PatrickGSR94

This has been my experience, as well as the experience of many other cyclists I know who prefer roads without special bicycle infrastructure.

Back in June I was on vacation in Destin, FL staying right on the beach, where there is a separated MUP type of path running alongside the road. In 5 miles there are something like 120+ crossing conflicts where cars turn into and out of driveways, parking lots and side streets. Riding a bike more than about 8-10 mph is suicide, especially when riding opposite the direction of the nearest traffic lane.

Now during the day I would use the path, because traffic is so heavy that the path is usually faster. But on an early morning ride at around 6 AM, I'm going to use the traffic lane and go 15-20 MPH. The speed limit is 25 or 35 depending on the location, but there is very little traffic and plenty of room to pass at that time of the morning. On one ride I was harassed by 3 different people, including a county sheriff deputy, with various yelling and honking for me to either get on the path or "ride on the white line" (from the sheriff). Hell no.

Then this past Saturday I was out riding around Memphis, and out of my entire ride, only one street had a bike lane, and one street had separated cycle tracks on both sides. The ONLY harassment I got the entire ride was on the road with a bike lane. There were cars up ahead parked in the bike lane. I'm not one to pitch a fit, take videos and post them on YouTube when cars park in the bike lane. I simply merge out of the bike lane, avoid the door zone, and move on with my life. But as I was passing the cars, someone behind me honked. I pointed to the cars parked in the bike lane. As I got past the cars and moved back to the bike lane, I motioned for them to come on by. As they passed the passenger hung out the window and yelled something about staying in the bike lane, or getting in the bike lane or something.

Note that Tennessee has no mandatory use laws. Florida has a mandatory bike lane law, but no mandatory side path use law.

Also please note that I am not against bike lanes altogether. I use bike lanes in places where I feel safe using them, especially when there are only 2 travel lanes (one each direction) and passing can be otherwise difficult. Hence why I was using the bike lane in the example above from this past weekend.

However, bike lanes in no way send a message that cyclists belong on the road and have a right to use the road. They send the message that cyclists should "get over there in the bike lane and out of my way" to motorists. Why it is that most "advocates" think bike lanes help cyclists' rights to the road is beyond me.

kickstart

Endless VC propaganda, there's a sub forum for such nonsense you know.

PatrickGSR94

I KNEW it, just KNEW you'd be the first to respond.

I'm not talking about VC. As I said, I use bike lanes when safe to do so. But most harassment I get is on roads where bike lanes or side paths are present.

I'm just stating the way it is. Not saying anyone should do this or that or anything else.

lostarchitect 

When I can get somewhere using a bike lane, I will choose that route every time. I very much prefer bike lanes to roads without them. I have not experienced any more harassment there than anywhere else.

kickstart

The best way to not get predictable responses is to not be so predictable.

You're the one constantly bringing up the "evils" of bike lanes, shoulders, and sidewalks. Its one thing to call out the fallacies of those who present them as some sort of Utopian safe haven, but you and some others beat it to death like its some sort of holy crusade.

You're a lot more transparent than you think.

PatrickGSR94

There is nothing evil about a well-designed, well-maintained bike lane.

But the motorist harassment will still exist even on the best ones, just because it's there, and some (many?) motorists are bigoted arseholes.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. It's not about the drawbacks of bike infrastructure per se, it's about the idiot motorists who think cyclists should never stray out of said bike infrastructure.

Apparently that person this past weekend thought I could shift myself and my bike out of phase from normal space-time and pass through solid matter (the cars).

CliffordK

There are good off street bike paths (MUPS) and bad bike paths (MUPS).

Personally I dislike the paths that go parallel to roads (but not on the roads).

The best bike path in Eugene is the riverfront trail system that goes for miles without road crossings (other than overhead bridges), and mostly away from streets. There are also a few canal paths that only have a few street crossings.

There is one median strip path that I'll take, but when it gets broken up to 1 block sidewalk segments, I often bail on it.

Anyway, I could imagine great beach front trails in Florida, but perhaps they get too many pedestrians.

Keep your trail speeds SAFE.

PatrickGSR94

How do you get to places on a path that goes for miles without road crossings? That doesn't seem very useful to me, but in general I'm more of a transportational cyclist.

The path I was referring to above is on the opposite side of the road from where the beach is, unfortunately.

