Opposition to Mandatory Bike Lane / Bike Path Ordinance
08-25-09, 08:50 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Opposition to Mandatory Bike Lane / Bike Path Ordinance
In the wake of three tragic cyclist deaths this summer, the City of Boise launched a Bicycle Safety Task Force to develop strategies that will improve safety here. I am on the Sounding Board to review their recommendations. In the interest of "striking while the iron is hot", I sent this letter to the Mayor and City Council:
Do we have consensus here that mandatory bike lane/side path laws are not in the best interests of cyclists?
Did the Task Force ever get a chance to discuss Boise’s mandatory Bike Lane/Bike Path ordinance? Here it is, for your reference:
10-14-07 USING PROVIDED BIKE LANES AND BIKE PATHS
Wherever a bike lane is present upon a roadway, a bicyclist shall use that lane and shall not use the roadway; except that the bicyclist shall not be required to use or remain in a bike lane:
1. When the lane is of insufficient width to permit safe bicycle operation.
2. When the condition of the pavement, or the presence of water, dirt, glass or other foreign objects upon the pavement prevents safe bicycle operation in the lane.
3. When moving into position to make a right or left turn.
4. When an opening car door or other obstruction in an adjacent parking lane requires movement out of the lane.
Wherever a bike path has been provided immediately adjacent to a roadway, a bicyclist shall use that path and shall not use the roadway if official signs or markings so direct; except that a bicyclist shall not be required to use or remain on a bike path:
1. When the path is of insufficient width to permit safe bicycle operation or
2. When the condition of the surface, or the presence of water, dirt, glass or other foreign objects upon the surface prevents safe bicycle operation on the path.
The issues with this law:
• It does not come even close to spelling out all the exceptions why a cyclist would prudently position himself farther out into the roadway to increase safety, nor could it reasonably be expected to do so. In essence, it makes defensive cycling unlawful. The spirit of this law is “keep cyclists from inconveniencing motor traffic, even if it undermines the cyclists’ safety”.
• It is extremely subjective for law enforcement officers to enforce and for the courts to prosecute.
Here’s a scenario:
Cyclist is travelling lawfully in the bike lane, approaching a cross street. There is traffic approaching from the right on the cross street. Crossing vehicle has a stop sign; cyclist has right-of-way with no stop required. Cyclist remembers best practices taught in the LAB safe cycling class she attended. After looking over her left shoulder to check for overtaking traffic, she begins to move left out of the bike lane, to improve her sightline to the approaching cross traffic. She knows that motorists don’t always look far enough to the left for bike lane cyclists to appear on motorists’ “radar”. Cyclist sees a police car approaching from the opposite direction and, mindful of Boise’s mandatory bike lane ordinance, swings right, back into the bike lane. Crossing motorist pauses briefly at the stop sign and proceeds to cross the road on which the cyclist is travelling. Crossing motorists collides with cyclist, who sustains a cervical fracture, rendering her a quadriplegic for the remainder of her life. Cyclist enlists the services of a nationally renowned cycling attorney, who obtains an 8-figure settlement from the City of Boise for requiring cyclists to comply with a law that threatens their safety.
If the City of Boise won’t repeal this ordinance for the sake of cyclists, perhaps they will consider doing so to avoid some very expensive litigation.
On a related note, the contra-flow side-path along Federal Way is a death trap for cyclists at intersections and a brazen violation of AASHTO guidelines for the development of bicycle facilities. It is only a matter of time until an unwary eastbound bicyclist gets clobbered by a motorist executing a right turn on red.
10-14-07 USING PROVIDED BIKE LANES AND BIKE PATHS
Wherever a bike lane is present upon a roadway, a bicyclist shall use that lane and shall not use the roadway; except that the bicyclist shall not be required to use or remain in a bike lane:
1. When the lane is of insufficient width to permit safe bicycle operation.
2. When the condition of the pavement, or the presence of water, dirt, glass or other foreign objects upon the pavement prevents safe bicycle operation in the lane.
