I'm not talking about VC, I was referring to your condemnation of Bike Lanes. Not the same thing. You said that the reason cycling was popular in Santa Barbara and Seattle had nothing to do with Bike lanes. And I again stated that you were wrong and earlier showed stats that proved my point. You changed the subject to VC cycling. I'm sure you would have a wonderful experience with VC cycling wherever you rode. But having a great VC cycling experience and Bike Lanes causing problems are not interdependent issues.

The factor of your personal experience, or lack of it, comes into play with your discounting of the experiences of other cyclists. Most importantly your assumptions about why cyclists use facilities in other cities and the results and benefits that they experience. You are arguing that VC works for you where you live and bike lanes don't. Have you used a bike lane anywhere else to be able to comment on whether they work in other areas? No. You are the Russian in this story and VC is your government run milk program. Bike lanes cause problems for YOUR type of cycling, where you live. Funny, I never experienced all of the ills you describe in over 15 years of using bike facilities in multiple cities and states.

If vehicular cycling makes you such a better cyclist/ bike handler why can't you negotiate a bike lane, then merge into an intersection, then merge back into a bike lane? With all of your exaggerated fears of bike lanes you are the one who sounds afraid of being hit. I know that you feel that your rules apply everywhere, but Serge it is all out of a book. Take a vacation, go ride in some different cities, see the world.

VC works, I'm not arguing that. You and I probably ride in a very similar fashion, my style built up over a decade and a half of commuting and messengering, your style through education. But it does not logically follow that because VC works, that bike lanes are bad. These are two separate arguments and you switch between them as if they are interchangeable.

What gets me about the VC crowd is that they like to argue that cyclists should act like other drivers so they can take the lane, but when it comes to moving in a straight line like other drivers, without swerving or veering every moment, all of a sudden that's an utter impossibility! Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too. :rolleyes:

Where have I ever claimed that I can't negotiate a bike lane, or that bls cause problems for me personally?


Generally, cyclists can move in a stright line without swerving.
But cyclists and motorcyclists need to balance. Once in a while obstacles that would topple them if they hit them require them to swerve. This is why cyclists (and motorcyclists) really need about 3 feet of "safety margin" on both sides. Bike lanes encourage behavior (of both cyclists and motorists) that ignores this need.

Actually, the reason I don't want bike lanes is so that I don't have to swerve and weave as much. I do my best to pick a straight line. That usually requires staying at LEAST five feet from the curb (usually more). How many bike lanes leave five feet from the curb before they START? The problem with forcing cyclists to ride bike lanes is that bike lanes put us where there are more obsticles. As a result, there's more stuff to swerve around.

I don't know where you get this swerving idea from, but I find when I ride VC I keep a much more uniform line than non-VC riders. For example if there are scattered parked cars on side of road - I pass them all riding in straight line outside of door zone and where there are stretches of no cars parked, still continue in that straight line, non VC may hug curb and swerve around each one.
Al

"lanes designated primarily (or exclusively) for bicycle use on a roadway adjacent to vehicular lanes, and separated from the other lanes by a stripe"

Where in the definition of "bike lane" does it say anything about width or safety margin? Remember we are talking legislation here, not implementation or design.

Great! Then you should have no problem riding within a bike lane . . . as defined in this thread.

Same comment, we are not talking about "how many bike lanes", we are talking about the definition of a bike lane given above. Or would you like to change the definition to specify only those striped lanes of a given width or a given position on the road?

Bill, that straight line I was describing that goes around those parked cars and their door zone happens to put me outside of the bike lane.

Another example- when I make a left turn I get out of the bike lane. Or are you suggesting I make a left turn from the right curb side BL?

Al

The problem is, if you make the lane wide enough to avoid the swerve problem (about 8-9 feet from the curb w/o parking, about 14-16 feet from the curb with parking), cars will try to use it. In addition, no matter where you put the lane, if it's not where cars go, it's where the debris from cars go, which means you have to move back to the traffic lane to avoid the debris.

There are some design difficulties that seriously undermine the usefulness of bike lanes. That's why they should only go on roads where cycling would otherwise be virtually impossible. And since we can't trust the government to decide when a bike lane is a good bike lane, or when it is reasonable to leave the bike lane, the choice should be left to the cyclist.

"That bike lane" is only an instance of the bike lane definition we are discussing. That particular installation should be redesigned to allow more clearance with parked cars.

"Trust of government" sounds more like a core philosophical position that certainly pertains to BL legislation. Others who trust government more, might be a little more open to mandated BL.

I completely agree that all roads are not appropriate for BL. But there may be a subset that do benefit from a lane. The design issue of making a lane wide enough for cyclists to use but narrow enough to discourage motorist use, is certainly important, but it is a design issue, and therefore not germane to a discussion of BL legislation, at least with our current working definition of BL.

