there is a big difference here Serge- the end effect of separating cars from the rest of the world is not the same as separating cyclists from the rest of the world- the rest of the world is made up of more than just cyclists

but, in any case this thread is about more than just end effects. We are discussing what should happen and why. As long as we just focus on cyclists and our requirements we will inevitably be considering a minority of the population and will be missing the point. I believe that the problem goes a lot deeper than just cyclists (important though we are). We are not the problem the cars ARE. We need to look at the root causes of our problems and not just the symptoms

What does "separating cars from the rest of the world" mean?

I'm talking about traffic separation. In traffic, should cyclists and motorists be integrated or separated, and to what extent?


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the problem" here, but I have a hunch it's out of scope for a bike commuting forum to address.

The cars are what problem? You mean polluting, inefficient use of natural resources, and all that stuff? Well, fine, but I don't see that getting solved in the near future, and certainly not in this forum. I think it only make sense to assume here that cars are pretty much here to stay for the forseeable future, at least with respect to what we have to realistically consider in terms of cycle commuting issues.

So, given that cars are here to stay, at least for now, to what extent should cyclists and motorists be separated in traffic, and why? That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

Serge if even we can´t agree what the problem is then it is no wonder that we are no nearer to finding any real solutions

to use an analogy there are two basic ways to treat food poisoning- one way is to treat the symptoms when and where they occur- give antibiotics etc. The other way is to address the underlying cause of food poisoning and eradicate food hygiene problems.

Well we can go on discussing different antibiotic regimens and shaking our heads over the insurmountable problems of food hygiene and blaming bad chefs but this will NEVER solve the problem of food poisoning.

But maybe you dont really want to solve the basic problems (whatever they may be). Maybe they are indeed insoluble and we should not even stop to think about them. Maybe its more fun to be VC-man .

So to restrict our consideration to cycles and cars and the status quo: yes, of course it would be safer if cycles and cars could be separated. The problem with present bike lanes is that the cycles and cars are not really properly separated.

Maybe it is not possible to achieve the necessary separation. It is hard to see though why anyone would prefer to cycle on a fast road with high speed drivers (many of whom are drunk/drugged/stupid/mentally ill/shortsighted/tired/talking on a cell phone or just preoccupied with their own problems) when there is a good bike path (with no intersections) as an alternative.

I accept that present bike path provision usually falls short of the ideal but your objections to all bike paths under all circumstances appears to me rather dogmatic and extreme.

I do actually work a job, besides posting on bikeforums!

Indeed. It would help if you stated what you thought the problem was, and then I could tell you if I agree or not...


Yes? Of course? Do you mean 100% separated? If so, then, yes, I agree that if cycles and cars could somehow be 100% separated, that would be safer for cyclists. Whether they would be better off than they are now depends on the separated facility, for determining "better off" is not only a matter of safety.

Now, if you mean anything lese than 100% separate, then it's not clear to me at all that cyclists would definitely be safer than the current situation. And that, my friend, is the problem with realistic solutions: they are not going to be perfect. And because these solutions are not going to be perfect, they could very well end up less safe than the "problem" that are supposed to be solving. And, that, in fact, is what often happens, I believe.


By definition, if the cycles and cars were separated by anything other than a painted stripe, then the facility would not be a bike lane. So, if just a stripe constitutes "not really properly separated", and to the extent that is really a problem, then it's not just a problem with "present bike lanes", but an inherent conceptual problem with ALL bike lanes: past, present and future.


Again, if the "necessary situation" is 100% separation, then, yes, I believe it is not practically achievable.


You just went from bike lanes and safety to bike paths and preferences, an interesting and worthy topic, but considerably different.


Gee, "objections to all bike paths under all circumstances" appears "rather dogmatic and extreme" to me too! For the record, the only bike paths I really oppose are side paths (bike paths adjacent to roadways, but physically separated). These are the most dangerous cycling facilities known, and that's why I oppose them. I oppose bike lanes on all roadways except for limited access highways for different reasons, and recognize that they are not nearly as dangerous as side paths. As for bike paths that are not side paths, I actually like many of them, particularly the ones that create short cuts for cyclists, or go through pleasant park settings, etc. Not that they don't have their problems too... in particular where they connect and intersect with roadways, and in how they tend to get used by joggers, skaters, pedestrians, stroller pushers, crack pushers, etc. and all without any real rules of operation.

