|
Originally Posted by noisebeam
If you took away the BLs on KV road would you still have a WOL?
|
Originally Posted by Serge *******
Of course. This is true on any road with a BL, unless restriping beyond the removal of the BL stripe is done.
Al |
I wasn't going to post anymore in this thread but I guess I got sucked back in. It's embarassing how many people are willing to engage billh on his terms. He brings the discussion back around to "are bike lanes good or bad" and people take up that topic just like that.
Jeez. Come on, gang, stay focused. Bill, to say that it's people who are for gov't intervention vs. those who are against is absolutely ridiculous. People are fat and lazy, should we mandate exercise? Skin cancer kills more people than cycling accidents, should we mandate maximum sun exposure? There are trade-offs. The question around any regulatory measure is what is that of benefit versus damage. It's very clear that regulating food quality may negetively impact the profit margins of food wholesalers but if effective will be a boon for public health. Seems pretty cut and dried except for those who take the position that government intervention is always inappropriate and market forces should decide everything. "If people want clean meat and pure milk the market will determine which meat packers and dairy producers put out quality products." Nobody here has taken such a position. So what's the benefit here? From a public health perspective what would we gain from mandating bike lane use? Are you contending that bike lanes are safer than the street? That's far from established. In fact there's just not much data that even suggests it. It seems pretty silly to establish public policy on the basis of safety when said improvements in safety haven't actually been observed, wouldn't you think? "Textile and clothing manufacturers shall not use the color green as green dye is carcinogenic." Just saying it doesn't make it so. Further, even if it were to be so established, what's the actual improvement in safety? Is it enough to warrant restricting a cyclist's right to the rest of the road? The injury rate per million miles is pretty damn low for regular cyclists. I'm willing to say that it's low enough that I'll let it go. If bike lanes could be shown to improve safety I'd be all about them, bring it on. I still wouldn't argue in favor of restricting rights to the rest of the road. There are too many unforseen circumstances for it to be worth it. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Serge *******
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. Try negotiating with drivers on that road at the 45-65MPH speeds... during commuting hours... especially the ones merging on and off the freeway... where a cyclist was killed a couple years ago. I stopped in a car a week ago and had a hard time simply merging back into traffic with a turn signal... Now imagine riding along the WOL on a foggy morning... See the attached map. "What do bike lanes do for cyclists who are not educated in VC" And how do you propose to educate all the existing cyclists now in VC? Design a bike lane correctly and the lane will tell both the motorists and cyclists where to be on the road. "And still not even ONE example, not even a hypothetical one, of a "good" road design that incorporates bike lanes." Still haven't been to Santa Barbarbra yet, eh? |
Originally Posted by genec
Design a bike lane correctly and the lane will tell both the motorists and cyclists where to be on the road.
Al |
Originally Posted by noisebeam
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant it as a request for clarification from Gene: What this an imaginary scenario where the BL is physically removed or a situation where just the painted line was removed and a WOL obviously remains. If the later than it would be safer in my opinion and experience. If the former than I would not like riding on this narrow road where I am forced to take the lane for long stretches of time in fast moving traffic.
Al This is not a limited access road, there are several crossing streets, and one that receives especially heavy traffic as a gate to a Marine base. The speed is now 65MPH on a long portion of this road. A good cyclist can easily maintain 20+MPH on this somewhat flat road... so the motorists are still passing at 45MPH typically. This is also a windy area, and a cyclist could easily be gusted on to the vehicle lanes. The ideal solution would be to move the traffic lanes closer to the fixed center divider and the bike lanes further to the right with buffer stripes. There is no reason, given the width of the road, for motorists and cyclists to ride that close to each other, at those speeds... period. During the non-commute hours the road is hardly used, and quite pleasurable to ride... but at commute times, as the road parallels a heavily used freeway, it becomes a relief road to the freeway... with folks driving on it as if it still was the freeway. The motorists don't look for bikes (being in "freeway mode") and the traffic comes up quick... There is also a shooting range nearby... so not a place where one would want to tempt road rage. ;) |
Originally Posted by noisebeam
I merge across 3 lanes of dense fast traffic every day and every day I merge using a different patch of pavement depending on traffic flow - somtimes this patch varies by as much as 100yrds. How does a properly designed BL tell cyclists where to be on the road?
