genec

I wonder how long it would have worked. Slower is really an asset... but in this case all the traffic was slower... not just the push and pull experienced when motorists have to round an obstacle.

noisebeam

My bet was that in the long run there may have been more accidents, just a hunch. At night it was not pleasant because you couldn't see the curb well enough from the middle and center lanes to go straight.

I only brought up this example as it supported that no lane markers caused drivers to go slower, not that it was neccessaily safer.

The better for cycling had nothing to do with traffic speed (was at 45mph instead of usual 55mph), but because cars passed with more clearance like they would have with a WOL. When I ride this road now (only when I have to it is miserable to ride on) in the narrow outside lane, I get passed by stream of cars going 55mph.

Al

genec

"I only brought up this example as it supported that no lane markers caused drivers to go slower, not that it was neccessaily safer."

This too is my take on the lack of BL on higher speed roads... I just don't find that the push and pull and "negotiation" of motorists slowing down to figure out what a cyclist is doing/may do, is a safer situation.

They do drive slower... admittedly... or speed up to buzz you (GRIN). But I think that situation causes tension that can be reduced by putting in a BL.

noisebeam

Comparing a 7 lane road with no markers to a BL vs. no-BL is a stretch. The reason 7 lanes was less safe for driving was because in poor visibilty conditions (night) it was hard to tell what of three lines to take in a 36ft wide lane if one were trying to take either of the lanes closer to the center - but at night it was easy to zip along on outside lane as the curb was well illuminated by headlights. In fact all cars, bike present or not, drove further from the curb when the lane markers were not there (painted lanes are very narrow, there are many tire marks on curb and one's right tire is riding in the gutter typically on this road when painted, hence my dislike of it for cycling - I think it is one of those places where 3 lanes were squeezed into a road designed for two) It is very obvious how to drive in straight line if the lane is 15ft wide, and motorist tend to follow the painted line to their left when a lane is wider than they are.

Anyway, it is silly to compare this unpainted 7 lane road to anything, other that to note that the lack of lanes (or any paint on road, including stop lines, x-walks, etc.) caused people to drive slower.

Al

Helmet-Head

I don't think "tension" is the right word. A motorist having to share a lane with a cyclist does not cause tension, it cause attention, which is a good thing.

You're right... they do drive slower when they're passing a cyclist in a WOL (as opposed to a BL), and thus reduce the passing speed differential... another good thing.

Push and pull...
Negotiation...
Slowing down...
Attention...

It's all good...

Helmet-Head

You're right, it's simply not true. What's not true is that I tend to discount the feelings of others. What's also not true is that I "feel that since (I) have no increased tension, ALL interactions are like this. "

Now, like anything else, if you're not used to doing something, you might be a little uncomfortable doing it the first few times, and that's true with taking a lane or riding assertively in a WOL (as opposed to hugging the curb). But as cycling advocates, we should be encouraging cyclists to take the leap, not enabling separationist mentality and behavior by supporting bike lanes.


Now you're my shrink? What's up with the psychoanalysis, Gene? You're really reaching here...
I just don't believe in co-dependent enabling behavior, and that's what supporting and building bike lanes amounts to.


And these are related to the alleged "need" for bike lanes, how? Ironically, it's the "other cyclists" who hug the curbs and generally do not ride vehicularly that provide these reports. Coincidence? I think not.


Why are you saying this? Have I ever denied it? By the way, are you still beating your wife?


Lots of people enjoy cigarettes, cotton candy, bacon and heroin too... that doesn't mean we should encourage the "enjoyment" of these things...


But what you keep ignoring (are you going to do it again?) is the fact that in the WOL case, the cyclist has the right-of-way up ahead in the motorist's lane, while in the BL case, the cyclist does not have the right-of-way. So it's natural for the motorist to be more aware, concerned, etc of the cyclist up ahead in the WOL case than in the BL case.


Right, a motorist is less likely to be concerned about the cyclist in a BL. That's not good for the cyclist!

