I still want to know what he or I have written that gave you the impression that our positions implied that cars and bikes are "equivalent".


You know, all people are different, but that doesn't necessarily justify support for special-use facilities. When it comes to vehicles, we have to look at operating characteristics. We also have to look at the disbenefits of providing such special facilities. I don't just mean monetary costs. By treating some vehicle operators differently, there is an inherent disbenefit: exceptions add complexity to systems, reduce predictability, etc. These considerations need to be weighed in the decisions.


True, enough, but then neither can drivers of motor vehicles always negotiate traffic, in all conditions on all roads. However, in high speed/high volume traffic, I will concede that generally it is often more difficult to negotiate traffic for a cyclist than for a car driver. But I must add that bike lanes never help in these situations, and often make matters worse, especially for those cyclists who are not trained to know when to ignore them.


Assuming the road is in good condition, and it's not a limited access roadway where cyclists are prevented, then I will say that all roads are appropriate for use by all skilled cyclists. And for those roads which are not appropriate for some cyclists, bike lanes do not make them appropriate.


I recognize the net value of some bike facilities in some situations. Bike lanes, however, or another story. I will say that, excepted on limited access roads where cycling is otherwise prohibited, bike lanes are not needed at any time by anyone.


That's true, I think. I can't think of a situation where bikes would need special consideration in road designs (again, assuming the roads are not limited access).


Pathways - sure. Like where kids can safely learn and ride.
Bike lanes... no way. I contend that the separation created by bike lanes (assuming roads that are not limited access) is NEVER needed by any cyclists, not at any time.


Sure, but bikes and cyclists need special consideration only when the roads are limited access and cyclists are not allowed on them.


No, with respect to roads with unlimited access (cyclists are allowed), I do not agree that bike lanes can ever meet the needs of any cyclist. Depending on the cyclist's needs, either they are not met on that road (with or without the BL), or the cyclist's needs are met just as well (if not better) without the BL.


When conditions are such that limited access (a ban on bikes) is warranted - like a freeway, or a bridge or tunnel - then special accomodation, including bike lanes, is appropriate.

You arrogant SOB! You want to attribute my way of riding and thinking to your influence? I have ridden in this "VC" manner for decades. What I disagree with is the anti-bike lane BS. Bike lanes are not diametrically opposed to being a vehicle on the streets. Bike ARE vehicles on the streets whether they are using a bike lane or not.

I read that they are trying to add 7 bucks to each new bike price for disposal. Now i'm hearing they want to add 12 bucks to the price of new bikes for upkeep of bike lanes. We all know that money will NEVER see a bike lane. Somebody is smart enough to see a new way of getting money from a big source.

Read your own posting history. I don't see it as a productive use of my time to comment further.


And your definition of "skilled cyclists" applies to everyone, of course!


That makes me seriously wonder if you have any urban cycling experience at all.


Your lack of experience outside your neck of the woods shows. In Ottawa, and in other cities, pathways exist that are "cycling freeways" allowing commuters to quickly travel from one section of the city to another. In summer at peek hours its wheel-to-wheel high speed bike traffic on our pathways, and they are very much NOT appropriate for kids and those learning to ride. In some cases the pathways have been split or widened to accommodate the high volumes of users.


You're wrong. No, I won't debate that with you, defend it, or discuss it further.

You said needed. Pathways can provide shortcuts, and I use them myself in my neck of the woods, thank you very much. But it's mostly only because of access limited by, well, limited access roadways (freeways), and I've already noted those as an exception. But, in general, if a road goes from A to B on which cyclists are allowed, then there is no need for a pathway. In general, for any given A and B in an urban setting, there is a reasonable roadway route upon which cyclists are allowed, so no pathways are "needed", except for by children and those learning to cycle. That's what I meant.

Serge, why is it that you can use jargon like 'lateral positioning', but when someone say's "take the lane" you have to redefine it for the rest of us. I think we all know what "take the lane" means. Further you've said in the past that now line could define all of the possible lateral positions for a cyclist, but then how can you argue that there is never any reason to be left of center?

