Darrenmc

This sounds like fragile self-esteem to me, that bicyclists see that painted stripe as a badge of their inferiority. I see it as a simple reflection that my vehicle has much lesser capabilities than most of the other vehicles on the road, and that a seperate facility is often appropriate. (if traffic is slow enough that my speed difference with cars is negligable, that's a different matter).

It IS illegitimate to be the slowest car on the freeway if you are in the fast lane. It IS illegitimate to travel 35mph slower than the customary speed of traffic in the right lane. When you are that much slower than everyone else, you aren't "traffic" anymore, you're an obstacle. That seems self-evident to me.

Darrenmc

This is a thought provoking counter-argument. A well designed bike lane sends a comforting message to the newb cyclists... but also sends a message to the car drivers which may affect their behaviour in ways that are not safe for cyclists: "you don't need to be bothered watching for bicycles. They will stay out of your way behind that stripe. In fact, that is where they belong". Motorists very strongly trust that "what's on the other side of the stripe doesn't matter"... that lines act as force fields..... they have to believe this because they will drive within six feet of oncoming semis at closing speeds of 100mph plus. The only thing between them and death is a little yellow stripe on the road. If they are willing to close pass an oncoming semi then they are definitely willing to close-pass a cyclist riding on the left edge of a bike lane....OTOH if there's no line there to provide an "invisible force field" then the motorist might have to actually pay attention to how closely they are passing you.

This is a problem because there is not a bike lane on this earth that a cyclist will not need to leave at some point for safety, and the motorist may be resentful and surprised when this happens (neither of which are good).

The bike lane does also send an unfortunate message to newb cyclists: "just ride in the bike lane and you'll be fine... no skill or judgement required". When combined with crappy bike lanes, that's dangerous.

Sorry for the multiple posts, I'm new to the debate and thinking out loud, trying to find the middle ground.

Darrenmc

This is not really true. It is quite possible for a competent VCer to simply not ENJOY sharing a road with SUVs travelling at 40-50mph. Others don't mind. A 20mph bicycle in a lane normally used by 50mph vehicles is not "traffic", it is an impediment to traffic.... some VCers are reluctant to be such an imposition, others are not (some actively enjoy it).

I'm not afraid of slow moving cars, I'm more maneuverable than they are if one of them should make a mistake (and yes, drivers make mistakes all the time, otherwise there would be no car accidents). If one of them makes a mistake at 50mph my maneuverability counts for nothing, regardless of my competence.

The Human Car

I mean this in a nice way, post the law or your wrong.

The whole fast lane/slow lane thing is like so last generation, I believe all the states have done away with those laws, its definitely not in the UVC. There is a major problem with the general publics knowledge of the laws not to mention lack of knowledge of what is safe and what is not safe for a cyclist.

rando

I'm assuming you have polled a substantial number of drivers and new cyclists as to their reactions and attitudes re: bike lanes. otherwise, you're just guessing and talking out of your ass. never a good way to start.

LCI_Brian

VC and bike lanes can be mutually exclusive when there are mandatory bike lane use laws. They are not mutually exclusive when there are no laws requiring bike lane use.

Bekologist

ALL mandatory use laws I have seen in the united states have clauses that allow the rider to leave the bike lane for safety, turning, road conditions, etc and are therefore not mutually exclusive even then. try again.

LCI_Brian

Mandatory use laws with exceptions still put the burden of proof on the cyclist to justify why he's not in the bike lane.

Bekologist

naw. that's only in a court of law.

do you ride in court much? ever had to???? Have you ever gotten a ticket for this? I sure haven't. I sense fearmongering.

there's NO BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED to leave a bike lane.... sorry.

Burden of proof is a legal term applicable only in a court of law, Brian!

VC and bike lanes are NOT mutually exclusive. vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in bike lanes, sans hysteria of the chainguard crewe's laments...

joejack951

Even the "as far right as practicable" laws put the burden of proof on a cyclist. And yes I have been ticketted and yes I have had a lame judge agree with the police officer.

Bekologist

so cyclists shouldn't ride as far right as practicable???

how do vehicles of different operating speed characteristics share high speed roads, joe?

there wasn't a bike lane in your case, joejack......


this thread is 'VC AND BIKE LANES ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Modern american streetscapes incorporating well provided and maintained bike lanes allow for vehicular cycling in a bike lane.

joejack951

My point is that the wording of the laws put the onus on the cyclist to justify why he isn't hugging the edge of the roadway. Any law which puts the onus on a cyclist to justify why he's not in the bike lane is just as likely to be used against cyclist in situations where it should not be (reference Portlanders getting ticketted for making left turns and me getting ticketted for not sharing a high speed 12 foot wide lane). "Practicable" does NOT mean "possible" in the context of the vehicle code.