3. When moving into position to make a right or left turn.
4. When an opening car door or other obstruction in an adjacent parking lane requires movement out of the lane.
Wherever a bike path has been provided immediately adjacent to a roadway, a bicyclist shall use that path and shall not use the roadway if official signs or markings so direct; except that a bicyclist shall not be required to use or remain on a bike path:
1. When the path is of insufficient width to permit safe bicycle operation or
2. When the condition of the surface, or the presence of water, dirt, glass or other foreign objects upon the surface prevents safe bicycle operation on the path.
The issues with this law:
• It does not come even close to spelling out all the exceptions why a cyclist would prudently position himself farther out into the roadway to increase safety, nor could it reasonably be expected to do so. In essence, it makes defensive cycling unlawful. The spirit of this law is “keep cyclists from inconveniencing motor traffic, even if it undermines the cyclists’ safety”.
• It is extremely subjective for law enforcement officers to enforce and for the courts to prosecute.
Here’s a scenario:
Cyclist is travelling lawfully in the bike lane, approaching a cross street. There is traffic approaching from the right on the cross street. Crossing vehicle has a stop sign; cyclist has right-of-way with no stop required. Cyclist remembers best practices taught in the LAB safe cycling class she attended. After looking over her left shoulder to check for overtaking traffic, she begins to move left out of the bike lane, to improve her sightline to the approaching cross traffic. She knows that motorists don’t always look far enough to the left for bike lane cyclists to appear on motorists’ “radar”. Cyclist sees a police car approaching from the opposite direction and, mindful of Boise’s mandatory bike lane ordinance, swings right, back into the bike lane. Crossing motorist pauses briefly at the stop sign and proceeds to cross the road on which the cyclist is travelling. Crossing motorists collides with cyclist, who sustains a cervical fracture, rendering her a quadriplegic for the remainder of her life. Cyclist enlists the services of a nationally renowned cycling attorney, who obtains an 8-figure settlement from the City of Boise for requiring cyclists to comply with a law that threatens their safety.
If the City of Boise won’t repeal this ordinance for the sake of cyclists, perhaps they will consider doing so to avoid some very expensive litigation.
On a related note, the contra-flow side-path along Federal Way is a death trap for cyclists at intersections and a brazen violation of AASHTO guidelines for the development of bicycle facilities. It is only a matter of time until an unwary eastbound bicyclist gets clobbered by a motorist executing a right turn on red.
08-25-09, 09:02 AM
#2
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
since your city now has statutory regulation over bicycle lanes and path it will be difficult to have the city just strike this clarity of law from the books.
how does boise reasonably define and regulate bike travel in legal statute to reflect the physical environment?
where there are mandatory use bikelane, shoulder or sidepath laws, lobbying lawmakers to strike 'shall' and substitute 'may' is a very effective way to negate restrictive legal mandates on where to ride and effectively reflect the physical environment.
existing mandatory use laws apply only to very small percentage of roads and are unlikely to be enforced anyway- highrollers' accident scenario above required the presence of a police cruiser to cause the collision.
replacing mandatory use language with optional use language is an easy and effective way for communities and states to clarify and regulate bicycle traffic in recognizance of physical design of public rights of way without unduly preventing bicyclist best practices.
how does boise reasonably define and regulate bike travel in legal statute to reflect the physical environment?
where there are mandatory use bikelane, shoulder or sidepath laws, lobbying lawmakers to strike 'shall' and substitute 'may' is a very effective way to negate restrictive legal mandates on where to ride and effectively reflect the physical environment.
existing mandatory use laws apply only to very small percentage of roads and are unlikely to be enforced anyway- highrollers' accident scenario above required the presence of a police cruiser to cause the collision.
replacing mandatory use language with optional use language is an easy and effective way for communities and states to clarify and regulate bicycle traffic in recognizance of physical design of public rights of way without unduly preventing bicyclist best practices.
