Helmet Head

First, I'm suggesting the 15 mph speed limit only apply when traveling in the 4-5 of roadway at the edge near the curb or parked cars, and, it should apply to everyone, not just cyclists

But my main point is to convey that it's unsafe to travel faster than about 15 mph at the road edge.

Helmet Head

Yes, Bek, I know BLs are not necessarily "in the margins" or that they don't always position riders close the edge. That's why I wrote normally positions a cyclist, which implies not always. My comments only applied to the majority of bike lanes that do fall into this category.


No so many around here, but whatever, I'm not talking about those.

Huh?

Again, I'm talking about bike lanes at the edge.

I think it's irresponsible to imply that cycling faster than 15 mph at the edge of the roadway at the curb or adjacent to parked cars (again, these are the only types of BLs I'm talking about) is safe.

That does not address the problem of drivers of other vehicles needing to use the edge space to turn in and out of the roadway, and cyclists needing to merge/negotiate with them.

Falkon 

Huh? "Real cyclists"? Who are these "Real Cyclists" and what makes the other ones fake?

Helmet Head

Falkon - ILTB was being sarcastic. His words were a parody of his view of vehicular cycling advocates (HH-types) as if we segregate cyclists into Real Cyclists and (presumably) "the fakes". Note that these are his words and implications, not mine, nor of any other VC advocate that I know.

Anyway, the "cycling computer requirement" point flies in the face of the fact that cyclists are already subject to obeying the speed limits. For example, most cyclists can easily exceed a 25 mph typical limit on a residential street with a decent downhill.

richardmasoner

I frequently go slower than 15 mph. I'm capable of much faster, but on my four mile commute I don't want to show up to work sweaty, so I regulate my sweat by going slow.

genec

Not that I base my decisions on the actual speed, but I frequently go slower than I can, simply because the traffic situations dictate it... be it a line of slow cars, or the "door zone" or the maneuverings I do to avoid being either left or right hooked... as much I might enjoy going flat out fast, traffic often dictates that I should not.

This is one big reason that I really enjoy certain bike paths... I am not "dancing with cars" on these bike paths, and can push myself as hard (and fast) as I want without the limitations of "traffic."

Dense inner city traffic, on the other hand, requires concentration and focus to avoid becoming a statistic... and often that also includes slowing down to fit the situation.

SingingSabre 

Does calling a tail a "leg" make it any different?

No, I didn't think so.

Helmet Head

Point taken. But sometimes names do matter.

In this case calling it a BIKE lane implies certain things to many about expected usage which may be contrary to how it would best be utilized.

I-Like-To-Bike

How 'bout a clever inquiry about helmets? Or would that be trolling?

patc

A traffic lane, usually about 6' wide, marked with a diamond or other symbols, reserved for bike traffic only.
(Assuming you weren't being sarcastic.)

patc

A vehicle on the shoulder has no ROW, is not part of the traffic flow. Shoulders do not stay to the left of RTOL; do not have traffic loops to trigger lights, and may or may not be consistent from one block to the next. Thinking that a shoulder is at all interchangeable with a bike lane shows a misunderstanding of reserved lanes (bike lanes or otherwise).

Bekologist

thinking that a bike lane is an 'edge of road' position or automatically a marginalizing position is ALSO a show of misunderstanding of bikelanes.

Helmet Head, Arguing this weak and mistaken view about bike lanes is not an accurate analysis.

SingingSabre 

Ah, so a bike lane isn't for bikes?

Give me a break...and not a Kit Kat Bar.

LittleBigMan

I'm sorry, y'all. I'm not going for any of it.

As much as I respect HH, this thread looks too insincere. HH's desire to remove all bike lanes is well-known. It looks like the purpose of this thread is to work us toward it's "logical" conclusion, that bike lanes are unnecessary. Limiting cyclists to 15 mph. while including all other slow-moving traffic would logically eliminate the bike lane's designation for cyclists and reallocate it as a slow traffic lane. In essence, the bike lane would be eliminated because of the need to widen it to a normal size to accomodate all forms of slow-moving traffic. All this goes without saying, even though I dedicated a whole paragraph in saying it.

Please, Serge, let's be real about this. A bike lane is a bike lane. Let's not create arguments the logical conclusion of which is to support unstated goals.

chipcom 

But HH took a 'break' so he could come back with this 'fresh' material! I suspect he was abused by a bike lane when he was a child and swore revenge, adopting the persona of a superhero - the caped masquerader, yes, he's BikelaneMan!

genec

No, he's AntiBikeLaneMan.

chipcom 

No, he's a bird!

chipcom 

He's a plane!

chipcom 

blamp28

+++++ I Agree

Bekologist

HH, I see from you dissection of my post in your post #52 you're just talking about specific, edge-of-road bike lanes, which are counter to a well provided bike network, so your comments may be outdated and obsolete. It sounds like san diego doesn't even have any well provided integrated bike lane systems. your community's loss.

opening up bike lanes to all traffic is extremely anti bike.

bikes are a mode of transportation where average speeds are around 15 MPH. motorized vehicles' average speeds are much higher.

expecting 15MPH average dynamics out of bicyclists, and granting them preferential, well provided velotransit lanes integrated in a community roadway network, is an entirely different scenario than opening up bike lanes to motorized traffic and expecting people on scooters in cars and trucks to keep to bicycling-like speeds.

..expecting a 15mph speed limit from other motorized users, and letting all cars and scooters, etc. use a velotransit lane system is one of the most counterproductive ideas I've heard from bicyclists lately. Coming from bike forums' auto and RV lobbyist, its' not suprising however.

LittleBigMan

I mean, who is gonna brake when they get up a full head of steam, or a tailwind? Not this brother.

"Leave the bike lane, then."

Rats. Why complicate everything? It's simple. Use the bike lane unless you feel you have to leave it because of speed, debris, or any other reason related to safety or reasonable convenience.

Hey, I just don't have enough bike lanes on my route anyway. The one I had this morning, I rode in the main travel lane instead, because it was dark, and I just don't relish picking up any glass I can't see.

Helmet Head

My only goal is to improve cycling safety and improve cycling popularity.

Choosing between keeping or removing bike lanes, I believe removing them is consistent with this goal in the long term. That much is true and hopefully uncontroversial about what I believe.

But, I'm also open to the idea of alternative ideas. This thread is about exploring designating space on the road not for bikes in particular, but for anyone moving at a relatively slow speed, and whether doing this would solve many of the problems with bike lanes without creating too many new ones. I assure you, there is nothing insincere about it.

LittleBigMan

I believe you are sincere in that, Serge.

Agreed.

But, let's call a spade a spade. You are advocating nothing different than before, which is eliminating bike lanes as dedicated, exclusive lanes for bicycle traffic. They cease to be bike lanes, do they not?

EDIT: Personally, I am happy to see you, Serge. I don't mind debate, sometimes I agree with you, sometimes not. As long as we remain respectful, new thoughts stimulate discussion.

nick burns

That's the case every time. Just coming to this conclusion now?