And the motorist assuming the cyclist is more predictable because of the stripe is precisely what makes the BL situation so dangerous! Of course, what does the painted stripe have to do with making the cyclist predictable? What's likely to make him swerve (a pot hole, a patch of glass, a big piece of debris, etc.) is no more or less likely to be there because of the stripe. In fact, the stripe makes the glass and debris more likely to be there. Yet people like you think the stripe has some kind of magic effect to cause this cyclist not to swerve should he encounter a pot hole? What on earth makes you think a cyclist in a BL is more predictable than a cyclist riding in the same position in a WOL?

genec

Recall this thread: https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/92483-you-vc-rider-have-you-taken-bike-i-ever-have-run-motorist.html


Cite the data that shows BL are more dangerous... or is it simply your assumption.

Helmet-Head

My assertion that the BL situation is dangerous is not based on data, nor is it an assumption.

It's a logical conclusion based on reason, and premises that you've already accepted:

1. Motorists (like you, apparently) assume that cyclists are more predictable because of a painted stripe.
2. Because motorists assume cyclists in bike lanes are more predictable because of the painted stripe, they are more likely to pass with a smaller safety margin (not slow down, not adjust their position to be further left) than they would if there was no stripe.
3. Because cyclists are just as likely to swerve to avoid an obstacle, and the presence of the obstacle is no less likely to be there because of the stripe (arguably more likely), regardless of the presence of the stripe, cyclists are actually no more predictable in bike lanes than when in the same position in a WOL.
4. Because motorists are likely to pass a cyclist in a BL with a smaller safety margin than a cyclist in a WOL, and because there is no basis to justify a smaller safety margin (it's just as dangerous), the BL situation is more dangerous than the WOL situation.

There you have it, a logical argument that concludes the BL situation is more dangerous based on premises you've already accepted, and reason.

genec

I question your logic based on other radical theories you have posted, such as your DCLLB or what ever it was.

I also question your logic based on your dichromatic views.

I further question your logic based on the fact that you have agreed that some BL have utility and yet you wish to elminate all BL past, present, and future, without knowing what the future can bring.

I question your logic based on the premises you present: point 1. Any vehicle, as demonstrated, by the lack of lane lines in the example presented by noisebeam, will track a more predictable track when lane lines are present. Point 3... cyclist will swerve whether in a BL or not.... swerving in a WOL can be just as dangerous as in a BL. And point 4, there is no safety margin in a WOL... none what so ever... it is up to the motorist to determine any safety margin, thus a safety margin can and will be highly variable as determined by the mood, conditions, and traffic that said motorist encounters.

noisebeam

That is the wrong conclusion from what I explained. In the example of a 7-lane road with no painted markers, the cars in the right most lane, tracked a fine straight line, actually further from the curb than with lines, when no lane makers were present. It was the cars in the middle lanes that had more difficulty trackinga straight line as the nearest point of reference was 24ft to their right.

Al

genec

So without the lines, the cars further from any reference did have a hard time tracking a straight line. And the wider a lane, the further you are from a reference...

Perhaps I have fallen into the thinking process of Serge's, where "any assumptions=valid conclusions... "

Sorry, if that is indeed the case, but I just don't buy his arguments based on his thinking process.

Thanks for setting me straight...

Helmet-Head

These are ad hominem attacks and non sequitor points that do not even address the argument I presented in #658. So, I'm ignoring them.


I do not dispute that in general lane lines help vehicle drivers track. My premise simply states that because of this, motorists (like you) assume that cyclists are more predictable because of a painted stripe.. You're not disputing this, are you?


I don't get your point. My Point 3 is that whether a cyclist swerves is independent of whether there is a BL stripe or not. Whether it's more or less dangerous is a separate part of the argument. The point here is swerving is just as likely whether in a BL or WOL (and, if anything, perhaps more likely in a BL because of the longer half-life of debris in BLs). You said nothing that indicates you disagree that a cyclist swerving is at least as likely when in a BL as in WOL.


