Sorry but drifting motorists does not have anything to do with being passed quickly and efficiency. And until I can be certain that motorists won't drift over the double-yellow line (which I see every single day--EVERY DAY! I'm not making this up.), I won't concern myself too much with wild rantings about drifting into the bike lane (which is something I almost never see).

I wonder if those who don't like bike lanes will ever convince those who do like them otherwise, or visa-versa.

I don't like bike lanes, but I don't buy the 'inadvertent drift' theory either. From my own experience, drivers tend to drift into other traffic lanes just as much as they drift into bike lanes or shoulders...so from that standpoint I don't consider a bike lane any more dangerous than the traffic lane. This isn't a black-white issue and you can't categorize people into two neat little categories on the subject.

Intentional or due to inattention?
Many cyclists intentionally go over the double yellow on winding mountain decents.

Al

I agree with that, since I don't prefer bike lanes, but I figure it's a waste of time arguing about it. That's what lies beneath most of these discussions, a basic position for/against bike lanes.

I'm not saying it's a black-and-white issue, just that the pro/anti bike lane positioning can lie just beneath the surface of the argument.

I'll assume you also don't consider it any safer as well.

Which is my whole point. BL's give a false sense of security (esp. for noobs). And also BL's imply (to most motorists) that we must STAY in the BL, regardless of debris, doors, stopped buses etc.

+1. So are you trying to see how painted lines are directly responsible for the deaths of cyclists?

For those who didn't already know, breakdown lane is a synonym for shoulder, which just so happens to be part of the 1998 MUTCD definition for Designated Bicycle Lane:

This is one of the reason's I don't get offended about one of those drivers that seem to get off on "scaring" you by screaming an obscenity lor insult like "Get a job so you can afford a car!" At least I know he see's me!:D

Lol i had some dork yell that at me once he was in some barly legal beat up honda. I said somethign to the effect well my bike is worth more than your car. He looked over the bike and said you know your probably right and laughed.

Yea, but you forgot to mention that it is 2006 (8 years in the future) and the MUTCD definition has been formally changed so that a bike lane is now not equivilent to a shoulder.

So finally some traffic engineer types really focusing on the issue understand the difference sufficiently to update the MUTCD accordingly.

Now, how many decades do you expect it to take for the general driving culture to catch up with the thinking now finally corrected in the MUTCD?

And as far as your comment (in the sensationalism thread) that you might agree with me if you lived where I lived, I bring to your attention the several incidents of bike lane deaths due to inadvertent drift that we've talked about on this forum, which took place in Portland and the surrounding area. If you think you're immune, you're fooling yourself. Now, it's true that the likelihood of it happening to you (or me) or any one cyclist is very low, but several cyclists are killed by this phenomenon every year. As far as I'm concerned, most if not all of them could have been prevented by minor adjustments in cyclist behavior alone. Why not promote a general acceptance among cyclists that reduces the chances of anyone falling vicitim to same-direction inadvertent drift, and, more importantly, to hooks and crosses from cross-traffic? What's the downside of promoting the Cyclecraft methodology (use a conspicuous centerish lane position during significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic, rather than keeping to the right or in the bike lane)?

Well....
I'll take a bite at that apple.

It's easier to start threads that make HH out to be an arsehole?

But why bother, when he's so willing to do it himself?

It's too bad the fear mongers on this forum derailled this thread. A comparison of crashes with regard to the cyclists road position would have been useful. :mad:

<falsetto "Oooh, I'm afraid of the big, bad cars and do everything I can to stay out of their way so I won't upset them. They might run over poor little me. All cyclists should ride this way, even if it isn't safer than VC.">

The point you choose to ignore and not respond to is a drift is a drift is a drift Do you realy think it would make one tiny bit of diffrence if those riders were in front of the car in the center of the lane? These drivers were not paying atention pure and simple. Had they been in the left turn strait lanes with a lane to their right for right turns they would have plowed a car. Likly also hittign the one directly infront of them. Ive seen these crashes many many times. Its not because the lane the cyclist was hit in was a bike lane its because the driver paid no attention to driving.

If ither/any of the deaths your useing to promote your case were in center of lane ahead of the car they would have still been hit its as simple as that. The driver was looking fooward seen no one took his atention off the road drifted and hit the cyclist. Put the cyclist in center lane same thing driver see nothign ahead do to cyclist being out of range or line of site he looks away drifts hits. Only diffrence is where the clyclist was hit. In one case its primarly from the left in another its on the right side.