I think it is because this is a flaw in your VC bike lane assumptions, that with a WOL passing clearances are increased. This is not my experience at all. In a narrow lane if one does not ride a bit left of center motorists most definitely squeeze by with the most minimal of clearances.

You set up your arguments with a set of initial conditions that only exist with a certain set of BL's or roadways, so for BL's that don't meet your initial conditions/ assumptions your arguments from logic and reason don't always follow. For example, the Venice BL stripe that I use on my commute is easily more than 7 feet from the first road stripe, and I would argue it is closer to 12-15 feet. (I haven't lain myself across the road yet to measure.) But even if it is only 11 feet and the vehicles stay centered and I am centered in the BL, this gives me between 4-5 feet of clearance from passing vehicles. Which is much more comfortable than the 1-2 feet I get when I don't 'take the lane' and motorists try to squeeze past me.

As an aside I thought it was in incredibly poor taste to take credit for Gene and Dianes advocation of their riding techniques that they acquired through years of experience and not some hokey class. The result may be the same, but just because you have a jargon to describe your opinions this doesn't give you a monopoly on urban cycling knowledge.

Treespeed, buddy, give me a break, please!


I defined "taking the lane" only after spang621 implicitly asked for a confirmation/clarification of his understanding what it means. Specifically, I was responding to this statement: "riding in the center (when i say slightly left of center i mean 6-12 inches left of exact center) is my understanding of what 'taking a lane' and VC is." While that is an example of "taking the lane", it's not what it is, not it's definition. I felt it might be helpful to clarify that.


I can't, of course, and didn't. You're taking the discussion out of context. In this case he had someone behind him and no particular reason to be left of center. Why not facilitate the motorist's passing by moving right?


It seems to me that if a car can squeeze into the left half of the lane, then that lane is wide enough to safely share, and is thus not a narrow lane. But, I guess if it's a 14' lane in a door zone, and you're riding say just outside the door zone, (at 5' from the right edge), then motorists in small cars might still try to squeeze into the remaining 7ish feet, and, in that case, you might have to ride left of center to prevent it. But that's a pretty wide "narrow" lane. I don't find myself in that situation very often, but maybe it's more common in your area.


I worked this out in detail in the Mandatory Bike Lanes thread. Check it out.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=674


Yes, it's fair to say that my argument about WOL cycling being safer than BL cycling does not apply to roadways with 22-25 WOLs with 12-15 demarcated as a BL.


Yes, I've taken some flack for allegedly doing that. I guess I can understand how others might think I was taking credit for it, but that's certainly not what I was doing. I said it in the context of what I got out of participating in these forums, and used Gene and Diane as examples of others who seemed to get similar benefits (and the evidence of that was in changes about how they wrote about VC here). Here's how I originally worded it:


I did not mean to attribute Gene's or Diane's way of riding or talking about it to me! I did not even refer to how they rode (I know nothing about that). I only referred to how they were "preaching the virtues of VC", and how that has seemed to evolve (just like my own thinking has evolved). And I attributed all of that, for all of us, to participating in this forum. The only person who deserves any credit for any change like this is the person going through the change.

I am not going though a change. And I am not preaching the virtues of VC. I ride like you are supposed to, as is described in the CA Drivers Handbook, and I use and LIKE and would ADVOCATE for MORE bike lanes.

- - Yes that would be in my perfect world too.
But I would miss cycling past auto traffic that's backed up in its own congestion.

.

Diane, one specific change is the way you have started using references to the CA Driver's Handbook (which is great, by the way!)

Can you find even one post of yours that's more than a week or two old, much less more than a few months old, where you refer to it?

The handbook, by the way, is quite consistent with principle of VC. And, so, referring to the Handbook is preaching the virtues of VC (like I originally said, whether you realize it or not).

And, again, I'm not trying to take any credit for any of this. I say it's the forum, and the process. Thinking is good... Writing your thoughts is good... Having your written thoughts read, considered and responded to is good... It's all good, and it brings about change. Evolving thought...

