Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

View Poll Results: What do you recommend to the governor? (see OP)

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • Use the "vehicular model" (CA uses now): right-turners required to merge into BL before turn.

    2 12.50%
  • Use the "ped model" (OR & AZ): right-turners prohibited from entering BL and must yield to cyclists

    3 18.75%
  • At major intersections, end the BL 200' prior to the intersections, 100' at minor ones

    2 12.50%
  • At major intersections, end the BL 100' prior to the intersections, 50' at minor ones

    1 6.25%
  • End the bike lane stripe 100' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor

    0 0%
  • End the bike lane stripe 200' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor

    2 12.50%
  • Other (please specify)

    6 37.50%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40
  1. #1
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Vehicular model or Ped model?

    Say the governor's office contacts you and asks you the following question:

    We are looking into revising the law with respect to motorist and cyclist behavior at intersections with bike lanes. What do you recommend?

    At an intersection where the rightmost/outside lane can be used for straight or right destination, and there is a bike lane painted to the right of it:

    1) Use the "vehicular model" (CA uses now): right-turners required to merge into BL before turn.
    2) Use the "pedestrian model" (OR and AZ use now): right-turners prohibited from entering BL and must yield to cyclists
    3) At major intersections, end the BL 200' prior to the intersections, 100' at minor ones
    4) At major intersections, end the BL 100' prior to the intersections, 50' at minor ones
    5) End the bike lane stripe 100' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
    6) End the bike lane stripe 200' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
    7) Other (please specify)
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 04-26-07 at 11:29 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member LCI_Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    in the hills of Orange, CA
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Items 3 through 6 are design standards, not laws. I presume you mean that in these cases the motorist cannot move legally right until the bike lane disappears? Also, the issue of turning into driveways is not addressed.

  3. #3
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Drivers should merge into the bike lane before turning right; bike lanes should be eliminated prior to intersections as much as possible.

  4. #4
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would say "bike lanes??? we have bike lanes around here???"
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  5. #5
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    chocolate

  6. #6
    Cheesmonger Extraordinair natelutkjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    417
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    mmm, laneless underwear, that stuff rocks!

  7. #7
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
    Items 3 through 6 are design standards, not laws. I presume you mean that in these cases the motorist cannot move legally right until the bike lane disappears? Also, the issue of turning into driveways is not addressed.
    Well, if the bike lanes all end prior to the intersection, then the law is moot. I wanted to give that as an option for a recommendation.

    The laws in (1) and (2) are assumed to apply at any intersection where a right turn is authorized, so that would include driveways.

    Where the terms "minor intersection" or "all intersections" are used, driveways are included.

  8. #8
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    All Mod Cons M_S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Face down in a snowbank
    My Bikes
    K2 Enemey Cyclocross franken build; Redline D660 29er, Volpe SS Cross
    Posts
    3,694
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I like intesections where cyclists and traffic merge so as to prevent right hooks. Barring that though, I like th epedestrian model requiring right-turners to yield. I think that simply because they are turning and you are not should give you a right of way. That seems fairly "VC" to me *wink*

  9. #9
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by M_S
    I like intesections where cyclists and traffic merge so as to prevent right hooks. Barring that though, I like th epedestrian model requiring right-turners to yield. I think that simply because they are turning and you are not should give you a right of way. That seems fairly "VC" to me *wink*
    I think the reason it feels right to have turning motorists yield to through traffic to their right is because this "feels" familiar. In fact, this is the situation for pedestrians who are walking straight into a crosswalk from a sidewalk while right-turners to their left, who also have a green, must turn right across their paths. This is why it feels familar.

    But the dynamics are totally different when it involves bicyclists in the bike lane rather than peds on the sidewalk. Here are the reasons:

    1. The pedestrian is relatively static (relative to the moving motorist). When a motorist looks, where a pedestrian is or isn't is not going to change much over the next few seconds. If the corner is empty a second before the motorist gets to the intersection, there is not going to be a pedestrian there a second later when the motorist is turning right (barring situations where there particularly bad obstructions). The cyclist is not relatively static: at 15 mph a cyclist covers 22 feet per second. Right turning motorists are usually moving significantly slower than 15 mph the last few seconds before turning right.
    2. The pedestrian is generally more common and generally more likely to be expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be unexpected.
    3. The pedestrian can basically stop instantaneously, and move laterally very quickly. The cyclist cannot stop nearly as quickly and is unable to move laterally without also moving forward.

