Yep, it's true, at least for middle-class citizens. There are also lots of 40-year-old Russian cars.

However, there ARE some brand-new cars driving around there, but they are all from Europe. The nicest car I saw in Cuba was a 2003 or 2004 VW Jetta. You have to be extremely wealthy (by Cuba's standards) to afford one of these, or the car was given to you by the government for something you did for their cause...

Anyway, I'll not derail the topic any longer.

Bike lanes are a good idea, and I do feel safer in them simply because the road is wider. A wider road means a lower chance of some asshat flying by and clipping me with his car, since there is no reduction in llateral driving space when he passes. Should it be mandatory that you use the bike lane? No. Stronger cyclists should be able to use the "car lanes" if they choose to.

I sure appreciate it when the city repaves the roads and includes bike lanes, though!

Okay, time for me to gracefully withdraw...

:)

. . . except that this is the very core of the issue.

What is the very core of the issue? Whether riding according to the vehicular rules of the road requires one to keep up with the speed of traffic? Do you (or anyone else?) contend that it does?

Too bad. I was enjoying our discussion. I'm sorry if other posts ruined it for you; I hope it was nothing I said.

You should know that most bike lane proponents support wide outside lanes (WOLs), sometimes referred to as wide outside thru lanes.

Further, that argument against bike lanes is based on the premise that road width is a separate issue. That is, a given road can have a bike lane or not, and the only difference is the presence or absence of a painted stripe. The point is that the width is what accomodates easier passing of cyclists by the motorists, not the stripe.

However, BL proponents point out that the political reality is that often the only way a given jurisdiction will widen a road (or eliminate onstreet parking) is by adding a bike lane. So in that sense -- politically -- road widening and BLs are related. Even so, that's not the same as saying "bike lanes make the road wider".

Personally, I acknowledge the political reality and concede the relationship between BLs and road widening in some cases. That's a point on the benefit side of BLs. But for me, the problems caused by BLs for cyclists still greatly outweigh any benefits (including this one) that they bring to cyclists.

In particular, I believe a narrow road (10-13 foot lane), where cyclists are able to take the full lane and motorists must deal with it (by slowing down, perhaps to the speed of the cyclist, and passing when it is safe), is better for cyclists than is one widened to accomodate a very narrow (4-5 feet) debris-strewn bike lane (which even weekly sweeping does not solve) to which cyclists are restricted so that motorists can blow by us without slowing down or adjusting lane position as if we are not even there.

No, I'm claiming that keeping up with the speed of traffic is the core issue. This claim is based on my experience that when I slow people down, whether in my car or on my bike, they don't like it. Rules of the road has little to do with it.

Since I have full rights to all areas of the roadway, this is hardly an issue of "separatism." Guess you just missed that point back in post 505.

Those cyclists in Alabama however, need to do some work.

OK, so motorists don't like it when you slow them down. First, how do you know that? And how significant/important is it that they don't like it? And how do you know that?

My riding causes motorists to slow down all the time. So what? What's the big deal? Do they like it? I don't know. I know I only do it when it's necessary for my safety, so I don't really care too much about whether they like it or not. I'm not going to sacrifice my safety because someone might not like being slowed down.

"I support laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes as long as they have reasonable exceptions" does seem like a reasonable choice, but as 'Daily Commuter' pointed out, the cyclist isn't the one who gets to determine what reasonable exceptions are. I may think that it's perfectly reasonable to forgo the bike lane on a rainy day so that I don't have to ride through all of the puddles, but the law might disagree.
I personally think that bicyclists should a have a choice between sidewalks (in some cases), bike lines, and car lanes as long as we ride in a safe manner.

All I have is my experience. Some guy came at me (ie. exited his vehicle) wielding screwdrivers because I would not move over at a stop light that was red in my direction but green arrow in his. My reasons for taking the lane were pure VC, too dangerous to line up right or left in lane, I was going straight. To me that is just the tip of the iceberg of motorist impatience and rage, not just an isolated incident. I have plenty of other verbal interactions that point to the impatience. I believe it's real. BL are just one attempt to address that issue. I think good BL design and yes, even mandatory BL laws, will go toward more organization of motorist vs cyclist interaction the road, and thus reduce road rage incidents like the ones I've experienced; even if it means I give up a little piece of personal freedom. I'll make that trade any day.

I don't follow. Were you in the center of the right-most lane, from which it is legal to go straight or right, and you were going straight? Why not move over to the left to let the right-turner go past you on your right?

Or were you in the center of the left lane, which goes straight or left? In that case, the VC position is to be near the right side, so that left-turners can pass you on the left.

And how would a BL help in this situation?

Just a heads-up. Proceed with caution ;)

Well, actually not a hockey fan at all. I'm still bitter over how many of my tax dollars went to building the Corel Centre and getting a local NHL franchise.

Segregation for road rage victims isn't as fair (or as effective) as educating, encouraging and finally enforcing proper behavior by those who won't control their anger while operating heavy equipment in the public ways.

Permitting yourself to be frighten off the prime portion of the road is one thing; advocating that everyone who cycles should also have to capitulate to the bullies is another.

Bruce Rosar
Who is proud to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave

As John S. Allen once wrote (in response to a similar assertion)

Here's a clue about classifications and every individual's right to travel from a Supreme Court decision

Nice rhetoric... ever notice how our freedoms have changed since 9/11... I don't recall ever being searched at an airport prior to 9/11, just as a for instance.