This is just one more post that helmethead will choose to not reply to as it counters his argument directly and points out the fatal flaw of his argument.

Nova, I think mr. HEAD is also going to completely ignore my question on page 3 RE: lane position after dark.......

This is a downright disturbing and macabre thread, and one that deserves no debate with mr. HEAD & his overlay of antibike lane, anti 'inadverdant drift' notions from all his armchair bicycling experience-

-from the armchair, it is ALL notion.

Personaly i ride how ever i feel is safest. If theres a bike lane and its clean i ride it. Personaly ilike riding on the marked bike routes. Drivers tend to be more aware of cyclists than other places. And because the bike routes are often in or near park controlled land and roads its safer still do to driver awareness. Ive been on one thats 45 mph and been passed by cars doign 55. Never have i realy felt in danger riding alittle over from the right tire strip of a car.
Thn there are places where ill take the lane. Mostly when crossign bridges friend had a close call when on a bridge. He lost control when he hit some loose gravel just before the bridge and ended up hanging over the side while his bike landed in the grass median below. Takeing the lane on a bridge will help to lessen the chances of this happening.

Then in areas like south cleveland massilion road i ride almost exclusivly in the wide shoulder. Its clean and free of trash for most part. Drivers know im there (many friendly waves as they go by) So why on a road like that would i bother to take the lane? Driers know its a popular route for cyclists do to fact it leads to the tow path and if you take center road all the way out you got a local bike shop and a little further on south main and you got portage lake stat park.

Center road i take the lane to up my safty. It has alot of sweeping turns and visability isnt as high. Takign the lane beyound the gresse strip is just a good idea to make your self more visable. Drivers expect there to be a cyclist on this road and drive acordingly.

Ive dropped my chain a few times on that road and had drivers stop and ask if i needed any help.

Yep, Designated Bicycle Lane (DBL) was relabeled as Bicycle Lane (BL) in the 2000 edition.
In curb & gutter sections (where shoulders don't exist for engineering reasons), BLs provide an equivalent path beside the travel lanes just for our favorite minority group (cyclists 8-).
The only authoritative explanation that I've found so far for the change is in an FHWA slideshow: "This term [BL] is similar in definition [to DBL]."

I ride a mix of roads with bike lanes and without for my commute. Which just happens to be from downtown San Diego to Lakeside. Park Blvd and Adams ave, don't have bike lanes, and traffic and I get along just fine, mostly because park has a nice WIDE right lane, and Adams is 25-30mph most the way, and I can maintain the same speed as traffic fairly easily. Fairmont has bike lanes along with Mission Gorge road, traffic on these two roads is 50+ and thre is one spot on Mission Gorge that is scary, and that's eastbound just before Princess View by the Jack In The Box. The road narrows here and you have to take the lane with 50+ mph traffic, only for about a block, but you have to do it. My speed at this point is usualy around 25 give or take, and I'm usually praying for the light to change so people have to start slowing before I have to enter that lane. VC aside, on a road like that, I'd rather have a bike lane than not. On other roads on my commute, like Mast Blvd in Santee between Halberns and Cuyamaca, they've got a 9 foot wide traffic lane, a bike lane, and parked cars. That's a bike lane that can go away, and I'm surprised there hasn't been any accidents with that one. You see cars driving in the bike lane all the time since the traffic lane is so narrow. I take the traffic lane.

There are places where it's nice to have a bike lane, and places where it doesn't make a difference. I'd rather have the lane on fast roads, and not have it where there are cars parked on the side of the road and the speed limit is less than 35. I think a car drifting into a lane and hitting a cyclist isn't because the lane was there or not, it's because the driver was in-attentive, and probably would've hit the bike anyway. Lanes next to parked cars need to go away.

First, since the MUTCD is all about definitions, how do you criticize a document like this for "only" making a change in definition? Every explanation you give for why this change in definition is irrelevent involves a circumlocutation which encompasses nearly the entire section and involves several steps using an "if this, then this" type interpretation which no engineering document is ever subject to.

Second, perhaps in NC there is no difference, but here in Oregon, BL's are marked, signed and swept, whereas shoulders are neither marked, nor signed, nor swept. This is a huge practical distinction between a shoulder and a bike lane. Personally, I think you are splitting hairs, looking for deliberate, malevolent discrimination where none exists simply to perpetuate an air of persecution.