I would very much support construction of paths that run more or less alongside interstate highways (but outside the highway ROW fencing), as there are in the Netherlands connecting various towns. With few road crossings it would be a great way to get places using the same corridors that motor traffic takes using the interstates.

CrankyOne

OP, what are you doing to change the situation? Have you done an opinion piece for the local paper? Talked to the city council, engineer, and planner? Sheriff? Have you told people why you are blocking the traffic lane and what needs to be done so that you'll no longer do that? Maybe help them understand the benefits of building much better bikeways that will be appealing to lots of different people who may then choose to ride bikes instead of clogging the roads with cars (Destin use to be a nice small village but the last few times I was there it was traffic congestion central).

indyfabz

In Philly there are paths along both sides of the Schuykill River. Both are roughly 4.25 miles long. While there are no road crossings of either there are ways to access other roads from the paths. They are wildly popular for both recreation and transportation as they lead from outlying sections of the city directly downtown. One has en extension that is maybe 1.75 miles long. Again, there are no road crossings but there are ways to access other streets. This extension is also heavily used for recreation and transportation.

indyfabz

Excuse my ignorance, but what doe VC stand for?

genec

Sounds more like it was just brain dead people rather than bike lanes, that were the real problem.... especially where the parked cars were in the lane.

mconlonx

Vehicular Cycling. It's a contentious issue regarding road use and style of riding, especially when it comes to debate about dedicated cycling infrastructure withing the cycling community...

FWIW, I see bike lanes working out just fine in Boston/Cambridge, with lots of people using them, motorized and cycle traffic playing well together. Even though the bike lanes are just paint and are in the door zone of parallel parked cars.

OTOH, Durham NH revamped their whole downtown traffic pattern to accommodate bike lanes of the same nature and within the first year of having done so, a rider was doored and killed.

CliffordK

Very easily, actually.

Eugene is one of the cities with more bike specific bridges than auto bridges, maybe every half a mile or mile or so.

Let's see, major Willamette Bicycle/MUP Crossings:

• Just east of UofO campus
• Between Campus and Autzen
• Alton Baker Park (plus bike lanes on the Ferry Street Bridge to).
• Across from Valley River Center
• Near Marist HS
• Retired Train Bridge near Armitage Park (McKenzie River, not part of the above bike path system).

Anyway, there are paths that go parallel to the river on both sides of the river, with frequent exits and river crossings, and reasonably good connections to both the University and the Downtown area, as well as a good Eugene <==> Springfield connection.

kickstart

Well yeah, I've been hasseled because I simply mentioned that I'm a cyclist, that's just the way some people are. That's not ever going to change until the day bicycles and motor vehicle don't coexist.

FBinNY 

Bike lanes are a fault line that divides cyclists. As a long time rider who spent 50 years sharing roads with motor traffic, I don't see a personal need for lanes on most roads. But I do agree that on various high volume arteries cyclists would be well served by separated infrastructure. I also understand that infrastructure can make cycling a more attractive alternative and increase the numbers, especially among those not toughened by years of riding in traffic. So I'm somewhat ambivalent on the subject, and see separate infrastructure needs more as situational, then universally necessary.

But it's a 2-way street (sorry). As we proliferate bike infrastructure we also send a message that bicycles don't belong on regular roads. That goes to non-cyclists considering taking up bicycling, who may be lead to believe that they should wait for infrastructure because the roads are too dangerous. And it also goes to drivers who think that now that we've gotten our own "roads" we should stay off theirs, either because we're in the way or for my own good. I'm not endorsing this thinking, just saying it's out there.

As someone who spent years starting 5 decades ago convincing people that bicycling was safe (on roads since there was no infrastructure), I'm a bit baffled that we now have "bicycle advocates" saying it isn't. Especially because so many of them are like me, sharing roads with motor traffic, and have been for years.

So, while I'm not generally in favor of separate bicycle infrastructure, I'm not opposed either. But I am concerned that we may be starting down a path that will lead to loss of certain road rights, and being relegated to separate but not equal infrastructure.

(just my opinion for what it's worth)

PatrickGSR94

I live near Memphis but actually don't even live in the state of TN, so I don't think I would have very much say in the matter. Memphis has been hailed as "most improved" and very progressive in its "bike friendliness" i.e. bike lane installation, but unfortunately many such installations are poorly designed and downright dangerous. Some of the most recent installations include some 2-way separated cycle tracks, which are among the worst types of infrastructure when it comes to perceived vs. real safety, because it violates rules of normal movement and sets up cyclists and motorists for numerous turning conflicts.

