Who knows? I'm really trying to take a step back and look at the premises of each of our arguments, and Gene keeps insisting on jumping ahead and talking about the conclusions. It's very difficult to communicate like this. We'll see if he can manage not to pontificate on bike lanes in answering the questions in my last post which had nothing to do with bike lanes per se.

Serge,

I'm having trouble understanding the purpose behind your tactics.

Do you think your agressive (and in this case immature and rude) questioning of specific forum members is going to convince them that BL are evil and should be turned into sidewalks?

Can you see that even if some folks like you can potentially logically argue thru semantics that BLs are wrong, that in reality they could make narrow lane uphill fast roads more comfortable to cycle on for many folks?

Al

Actually, I haven't been trying to make that point lately. I've been trying to come to terms with you respect to separation and segregation, and separatist mentality, and how these concepts relate to traffic lanes, and bike lanes. But you keep insisting on ponitificating about the alleged wonders of bike lanes. :rolleyes:

For example:

How does this related to anything I've said? Why are you bringing this up in the middle of this particular discussion?


While we have debated this point in the past, how is it relevant to the current discussion?


Hello? What have I said in this latest thread with you that would explain why you're bring this up?


Have I ever said otherwise? Much less in this discussion? Why are you pointing this out?


The parrot technique is not very convincing, Gene.

I'm trying to establish the underlying definitions and premises of our arguments.


I"m really trying not to be aggressive, immature or rude. I'm really trying to come to terms with Gene, and it seems like he's refusing to honestly consider and answer my questions. So I thought it might be funny to ask a really obvious question. I guess it wasn't that funny. No offense was intended. I like and respect Gene, and enjoy our bantering (obviously).


Identifying underlying premises is not semantics.
I don't understand the relevance of whether bike lanes make cycling up narrow lane uphill fast roads more comfortable for many folks to this discussion. I know bike lanes make most cyclists more comfortable (and not only on narrow lane uphill fast roads). That's a benefit of bike lanes that I recognize, and have said so many times. My argument against bike lanes is that, ultimately, the disbenefits of bike lanes far outweigh the benefits.

In this latest chapter I've been trying to address only one particular disbenefit of bike lanes: the separatist mentality that I believe explains much of the support for bike lanes, and which itself is bolstered by bike lane usage. I think we should be able to have an interesting discussion about this one topic alone. But it has proven to be very difficult to stay focussed on it, for reasons I don't understand, and find very frustrating.

Honestly, I think he's just being a troll - that is he is only being argumentative to foster heated debate and entertain himself. Having given up on his "proof" that bike lanes are unsafe, Serge now argues the "segregation" platform. Most likely he feels it is easier to trap his opponent in a battle of semantics than one of statistics. At this point I give Serge neither credibility nor respect.

Bruce is another matter. He'd be a natural for Jeopardy! , but I am puzzled as to what his views are; other than an avalanche of quotes, he doesn't seem to have a detailed platform of his own.

Sadly what has been lost in all this are the genuine concerns with bike lanes, bike facilities in general, and the concerns with the lack of such facilities. After what can be called, at best, a draw on the safety arguments and, again at best, a complete non sequitur on the discrimination arguments, I am left wanting for any meaningful discussion on bike lanes. What about concerns other than safety? What bike lanes designs are better. or worse? What have bike lanes done (or failed to do) for individuals here? When do some people use or not use bike facilities? What signage seems to improve interaction with motor vehicles? Etc., etc., etc.

The city I live in, Ottawa, just opened its light-rail plans to public consultation and will do the same for the cycling network later this week (both involving the other). I would love to have meaningful discussions on various pros and cons here, but that is impossible. If I post anything even remotely related to bike lanes, I know the thread will be high-jacked.

As is often the case on the Internet, a few have ruined a forum for many - at least in regards to certain specific topics.

Pat - you are welcome to start a thread on any topic you like. If you lay out the ground rules, say by requesting that certain issues not be brought up, I assure you I, for one, will abide.

Why not start a thread on what you said:

For several reasons I lost my interest in the discussion when the 'segregation' discussion/comparisions started and chose not to participate in those related sub-threads.

I don't think Serge nor anyone else has ruined the forum at all. Posts tend to be very on topic and even those that have use poor tactics (on all sides of the debate) have also contributed positively, sometimes surprisingly, to the discussion.

