I do not see it as you do. My position is ensuring that bike lane use does not become mandatory, and if that is the way the law is currently being interpreted, then the law should be modified to remove that interpretation.

I do not wish to abolish bike lanes. Their use should be voluntary.

I starting reading up until the mention of "A Critical Mass ride . . . ." OK, so you are using this very exceptional case to argue how mandatory BL laws are bad. This is very different than me riding in a BL on my commute home and veering around a broken bottle and getting busted. I don't know the circumstances of this case, but my guess would be that authorities were really pissed at type of demostration, not the violation of mandatory BL.

Well, we are not talking about "the law". There is no federal mandatory bicycle lane law that I know of. What we have are 50 separate state vehicles codes and numerous local ordinances. There is no mandatory BL law in Missouri, but there were, I would have to examine the wording and if it mentioned any particular design. But I can't say up front that I would be against a law, based on the arguments provided by BT and Serge, who is strangely quiet in this thread. C'mon Serge, you got your wish. Where is your argument?

This, of course, is the real motivation behind the thread as in "See how bad bicycle lanes are, and on top of that, they are going to FORCE you to use them."

billh you are my hero. You are so logical diagrams could probably be drawn to represent your arguments.

And I think he's absolutely ludicrous.

You are sorely mistaken if you think that I object to mandatory bike lane laws on the basis of my dislike of individual bike lane implementations. I object on the basis that such laws do not acknowledge that as a vehicle operator there are decisions that I alone am qualified to make and that even the best designed, implemented, and installed bike facilities may occassionally be unsuitable for safe and lawful travel just as on occasion any other particular travel lane may be. As such I don't need some state or municipal authority presuming to second guess my decision. They make no such presumption against any other vehicle operator.

Again, I ask the question: if they can be circumvented anytime a cyclist needs to without posing undue burden on the cyclist, what purpose do they serve? Please answer the question.

That does lead to an interesting question. If bike lanes were so darnned good, cyclists would use them voluntarily. The existence of mandatory bike lane laws demonstrates that city governments know the lanes aren't good enough for cyclists to use voluntarily.

Again, you are talking about "such laws". I'm talking about a law in general terms. To simplify things, let's imagine there were a federal law requiring cyclists to use a BL if present. Let's also imagine that the law contains exceptions for when cyclists may move out of the BL. Are you against the law without knowing the exceptions, or would you possibly favor the law if it captured the exceptions properly? I'm guessing you are simply against mandatory BL laws in all cases on the basis of government intervention in your life. But the government has all sorts of regulations for motor vehicles. It seems like you want it both ways, ie. government regulation of motorists AND government deregulation of cyclists. Why do cyclists deserve special consideration?

There is a basic contradiction in any set of state statutes that (1) defines a bicycle as a vehicle and grants the same rights to bicyclists as to any vehicle operator, yet at the same time (2) attempts to restrict bicyclists to either (a) a road position 'as far to the right as practicable' (standard language contained in many state statutes) OR to a road position defined by the bike lane stripe(s).

I'm absolutely against the law in any form. The only way it would be acceptible is if it were worded so broadly that the effect would be to say "cyclists must travel in the bike lane except at such times they feel they shouldn't."

In other words, I would defang such a law to the point where it was truly and utterly pointless.

Cyclists don't deserve special consideration, motorists do. Motoring is regulated on the basis (here comes the Supreme Court again) that one's rights to the public way may be "only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other Citizens."

That is to say, operating a vehicle in excess of a thousand pounds is such an onerous responsibility that the state bears a responsibility to help insure that operators are capable and aware of safe and responsible operation of said vehicle. It's the same reason that cars must pass safety inspections in many states and why drivers must carry liability insurance.

I actually would have no problem allowing people to operate small (<50cc) scooters without a drivers license though that's not the law in this and many other states. They can already operate those vehicles without insurance and I support that. Likewise they don't pay the same registry fees as motor vehicles (they have a separate and I believe free license). That makes sense since their impact on the traveled surface is negligible.

To really simplify things, let's imagine there were a federal law requiring [insert any group of people you wish identified by any characteristics you wish] to use a [insert any type of facility you wish] if present. Let's also imagine that the law contains exceptions for when [members of this group] may temporarily not use the facility.

Please identify any others sets of {group, facility, exceptions} for which you would support such a law, besides {cyclists, bike lanes, standard exceptions}.

[added later]
To be fair, I should answer you question first (even though you were addressing Trevor; I hope you don't mind).
Yes, "the government has all sorts of regulations for motor vehicles.". The basis for this regulation is that motor vehicles are a serious threat to others. Bicycles are not. So, yeah, we want (and mostly have, except for bike lanes) "government regulation of motorists AND government deregulation of cyclists. Cyclists deserve special consideration because bicycles are not the threat to others that even motor cycles are.