Door zone bike lanes are the worst type of on-street bike lane, and I absolutely will not use them, unless maybe the parking lane is completely empty or nearly so. I wish designers could be held criminally negligent for designing and installing that crap, every time someone is doored and killed, in addition to the inattentive motorist being held liable.

genec

While I generally agree with much of what you say... I do want point out that 5 decades ago there were fewer cars, no distrating cell phones, all car radios used the same 5 button interface, CDs, 8 tracks and even cassettes were somewhat rare (although 8 tracks were about to explode on the market) and AC was an expensive option... so folks tended to drive with windows down... which gave just a touch more road awareness.

In a short time, there woud be a "gas crisis" which lowered speeds to 55MPH (a speed I see posted often on arterial roads today)... AND there was huge surge of new cyclists.

Yeah, it was a different time... today we have vastly more crowded streets, higher speeds generally, and so many driver distractions that it baffles the mind that anyone in their climate controlled rolling couch actually manages to avoid collsions at all.

AlmostTrick

Of course they do, who could argue otherwise?

I want to know how acknowledging (and disliking) this fact means one is on a holy crusade, or preaching propaganda.

Some people like, and even lobby for more bike lanes. Maybe they're the religious fanatics.

kickstart

Anybody with an ounce of common sense, and the ability to see beyond the end of their own nose.

Zealots and fanatics are the ones who are afraid of choice.

FBinNY 

I hate to say this, but it hasn't changed all that much, and some changes are for the better. For example the expansion of the interstate highway system, including urban spurs has taken tremendous volume off secondary roads. Cars have gotten smaller and safer with radial tires, and anti-lock brakes, and most recently we've seen the advent of collision warning systems, some of which are very promising. Also, traffic volume near urban areas hasn't changed all that much, though what used to be rural has seen changes in density. Meanwhile roads themselves have gotten safer, with added width, straighter curves, and better (maybe) traffic controls. Plus higher numbers of cyclists have increased driver awareness, and more of them expect to see us on roads than ever before (except maybe 60+ years ago).

Of course, there are new forms of driver distraction, and driver skills seem to be in decline so it's not all good or all bad. Besides, it's not like I rode 50 years ago, and just started now. Change has been evolutionary over decades and will continue to evolve, for decades yet. Smater cars may make cyclists safer, and then again this might be offset by dumber drivers. But overall, cycling on roads remains safe, and as insurance actuaries will tell you, it's still statistically (long term) safer than not riding.

AlmostTrick

??? Please explain what this ^^^ has to do with the OP's comment on the message bike lanes send to motorists. (which is what I quoted and commented on)

Thanks, and peace be with you, Brother Kickstart!

kickstart

You asked "who could argue otherwise" in reference to the statement he made, and I answered.

Ignorance of the law, not bike lanes, is the cause of the issue, and blaming them for it is simply the flip side of that counterfeit coin.

Its ok, I understand having choices can be confusing and scary.

Chris516

I don't like bike lanes. Because they promote the 'get out of my way' attitude.

So, Here it comes.....wait for it.....wait for it.....its' almost here.

TaKe ThE lAnE

Cyclosaurus

Some of the bike lanes in Chicago are great. For instance, I enjoy riding the protected tracks in the Loop, which I feel are well designed, have limited numbers of driveways, etc., and even include bike traffic signals to help coordinate left turns by cars:



Others I ride are OK overall and well-meaning but have their share of problems stemming from bad design



And some you get the feeling the city was just phoning it in on, and it's literally riding in the gutter



The point is that badly designed bike lanes aren't good, and well-designed ones are. The second path I have shown is plagued with people stopped in the bike lane, people turning right driving in it, and lots of retail driveways. There's lots of pedestrian traffic all over the place and lots of salmon cyclists. I use the bike lane because it's there and I know the hazards, but the street itself really isn't any worse. These conditions don't really lend itself to having that great of a bike lane under any conditions. It would be nice if cities would do a more thoughtful job but I figure as it stands today, it's better to let them put in some good and some bad rather than oppose them categorically.