My opinions on your questions:
-What bike lanes designs are better or worse?
BLs on high speed roads with intersections miles apart tend to be better. Worst tend to be ones on residential streets with speeds below 35mph. WOLs (unmarked BL if you will) generally allow me to position myself so I get greater passing clearance from cars compared to BL.
-What have bike lanes done (or failed to do) for individuals here?
BLs have not helped me in any cases in my city, but I can envision they would help in theoretical cases (like some of the highway like roads that Gene posted pictures of). They have put me into odd/dangerous situation (like one last weekend leading into ASU campus, which lead me straight into a one way road and forced me on to the sidewalk on the wrong side of the road. I was almost hit by a left turner from the one way street since they did not expect a vehicle coming their way.)
-When do some people use or not use bike facilities?
I use them when there is no reason not to which is about 50% of the time (and tends to be only between intersection on high speed roads when there is no debris) The strange thing is, is that I cross the BL stripe hundreds of times in my 9mi commute. I never cross lane dividers this much when driving a car.
-What signage seems to improve interaction with motor vehicles?
I don't think any currently existing signs help, but I do think my visibility and the signals I give drivers do. I think there may be some benefit to theoretical signs like "Yield to cyclists merging left" in certain cases.

Al

Gee, Serge you keep rewording the questions.

Yes.
Yes, but merging is allowed, as well as changing lanes, so the separation of traffic is dynamic, not static. BTW I answered this before.
No, "separated," just like any other lane. There is no use of "segregated" in the CVC or the MUTCD, in this case, obviously merging is not allowed.

OK, my turn.

Do you feel that Bike Lanes have any utility? Think hard now...

Do you find bike lanes intimidating?

Can a Vehicular Cyclist co-exist with Bike Lanes?

And last... how fast do you typically ride on flat, level ground, headwinds not withstanding.

OK, I asked an extra question... but then I have already answered one of your questions earlier.

For anyone who is interested, I've started a separate (no pun intended) on the topic of cycling separatism.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=997778

Now, to Gene's questions:


Yes. On some roadways bike lanes provide some benefits to cyclists as well as to motorists (but mostly to motorists).

The main benefit of bike lanes to cyclists is that cyclists primarily concerned with being hit from behind generally feel safer when they have their own lane. Bike lanes also provide a dedicated space for cyclists to use to pass slow and stopped traffic. The perception that bike lanes make cycling faster allows cyclists who otherwise might feel intimidated to ride on certain roads with fast/busy traffic, to feel comfortable riding on them. Those are the main benefits I can think of off the top of my head, and they are ultimately of questionable true value to cyclists.

By delineating the right-of-way between cyclists and motorists, motorists are free to travel without having to be aware of the presence of the cyclists they are passing who are traveling adjacently, much less having to take care (slowing down, adjusting lane position) in passing them. I find this to be a big benefit to motorists, but a serious disbenefit (among many others) for cyclists.


No.


Yes. Generally, VCists deal with BLs with much fewer problems than can cyclists not as skilled in traffic cycling.


Well, on my last group ride we averaged 20.5 mph at the 30mi stop, but that included rolling hills (Del Mar, Fairbanks Ranch, Rancho Santa Fe, Olivenhain) and a fierce headwind going down the coast. When I cycle alone I usually average more like 16mph, but that always includes hills. But I'm pretty sure I could maintain 17-19 mph all day long on flats with no wind. Maybe faster?


Who's counting? Ask me any questions you want...

Thanks. I couldn't tell that you answered this before, but I see in retrospect that you did.


Well, I quoted the dictionary for you, but apparently you don't want to use the term "segregated". For me, the double-yellow stripe segregates the (say) northbound traffic from the southbound traffic. But if you're uncomfortable with the use of that term in this context, then that's consistent with not using it in the context of bike lane separation. Whatever. I'll use "separated" (now that is a semantic issue).

Anyway, you've agreed that "the purpose of any lane of traffic is to SEPARATE that traffic from the traffic in the other lanes."

So, now, do you agree that it follows that the purpose of a bike lane is then to SEPARATE bicycle traffic from the traffic in the other lanes?

If yes, then, given that the traffic in the other lanes is vehicular, do you agree that it follows that the purpose of a bike lane is to SEPARATE bicycle traffic from the vehicular traffic in the other lanes?

I know you've answered "no" to this before, and even "for the last time NO!" (in #618) so I've worked backwards and tried to figure out why. So either you misinterpreted my question before, or something, because I don't understand how you can agree that "the purpose of any lane of traffic is to SEPARATE that traffic from the traffic in the other lanes.", and yet disagree that "the point of a bike lane is to SEPARATE bicycle traffic from the vehicular traffic in the other lanes". I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just trying to understand the underlying premises of your view, try to explain mine, hope to find some common ground, and go from there. Our agreement on "the purpose of any lane of traffic is to SEPARATE that traffic from the traffic in the other lanes" is a promising start...