The biggest problem of all when considering the idea of separated facilities for bicycles is...

TOO MUCH EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE!!!

That's right... too much existing infrastructure!

In other words, we can't even consider this as a option because there is NO room to establish such a two-facility regime (motor vehicle 'carriageways' and bike 'paths') AND expect that BOTH facilities will allow the respective users to "go anywhere" in particular. Too many existing facilities to route both types of "roads" to any useful, everyday, goal...unless your goal is strictly, let's say, a "ride around the Reservoir", for example!!

The ONLY way we'd be able to do this...and have it have any chance of working effectively... would be to, literally , FLATTEN all existing buildings, structures, roads, etc, and START OVER from GROUND ZERO!! And, that's NOT GONNA' HAPPEN , folks!!!

Even a much more "limited" form...let's say, parallel roads for bicycles alongside the Interstate Highways (which are normally off-limits to bikes..they are here in CT), it is highly unlikely (like...no way!!!) that the "powers that be" would want to pursue the amount of eminent domain/easements required to get the land to do such a project, much less the costs to build and maintain such roads to highway standards...the ONLY way these "bike interstate highways" would be really useful at all to the everyday "utilitarian" rider. A direct route would be very useful, indeed, but...

Rather than address my arguments why not address your own assumptions and discomforts. Why should motorists slow for you? Why do you prefer they change lanes to pass you? Why do you prefer a nebulous shared space of indeterminate width to the relative predictability of motorist position when there's a clear indication of their boundaries marked by a white stripe? Why does fast/close passing with a bike lane bother you but fast/close passing without a bike lanes does not?

I have no problem with people who enjoy bike lanes.

I do have a problem with bike lanes that, after they are added to part of my route, become filled with crap that makes them unusable, and therefore make the usable part of the road narrower than it ever was before the stripe. I also have a problem with motorists who think I am required to use the bike lane. As a matter of fact, I also have a problem with lawmakers who think so.

Go ahead and paint a line, as long as my right to ignore it is respected.

Good questions.

Motorists should slow for me because:

1. I was there first.
2. I'm vulnerable.
3. I'm on two wheels and may need to make a sudden adjustment in lateral position to avoid a hazard.
4. Lowering the speed differential between the passer and the passee lowers the risk.

While I prefer they change lanes to pass me (the further, the better), that's not the issue here. I want them to SLOW DOWN and MOVE LEFT... that does not necessarily mean change lanes.

If the bike lane stripe is not there, then it is one big wide lane, and the cyclist, being the first one there, and being ahead, has the right-of-way in that lane. Anyone coming from behind must respect that. If there is room, and the cyclist chooses to keep to the right far enough to yield the right-of-way in the area to his left in that lane, that's fine. The motorist can pass, with care (by SLOWING DOWN and MOVING LEFT).

Now, if the bike lane stripe IS there, the cyclist has no right-of-way in the adjacent lane where the motorist is driving. The motorist has no responsibility to pass with care. I don't see how that's good for the cyclist.

Fast/close passing bothers me regardless of the presence of the stripe. I believe the stripe encourages motorists to not slow down and not move left, and, thus, end up with fast/close passing. When the cyclist is not in a bike lane, then the motorist is encouraged to slow down and move left, and does, and, thus typically passes slower/further than in the bike lane case. That's certainly my experience.

Serge

From Jack Taylor's website, Probicycle.com (I hope he won't shoot me for cutting and pasting this crap, but it's too funny; besides, he borrowed something from me, once: )