I disagree. Bike lanes may sound good in theory, but it's the details that kill them. I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, but one of the tactics of the pro-bike-lane groups is to commit governments to bike lanes in theory without allowing any discussion of specific designs. The groups know that once the details are made known, the arguments against most bike lanes become much more clear. I woudn't agree to mandated use without specific examples of specific designs on specific stretches of road.

I agree with that approach. I'm thinking more in general terms, when there is a more agreed upon design . . . say in the year 2050! Or whenever Forrester passes away.

I just want to go on record that I commuted in San Diego (from Hillcrest to Moreno Valley or something like that) in 1988 and in Carlsbad, CA (from the beach inland) in 1989. Other than that, I've only commuted in Santa Barbara.

Not that anyone cares, but I guess I should add my resume if I'm going to demand it of others.

Throughout high school a ten-mile commute each way on shoulderless rural highway with a few thousand feet of elevation gain/loss on the Kitsap Penninsula in Washington state. I shared this road with logging trucks and armed pickup driving rednecks.

Ten years in Seattle commuting and seven years as a messenger. A few weeks here and there commuting while visiting friends in Vancouver, BC. A few even crazier weeks negotiating the suicidal streets of Boston where even driving a car is risky. And now almost a year in Los Angeles, specifically South Central Los Angeles.

There was a significant portion of that time when I didn't have a car and put on over 10,000 miles a year with the combination of messengering and commuting into work. I guess that's why it's a bit much to be preached to by somebody who got their cycling knowledge from a book/class.

Its great to have a message, dogma, religion, or whatever. For the fixie crowd its pie. Some of the VC faithful might be a bit more humanized if we saw some other posts from you all. Maybe a pretty picture from your commute, a picture of your bike, something besides trolling for any opportunity to spout the good word. I mean the flat tire poll to rail against bike lanes/ spout VC was the worst.

I read as much as I could stomach of Forrester's website and Serge you just sound like a parrot, some of it is verbatim.
You said you haul your daughter in a trailer with your tandem. Let us see a pic of that and hear about some of your rides. See if you can have a whole thread without any VC stuff. You don't have to give up the religion, but maybe show us some of the fun you are always talking about.

Or maybe you could post some pics of you blacking out bike lane stripes, or some other guerilla VC action? That would be cool too. ;)

Here are some pics from my commute.
- The one with the bike lane. How could you have a problem with this, even though this street has the worst bike lanes of all the ones I ride.
- The blurry one with the van. Sorry it's blurry, but see, I get to practice VC on a steep hill with no WOL and no shoulder at all every day!
- The shadow. That's me on my recumbent. Don't scoff if you've never tried one. They are really fun and mine climbs hills just as well as my mtb did.
I've also commuted on a Trek 1300 sport touring, a Trek 3000 MTB, a Specialized Sequoia, a $20 Motobecane I got from the thrift store, a Nishiki way back in school, a Raleigh 3-speed way back in grade school, and some others I don't remember. But the recumbent is the most fun so far.

sbhikes....What's it like to ride those oval wheels?....

Like this? Lane conversion :eek:

There's already a better design, for all locations, that provides a lane for vehicles which are narrow; stripe a narrow travel lane. It will help other traffic pass the narrow vehicles more easily for the same reason that a bikelane does (passing drivers know that vehicles outside their marked lane aren't likely to cut them off because of the line) without resorting to class discrimination.

Good humor... turnabout is fair play!

A professional judge of legislation (Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas) once wrote
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...l=378&page=515

Each of us may have our own opinion about that right, but here's a majority opinion of the Justices on a State Supreme Court benchhttp://www.wisbar.org/res/sup/1996/93-2842.html

And no, there's no explicit mention of this right in the Constitution. There doesn't have to be.http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...of_Rights.html

I think the proper approachis to take a certain road and to figure out the best ways for bicycles to get across it (or to get on it or turn off it at any point). You start by looking at obvious hazards lik e sewer grates, potholes and pavement seams. Then you look at the turn only lanes and other pavement markings. On part of my stretch home, the city put in some traffic calming without thinking about bicycles. The result is that single lane suddenly narrows and swerves. A bicycle trying to hug the curb would be suddenly thrown into traffic. So, because of the design, I have to ride about 10' from the curb before the swerve to maintain my position relative the center line.

These are the kind of things cities should be looking at when the consider making the roads bike friendly.

You can't commit to saying that a bike lane is the best for any given street until you have the details to see how specific designs work for cyclists (and motorists) who are going straight, turning right, or turning left at every intersection and curb cut. And if cities are committing to bike lanes before looking at designs, they're nuts to force us to ride in them

All that looks fine and good. But . . . how does it relate to mandating use of bicycle lanes? I don't see how bicycle lanes violate the right to free travel.

No, argument there. But it seems to me you are arguing backwards in that you envision a faulty bicycle lane installation, then you have a problem mandating its use. I completely agree!!! All I'm saying is imagine a good bicycle lane installation, then how can you have a problem mandating its use?