A much improved wording of the law would grant cyclists a full lane like any other vehicle and the exceptions would be when the lane is wide enough to safely share, putting the onus on law enforcement to prove that the lane can be, without a doubt, safely shared.

"different operating speed charateristics"? That's a mouthful. The answer is easy though: faster traffic to the left, slower traffic to the left assuming the road is wide enough to accomodate more than one stream of same direction traffic. Or do you have a more specific question?

There was a shoulder, which turned into a right turn lane. I could have used the right turn lane to go straight as it had plenty of width for my narrow bicycle. Sort of like how I could use a bike lane to go straight through an intersection too. But states like California have laws allowing cyclists going straight to leave the bike lane when approaching places where traffic can turn right. Sounds a lot like my situation, right?

LCI_Brian

Yes, that is correct for California. Unfortunately, the laws in Oregon don't allow cyclists to leave the bike lane before the intersection, and they also require motorists to make right turns across the bike lane. The VC would prefer to leave the bike lane before the intersection, yet it is illegal for him to do so. Therefore, in this case, VC and bike lanes are mutually exclusive. Some VCers would say get rid of the bike lane - instead, I say get rid of the mandatory bike lane use law.

Bekologist

doesn't sound like that, joejack.

your case doesn't sound like that at all....Not really, except that vehicular cyclists can use bike lanes vehicularily in california, and leave them when neccessary due to upcoming turns, traffic conditions, debris, etc.


AN LCI stating 'don't get rid of the bike lane, get rid of mandatory use laws' ......a stunning concession to the vehicularity of bike lanes!!!!!

Bekologist

how does 'as far right as practicable' turn into 'hugging the edge of the roadway???

what kind of conflation is that?

WASHINGTON state laws are MUCH more encompassing of bicyclists... we 'can use a bike lane if one is provided' but there is no mandatory use requirements.... just general rules of the road positioning rules of 'as far right as practicable'


which often puts a vehicular cyclist riding vehicularily in the bike lane! Vehicular cycling and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

brian, 'mutually exclusive' is a term that defines two disparate elements that do not share any similarities. saying things are 'sometimes mutually exclusive' is nonsensical.

Darrenmc

Excuse me? The "fast lane/slow lane thing is last generation"? Where on earth do *you* drive? Not around here, that's for sure.

Section 147 of the Ontario HTA: (and yes, "less than the normal speed of traffic at that time" DOES include driving at the speed limit when everyone around you is doing 20kmh over).

Slow vehicles to travel on right side

147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).


This being said, the context of my comment was to question the notion that the desire for a bike lane is some kind of pathological "cyclist inferiority complex", rather than a simple recognition that vehicles of different speeds belong on different parts of the road.. and that if they are different ENOUGH then a seperate lane might be warranted. Really, as long as the BL doesn't lead the noob into a meat grinder I don't see the problem with BLs, and I try to ride VC whenever it's safe and pleasant to do so.

Bekologist

actually, desire for bike lanes are sometimes a desire to better accomodate communities for cyclists of all ages and abilities.

bicycling infrastructure has no 'inferiorities' attached to their design or use.

well implemented bike lanes even darrenmc or john foreestor could ride in, vehicularily!

a desire to grow cycling modal share, to make cycling a more visible part of a community design, to encourage greater cycling participation.

darren, step away from that copy of effective cycling!


remember, a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularily in a well provided bike lane!

joejack951

Talk to the Delaware JP Court. That's how the law was explained to me. Getting in the way of traffic is suicidal, according to the judge who heard my case. Close passes? Move further right.

One more time, in case you forgot, just because a cyclist is riding in the space demarcated by the bike lane stripe does not mean that the bike lane is doing anything for that cyclist. A cyclist who ignores the bike lane stripe and chooses a lateral position based on their speed, their destination, and other traffic's speed is in no way benefitting from the existence of a bike lane.

Doesn't appear to me that that is what Brian is trying to say. Sounds like he is referring to different contexts where bike lanes and VC may or may not be mutually exclusive. FWIW, I agree with Brian.

Bekologist

Do you really want to keep going around and around on a 12 month old thread, joe**********

althoug, joe, your statement " cyclist who ignores the bike lane stripe and chooses a lateral position based on their speed, their destination, and other traffic's speed is in no way benefitting from the existence of a bike lane.' is incorrect. bike lane stripes can and will benefit that rider if they are positioned in the bike lane.


keep complaining about your ticket, you can keep explaining how sometimes a vehicular cyclist will move out of a well provided bike lane, whatever.... but it doesn't change the FACT that

VC AND BIKE LANES ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

joejack951

I'm very proud of you for being so consistent in completely ignoring destination positioning when discussing bike lanes.

Bekologist

GOOD GRIEF!

just stop, joe. I'm not 'consistently ignoring' anything, I mentioned destination positioning on the first page - YOU are ignoring the thread content to gripe and moan.