Brian Ratliff

Al (noisebeam) asked a good question. Here's my reply.

Ask yourself why we have paint on intersectionless freeways and rural highways and you will discover my answer to why bike only diamond lanes are better than WOL's on a US road. It might not, in fact, be better to have lines on the road at all. But if you have lines, best to be consistent.

One vehicle to a lane (lateral position, of course) is an important concept to the road system in the US. It clarifies overtaking rules and allows a smooth flow of traffic. Bike only diamond lanes are a good way of keeping to this principle while facilitating bicycle traffic, provided that intersections are properly dealt with. Here, in Oregon, I've generally had good experience with bike only diamond lanes. In Az, if you have troubles with overtaking and intersections, then your bike only diamond lanes are not designed properly. If you have trouble with disallowed vehicles using the lane, then the "bike only" status of the diamond lane is not enforced properly.

Do WOL's work? Sure they do. It works the same way as a highway would if it lacked lines on the road to separate columns of cars. Cars, in a WOL, have to move out of their line to pass a cyclist since the overtaking rules are unclear and have to be clarified with "tack-on" laws requiring 3 foot clearence and instructions for a ROW conflict. This may make the cyclist feel more comfortable, but ultimately, it is a selfish and false comfort as the cyclist is actually in more danger since the flow of traffic is disrupted for all road users for the sake of the cyclist alone. Honking; consistent, agressive passing; tiresquealing; these are not signs of a healthy cycling environment.

How do I think roads should be designed? In areas of slow, dense traffic, multiple narrow lanes (downtowns) should be used to allow either a car or a bicycle to occupy the full lane without compromise. In areas of fast, dense traffic (arterials), a bicycle only diamond lane should be used to facilitate traffic flow of all vehicles. Areas of fast, light traffic (rural) can make due with the current standard of the two lane rural highway. A narrow shoulder can be used to facilitate passing during any occasional medium traffic times. Areas of slow, light traffic (residential) are a non-issue and don't need lines at all for anyone.

The above is exactly how Portland and surrounding areas treat roads. In cycling in these areas (on newer roads which are up to the current standards), I have no complaints. I recieve no threats. I recieve little agression. Drivers and cyclists get along together smoothly with little conflict. In my mind, this is good; and perhaps worth emulating.

noisebeam

I was more focused on what does 'easier' mean - and specifically what makes riding 'easier' in a BL vs. a WOL for a cylist. Similarly what does 'better' mean. Safer?

As to the other paragraph I quoted. WOL do not cause any disruption in traffic flow - they may cause change in flow within lane, but I would not call it a disruption which implies a 'bottleneck' type situation. Motor vehciles can safely pass a cyclist without merging out of WOL. I have never once been honked at, had tires squealed, had agressive passing while cycling in a WOL. Never. I have by far the lowest negative interactions with motorists when riding in a WOL compared to NOL or road with BL and lots of intersections.

Al

CommuterRun

LCI_Brian recently brought up another option in another thread. Something I have been thinking about for a few weeks that would work in this area.

Multiple narrow lanes. This would give the cyclist the entire right most lane and allow motor vehicles to pass without moving into the on-coming lane. When a cyclist is not present, the motor vehicles could use both lanes.

notfred

What the heck is a WOL? Why does everyone in every different forum on this site have to use a different set of acronyms? I can't even go from the mountain biking forum to the fixed-gear forum, to the safety and advocacy forum without learning a new language each time.

sbhikes

Easier:
I don't have to look behind me all the time
I never have to get out of anybody's way--I can simply hold my line as I drift off to sleep
I have a reasonable expectation (which is largely fulfilled) that the only people who'll be in my lane are other cyclists
I know that the road was designed with me in mind

noisebeam

1. You don't have to with a WOL either, the requirement is not more or less than with a BL stripe.
2. Can do the same riding 2-3' from curb in a WOL.
3. I find I need to pass busses, garbage trucks, post trucks, stalled cars, police cars with stopped vehicles just as much when riding a WOL or a BL.
4. WOL are designed for cyclists.

Al

Hawkear

This is patently false, and negates the foundation of your argument.

Motorcycles typically are allowed to ride two abreast in a lane, and allowed to split traffic lanes in some states. If the concept were important, then why is the opposite legal?

noisebeam

There are a number of intersections here where two same direction lanes divided by a dashed white line turn into three unmarked lanes at intersections. Drivers still know how to line up in an orderly way.

Al

Brian Ratliff

Two abreast is only if the other motorcyclist consents, not in overtaking situations; essentially the two motorcyclists act as one vehicle. Splitting lanes is applicable only when traffic is at a standstill and is irrelevent in this line of argument.

There are no examples I know of of two non-coordinated vehicles sharing a single lane as traffic is flowing... except for cyclists and cars.