08-25-09, 09:28 AM
#3
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In the wake of three tragic cyclist deaths this summer, the City of Boise launched a Bicycle Safety Task Force to develop strategies that will improve safety here. I am on the Sounding Board to review their recommendations. In the interest of "striking while the iron is hot", I sent this letter to the Mayor and City Council:
Do we have consensus here that mandatory bike lane/side path laws are not in the best interests of cyclists?
Do we have consensus here that mandatory bike lane/side path laws are not in the best interests of cyclists?
I'm not saying well designed bike lanes are an absolute evil. I'm saying they may lead to it.
08-25-09, 09:56 AM
#4
LCI #1853
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scott. Arkansas
Posts: 663
Bikes: Trek Madone 5.2, Fisher Caliber 29er, Orbea Onix
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In January 2009 the League adopted an official policy which opposes state and local laws which discriminate against road use by cyclists, including local laws which require mandatory bike lane or side path use, or ridaing as far-to-the-right as practicable. See https://www.bikeleague.org/images/equ...nt_1-05-09.pdf and
https://www.bikeleague.org/images/equ...nov-dec_07.pdf. This policy will be incorporated into the League's review of cities for designation as "bicycle-friendly communities," and communities which have these rules will be expected to be seeking to get rid of them.
Bike lanes essentially serve as an encouragement method from the cyclists' aspect. Many cycling advocates like them because they perceive that it gives them a little piece of the roadway where the cars don't go. The cold truth is that cars go there all the time -- at every driveway, street crossing and intersection. At many intersections the lanes are striped all the way up to the stop line, placing the rider in a position where he/she is likely to get right-hooked,as well as encouraging riders to filter up past a line of stopped cars to put themselves in the same position. From the motorists, it gets those pesky, slow cyclists out of the way, and sadly, out of sight usually means "out of mind" as well, often with deadly results.
https://www.bikeleague.org/images/equ...nov-dec_07.pdf. This policy will be incorporated into the League's review of cities for designation as "bicycle-friendly communities," and communities which have these rules will be expected to be seeking to get rid of them.
Bike lanes essentially serve as an encouragement method from the cyclists' aspect. Many cycling advocates like them because they perceive that it gives them a little piece of the roadway where the cars don't go. The cold truth is that cars go there all the time -- at every driveway, street crossing and intersection. At many intersections the lanes are striped all the way up to the stop line, placing the rider in a position where he/she is likely to get right-hooked,as well as encouraging riders to filter up past a line of stopped cars to put themselves in the same position. From the motorists, it gets those pesky, slow cyclists out of the way, and sadly, out of sight usually means "out of mind" as well, often with deadly results.
08-25-09, 11:44 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
In January 2009 the League adopted an official policy which opposes state and local laws which discriminate against road use by cyclists, including local laws which require mandatory bike lane or side path use, or ridaing as far-to-the-right as practicable. See https://www.bikeleague.org/images/equ...nt_1-05-09.pdf and
https://www.bikeleague.org/images/equ...nov-dec_07.pdf. This policy will be incorporated into the League's review of cities for designation as "bicycle-friendly communities," and communities which have these rules will be expected to be seeking to get rid of them.
Bike lanes essentially serve as an encouragement method from the cyclists' aspect. Many cycling advocates like them because they perceive that it gives them a little piece of the roadway where the cars don't go. The cold truth is that cars go there all the time -- at every driveway, street crossing and intersection. At many intersections the lanes are striped all the way up to the stop line, placing the rider in a position where he/she is likely to get right-hooked,as well as encouraging riders to filter up past a line of stopped cars to put themselves in the same position. From the motorists, it gets those pesky, slow cyclists out of the way, and sadly, out of sight usually means "out of mind" as well, often with deadly results.
https://www.bikeleague.org/images/equ...nov-dec_07.pdf. This policy will be incorporated into the League's review of cities for designation as "bicycle-friendly communities," and communities which have these rules will be expected to be seeking to get rid of them.
