by 2".
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