ATLANTA, GA— A tragic accident has resulted in swift action by a concerned Atlanta City Council. Last month, while driving east on Interstate 285 on the city's north side, 43 year old Wanda Oliver was distracted when her cell phone became entangled with her earring. During the struggle, Oliver lost control of her 2004 Road Rage Edition as she neared the Long Island Drive overpass. The 11,300 pound Suburban-RRE plummeted 20 feet onto Long Island Drive and Shanika Jackson, a 28 year old (114 pounds) northbound cyclist, invalidating the Suburban's onboard entertainment center warranty and killing the cyclist instantly. Oliver, who was treated at the scene for a bruised ear lobe, was not charged. Investigators cited the fact that it was unclear that cyclist Jackson had been riding as far right as possible. (Lawyers for the distraught Oliver also say that according to Oliver it appeared that at the last moment the bicycle rider had swerved into the path of the oncoming Suburban.) The Atlanta City Council reacted swiftly to what it termed "Just one more clear example of the dangers of mixing bicycles and vehicles, and it is the motorist who is forced to live with the consequences," with a unanimous vote to ban bicycles on all roads passing under limited access highways.
RELATED NOTE: Puzzled bicycle safety experts at Bicycle Safety Professionals of America say Jackson's helmet must not have been adjusted properly.

Please be VERY careful when applying what you consider a standard rule outside your familiar surroundings. More than once I have been surprised to find out in these Forums that a road practice I (and other road users around where I live) take for granted will not work somewhere else. Some of these differences can be fatal, especially for a cyclist.

--J

[edit] for clarity [/edit]

BWWAAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAH!!!!

When I drive in the slow lane I have no right-of-way to cars passing me at a 20-30mph speed differential in the adjacent lane either.

Yes, but:

1. Automobile drivers typically drive their cars in the center of their lanes, leaving the space between their car and the stripe to separate themselves from the car in the adjacent lane, plus whatever space they are leaving in their lane.
2. Cyclists typically ride on the left edge of the bike lane (due to debris in the rest of the bike lane, to leave "escape space" to the right, and to be more visible), often with their handlebars and bodies hanging over the stripe into the adjacent lane. Thus, the only space between the cyclist and the passing car is the space the driver in the adjacent lane chooses to leave between his car and the right edge of his lane, if any.
3. The speed differential between two cars in adjacent lanes is rarely 30+ mph. Consider driving 70 mph on the freeway and being passed by someone going 100. Does that seem safe to you? Don't you want that person to slow down and/or move left as they pass you? And that's a 30 mph differential, yet with a relatively small relative differential speed (the slow driver is moving 70% of the passing driver's speed). In the case of a motorist going 50 passing a cyclist going 20, the cyclist is traveling only 40% of the passing vehicle's speed.
4. Cyclists (and motorcyclists), who may need to suddenly swerve to avoid a hazard, need more maneuver room on their sides than do drivers of 4 wheeled vehicles that don't need to be balanced to be kept upright.
5. Even if you're riding in the center of a bike lane, your wheels are two feet from the curb on one side and 2 feet from the stripe on the left (assuming a 4 foot wide BL), but your body extends 1-1.5 feet to each side from the center of the bike where the wheels are tracking. So, you're only 6 inches from the stripe. That means the driver has to keep his car at least 2 feet to the left of the stripe in order to maintain a minimal passing "cushion" of 3 feet. Many motorists do that, sure, but many do not. The stripe tends to make all too many of them oblivious to the presence of the cyclist in the bike lane: they pass her like she's not even there, meaning they do not move left, and do not slow down. So if they happen to be driving just a few inches to the left of the stripe, at 60 mph, that's where they are when they pass the 15 mph cyclist with just inches of clearance, who is "safely" riding in her own bike lane... unless she happens upon a piece of debris that she has to avoid by moving left, or a sudden blowup puncture in her front wheel causes her to lose control and swerve left, or a pothole causes her to crash and fall to her left, or ... It happens, all the time. Luckily, most of the time when a cyclist swerves or falls to the left there is not a motorist passing them at 4x their speed just a few inches away... but it's still dangerous to do that.
6. If two cars end up glancing each other side-to-side it is much less likely to cause fatal injuries than if a car ends up glancing a cyclist on the side...
7. The lane you drive your car in is considerably wider than a bike lane. A bike's narrow look is deceiving. A cyclist is about 3 feet wide, and needs 3 feet on each side... that's 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 feet.

In the ideal world, bike lanes are more like 6 feet wide, they are clean of debris, potholes and other hazards, cyclists never have to swerve, etc., etc. In that ideal theoretical world there is probably nothing inherently dangerous about motorists passing cyclists with high speed differentials. But in the real world, there are real dangers to doing so.

