Interestingly enough, the MUTCD also has some of the worst designs for bike lanes I have seen.

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment...chmentid=24479

Their design shows they don't have a clue, as they put bike lanes right up against parked cars, hence into the door zone.

This gets right to the heart of the matter... bike lanes designed by automotive traffic engineers that do not respect nor understand bicycles.

That sounds like a good law to me. I think a reasonable person might view your style of riding as somewhat unique, in that most people do not stray left at every intersection. I understand your reasoning, ie. better visibility, but personally I think you over-emphasize the danger. This was never taught in the Road I I took. Rather, in the case of no BL, ride far enough into the lane to be seen, but keep a straight line, even through intersections. Is your style advocated by Forrester or anyone else? I'd be curious to see it. Otherwise, if that is your main objection to BL design, then it seems a logical correction to the design would be to place BL further from the right curb. Correct? This might not be possible on all roads, but then BL are not probably appropriate everywhere. Yet my main point is they may be appropriate in some cases.

Wow, could have fooled me. I think he should preface all his anti BL rants with that opinion. It would help. See above, where he rants about "BLIMINATION".

My understanding is that mandatory BL laws cover BL in general and are not unique to the specific installation; therefore, a discussion of BL in the abstract seems appropriate to a thread on whether they should be mandatory. Discussion of mandatory BL begs the question that we have a definition of a BL in place, as some sort of striped on street facility for cyclists. The general thrust of the anti-BL (and by extension anti mandatory BL) is that BL are a bad idea in the first place, therefore, we should not regulate their use. That's why I thought this whole thread was just a ruse to bash BL anyway.

Alright, let's assume the BL has the best possible design, implementation, and upkeep, ie. it answers all the objections of Serge (if that were possible!) Then of course there should be a law mandating its use! It's like having a double yellow stripe and no law dinging motorists for going over the double yellow. The purpose of the law would be to standardize the interaction of motorists and cyclists on streets with this facility.

The thing that confuses me about this topic, now that I think about it, is if someone holds that BL are wrong in the first place, then won't they logically be against mandatory BL laws? Is there any among you anti-BL folk who think BL should be mandated? On the other hand, I guess there is room for "pro-BL" to be in favor of the facility and still against a law (eg. Nick Burns). To me, if the designers think a given road warrants a BL, then there should be a law enforcing its use; otherwise, don't install one. Same argument for stop signs, double yellow lines, etc. Maybe Nick can clarify his viewpoint, other than to say he is against anything that would hinder his "freedom".

Why ***anything*** mandatory? Do you believe cyclists should follow the Vehicle Code of the state in which you live? Plenty of laws governing cyclists that "restrict" your freedom. Like it or not, you live in a society with others who want to get from their own point A to B. IF . . . and that is a big IF . . . IF a bike lane is installed, I assume there is a reason for its installation, ie. to standardize the interaction of motorists and cyclists on that particular road. You stated you thought there were some situations that warranted BL, so imagine such a street. Imagine a law proposes you use that BL if it exists with reasonable exceptions for leaving the lane, see CA law Serge quotes above. Now why do you think you should leave the lane? You know better than the traffic engineers? You just don't like authority? You know, if I'm driving my car, I might enjoy weaving in and out of traffic at high speeds. However, I realize I'm not the only one on the road. I must obey the laws in order to get along with others. It seems the same argument applies to mandatory BL.

Very good question. Given the perfect bike lane, much like a perfect limited access freeway, then a law similar to the double yellow line on a freeway does make sense. Of course it is a two edged sword... that law should also penalize motorists from entering the bike lane.

In fact, the issue of lines just gave me a thought... what about a BL that is solid on the motorists' side and dashed on the cyclists' side... restricting the motorist yet permitting the cyclists to move freely about on the entire roadway.

This of course is based on my view that the BL does not restrict the cyclist, but the motorist.

The reason I am against mandatory or mandatory with exception is because if I do leave the lane for whatever good reason I have (and it will be for a good reason and with due caution, i.e. not a sudden swerve in front of a car) and it leads to an incident then the burden off proof is on me after the fact to explain why I left the lane and what exception did it fall under. And then this leads to all kinds of trouble, like why did I leave lane 100yrds before intersection to turn left instead of 50ft. BLs where they exist must remain 100% optional to allow me the cyclist to make the safest decision possible in its use and not be constrained by intracies of the law. It is not about free to do what I want, but free to do what is safest for me at any given time.
Al

No, no it's not. There is a point in any argument where a person needs to stop speaking in analogies and address the issue head-on. How is crossing the double yellow line different than crossing the dashed yellow different than crossing the solid white different than crossing the dashed white different from leaving a bike lane? See there are all sorts of paint that can be put on the road surface. You can't just pick the most restrictive marking (double yellow) and compare it to bike lane markings to try to prove your point.

