Originally Posted by Daily Commute
Generally, we don't get both bike lanes and access to the roads.
We do in California... where Forrester lives... perhaps you need to address this issue with your local government.
Lanes make these problems worse by teaching that cyclists and motorists that cyclists don't belong on the road.
This can be argued both ways... yes, lanes tend to indicate to cars that there is a "proper place" for bikes... but at the same time, they also indicate the presence of bikes... again I really would prefer no specified lanes, but with wide shoulders and some other indicator that indicates to autos that bikes ARE allowed on the roads and have the right to be there. This gets back to the education of drivers and even police.
Bike lanes promote exactly the opposite perceptions.
See above.
In most cases, I'd rather the government do nothing than put in bike lanes.
That is the problem with the anti-bike lane mentality... it promotes no action on the part of the government... including no promotion of the use of bike at all. Sorry, but no action = inattention.
I want to increase the awareness of folks at all levels of bicycles as viable transportation... from folks "just running to the store for a few items" to the local cop that looks for traffic infractions, to even the Governor, who in CA drives a too wide vehicle, once promoted healthy living, and now vetos Bicycle bills set before him.
I'm glad we're narrowing the discussion about the value of bike lanes to 45+mph roads. When I talk about the dangers of downtown bike lanes, people move quickly to discussing 45 mph roads. Have I won the argument about lanes on 25-35 mph roads?
Careful on approaching 35 mph... my main issue is with the speed difference between autos and bikes... as roads have been improved and road engineers tend to design higher and higher speed roads... bicycle access to roads diminshes. 25 MPH is a very reasonable speed to focus on shared roads... Most expert cyclists can sprint up to and over 25 MPH and can easily maintain 18MPH... thus the speed difference between autos and bikes is minimal. So for the most part... sure, 25-30 MPH urban streets do not need lanes, and in fact in the dense "intersection rich environment" of a downtown, a rider is far safer taking a lane and being part of traffic... but an occasional Share the Road sign wouldn't hurt.
Then the problem in your neighborhood is not the lack of a bike lane. The problem is that the roads are too narrow to start with. The solution is wider lanes. Why do you think it would be easier to get a bike lane than an unmarked wide curb lane?
Without the requirement for a bike lane, then as far as those unenlightened government officals are concerned, there is no need for road improvement.
We agree on something!
Yes, generally bike paths are built for "park riders." However as Forrester pointed out a "path is often a shortcut," and in San Diego County there are a few well designed bike paths. Note: this is the rare exception... and is probably due to Forrester living in the area and hounding the government officials.
Your citation to Forester shows our point of disagreement. You say that, "in the right situations, bikes can and should be part of the regular traffic." Your qualifier "in the right situations" makes it sound like riding with traffic should be the exception. I argue that riding with traffic should be the norm. And I don't think Forester would agree that you correctly paraphrased his position.
Forrester says, and I quote directly: "Roads with narrow outside lanes require cyclists to take the whole lane, a situation which many cyclists are reluctant to accept,
and which, where speeds are high, is more dangerous. This has two effects: it discourages many cyclists while those it does not discourage cause more delay to motorists than they otherwise would."
I even provided the
URL and paragraph: section 3.3.2.6 Road Design where he states this SITUATIONAL problem. I emphasized the wording I want you to notice... especially the "where speeds are high" part as that is exactly my point. "Urban Freeways" which are really boulevards, are being designed more and more, and these are exactly the roads of which I am speaking. Yes, this is indeed where the speed limit is generally 40-50 MPH and where (at least locally) hill climbing on a bike may further increase the speed differental of bikes compared to autos, thus making the hazard mentioned by Forrester even greater. These areas demand bike lanes.
.
Riding with traffic is the norm. Bike lanes and bike paths should be constructed only "in the right situations." So yes, there are very limited situations in which paths or lanes can be helpful. But these are the exception, not the rule. Too often, local governments use striping a lane as an easy, feel-good way to make it look like they are pro-bike. But there are very serious downsides to bike lanes that must be considered when deciding whether to stripe a lane.
OK we do agree, but even in the non-lane situations, I would like to see bicycle "road sharing" awareness increased... to promote the fact that we bikes should be there.
Finally, thanks for reading the sources I cited. I don't think Forester is perfect, but he has some important contrarian ideas.
I don't agree with him 100% either... I would like to see more attention paid to educating the driver... and encouraging "Share the Road" to drivers; the latter which quite agrees with your thinking.
.
.
.