ablang

I know that Sacramento County has a minimum bike lane width of 5' but
unfortunately that includes sidewalk gutter.

Who seriously is going to bike in the gutter when it means your tires
take some extra abuse. How bout we get the full 5' minimum width of
asphalt for a smoother/easier ride?

Pepper Grinder

5' minus gutter is still plenty of space for a bicycle.

BOIP

even when it adjoins a 12' lane on an arterial with a posted speed limit of 40+ mph?

maybe i'm just spoiled by my town's nearby arterial with 14'-wide outside lane and 8'-wide bike lane.


i'm just glad i don't live in clayton, CA. clayton rd. has a PSL of 40 mph and the nearby bike lane (which includes the gutter, btw) is barely wide enough to contain "bike lane" (stenciled one above the other).

wahoonc

Beats the crap out of what we have! Try nothing, nada and that is on a 55mph posted but they run 65 mph curvy country road...with no shoulders.

Aaron

CommuterRun

I think it is, too. Some of us are riding 60 mph roads with 12' lanes and 3 usable feet of paved shoulder; and 55 mph roads with 11' lanes and no BL or paved shoulder. Granted designing a BL to include the gutter is bad engineering, but it sounds to me like you still have 3-4 feet of usable pavement.

BOIP

i should have phrased my post better. it's still rideable, but i know which road i'd rather ride on (given a choice).

as nice as it is with that one arterial, my town is far from perfect. on an intersecting arterial (PSL 40 mph with 3 "automobile lanes" and a bike "lane"), the bike lane, which is not much wider than the span of my handlebars, was torn up last year to put in a pipe of some sort--right down the middle of the lane. so now this debris-collecting lane is divided into three segments--the small strip between the striped line and the pipe cut, the pipe cut (now the most rideable surface), and the small strip between the pipe cut and the gutter (which is interspersed with storm drain grates). i'd be happier if the town would eliminate the bike lane altogether and put up a few "share the road" signs, but i guess they're content with keeping cyclists out of the way of motorists, just not out of harm's way.

CommuterRun

I agree this would be better. I've been of the contention for a long time that the best cycling infrastructure is multiple narrow lanes with sharrows in the right lane and signage establishing that cyclists have the entire lane that proceeds in the desired direction of travel.

The de facto purpose of bike lanes is simply to move cyclists out of the way of motorists.

Bekologist

the de facto purpose of bike infrastructure is to allow vehicles of different speed and mode characteristics efficient use of roadways, encourage bicycling via infrastructure and effectively reduce the numbers of sidewalk cyclists.

bike lanes in cities like bogota or copenhagen are not designed to 'keep bikes out of the way of cars', biker infrastructure is designed to encourage cycling and safer conditions for bicyclists.

proven, seen in cities around the world. why do american bicyclists suffer with poor road conditions? (not that a 5 foot bike lane is poor ) thank the vehicular cyclist movement and jon forestor for that debacle.

in the last decade some american cities are reversing the trend with more thoughtful bike lane designs built in excess of AASHTO guidelines that five feet with gutter pan is minimum. traffic engineers are repeatedly instructed to consider bike infrastructure in excess of the aashto minimums. cities can legally design a wider bike lane. push for it, dude!

And streetscape design is taking a step back from autocentrism; the 2004 AASHTO 'green book' manual downgrades arterial requirements and additionally directs communties to design neighborhood 'local' streets with the motorists secondary to peds and bikes. CARS SECONDARY!


thats just neighborhood streets, but government road design mandates are progressing and moving away from autocentricity and the corresponding cycling debacle that has haunted american bicycling infrastructure efforts for decades.

John E

1.5 meters = 59" is code minimum for a bike lane in California, but 1.8 meters = 71" is strongly recommended for the most popular bike routes.

I concur with Bekologist that we are finally getting some decent progressive road design in residential and business districts, but we still have miles to go (so to speak) in rural arterials and in freeway access points.

maddyfish

The bike lane in front of my house is 11' wide.

Bekologist

despite the pithy reassurances of maddyfish, every lane on the road is NOT a bike lane.

I think maddfish is describing his legal use of an unacommodated road with 11 foot lanes.


Unless its legally striped and painted as a bike lane, maddyfish, its not a 'bike lane'. you're describing what is commonly called a 'road'.

and if an eight year old cannot ride there safely, it's NOT a bike lane.

