Ed Holland

...Hard to know if they are avoiding the lane - I never thought to ask.

Of course I have, most days - it is part of my daily commuting journey. This has nothing to do with bike lanes.

Proper? You mean riding somewhere outside the bike lane for convenience or safety? Certainly. Cars change lanes for the same reason. Cyclists are not chained to the bike lane.

Yes and I have seen the same situation without the presence of a bike lane. No difference. It is essential for the cyclist to be vigilant in such situations.

Yes, and I have observed the similar situations without the presence of a bike lane. This is just thoughtless behaviour on the part of the motorist, not a reason to indict the bike lane

Yes I have done it myself but... wait for it... with and without the bike lane. Sometimes it is hard to judge the best time to make one's manouver. It happens to motorists too.

None of what you argue above is, in my experience, a unique consequence of bike lanes. No-one asserts that these facilities offer a 100% motor traffic free environment for the cyclist, or that they permit the cyclist to be void of road sense and remain safe. They do not offer assistance at intersections but were not designed to address this. With experience and confidence, a cyclist can use many intersections as effectively as other vehicles.

What they can provide is a means for different traffic types to operate expediantly within its capability. There are truck lanes on the freeway on mountain passes... same difference

The danger is not created by the lane

Ed

Ed Holland

Oh and I thought Eric Clapton was god. Did I miss something?

KrisPistofferson

I voted god. I have it on good authority Forester sprang from the forehead of Ron Paul then arose from the sea on the halfshell of a kraken.

Allister

That's just far to sensible for Forester, Ed. He'll never be able to follow a line of reasoning like that. The VC fear of bikelanes is immune to reason.

Thirstyman

I have absolutely no idea who JF is that you refer to. Seriously.

Ed Holland

I'm well aware of that Allister

Ed Holland

You lucky b8stard

Helmet Head

Same difference??? Mountain pass freeway truck lanes end before the approach to any place where traffic in the inner lanes might need to cross them. Why do you ignore this? If bike lanes did that, there would be no debate about them also. This is not only true at approaches to all intersections (except where there is a right only lane and a discontinuous bike lane to the left of it - the non-vehicular discontinuity creating its own hazards), but also at midblock junctions with driveways, alleys and commercial entrances (where many crashes occur). And the threat is not only from right hooks from overtaking traffic (which would be the only potential conflict for truck traffic in truck only lanes on freeway mountain passes, but is still enough to keep them from designating such lanes where other traffic may cross them), but also from left crosses and right crosses from oncoming and cross traffic.

Not only do bike lanes not offer assistance at intersections, they provide hindrances in that they channel through bicycle traffic in space that is to the right of right turning traffic.

randya

you disingenuous fool. You know very well that it's not just about the intersections.

And if it is, all the bike lanes I saw in California ended before the intersection, so what exactly are you prattling on about?

Ed Holland

But any cyclist with a hint of common sense spots this quickly and learns how to negotiate intersections on their own. That is not a reason to say that the majority of the bike lane is unhelpful to the cyclist or the traffic system.

In fact, at some light controlled intersections, bike lanes in the UK permit cyclists in an area the full width of the roadway ahead of other traffic. This is a very helpful design feature, where otherwise, a long line of cyclists & traffic would accumulate in tight circumstances side by side during the red light, ready for chaos when everyone sets off.

Ed

Helmet Head

That's a personal attack and I don't appreciate it. Why you think it's acceptable to talk to other people this way is beyond me.

When a regular like you says something like this it's really astonishing to me.

Of course it is just about intersections. Where have you been? Well, almost. If they all ended the way mountain pass trucks lanes do - well before reaching any place where they need to be crossed - the only issues that would be left are debris and my inadvertent drift theory which only addresses (very rare) overtaking collisions. I, for one, would not care enough to bother opposing them for those relatively minor reasons if that were the case.

Again. This is astonishing. I assume what you mean by "end before the intersection" is "end at the intersection" because they, like other lane lines, don't extend into the intersection. But that's hardly ending before the intersection. If bike lanes were designed like freeway mountain pass truck lanes they would end at least 100 (if not 200+) feet before not only any intersection, but also before any midblock junction with an alley, driveway or commercial entrances. Those are all points of cross traffic conflict too.

There is a reason they don't paint slow truck lanes on surface streets - too many intersections with places that would require other traffic to cross the truck lanes. The same reasoning applies to bike lanes, but they paint them anyway. And many cyclists support them anyway.

deputyjones

Some things never change. Glad to see everyone else on BF but HH has a reading comprehension problem.

Helmet Head

If the percentage of cyclists who learns how to "negotiate intersections on their own" is more than 10%, I would be very, very surprised. And I'm not talking about morons... I'm talking about UC students and club cyclists too. Most cyclists stay in the bike lane all the way up to the intersection, and it wouldn't occur to them to look back and make sure they're not about to get right hooked.

Helmet Head

Glad to see you're back, DJ. Safe and healthy, I hope. And good stories?

deputyjones

thanks HH. Safe and healthy and fat. I need to ride some more

Planning on being back on the bike commute within a couple of weeks. It has been a terrible winter here. Keep up the good fight HH.