Thank you

Going down the same spiral again... However, you and Bruce and the CVC all agree that the term "vehicular" applies to bicycles as well as autos, therefore the answer to your question is NO.

Lanes serve to guide parallel traveling vehicles all moving in the same direction, however, those aformentioned vehicles can and do move from lane to lane in actions known as merges. Any "separation" is momentary and quite dynamic and controlled in a safe manner by the operators of the various vehicles.

[I have only one main question in this post, which is at the end in blue]


Ah, now I get it. Finally. I think...

Well, yes, the term "vehicular" may apply to bicycles, but it does not necessarily. For example, when bicycles are ridden on sidewalks or bike paths they are definitely not being operated vehicularly (which means being operated in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road that all vehicle operators are supposed to follow).

When bicycles are ridden in regular traffic lanes, they are usually operated vehicularly, but even there, not always. Most obviously, when cyclists ride against the flow of traffic on the wrong side of the road they are most definitely not being operated vehicularly.

So whether a bicycle (or any device/machine for that matter) is being operated vehicularly depends more on the behavior of the operator than on where it is being operated. It's more about how than where. But where matters too. We've already discussed sidewalks and bike paths - that's definitely non-vehicular.

Now, despite the possibility of operating in the regular (non-bike) traffic lanes non-vehicularly, for all intents and purposes it's reasonable to say that traffic in the regular lanes is generally vehicular. So, putting aside the question of whether cyclist traffic in bike lanes is vehicular, I don't understand why you seem to think there is some important distinction between the following two statements:

1. The purpose of a bike lane is to SEPARATE cyclists from the traffic in the other lanes.
2. The purpose of a bike lane is to SEPARATE cyclists from the vehicular traffic in the other lanes.

The wording of the 2nd statement does not assume that bicycles cannot be vehicular. I don't understand your objection to the use of the term "vehicular" in the 2nd version. Whether the cyclist traffic in the bike lanes is "vehicular" is irrelevant to the question of whether this statement is true or false. It could be true or false whether the traffic in the bike lane is vehicular or not. I guess you thought agreeing to this statement would imply that the bike lane traffic is necessarily non-vehicular? I wish you had pointed out that was your objection to it when you first disagreed with it...

Anyway, in the same sense (including whatever import you want to put on the dynamic/temporary characteristic) that "the purpose of any lane of traffic is to SEPARATE that traffic from the traffic in the other lanes", and given the understanding that the usage of the modifier vehicular in the following statement does not necessarily imply that cyclist traffic in bike lanes is not vehicular, but only implies that the traffic in the normal (non-bike) lanes is generally vehicular, do you agree that "the purpose of a bike lane is to SEPARATE cyclists from the vehicular traffic in the other lanes"?

I have to answer your question with a question.

Do you believe that the dashed lines on the interstate SEPARATE the various autos traveling at the same speed and in the same direction?

Yes! Of course.

We've already established that the purpose of any lane of traffic is to SEPARATE that traffic from the traffic in the other lanes. The lines (be they dashed or striped) facilitate that separation by delineating exactly where the lanes are. So, yes, of course, the dashed lines on the interstate SEPARATE (into "channels", I would add) the various vehicles traveling at the same (and different) speed and in the same direction.

Well actually I think it is the operators that do the separating; the lines only provide guidance. There is no magic force field involved... lines only offer a guide path.

But with the view you have, to answer your question: "the purpose of a bike lane is to SEPARATE cyclists from the vehicular traffic in the other lanes..."

I disagree, as bicycles are both vehicular and traffic.

Modify the statement to this and it works: the purpose of a bike lane stripe is to SEPARATE motor vehicle traffic from bicycle traffic traveling in the same direction, in parallel lanes.

Now I am not 100% comfortable with this as it is actually the operators of the vehicles that do the work, the stripes only offer guidance. Also notice that I modified the statement to ensure the proper use of the bike lane... traffic moving in the same direction and parallel...

And of course with any traffic lane... merging and lane changing is permitted.

I address this concern of yours at length in #637, which you totally ignored and simply restated your assertion without explanation. I even restated the question in blue with this issue explicitly addressed, and you totally ignored that. Why?


Very good. Another step. Another statement we can agree on! Progress! (how's that you nay-sayers!)


That concern can also be easily addressed, with a rewording something like this:

The purpose of a bike lane stripe is to facilitate the SEPARATION of motor vehicle traffic from bicycle traffic traveling in the same direction, in parallel lanes.

