Originally Posted by billh

All I'm saying is imagine a good bicycle lane installation, then how can you have a problem mandating its use?

Originally Posted by bostontrevor

Because if it's truly a good installation, cyclists will make use of it without coercion except under conditions in which they need to leave it for some reason. They should not have to justify a lane change any more than any other vehicle operator. If there are valid reasons for motorists to change lanes and those reasons do not have to be enumerated and preapproved one can safely say that cyclists can have just as much cause to leave a bike lane and deserve to be treated with the same degree of respect.

Originally Posted by billh

in certain situations

Originally Posted by billh

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?

Originally Posted by bostontrevor

I rest my case.

Originally Posted by Daily Commute

Because I don't trust the government to distinguish between good and bad bike lanes. By definition, if they built it, they think it's good. I also don't trust them to decide how much of a hazard is sufficient to leave the lane. Consider these examples:

• If the bike lane has scattered pebbles but the traffic lane is clear, may I use the traffic lane?
• What if the bike lane is wet while the traffic lane is dry?
• What if the bike lane has road salt but the traffic lane is clear?
• What if I think I need to get over to the left lane to prepare for a left turn 1-3 blocks in advance, but the cop thinks I should wait until the last minute?
• What if the safe speed in the bike lane is 20 mph but the safe speed in the traffic lane is 35 mph?

In each of these cases, a cop and/or judge who doesn't ride in traffic could very easily side against the cyclist. I don't want to give them that discretion.

Finally, show me a bike lane design in which the stripe moves around to accomodate debris, potholes, wet pavement, changing traffic patterns, etc.

Originally Posted by billh

1. No, keep in the lane. Contact the city public works dir to better maintain the lane.
2. Ride in the wet bicycle lane.
3. Ride in the road salt. Contact the city public works dir to better maintain the lane.
4. Argue it in court.
5. Then ride less than 20mph

What if we judged the merit of all legislation based on possible misinterpretations by individual judges?

Originally Posted by billh

1. No, keep in the lane. Contact the city public works dir to better maintain the lane.
2. Ride in the wet bicycle lane.
3. Ride in the road salt. Contact the city public works dir to better maintain the lane.
4. Argue it in court.
5. Then ride less than 20mph

What if we judged the merit of all legislation based on possible misinterpretations by individual judges?

Originally Posted by nick burns

Daily Commute- this guy's just trolling you. With a frame of mind as demonstrated above, he can't be for real.

Originally Posted by bwileyr

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.

Originally Posted by Serge *******

Narrow travel lanes would have some of the same problems as do bike lanes. In particular:

1. Since motor traffic will mostly avoid them, they will be just as suspectible to the gutter effect and will collect debris.
2. Because of the gutter effect, cyclists will gravitate to the left edge.
3. Because of the dividing stripe, cyclists will not have the right-of-way in the adjacent lane, and motorists will treat them as if they are not there (instead of slowing down as they pass, and adjusting lane position to increase the passing distance, both of which motorists would be much more apt to do if the stripe was not there).

Originally Posted by nick burns

Daily Commute- this guy's just trolling you. With a frame of mind as demonstrated above, he can't be for real.

Originally Posted by Daily Commute

Wow. I can't believe I've got Nick sympathizing with me.

Originally Posted by Daily Commute

Cars use them plenty, here. I think they are far better than WOL because cars sweep debris into WOL's. As to the stripes, I think you and I are picturing different lanes. I am talking about a normal traffic lane (big enough for pickups to drive in) with the same broken white stripes that divide any traffic lanes.

Originally Posted by Daily Commute

Now you've shown why mandatory bike lane laws are a bad idea. You really do want to force us to use them even though they have hazards or they impede cycling by cutting the cyclists' speed by more than 40%. If the city can't maintain the bike lane in as good a condition as the road, they shouldn't force us to use it.

Also, the only way to clean bike lanes is with a street sweeper. How do you suggest that the city do this in winter when a street sweeper would turn everything it cleans into a sheet of ice? Car tires are the best street sweepers, that's why cyclists should normally ride where cars drive.