I started quoting the drivers handbook because you guys keep quoting the law as proof that bike lanes segregate cyclists from traffic or otherwise prevent you from riding your bikes vehicularly. Well, quote all you want, but the drivers handbook seems to me to indicate that the state of California doesn't segregate cyclists from traffic and doesn't prevent you from riding your bikes vehicularly. The opposite seems to be true. You are expected to ride vehicularly.

I picked up the handbook just the other day because I needed to go to the DMV for something. Figured somebody around here needs to post some facts and not just a bunch of mental pretzel twists, so I picked it up, along with the motorcycle handbook.

I want to ride my bike on the road just as I do my car. Paint all the bike lanes you want. Build all the "bike-rollerblader-dogwalker-jogger-walker-partyhardydude" paths you want. I'll ride there if I want (since you "built it for me,") but don't think for a minute I'll give up my place on the street, you'll draw back a nub.

Good for you.



(Well, you can't help but respect it...)

For some of us, the bike lanes ARE part of the road, just like any other lane special use or otherwise. (And for me in Ontario they are legally part of the roadway as well, just like any other lane). I see them is complementary to the road system, not in any way asking me to "give up my place" on the road.

I am a big fan of bike paths-so long as they are manicured or paved. I do not mind bike lanes as long as they are on the far right side of the road---The problems i've encountered is where the city builds a bike lane between a center lane and a right bus lane--its presents problems for motorists right as well as cyclists entering and leaving traffic. Even as a somewhat avid cyclist, there is nothing I can't stand more while driving than a cyclist in the middle of a traffic lane in a heavily trafficed area who is impeding traffic and doesn't signal. This is very dangerous, as the college students around here dart in and out of traffic.

Diane, FYI - the handbook is online at dmv.ca.gov/pubs/pubs.htm
I prefer to refer directly to the CA vehicle code, which is also online there, which the handbook is based on, and which is the actual law.

By the way, you can thank vehicular cyclists like John Forester and JF Scott for being involved with the writing of the relevant laws (in particular sections 21202 and 21208) for retaining as much support for VC as we have in the law. Otherwise, we'd have much more Draconian (keep out of the way of cars, period) laws in CA. They had to work hard to get those extremely important exceptions in there.

i for one am still evolving in my riding. today i tried to ride to the right of the lane. didn't like it at all. just had a lot more cars whizzing by to close for me. by the way, how much room are cars supposed to give you when passing? they are going 50+ and i am not. 18 inches and less and i get very scared and mad. 3000 lbs x 50 mph = me dead. i don't you can expect to ride 18-24 inches from 50mph traffic for decades with out anyone screwing up once. this is why i rode in the center, to keep them from trying to squeeze by. i am confused, but will continue to ride in the center of these lanes until i can get this better figured out, because to me, on these roads, it is safer to do so. traffic is light and there are 2-3 lanes in each direction so i don't see how i am much of an impediment. serge i guess i will just have to act like an alpha dog, though from the center of the lane it will be harder to pee on the fire hydrants.

basically if i am to ride as far to the right as i have to keep cars from trying to squeeze by, that is the center of the lane.

What do you mean, yikes? Not having to worry about some blowhard cager while riding on a quieter path can be a wonderful experience--and it doesn't make me feel like a second class citizen in the least.

I have cycled all over Europe and there are many outstanding bike paths. Here in the US, there are some great long distance separate trails. I don't hesitate to ride on the road, but given the choice, I'll take the less car-travelled path.

Having ridden the heavily trafficked highways around Washington DC, one of my peak bicycle experiences was a car-free 184-mile spin down the quiet, peaceful, beautiful, safe and historic C&O canal towpath. I rode back to my home in via the beautiful mountain roads of West Virginia. I'm glad to have the option. I'm glad it's not either/or.

You don't seem to get it.
Bike paths are fine - as long as you're free to choose whether to use them or use the road. Here, the law says we HAVE TO use them when provided, so that's why I don't like them. Is that so hard to understand?

would probably be more open to people like you and Serge if I didn't feel like you were such know-it-alls who simply can't imagine that another point of view is reasonable and valid.