Allister

OH THE HORROR! Cars might cross the bikelane! How will anyone ever manage to survive that?!

Grow some goddamn balls, man.

Allister

Just report it to the mods, like you always do, Serge. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you yet again.

Ed Holland

Inexperienced cyclists might be just as likely to stay in a position that risks right hook incidents were there no bike lane. Moreover the person suffering a hook is not at fault here - that is down to lack of care/attention by the person making the hook.

I'm unable to provide a percentage, but I'd say most riders learn to negotiate intersections.

Everyone has the potential to apply prior experience in order to anticipate. If not then you've got to deal with the learning capacity of a whelk.

Ed

Helmet Head

Perhaps so, but in a society where bike lanes reinforce the notion that that's where bicyclists should be at intersections with bike lanes, it makes it less likely for cyclists to learn to go elsewhere at intersections without bike lanes.

I mean, if you accept the bike lane guidance as being legitimate, why should that same guidance not apply at an intersection without a bike lane?

Absolutely, but that doesn't make the pain of injury or loss of life any easier to take.

You're saying more than 50% learn to scan back to look for potential right hook conflicts and move out of the margin space at intersections? Not in any place I've ever been.

Learning exclusively through experience is not very effective in traffic cycling. It's not very effective in motoring either, which is why we don't just hand the 15 year old the keys and suggest they give it a go.

One of the problems with relying solely on experience is some of the most dangerous situations are relatively rare. A good example of that is dooring. You can probably get away with riding in door zones for weeks, months, or maybe even years without getting hit. Then, one day a door suddenly opens, you flinch to avoid it by swerving in front of a passing bus that crushes you to death. What did you learn from that experience? Avoiding right hooks and other potential hazards is like that too, which is why we have websites like bicyclesafe.com, pamphlets like "StreetSmarts", books like Effective Cycling, Cyclecraft and Urban Cycling (or whatever the title of the new edition is), and courses from LAB, CAN-BIKE and whatever the British organization is. But most cyclists rely solely on experience, and that's a big reason we have about 800 U.S. cyclist deaths per year, and many thousands of serious injuries.

Experience alone is usually good enough, but all too often it isn't. The trouble is any given cyclist doesn't know if he's the one whose going to need more than just what he got from experience to avoid being a cycling statistic. So the prudent thing to do is encourage folks to learn this stuff, and bike lanes inhibit that.

Ed Holland

But how many cyclists actually take the time to read a book on the subject? Very few. Drivers only read the Highway code / Vehicle code because knowledge of this is required as part of a mandated test.

We're largely stuck with cyclists that get on a bike first, and then think about how to use the roadway second. I was lucky, my father taught me the cycling basics of road use through practical supervision, and I'll do the same for my son when the time is right. Many others never get this opportunity.

There is the internet, and wonderful places like Bikeforums should be able to offer help. A few "stickies" in A&S regarding common dangerous situations and good basic riding practices would be far more productive than these stalemate discussions of traffic theory.

Ed

Helmet Head

People are mostly sheep. They ride the way they ride because that's the way others ride.
They don't wear helmets because others don't wear helmets. So we work on long laborious explanations about the need for helmets, lobby bike shops, write magazine articles, etc. Early adopters adopt first, by definition. Then there is the second and third wave. Eventually some magic threshold is met where enough people are doing it that it begins to catch on and take on a life of its own. That's what we need to achieve with vehicular cycling. I was into cycling for decades before I even heard about. It's arguably still in the early adopter phase. I'm hopeful that new training materials will help spread the information. Whether we're still decades or only a few years from reaching the magic threshold, I don't know, but I see no reason to not keep working towards it. And I see my work here, as counter-productive as it may sometimes be, as early adopter work. Really, I'm trying to recruit early adopter recruiters.

The terminology and associated concepts are far from being known in the cycling mainstream, where "bike lane" and "bike path" are still often used interchangeably, few bike stores carry Effective Cycling or even Hurst's book, and conventional wisdom is that motorists make most of the mistakes that cause cyclist deaths and injuries, which are mostly unavoidable by cyclists. That's what we're up against.

Allister

Not everyone shares such a low opinion of people, Serge. I pity anyone that ends up with you as a cycling instructor.

Allister

And aren't we all glad that you see BF as your personal soapbox.

The fact that you think of what you do here as 'your work' is utterly hilarious to me.

Here's a clue, since you seem to be short on supply - nothing will change as a result of any online forum discussion. Ever. After all these years of your 'work' all that's changed is a new subforum was created to keep your blathering away from normal conversation. At what point do you realise that there is no 'low hanging fruit' here and move on to somewhere that has it in abundance - like all those 'childish' cyclists I keep hearing about?

Helmet Head

There are probably good survival benefits for following the lead of others.
After all, doing research is costly. It's often cheaper to assume the research others have done is valid and follow course.

I don't think the "sheep" analogy is a negative one. I certainly don't think any less of humans for being "sheep" in this sense. I take it as a given, a hurdle to be overcome if you feel the status quo or common sense needs to change, which is what I believe to be the case with traffic cycling.

Helmet Head

Jeez, must you misread everything? I was just using that as an example of how helmets, for better or for worse, came to be adopted within the cycling community.