So what's the difference between a bike lane a a wide, striped shoulder? <edit> I see the question has already been breached. And the answer seems to be, as I thought it would, semantics.What are the bike lanes providing in Six Jours case that would not be provided if all of the excessive lane width was just striped as a very wide shoulder?
Do you find extra pavement upsetting?His situation is not "facilities working"; it's just an area where they paved a lot more width than they really needed to.
Bike lanes also don't prevent drunk driving. That they are not absolutely perfect in every concievable circumstance is a pretty weak argument against them -- especially when the counter proposal is "you should just ride in front of traffic".He's even admitted that the bike lanes do nothing to help in negotiating the freeway on-ramps, arguably the most dangerous situation a cyclist might encounter.
IMO, that traffic is "the most dangerous situation a cyclist encounters": same direction traffic at 30, 40, 50 mph faster than the cyclist. Anything that gets me a few feet farther away from that traffic is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. Other folks are welcome to ride around in front of that traffic all they want, I guess, but I'm not too impressed with folks that want to force me into the same.
I personally like it when motorists are unsure if they have room to pass me without changing lanes in places where I know that they do. This causes them to slow down more, and if anything, pass me at greater distance.
I appreciate the possible marketing value of using bike lane striping to make cyclists more aware of which roads have enough room for motorists to pass without changing lanes. WOLs aren't as obvious to the inexperienced cyclists' eye, and sometimes not to me either. However, I am also concerned about the problem of using bike lane stripes to increase the confidence/entitlement of motorists passing cyclists where there isn't much room, particularly when the stripes are added to substandard width (some local cyclists and politicians here are clamoring for 14' lanes to be subdivided with a bike lane stripe into 11/3 or 10/4 lanes) or where door zones, debris, and other roadside hazards exist.
I haven't heard of a cyclist in a WOL causing a slowing of traffic that resulted in a car-car collision. The speed reduction is usually not that sudden or drastic, compared to, say, slowing for a turn or red light. I have heard of a reckless motorist sideswiping another car where a cyclist was carefully using the center of a narrow lane while approaching a red light. The police officer who responded read the motorist the riot act. But this isn't related to WOLs versus bike lanes.
I think that where roads become more freeway-like, with far fewer junctions/driveways and signals, motorist speed reductions might have more pronounced negative effects than on typical surface streets.
Where they advocate bike lanes stripes on wide, high-speed roads between junctions, I rarely say anthing more than to ask who will be in charge of sweeping them.
If I had my preferences, it would be for lower speed roads... but as a cyclist my vote seems to count very little in that regard.
Reading these last few posts has brought something back to mind. For me, one of the most annoying experiences I feel on the street is the sudden slowing down of a vehicle coming up behind me, and just following me along for 50 meters or so, until they get a grip and move on. To me, a motorist who feels the need to suddenly grind to a nearly zero speed and inch along behind me shows a lack of ability to assess road width and passing options. A self respecting motorist should be able to assess distances in a fraction of a second, not 30-60 seconds. A motorist who inches behind me is in effect saying : "oh my god, I'm so scared of hitting that poor cyclist, what I am to do?" Anyone who lives with that much fear and INABILITY is someone I want to keep clear of at all costs because there's nothing more dangerous than an insecure driver. I aim to stay away from any dumb driver, whether on 2 wheels or 4.
and how, exactly, do you do that, tallard, (stay away from any dumb driver) when riding in front of said motorist? move off to the shoulder or into a well provided bike lane when one is available? and what if one is not, what do you do then?
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
To assume a driver slows down instead of passing a cyclist is done out of fear and inability is ridiculous.
There are 10 types of people in the world - the ones that can count in base 2, the ones that can't count in base 2, and the ones that didn't expect this to be in base 3.
My question for you is do you really think they needed to pave 15 feet of bike lane/shoulder on that road? Wouldn't 8 have been sufficient?
It's when I'm in Canada, on wide lanes, where speed limits are half the US speed limits, that drivers are like deer in headlights, you can hear their brain going: "can I do it" "oh I'm not sure" "I don't know how wide my car is" "what if I shake", and then after a minute or so of following me, they finally rack up the nerve to pass me, without going into the next lane, BECAUSE THERE IS PLENTY OF SPACE IN THE LANE WE HAPPEN TO BE SHARING.
Well, we can have extra width with a stripe and call it "shoulder", or "bike lane" or "Great Aunt Martha", as long as there's shoulder with a stripe.Ok, so you prefer to have some extra width on the roadway. Again, that says nothing about how well your bike lanes "work" which is my point.
And do the shoulders go the entire length of the road, or are they partial as is the case for most roads in CA.
Compare and contrast the roads in Oregon. Start with hiway 1; it is a low number, easy for you to remember.
As the saying goes, keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.
To me in fast traffic a close call is within 6", too close is when the vehicle brushes my clothing. At slow traffic speed or stopped traffic, I require only an inch or two outside by handlebar tips.
Oddly enough, I trust cars more than fellow cyclists in many regards as when I'm coming up behind another cyclist at speed, they don't know I'm coming and mostly cyclist's behaviors are quite erratic, which makes them difficult to overtake. If I need to overtake a pedestrian however (never on sidewalks), from 25' away I shout "coming through on your left" just as the etiquette of cross-country skiing dictates. I still slow down, it works well.
On the other hand, those states that do provide a nice wide shoulder may have occasionally a narrow section, but this is their exception, whereas the rule is wide shoulders.
In California oddly enough the limited access freeways do have wide shoulders, but then cyclists are generally banned from the freeways. However exceptions exist in this case too, as certain limited areas of freeway do allow bicycle access... but again this is an exception.
So the bottom line is that here and there in California, a hiway where a bicycle may travel, such as hiway 1 (or 94, or 54 or even parts of 101 and others) may have shoulders, generally one should not anticipate and expect such shoulders throughout the state as may be the case with other states which do provide nice wide PAVED shoulders as a matter of course.
Now is that "crayon" clear enough for you?
Well that is clear enough. Now I can read your posts and know where you are coming from; a place just like HH, a completely different planet from me; and a very different perspective on risk.
BTW, How is your translation of non verbal language emanating from groups of high speed drivers approaching from the rear in hours of darkness?
But having said that, I'm more than happy riding in the extra road width (whether it's a bike lane, wide outside lane, or shoulder) on the long intersectionless sections without driveways that are common in our area. But my primary reason for doing so is for the convenience of overtaking drivers.