Bike lanes essentially serve as an encouragement method from the cyclists' aspect. Many cycling advocates like them because they perceive that it gives them a little piece of the roadway where the cars don't go. The cold truth is that cars go there all the time -- at every driveway, street crossing and intersection. At many intersections the lanes are striped all the way up to the stop line, placing the rider in a position where he/she is likely to get right-hooked,as well as encouraging riders to filter up past a line of stopped cars to put themselves in the same position. From the motorists, it gets those pesky, slow cyclists out of the way, and sadly, out of sight usually means "out of mind" as well, often with deadly results.
Thank you for replying with this information. The City of Boise is following the LAB's "6Es" problem-solving model (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Encouragement, Equality, and Evaluation) as their guide, so it's probable that this information will carry some weight for them. I will make sure they are aware of it.
08-25-09, 02:37 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
I am not a lawyer, but striking the word "shall", as you recommend, would effectively remove the force of law from this ordinance, no? So I will conclude that you are in agreement in opposing mandatory bike lane/side path laws.
08-25-09, 03:24 PM
#7
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Even in some unrealistic future utopia where bike paths somehow allow us the same freedom and speed to all destinations we enjoy now, those paths would become cluttered with pedestrians, dog walkers, roller blading moms pushing baby carriages and slow, wobbly toy bike riders.
Cyclists led the country is the movement for good paved roads, long before the automobile came along. I can understand the gov'mint, the bicycle industry, and the motorist community advocating for bike lanes (the precursor to mandatory bike lanes) but cyclists should have none of it.
Hmmm... I'm wondering if the interstate commerce clause might give us some protection
08-25-09, 04:56 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What cyclist would advocate in favor of banning cyclists from the roadway? Because that is exactly what mandatory bike lane/side path laws do.
Even in some unrealistic future utopia where bike paths somehow allow us the same freedom and speed to all destinations we enjoy now, those paths would become cluttered with pedestrians, dog walkers, roller blading moms pushing baby carriages and slow, wobbly toy bike riders.
Cyclists led the country is the movement for good paved roads, long before the automobile came along. I can understand the gov'mint, the bicycle industry, and the motorist community advocating for bike lanes (the precursor to mandatory bike lanes) but cyclists should have none of it.
Hmmm... I'm wondering if the interstate commerce clause might give us some protection
Even in some unrealistic future utopia where bike paths somehow allow us the same freedom and speed to all destinations we enjoy now, those paths would become cluttered with pedestrians, dog walkers, roller blading moms pushing baby carriages and slow, wobbly toy bike riders.
Cyclists led the country is the movement for good paved roads, long before the automobile came along. I can understand the gov'mint, the bicycle industry, and the motorist community advocating for bike lanes (the precursor to mandatory bike lanes) but cyclists should have none of it.
Hmmm... I'm wondering if the interstate commerce clause might give us some protection
When the California state bikeway program started at about that time, the mandatory bike-lane law was part of the deal. It was recommended to the Legislature by the committee it had appointed, by a vote of 8 government and motoring representatives against one bicycle representative, before any of the official bike lane standards had been created. (Although, concealed from cyclists, a set of designs copied from Dutch and German had been prepared by UCLA under contract from California, but, once discovered, aroused so much opposition that they were never issued.)
In short, bike lanes and their restrictive laws, both desired by motorists, came together as a package.
08-25-09, 05:05 PM
#9
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
A small correction. Bike lanes and mandatory bike-lane laws appeared so close together in time that one cannot reasonably consider one the precursor of the other. If one considers the Davis bike lanes to be the first modern American ones, the legislation that authorized them, enacted to enable Davis (and, legally, any other city or county) to build them, came with the legal authority to enact local laws regarding the operation of both bicycle and motor traffic with respect to the lane. I don't know what Davis required at that time, but very shortly thereafter Palo Alto enacted a mandatory bike-lane ordinance, using the same legal authority used by Davis.