By the same token, there is also "no safety margin with a BL... none whatsoever... it is up to the motorist to determine any safety margin, thus a safety margin can and will be highly variable as determined by the mood, conditions, and traffic that said motorist encounters".

So the issues comes down to the role of the stripe, or its absence, in the "conditions" that determine the variable safety margin.

In particular, does the stripe tend to cause the average passing safety margin, as measured by speed differential and passing distance, to increase or decrease?

It is logical to conclude that because motorists assume that cyclists are more predictable because of a painted stripe (a point you do not dispute), they are less concerned about the safety margin than when there is no stripe. Because they are less concerned about the safety margin when there is a stripe, they are less likely to adjust their driving (speed, lane position) to increase the safety margin. Therefore, the average passing safety margin (as measured by speed differential and passing distance) tends to be lower when a cyclist is riding in a bike lane then when riding in a WOL.

genec

As a cyclist, while in a bike lane, I find that I am more predictable by having a space, well defined, that I can comfortably use. When not in a BL, I find I sometimes have to negotiate with drivers... sometimes indicating to them to go around, or take the other lane, I find this tedious and somewhat nerve racking. I also find that many drivers tend to come up, slow down, hesitate and then move on, some in an agressive manner, as if to demonstrate how close and fast they can handle their vehicles.

As far as tracking, I tend to track very well thank you, and use both the curb and the line to help center me in the lane. I find that this "centering action" tends to provide plenty of safety margin. I also wisely chose to swerve to the outside when encountering obstacles, or I signal to leave the lane when sometimes necessary. This is easily done on my commuter bike with wide tires and a mirror. With my road bike I do not move about as much as I do not have a mirror... but then I also tend to avoid heavily trafficed areas while using that bike... thus I find I can hear approaching traffic more easily.

As a motorist, I notice that other drivers also center in defined lanes, this leaves plenty of room between any auto and any BL. I also notice that as other motorists encounter cyclists NOT in bike lanes, they tend to brake and hesitate. But then I do actually observe both the actions of other motorists and cyclists... especially as my wife very much enjoys driving, and I therefore get to ride in the passenger seat and watch the craziness that seems to go unnoticed by some.

BTW as far as responding to your questions... since you have failed to address the issue of BL having utility in some circumstances, I find it less than sincere of you to continue with your dismissal of all bike lanes past, present, and future.

Helmet-Head

Gene, tossing our opinions at each other does not get us anywhere.

We have established certain points on which I agree. I have taken those points, and presented a logical argument based on those premises. It concludes that in general, safety margins are greater when a cyclist is riding in a WOL than when he is riding in BL, and, therefore, riding in a WOL is safer than riding in a BL.

Your post #663 does not address this argument. Are you challenging any of the premises? No. Are you challenging the logic or reasoning that leads to the conclusion? No. So do you agree with me on the conclusion?


I don't understand the point of this with respect to the argument I presented in #658. Does it challenge any of the premises? No. Does it challenge the logic? No. What's the point?

noisebeam

As I said before it was a unique situation and one should not draw any conclusions other than what I observed:

1. When no lines are painted on a 7-lane road, vehicles tend to drive slower
2. When no line is painted to define a narrow outside lane, cars will drive further from the curb than they would otherwise do when 'confined' to a narrow outside lane.

Now on to a completely different example of a WOL on multilane roads where there are dashed lines painted to divide the lanes and a curb to define the right side of the outside lane, I find that cars almost always track to (use as a reference) the painted line on their left, not the curb on their right, so the end up being left biased in the wide outside lane.

Al

genec

I did challage your logic and you refuse to accept it... so we are in balance.

Serge your opinions have no more weight than mine...

You have no more data than I, and I do not trust your reasoning as the conclusions are pre-established.

