Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
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!
Indeed, on days when the guys who keep up on the fixies show up with their road bikes, they're usually driving at the front.
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.
Riding speed is only part of the equation - how much space the cyclist requires from stationary objects (normally off to the right). I'm fine griding uphill in the gutter at 5 mph. On the downhill at 25-40 I want to be at least 5 feet from the curb.
But the other part of the equation is speed differential with passing traffic. The higher the
speed differential the more space I seem to require. Thus I don't mind being fairly close to 40 mph passing traffic when I'm going downhill at 30, but I require much more space when I'm going uphill at 5 mph next to that 40 mph traffic.
So, in some ways, yes, going slower requires less space, but in other ways it requires more space.
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.
Yes, the problem is norms and expectations. Drivers are much more tolerant of cyclists slowing them down in a NOL when there is obviously no alternative than in a WOL, especially with the margin demarcated especially for bike use. Worse, only the boldest among us are willing to take on the intolerant drivers, and, so, most cyclists end up riding in the bike lane even when they shouldn't. For example, we have a long/straight/flat downhill on a 6 lane arterial with bike lanes where I see experienced cyclists riding 40+ in the bike lane literally inches from the curb, even when there is no other same direction traffic. Some norms and expectations change, some do not. I suspect the expectation for BIKEs, especially when they're slowing others down, to be in the space labeled BIKE LANE, is a norm that's here to stay.
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!
Road engineering is not about satisfying people's wants, it's about satifisying their actual real needs. Facilities that encourage behavior contrary to best practices (no matter how congruent with "wants") is not good engineering.