Is there anything wrong with this?
 

One of the roadways I have to use while commuting home is called Singing Hills Blvd. 4 lanes in a very bussy commercial area of town, 35 mph, traffic usually travels above that. There is a multi-use rec. path running parellal with Singing Hills. It crosses & intersects with the entrances to the commercial businesses. Which include Wal-Mart, a hotel, numerous reseraunts, a truck stop, etc.

There is an unenforced city ordinance that states if there is a rec. path parellal with a roadway cyclists are to use the path.

From experience I have this to be more dangerous then riding on the roadway. So I always ride on the street. Traffic is not expecting a cyclist to be on the path when they turn to enter the commercial businesses.

In your opinion, & aside from violating this unenforced law is there anything wrong with doing this?

I am asking for opinions here, feel free to state what ever you wish on this matter.

No. I'd do the same as you, and frequently have. Bike paths only work if there are few, if any, intersections with cars crossing them.

+1. And those intersections should be WELL back from the parallel traffic so turning vehicles and cyclists using the path have plenty of time to react to each other.

I prefer riding in the street, however knowing the law and willfully ignoring it has potential drawbacks.

Well, as I just posted on another thread, MUP and street intersections drive me crazy. So I'd by pass the area if I could. I'm not really an anti Walmart person, but words "Wal-Mart, a hotel, numerous reseraunts, a truck stop" scare the crap out of me. If the MUP crosses the entrances to each of them, perhaps you should hedge your bets and consider enrolling in all religions equally. Just one won't cut it.

I recall seeing a mpeg clip of a guy mountain bike riding who comes to a tricky part of the trail and starts to walk his bike. When asked by fellow riders, he says "Look at the penalty for failure" or something like that. The next scene shows him trying to ride it and then falling down the side of the mountain for about 30 seconds. He saved his bike though, gear side up. Seems his first impression/instict to walk the bike was correct. I say go with your first impression/instinct.

Agreed.

Do you also believe that bike lanes only work if there are few, if any, intersections with cars crossing them? If not, what's the difference? Why do bike paths with more than a few, if any, intersections not work, but bike lanes with more than a few, if any, intersections do "work"?

Someone here is persistent. ;)

Al

And then get flamed by N_C if he doesn't agree with your opinion.

:eek:

What is the exact language of the ordinance?
Al

I use a MUP that parallels a major 4-lane street with segmented turn lanes. It crosses about 3-4 shopping center entrances and 1-2 major streets during the small stretch I ride it. Unfortunately it is the best option, as the 4-lane street has a 45MPH limit (most do 50-55MPH) and is the busiest road and crosses some of the busiest intersections in town. I don't feel near confident enough in my cycling to get out on that road. Unfortunately there are no parallel neighborhood streets on this stretch. It's all shopping until crossing over the railroad tracks on a bridge. My best advice for stretches like this is to bike slowly, and constantly watch. I slow down at each intersection with driveways to be sure I am seen and know what is going on in all directions. Also, right-turning vehicles at the major stop-lighted intersections will not respect your right to cross. Ever. The light will change. The walk sign will come on. And regardless of if I try to cross or stay at the edge on my bike, the entire line of right-turning cars will force their way through rather than wait the 3 seconds it would take me to clear there lanes of traffic, even *walking*.

"Best option" is mighty subjective. If I had to deal with that to ride the MUP, I'd be on the street in a second. With 2 lanes in each direction, passing is EASY for the motorists. For those too slow to react and change lanes early, they can wait the 30 seconds until traffic clears. I ride similar stretches of roadway just without the MUP and while people can be real jerks with their comments and horns, their actions are far safer than the jerks on the single lane backroads.

I ride on a few bike paths like that, where they cross streets and intersections in problematic ways. But they are hugely popular paths with cyclists and despite the fact that the paths have stop signs for the bikes, drivers always stop for you anyway because they know to look out for cyclists in these areas. And most of the time they wave you through with a smile.

At the same time, however, there isn't a law mandating their use. I mostly use the paths, but sometimes I use the road instead.

If there was a law mandating their use, and they truly were unnavigable, then I would not obey the law. My life is worth more than a ticket.

You get the rest of the road. Bike lanes are only restrictive if you ride them as if they restrict you (do you?). They also have the advantage of being part of the roadway where motorists can see and yield to you.

FWIW, nothing really works "well" if you assume lots of intersections and an unskilled rider riding off to the very far right.

I don't, but 99% of the cyclists that I see do. And like Mr. Beck likes to point out, accomodations affect cyclists even on streets without accomodations. So even on streets without bike lanes, "bike lane lubbers" (for lack of a better term) ride on the edge where the bike lane would be if there was one there, even when same direction traffic is absent.

Okay.

Do you agree with all of the following?

1. position affects conspicuity
2. conspicuity is particularly bad when the cyclist is positioned on a sidepath
3. conspicutity is better but still relatively compromised when he's positioned in an on-the-edge bike lane,
4. and conspicuity (as affected by positioning) is best when the cyclist is positioned "centerish" between left and right tire tracks of a vehicular traffic lane.

HH, in my experience, the "conspicuity curve" flattens out after you get to the left edge of the bike lane. From there to the center of the lane, there difference in "conspicuity" is neglegible. In other words, I agree with your a-d, but the curve is non-linear and there is practically no difference between riding towards the left side of the bike lane and in the center of the lane. The curve drops off rapidly as you move further right, and is extremely bad for a separated side path, where the curve drops with a discontinuity.

I'm not there to be conspicuous. I just don't want to get hit. My conspicuity is markedly diminished when my bike is in the garage too, and so far, neither it nor I have been hit while there.

One's conspicuity is indeed at it's best when riding right down the center of the lane, if the driver expects the cyclist to be there. One's conspicuity is only slightly reduced however when a fast-moving vehicle splatters one's bike and body all over the lane.