Bike lanes are fundamentally and significantly different from regular lanes. They are not just narrow versions of the same thing, though they appear so at first glance. And the differences are key, and make them much more dangerous than their bigger cousins.

And they typically drive a lot closer to the right when there is no bike lane.
I ride in the center. Maybe if your bike lanes are full of debris you should either get tougher bikes that can handle it or complain to the city to keep them clean.
It is illegal to drive 100 mph. Nevertheless, as I drive on the freeway and people pass at these speeds, there is no harm to me as long as they maintain control of their vehicles.
Whether they're going 50 or 25 they can still kill me at these speeds. It is of no importance to me as long as they maintain control over their vehicles and obey the law as they pass.
You should look before you swerve. You should keep your eyes focused on where you are going so that you can anticipate potential dangers. Use the SEE method. Search, Evaluate, Execute. There should be no reason to swerve suddenly in a manner that causes danger for yourself and others.
The bike lane is a lot further from the curb and a lot wider than you describe. Nevertheless, as long as I'm on my side of the line and they are on theirs, obey the law and maintain control over their vehicles I am not going to be hurt so it's not of any importance to me how fast they go. Only large vehicles such as trucks should have to move to the left.

You have said many times that overtaking accidents are extremely rare.

I fit just fine in the bike lane. I can opt to ride in the center, to the left or the right and still be within the bounds.
I live in that world. It's called Santa Barbara.

I think you are overstating the dangers of passing vehicles.

Sure, which is what sweeps away the debris in the part of the roadway where cyclists ride.

Of course, that's not where they drive when cyclists are riding there...


Debris collects in a matter of hours. No city with any significant number of bike lanes could afford weekly much less the daily or hourly sweeping that would be required to match the continuous sweeping we get for free in WOLs from traffic.

Sweeping bike lanes is a waste of money. Erase the stripe and you get it for free.

While overtaking accidents are rare, of those that do occur during the day (or at night when the cyclist is properly equipped with lights and reflectors) where the motorist lost control are very rare. Much more common is the cyclist losing control, or swerving to avoid a hazard. It is to help avoid those much more (relatively) common types of overtaking collisions that motorists need to take care as they pass, which includes slowing down as well as moving left.


Of course you should, should you have that luxury. At 20 mph it's easy to come upon an obstacle that you overlooked and suddenly have to swerve for (not to mention the dog, child or ped who steps out into the street right in front of you suddenly, forgetting to look for bicycle traffic in the bike lane).


I will look for sources to counter this point. I thought ocasional unexpected but necessary swerves was obvious in the nature of cycling (and motorcycling).


It's all relative. In order to defend bike lanes at all on the grounds of safety one must overstate the dangers of passing vehicles. But, since the dangers of overtaking are not zero, you might as well look and see if bike lanes hurt or hinder in that respect. My whole point here is that within that narrow focus, even on high speed/high volume roads, bike lanes make cycling more dangerous than it would be without the stripe (granted there is no data that proves it one way or the other).

I don't think bike lanes make cycling more dangerous than it would be without the stripe. I find that bike lanes make motorists more predictable. Even when distracted they'll notice the white line on their right with some primitive part of their brain.

When there is no bike lane (the norm,) drivers pass me with plenty of room to spare.

When there is a bike lane, they don't move over much.

But "motorist predictability" is not a problem that needs solving.

This is exactly my experience. There is also much less tolerance for bikes riding outside of or to the extreme left side of the bike lane, even when doing so is the only way to stay out of the door zone.

Not to mention when it's ...
the only way to avoid the debris or obstacles or other hazards in the lane, or ...
the only way to merge left and out of the way of the right-turners, or ...
the only way to merge left to pass a cyclist riding up ahead, or the...
the only way to merge left to prepare for a left turn, or ...

The only time drivers ever pass too closely is when there is no bike lane. Otherwise the pass as close as the bike lane allows. And I don't find that to be a problem.

Driver intolerance to cyclists being out of the bike lane or otherwise using the road in a vehicular manner is a driver education issue, not a bike lane issue. Debris, door-zones and lane changes are still cyclist issues regardless of the presence or absence of bike lanes.