Finally, in which of the following scenerios would you force cyclists to use bike lanes? I know you answered the 35/20 question, but I want to see what others think. I asked that because there is a stretch of road on my commute on which I can go 35 mph in good conditions, but on which the city is thinking about building a bike lane engineered for 20 mph.

Originally Posted by Daily Commute

Wow. I can't believe I've got Nick sympathizing with me. I guess I've just given billh the benefit of the doubt. He was the only one willing to push the make-bike-lanes-mandatory position, and I had to respect that.

Originally Posted by Serge *******

Unless the Santa Barbara bike lanes are not lanes designated primarily (or exclusively) for bicycle use on a roadway adjacent to vehicular lanes, and separated from the other lanes by a stripe, then my comments about bike lanes in general do apply to the SB bike lanes.

Originally Posted by Daily Commute

billh, what's your answer to the speed question? At what speed differential would you let me leave the bike lane?

P.S. The 35 mph is on a long downhill stretch with few traffic lights and good pavement (where the city is thinking about putting a bike lane). Not being a member of Team Discovery, I can't maintain that for my whole commute.

Originally Posted by billh

No exceptions for speed. I'm assuming the BL would not be installed in the first place if speed differential were such an issue.

Originally Posted by Daily Commute

So even if the only safe speed you could safely ride in a bike lane were 5mph, as opposed to 35 mph on the road, you would require use of bike lanes? If that's the case, the only reason a cyclist could ever leave a bike lane would be a left turn or a complete physical block (i.e. a ditch or a fence). Is this really what you mean?

Originally Posted by billh

Here is our definition of "bike lane". It does not mention anything about maintenance, pot holes, glass, cars, winter snow, etc.

Originally Posted by Serge *******

That's not a big IF at all. No city can absolutely maintain any lane to any reasonable standard for a reasonable cost. Glass breaks. Thorns are blown by the wind. Nails are spilled. Pot holes form. 2x4s and pipes fall off of pickups. Rocks roll off of rocky slopes. Water mains break. Merde happens. And no matter how good the maintenance, there is always some finite amount of time between the merde happening and the merde being reported and cleaned up. That finite amount of time is almost always at least a few hours, and sometimes hours and weeks. Now, with improved maintenance, you can reduce the incidence of some of that merde happening, and you can reduce the amount of time it takes to respond to it, but you can never eliminate.

Even if you make parking illegal, illegal parkers still may park.

Originally Posted by Serge *******

How a bike lane is maintained, with respect to pot holes, glass, winter snow, etc., is irrelevant to the question of whether a given lane is a bike lane. The arguments against making bike lanes mandatory apply regardless of how well they are maintained.

Car are mentioned in the definition, at least implicitly, with the reference to the designation of the lane being primarily or exclusively for bicycle use. The arguments against making bike lanes mandatory apply regardless of whether car use is totally restricted, or heavily restricted, or anywhere in between.



Why are you asking this?

By the way...


That's not a big IF at all. No city can absolutely maintain any lane to any reasonable standard for a reasonable cost. Glass breaks. Thorns are blown by the wind. Nails are spilled. Pot holes form. 2x4s and pipes fall off of pickups. Rocks roll off of rocky slopes. Water mains break. Merde happens. And no matter how good the maintenance, there is always some finite amount of time between the merde happening and the merde being reported and cleaned up. That finite amount of time is almost always at least a few hours, and sometimes hours and weeks. Now, with improved maintenance, you can reduce the incidence of some of that merde happening, and you can reduce the amount of time it takes to respond to it, but you can never eliminate.

Even if you make parking illegal, illegal parkers still may park.

Therefore, there is no such thing as a perfectly maintained bike lane. Therefore, by your own reasoning, since a bike lane cannot be maintained, its use should not be mandated.



For all intents and purposes of whether BL use should be mandated, BLs are defined. See above.