When the California state bikeway program started at about that time, the mandatory bike-lane law was part of the deal. It was recommended to the Legislature by the committee it had appointed, by a vote of 8 government and motoring representatives against one bicycle representative, before any of the official bike lane standards had been created. (Although, concealed from cyclists, a set of designs copied from Dutch and German had been prepared by UCLA under contract from California, but, once discovered, aroused so much opposition that they were never issued.)
In short, bike lanes and their restrictive laws, both desired by motorists, came together as a package.
When the California state bikeway program started at about that time, the mandatory bike-lane law was part of the deal. It was recommended to the Legislature by the committee it had appointed, by a vote of 8 government and motoring representatives against one bicycle representative, before any of the official bike lane standards had been created. (Although, concealed from cyclists, a set of designs copied from Dutch and German had been prepared by UCLA under contract from California, but, once discovered, aroused so much opposition that they were never issued.)
In short, bike lanes and their restrictive laws, both desired by motorists, came together as a package.
08-25-09, 07:37 PM
#10
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
i suggest states have a duty to provide clarity of statute, highroller and that this onus to define rights and allowances trump 'universal design' standards or the semantic 'mode neutral' legalese
demands of the militant Vehikular Cyklist contingent.clarity of statute, high roller. how does a state legally define bicyclist operation in the presence of bikelanes or sidepaths?
i suggest instead of striking the laws outright- as it is ill-reasoned in a legal clarity sense- that changing mandatory use to optional use laws would be a great step towards legal vehicular equality you so demand.
curious about your support of class preferred lanes to AASHTO standards or greater in the absence of mandatory bikelane laws.
08-26-09, 08:39 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
i take it you are in agreement with AASHTO compliant or exceeding AASHTO standards preferred class lane striping on arterial and connector roads if no mandatory bike lane/sidepath laws are in effect?
i suggest states have a duty to provide clarity of statute, highroller and that this onus to define rights and allowances trump 'universal design' standards or the semantic 'mode neutral' legalese demands of the militant Vehikular Cyklist contingent.
clarity of statute, high roller. how does a state legally define bicyclist operation in the presence of bikelanes or sidepaths?
i suggest instead of striking the laws outright- as it is ill-reasoned in a legal clarity sense- that changing mandatory use to optional use laws would be a great step towards legal vehicular equality you so demand.
curious about your support of class preferred lanes to AASHTO standards or greater in the absence of mandatory bikelane laws.
i suggest states have a duty to provide clarity of statute, highroller and that this onus to define rights and allowances trump 'universal design' standards or the semantic 'mode neutral' legalese
demands of the militant Vehikular Cyklist contingent.clarity of statute, high roller. how does a state legally define bicyclist operation in the presence of bikelanes or sidepaths?
i suggest instead of striking the laws outright- as it is ill-reasoned in a legal clarity sense- that changing mandatory use to optional use laws would be a great step towards legal vehicular equality you so demand.
curious about your support of class preferred lanes to AASHTO standards or greater in the absence of mandatory bikelane laws.
49-714. TRAFFIC LAWS APPLY TO PERSONS ON BICYCLES AND OTHER HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLES — DUE CARE.
1. Every person operating a vehicle propelled by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under the provisions of chapters 6 and 7 of this title, except as otherwise provided in this chapter and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application.
2. Every operator or rider of a bicycle or human-powered vehicle shall exercise due care.
Is this what you refer to as “mode neutral legalese”? To me it screams freedom, responsibility, equality, and empowerment and is the foundation upon which cycling liberty must be built.
Idaho has only one qualification to this legal definition that is germain to cyclist road position, the typically worded FRAP statute:
49-717. POSITION ON HIGHWAY.
1. Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable* to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations: a. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. b. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. c. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.
2. Any person operating a bicycle upon a one-way roadway with two (2) or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway as practicable*. (* Practicable per the dictionary means capable of being put into practice or of being done or accomplished; feasible.)