The entire basis for any regulation should be protection of rights. What rights are protected by laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes under any circumstances?

By the way, the only laws and regulations I support are the ones that can be used in the following sentence: The law or regulation protects the right to/of _______________________.

If you can't fill in the blank for a given law/regulation. then I contend that law/regulation should not exist.

The purpose of law is to protect our rights. If the law is not protecting any rights, it should not be a law.

Not so much ludicrous as simply beligerant. When asked to state his reasoning behind the desire for all cyclists to be restricted to certain areas, he refuses. It resembles the "get on the sidewalk" mentality so often displayed by motorists. I see him as nothing more than a troll.

I never implied there was any federal law stating cyclists must use bike lanes. My contention is if interpretations of statutes, state or local, considers bike lane use as mandatory, then the laws or statutes should be modified to eliminate that interpretation. Do not twist my words into "bike lanes must be banned".

Aren't there enough mandates already? We do not need more. Personal freedoms should never be relinquished. They are too difficult to retrieve once they are taken away.

Is this addressed to me? I hope not, because I'm pretty sure that I've never suggested they were. Crap, those aren't even my words. No really, for serious.

No, it was for billh. I just used your quote as a jump off point. Sorry.

Ah, so you DO see some sort of classification of vehicles based on vehicle characteristic, ie. weight. OK, this a beginning. So, we have vehicles that weigh over 1000 lbs and those that weight less than 1000 lbs, bicycles falling in the latter category. If I understand you correctly, vehicles in the "heavy" class, as you defined it, need to be regulated but those in the "light" class do not, or at least not as severely . . . because the heavier the vehicle, the more dangerous. Agreed. Complete agreement.

Now, when we chant the VC mantra, "Cyclists fare best when they act and in turn are treated like drivers of other vehicles", in effect, you are advocating the mixing of the heavy and light classes of vehicles on the road. If in fact the heavy vehicles are more dangerous, why in the world would you advocate the mixing of the two classes of vehicles?

OK, I'll play. How about pedestrians and striped crosswalks? There should be a law requiring pedestrians to use the striped crosswalk when present. In fact, I believe peds may be cited for jaywalking if they cross mid-block under most current state laws. Does this restrict peds right to use the facility, ie. the road? No, in fact, it protects and promotes that right.

I'm guessing you are in favor of lane striping for motor vehicles because motor vehicles are dangerous and thus deserve special regulation. In a similar way, some regulation of cyclists is good and necessary to facilitate sharing of the road with the "dangerous" class of vehicles. In fact, the more I think about it, the idea of a voluntary bicycle lane is absurd because then motorists don't know what to expect of how cyclists should use a BL.

Yes, I am angry. I'm angry at the mindless promotion of VC dogma. I'm not so much pro-bike lane as I am anti anti-bike lane. It seems the VC disciples have received the word from on high and have been sent out to spread the gospel of vehicular cycling on unwitting message boards. It's time someone takes a stand and takes them down a notch. At the bottom of it, there may be some basic philosophical disagreement about the role of government. That's fine. Then just say it, "I don't like government making laws on how I ride my bike". Fine. But don't go on and on and on about the evils of bicycle lanes, when in fact someday, a bicycle lane may be designed that will actually be beneficial.

Answer me my question, and I'll answer yours. Do you think lane striping for motor vehicles and laws mandating use of those lane stripes are good and necessary? Then I'll answer your question.

Yes! I've stated that repeatedly. How come it took you so long to understand?



Who went on & on about the evils of bike lanes? I don't give a rat's @ss about bike lanes either way. If some people want to use them, great. Just don't tell me that I have to use them if I choose not to. Do not restrict my freedom with your ideals. I feel the same way about EC/VC'ers. If they want to ride that way, great, but don't come along and tell me I have to ride the way someone else says is the proper way. I've been riding seriously for over 20 years & commuting for 10. I know they way I need to ride to be efficient, safe, & have an enjoyable experience. I don't need someone coming along & telling me what to do.

. . . I'll give you one guess.

Careful now... someone may want specific quotes and your definitions of things... in order to prove his point... in spite of what is really done out on the road...

:rolleyes:

There's one major flaw in your argument--pedestrians are generally banned from the road, cyclists shouldn't be. Generally, they only have the right to use narrow slivers here and there. We should oppose any laws that will lower cyclists to the level of pedestrians on the roads.

I don't want "special consideration"--that's what bike lanes are. I want equal consideration.

I guess it's back to the drawing board. We'll need to draw up separate lanes for bikes, scooters, motorcycles, compacts, sedans, pickups, cement trucks, and semis. Who knew it was so complicated?

http://www.compet.com/troll.gif

I can see you're completely uninterested in actually discussing the question at hand, what useful purpose is served by mandating bike lane use, so I leave you to your ass scratching. Later.

I agree with the door zone problem. I would get mega doored if I rode in the bike lanes in Boston.

Of course... not all bikes are narrow are they?

http://www.bikeforest.com/cb/cruisin..._couchbike.jpg

The key element is that pedestrians have the right-of-way at intersections, and this is simply highlighted by cross-walks. But in the absence of the striped crosswalk peds still have the right-of-way at intersections (of course I'm talking about unsignaled intersections; at signaled intersections signals specify the rights of way). Between intersections, vehicle drivers have the right-of-way on the roadway, while pedestrians have the right-of-way on the sidewalk. These well-defined rules specifying the interaction of vehicle drivers and pedestrians at and between intersections protect the rights-of-way of everyone. While most people cannot recite them explicitly, these simple and logical rules are understood at least implicitly by most.

The problem with bike lanes is there are no logical and well-defined rules governing the interaction of cyclists and motorists with respect to them. For example, at most 10% of the Californians that I ask know that right-turning motorists are legally required to merge into the bike lane on their approach, and they are allowed to do this up to 200 feet prior to the intersection. Judging by how cyclists ride, few understand that when they are not turning right, they should merge out of the bike lane. This is but one example of how the rules of interaction regarding bike lanes are so complicated that it is unreasonable for anyone to know them and use them properly. This is also the reason why there are so many bike lanes that appear to be poorly designed - because even the traffic engineers cannot design reasonably given the complexity.


First, I'm happy to learn you're thinking more about the bike lane issue, regardless of which way you're leaning.

As you think about it even more, I hope you would consider the following: "mandatory" bike lanes are not truly "mandatory" because of the exceptions that allow cyclists to leave the bike lane for many reasons, including (partial list):

• to avoid obstacles or any other unsafe conditions.
• to prepare for a left turn
• to pass another cyclist
• when traveling the same speed as traffic
• when approaching a driveway (an example of a place where a right turn is authorized)
• etc.

Now, you contend that a voluntary bicycle lane is absurd because then motorists don't know what to expect of how cyclists should use a BL.

But, given all the exceptions, what do motorists really know to expect of how cyclists should use the BL? How is the cyclist's use of the bike lane any different, in terms of what the motorist can expect, between a mandatory-with-exceptions BL and voluntary BL?

Note that I'm not contending there is no difference between how cyclists use them (for if there was no difference I would not care if they were mandatory or not). But just because there is a difference in how cyclists use them in general, does not mean there is a difference in what motorists can expect in how a given cyclist will use them. Why? Because no motorist can know how any given cyclist will use the bike lane. Whether the BL is mandatory-with-exceptions or voluntary, a motorist's knowledge of what a given cyclist may do in a given situation should be the same - whatever is reasonable for the situation.

Implied in your statement is the assumption that motorists should know what to expect about how cyclists will use a BL. In particular, I think you're saying that, at least in some situations where none of the exceptions apply, the motorist can expect that the cyclist be in the BL (if that's not what you meant, please let us know what it was). The problem with bike lanes (not just mandatory bike lanes), is that motorists do expect cyclists to stay in the bike lane, even if they are riding right next to the stripe (as cyclists often do to take advantage of the cleanest portion of the bike lane). This is why motorists often do not adjust their own lane position when passing cyclists in bike lanes, and end up passing them too closely (this can happen without a bike lane too, but for different reasons, and for which the cyclist has a remedy... see below).

So what happens when there is a pile of glass in the bike lane and the cyclist suddenly has to move a couple of feet to his left, right in front of a passing motorist who is expecting the cyclist to stay in the bike lane and so has not adjusted his lane position accordingly? "A tragic accident that was no one's fault", the officer at the scene will undoubtedly say. After all, the motorist was legally operating within his lane, and the cyclist swerved in front of him...

A motorist's expectation that a cyclist will stay in the bike lane is a problem in and of itself, and mandatory bike lanes exacerbate this problem by legally sanctioning this dangerous expectation. Bike lane stripes alleviate motorists from passing cyclists with safe margins.

Motorists should pass cyclists with a comfortable safety margin (the distance between the motor vehicle and the cyclist). The greater the speed differential, the greater should be the passing margin. For the most part, this happens naturally when there is no bike lane, and rarely happens when the cyclist is riding in a bike lane. The notable exception is when the lane is wide enough for the motorist to squeeze his vehicle into the lane beside the cyclist, who is riding so close to the right edge as to invite motorists to do exactly this; the remedy is for the cyclist to ride further to the left to make it clear that the motorist cannot safely pass within the lane. Once a motorist is resigned to the fact that he must move at least partially into the adjacent lane to pass, he will almost always do it with the appropriate passing margin for the given speed differentials, and usually will over compensate. That kind of safe and proper interaction between motorist and cyclist is inhibited by a bike lane stripe.

At least that's my experience.