Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

View Poll Results: What do you recommend to the governor? (see OP)
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%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-26-07, 08:23 PM   #1
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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 10:29 PM.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 09:07 PM   #2
LCI_Brian
Senior Member
 
LCI_Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the hills of Orange, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
LCI_Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 09:15 PM   #3
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Drivers should merge into the bike lane before turning right; bike lanes should be eliminated prior to intersections as much as possible.
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 09:43 PM   #4
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would say "bike lanes??? we have bike lanes around here???"
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:23 PM   #5
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
chocolate
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:32 PM   #6
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
mmm, laneless underwear, that stuff rocks!
natelutkjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:33 PM   #7
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:34 PM   #8
M_S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 3,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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*
M_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 11:20 PM   #9
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 11:28 PM   #10
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 05:59 AM   #11
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 11:08 AM   #12
zeytoun
Non-Custom Member
 
zeytoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Bikes: 1975-1980 SR road bike
Posts: 1,613
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
zeytoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 04:04 PM   #13
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 04:11 PM   #14
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 04:20 PM   #15
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The bike lane stripes could also be dashed and not solid.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 08:08 PM   #16
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 08:10 PM   #17
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Posts: 4,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I voted other because you had no option for chocolate.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 11:03 PM   #18
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-07, 01:41 AM   #19
SingingSabre 
BF's Level 12 Wizard
 
SingingSabre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tucson, AZ
Bikes: Diamondback Sorrento turned Xtracycle commuter
Posts: 1,425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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):
Work
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.
SingingSabre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-07, 02:36 PM   #20
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 12,346
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(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.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-07, 02:37 PM   #21
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 12,346
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Other - I would recommend getting rid of the bike lane altogether.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-07, 04:51 PM   #22
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-07, 11:16 PM   #23
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-07, 11:19 PM   #24
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-07, 05:53 AM   #25
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:31 PM.