Must be a difference between the states and other countrys.

Oh, I can certainly see why people would want to use bike paths instead of roads, and they're welcome to do so, in my opinion. It's a free CHOICE I'm asking for, not one thing or the other, with nothing in between...

One problem with bikepaths here in SoCal is everybody else is on them and get bent when a cyclist is on them. I have highschool track teams running across both lanes and they dont move for nobody. Strollers,rollerblades,skaters,walkers,you name it,they use the BIKEPATH. We cyclist even get in the way on our bikepaths. We really dont havbe anywhere to go.

Taking the lane to me could mean a wide range of positions within the lane. Inches of left/right position can make a big difference.

I know some have experiences with not getting good passing clearance in WOLs. I do not discount it, but it puzzles me a bit honestly.

That is because it is the opposite of my experience on many different high speed (up to 55mph) multilane roads with 15ft WOLs. I get fanstastic passing clearance - in fact much better than the passing distance I get when riding toward the left side of a BL (which one must often do for a variety of reasons)

The very reason I am so in favor of WOL over BLs is that my experience with them has been so much more pleasant, not just the passing clearances, but the total and complete flexibility it gives me without any question to myself or any driver as to where I should or should not be within that WOL. Sure in a legal sense one is flexible with a BL present, but there is a total lack of driver education on this and I know based on converstations/observations I have with non-cyclists who don't even know I cycle that they get very upset with cyclist who move to the left of a BL. (example - 'some cyclist was almost out of his lane and I gave him a scare to wake him back up' or from someone who knows I cycle 'why do you guys always ride on the bike lane line - first you want a special lane, you get it and don't even use it right)

Al

Indeed, that was the point in my "careful what you ask for" remark. When the underlying basis for bikeways is that they are needed or necessary in order to facilitate cycling, because the existing roadways are not safe, not appropriate or not good (bad) for some reason, then it follows logically that once the bikeways are available, that cyclists should be banned from the unsafe/inappropriate-for-cycling/"bad" roadways. In fact, that was the way things were headed in the 1970s with the big bike lane boom in CA. The essence of the law prohibiting cyclists from riding outside of the bike lane is still there, but luckily some alert vehicular cyclists were around to get some critical exceptions added to the original Draconian version.


I, for one, certainly can imagine points of view in defense of bike lanes and paths that are reasonable and valid. I've even seen them expressed here from time to time, but, they are very rare.

Here are some examples of "reasonable and valid" points of view in defense of bikeways (some more reasonable and valid than others) that I do imagine:

• Bike lanes are needed to provide access to cyclists on limited access roadways (like freeways) where access to cyclists would otherwise not be available (see what I mean by "reasonable and valid"?).
• Because wide outside lanes are often not accepted as legitimate cycling facilities (or as facilities to facilitate the passing of slower cyclists by faster motorists), bike lanes are sometimes politically necessary in order to justify spending funds on road widening in order to facilitate the passing of slower cyclists by faster motorists, which also helps make riding on such a roadway less stressful for many cyclists.
• Onstreet parking often can be hazardous to cyclists (despite laws that require passengers to check behind before opening their door, they often don't). Thus, getting rid of onstreet parking is often good for cyclists. Sometimes bike lanes are helpful to eliminate onstreet parking - without the bike lanes it is often more difficult to politically defend such elimination.
• Bike lanes and paths are needed because there are a lot of good people whose livelihoods and families depend on the pork funding that is allocated to the planning, design, construction and maintenance of bikeways.
• Making cycling more popular is good. Many cyclists feel safer riding on bikeways, and would not be cyclists without access to bikeways. Thus, bikeways are needed to make cycling more popular.

Those examples are off the top of my head. Do you need me to provide more?

These are all reasonable and valid viewpoints, but are not necessarily mine. Therefore, I reject your contention that I, for one, cannot imagine that another point of view could be reasonable or valid. In fact, if I believed what you contend, I wouldn't bother participating in these forums the way that I do. It is precisely because I value alternative viewpoints that I'm here!