I see a lot of comment regarding inadvertent drift as a cause of cyclists being hit in bike lanes. Thus far, though skid marks say cars do occasionally enter the bike lane, I have been the beneficiary of thousands and thousands of inadvertent misses by vehicles not in the bike lanes.

Half of my commute is on a narrow, winding, two-lane 35mph parkway with no shoulders, that has a MUP running parallel to it. I ride the road. We don't have any laws against doing so, but a lot of motorists just don't get it and think you should be on the path. I ride the right tire track, maybe center, since the outside of the lane and be pretty poor in places, only yielding right when it's safe to do so. Really pisses motorists off when there is a lot of oncoming traffic, because I don't give them any room to try to squeeze past around the numerous blind curves...tough cookies, bikes have been ridden on this road since before the MUP ever existed, anyone who grew up or lived here for any number of years should know that and not choose this route if they are in a freaking hurry, they got plenty of freeways and 4 lane arterials to choose from if they feel the need for speed. Pains me every day to see the amount of road kill on our roads...people just don't give a crap about slowing down, paying attention or driving courtesly (animals are people too ya know!)

Conspicuity curve follows as an attachment. I should add that I am mostly convinced that crossing collisions where nobody's view is physically obscured is due more to speed misjudgement than not seeing the cyclist. Right hooks especially.

This points out what I don't like about the BL stripe. I often find the ideal place to ride a roadway is where the stripe is placed, but as soon as it is there, it becomes a 'no ride' zone to avoid riding in an ambigous lane position. Many drivers follow their rule of as long as I am not in the BL I can ignore passing cyclist, which leads to getting lots of close passes when riding left biased in a BL.

Al

I pretty much agree. Left bias in the bike lane is essential especially if there are parked cars to the right of the bike lane. OTOH, I don't think the motorists would move any further left if the BL stripe didn't exist and the RL + BL was treated as a WOL - in other words, the motorists would still expect you to ride closer to the parked cars than desirable, and if you didn't, they would all be passing you too closely.

Overall I find I can both control and get greater passing clearance in a WOL by riding further left and can only get greater passing clearance when riding in a BL by riding futher right.

Al

I have found there is not much difference between the very far left edge, and left/center of the bike lane. It kind of depends on where I am in relation to an intersection. I used to think it was better to "hang a shoulder out," but as my experience increases, I've found that there is no benefit and its only effect is to make me less comfortable. If I take a left/center position, cars don't follow me into the bike lane.

I've also found that with the clarity of road positioning given by a bike lane, that passes considered "close" in a shared lane sense are tolerable because of the guidance provided by the bike lane stripe for both me and the overtaking vehicle . Cars, at least in my locale, treat the left edge of the bike lane as a lane line and don't arbitrarily cross into it. It helps that, in Oregon, it is explicitly illegal to drive in the bike lane. Moreover, in a bike lane design, it is expected that cars and bicycles continue unimpeded. One may argue that this is bad, but my experience begs to differ. It make traffic flow more smoothly, and it makes traffic more predictable.

One of the practical advantages: I can gain space by a lateral move of a couple inches. I can move a mere two or three inches to the left of the bike lane and sufficiently signal intent to claim the lane. I can move back into the bike lane and signal that it is okay to pass. These maneuvers would take a very large change in lateral positioning if there were no reference line, such as the case of a WOL. It allows a lane change (or lane claim) to happen in a discrete manner. There is no confusing the intent of a cyclist who is outside of the bike lane, even if it is by only a couple of inches.

This is an interesting regional difference. I have found the absolute worst place to ride is just 3-12" to the left of the BL stripe. That 'round here is an open invitation to get close buzzed and honked at. I have several videos of this, but never bothered to share as I expected the BF-A&S response to be, 'well of course you were buzzed as you were so far to the right in the primary lane -take it instead or stay in the BL' and with this poor driver response, I find the bike lane stripe and the lateral area 2' to either side of it to be 'asking for motorist' trouble zones that I must spend as little time in as possible. So when I get out of a BL, I 'jump' over this zone, instead of smoothy merging right to left as I do in a WOL from the 3' from curb to the center bias position.

Al

This is likely because, in moving left in a WOL, you've intruded into the traffic stream to your left, as in a lane sharing situation. You can do the same in a bike lane by simply leaving the bike lane.

Another thing which may account for this is that WOLs are generally narrower than a NOL+BL width, because traffic engineers want to avoid a double line of cars in the lane. When you ride 3 feet from the curb in a WOL, you are essentially outside the bike lane, or at least on the line on an equivilent bike laned street.

I firmly believe that a NOL+BL is not simply a WOL+stripe. Your experience confirms that. A bike lane is truly a lane of traffic and needs to be ridden as such. The only reason to stay on the left side of the bike lane is purely practical and is to avoid blending into the visual clutter at the side of the road. Our outline is broken up, so it makes visibility more of a concern when compared to cars which are one big monolith, easily picked out from amongst the visual clutter.

A simple way which might eliminate this concern about visual clutter is to place a shoulder to the right of the bike lane. Then the entire lane becomes accessible to cyclists. The current state of the art designs, I feel, are adequate, but placing a designated shoulder to the right of the bike lane (this would mean bike lanes are designated by two stripes, one to the left and one to the right) would be even better.

Truly, BL are fundamentally different from traffic lanes. For example, the MUTCD definition of HOV Lane begins:
"any preferential lane designated ...". In contrast, the BL definition begins:
"a portion of a roadway which has been designated ..."

Given that the current BL definition was derived from the earlier Designated Bicycle Lane definition:having a portion of the roadway for a BL and another portion for a shoulder would be "double booking". That's why we never see both portions in the same section of road.