What in the? can't use a road with a bike lane, forced to find a road that doesn't have one**********? bike lanes make this rider avoid roads completely. What contrived absolutism!!!!! and coming from a rider with the firm belief that bicyclists shouldn't be on roads with over 40mph speed limits.

Quite the addled dogmatism they're peddling in Maryland.

Come out here and see for yourself. There are very few bike lanes. Those that do exist, are poorly placed, and marked. Ian lives in the southern end of the county, I live in the northern end of the county.

I never said I can't use a road that has a bike lane. I said I won't use bike lanes.

I did say, I don't think a cyclist should be on a road, with a 50mph speed limit. Around here, motorists' drive like maniacs.

I tend to agree. As bike-friendly as San Jose is, there are many places on my commute where the bike lane simply isn't a safe place to be. Most of them put you in the door zone. Some are seldom cleaned, and full of debris. Some simply cannot be used due to there being full of trashcans and yard waste piles.

Sometimes I choose to ride in an area with no bike lane, and less traffic. Many times that's not an option, or it simply is too much of an inconvenience.

Or, The bike lane is positioned in such a way, that it sandwhiches a cyclist, between the right-turm traffic, and the thru traffic.

Actually, I prefer that. I have no problem with cars passing on my right, as long as the lanes are wide enough to allow vehicles to pass safely. In fact, there's a section of road just prior to my arriving at work, where it's 3 lanes going in the same direction, and I take the middle lane, and just force everyone go around me. The right lane becomes a "Right Turn Only" that puts the vehicles on the freeway. There is no bike lane, and there are cars parked to the right. So that whole middle lane is my 'bike lane' sandwiched between two automotive lanes.

A co-worker that commutes with me occasionally at first thought I was crazy for doing that. Now he sees how much safer, and more convenient it is.

Now, a bike lane that is on the RIGHT of a Right-turn-only lane is just plain stupidity, IMO.

Depends 100% on how it's done - as shown in Holland and Denmark.

Yes, but the point is that they work in Holland and Denmark because motorists are penalized for hitting bicyclists and pedestrians.

In the US, designers planning roads and bike lanes have told me the bicyclists can never take the right of way from a motorist, and their designs show this bias. (No, this is not legally true, but they had no interest in reading the traffic code.) They think the bike lane to the right of RTOL they've installed here works here because they think bicyclists shouldn't go more than 8mph and think bicyclists are required to stop at every intersection, regardless of stop signs or traffic lights.

Somerville MA has a city ordinance that bicyclists must always stay to the right and yield to right turning motorists (i.e. bicyclist is at fault in right hooks.) This conflicted with state law when it was passed and is not likely to withstand a challenge, but they passed it anyways.

MD mandatory bike lane laws don't included exceptions for bicycling at the speed of traffic (i.e. legally required to ride in the door zone in 10mph traffic); for police bias look up Leymeister (killed by motorist that did not remove ice from her windshield). I don't live in MD anymore, but if I did the conflict between MBL laws and poor design would be ugly.

This is regarding bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only lanes.
http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by hagen2456 http://www.bikeforums.net/images/but...post-right.png

Depends 100% on how it's done - as shown in Holland and Denmark.

Hagen keeps repeating his advice to study the cycling conditions of what is done in Denmark and Holland. This advice is annoying, ignorant, and useless for considering cycling conditions in the USA. Angelo's comment illustrates part of the differences, but there are others of a far more objective type, based on the external conditions under which cycling has to operate. The two systems are so different that they contradict each other and are incompatible with each other. It does no good to try to argue that bits and pieces of one may be integrated into the other; the incompatibility of the two systems prevents this from working.

It may be that the Dutch system of bicycle traffic is better than the US system (though I doubt that), but I seen no way of importing the Dutch system into the American social and urban context. American cyclists would be better of to consider how to improve the American system.