It's time to talk about the merits of mandatory bike lane laws. How does leaving the bike lane not compare with a motorist who feels the need to change to any of the other same-direction lanes? Do rampant bands of anti-bike lane hooligans present such a threat to public order and our transportation system that we must mandate bike lane use? When it's been a few days since the street sweeper came through and sand and gravel have begun to accumulate in the bike lane who makes the decisions about what an appropriate speed is for this cyclist, at what speed I can traverse that debris, at one point I get to leave the bike lane? Motorists have different levels of comfort and ability. While one may be quite comfortable driving in-lane over a short patch of ice or oil, another might change lanes to avoid it. Why are cyclists expected to be uniform in their abilities and inclinations? If there is a crack in the bike lane pavement ahead, why is it someone else's privilege to decide if I should be comfortable or have the ability to traverse that crack or need to go around it?

The standard rules of the road continue to apply. The cyclist must respect the operator who has the right of way. Where's the problem?

If one holds that bike lanes are wrong in the first place, yes one is necessarily against mandatory use laws. The opposite is not necessarily true.

Some roads warrant HOV lanes. Some roads warrant bus lanes. Some roads warrant right turn cut-offs. In none of these cases are their use mandatory.

Do you believe there exists a good BL design or the possibility for a good design, however defined?

What do you think of this AZ law:

28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties
A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.
B. If a person violates this section and the violation results in a collision causing:
1. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.
2. Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.
C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable.

While it is not saying BL use is mandatory it is saying (perhaps indirectly) that a motorist has less responsiblity of hitting a cyclist if they have left a 'passable' BL.

Al

Can they be fined more than $1000 or better--imprisoned--if they cause death because they voilated the law with intent to cause harm?

I stated no such thing.

I ride by the current laws in my state which work quite well for me & I see absolutely no reason to modify them & force me to change the way I ride.

And yes, I do believe I know more than many traffic engineers when it comes to cycling. I work in government doing GIS and interact quite frequently with traffic planners & engineers. None of them are cyclists. They design & implement roadways for the benefit of automobiles, not cyclists. One example is the amount of effort it takes to convince them that certain drainage grates are dangerous to cyclists. They simply don't consider it.
I happen to know that many of the bike lanes being installed are a direct result of state grant money being given to counties & municipalities to create bicycle facilities. The counties & municipalities receive the grant money, create bike lanes which are simply just painted lines and a few signs, and use the remainder of the received monies to cover other expenses that have nothing to do with bicycle facilities. Rarely is potential grant money ever turned down. It's a fact.

You aren't going to make many friends in the cycling community if you start telling them how & where they're allowed to ride their bicycles.

Well, let's talk about a very very close analogy, say a solid white line for motor vehicles in same direction of travel. I'm not an expert. Is there a law governing use in most states? I honestly don't know. Say there is. What is the danger in crossing a solid white line as a motorist? Well, not as dangerous as crossing a double yellow, agree. However, there is an increase in risk. A motorist must have a very good reason for doing so. I'm willing to bet there are very few situations the line should be crossed. I think the same holds for a solid striped bike lane, although as genec pointed out, who says a bike lane should be striped solid? Then we are back to the definition of a BL. You see, the two questions are so intricately related, I'm wondering if we can really separate the two? However, in the case of a solid striped BL, I assume the engineers have thought through why they striped it solid, and that means they think the usual line of travel should be within the lane and there is increased risk for both cyclists and motorists from the cyclist moving out of the lane. If you disagree in their assessment of risk, that is an issue of design, not an issue for mandatory BL laws. If you agree in their assessment of risk, then the use of the BL should be mandated for the safety all users. I think you are saying there is not enough increased risk for straying outside a BL. How to answer the questions without data? The data I know says there is a 3-fold increase in cyclist fatality compared to motorists, calculated on a per-trip basis, this without regard to type of facility (BL, WOL, etc). So we really don't know if type of facility contributes to the increased relative risk. So, let's do a properly designed study and answer the question. Otherwise, we are just expressing opinions, which I guess, is the purpose of a message board (woo hoo!!!) In my opinion, there is an increase in risk of veering out of the BL, unnecessarily, especially when motorists expect me to ride in it.

You said earlier that you typically use a BL if present, and have no problems with using it. I assumed that meant you thought the BL installation was appropriate. My mistake. So what you are saying is the BL installation is irrelevant? You would rather there be no bike lanes? What is your view of BL in the absract. The answer is important in discussing mandatory BL.

I would love to believe there is, but simply have never seen an idea that works perfectly or better than WOLs. I remain open, but I also wonder if the nature of mixing high speed and low speed traffic and all the associated interactions (intersections, passing, etc.) mean that it is simply not possible to have a separate bike lane. What I mean by that last sentence is if you break down the problem into a mathematical or logical one of physically routing different types of vehicles, is it even possible to have on road bike facilities?

Al

Then the issue of mandatory BL for you is moot. You are against BL in principle; therefore, end of discussion. Go to the other thread. Really, this is a thread for those who believe it's possible to install a "good" BL.

That would come out of the accident investigation. But the way the law is written in my opinion it already gives some wiggle room for the motorist - automatically by law they are not subject to the $500/$1000 fine if they hit a cyclist out of a BL which I can see be extended into a legal position that they are not liable at all. But I have not investigated this any further to see how this has played out in real instances.
But it does bother me that if I am making a left turn and leave the BL and a motorist negligently hits me that they automatically by law have $500 (hopefully not $1000) less fines to deal with.
Al

Sigh. Fine.

