Serge, is there ANY application of bicycle laneage that would be acceptable, no matter how limited? Couldn't striping for bicycles serve ANY good purpose, even in the most ideal of worlds, say in heaven. Or are there no bike lanes in heaven? Take the flip side, what about lane stripes for motor vehicles. Should they all be abolished? Why or why not?

In this context, anyone who researches the nuances of the vehicle code as to how it applies to cyclists is arguably exhibiting an intellectual bent, and is hence a geek. That would be you and me, buddy.

Wow - looking at the revisions of that bill, especially the July-ish revision, make me wonder why they didn't just start a new bill instead of changing track from updating the bicycle laws to dealing with oil and hazardous liquid. Totally bizarre - I wonder how often that happens.

[QUOTE=Treespeed]
Of course the real treat is trying to explain (with copies of the vehicle code) to a moron driver that you DO have rights to the road.

I used to carry a copy of the vehicle code as it applies to Bikes in my panniers for dunderheads that did not like me taking the lane (narrow road with parked cars on the side and the only way to my office).... Some of these folks were real rocks... even with the printed word right in front of them.

How about this:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...issan_safe_car

So the bike lanes would not be bike lanes per se, but "vehicle keep out lanes" with this device. Hey anything to keep the autos in their place.

'Course it means trusting a computer.... :eek:

Sure. I think bike lanes on freeways are okay, or on any other roadway where cyclists are prohibited (bridges and tunnels).

But I really believe that all other bike lanes cause more harm to cyclists than good. I don't see what significant problems for cyclists that bike lane stripes solve that are not also solved with a WOL (wide outside lane) without all the problems caused by the stripe.

The flip side is not lane stripes for motor vehicles. Those stripes are for all vehicles, and bicycles, and they serve a very important function: delineating separate lateral roadway positions for each vehicle.

The difference between those stripes and bike lanes stripes might not be immediately obvious. But if you imagine any multi-lane road, and take away the stripes, the problems should be immediately obvious. Although, they might not be as bad as you think...

But if you imagine a roadway with a bike lane, and take away the bike lane stripe, what's the problem? What's the problem that needs to be solved by adding back the bike lane stripe? I know of none.

There are 6 cyclists (presumably) here who support laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes, as long as they have reasonable exceptions.

I would like to hear why any of you would support such a law. What is the purpose of ever legally requiring cyclists to ride in bike lanes?

I donno, you painted a pretty interesting picture there... Looks like autos do well with stripes to keep them in place...

Well, Serge, here's the thing. Your viewpoint is well established here, it's no mystery to anyone. If you started your poll as a newbie, you might see less animosity. But because you tend to say the same things ad infinitum everyone knows why you started the poll. Therefore the inherent bias. I don't think anyone would accuse you of having dark & nefarious motivations, however you tend to turn people off with your overdoses of idealism. Can you recall how often the term zealotry enters the scene?
I understand you are passionate about your cause, but you've got to realize that what your main objective is is to have people agree with you. I've said it before, no one wants to be preached at. It seems like you spend so much time and energy here spinning your wheels and not making any progress with the people who disagree with you. Think about that for a minute.
Now, for what it's worth, I agree 100% that there should be no law or interpretation of regulations that will prohibit me from riding how or where I, or any cyclist, chooses. Encouraging cyclists to check their state's laws to make sure that bike lane use is not mandatory is most certainly a worthwhile venture. Bike lanes are great for those who wish to use them, but there should be no laws requiring those who don't like them to have to use them. Protecting cyclist's freedom is the main objective here. If you keep telling people how to ride or that the bike lanes that they prefer to ride in are bad, your just going to turn people away and ultimately doom your cause.
Now have fun twisting my words around. :rolleyes:

Yes, and when they're in the outside lane, they have a stripe to keep them "in place".
Do you have any reason, much less any evidence, that shows that a bike lane stripe solves any problem that would exist on the same roadway without that stripe?

Nick, so because I posted the poll, it's biased. But if someone else posted it, the exact same poll, it would not be biased. I get it.... not. Either the poll is biased or it's not - the determination of a poll bias should not be based on who posted it. That's absurd.

Apparently most people are turned off by people who feel strongly about something and want others to agree with them, regardless of the content of their message. It's the regardless of the content of their message part that I don't get. Religious fanatics turn me off not by how they present their nonsense, it's their nonsense that turns me off. Maybe it's the general acceptance of religion, despite its nonsense, as long as it is presented civilly, that has us all twisted? People can't think for themselves any more. It's all based on who is saying it, and if they approve of the messenger and the method of its communication. What about the content???

I say regardless of the content of their message because there is actually very little real substantive challenge to what I'm saying; most "rebuttals" (sbhike/Diane's post from yesterday being a bright and rare exception) are about how I'm saying it, or in what context I'm saying it, or how much I'm saying it.