Brian Ratliff

This only occurs at intersections, and only when at least one of the lanes will always slow for a turn. Besides that your example was for a intersectionless section of street, I am talking about general traffic flow. Intersections are a special case where lanes frequently divide or change shape, but even with this observation, it is becoming common practice to assign one vehicle per lane.

Brian Ratliff

Common acronyms:

WOL = Wide Outside Lane: the outer lane of a multilane road is widened to accomodate lane sharing by cyclists and motorized vehicles.

NOL = Narrow Outside Lane: the outer lane of a multilane road without the WOL feature.

BL = Bike Lane: a bicycle only lane, typically narrower than multipurpose lanes

Helmet Head

Try googling it (or any other acronym you run into), or checking at en.wikipedia.org.


Two abreast (car and bike) is also only if the cyclist consents. Two motorcyclists abreast does happen in overtaking situations (where one motorcyclist has yielded one part of his lane by keep to the other side).

One of the points of lane positioning in a WOL is to indicate whether you are consenting to sharing/overtaking or not.

If you're riding slowly on a motorcycle on the right side of a lane, don't be surprised if another motorcycle overtakes you within the same lane. And motor scooter and moped riders are certainly accustomed to be being passed within a wide lane - just like a bicyclist, and just as vehicularly - by cars and trucks as well as motorcycles. The only requirement is to pass with a safe passing distance that does not interfere with the safe operation of the slower vehicle, not to necessarily be in a separate lane when overtaking.


So what? If it happens, it happens. It doesn't happen elsewhere because there is no point to it, not because "one vehicle to a lane" is an important concept.

Like Hawear pointed out, your main premise, One vehicle to a lane (lateral position, of course) is an important concept to the road system in the US, "is patently false, and negates the foundation of your argument."

I would agree that the ability for a driver to choose not to share his lane (assuming it is wide enough to be shared) is an important concept. It just so happens that standard width and even wider lanes are not sharable by the most common users of the roads: car and truck drivers, so the ability happens to be moot much of the time. As car drivers, we're simply not accustomed to sharing lanes.

More importantly, except on long stretches of roadway without any intersections (including without driveway intersections), which excludes almost all urban and suburban situations, we're talking about a destination positioning environment, not a speed positioning environment. In a destination positioning environment, the WOL provides much clearer and more flexible options to the cyclist as well as the right turning motorist, than does a standard lane + a segregated BL at the outside edge.

Hawkear

HH already pointed out the situations where two-abreast occurs naturally.

Splitting lanes happens more than just when traffic is at a standstill. Come down to California and observe behaviors in the freeways. Lane splitting happens quite a bit, and it's not a big problem.

Do you have any other assertions on which to base your argument? This one is treading on thin ice.

Brian Ratliff

HH, noisebeam: tell me one thing before giving the dismissal out of hand. Why are there painted lines on an interstate? All traffic is moving at an even pace, in the same direction. Apparently cars tend to know how to form lines so this isn't an issue. So, why?

Where is the line drawn between an acceptable shared lane system and one which is unacceptable? With your arguments, do you advocate for absolutely no painted lines on all roads? Is the determination of acceptable shared lane situations speed or speed differential related? Expediency related? Safety related? How does this differ for bicycles? Give me a guideline for designing a road for all vehicle users. When do you segregate traffic streams and why?

And here is an exercise for both the BL proponents and the WOL proponents. Design a road which is able to carry equal amounts car and bicycle traffic in an orderly, US style manner (by this, I mean, not like many 3rd world road systems with the free-for-all system and no lines). How would a car on the inside make a right turn? How would a cyclist on the outside make a left turn? How would diffusion of the two streams of traffic (one fast and the other slow) affect how efficiently traffic flows?

Brian Ratliff

I aim the question at you as well then. Why have lanes at all?

Brian Ratliff

I should add: all the freeflow examples of lane sharing involve a narrow vehicle. Is it vehicle width, rather than speed which determines when lanes can be safely shared? Are there any instances of a high speed, single, wide car lane where cars share lanes? Seems like it would entail many of the advantages such as passing distance and flexibility which you folks cite as WOL benefits for narrow vehicles.

chipcom 

Only in the world of you, HH and his anti-BL minions. Indeed, it is your attempts to refute the one lane, one vehicle premise that is on thin ice. Care to come up with something that someone other than an anti-BL zealot will buy?

DCCommuter

Ease of use is an important concept that is largely overlooked in the bike lane debate. For the most part, the debate revolves around safety, and the reality is that no one really knows if bike lanes are safer than unstriped roadways -- the difference if any is so small, and bike accidents in general are so rare, and there are so many miles of roads, that any effect is statistically undetectable. (See this thread for a discussion of the mathematics: https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/189167-what-cycling-studies-needed.html )

Absent any meaningful safety difference, ease of use becomes an important consideration. After all, the purpose of roads is to convey goods and people. Changes to a road to make it more pleasant, more convenient, or faster advance that purpose. I would argue that well-designed bike lanes do little to make a road safer, but can make traveling on that road more pleasant for both drivers and cyclists. Similarly, a poorly designed bike lane is not so much a safety hazard as it is just unpleasant to use.

rando

DC speaks truth. me like DC.

derath

Are you serious Diane?