We have debated the merits of the FRAP law ad nauseam in other threads, so I’ll refrain from any further comments here.
Permissibility of riding on sidewalks and cyclist behavior in the presence of bike lanes and road-adjacent side-paths is left to the authority of local jurisdictions.
Support for class distinct facilities is neither stated nor implied in my letter referenced in the original post. I simply observed that a specific contra-flow side-path, the use of which is mandatory according to Boise’s ordinance, is dangerous at intersections and does not comply with current AASHTO standards.
08-26-09, 08:56 AM
#12
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
as strongly as i am against mandatory use laws i recognize states have the duty of clarity in statute governing citizen behaviors. in the presence of bike lanes and paths in a state or community, the onus is on the government to describe and regulate public behavior in operation of these facilities.
like john opining bikelanes and bikelane use laws are inseprable, the 'mode neutral' camp is inexorably linked to opposing all bike specificity in road marking.
can you endorse thoughtful AASHTO compliant bike pavement markings in states with no mandatory use laws, high roller, or do you think pavement can discriminate
? Do you support or oppose bike infrastructure like sidepaths and thoughtful road enhancements to facilitate bicycling in communities?
Can the "mode neutral" camp endorse on-road enhancements like arterial and connector route bikelanes with thoughtful intersection treatments, wide pavement and shoulders on rural roads, sharrowed streetscapes, hybrid streetscpaes incorporating the best practices of sharrow and bikelane design in the absence of mandatory bikelane, shoulder and sidepath use laws?
like john opining bikelanes and bikelane use laws are inseprable, the 'mode neutral' camp is inexorably linked to opposing all bike specificity in road marking.
can you endorse thoughtful AASHTO compliant bike pavement markings in states with no mandatory use laws, high roller, or do you think pavement can discriminate
? Do you support or oppose bike infrastructure like sidepaths and thoughtful road enhancements to facilitate bicycling in communities?Can the "mode neutral"
camp endorse on-road enhancements like arterial and connector route bikelanes with thoughtful intersection treatments, wide pavement and shoulders on rural roads, sharrowed streetscapes, hybrid streetscpaes incorporating the best practices of sharrow and bikelane design in the absence of mandatory bikelane, shoulder and sidepath use laws?
08-26-09, 09:17 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
as strongly as i am against mandatory use laws i recognize states have the duty of clarity in statute governing citizen behaviors. in the presence of bike lanes and paths in a state or community, the onus is on the government to describe and regulate public behavior in operation of these facilities.
like john opining bikelanes and bikelane use laws are inseprable, the 'mode neutral' camp is inexorably linked to opposing all bike specificity in road marking.
can you endorse thoughtful AASHTO compliant bike pavement markings in states with no mandatory use laws, high roller, or do you think pavement can discriminate? Do you support or oppose bike infrastructure like sidepaths and thoughtful road enhancements to facilitate bicycling in communities?
Can the "mode neutral" camp endorse on-road enhancements like arterial and connector route bikelanes with thoughtful intersection treatments, wide pavement and shoulders on rural roads, sharrowed streetscapes, hybrid streetscpaes incorporating the best practices of sharrow and bikelane design in the absence of mandatory bikelane, shoulder and sidepath use laws?
like john opining bikelanes and bikelane use laws are inseprable, the 'mode neutral' camp is inexorably linked to opposing all bike specificity in road marking.
can you endorse thoughtful AASHTO compliant bike pavement markings in states with no mandatory use laws, high roller, or do you think pavement can discriminate
? Do you support or oppose bike infrastructure like sidepaths and thoughtful road enhancements to facilitate bicycling in communities?Can the "mode neutral"
camp endorse on-road enhancements like arterial and connector route bikelanes with thoughtful intersection treatments, wide pavement and shoulders on rural roads, sharrowed streetscapes, hybrid streetscpaes incorporating the best practices of sharrow and bikelane design in the absence of mandatory bikelane, shoulder and sidepath use laws?I say grudgingly acceptable because it would be better still for America to strongly encourage all cyclists to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which the typical bikeway system discourages, both in the way it is, unavoidably, laid out on the roadway and in the public belief that this layout enables incompetent operation to be safe.