Bike lanes are designed with the intent that cyclists be riding near the center of the bike lane. Most (not ALL) bike lanes are 4-5 feet wide. If you are riding in the center of a 4 foot lane, your wheels are two feet from the stripe. That means your body is inches from the stripe. If a driver is operating a vehicle that is passing you "as close as the bike lane allows", that means he is right up against the stripe too, so the right edge of his vehicle is inches from your body. Now, an experienced cyclist like you might feel safe in your knowledge that you can ride a straight line, and your confidence in the driver keeping his car from crossing the stripe, and I understand that. For almost 30 years I too didn't find that to be a problem. But I realize now what a precarious situation it is.

One rock. One hole. One blow out. One dog. That's all that has to happen to cause the cyclist to swerve left just a few inches, and put her body outside of the bike lane and in the path of a passing motorist. Maybe you feel confident that will never happen to you, but for a less experienced cyclist it is even more likely.


No matter how you slice it, no matter how much you educate, you cannot escape the reasonable conclusion most drivers and cyclists make and will always make about bike lanes: the bike lane (when there is one) is where bikes are supposed to be. Otherwise, why call it a BIKE lane? It is unreasonable to expect anyone to think otherwise. Driver intolerance of cyclists riding their BIKEs outside of BIKE lanes is perfectly reasonable and understandable, something education cannot fix. The only solution to driver intolerance of cyclists riding outside of bike lanes is elimination of bike lanes.


Yes, debris, door-zones and lane changes are issues for cyclists regardless of the presence or absence of bike lanes. No one is debating that. However, the point is that the presence of bike lanes exacerbates and complicates these issues for cyclists:

• Debris, in particular, is hardly an issue for cyclists anywhere except in bike lanes. Everywhere else, traffic constantly and continually sweeps away the debris. No affordable street sweeping program could come close to providing the effectivity and efficiency of traffic sweeping that comes for free.
• Getting cultural acceptance of the concept that cyclists should ride 5 feet or more away from parked cars is made much more difficult by door zone bike lanes that are painted within 5 feet of parked cars, indicating that that's where cyclists are supposed to be riding.
• Getting cultural acceptance of the concept that cyclists should leave the right side and position themselves, often involving lane changes, according to destination at intersections and their approaches, is made much more difficult by the presence of bike lanes that inherently imply cyclists should be riding there and not anywhere else.

This applies whether in a BL or in a WOL...


And what about driver intolerance of cyclists on the road... Period.
"get on the sidewalk!"

I wonder how he was riding?

OK, I read it. More of the same pseudo-intellectual drivel. Gawd, how to respond? You seem to be equating a "separatist" attitude with non-VC cycling. OK. I was trying to point out the absurdity of your position with the example of pedestrians, ie. if cyclists and motorists can mix, why not pedestrians and motorists? Given your "all inclusive" philosophy, that seems logical. You responded that cyclists actually fare better when acting like motorists while pedestrians do not, or something to that effect, alluding to these fictional "standard rules". Of course, the backdrop to all this is "bicycle lanes" and you are really contending that those who use or are in some cases in favor of bicycle lanes are also "separatist" and "non-VC". You would like to lump all these concepts together and condemn them all. I don't see it that way. I think one can generally follow the principles of VC and still use a bike lane when present. I think one can generally follow the principles of VC and not think bike lanes are of the devil. Regarding the alleged attitude of "separatism", I just don't see it. What you call separatist attitudies are simply ways to organize different modes of transportation on the common roadway. We have motorized vehicles and we have slow-moving vehicles, and we have pedestrians. The three do not always mix. We may need extra facilities and laws to govern the interaction among the three, eg. pedestrians using a striped crosswalk, cyclists using a striped lane. Of course, one may argue the pros and cons of these facilities, but this is different than some underlying concept of separatism. Yes, it IS separatism, but only to the extent implied by the inherent differences in the modes of transportation. You concede at least that bicycles are "low-powered" and want to force everyone into "my way or the highway", no pun intended. Maybe there are other ways to accommodate all users of the road that do not fit into your narrow paradigms. I agree that cyclists fare best when they act and are in turn treated like drivers of other vehicles, but maybe there are some transportation designs out there in which cyclists would fare BETTER than they do now. This is not separatism, it is progress.