1. You should always be in the habit of looking behind you. At least with traffic, I can hear it as well. I have been passed on a bike path by other cyclists and they were near silent.

2. sleeping on a bike is a great idea! Otherwise you can hold a line on a WOL or BL and stay out of anyone's way.

3. Good and bad. A WOL that is devoid of cyclists may have cars drifting over to the right. In a way their actions help to sweep the area clean. Otherwise I have not seen any real problems with a WOL

4. A shoulder with a bike picture doesn't tell me they designed the road for me any more than a WOL.

-D

mac

Here in CA, you can split lanes down the freeway as traffic is flowing. I've done it many times and it's a rush! Gotta be very alert, though, as cars, trucks, SUVs, and 18-wheelers can close the gap pretty quickly or dart over into another lane.

LCI_Brian

If this were the case, then why do traffic laws in most states require cyclists to share wide outside lanes with faster traffic?

Helmet Head

Lanes, real lanes, are a good thing. They organize traffic and make it more efficient, allowing for higher volumes at higher speeds.

Lanes, real normal lanes, are good. They are good for all types of vehicles, including bicycles.

Bike lanes, on the other hand, are something else. They are lanes in name only.

Real lanes allow for speed positioning between intersections, and destination positioning at intersections and their approaches, for all intersections, including mid-block driveways and alleys, for drivers of all vehicles.

Car pool lanes on freeways work because they are designated on a portion of the roadway, on the inside, where others never travel or cross. Bike lanes, on the other hand, are on the outside of the roadway, where others need to travel and/or cross any time they enter or leave the roadway to or from the right. Worse, the narrowness of bike lanes means normal width vehicles cannot even fit in them - they can't use them as lanes, yet they must travel in them and cross them! Regardless of what the law says, because most vehicles cannot fit into bike lanes, most drivers don't treat or think about bike lanes as if they are lanes. Ask someone, anyone, how many lanes some street with bike lanes has. How much do you want to bet that they won't count the bike lanes? For good reason... Everyone knows bike lanes are not lanes. Calling a bike lane a lane is actually very silly.

A much better system allows cyclists to use all lanes, real lanes, as regular lanes, for all the good reasons we have lanes, including moving aside within the lane when safe and reasonable to do so, just as any good driver of any slow moving vehicle would do, to help faster traffic pass.

Perhaps the biggest difference between WOLs and BLs is that with WOLs, by default, the entire wide lane belongs to the cyclist (an equal co-owner of the road). When safe and reasonable to do so, the cyclist owner of the lane may choose to move aside to yield the remainder of the lane for others to use to pass him. But it's still his lane; he's just choosing to temporarily share it. With a BL, he has no ROW to the adjacent lane, and yet must watch out for motorists entering and exiting the roadway across the bike lane, while he is riding in the most vulnerable position on the roadway - on the outside where many are not looking for or expecting to see traffic. And, again, the WOL is simply much more flexible and provides better clarity for the destination positioning environments which dominate the urban and suburban areas in which bike lanes are typically painted.

Does that answer your question?

Bekologist

no.

mr don quixoteheads false implications about velotransit are negatively colored assessments of roadway accomodations for bicyclists.

to rebut mr heads dismissals of these velotransit lanes, hahahahahahahahaha, you are grasping at inconsequental straws, buddy.

debris is not an issue on well maintained roadways, vehicles entering or merging into roads from stops or parking are required to yield to all traffic before entering travel lanes, which includes bicycles on roadways, wether striped for velotransit or not. traffic is also required to yield to bicyclists in velotransit lanes when transiting across them.

As to mr heads' complaint of bicyclists being unable to avoid head on bike to bike collisions, what textbook did you glean that one anyway, mr head?

Helmet Head

Numbering Beck's photos left to right, top to bottom...
1) 2-way bike traffic in the same lane? Say two cyclists are going 25 mph and collide at a closing speed of 50 mph. Yikes!
2) BL between LTO lane and thru lane. So left turning traffic must cross the path of cyclists in the BL without merging into it? Accident waiting to happen...
3) door zone bike lane on the outside edge of traffic, about 50% of which was enter or exit crossing this bike lane, without first merging into it.
4) BL to the left of a RTOL - particularly prone to debris collection. Reinforces the notion that cyclists have an their obligation to stay out of the way of motorists, even at intersection stops.
5) See #3.
6) Again, conflict with traffic entering and exiting the road to/from the right. They have to cross this "lane", rather than merge in and out of it like a real lane.

Horrible designs, all of them.