08-26-09, 09:37 AM
#14
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,694 Times
in
2,516 Posts
I can't see how forcing cyclists into bike lanes would have prevented any of the three deaths in Idaho. In fact, the incident where the cyclists were riding on the shoulder and were hit by a left-turning motorist seems to be a stark example of the problems with bike lanes.
08-26-09, 11:01 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
As long as cyclists on roadways, with or without bike lanes, are required to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, I see that the situation is grudgingly acceptable. America has had a long history of encouraging incompetent, and therefore usually dangerous, behavior by cyclists, a history which it is very difficult to overcome. So, let the typical American cyclist operate incompetently, just so long as the competent cyclists are allowed to operate competently and lawfully in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
I say grudgingly acceptable because it would be better still for America to strongly encourage all cyclists to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which the typical bikeway system discourages, both in the way it is, unavoidably, laid out on the roadway and in the public belief that this layout enables incompetent operation to be safe.
I say grudgingly acceptable because it would be better still for America to strongly encourage all cyclists to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which the typical bikeway system discourages, both in the way it is, unavoidably, laid out on the roadway and in the public belief that this layout enables incompetent operation to be safe.
08-27-09, 12:16 AM
#16
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
well, that was easy!
08-27-09, 07:50 AM
#17
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I can't see how forcing cyclists into bike lanes would have prevented any of the three deaths in Idaho. In fact, the incident where the cyclists were riding on the shoulder and were hit by a left-turning motorist seems to be a stark example of the problems with bike lanes.
I was riding with a friend the other day, following her single file along a typical suburban to country road with a wide, smooth, clean shoulder when at intersection, a stopped car looked like it wanted to turn left. We made eye contact and he appeared to be waiting for us, then turned left anyway. My partner had to turn right to avoid a collision as I continued straight behind the car.
In retrospect, I suppose we should have been checking behind us more and been riding in the center or right center of the lane as long as there was no overtaking traffic behind us. I've thought of moving to the left in these situations to make it clear to drivers I am going straight thru the roadway, but they might think I was simply preparing to turn right. I'm guessing that many motorists, assuming that all cyclists are stricken with the inferiority complex Mr. Forester writes about, thinks we must only be on the road for as short a time as possible and will turn right to get off of it at the first opportunity.
I've ordered the handlebar mirror from Aspire Velotech to more easily monitor traffic far behind. I realize it is no substitute for checking, but my neck has had trouble with that movement since forever.
09-20-09, 11:33 AM
#18
Banned
Good point and I don't have a good idea about how to solve it, except that I think we can agree [he said, trembling and ducking] that we are less visible to left hand turning motorists when we are far to the right, whether shoulder, bike lane or naked FRAP.
I was riding with a friend the other day, following her single file along a typical suburban to country road with a wide, smooth, clean shoulder when at intersection, a stopped car looked like it wanted to turn left. We made eye contact and he appeared to be waiting for us, then turned left anyway. My partner had to turn right to avoid a collision as I continued straight behind the car.
In retrospect, I suppose we should have been checking behind us more and been riding in the center or right center of the lane as long as there was no overtaking traffic behind us. I've thought of moving to the left in these situations to make it clear to drivers I am going straight thru the roadway, but they might think I was simply preparing to turn right. I'm guessing that many motorists, assuming that all cyclists are stricken with the inferiority complex Mr. Forester writes about, thinks we must only be on the road for as short a time as possible and will turn right to get off of it at the first opportunity.
I've ordered the handlebar mirror from Aspire Velotech to more easily monitor traffic far behind. I realize it is no substitute for checking, but my neck has had trouble with that movement since forever.
