John Forester

That is a really nasty deliberate misquotation of my words. Here are the actual words: "There are dozens, probably hundreds of studies that advocate bikeways; God knows I have read enough of them. I reviewed Pucher and Dijkstra years ago, and demolished it. Indeed, it was my criticism of that paper, and Pucher's immoderate reply, that caused the editors of Transportation Quarterly to publish my paper, The Bicycle Transportation Controversy, in Spring 2001, Vol 55 Number 2, pgs 7-17."

My point is that none of these probably hundreds of studies has provided scientifically reasonable evidence to support the three basic claims of bikeway advocates, or specifically for bike lanes. The three basic claims for bike lanes are that the bike-lane stripe reduces car-bike collisions, reduces the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and significantly reduces motoring. I have never seen such a paper; it was the purpose of the inquiry to see whether any of the bicycle advocates in this forum would advance such a paper and support its reasoning.

By the way, we on this forum have had a much better discussion of European facilities than is possible from reading the Pucher and Dijkstra paper. That's how bad that paper is.

Bekologist

I'm getting ready to ride to work! don't have a lot of time to waste debating the efficacy of bike infrastructure, which works on bridge approaches in Portland, and portland generally, with a posturing chest puffer in Bike Forums.....

tonight, Ride of Silence, Seattle, 6:30 PM, Gasworks park, to show solidarity to our brothers of the wheel killed or injured while bicycling. If you're in Seattle, please show up.

Helmet Head

What does this have to do with a study about blue bike lanes?

Yes, let's add more fuel to the fire keeping many people from taking up cycling: fear of dying. Just what we need to further the interests of expanding the popularity of bicycling.

Bekologist

hey, Head, I've had good friends killed on their bicycles by inattentive drivers. put a sock in it, armchair rider.


...... Mentioning the efficacy of bike specific bridge infrastructure, the 'blue bike lanes', that have been repeatedly referred to by John Ratliff, myself and others, make cycling across the bridges safer in Portland. Vehicular cyclists use the blue bike lanes in Portland, bub. i'd bet ol' Bow Tie and Head would as well.

randya

The blue bike lanes are one of the Foresterologists biggest strawmen. Even though all the empirical evidence and years of personal experience indicate that they lead to less confusion, a higher degree of safety for cyclists and contribute to increased levels of cycling, the Forsterologists continue to rattle their dull sabers at the strawmen.

chipcom 

Not paying attention? How do you manage to obey the rules of the road? I mean wasn't it you that said we have to be vigilant and observant to obey the rules of the road?

Dude, I even have names for the critters on my route...I highly advise that you pay better attention to your surroundings and leave the auto-pilot for jet jocks.

Helmet Head

Lane markings in general are relevant to my riding. Bike lane markings in particular are not.

Whether a bike lane stripe is present makes practically no difference to my riding - whether that stripe is dashed or solid makes even less differerence. The fact that I was oblivious to the length of the bike lane stripe dashing just a few blocks from my home only confirms how irrelevant bike lane striping is to me.

Pete, thank you. You have made it clear that there are many more exceptions than I realized; that the dashing is much longer than 30-60 feet at many intersections, and appears to be even 100-200 feet or more at some.

genec

Tend to agree, and commend the use of "cyclists have the right to use the full lane" signs. That removes the abiguity of the motorists who feel that cyclists should be on the sidewalk.

joejack951

Did the bike lane exist in the same form before the blue paint/signage was added?

Helmet Head

Paying attention does not mean paying attention to everything.
Paying attention while riding in traffic means paying attention to what is relevant (or potentially relevant) to your getting to your destination safely.

Whether a bike lane stripe is dashed or solid makes absolutely no difference to me, so I don't pay attention to it (even less so than I realized, thanks to Pete). That's a good thing, because it means I'm paying more attention to that which is relevant.

chipcom 

How un-vc of you to be concerned about the popularity of cycling, especially considering that you oppose many things that the majority of folks who do or consider riding a bicycle prefer.

chipcom 

My advice stands...you better start learning to pay attention to everything. THAT is the mark of an experienced transportational cyclist...the fact that you don't consider it important only supports those that accuse you of being a club rider at best, armchair cyclist at worst.

joejack951

You can't be serious. Where do you draw the line at paying attention then? Should I note what type of grass is used in the front yards of the houses I pass by, you know, just in case I need to collapse from exhaustion and want to choose the softest landing spot?

Helmet Head

And my advice is that it is humanly impossible to pay attention to everything and the more you pay attention to the irrelevant, the less you pay attention to the relevant.

That's why we prefer drivers pay attention to their driving, and not to their radios, cell phones, french fries or whether a bike lane stripe at an intersection approach where they never turn is solid or dashed, and if it is dashed, how long that dashing is.

Helmet Head

Chip just can't resist slipping in an ad hominem attack on me. It's how he gets his jollies, even if it means pushing all reason aside. It's pathetic.