Al The I (not a traffic engineer) might consider a series of signs and arrows indicating that cyclist making left turns merge here... or something to that effect... and signs indicating that cyclists are sharing the road. Now before you go off and tell me that you don't need those... ask yourself how many other cyclists use that road and do what you do. Serge makes a lot of claims about his commute... but hardly takes into account what other cyclists might have to do on their commutes in other areas of town... Some EC/VC advocates here tend to think that all cyclists have the same abilities... but even Forester, John Allen and Ken Kifer acknowledge that heavy fast traffic can be difficult to deal with, and not everyone's cup of tea. |
Originally Posted by Serge *******
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?
Asking 20 questions in an alleged quest for knowledge; and then 20 more when the responses are not consistent with a predetermined "correct" answer is not content. Nor is it informative. WAGS and unique (very unique) observations as well as associated generalizations, oversimplifications and extrapolations may be interesting to read, ONCE, but the content level of such chatter does not rise with repetition. |
Originally Posted by genec
but even Forester, John Allen and Ken Kifer acknowledge that heavy fast traffic can be difficult to deal with, and not everyone's cup of tea.
The I (not a traffic engineer) might consider a series of signs and arrows indicating that cyclist making left turns merge here... or something to that effect... and signs indicating that cyclists are sharing the road. |
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
In this case it is not the style that is the issue; it is the lack of substance to the content.
Asking 20 questions in an alleged quest for knowledge; and then 20 more when the responses are not consistent with a predetermined "correct" answer is not content. Nor is it informative. WAGS and unique (very unique) observations as well as associated generalizations, oversimplifications and extrapolations may be interesting to read, ONCE, but the content level of such chatter does not rise with repetition. Thatta boy, Stanley! Thanks for your valuable contributions to the discourse! :beer: |
Originally Posted by Serge *******
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. Alternatively, we could switch the burden of proof, say the default status is a BL, a "well-designed one", whatever that may mean. Then the VC folks have to argue why they should be able to ride outside the BL. I'd like to hear comment on this. I can only think of a couple exceptions to riding in a BL, 1) left turn and 2) obstructions in the BL. Aren't the rest just gripes about a specific design, eg. too close to parked cars, too narrow, does not allow cyclist to ride in "vision cone" of cars entering the roadway? The 2 exceptions to riding in a BL, perhaps there are more, are also ones inherent in motor vehicles lanes in that motor vehicles need to move out of their lane to make a left turn (in the case of a 4-lane street, say), and have to avoid obstruction, eg. pile of bricks dumped in the lane. I'm trying to distinguish between problems inherent in any bike lane vs problems in a particular design/ implementation. |
Originally Posted by bostontrevor
I wasn't going to post anymore in this thread but I guess I got sucked back in. It's embarassing how many people are willing to engage billh on his terms. He brings the discussion back around to "are bike lanes good or bad" and people take up that topic just like that.