As far as being frightened off a prime portion of the roadway... I can take my place on any portion of the roadway any time I deem fit, yet I still have a nice piece of roadway that allows me to ride at my pace, no matter what the condition of the automotive traffic.

I just don't see how this makes bike lanes "bad."

Bike Lanes don't keep cyclists in, they keep motorists out. Motorists are enthalled with a slogan even used in Auto Ads: "Stay between the lines, the lines are our friends." Let 'em stay there.

Bruce, you have come up with some nice ideas, but getting caught up in this rhetoric is not one of them.

I still think your proposal for narrow travel lanes is the best thing going as it eliminates the stigma that some seem to find in a solid white line.

This is about the use of the word segregation... which is silly as we have full rights to use any part of the road we see fit, except in Alabama. That is hardly segregation.

I've seen this proposal seveal times, but can't envision it... Is it simply like a BL white line, except that it is dashed?

Al

One thing that would really help would be tougher jail sentences for drivers that "didn't see the cyclist." A classic defense. Until cyclists have a louder unified voice such as the Disabled Americans group, cyclists will continue to be "boys with toys."

Education should start with the police departments and judges, then with campaigns geared toward the driving public. Currenly several disjointed cycle advocacy groups are concerned about teaching their version of safe cycling...

Maybe the first step is coming to some form of agreement on goals. LAB and LABreform are now talking... how long before action?

After reading much of the arguments for and against, I have decided to switch sides and join those who are against bike lanes and, in particular, mandatory bike lanes.

In fact, I am willing to ignore what seems to me to be obvious advantages of an uncluttered lane that allows me to travel safer or easier, because getting to work faster without as many near-collissions has been shown to be merely an illusion, a misperception. As such, I am fully prepared to dismiss all my own experiences and observations that confirm the many attractions of bike lanes. I am taking a leap of faith and will contradict what I knopw personally to be true.

But I will not stop there. I have seen other inequalities that demand the same determined and adamant crusade. I will vigorously rail against toddlers on tricycles being restricted to sidewalks because they are seemingly safer and I will challenge those parents who insist on attaching those bars to the rear of those tricycles and other wheeled toys, so they can prevent the kids from going where they have every right to go and that is anywhere their little hearts please.

Wheelchairs, elderly people on scooters, skateboarders, ski-boarders, roller-skaters, street-luge's and any other kind of wheeled contraption you can think of shall soon have equal, unrestricted access to the road, because if they don't they're drinking out of a segregated fountain and that just isn't right.

And finally, my greatest triumph will be when I deliver the oppressed pedestrian off the sidewalk he has been legally segrated to and introduce him and her to the wide-open spaces of the main road, the grand avenue, the vast boulevards and freedom! Freedom for all! Walk where-ever you want to walk brother!

Cars won't have to be restricted to the lanes either. No no no. It has to be equal for all: they can drive on the sidewalks if they want to so long as they do it safely. And same thing for those toddlers, grannies, physically-challenged folks, skate-boarders, sail-boarders, ski-boarders, street-luger's and pogo-stick bouncers: they have to operate their vehicle predictably and obseve all the regulations that cars must....hey....why should they? Don't those stop signs and red-lights legally segregate us from those who are able to go?

I'm surprised at you Serge, advising a cyclist to "move over" to let a car pass, thus endangering my life! Not very VC of you at all.

I was in a shared straight/right lane with a combo solid red/green arrow. I was continuing straight and I had the red. Thus according to good destination positioning, I was smack dab in the middle of the 12 foot lane. You would actually advice moving over to the left of the lane in this situation? I have to disagree on purely VC grounds. Can't believe I have to lecture you on this. If I move over to the right, which I had done in my early months of negotiating this intersection, then sure enough the right hand turning vehicle will turn right, but inevitably a straight turning vehicle will stop at the red. Then when the light turns green, I have a stream of traffic to my right. Not a good position in the lane in anyone's book. Correct?

I can see that a BL would help this situation in that it would formalize the merge to the center of the lane. Most BL installations I've seen, at least in St Louis, have a dashed line and a white sign that says something like "Yield to bicyclist merging from bike lane", can't remember exact wording. But the meaning is clear. In fact, at the one BL intersection that I used to ride, it was very easy to merge to the center for the intersection, a major one, because motorists would actually yield to me, as opposed to jumping out of their vans and attacking me with screwdrivers.

. . . since we are citing higher authorities, ever hear of the biblical principle of "submit to one another in love". I think the context was the church, but you know how Americans worship their cars. There's a place for being assertive but also a place for "getting along".

How many cyclists (other than disgruntled League Cycling Instructors -LCI) do you think are represented by the members of "Lab-Reform"? Enough to form a quorum; a jury; a minyan, a basketball team? Maybe a nice game of bridge ?

Yes... essentially that is it. This apparently indicates that the narrow space is just another travel lane on the road just like all the other travel lanes. Apparently this removes all the "segregation" issues and gives cyclists full access, without the aformentioned bias, to the entire roadway. Obviously, any vehicle not narrow enough to fit into this travel lane should not be there.

Somehow I have a feeling that drivers of mini-coopers and other smallish cars will be tempted to use this lane as any other travel lane.

This idea has not yet been approved by the MUTCD (essentially an auto-centeric organization that dictates the "approved" road markings to road engineers).

This may perhaps satisfy those that want to eliminate ALL bike lanes... essentially this erases half of the bike lane. ;) Nice compromise, eh?