The American system for bicycle transportation is certainly not optimum, not with its built-in anti-cyclist bias. The obvious first step would be to remove the legal power of that bias by repealing those few traffic laws which try to prohibit cyclists from obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which were enacted for the convenience of motorists. Then competent cyclists would have the legal right to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles or, considering the American preference for incompetent cycling, while disobeying those rules if they chose. Such a system, if implemented, would allow cyclists the choice, at every place and time, of obeying whichever set of rules they chose, the rules for drivers or the rules for pedestrians, or a mix of the two. Dan Gutierrez avoids classifying cyclists as if their behavior were always consistent by describing only the types of behavior. Giving cyclist the choice of how to operate would allow the three types of behavior: driver, pedestrian, or the mix of the two, which he calls "edge of the road" behavior.

If such a legal system were implemented, then we might be able to work out improvements to each type of behavior.

Mwahahahaha!

I avoid bike lanes if they are two narrow (dooring risk) or are in areas with right hook risk. I also avoid bike lanes when I am traveling close to the legal speed limit. Since these conditions apply ~90% of the time I rarely use bike lanes. When I cycle with other riders at slower speeds I do use bike lanes. I don't think bike lanes are necessarily safer than taking the lane.

Bike lanes do have a time and a place where they are appropriate if set up correctly, that is by no means everywhere or anyway:

#1 ~ When there is NOT "on street parking" to the right of the main traffic lane of any type or form.
----- ----- Bike lanes should never be built on roads with on street parking. On such roads bikes should use the main lanes and "take the lane."
----- ----- Any road with on street parking should never have a speed limit greater then 25mph for safety reasons regardless of bike presence or not.
#2 ~ On roadways where both the legal speed limit and the speed of heavy vehicle traffic normally exceeds 25mph cycle lanes do become appropriate in some situations.
----- ----- Bike lanes should never be built on roads with speeds of 25mph. or less. Bikes should use the main lanes and "take the lane" on such roads.
#3 ~ When both the legal speed limit and the speed of heavy vehicle traffic exceeds 45mph at sufficient traffic density properly set up bike lanes become highly desirable. Extra Especially on even higher speed roads or when the road has heavy full size vehicle traffic volumes and/or is windy enough or passing through hilly enough country that visibility is significantly reduced such that at the large speed differential between cycle traffic and heavy vehicle traffic, said heavy vehicles may not physically be able to see a cyclist ahead in the main traffic lane until they are so close that it would be difficult or impossible to slow down in time to avoid hitting the cyclist from the rear when rounding a curve or cresting the top of a hill.

In such cases where a bike lane is provided:

----- The bike lane(s) should NOT be the gutter.
----- The bike lane(s) should be paved and in no worse condition then any other travel lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should be at least 4-feet wide; preferably wider for a single bike lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should have a dividing zone between the bicycle lane and the main vehicle lanes consisting of two white fog lines at least a foot apart from each other to provide a little "elbow room" between the main lanes and the cycle lane. Not just a single white fog line as normal. Preferably shallow rounded edge rumble strips set down in twenty foot or so lengths with twenty foot lengths of empty space in-between them to allow cyclists to merge in and out of the cycle lane without having to ride on the rumble strips should be cut into the divider space between the two white lines. As I said these rumble strips should be cut shallow and with rounded edges so they can be ridden over without trouble by cyclists if need be, but they should be there to wake up wandering motorists who drift to the right into the cycle lane.
----- Should have a shoulder edge (does not have to be paved) to the right of the bike lane of sufficient width for stalled or wrecked heavy vehicles to be moved to without blocking the bike lane.
----- Like This (assume major high traffic 5-lane 45+mph highway + single bicycle lanes + gravel shoulder on each side):

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8218/8...f4ca3ae0_b.jpg



When the bike lane is routed through a high speed U.S. type intersection:
----- The bike lane(s) should be properly routed through intersections so that straight through cycle traffic is NOT to the right of right turn only lanes and should be set up such that heavy vehicle traffic attempting to merge over into the right hand turn only lane has sufficient distance to do so safely without "right hooking" or side-swiping cyclists and pavement markings and signage should be clearly provided indicating that through traffic cyclist have right of way and right turning heavy vehicles must merge over safely and respectfully across the straight through cycle lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should be properly set up so that left turning cycle traffic may "double step, two straights with a loop in the middle on the island" a left hand turn if heavy vehicle traffic is too heavy to allow them to safely merge over into the main vehicular left hand turn lane of the intersection.
----- Like This (assume traffic light controlled intersection of two major high traffic 45+mph highways):

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8184/8...05faf59c_b.jpg

Well, I agree that it IS a "package". You need the laws and their enforcement in place together with the infrastructure. Not that the changes would have to be radical, but they will of course take some educational efforts to work.