Jeez. Come on, gang, stay focused. Bill, to say that it's people who are for gov't intervention vs. those who are against is absolutely ridiculous. People are fat and lazy, should we mandate exercise? Skin cancer kills more people than cycling accidents, should we mandate maximum sun exposure? There are trade-offs. The question around any regulatory measure is what is that of benefit versus damage. It's very clear that regulating food quality may negetively impact the profit margins of food wholesalers but if effective will be a boon for public health. Seems pretty cut and dried except for those who take the position that government intervention is always inappropriate and market forces should decide everything. "If people want clean meat and pure milk the market will determine which meat packers and dairy producers put out quality products." Nobody here has taken such a position. So what's the benefit here? From a public health perspective what would we gain from mandating bike lane use? Are you contending that bike lanes are safer than the street? That's far from established. In fact there's just not much data that even suggests it. It seems pretty silly to establish public policy on the basis of safety when said improvements in safety haven't actually been observed, wouldn't you think? "Textile and clothing manufacturers shall not use the color green as green dye is carcinogenic." Just saying it doesn't make it so. Further, even if it were to be so established, what's the actual improvement in safety? Is it enough to warrant restricting a cyclist's right to the rest of the road? The injury rate per million miles is pretty damn low for regular cyclists. I'm willing to say that it's low enough that I'll let it go. If bike lanes could be shown to improve safety I'd be all about them, bring it on. I still wouldn't argue in favor of restricting rights to the rest of the road. There are too many unforseen circumstances for it to be worth it. The one study I remember reading, I believe sponsored by the NHTSA found that streets with BL had fewer mid-block conflicts between cyclists and motorists while streets with WOL-only had fewer incidents at intersections but more sidewalk riding. I believe the study design was vigorously attacked by Forrester and his followers. Instead of accepting the results as a possibility, again Heir Forrester attacked with "shock-n-awe" fury anything not in agreement with his a priori beliefs. I'll have to dig up that study for your comment. Perhaps you already know the one I'm talking about. |
Originally Posted by billh
I can only think of a couple exceptions to riding in a BL,
While the CA law is brilliant for recognizing this, too bad so few cyclists are aware of its significance. The 20-25 feet of changing the solid stripe to dashed prior to major intersections is a pathetic attempt at remedying this particular problem with BLs. It's pathetic because it's done only at major intersections (not any place where a right turn is authorized), it's done way too late, and the dashing does not keep cyclists and motorists from thinking that cyclists still belong in the BL. The only practical solution (given the education does not work) is BLIMINATION (Bike Lane eLIMINATION) for at least 200 feet prior to every "place where a right turn is authorized". But if you did that, then you would set up an unreasonable number of points where cyclists are required to merge in and out of traffic. So the only real solution is total BLIMINATION. At least that way the cyclist has an established right-of-way in the outside lane and the onus is on the passing motorist to respect that. |
Originally Posted by Serge *******
But how do bike lanes help these people deal with that heavy fast traffic? That's the elephant in the room you keep ignoring.
Fine. Put those signs signs and arrows up at every intersection approach on every 35+ mph road. Do you really think that's going to make any difference? :rolleyes: BTW the 35+ comment... I have only advocated bike lanes on 45MPH roads... so that is YOUR interpretation. And I DO NOT advocate BL on residential or other roads at 25MPH, ever. Road improvements will make far more of a difference to the users of the road then VC/EC advocates who cannot even come close to training all cyclists... you still have not offered a plan for training all cyclists out there now. (speaking of elephants) Bike lanes (as you claim) impact any new cyclist using that BL... therefore make the BL better and you have a more positive impact to a user that might not otherwise be reached. Oddly it is only the most experienced cyclists that come close to researching EC techniques... after nearly learning the techniques on their own... Guide early cyclists with signs, arrows, and better bike lanes and perhaps you can teach the cyclists VC techniques along the way. Offer guidance to new cyclists as to when and where to move and it will become habitual. These same markings and signs can also aid motorists. But all this takes a bit of creativity and an open mind as to what CAN be done. Simply stating that all cyclists should "just learn EC" and erasing all lines and throwing the newbies "straight into the deep end" will do little to promote cycling and nothing to educate motorists. |
billh, I think you think we are more extreme than we are. Even Serge has agreed that bike lanes can be useful on at least some 45+ mph roads with few intersections (and virtually all pro-bike-lane people agree that bike lanes are of limited or no use on <25mph roads with lots of intersection).
For a more useful discussion, go over to the general bike lane thread. They have started to discuss specific lanes on specific streets. That makes it harder for each side to argue under different factual assumptions. This thread is supposed to be about mandatory use laws. The other thread is for more general topics. |
One thing I still can't figure out billh, is why you want anything to be mandatory for cyclists. You still haven't explained that one.
I mean, sheesh, I think helmets are great & I'd never be caught riding without one, but I respect the rights of those who choose not to wear one. I'm starting to think you might not even really be a cyclist. |
Originally Posted by genec
Bike Lanes give riders a place to ride... unimpeded by autos, especially in heavy fast traffic.