  10. #10
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    2. The pedestrian is generally more common and generally more likely to be
    expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be
    unexpected.
    That would not seem the case if a bike lane were there. If a bike lane were there, then the motorist should expect a cyclist to be in it, especially if he just passed the cyclist 10 seconds ago.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  11. #11
    Infamous Member chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    My Bikes
    Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
    Posts
    24,373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya
    chocolate
    + pie

    Chocolate pie, breakfast of ex champions.
    "Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey

  12. #12
    Non-Custom Member zeytoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    My Bikes
    1975-1980 SR road bike
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My advice to the governor's office:

    Bike lanes in the center of the road. Auto traffic to the right. At lighted intersections, the sequence for green lights would be bikes and pedestrians, left-turning autos, straight travelling autos. 400 pound weight limit on cars. Compressed air every 3 miles.
    I am a mutated sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate and mutate, blah!.

  13. #13
    -=Barry=- The Human Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
    Posts
    4,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections.

    My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
    If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,

    If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1...tm#section9B05

    And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.

    This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.
    Cycling Advocate
    http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
    . . . o
    . . /L
    =()>()

  14. #14
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car
    I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections.

    My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
    If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,

    If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1...tm#section9B05

    And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.

    This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.
    In CA, the solid stripes are supposed to end at least 100 feet before any intersection, 200 feet on faster roads. They may continue passed that point, but only as dashed stripes.

    http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...UTCD-Part9.pdf

    In practice, the solid stripes continues much closer than 100 feet, and the dash option is almost always used.

  15. #15
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The bike lane stripes could also be dashed and not solid.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car
    I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200í before intersections.

    My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
    If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,

    If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1...tm#section9B05

    And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.

    This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.

    The trouble with this system is that it unduly restricts the merging distance. There are other posts giving more precise measurements, also. We want to provide the longest possible merging distance so that the two parties have the greatest choice in how and when to make their moves (or only one to move, of course). The location chosen to merge over, to lane change, depends on the traffic conditions at the particular time, which cannot be predicted in advance.

  17. #17
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I voted other because you had no option for chocolate.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  18. #18
    -=Barry=- The Human Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
    Posts
    4,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car
    ... but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections. ...
    The trouble with this system is that it unduly restricts the merging distance. There are other posts giving more precise measurements, also. We want to provide the longest possible merging distance so that the two parties have the greatest choice in how and when to make their moves (or only one to move, of course). The location chosen to merge over, to lane change, depends on the traffic conditions at the particular time, which cannot be predicted in advance.
    The trouble with your response is that it lacks any precise references to be of any help what so ever.

    I recommend that max merging distance mentioned in this thread and you criticize me for being unduly restrictive??? If others have given more precise measurements, logically that implies you favorer 50 or 100 foot merge distance over 200 feet. Don’t call me unduly restrictive.

    I’ll note that I left the Chain Guard list because of your overly negative comments and you reading into things that are not there and totally useless arguments.
    Cycling Advocate
    http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
    . . . o
    . . /L
    =()>()

  19. #19
    BF's Level 12 Wizard SingingSabre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    My Bikes
    Diamondback Sorrento turned Xtracycle commuter
    Posts
    1,415
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Another smoke and mirrors poll.

    <sarcasm>I can't wait to see how he twists this one...</sarcasm>

    You didn't even give the "models" logical names.
    Shameless plug (my sites):
    Photography
    Vanity
    Quote Originally Posted by Bklyn
    Obviously, the guy's like a 12th level white wizard or something. His mere presence is a danger to mortals.

  20. #20
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SingingSabre
    Another smoke and mirrors poll.

