View Poll Results: Please choose the option that most accurately reflects your position.
I support laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes when they exist.
2
2.11%
I support laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes as long as they have reasonable exceptions (e.g. CA's 21208).
27
28.42%
I would support repealing any laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes.
16
16.84%
I would support a law that explicitly said cyclists are never required to ride in a bike lane.
6
6.32%
I would support repealing any laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes AND I would support a law that explicitly said cyclists are never required to ride in a bike lane.
44
46.32%
Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll
Mandatory bike lanes
03-01-05 | 12:52 PM
#126
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by Daily Commute
There's one major flaw in your argument--pedestrians are generally banned from the road, cyclists shouldn't be. Generally, they only have the right to use narrow slivers here and there. We should oppose any laws that will lower cyclists to the level of pedestrians on the roads.
I don't want "special consideration"--that's what bike lanes are. I want equal consideration.
I don't want "special consideration"--that's what bike lanes are. I want equal consideration.
My argument is basically, bicycles <not equal> cars; therefore, bicycle accomodations <not equal> cars.
03-01-05 | 12:54 PM
#127
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by bostontrevor
I guess it's back to the drawing board. We'll need to draw up separate lanes for bikes, scooters, motorcycles, compacts, sedans, pickups, cement trucks, and semis. Who knew it was so complicated?
I can see you're completely uninterested in actually discussing the question at hand, what useful purpose is served by mandating bike lane use, so I leave you to your ass scratching. Later.
I can see you're completely uninterested in actually discussing the question at hand, what useful purpose is served by mandating bike lane use, so I leave you to your ass scratching. Later.
You're the one who came up with the two vehicle classification: 1) heavy "dangerous" vehicles and 2) light non-dangerous ones. Two types of accomodations seem reasonable to me.
03-01-05 | 12:55 PM
#128
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by genec
Careful now... someone may want specific quotes and your definitions of things... in order to prove his point... in spite of what is really done out on the road...
03-01-05 | 01:05 PM
#129
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by Serge *******
The key element is that pedestrians have the right-of-way at intersections, and this is simply highlighted by cross-walks. But in the absence of the striped crosswalk peds still have the right-of-way at intersections (of course I'm talking about unsignaled intersections; at signaled intersections signals specify the rights of way). Between intersections, vehicle drivers have the right-of-way on the roadway, while pedestrians have the right-of-way on the sidewalk. These well-defined rules specifying the interaction of vehicle drivers and pedestrians at and between intersections protect the rights-of-way of everyone. While most people cannot recite them explicitly, these simple and logical rules are understood at least implicitly by most.
The problem with bike lanes is there are no logical and well-defined rules governing the interaction of cyclists and motorists with respect to them. For example, at most 10% of the Californians that I ask know that right-turning motorists are legally required to merge into the bike lane on their approach, and they are allowed to do this up to 200 feet prior to the intersection. Judging by how cyclists ride, few understand that when they are not turning right, they should merge out of the bike lane. This is but one example of how the rules of interaction regarding bike lanes are so complicated that it is unreasonable for anyone to know them and use them properly. This is also the reason why there are so many bike lanes that appear to be poorly designed - because even the traffic engineers cannot design reasonably given the complexity.
First, I'm happy to learn you're thinking more about the bike lane issue, regardless of which way you're leaning.
As you think about it even more, I hope you would consider the following: "mandatory" bike lanes are not truly "mandatory" because of the exceptions that allow cyclists to leave the bike lane for many reasons, including (partial list):
Now, you contend that a voluntary bicycle lane is absurd because then motorists don't know what to expect of how cyclists should use a BL.
But, given all the exceptions, what do motorists really know to expect of how cyclists should use the BL? How is the cyclist's use of the bike lane any different, in terms of what the motorist can expect, between a mandatory-with-exceptions BL and voluntary BL?
Note that I'm not contending there is no difference between how cyclists use them (for if there was no difference I would not care if they were mandatory or not). But just because there is a difference in how cyclists use them in general, does not mean there is a difference in what motorists can expect in how a given cyclist will use them. Why? Because no motorist can know how any given cyclist will use the bike lane. Whether the BL is mandatory-with-exceptions or voluntary, a motorist's knowledge of what a given cyclist may do in a given situation should be the same - whatever is reasonable for the situation.
