What is the purpose of bike lanes?
 

It may seem obvious, but when you really think about it, it might not be so clear. What is the purpose of having separate lanes designated for the use of cyclists in particular?

They give drivers a lane that they can swerve into if someone in front of them is turning or if they need to get around another car for any reason really.

I thought they were supposed to be catch-alls for road debris, trash, nails and glass...

To irritate strict EC advocates! I have noticed they are afraid of painted lines on the road.

And for cagers to have a handy place to park.

It's a buffer zone between people exiting parked cars and the moving traffic.

This way when the driver/passenger of the car flings the door open without looking, they don't hit a moving car.

To organize traffic on the roadway, much like lane stripes for motor vehicles.

The language in the poll about "protect" and "not worry" is misleading, indicating the bias of the pollster. Do other lane stripings "protect" or prevent "worry"? I don't think so.

AAAAACCCCCKKKKK! Another stupid poll!

What she said. "I'll take scientific, unbalanced surveys for $500, Alex." :rolleyes:

The simple fact is, bike lanes exist. What exactly are you intending to accomplish here?

Chose not to participate in the poll.

That's just a fringe benefit :D

The fundamental purpose is to "encourage" a less powerful type/class/group (guess who!) to be satisfied with just the crust of the loaf (i.e., just the edge of the roadway) and stay out of the more desirable portion of the roadway (which the more powerful type/class/group doesn't want to share).

Oh boy, another bike-lane thread!

What a loaded poll, "tell us the purpose of bike lanes so we can tell you why you're wrong."
I guess all those cyclists I see smiling and having great rides in bike lanes are completely deluded. I still think all of the anti-BL zealots need to put their money where there mouths are with a little take back the bike-lane guerilla actions. All you guys do is talk. If your so bothered by the bike lanes that the rest of us enjoy why don't you do something about it? Just a few miles of black paint and you've got your beloved WOL. Or are you afraid that this isn't the solution, that maybe despite all your pontificating you guys don't have all of the answers.

The obvious benefit of the bike lane is that a cyclist doesn't have to negotiate their space with every single passing motorist and any cyclist who can't see that has never ridden in a well designed BL.

I think this has been done ad-nauseam recently. :crash:

Serge will have an opinion.

CHEERS.

Mark

Oddly enough there was a group in Montreal that did just the opposite... they ADDED bike lanes to the city streets in "guerilla" fashion.

Test your french and google Le Monde a Bicyclette.

Actually, that sounds like a great idea!


No, that pretty much is the answer. I would prefer to get it done legally, however... and would like to see more cyclists support the idea first.


Ok, please explain this to me. I have ridden in "well designed" bike lanes. And I have ridden in WOLs and I have ridden in narrow lanes. In fact, I do all three every day on my commute in both directions. Here's the thing, I don't have to negotiate my space with every single passing motorist regardless of the type of road (BL, WOL, NOL). So I don't understand how not having to negotiate for space is such an "obvious benefit" of a bike lane, when ALL normal traffic lanes have that benefit as well.

Serge

Oh, finally made to Santa Barbara or Portland? Or did you go to Lemon Grove? LOL

I don't believe that this is true. Bike lanes and paths are NOT a conspiracy theory! Bike lanes are the result of honest, good intentions - those who advocate them wish to make a place for bicycles on the road and to promote more cycling (by other people, of course). The fact that they are misguided does not make them malevolent. I will agree that this is the result of the perception that motor vehicles are a superior class of transport, but the "purpose" you give makes sense ONLY if motorists see cyclists as a significant threat - they do not. At worst, cyclists are seen as an occasional inconvenience. Bike lanes are seen as way to concede a space on the road (a concession that does not need to be made, since bikes already HAVE that place) while handily limiting the inconvenience to motorists. Indeed, they are intended to make the areas where they are painted more bike friendly, not less.