I was riding with a friend the other day, following her single file along a typical suburban to country road with a wide, smooth, clean shoulder when at intersection, a stopped car looked like it wanted to turn left. We made eye contact and he appeared to be waiting for us, then turned left anyway. My partner had to turn right to avoid a collision as I continued straight behind the car.
In retrospect, I suppose we should have been checking behind us more and been riding in the center or right center of the lane as long as there was no overtaking traffic behind us. I've thought of moving to the left in these situations to make it clear to drivers I am going straight thru the roadway, but they might think I was simply preparing to turn right. I'm guessing that many motorists, assuming that all cyclists are stricken with the inferiority complex Mr. Forester writes about, thinks we must only be on the road for as short a time as possible and will turn right to get off of it at the first opportunity.
I've ordered the handlebar mirror from Aspire Velotech to more easily monitor traffic far behind. I realize it is no substitute for checking, but my neck has had trouble with that movement since forever.
On extremely problematic intersections, I will turn my headlight on, set it to strobe mode.
10-14-09, 11:43 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
In the wake of three tragic cyclist deaths this summer, the City of Boise launched a Bicycle Safety Task Force to develop strategies that will improve safety here. I am on the Sounding Board to review their recommendations. In the interest of "striking while the iron is hot", I sent this letter to the Mayor and City Council:
Do we have consensus here that mandatory bike lane/side path laws are not in the best interests of cyclists?
Do we have consensus here that mandatory bike lane/side path laws are not in the best interests of cyclists?
10-14-09, 11:53 AM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Exactly. And who else but the cyclist is in a position to make that determination?
10-14-09, 12:05 PM
#21
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
FRAP explicitly spells out who makes that determination but thats off topic to the mandatory bikelane use law.
local lawmakers could simply add one of the standard exceptions of 'not limited to... etc etc'
seems pretty simple that mandatory use laws need to go away, but absent enforcement there's little teeth in any mandatory law for anything. look at stopsign behavior by motorists.
perhaps increased 'police scrutiny' of bicyclist behavior isn't in the best interests of boise bicyclists
local lawmakers could simply add one of the standard exceptions of 'not limited to... etc etc'
seems pretty simple that mandatory use laws need to go away, but absent enforcement there's little teeth in any mandatory law for anything. look at stopsign behavior by motorists.
perhaps increased 'police scrutiny' of bicyclist behavior isn't in the best interests of boise bicyclists
Last edited by Bekologist; 10-14-09 at 12:10 PM.
10-14-09, 12:17 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
In January 2009 the League adopted an official policy which opposes state and local laws which discriminate against road use by cyclists, including local laws which require mandatory bike lane or side path use, or ridaing as far-to-the-right as practicable. See https://www.bikeleague.org/images/equ...nt_1-05-09.pdf and
https://www.bikeleague.org/images/equ...nov-dec_07.pdf. This policy will be incorporated into the League's review of cities for designation as "bicycle-friendly communities," and communities which have these rules will be expected to be seeking to get rid of them.
https://www.bikeleague.org/images/equ...nov-dec_07.pdf. This policy will be incorporated into the League's review of cities for designation as "bicycle-friendly communities," and communities which have these rules will be expected to be seeking to get rid of them.
10-14-09, 02:14 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
It also undermines the LAB's credibility.
Last edited by High Roller; 10-15-09 at 08:16 AM.
10-14-09, 02:30 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Au contraire. My observations are that reckless and unlawful bicycling behavior has greatly proliferated here of late, increasing the level of distrust and friction between motorists and cyclists. I'm sorry to say we could benefit from a bit more policing. The Boise PD has committed to stepping up enforcement efforts for both cyclists and motorists, but to date I have not seen any increased scrutiny or any real improvement. Bike lanes and sidepaths here seem to represent a carte blanche for contraflow cycling.
10-15-09, 08:51 AM
#25
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Originally Posted by OP
Did the Task Force ever get a chance to discuss Boise’s mandatory Bike Lane/Bike Path ordinance?
what was the shakedown from the safety committee as to your concerns?