Got anything else? rather then having to negotiate on and off with drivers at high speeds. markings on the road and sensors in the bike lane or buttons could change lights to allow cyclist an opportunity to cross and show where to cross Why not make the vehicular sensors works for cyclists, as many do already? We have the technology. How will traffic engineers know where to put the crossing markings given that the appropriate crossing location varies depending traffic volume and speed and other factors and conditions. you still have not offered a plan for training all cyclists out there now. (speaking of elephants) Guide early cyclists with signs, arrows, and better bike lanes and perhaps you can teach the cyclists VC techniques along the way. Simply stating that all cyclists should "just learn EC" and erasing all lines and throwing the newbies "straight into the deep end" will do little to promote cycling and nothing to educate motorists. |
Originally Posted by genec
How fast is the traffic and and is it uphill? Those are the first questions a traffic engineer designing a bike lane should probably ask.
The I (not a traffic engineer) might consider a series of signs and arrows indicating that cyclist making left turns merge here... or something to that effect... and signs indicating that cyclists are sharing the road. Now before you go off and tell me that you don't need those... ask yourself how many other cyclists use that road and do what you do. Serge makes a lot of claims about his commute... but hardly takes into account what other cyclists might have to do on their commutes in other areas of town... Some EC/VC advocates here tend to think that all cyclists have the same abilities... but even Forester, John Allen and Ken Kifer acknowledge that heavy fast traffic can be difficult to deal with, and not everyone's cup of tea. Who else rides on these type of roads here and merge like this? Mostly guys decked out in racing garb(who knows if they are in shape or not ;) ) and some commuters (some of whom I am quite a bit faster than.) The vast majority (>90%) of everone else rides on the sidewalk, even when BLs are present and use x-walks to cross even when there are 'go straight' bike lanes to left of right turn lanes. Residental streets are a different matter with many more kids, families and 'cruising the neighborhood riders'. Al Al |
Originally Posted by billh
Well, if the safety of bike lanes IN THE STREET is not established, . . . BTW, this bothers me. Quit saying that BL are not in the street. They are ON THE STREET. Please acknowledge this.
I goofed in my nomenclature. I'm sure if I dug back I could find an arbitrarily large number of posts where I correctly referred to them as on street facilities. My bad, it changes nothing. (Interesting aside though, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices actually differentiates bike lanes from "traveled way" which is defined as the part of the street on which vehicles may move. So by implication bike lanes are actually not for movement...) Anyway, if the safety of BL is not established, perhaps they ARE safer, if not in all applications, maybe in some. Why not just say that we don't have the data? Again, where is the burden of proof? Bill, understand this, I will not engage with you on the subject of whether bike lanes are good or not, whether vehicular cycling is better or not, that's just not what this thread is about and you're not going to bait me into discussing it. This is about whether or not mandatory bike lane use is a good idea or not. Since you've never answered the question, let me pose it again for you: do you support mandatory bike lane laws and if so on what basis? |
I will ride in a BL when present and there is no compelling reasons not to (i.e. door zone, debris, destination positioning, etc.)
I tend to ride in the center to center left of the BL when I do. The right side just has too much debris and is too far out of the view of traffic, not to mention puts me about a foot from the curb. Cars pass me like I am not there, sometimes coming much closer than 3ft. While this is technically illegal, many vehicles do it when I am in the BL. When I ride in a WOL I tend to ride where the white line that would mark a BL would be if one were there. I find that a far greater numer of vehicles will give me far more passing clearance compared to when I am in a BL. This experience is on the exact same 50mph road (45mph posted) at the same times of day, 3mi of which has a BL, 3mi of which has a WOL. I don't know how this BL could be re-designed to prevent this other than making it perhaps a 6ft BL or a 3ft BL with a 3ft buffer zone. Perhaps some BL folks will jump on this buffer zone idea. Of course driver education would help - that is education that one must still move a tiny bit to the left when passing a cyclist even if there is a BL - But this education is counter intuitive to what every driver learns on multi lane roads - which is you don't swerve when passing other vehicles when they are in a separate marked lane. Al |
Originally Posted by Daily Commute
For a more useful discussion, go over to the general bike lane thread. They have started to discuss specific lanes on specific streets. That makes it harder for each side to argue under different factual assumptions. This thread is supposed to be about mandatory use laws. The other thread is for more general topics.