I-Like-To-Bike

Looks to me like you don't enjoy taking a good natured razzing; just like giving 'em to others for fun, eh?

joejack951

Really? I thought I was in a very small minority in preferring narrow outside lanes in these conditions. Or were you agreeing with something else I said?

Helmet Head

My good natured razzing is aimed at the abstract concept of "Portland cycling", not at any particular members.

zeytoun

That's probably not a bad idea, provided it can me made clear to motorists that there is no speed minimum on this route. The only issue that I can think of with this is what I see happen often around my area, where cars don't look ahead, and they suddenly find themselves going uphill behind a slow vehicle, with the traffic whizzing by on the EDIT: left, making for a dangerous merge scenario. But, then again, I think this is a driver attention problem (combined with busy traffic), and not necessarily a road design issue.

I take you for you word. You see a huge difference. I have been "questioned" twice for exiting a bike lane. Once by a driver, who I educated personally (who knows if it stuck), and once by an officer, who I ignored. I also have been "questioned" when taking the lane at places without bike lanes. But that's just my experience. I believe you when you say it makes a huge difference for you.

Now my law says that you can leave bikelanes for several reasons, including approaching intersections. It is similar (with some small differences) to the law I have that says you should keep near to the curb with several exceptions.

Now, the way I see it, if an officer incorrectly assumed I should be in a bike lane, it shows that he didn't know or understand the law. Would he treat me differently on that same stretch of road if there were no bike lane?

I guess what I am saying is that we agree on a few things. One is to generally ride vehicularly is a good thing. We probably agree, but to different levels, on how much that affects how we are treated. That doesn't affect our decision on how to ride.

We also agree that some drivers will treat you improperly, if you don't ride vehicularly. We probably agree that cyclist education is key (and with the relative small number of cyclists, free classes probably work, although we need to somehow reach the cyclists who for whatever reasons, don't attend these classes).

All that leaves is the bike lane issue (whether to erase or improve) and the general public/driver education issue. I want some sort of shoulder/bike lane area for high speed differentials. You would rather have narrow lanes (by the way, do your arterials have curbs?). If we have bike lanes, we have to educate drivers to let them know that you don't have to be in them just because they want you to be in them. If we don't have bike lanes, I have to find another route if I want a shoulder/bail out area.

randya

It was a while ago, but my recollection is that it was all pretty much added at the same time. A bus lane has also been added to the right of the bike lane more recently, replacing a parking lane. Before that it was a nightmare free for all at the locations I'm familiar with, with lots of aggro motorists and bus drivers honking and trying to edge out the few brave cyclists attempting to 'take the lane'.

Helmet Head

Are you serious? Where have you been? The fundamental VC principle about where to ride on roads with bike lanes is ignore the bike lane stripe (position yourself the way you would if the bike lane stripe was not there - if that puts you outside the bike lane, fine, if that puts you inside the bike lane, so be it). Thanks for confirming how thoroughly integrated that VC principle is in my riding (I knew I was good, I didn't realize I was that good! ).

I, obviously, ignore bike lane stripes. Their presence, much less whether they are solid or striped, makes no difference to me. They are totally and completely irrelevant to me, as you have shown.

How exactly I accomplish that, I cannot tell you. I'm not a cognitive scientist. But I know it has to do with effective cognitive filtering of the relevant wheat from the irrelevant chaff. Bike lane stripes are irrelevant chaff.

chipcom 

I am serious. You mean to tell me that things about your commute route, 'relevant' or not, don't stick in your mind? That goofy looking tree, that house with the pink flamingo out front, the home with the blue lawn, the cherry trees in that park that look so beautiful in the spring, the place where the paint has been worn off the fog line for the last year, the car that passes you every morning with the garfield doll hangning on the side window, etc. etc. etc? If not, I'd have to question your frequency in commuting too.

John Forester

The choice between having a bike lane and having narrow lanes is a false statement, because the best is the wide outside lane, which has all the advantages of easy overtaking by motorists without the disadvantages of the bike-lane stripe.

zeytoun

Indeed they are not the only two choices. I was not trying to limit road choices to a false dichotomy. I was responding to joejack's suggestion that 45mph arterials have several narrow unsharable lanes, instead of bike lanes.

You would prefer a WOL. That's fine. I would prefer that to a NOL on a 45mph arterial.

chipcom 

No HH, it's not about relevancy...that dog don't hunt. It's about things that are above or below the norm. See my response to JJ. You made that statement that you didn't know of such lines anywhere, meaning you consider them out of the ordinary, yet you didn't notice them on your own commute route?

Indeed, your blather about lines being irrelevant is hogwash and a dodge. So if today those dashed lines were now red or blue solid lines, indicating that future construction along the route is likely, you wouldn't notice? How can you notice if something has changed if you never bothered noticing it at all?