Post 663 ended with the fact that while you do find utility in some bike lanes, you persist that they should not exist, thus countering yourself. Also you are trying to predict the future and say that nothing in the future should exist, in spite of possible unforseeable improvements in technology...

noisebeam

One thing I am pleased to see is that over time Serge has more often commented on the benefits of WOLs instead of framing the debate as BLs vs. nothing at all (i.e. a narrow lane)

Al

Helmet-Head

How can I accept something that does not exist?
You have not even addressed the logic presented in the post #658 argument, much less challenged it.

By the way, it's not my logic. It's either logic, or it isn't. If you think the argument is not logical, then please explain what is not logical about it.


Exactly. That's why I'm trying to focus on specific arguments based on premises that we both agree on, and conclusions that follow logically from those premises based on objective reason.


Either the conclusion logically follows from the premises, or it doesn't. If you don't think it does, then please explain why.

I'm not asking you to trust my reasoning, or my opinion, or anything else. I'm asking you to examine the reasoning I presented, and let me know if you see any any flaws in it (and, if you do, tell me what they are).


Yes, my simply stating that all bike lanes should not exist is just my opinion and has no more weight than yours. That's why I'm trying to focus on a logical argument (post #658) that concludes that WOLs are safer than BLs, based on premises both of us agree on.


I could present a totally separate argument on why this is not the case, but why should I since you'll probably just ignore that too. I promise if you stop ignoring the #658 argument, then I will address the new one you presented in #663.


Now you're presenting yet another argument. The scope of #658 argument is limited to a fairly specific situation, and to be considered with or without a standard (by today's technology/practice) BL stripe. Let's focus on one at a time, please.

Helmet-Head

I'm just lazy.

Presenting the argument that WOLs are more beneficial to cyclists than are BLs is easier than presenting the argument that a narrow lane is more beneficial to cyclists than a wide lane with a BL. Let's just say it's easier to establish the necessary and generally accepted premises for the WOL argument than for the narrow lane argument.

Maybe we'll get there...

genec

What's the point... sigh...

noisebeam

I totally agree that WOLs are more beneficial and preferred over wide lanes with a section marked as BLs.
But I don't and will never agree that narrow lanes are preferred over a wide lane with a marked BL.

So I don't think we (me and pro-narrow lane only folks) will ever get 'there' (but imagine it will be a fun and drawn out discussion )

Al

noisebeam

To eventually remove all motorized vehicles from city and suburban streets by slowing making BLs wider and wider until there is no car lane left!

Al

genec

Someone at lunch mentioned 2035 as the year the oil runs out... I'll be a crusty 78 year old then. I do remember the gas wars of the '70s and how much I hoped that one day a week would become "no drive" day.

Helmet-Head

This an update to the argument I originally presented in post #663.
It's fundamentally the same. I've just clarified some of the stuff, added a lot of detail, and broken it up into assumptions, premises, reasoning, and conclusion.

The only reasonable challenges to this argument are the same as for any logical argument: either dispute the assumptions or premises, or point out where the reasoning or logic is flawed. Otherwise, you must accept the conclusion.

If the conclusion follows logically from the premises, then it is a valid argument. But you only have to accept the conclusion if you also accept the assumptions and premises.

To challenge this argument, there is no need to address every point. If there are any assumptions or premises you find unacceptable, please point them out (and explain why). If you find the reasoning is flawed, or the conclusion does not follow logically, please explain how and why. If you do challenge the argument, please specify which part of it you are challenging.


ASSUMPTIONS

1. We are comparing the safety of cycling on a long, straight stretch of intersectionless high-speed/high-volume (say 50mph speed limit) multi-lane road with a wide outside lane (say 17 feet wide) with and without a bike lane.
2. In the BL scenario, the BL stripe is 6" wide, solid, and is painted 5.5 feet from the edge of the roadway. This leaves 11 feet of the 17' lane for the motorists.
3. Pavement conditions are not known and are assumed to be "typical". The road may or may not have pot holes, cracks, etc. It is assumed the existence of the stripe does not affect the pavement conditions.
4. Debris conditions are not known and are assumed to be "typical". It is assumed that the amount of debris that falls onto the roadway is not affected by the existence of the stripe.
5. The "passing safety margin" of a motorist passing a cyclist is determined by the speed differential and the distance between the motorist's vehicle and the cyclist. The less the speed differential and the greater the distance the wider the "passing safety margin".
6. How safe a giving passing situation is is based on the magnitude of the "passing safety margin". The wider the margin, the safer.