I look at it this way - a poorly designed bike lane makes cycling more dangerous. A well-designed one does not make cycling more dangerous, but neither does it confer benefits. Chances are that we won't be able to convince city councils from striping bike lanes in the near future. I don't suggest that we stop arguing against bike lanes and for more effective means of improving the "bike-friendliness" of our cities and towns (WOLs, "Share the Road" signs, cyclist education, etc), but I would suggest more of a focus on well-designed bike facilities. "Cyclist education" is bolded because it's far more critical and effective than condemning bike lanes. The "no bike lane is a good bike lane" stance, is one that is almost impossible to sell to a non-cyclist, or even to many cyclists. It is much easier to sell the benefits of good design, and the difference in safety that it makes to both cyclists and motorists. Perhaps when a study is done of good and safe design, the city council (or whatever) will notice something - that striping safe bike lanes will confer little or no benefits to anyone. When they do, perhaps they will decide to save their money for something else.

Likely? Perhaps not, but I submit that it is FAR more likely to have the desired effect than the anti-bike lane "conspiracy" crusade. I, for one, am sick of the propaganda, and I believe that bike lanes are unnecessary! That should tell you something about how the folks who want lanes feel about it.

You know that was well thought out, honest and to the point and I applaud you.

Perhaps the biggest reason I see for bike lanes is that in this area, they get the streets widened, and the parked cars removed. In effect, they give a good WOL. They are something that politicians can point to and say "I did that;" a WOL offers nothing but an empty street to the photo op.

Locally, the re-elected mayor recently took credit for "opening" a new freeway... the real laugh was that the thing had been long planned, funded, and built before he came into office... but his timing allowed him to "cut the ribbon."

In case you hadn't noticed, Helmet Head IS Serge....welcome to round 2... :rolleyes:

Thanks, and I appreciate what you're saying. I often wonder if I'm shooting myself in the foot by criticizing bike lanes so much. In fact, this wondering caused me to start the "virtues of traffic lanes" thread, an attempt (that failed, because I ended up slamming BLs anyway, in the opening post... I'm so weak :rolleyes: ) to focus on the positives of vehicular cycling rather than the negatives of bike lanes.

But here's the thing, and maybe you can help me with it. To me, the mentality that allows a cyclist to ride with assurance in traffic seems to be the exact opposite of the mentality that makes a cyclist more comfortable in a bike lane. In other words, I don't see how one could appreciate the wonder of assertive traffic cycling while at the same appreciating bike lanes. They are flipsides of the same coin. The goal, for me anyway, is to promote and advocate vehicular cycling, and, in particular, to convey the confidence that comes with really believing, deep down, that you have the same rights to the roadway as does any other vehicle driver. One way to illustrate that, it seems to me, is to bring attention to the problems with bike lanes, and that their very presence conveys the contrary notion: that cyclists do not belong on the same roads in the same lanes with other vehicle drivers.

Serge

Same roads. Same rules. Same rights. Same lanes.

.

Some of us have been telling you that BL and VC are not mutually exclusive... and that BL are just an opportunity... Use 'em or not as you see fit.

Ohhhh, Serge is Helmet Head. Helmet Head is Serge, got it.

I commute on all 3 too, and the BL portions of my commute is without a doubt the area with the least potential for motorist conflict. How can you be taking the lane in a narrow outside lane, abutted by a curb, and too small to share with a vehichle and not be negotiating your space with every motorist who comes up behind you to pass?
Of course most motorists pass in the next lane, but with every overtaking motorist it is one more opportunity for a bad interaction, passing too closely, tailgating. Yet in the bike lane I have zero of these interactions, ZERO! I'm not riding the stripe, I'm in the center of the bike lane and 50mph traffic is at least 5-6 feet off my left shoulder.
Never, NEVER, has another motorist strayed into the bike lane, or had difficulty comprehending that I was going straight when I signaled out of the BL into the through traffic lane and allowed right turners to merge into the BL. Or if a motorist has needed to enter the bike lane to park, turn right, or pass a left-turning motorist they signal and I yield to them, no problem.