We need to get past the "everyone's out to get us" knee jerk attitude if cycling is ever going to become more prevailent and more accepted. One of the most frequent complaints about cyclists as an interest group is that we are so very reactionary, bringing our big cannons out to swat at every fly. It becomes tedious to the public at large and trickles down to how we are treated on the road on a personal level. If we dial it down half a notch, focusing on more on the practical and less on the theoretical, we would achieve the same or better results with less backlash against individual cyclists.

You've got to be kidding.


Yes, I do.


I have no reason to believe it's that simple.


I doubt it. Almost all of these drifts occur on long stretches between intersections. At intersection approaches (where there would be a right turn only lane), motorists rarely choose to take their eyes off the road to attend to a distraction.


That's very simplistic, Nova. Again, I have no reason to believe it's that simple. I believe the following factors are all relevant. If you have issues with any of them, please let me know.

1. All drivers don't drift most of time.
2. All drivers drift from time to time.
3. Some drivers are more inclined to drift than others.
4. Drift usually occurs while the driver is attending to a distraction (unwrapping a burger, changing the radio station, answering the phone, etc.)
5. Whether a driver chooses to attend to a distraction depends on his assessment of the current situation. For example, a driver is much more likely to choose to attend to a distraction that take his eyes off the road for more than a second or two while driving down an empty road than when tailgating in 50 mph traffic.
6. Drivers who choose to take their eyes off the road to attend to a distraction often know that they might drift, and take precautions to make sure that if they drift, they drift in the "safe" direction (into the shoulder as opposed to into the oncoming traffic lane).
7. Harmless drift is so common we often tune it out and don't even notice it when others do it right in front of us. Start looking for it, and you'll find it occuring more often than you may have realized.
8. When a driver assesses a current situation to decide whether to attend to a distraction now, or to wait, an out-of-the-way cyclist up ahead (say, in a bike lane) is much less likely to be noticed than is a cyclist up ahead riding in the driver's intended path. Therefore, a cyclist in the bike lane is less likely to cause a driver to keep his eyes on the road (and his vehicle in his lane) than is a cyclist riding in a more centerish position.
9. Though probably helpful in reducing the likelihood of falling victim to an inadvertent drift, the conspicuity advantages of the centerish out-of-the-bike-lane position during gaps in same-direction traffic are much more important for preventing hooks and crosses from cross-traffic, which is a much more likely type of car-bike collision. Either way, bike lanes discourage cyclists from using a more conspicuous roadway position during gaps in same-direction traffic.

That assumes that a) the motorist is not even paying attention to what is directly in front of him, and b) that the cyclist will not move aside as the motorist approaches. While (a) is possible, it's much less likely than a motorist not noticing a cyclist outside of his intended path. (b) is contrary to the method I promote.


You've said nothing new in here that I have not already addressed countless times before, and just did again.

Less then you think. Driving behavior has markedly changed (for the better) in the Beaverton (Portland suburb) area in the 5 years since I started cycling here. This has been clearly helped by new road construction which has lessened the frustrations of motorists and cyclists alike. In the same period of time, the number of cyclists has increased, and not all of them are on Trek bicycles.

I agree; teach, teach, teach. I will do the same. However, I simply think that things can be done in parallel. And they are. In my paragraph you are refering to, I am simply telling of my observations as a cyclist. I have never witnessed an "inadvertent drift" which ever put me in danger in the slightest when in a bike lane. Obviously it happens, but my point is that it does not happen very often.

Yes, we teach defensive cycling, but in the big picture if we allow nothing to be done regarding the cause of the problems, then we achieve nothing but an escalation. We teach people how to stand and ward off an assault, but we also need to ensure that the assaults don't happen in the first place. Defenses don't always work. The less they need to be employed, the less the chance that something goes wrong.

BTW, has there been more than one of these "inadvertent drift" accidents in the Portland area? I only remember the single one in Sherwood. And there, the driver quite possibly fell asleep.

And in the words of the famous Helmet Head: I have no reason to believe that the reason why motorists drift is more complicated than the simple fact that they were distracted. After all, the lanes on a road are simply separated by paint, and sometimes drivers can and do inadvertently drift over them. I have no reason to believe that incidents of cyclists being killed due to this type of accident are more numerous in either numbers or percentages to the number of drivers being killed due to the same type of accident.

I have no reason to believe that this is a problem limited to cyclists.

(ain't the phrase "I have no reason to believe..." a great phrase. It totally cuts through any attempts at rational discussion from the get go. There's no arguing for what people "...have no reason to believe", since apparently it is a matter of belief; not up for discussion.)

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer