nicomachus

Two Bikeforums.net users take the debate to the local paper...

https://www.nicomachus.net/2007/07/bi...nterpoint.html

Anyone else had success taking the bike lane debate public (i.e. outside the biking community)?

Our local paper was happy to publish the debate. I encourage others to contact the opinion page editor of your local paper about writing op-eds.

Roody

Well that about sums it up. Have either of you had any feedback?

sbhikes

Taking it public? That's a blog for crying out loud. Let's talk about this when it's in the local printed newspaper.

LCI_Brian

It was in the local paper, it's just reproduced in the blog. The links are at the bottom of each side's piece of the debate.

Although I have a definite opinion on the bike lane issue, I enjoyed reading both sides of the debate summarized rather well and in a civil fashion. The net result, IMO, is that all of us in the cycling community benefit by providing an awareness of these issues to the general public.

CB HI

...

pj7

I'll be damned.
That's the first time I have seen someone explain clearly their (and others) dislike of bike lanes in a way that makes me want to agree with them. Much better than the belittlement and the insulting ways that have been tossed about on here for so many years.
I liked reading both pieces, and can come away from this with a little more knowledge than beforehand, thanks.

Too bad this thread will likely see only a handful more useful posts before it goes all to hell.

JRA

LOL It is kind of unusual to see a rational discussion.

There have always been valid arguments against bike lanes, although it seems that some bike lane oppenents prefer patently absurd arguments, and prefer to present them in an insulting and offensive way.

What's ironic, considering how strongly I have disagreed with BL opponents at times, is that I'm really not a big fan of bike lanes, and have a certain sympathy for the anti-bike lane position. It's just that some anti bike lane extremists present such ridiculous arguments with such frightening zealotry.

If the VC-ists would tone down the rhetoric a little bit, maybe it would be easier to take what they say more seriously.

genec

Sounds to me like motorists don't know what bike lane stripes mean... (motorists refuse to look for cyclists in bike lanes). This is akin to the 2400 or so pedestrians killed crossing streets... many in crosswalks... so there is an education problem... Motorists need to be educated about what the various lines on the street are for... crosswalks and bike lanes... and what a motorists' responsibility is when crossing these lines.

And poorly designed bike lanes (parallel to parked cars) should not exist.

Now what else is interesting is the author... "Steven Goodridge," I believe he is a regular contributer here on BF... usually telling us about Cary NC... where roads don't exceed 35MPH and are built wonderfully wide.

joejack951

Why post something like this that you know is ridiculous and false? Is every road in CA so bad that you feel the need to make borderline insulting statements like this one?

genec

Tell me what about this is rediculous and false?

Steve has told me on BF that he works to make roads in Cary both quite wide to support cyclists and low speed... 25 and 35MPH. Both of which I applaud, and I have told him that I felt the roads there were wonderful and did not require anything such as a BL to support cyclists. I also felt that his area was a wonderland for cyclists. Bucolic tree lined wide roads with moderate traffic... heaven.

Steve even suggested that I look for work in North Carolina and where I might find it. I have no anamosity toward him... however, his "wonderland" does not exist everywhere, so his proposed solutions may not work everywhere. That is my point.

Bike lanes are far from perfect, but on quite high speed roads... they do offer some guidance to motorists such that motorists can and do proceed unimpeded on such roads... WOL may not offer similar smooth sailing, since motorists must determine where they should be, sans guidance, relative to cyclists.

Holland does not exist everywhere either.

So what is suitable and preferential for multilaned roads where heavy traffic speeds typically exceed 50MPH.

Frankly I like the idea of a slow right lane. But I doubt it will work.

In fact I am really tired of this whole BL/anti BL/ anti motorist/VC / inferiority syndrome debate.

Bad BL are bad.

Good BL are marginal.

Anti-motorists are usually just anti-bad motorists.

Training all cyclists is impossible. (many motorists do not even retain their training... just look at how they drive... really, look for safe following distances as an indicator)

Inferiority syndrome... Ha... it is simply "motorist superiority" manifest by "I am driving a bigger toy than you..."

So frankly I see no "ultimate solutions." I only see cyclists trying to use the road, motorists that don't want to share, a constant battle based on rights and perceived rights, and nothing that is going to create a good environment based on the vast differences between the bicycle and the motor car and the opinions of the drivers thereof.

I would really like to ride the roads without said constant battle... or the need to "train" every 10th motorist.

CB HI

As opposed to Bekologist post, right.

sggoodri

That was my motivation for participating. I hope it will reduce the number of the least desirable implementations and encourage a better understanding of traffic cycling.

-Steve Goodridge

genec

Thanks for participating... but your views are based on roads that are designed to remain low speed, and doesn't reflect the reality of what is happening in places like California.

Will your roads remain low speed... or is there an 85 percentile rule that will eventually run the speeds up on those roads too?

This is not to say that BL are the solution... the real solution is to keep motoring speeds low so that traffic can mix at reasonable speeds.

joejack951

What's false is your implication that all of Cary, NC is 35mph or less wide laned roads. Steve is working towards the goal of implementing more roadways such as this but I'm sure he's hardly converted the whole city. I've been in Cary, NC and the roads I travelled on were 45mph, single lane each direction narrow roads with no shoulders and plenty of traffic. I did see some share the road signs though. I've seen plenty of photos of wide and/or empty CA roads that look perfect for cycling but I don't post that CA is the perfect cycling state (even though it does seem quite nice).

His proposed solutions could work everywhere. There's no reason why arterial roads in other cities have to be narrow and have 45-50mph (or higher in your case) posted speed limits. We have a mix of both types in Delaware and the lower speed limit roads are far more pleasant for cycling regardless of road width. If there's one thing I'd change about the less pleasant roads (some wide, some narrow) that I use it would be the speed limit.

Bekologist

45 mph, single lane, narrow roads with no shoulders or bike lanes are NOT conducive to increasing cycling in the transportation mix, joe. despite 'share the road' signs.

you know that, i know that.

genec

I agree.

His proposal of 25 and 35MPH roads would work almost everywhere... Here in CA there are laws that permit road speeds to be modified by the 85 percentile rule... so what were 35MPH roads once may now be 50MPH roads today. (I cannot cite any case of that acutally happening... )

While I have not seen a 35MPH road changed to a 50MPH road, I have seen a 45MPH road changed to a 65MPH road, and I have seen quite a few 40MPH roads changed to 50MPH.

So while I again applaud Steve's effort and have indicated that "those roads" indeed need nothing to support cyclists... I do not see those roads remaining "perfect" as long as a motorist mentality rules.

dynodonn 

I agree, but just about every BL in my city's limits use the minimum curb distance standards of 7 foot parking and a 5 foot wide BL, making me to ride, for my personal safety, just a few inches right of the outside BL line. I measured my SUV width a few days ago, it measured 10 feet from the outer edge of the right hand tires to the outer edge of a fully open driver's door(my SUV is a midsize model, larger versions being wider still). With a 2 foot wide bike, and vehicles passing closer on the left, it's basically "threading the needle".

sggoodri

A number of physical infrastructure, social, and traffic aspects combine to limit actual speeds on "pleasant" local streets.

First, traffic demand on local streets is limited to mostly nearby residents if major thoroughfares outperform them for longer trips. This is usually accomplished directly through design with less convenient routing, stop signs, traffic calming etc. or indirectly by on-street parking and limited road width.

Second, traffic patterns with mostly local access movements, pedestrian and bicycle traffic tend to reduce speeds.

Third, with only one travel lane in each direction, slower, more prudent motorists tend to cap the range of speeds.

Fourth, public eyes-on-the-street and local traffic enforcement keeps drivers more self-aware of their actions.
...

There are plenty of 35-45 mph multi-lane arterials in town, some with wide outside lanes, and some older ones without. There are also some ugly narrow shoulderless 45 mph state roads. But there's no reason new roads and road improvements can't target the following goals:

- Provide local street alternatives to major thoroughfares
- Limit travel lane count to what is really required for capacity
- Use redundant modest-sized arterials rather than ever-wider arterials to handle greater volumes
- Limit design speed according to surrounding land uses
- Provide wide outside through lanes (14-16') on busier, faster roads
- Provide sidewalks on both sides of collectors and thoroughfares for a better pedestrian environment

genec

Uh, sounds fairly "idealistic" to me... one might say the same for any area... I have not found for instance that traffic patters with pedestrians tend to slow traffic in our downtown area.

And as for Prudent Motorists... sounds like something you made up... around here Prudent Motorists are the ones getting the best prices for gas. Honestly, when I drive, I drive at or below the speed limit... and I find I am always passed by a majority of motorists. I don't seem to slow anyone up... and I am as prudent as they come.

And last, law enforcement... if they are anything like those in AZ, they let 10MPH over the speed limit slide right on by.

If any of the above worked, then the 85 percentile rule would never be invoked. And speeds here would never have been adjusted upward.

According to this https://www.ci.winston-salem.nc.us/Ho...es/SpeedLimits

Your speeds can be "adjusted" by aggressive motorists... so much for those 25 and 35MPH limits. Then again, I never have figured out how 85 percent of traffic can be allowed to exceed the speed in the first place. Sounds like enforcement is simply sleeping on the job.

But in the end, if speeds can be kept down, indeed roads tend to be quite friendly to those using lower speed "vehicles." But that is a big IF.

skanking biker

While listening and participating in these debates, I do see both sides of the issue. This article clearly and concisely sets forth both positions.

However, without using psychobabble, insults, or jargon, I would really like an explanation from bike lane opponents on this question:

What do you do about a narrow, busy road that has only 1 lane of traffic in each direction and whose speed limit is significantly higher than cyclists? If the cyclist "takes the lane," he will bottleneck and slow down all traffic behind him. Rightly or wrongly, this greatly displeases motorists and results in cyclist harrassment (i.e. horn honking, yelling), and causes motorists to view cyclists in a negative light. If, on the other hand, the cyclist tries to move "as far as practicable" to the right, cylists encounter the danger of that the cyclist will be "clipped" by traffic trying to overtake him in the same lane.

I have yet to hear a rational answer to this problem or why "taking the lane" in this situation would be safer than a bike lane.

dynodonn 

After our city received the prestigious honor of having the highest vehicle accident, injury, and death per capita per mile rating in all of California a few years back, speed enforcement was ramped up, traffic calming measures were installed, and speed limits on cetain roads were dropped 10 mph,( with strict speed enforcement, speeds actually dropped 20 plus mph.)

rando

the other day I was driving down the local 6 lane arterial, aka urban freeway ( the one I drive to work on) and I was going 55 in a 45 mph zone ... and I was being PASSED by people. crazy.

genec

Exactly my point... now where does the 16MPH cyclist fit on that road... and how in the heck does one "negotiate" with motorists to make a left turn or even flare out at an intersection to avoid a right hook?

No, bike lanes are not the answer... I know that. But high speed roads are not the answer either. This is where Vehicular cycling breaks down... theory is all fine and good, but when motorists are not giving each other room and do not negotiate with each other (via turn signals) where does that leave cyclists?

Thus to follow... I have a real hard time with Vehicular Advocates that support groups that support motoring at 60MPH+.

rando

I think lanes for bikes can be PART of the answer... right now cyclists who ride along this particular urban freeway for any distance (including me) are on the sidewalks.

genec

BL can only work if the road can be widened... and yes, frankly BL are better than sidewalks.