Further the debris issue is a street maintenance issue, and not a fundamental flaw of bike lanes. Most bike lanes are pot hole free, while most right-hand lanes are torn up as this is where most busses and heavy truck traffic travel. At least in LA the street cleaners seem to be able to keep up with any debris accumulation.

Another benefit of a bike lane is the ability to pass motor traffic when it is backed up. While you have gone at length about the dangers of this practice, because according to your logic motorists don't expect to see cyclists in bike lanes. What do you imagine that motorists expect to see in bike lanes, cows? They don't expect to see peds in sidewalks either, but we still build those too. They don't expect to see carpoolers in the HOV lane doing 75mph, when their stuck doing 5mph and we build HOV lanes too. I would argue that bicycle commuting is beneficial to the community and that because of those benefits cyclists deserve additional facilities akin to HOV lanes. Serge do you sincerely think it is safer for cyclists to "split the lane" as motorcycles do in CA to bypass traffic or to use a bike lane? I know you've stated that you believe in a first-come first-serve philosophy, but if I wanted to wait in traffic I would have driven. And I don't see how you are acting like a vehicle if you are out there zig-zagging to slow passing motorists. On busy, 50+ mph arterials, that back up at rush hour why shouldn't cyclists have a safe alternate route to either splitting the lane or sitting in traffic.

Well, see, Serge, that's where we differ. I don't think that bringing attention to the problems with bike lanes conveys the confidence that comes with believing, deep down, that we have the same rights to roadway as does any other vehicle driver. I think, frankly, that it makes you look like you have an axe to grind, and not much else. What's coming through is "bike lanes are evil, and here's why they are evil!" That doesn't convey your confidence, or your conviction that transportation cycling is a good thing. Yeah, you SAY these things, but the passion that comes through is "bike lanes = bad." Do you like to ride? Why? Do you think that others should ride? What do you enjoy about cycling? What do you not enjoy about cycling? What does cycling mean to your family? Come on, you've got to have opinions on cycling as it doesn't specifically relate to VC or bike lanes! Right?

I also think that you might have to adapt to having a different view of the mentality of bike lane riding vs. traffic riding. I am comfortable in or out of a bike lane. If it's safe to ride in the lane, I will. If for some reason it isn't (for example, it's in the door zone), I won't ride in it. Maybe this is what you aren't getting? I think that most commuters have figured out VC. I think that most commuters are perfectly aware of the potential problems posed by bike lanes. I think that, instead of worrying about it, they act as appropriate to the situation. Bike lanes are problematic if they are used when it is not safe or appropriate. A smart cyclist knows when it is safe and when it is not. Most people have a pretty good idea as to when they are safe, and when they are not. This is what makes bike lanes unnecessary, not the Devil Incarnate. I am much more concerned by sidewalk cyclists and wrong way cyclists, as these people are demonstrating a basic failure to know or understand safe riding techniques.

Let me stop speculating, and tell you what I know: I ride my bike because I have no car. I ride my bike because of my personal idealogical beliefs - I would like to walk (or ride) gently upon the earth. I ride my bike because I love the outdoors. I ride my bike because I LOVE TO RIDE. When it comes right down to it, whether I am in a bike lane or not, I am on a bike, and that's something to be happy about! That's what I want to tell people - don't ride because you have to, ride because it just feels great. The bike lane issue matters, but it's not the most important thing.

Well said Grolby.

From the "Couldn't have said it better myself" collection over at www.everything2.comNor does it make them saints.

Another possibility is that the folks who make such decisions share a very popular belief; that non-Motor Vehicle traffic can't safely mix with MV traffic because

• MV traffic is fast
• non-MV traffic is slow <on average | too often | all the time>
• slow traffic causes crashes with faster traffic

In case you haven't already read them, here are links to two interesting articles on that topic:

• Real or Just a Taboo? [1 page PDF]
• America's Taboo against Bicycle Driving [2 pages HTML]

There's a chance that we can convince them to do better, but none at all if we just quit.

That's why I advocate that, if a narrow travel lane is going to be striped, the design be the same as that of an ordinary travel lane (except for the width, of course) :)