I'd expect no less from a bicyclist that claims he doesn't ride on shoulders of roads

randya

so you've joined the 'eight to eighty' crowd now, Bek?!?!?!

CB HI

I see plenty of eight year olds safely riding the 11 foot bike lane in front of my house.

Bekologist

standard lanes on roads should not be confused with bike lanes, you guys! I think two of you are being dishonest with the forum!

AASHTO and the MUTUCTD do not reference standard width lanes of roads as 'bike lanes'

the vacuous and worthless witticism 'every lane is a bike lane' falls flat in the face of reality.

a road striped with 11 foot travel lanes is not an 11 foot bike lane; bikes ride in general travel lanes in the two scenarios CBHI and maddyfish reference.

Bekologist

I'm a member of the 'planning of every public road should include accomodating bikes and limited mobility devices;'

I recognize 8 and 80 year olds shouldn't have to be so terrified of the road landscape in america because of worthless talking points like every lane is a bike lane. WORTHLESS.

people like maddyfish and CBHI need to get on board with the growing trend of accomodating bikes thru thoughtful infrastructure implementation, and recognize the value a facilties rich streetscape can bring bicyclists and pedestrians.

'11 foot bike lanes' that motorists also travel in a 2-3-4 times the speed of bikes doesn't cut it as a blanket accomodation model for bikes and cars sharing public roads, sorry. unless you want to encourage .5 percent bicycling modal shares......

CommuterRun

If an eight year old cannot ride a particular road safely, then it does not matter if there's a bike lane present or not.

Show something that proves roads with bike lanes are safer than roads without bike lanes.

Bekologist

do you REALLY need me to point out the bevy of stats supporting this?

i'd rather you just stop referring to 11 foot travel lanes also used by cars as a 'bike lane'. that's an unaccomodated road with no bikelane.

that's dishonest by all measure. no government official, bicyclist (except the radical minorty of 'integrationalists') no member of the general public, no traffic engineer would confuse and conflate the two, hoping to validate a dishonest point of view.

but the integrationalists will!

joejack951

A question for Bek: can an 8 year old ride safely in a door zone (or partial door zone) bike lane?

CommuterRun

Bek, the new HH.

Yeah, I REALLY do. Because I know you can't produce anything credible that does.

Show me where I referred to an 11' lane as either a bike lane, or an "unaccomodated road". Show me where I referred to it as anything other than an 11' lane.

Actually the term "unaccomodated road" is a misnomer. By state law, a road with 2 x 11' lanes accommodates cyclists and motorists. Which I often prove to be true.

CB HI

Bek, calling others dishonest with the forum!

CB HI

Maybe, not so NEW.

maddyfish

My 7 year old rides to school on it most days ( though she sometimes walks instead).

stevetone

I would be interested also to see a credible source that shows that roads with bike lanes are statistically safer than roads without bike lanes.

Here in Wisconsin, I think that the word on the street is that bike lanes are not inherently safer...

Regardless, I'm just curious

Steve

Bekologist

yeah, yeah, let me dig up the stats.

REGARDLESS, Calling a road with a lane for both cars and bikes a 'bike lane' is dishonest use of language and a worthless talking point.

'the bikelane in front of my house is 11 feet wide?' I call BS.

and stats:

PBCAT typing, the nationally accepted data typing program for analyzing bike and pedestrian crash statistics, consistently show accidents occur at a higher rate on roads with 'shared roadways' versus roads with bike lanes.

Bekologist

1996 Moritz Study showing bike laned roads less hazardous per miles travelled. This was a study data culled from thousands of 'experienced' LAB bicyclists.

A 1996 study determined the likelihood of a bicycle accident by facility type. (This is the only major study that adjusts crash data for the number of miles bicyclists actually travel on these facilities.) The study found that riding on bike laned roads was statistically safer than roads without bike facilties...

Bicycle Crashes per Million Kilometers Traveled

Street with bike lanes 26
Street with signed bike route (but no marked lanes) 32
Major street with no bike facilities 41
Minor street with no bike facilities 59
Multi-use trail 88
Off road/unpaved trail 282
Sidewalk 1026


Source: William E. Moritz, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" Transportation Research Council, 1996