Are you okay with that? I suspect you would agree to the following modifications as well, which clarify that the separation is not intended for turning or same-as-traffic-speed cyclists:

The purpose of a bike lane stripe is to facilitate the SEPARATION of faster motor vehicle traffic from slower thru bicycle traffic traveling in the same direction, in parallel lanes.

Better?

I meant the qualifier I added to that - "at least in regards to certain specific topics."

I think I'll move this to a new topic, and see if I am proven wrong. I hope you don't mind that I plan to quote you in that new topic.

Yeah, that is pretty good, and addresses the issues that BL are only really needed for fast speed traffic roads.

Along with that BL statement however is also the law that permits cyclists to move out of the BL just as any other vehicle is allowed to move from the lanes they occupy. Anything that mandates unconditional use, kills the efficacy of a bike lane.

Now the actual definition itself of a good BL needs work. The MUTCD handles this quite poorly and as it is the "source" document, the poor results show up in a number of places.

But then there is another thread for that.

The bottom line is that this is Cyclists dealing with bike lane issues... not motorists believing they understand the problems.

OK. Great that we have agreement on that statement.

Now, as to BLs being "needed" on fast speed traffic roads, consider this:

Have you ever been driving along a freeway around 70 mph and passed by someone going 100mph or so? It's alarming, and obviously dangerous, isn't it? And yet that speed differential is "only" 30 mph. Of course, no one should be driving 100 mph in the first place. But if they are, they should slow down and even adjust their lane position when passing cars going 30 mph slower than they are. But lanes, and the stripes that delineate them, hinder this behavior. The "channelization" effect is such that the passing driver feels comfortable essentially ignoring the presence of anyone in the adjacent/separate lane. That's fine when the speed differentials are nominal, but gets progressively more dangerous with higher speed differentials. Luckily, extremely speeding drivers and high speed differential passing is generally the exception. Except when it comes to motorists passing cyclists... High speed differential close passing (30 mph and higher within just a few feet) is much more common of course between motorists and cyclists than between motorists and motorists. Here, again, I believe bike lanes work against us. How? Because just like they do on the freeway, the lanes, and the stripe, enable the passing faster driver to feel comfortable essentially ignoring the presence of anyone in the adjacent/separate bike lane, and allows him to feel comfortable passing them like they are not even there (in other words, they don't slow down to reduce the passing speed differential; they don't adjust their lane position to increase passing lateral distance). Cyclists riding up ahead in adjacent bike lanes are easy to ignore. Cyclists riding up ahead with the right-of-way within the same lane are impossible to ignore (unless they are yielding the right-of-way by hugging the edge), and that's a good thing. It forces the passing motorist to deal with their presence (by slowing down, and adjusting their lateral lane position). In short, bike lanes, enable dangerous high-speed differential close passing of cyclists by motorists, especially on high speed traffic roads.

We don't need bike lanes on high speed roads... what we need is to remove bike lanes (i.e., the stripes) from high speed roads.

I understand your point, however the flip side of it is the increased tension that motorists and cyclists feel when there is no bike lane negates your point. That increased tension on the roadway can manifest itself in road rage or too close passing. Also you are not thinking of the tremedous speed differences that can occur for slower cyclists. Put a very slow cyclist on the non-bike lane road and the effect to traffic is even worse.

The constant push and pull of each passing motorist "negotiating" (slowing for cyclists) with just a single cyclist on the roadway greatly increases the tension level for all users of the roadway. Add distrations such as cell phones, and the potential for accidents increases even higher.

Your comfort level is not the same as other cyclists' comfort levels. Bike lanes increase the comfort level for all users of the roadway. Bike lanes do not hinder you as a fast cyclist on fast roads, therefore there is no net loss to you, however there is a net gain to others.

The lack of bike lanes reduce the comfort level. This is also true for passing lanes on mountain roads.

An even better solution would be to make bike lanes and the stripes for these high speed roads even wider. 8 inch stripes and 5 foot 6 inch bike lanes.

Regarding the "ignoring" situation... cyclists in a WOL or in a BL are in same relative position, thus are in the same cone of vision. Motorists are aware of cyclists in BL... the strip does not make one invisible. Motorists are also aware of other autos on either side of them, they do not "ignore" these other autos, but feel that the autos (like the cyclist) will predictably remain in their lane, unless indicated otherwise.

In fact I'll go you one better... imagine all the roads with all the lane lines removed. The traffic would still flow, but now due to the lack of guiding lines, it would not flow as smoothly, nor as fast and perhaps there would be more accidents. Certainly more tension.

Put in the lines and the various users of the road now have very predictable paths.

Wow. More progress! Even better... I understand your point!