That's not an argument for "It will not work here". It will, given that the effort is made. Whether that effort will be made, I can't say. But that's where enlightened bike advocacy is needed.

While looking for the Louisse et al paper about general safety of bike paths, I fell upon an EU report telling among other things that lane-taking left turns as shown above are four times as dangerous as pedestrian-style left turns (with or without a full stop before changing direction).

4 times what? 4 times means nothing without a starting value. 4 times 1% is 4% and still statistically irrelevant.

4 times 20% is 80% and VERY significant.

I can't find the exact numbers, but the car-style left turn seems to be "one of the most dangerous manoeuvres to execute on a bicycle in North America".

http://www.theurbancountry.com/2010/...-bicycles.html

Perhaps you can help me with the numbers?

ahh it depends on the type of intersection the level of traffic and the area your in.

in my area taking the "lane" so to speak and making the left "IS" the safest way. because you right in front of them. ie they "SEE" you clearly.

if you hug the median they might "clip" you as they make the left if they don't see you (had that happen HOW they missed a 455+ pound 6'4" man is news to me but whatever.

it "works" in my area it may not work in all areas.

Depends on conditions. Having the option to use either method and having the intersection deliberately set-up to accommodate either method so that the cyclist depending on conditions and skill level can use whichever of the two methods they choose is the ideal situation in my opinion.

What you call a "pedestrian style left" is what I refer to as a "double step, two straights with a stop-&-rotate or a loop in the middle left turn technique". When there is sufficient room to allow me to glide over to the left hand turn lane without impeding the flow of other traffic or putting myself in undue danger I most certainly do so and use the left hand turn lane like any other vehicle. But when its a double thick wall of high speed 45+ mph heavy vehicle traffic packed together like sardines in a can I don't dare try it and will go straight through the intersection and if there is no right hand turn lane I pop up on the curve and "off road ba-ha" a tight loop to put me into position to cross again with the other flow of traffic when the light changes and go straight through again and complete my left. Or in the case where there is a right hand turn lane on the opposite corner of the cross road I stop on the line between the right most straight through lane and the right hand turn lane and put my feet down and lift the bike between my legs and twist it 90-degrees and roll back slightly to put myself into position to cross as soon as the light changes. In fact there is one intersection where I have worn a loop path in the weeds on one corner because I have "off road ba-ha-ed" a loop on that corner so many times to make a left hand turn like that and I've seen a couple other cyclists use the path I wore into that corner to make the same kind of left hand turn there once I formed the path for that purpose by repeat use.

My proposed intersection layout accommodates this style of making a left hand turn by building a small loop into the right hand turn island on each corner of the intersection. If you noticed the through lines show both options available on that intersection at the cyclists discretion. Here they are separated out:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8378/8...d2507ff1_b.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8238/8...b951e283_b.jpg



I'm not saying I've got all the answers or that anything I come up with is close to perfect but I think I could do a lot better for combined accommodation than most of the stuff I've seen them implement as supposed bicycle infrastructure. More often then not where they do build bicycle lanes is where you don't need them (low speed in town traffic areas) and using them is more dangerous then using the regular traffic lanes and where they are needed (high speed roadways where we don't have a prayer of keeping up with heavy vehicle traffic) they don't implement them or they are very poorly set-up especially as to how they are routed through the intersections.

Hey, that's not a bad layout.

And I tend to agree with you regarding where and how cycling facilities are implemented... it makes no sense what so ever. And if we are forced to "share the road" with high speed motor traffic that effectively refuses to obey the laws by slowing down for cyclists in the lane, then indeed some other accommodation should be made...

I have always felt that everyone should be taught cycling in lower public school grades, before learning how to drive... but at the same time accommodations need to be made for cyclists on roads that exceed 45MPH.

Sounds reasonable, though we might have different opinions on how heavy the car traffic has to be for the "vehicular" left turn to be dangerous :)

The loops are a splendid idea, but I think that "bike boxes" might work equally well.