Man, I feel like I've said this about a bazillion times. I don't care either way if there's a bike lane or not. It does not affect my ride in the least.
Here's my experience with them, which is limited to the ones in my area. Where there's a designated bike lane, it was at one time just a road shoulder. If traffic is heavy, I'll use the shoulder most of the time. If traffic isn't heavy, I'll use the right side of the regular lane mostly & shoulder it if needed. There's just less crap in the regular road lane & less chance of me hosing a $50 tire. That is the way I ride now and it is perfectly legal and functional. No reason to change it.
Whether there's a sign stating the shoulder is a bike lane or not means nothing to me. Yes, it is irrelevent.
Now if suddenly it's mandatory for me to ride in that converted shoulder 100% of the time, I'm not going to be happy. If there's little or no traffic, there's absolutely no reason why I should not be able to benefit from using the regular road lane & avoid the crap on the shoulder/bike lane. If other cyclists want to use the bike lane exclusively, jolly good for them. I'm not going to impose my ideals on them. Conversely I would expect them to show me the same respect.

No, that is exactly what the other thread is about. Read this thread title. Slowly, if it helps. This is about forcing cyclists to ride in designated areas.

Look I don't want to fall into the trap of personal insults, but what you have stated here is unreasonable. I am practical and realize that for probably at least my lifetime BLs will exist in this world and many if not most of them will not be 'good' and I accept that and will still use them when safe. But I do not want it to be mandatory. I do want the legal option to do what is safest for me at any given moment and never have to justify my chosen exception after the fact to those that were not dealing with the situation at that exact moment in time as seen from my eyes.

And where did you gather from what I wrote I am against BL in principle? I even said I was open to the idea of a good BL, but it is beyond my imagination to know what that is?
Al

Any thread is about presenting information and arguments relevant to the thread topic. The poster's personal position on the issue should not be relevant, only the relevance of the words to the issue should matter.

Just because I'm against BLs in principle does not mean I can't provide information and arguments relevant to the issue of whether BLs use should be mandatory.

Basing an argument against mandatory usage on the premise that BLs cause much more harm than good for cyclists in the first place is one way to do that.

Another is to ask , as several have now, given that they are good for cyclists in some cases, but not in all cases in all situations, why mandate their use?

What benefit do cyclists receive from being legally required to be in the bike lane whenever various exceptions do not apply?

Wow, billh has managed to make a bunch of people who normally don't agree with one another to join together. Maybe he has some sort of alterial motive... ;)

And say monkeys fly out of my butt. So what? But really we get to the issue here:

You seem to start from the position that bike lanes are painted solid therefore we should craft laws that treat them as inviolable lanes. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as a backwards way to design them. I would think that one would consider the specific conditions in which they are set, declare their use as appropriate to those conditions, and stripe them appropriately. That's how highway engineers treat other lanes. The paint crew doesn't come through, spray at their whim, and have the highway department say, "Aha! Dashed lines, I guess this is now a passing zone."

Take the case of the city across the river from me. Up until a few years ago all their bike lanes were striped solid through intersections. That being so, it was still the wrong and gave incorrect information to both cyclists and motorists. They have since dashed them and/or discontinued them through intersections.

Now we get to it. No, I'm saying there's no evidence of any kind that supports a restriction on my usual right to the public way. I refuse to countenance that restriction simply on the basis of someone's administrative say-so.

I go on to further suggest that even if it were the case that bike lanes represented an increase in safety, big whoop, cycling isn't that dangerous to begin with. Surface streets are safer than interstates for motorists. Walking is safer than driving. Living is the leading cause of death.

Care to cite your source? Failure Analysis Associates (now Exponent) 1993 study, "Comparative Risk of Different Activities", says cycling is about half as dangerous per unit time as driving. If the average bike trip were 1/6th the length of the average drive I suppose they square. I maintain that exposure hours is a more useful number, particularly in the realm of commuting and general transportation. It's generally accepted that people measure their commute in terms of time and I would suggest that could be extended to transportation in general. That's why the car and highways have allowed suburbanization, any given fixed time now encompases more distance in the absence of congestion.

In any event, motorcycling is known to be more dangerous than driving. Should we say no more motorcycling as a result? What about general aviation licenses, swimming, smoking, sun tanning, jogging, alcohol consumption, power tools...should I go on?

I'd bet if any random group of folks on this thread were to cycle together on these streets in question and chat about different situations we would quickly come to see each others ways and share experience and everyone would learn something and come away a better cyclist.

I think if I made a statements like this everyone would agree:
Neither cycling nor motorized driving facilitilties are perfect designs and neither are all cyclists nor all motorized drivers are sufficiently trained and properly follow all laws resulting in cycling and motorized vehicle driving to be inherently risky activities.

Cyclists and driver can learn behaviors (i.e. defensive driving) to reduce (but not eliminate) these risks.

Road designs could be improved to make both cycling and motorized vehicle driving safer.

Training for cyclists and drivers could be increased to make cycling and driving safer.

Enforcement of road laws could be increased to make cycling and driving safer.

Al