Originally Posted by Helmet Head
San Diego is very hilly. The only time I can come close to a 20 mph (19 and change) average over any significant distance is when hanging on for dear life in a club peloton.
On this particular stretch where they went from 45 to 35, my morning commute is mostly downhill (but not very steep) and in the 20-30+ range, and my return commute is 8-18.
I should point out that this is pretty fast, both up and down.
While I'm sure the experience is significantly different on the downhills between free/multi and fixed, not so much on the gradual climbs. That said, I should mention that a few guys do manage to hang with the weekend peloton riding a fixie, so I'm not so sure the difference is that great, at least not for someone who is in exceptionally good shape (that would not be me!).
Fixies, I have found, have a predilection to slow down; to make them go fast, one has to focus on going fast. This is partially from gearing (the gearing is always compromised), and partially from the fixed drivetrain (no coasting to keep up speed). So just think how fast those guys who are riding fixed on your club ride would be on a road bike!
Anyway, I am just describing my personal observation from yesterday and this morning. Riding fast requires more space; this might be part of the source of the divide between pro-stripe and anti-stripe.
Because even the "fast, athletic, capable" cyclists often can't keep up with motor traffic speeds, but are going too fast to be riding as close to the road edge as the bike lane typically places them. It makes it unnecessarily difficult to ride in traffic, slowing it down, when there is a bike lane off to the side and no apparent reason (to the motorists and cops) for you to not be using it.
Didn't you list NOL before BL when asked about cyclist accomodations? Why should sharing a narrow outside lane differ if there is a bike lane beside it? Yes, it goes against norms, perhaps, but norms change. Already, in my area, I don't have much problem treating a bike laned road as if it has a narrow lane and no shoulder, if that is what riding conditions dictate. If this is soley about expectations - expectations can change.
And if the capable cyclist is capable of riding in the narrow lane beside the bike lane, why not design the bike lane for slower speeds? Either the capable cyclist slows down, or s/he takes to the full width lane. Other cyclists use the bike lane. I am a capable cyclist myself, but who am I to take away something that a less capable cyclist wants? It is not about what works best
for me; people like me are few. It is about what works best for the cycling population and potential population as a whole!