    <sarcasm>I can't wait to see how he twists this one...</sarcasm>

    You didn't even give the "models" logical names.
    Another useless response from you.

  21. #21
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Other - I would recommend getting rid of the bike lane altogether.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car
    The trouble with your response is that it lacks any precise references to be of any help what so ever.

    I recommend that max merging distance mentioned in this thread and you criticize me for being unduly restrictive??? If others have given more precise measurements, logically that implies you favorer 50 or 100 foot merge distance over 200 feet. Donít call me unduly restrictive.

    Iíll note that I left the Chain Guard list because of your overly negative comments and you reading into things that are not there and totally useless arguments.
    The fact that I referred to 50 and 100 foot distances as more precise doesn't mean that I prefer them. I only mean that they had a lesser range.

  23. #23
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    2. The pedestrian is generally more common and generally more likely to be
    expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be
    unexpected.
    That would not seem the case if a bike lane were there. If a bike lane were there, then the motorist should expect a cyclist to be in it, especially if he just passed the cyclist 10 seconds ago.
    This is the myth of bike lanes - that they make motorists more aware of bicyclists. Simplistic speculation may lead one to think so, but there is no evidence of this, and thoughtful speculation suggests the opposite.

    If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.

    In fact, that a cyclist is expected to be in a bike lane might lead a driver to be LESS likely to notice him, much like a jar of mayo is easy to not notice when you open the fridge looking for milk, precisely because you expect to see the mayo there (there is nothing unusual or unexpected about that). But if you see a big rat staring you in the face, you're likely to notice him, because he's unexpected.

    So because he's "expected" in the sense that you mean a cyclist should be expected to be in a bike lane, he is less likely to be noticed. And because he is less likely to be noticed as he is passed, he is less likely to be expected (in the sense that I mean it) to pass on the right.

  24. #24
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    In practice, the solid stripes continues much closer than 100 feet, and the dash option is almost always used.
    The bike lane stripes could also be dashed and not solid.
    Is this an echo chamber?

  25. #25
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    This is the myth of bike lanes - that they make motorists more aware of bicyclists. Simplistic speculation may lead one to think so, but there is no evidence of this, and thoughtful speculation suggests the opposite.
    Knowing the law does change motorist attitudes
    My own experience the first time I came into contact with bike lanes is enough for me. Remember, I AM A MOTORIST. I know exactly how a motorist acts and thinks because I am one. So there you go, you can forget this whole myth thing. I know exactly what I was thinking when I first saw bike lanes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.
    Oh, so that's the reason there are no signs on the side of the road! Oh, wait a minute, there are. Hrm...
    Drivers don't crash more often than they already do out of self preserverence. It's not like we, the drivers are out there to kill ourselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    In fact, that a cyclist is expected to be in a bike lane might lead a driver to be LESS likely to notice him, much like a jar of mayo is easy to not notice when you open the fridge looking for milk, precisely because you expect to see the mayo there (there is nothing unusual or unexpected about that). But if you see a big rat staring you in the face, you're likely to notice him, because he's unexpected.
    So because he's "expected" in the sense that you mean a cyclist should be expected to be in a bike lane, he is less likely to be noticed. And because he is less likely to be noticed as he is passed, he is less likely to be expected (in the sense that I mean it) to pass on the right.
    But when driving we expect to see cars in front of us, how come we don't overlook them as well.
    So what if you have your way and all bike lanes are gone and everybody rides their bike in the road? Now cyclists are "expected" to be there. Now we are the jar of Mayo but instead of being off to the side we are directly in the line of fire. Thanks Helmet Head, thanks for killing my neighbor because there wasn't a bike lane for her to ride in. She was hot too, but now she's dead... oh well.


    One last thing.
    I love the way you have removed yourself from being a motorist every time you talk about them. You say them and they but never us when you talk about how they are like sheep or stupid or how they overlook things and never pay attention. Don't you drive?
    I gave up driving a long time ago but I still call myself a motorist. It's nice how you think you are better.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •