Except that 12 cyclists (supposedly) said they "support laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes as long as they have reasonable exceptions".

Use the force billh... remember, Forester's data is old old old... come back billh, focus.

Now that one REALLY makes me laugh. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, that anyone can do, short of tearing up all roads, will EVER stop the "Right Hook". A cyclist could be pedaling along in all his/her VC glory, taking up a proper VC position in the right lane of a two lane road, and a car will INEVITABLY pull a right hook on him/her from the left lane. If it's a one lane road, they will find a way, even crossing the center line against heavy traffic, to do it. ( I have SUCH good faith in today's drivers, really I do!!! ;) ).

I never really have figured out this motorist psychology, but thank you for the reality check! Bike lane or not, there's always some guy or gal that thinks they should be able to beat you to that intersection instead of slowing down and waiting. No bicyling philosophy, practice or road design is ever going to change that.

Can you prevent it 100% of the time? No. But you can cut it back dramatically.

I think some it stems from the fact that a lot of motorists just don't realize how fast a cyclist is going. Many motorists haven't ridden a bike in years and when they did it was tooling about slowly kind of stuff. So they just assume they'll beat you to the turn, or that you'll have plenty of time to slow down.
I rarely feel like motorists don't see me, actually I feel like I stand out like a sore thumb with all my blinkies & bright clothes.

Then I am puzzled by this thread. I have not read every word in this particular thread, but I do sense a tone of arguement - so I assume that there are folks arguing that BLs be mandatory. I just don't get it - I look to words that people write and am not making any assumptions about others motivations based on their names or whatever. Its seems to me a clear & direct question, do you support mandatory use of BLs or not. If everyone says no, then why the argumentative tone?

Al

Your assumption that there are folks on this list (or any significant number of cyclists anywhere) arguing/advocating FOR BLs to made mandatory is the cause of your puzzlement.

The poll was a device to give the pollster more opportunities to educate the world AGAIN about his recent epiphany about the evils of bike lanes and the ignorance of those who don't share his views.

In this case, responses to the whimsical poll are re-interpreted to fit the needs of the pollster's straw man arguments about a phantom group of cyclist advcocates for mandatory restrictions. The pollster chooses to interpret any response that is not in alignment with his own zealous opposition to any restriction, as a vote FOR wanting to impose/create/enforce mandatory usage laws. Then it is open season for the pollster to take on (AGAIN) this chimeric enemy of cycling wisdom.

This poll has served the pollster well; it also has served as an insight to the nature of pollster's quest for cycling truth - the pollster determines what it is and corrects all responders who don't agree.

What this poll, and associated pollster responses/clarification does not indicate, is any reality beyond the EC™ indoctrinated world of Planet Serge.

Why do you think a poll about whether bike lanes should be mandatory might help the bike-lane-skeptics' position?

I am not making any assumption, like I said I have not read every word on this thread, but I did see some arguements for mandatory BL (for example from billh and others backing him up)
Look I am not looking for hidden agendas, or whatever, just good discourse on issues affecting cyclists. I know there are some folks that rub others the wrong way - mainly due to their abrasive communication style, but I over look that and look at the content and by doing this find compelling arguments on both sides (although I strongly support a certain position)

It seems like folks are arguing personalities instead of issues. This is too bad as it clutters the ability to openly share opinions and facts.

Al

I have never had a car pull a right hook on me. This is in >3500mi in the last year of suburban cycling and probably another 3000mi accumulted in the previous years.
Of course this does not mean that cars don't right hook or that it won't happen to me, but I think some of my cycling style helps avoid this.
It also depends on your definition of a right hook. If I have to very lightly touch the brakes or let up on pedaling if a car is right turning ahead of me i don't consider that a right hook. I often have to slow a bit when driving for cars turning in front of me, so I wouldn't expect different when cycling. Right hook to me is a situation where I need to brake hard to avoid a collision.
Al

. . . because it gives them a chance to discuss the issue . . . AGAIN. I'm trying to get down to the core philosophical differences. As near as I can tell, one of them is that anti-BL folk do not like government interference in their lives, mandatory BL just one instance of "government interference". That's fine. There are innumerable other issues on which people fall on one side or the other based on their view of the role of govt. Personally, I tend to like more government regulation because it keeps the bullies in check, ie. meatpacking industry, finance industry, big business in general. Without govt regulation, we would still have rat meat in our sausage and children working in factories. I'm in favor of MORE regulation of transportation in general. From memory, roughly 60K people die each year in the US alone in motor vehicle incidents. This is apalling. Al-Quaida doesn't kill that many people. Al-Quaida should invest in Detriot if they want to kill more people. "We need a bigger and better SUV".

Back to BL. I already hear Serge fuming and grunting that BL do not protect cyclists "right to the road" and its better do invest in WOL and education. Maybe. Maybe not. I'm really agnostic at this point regarding BL. However, I want to leave the door open for possible future good designs, rather than say it is IMPOSSIBLE to design a good bicycle lane. I'm very leery of the single-minded focus AGAINST something. I think Forrester could have done much better spending his time trying to come up with a good BL design rather than a crusade against them.

For example, local advocacy in St Louis has pretty much come to a halt over the controversy over BL vs education (VC-style) mainly due to the efforts of a few VC obstructionist fanatics. Without them, most, I'd say the vast majority of cyclists, would be very happy with a few more BL here and there.

I'll bite.

Please describe a "good" bike lane design, real or hypothetical, on any "normal" (not limited access where cyclists are otherwise banned) roadway.

Why is it so hard for so many people to look past the communication style of someone and focus on the content of what they are saying?

Vehicular cycling markedly reduces the incidence of having "some guy or gal that thinks they should be able to beat you to that intersection instead of slowing down and waiting".
In fact, I can't remember the last time that happened to me, but when I used to ride according the to the "keep out of the way of motorists" philosophy, it used to happen all too often.


Oh, I see (now, after writing the above), that you already made this point!

Bike lanes are more for walkers walking the wrong way. Homeless pushing there cart. Drivers using them to turn a half mile before they need to. This weekend i was down on the bikepath and more then once i came upon riders using both lanes and i had to go all the way to the right edge because they just had to ride next to each other. Cyclist do nothing but get screwed and now 7 bucks more a bike so the old ones can have something done to them or so bullsh$t thing like that. I say ride anywhere and everywhere,all non-riders do.

:eek:

Stanley! You're giving away all my secrets! Please stop!!!

:D

I'll bite... describe your method of educating each and every cyclist that now uses the road. Describe your method of using a WOL on a 65MPH road and sharing the lane. Describe how you merge into 45-50MPH traffic going up a hill at 12MPH or less (recalling that not all riders have your strength), in heavy traffic, while the left most lane of two lanes is stalled. Describe merging at 50MPH in heavy Houston traffic that races from stop light to stop light.

Now consider that making bike lane use non-mandatory and striping a larger part the lane along with arrows and signs could make them far easier to understand by motorists and new cyclists. Imagine adding sensors at the lanes to trip lights. These are just a few ideas... I am sure that other experienced riders that enjoy bike lanes may also contribute ideas.

Bike lanes designed by Government Agencies seem to be quite poor as in the MUTDC manual where the lanes are right up against parked cars. I know I can do better than that.

Interesting how you bring politics into this - kinda strange. I am probably on your position regarding regulation, etc. I am far from one of those anti-government, keep out of my life folks.

The reason I advocate for WOLs vs BLs is because of safety - thats it. (Actually I advocate for WOLs, more bike related signage, improved training for cyclists and motorists and better enforcement of current road laws)

Sure there may be some utopia with a bike infrastructure that works perfectly. I would not do anything to slow this ideal down and wouldn't care if my tax dollars went to it. I don't think the ideal is BL integrated into the current road infrastructure though. On the other hand I do think WOLs do leave the door open for some future ideas.

Again, as to 'happy with more BLs'. I can live with them, but they will make my daily commute MORE dangerous for me. As I have repeated over and over again I have more dangerous car and other cyclist interaction issues when BL are present than when only WOLs are. That is my experience. Not a study of course and only one data point. But because the hazards directly affect me deeply I think about it alot and is why I advocate for WOLs.

Al

Claiming you can do it hardly qualifies as biting.


Studying (not skimming) Effective Cycling; practicing the techniques described in the book, and learning them.
Take LAB's Road 1 and Road 2 courses.


Like KV Rd? Just ride... what do you mean?


I already did, and I can do it towing a 60 lbs trailer. It's called negotiating for the right of way, and simply involves learning that if you ask for it politely, someone will give it you.


I've never ridden in Houston.


What's to understand?


Yes, these are just a few ideas, none of which qualify as an example of good road design using bike lanes.

1. I do this. You don't take the lane when just riding along. You share the lane and cars pass you on your left while you are both in the same lane. When you approach an intersection you look behind you and understand where cars are. If light is red you may take lane. If green you decide if it is safer or not to take lane - for example if there are cars in same direction as you they provide the visual to prevent cars coming the other direction from left hooking you. You can prevent right hook by moving further from curb. OK, I'll admit its hard to describe since each and every instance is a decision, but it is a lot easier than it sounds.

2. You wait for a gap in traffic and go - I've done this at 12mph. Cars behind you slow down or sometime you need to go slower than 12 to get the right gap. This is a difficult manever, even if you can go as fast as traffic, even if you are a car it can be hard to merge across several lanes of dense traffic into a stopped one. BUT no bike lane is going to make a clear path across lanes of traffic without requireing merging. So I don't see this as a BL issue.

3. Same as above. Again not fun, but I do it daily - visitors from Texas have said that Phoenix reminds them of Houston in terms of traffic patterns (I also lived in H for several years). You signal and position yourself. The trick I learned
(actually from Serge before these BL/VC threads started) is to signal, merge into gap, and the key part is to travel on the left side of the lane (not the center) and then perpare for the next left merge. Again though I don't see how a BL can help with this as they don't cut diagonally across several lanes of traffic with barriers to make cars yield to you.

Al

Not a single reasonable answer. Especially with regard to "educating all current cyclists on the road." Guess bike lanes win hands down.

RE KV road and just ride... Take away the Bike Lanes... negotiate with the 65 MPH traffic and then talk to me.

RE your trailer... Guess that doesn't make you more visible does it? Ever do it at 4:30 in the afternoon near the Marine base? How about up Genesee near Clairemont Mesa Boulvard? What day and time of the day do you do this trailer riding? Anywhere during commute time?

RE Using EC in Houston... better try it before you claim it works everywhere. Forester, John Allen and Ken Kifer all mention the difficulty of merging with fast heavy traffic... something seems to work magically for you... Interesting world in which you live. The rest of us are pretty much just human.

Marked bike lanes on some roadways exist in my community as do multi-use lanes. There are also multi-use paths which are separated from the roadways. In some areas there is nothing suggested to be dinstinctly bicycle friendly. There are even some neighborhood roads marked "Bicycle Route" even though motor vehicles are dominant.

Whether I am cycling or driving, I do so defensively without any preset expectations about what others may do. Given the relative mass of different vehicles, I am definitely more defensive when cycling.

I am on and off of bike lanes, multi-use paths and traffic lanes as circumstances dictate. I do my best to make certain that others know my intentions and to behave corteously.

I am aprpeciative of government or civic efforts to call attention to and make accommodations for cyclists.

Generally, I'd prefer to see public works use a street sweeper on the shoulders of roads than a paint machine.

Let's say NO cyclists are educated. So what? How does this make bike lanes win?

And what's to negotiate for on KV Rd? You only have to negotiate to merge left. Oh, that one spot... what's the problem? Stick your arm out and take the leftmost lane that goes straight. And how do bike lanes help with this spot anyway?

What do bike lanes do for cyclists who are not educated in VC?

And still not even ONE example, not even a hypothetical one, of a "good" road design that incorporates bike lanes.

I don't have the answer for educating cyclists. I am against cyclist liscencing, which is an avenue for that. So you can only make education opportunities avaliable and hope the cyclists come. (In my opinion the current design of BLs preform some sort of implicit education to new cyclists who my the natures of BLs get poorly educated)

If you took away the BLs on KV road would you still have a WOL?

EC in Houston - What does merging with fast traffic have to do with BL vs. not. Maybe every intersection would have a bridge from the right hand BL over the lanes of traffic that puts one in the left turn lane? Personally I do not like merging across multilane high speed roads. On the ones I do daily I 'know' the traffic and can do it comfortably. When I am out on the weekend on a new road it can sometimes be more difficult. But again I don't see how even ideal BLs deal with this.

Al