PREMISES

1. In a 17' WOL, a motorist in a typical 7' wide vehicle passing a cyclist will, after adjusting his position to the left and slowing down some (how much he adjusts is dependent on the position of the cyclist), typically drive about 0-3' to the right of the left edge of the lane, leaving 7-10' of space to his right for the cyclist.
2. In WOLs, cyclists typically ride 3 or more feet to the right of the passing stream of motorists. On high-speed roads, it is more like at least 4 or 5 feet to the right of motorists.
3. Motorists assume that cyclists riding in bike lanes are more predictable than are cyclists riding in WOLs because of the painted stripe.
4. Cyclists feel safer riding in bike lanes because they are confident motorists will not cross the BL stripe and hit them from behind.
5. The motion of a 50+ mph motor vehicle generally causes roadway debris to be blown in a direction away from the vehicle.
6. For the most part, motorists tend not to drive in bike lanes designated by a solid stripe (regardless of whether cyclists are present).
7. Motorists driving in wide outside lanes bias to the left, but the 5' of pavement near the edge of the WOL tends to get considerably more travel than does that same pavement when demarcated by a BL stripe.
8. Debris tends to accumulate at the edge of the road where there is essentially no motor traffic.
9. Cyclists tend to gravitate away from puncture and crash-causing debris covered pavement to cleaner pavement.
10. When riding in a WOL, the cyclist has the right-of-way in that lane, which the passing motorist must take care not to violate.
11. When riding in a BL, the cyclist does not have any right-of-way in the adjacent lane used by the motorist.

REASONING

1. Because motorists assume cyclists in bike lanes are more predictable because of the painted stripe, and because the cyclists have no right-of-way in the motorist's lane, they are likely to not slow down and not adjust their position to be further left as they pass a cyclist riding in an adjacent bike lane.
2. Because motorists assume cyclists riding along the edge of a WOL are less predictable, and because the WOL cyclist has the right-of-way, they are likely to slow and and adjust their position to be further left as they are passing a cyclist riding in the WOL.
3. In a 17' lane divided into a 11' main travel lane and a 6' BL, motorists in typical 7' wide vehicles typically drive within inches of the BL stripe, regardless of the presence of cyclists in the BL.
4. Because of the lack of sweeping effect by motor traffic in the BL, BLs tend to accumulate much of the debris that falls onto the roadway and is swept to the side by passing motorists. This, along with the sense of confidence cyclists often feel riding in bike lanes, causes cyclists to tend to ride near or on the BL stripe, or about 5-6' to the left of the right edge of the roadway.
5. In a 17' WOL, with the right edge of passing 7' wide motorist traffic at about 8' from the left edge, cyclists tend to ride 4 or more feet to the right of that, or 2-5' to the left of the right edge of the roadway.
6. Because cyclists are just as likely to swerve to avoid an obstacle regardless of the presence of the stripe, cyclists are actually no more predictable in bike lanes than when they are riding in the same position in a WOL.

CONCLUSION
Because motorists are likely to pass a cyclist in a BL with a smaller safety margin than a cyclist in a WOL, and because there is no basis to justify a smaller safety margin (cyclists are just as likely to swerve), the BL situation is more dangerous than the WOL situation.

Helmet-Head

To provide an objective means by which to determine whether a given opinion is just that, an opinion, or whether it is supported by logic and reason based on reasonable premises.

I'm willing to put my opinion, at least the one that holds that WOL cycling is safer than BL cycling, even on long/straight intersectionless sections, up to such scrutiny (and have).