No, that increased tension doesn't negate my point, it makes my point...


That's a leap I do not accept, and is contrary to all my experience and everything I have read and know. To the contrary, that increased tension causes motorists to pass with care.


Actually, the higher and higher speed differences is exactly what I am thinking about. The higher the speed difference, the more important it is for motorists to SLOW DOWN and MOVE LEFT as they pass, something the bike lane stripe enables them TO NOT DO.


The slower the cyclist, the higher the speed differential, and the more important it is to encourage passing motorists to SLOW DOWN and MOVE LEFT as they pass.


The "constant push and pull" is a good thing. The tension level is good. I don't think we want to encourage motorists passing cyclists at 30+ mph speed differentials to be relaxed and act like the cyclists are not even there (which is exactly what bike lanes on high speed roads enable). We want them to be tense. We want them to think, "oh *****". We want them to SLOW DOWN. We want them to MAKE ROOM.

When I commute home at night on La Jolla Village Drive (45 MPH speed limit) I take the right lane. I watch the "constant push and pull" in my mirror. The tension is good. They slow down to my 15 MPH. They change lanes, at least partially, to pass with plenty of room. I watch them in my mirror, and I've never had to bail. If there was a bike lane, many cyclists would choose to ride in it, and they would be in much more danger than I am.


Phone or not, motorists are much more likely to be looking where they are going than in an adjacent lane. They are very likely to be unaware of and unconcerned with a cyclist riding up ahead in an adjacent bike lane. It's practically impossible for them to be unaware of a cyclist riding up ahead with the right-of-way in their lane. A distraction like a cell phone is likely to make them drift if anything, and possibly into a cyclist in the adjacent bike lane of whose presence they are unaware. Yes, disttractions such as cell phones increases the potential for collisions, but I think much more for drifting and intersection collisions than blatant rear-enders. Phone or not, when a motorist sees a cyclists riding right in front of him, all kinds of alarms go off. This is obvious in the absurd amount of space they leave behind us when they are stopped behind us at stop lights.


That may well be true, in some circumstances. I suspect I am less comfortable being passed with 30+ mph speed differentials while riding in a bike lane than are most other cyclists. But that's because they are oblivious to the dangers... they put far more faith into that stripe than I do.


Being "comfortable" with 30+ MPH speed differentials is NOT good for anyone.


The "net gain" is subjective. I know most cyclists believe it is a net gain. But I'm not convinced that that calculation is based on much thinking.


The stripe makes a HUGE difference that you are ignoring. Legally, it delineates clearly the right-of-way. In particular, the right-of-way in the motorist's lane is ALL HIS. He has no legal reason to be concerned with the cyclist he is passing at 30+ MPH. That's not good for the cyclist.


Physically seeing someone or something is one thing; being consciously aware of him or it is another... and being concerned about them is yet another... The bike lane stripe and associated right-of-way delineation enables the motorist to not be nearly as aware or concerned about the cyclist as he must be when the stripe is not there.


And if "otherwise" happens, T.S. to the cyclist... it's not the motorist's fault!

And here is where we part company... you tend to discount the feelings of others; cyclists and motorists alike. You feel that since you have no increased tension, ALL interactions are like this.

This is simply not true.

The variations of both motorists and cyclists out there are apparently beyond your empathic abilities. Other cyclists report tensions manifested in words, gestures, and other agressive behaviours. Motorists write letters to newspapers and call into radio programs with rants about cyclists.

To deny this is being blind to reality.

Many cyclists enjoy bike lanes... this has been shown in multiple surveys.

If you are in a WOL, you are in the same position on the road as you would be in a BL, and thus you have the same visibility.

They are aware, however they may not be as concerned, as a BL make you more predictable.

This model works when everyone is traveling at approximately equal speeds. When there are high speed differential potentials, no stripes/no lanes are better, to calm down traffic, reduce the speed differentials and/or increase the passing distances.

When most of the traffic is approximately equal in speed (and relatively high), and there is the occasional low speed user, especially when the slower user is particularly vulnerable (like lacking a "cage"), then you want to encourage the SLOWING DOWN of the flow within the vicinity of the slower/vulnerable user. Putting the slower user in his own lane actually discourages the desired adjustments to the flow within the vicinity of the slower/vulnerable roadway user.

The 7 lane road closest to my house was paved a few months ago. There was a 1wk period where there were no lane dividing lines (just cones to divide direction)
I found that traffic went significanlty slower, was more cautious. The best part was that it made cycling far more comfortable as the previously very narrow outside lane turned into one giant WOL and cars gave very wide clearance when passing. ;)

Al