Well, yeah. What's wrong with that? I believe what I believe will make cycling safer, more fun, and more popular. What's wrong with wanting people to agree with that in a cycling forum? Or, what's wrong with putting it out there so that anyone who disagrees can explain why? Maybe I'm wrong. I don't rule out that possibility. If I am wrong, I certainly want to know. That's what I liked about Diane's post so much. She zeroed in on the basic premises of my argument, and challenged them. The first time anyone did that here, after how many posts? How many weeks?

Look at this thread. I'm asking a simple question: what problem does a bike lane stripe solve that is not solved by the absence of that stripe? Do you think anyone will answer it? Do they have an answer and are uninterested in posting it? Why, if bike lanes are so important to cyclists, can no one explain this? They don't want me to know? Why the big secret?

Why do I feel like the kid pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, and nobody is listening?

Yup, go look at post 30. Beyond that, the only "evidence" is ancedotal... such as watching cars not cross that solid line... hence giving me room to ride that does not require any kind of "negotiation" or other realization by motorists that I am there.

If motorists are just "in the outside lane," then they still have to recognize as an "object," and since you have stated that I am outside of their normal viewing cone by being to the far right (as I would be in a bike lane) then what assurance do I have they they do see me in the exact same position in the WOL, without the stripe?

Keep in mind I am talking about high speed roads here... where you have admited a cyclist will keep to the right... not center biased.

Regarding the arguement that this rarely happens, otherwise there would be scores of overtaking accidents... perhaps the usual excuse is "I just didn't see the cyclist." Are there any recent statistics on overtaking accidents on roads over 45MPH? Any Cell Phones involved?

Serge,

People have answered your question multiple times on this forum. You just don't like their answers. The simple answer is that the stripe makes room for cyclists in areas that would otherwise be a lane that would run up to the curb. You can talk about WOL's and effective cycling until you are blue in the face. You aren't pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, you have a different opinion which is a big difference than having a monopoly on the cycling truth.

The fact, yes fact as I actually cited stats and not just my opinion, is that cyclists use bike lane facilities and will structure their commutes to make use of such facilities. I would argue that people use these facilities because they have a safer and less contentious riding experience. You have not shown any actual problems only hypothetical problems, debris, right-hook accidents, if these problems actually occurred on a regular basis and caused greater problems than they solved than cyclists would use roadways that didn't have the detrimental bike lanes. Yet after decades of use in Seattle that just isn't the case. Cyclists overwhelmingly choose roadways with facilities, are you arguing that these are all uneducated novices that don't know proper cycling techniques? You can keep posting polls and stating your beliefs, but in the end cyclists vote with their wheels and those wheels overwhelmingly choose bike lanes and roadways designed with cyclists in mind. The stripe that you are so derisive about keeps motorists in their place and keeps them from pushing cyclists right up to the curb in your beloved WOLs. It does nothing to keep cyclists laterally static, only in your mind are cyclists bound to bike lanes. Even with the laws you stated. Apparently it's also illegal to go over 70mph on the Interstate, try that speed sometime and see how often you get passed.

Since you are always so hot on benefits of bike lanes, another one is decreased automobile speeds on roadways with bike lanes. I will look up the study later and cite it next week.

Further it is a slippery slope between removing bike lanes and the call for increased traffic lanes. On the I-90 bridge connecting Lake Washington and Mercer Island there was a push to increase the number of traffic lanes, along with call for turning the high-usage bike lane into another auto lane. Do you honestly think that as traffic densities increase there won't be calls to push more traffic into fewer narrower lanes? I know that on the residential WOL's like Highland cars are all the time squeezing as close as possible and attempting to push me into the curb, because if there's no stripe then it must be another traffic lane. Where if there was at least a shoulder stripe this would be averted.

So let's recap benefits of bike lanes, legally defined space for cyclists in high-traffic areas, concentration of cyclists increasing motorist awareness and cyclist safety, increased cycling popularity and usage of bicycles as commuting alternative because of access to safer bicycling paths and facilities. Do you think it's a coincidence that one of the hilliest and wettest places in the country also has some of the most bicycle commuters? Do you think there might be some correlation between the municipal investment in facilities and education and cycling populartity?

You keep pointing out the problems but you haven't offered any solutions that incorporate what works for most cyclists, Serge.

1. car-bike collision statistics.
2. The gorilla experiment. I really would like to see a more specific study, but at least it established the correlation between relevance and awareness. A cyclist in a separate lane is less relevant to a motorist than is a cyclist in the exact same position but not separate by a stripe. With the stripe, the cyclist is of little concern to the motorist. How is that a good thing for the cyclist?