I've posted the question: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...46012#poststop Others have restated the question But I have still seen no response as to why BL use should be mandatory - instead only disgressions about poeoples intentions and politics. Al |
I've thought about the buffer zone idea too. Instead of 6 inch wide solid white separating the BL from the VL (vehicular lane), paint a 2-3 foot wide "island". Of course, that would eliminate whatever debris-free portion of the BL there might current be along the left edge. And, it would complicate merges, not to mention limiting even further the roads with sufficient physical space for BLs.
But I did think of an improvement for BLs: instead of using ordinary pavement, the surface of BLs should be air hockey table material, coupled with sensors and vaccums and computer controlled. As you ride down the bike lane, the sensors would detect your presence and start up the air jets and vaccums up ahead to clean the bike lane for you. :) |
Mea culpa. I too have strayed. Okay THIS THREAD should only be about the question of whether bike lane use should ever be mandatory.
I can only understand the reasoning for it on limited access roads like freeways, tunnels and bridges where there are no intersections and cyclists would be otherwise prohibited. The only argument posted in support of laws requiring cyclist to ride in BLs was I think by billh, he argued that motorists need to "know" that cyclists will stay in the bike lane. I pointed out the dangers of that, and that's where it ended, as far as I can recall. |
Originally Posted by Serge *******
But I did think of an improvement for BLs: instead of using ordinary pavement, the surface of BLs should be air hockey table material, coupled with sensors and vaccums and computer controlled. As you ride down the bike lane, the sensors would detect your presence and start up the air jets and vaccums up ahead to clean the bike lane for you. :)
In fact they could propell you to motorized traffic speed so the BL could be eliminated. Al |
Originally Posted by Serge *******
No, just because you and most cyclists feel "bike lanes give riders a place to ride unimpeded by autos", does not make it so. First of all, the place is there regardless of the existence of the BL stripe. More importantly, how are you impeded by autos behind you? You're not. What you might be impeded by, and statistics show this is much more likely (and the presence of cell phones only makes this more true) to be from cross traffic, for which bike lanes don't help at all, and arguably make it more likely for the cyclist to be impeded by cross-traffic.
Got anything else? How do BLs keep you from having to negotiate to merge left, since that merging requires the cyclist to leave the BL? That's a very bizarre pro-BL claim. How will the sensors in the BL know the destination of the cyclist? Why not make the vehicular sensors works for cyclists, as many do already? We have the technology. How will traffic engineers know where to put the crossing markings given that the appropriate crossing location varies depending traffic volume and speed and other factors and conditions. Why is that an elephant in a discussion about bike lanes? You say that as if BLs are a reasonable alternative to training, which you have not even come close to establishing. Until you do, there is no onus on me to offer such a plan. Only someone who doesn't understand VC could suggest something so absurd. The whole point of VC is learning how to use your own lane positioning and body language to communicate visibility and intent to motorists - signs, arrows and "better bike lanes" (whatever that is) would not teach a cyclist how to do that, but quite the opposite - teach him to rely on other means to communicate with the motorists. As an example, look at your own learned reliance and misinterpretation of the meaning of "bike route" signs in SD. Just because the traffic dept. got in the habit of posting "bike route" signs in many places where bike lanes ended, you inferred (incorrectly) from that that the purpose of the signs is to inform everyone that cyclists are merging out of the BL into vehicular lane. This worked backwards in terms of teaching you how to ride vehicularly and rely on yourself to communicate directly with motorists. Doing little in the right direction is a hell of a lot better than what BLs do: nothing in the right direction and doing a lot in the wrong direction. So much for the open mind. "Why is that an elephant in a discussion about bike lanes? You say that as if BLs are a reasonable alternative to training, which you have not even come close to establishing. Until you do, there is no onus on me to offer such a plan." Not an alternative, but passively teaching. Of course your plan is nothing. You have offered nothing and want to take something away... giving even less. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:35 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.