It is your prized purpose of the BL stripe - that it keeps the motorist "in place", that is its fatal flaw to the cyclist. To a motorist, a bike lane stripe is much like a fog line - something to more-or-less keep to the left of... and what's to the right of it doesn't matter, because he thinks he's not going there, unless he drifts... In a WOL, on the other hand, the zone of relevance-to-the-motorist extends from the stripe on his left to the edge of the roadway on his right, which encompasses the area where the cyclist is riding. Hence, the motorist is going to be aware of the cyclist sharing the WOL with him, and is very likely to be unaware of the cyclist in the bike lane to his right. Next time you're in a car and someone else is driving, wait until you pass a cyclist, wait 10 seconds, and then ask the driver if he's seen any cyclists lately. I'll bet the driver will mention the cyclist he just passed if there was no bike lane, but won't remember the cyclist if the cyclist was in the bike lane. Try it. It's profound.


I don't know. But I try to keep abreast of any cyclist fatalities (and almost all overtaking collisions are fatal to the cyclist), and I don't know of any overtaking collisions in the US in the last year where the cyclist was not in a bike lane or to the right of a fog/shoulder stripe when he was hit.

Next time you're riding in a bike lane or shoulder consider that you're playing Russian Roulette with your life. Most of the drivers going by you have no idea that you're there. Oh, they "see" you, physically, but they are not aware of you, since you are in a separate lane and outside their zone of relevance. Only one of them has to inadverdently drift...

Now, if that stripe was not there (it's a WOL), and you're riding about 3 feet to the right of normal traffic, then I contend you will be very much within the zone of relevance for each of the motorists, and they will all be very aware of you. They might think (oh *****) as they gain alertness as a result of your presence, but at least they will be aware of you and so will not inadverdently drift into you.

The idea that motorists should drive by us as if we're not even there, which bike lanes enable, is horrifying to me.

How is that an answer? The room is there with or without the stripe. I use room like that without a stripe every day on my commute.


The popularity of bike lanes has never been an issue. Cigarettes are popular too. So what? I was a bike lane supporter until I learned about vehicular cycling as well. The popularity of bike lanes is irrelevant to the substantial question of what benefit cyclists actually receive from bike lanes (as to what benefits they perceive they believe).


Yes, so when there are no cyclists on the road, there are more lanes for the motorists. When there are cyclists, presumably the right lane is too narrow to share, so the cyclists take the full lane, and the motorists are no worse off than they were before (same number of lanes as they had with the bike lane). What's the problem? Cyclists are "uncomfortable" taking the lane. As you like to say, that's an education problem...

That presumes bike lanes make cycling more popular. I don't know of any studies that show this. You think bike lanes are what makes cycling so popular in Seattle? I don't believe it.


Actually, no.


Vehicular cycling and education.

Here's my vote.

Why would thinking about whether cyclists should be required to use bike lanes (which is what this poll does) strengthen EC arguments?

Cite recent statistics... anything since the advent of the cell phone? The cell phone became very popular in 2000. 1995 is too early.

Your Gorilla video? Oh great so motorists, looking for other motorists, ARE going to see ME on the right side of a high speed road any better in a WOL? I think your gorilla video shows just that... they will NOT see me any better... especially moving at 45MPH.

It doesn't strengthen EC arguments, it just provides another tired forum:


Nothing like an agenda... sigh...

I would support repealing any laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes AND I would support a law that explicitly said cyclists are never required to ride in a bike lane.

If you think the implications through, this is a bad idea.

If a cyclist has complete freedom by law to leave a bike lane at any time, then the proper bike lane traffic stripe is no longer a solid white line. The proper stripe would be a broken white line. Solid white traffic lines mean 'no lane changes.' Broken white lines mean 'lane changes OK.'

Now if you have bike lanes with broken white lanes, this would mean that motor vehicles would have the legal right to enter a bike lane at any time. No thanks. One of the benefits of bike lanes is the legal prohibition of motor vehicles to occupy that space.

Motor vehicles are usually allowed to cross into the bike lane line for specific reasons, including making right turns, and parallel parking (where curbside parking is present). I actually don't think changing the bike lane stripe from solid to dashed is a bad idea, and have previously suggested a double stripe, w/ a solid line on the motorist side and a dashed line on the bicyclist side. FYI, in San Jose and maybe other parts of Cali, the bike lane stripes change from solid to dashed at intersection approaches.

I was only attempting to explain why Serge's polls cause people to make accusations of bias. People who frequent the Commuting forum are well aware of Serge's viewpoints and no matter how innocent the topic, are prepared for the dicussion to get turned into a propaganda campaign. Their suspicions are for the most part valid.
I tend to think some of the people who make these accusations probably agree with much of what Serge is saying, they just get turned off when it's repeatedly rammed down their throats.

My main point is it does not appear that Serge is effectively convincing those who don't agree with him to see things his way. I think some of the problem may be in the delivery.

You say that like simply having an agenda -- not a hidden one; surely you cannot believe I have a hidden agenda -- is a bad thing.

Is it?

That wasn't my quote.