Implied in your statement is the assumption that motorists should know what to expect about how cyclists will use a BL. In particular, I think you're saying that, at least in some situations where none of the exceptions apply, the motorist can expect that the cyclist be in the BL (if that's not what you meant, please let us know what it was). The problem with bike lanes (not just mandatory bike lanes), is that motorists do expect cyclists to stay in the bike lane, even if they are riding right next to the stripe (as cyclists often do to take advantage of the cleanest portion of the bike lane). This is why motorists often do not adjust their own lane position when passing cyclists in bike lanes, and end up passing them too closely (this can happen without a bike lane too, but for different reasons, and for which the cyclist has a remedy... see below).
So what happens when there is a pile of glass in the bike lane and the cyclist suddenly has to move a couple of feet to his left, right in front of a passing motorist who is expecting the cyclist to stay in the bike lane and so has not adjusted his lane position accordingly? "A tragic accident that was no one's fault", the officer at the scene will undoubtedly say.
A motorist's expectation that a cyclist will stay in the bike lane is a problem in and of itself, and mandatory bike lanes exacerbate this problem by legally sanctioning this dangerous expectation.
Motorists should pass cyclists with a comfortable safety margin (the distance between the motor vehicle and the cyclist). The greater the speed differential, the greater should be the passing margin. For the most part, this happens naturally when there is no bike lane, and rarely happens when the cyclist is riding in a bike lane. The notable exception is when the lane is wide enough for the motorist to squeeze his vehicle into the lane beside the cyclist, who is riding so close to the right edge as to invite motorists to do exactly this; the remedy is for the cyclist to ride further to the left to make it clear that the motorist cannot safely pass within the lane. Once a motorist is resigned to the fact that he must move at least partially into the adjacent lane to pass, he will almost always do it with the appropriate passing margin for the given speed differentials, and usually will over compensate. That kind of safe and proper interaction between motorist and cyclist is inhibited by a bike lane stripe.
At least that's my experience.
The problem with bike lanes is there are no logical and well-defined rules governing the interaction of cyclists and motorists with respect to them. For example, at most 10% of the Californians that I ask know that right-turning motorists are legally required to merge into the bike lane on their approach, and they are allowed to do this up to 200 feet prior to the intersection. Judging by how cyclists ride, few understand that when they are not turning right, they should merge out of the bike lane. This is but one example of how the rules of interaction regarding bike lanes are so complicated that it is unreasonable for anyone to know them and use them properly. This is also the reason why there are so many bike lanes that appear to be poorly designed - because even the traffic engineers cannot design reasonably given the complexity.
First, I'm happy to learn you're thinking more about the bike lane issue, regardless of which way you're leaning.
As you think about it even more, I hope you would consider the following: "mandatory" bike lanes are not truly "mandatory" because of the exceptions that allow cyclists to leave the bike lane for many reasons, including (partial list):
- to avoid obstacles or any other unsafe conditions.
- to prepare for a left turn
- to pass another cyclist
- when traveling the same speed as traffic
- when approaching a driveway (an example of a place where a right turn is authorized)
- etc.
Now, you contend that a voluntary bicycle lane is absurd because then motorists don't know what to expect of how cyclists should use a BL.
But, given all the exceptions, what do motorists really know to expect of how cyclists should use the BL? How is the cyclist's use of the bike lane any different, in terms of what the motorist can expect, between a mandatory-with-exceptions BL and voluntary BL?
Note that I'm not contending there is no difference between how cyclists use them (for if there was no difference I would not care if they were mandatory or not). But just because there is a difference in how cyclists use them in general, does not mean there is a difference in what motorists can expect in how a given cyclist will use them. Why? Because no motorist can know how any given cyclist will use the bike lane. Whether the BL is mandatory-with-exceptions or voluntary, a motorist's knowledge of what a given cyclist may do in a given situation should be the same - whatever is reasonable for the situation.
Implied in your statement is the assumption that motorists should know what to expect about how cyclists will use a BL. In particular, I think you're saying that, at least in some situations where none of the exceptions apply, the motorist can expect that the cyclist be in the BL (if that's not what you meant, please let us know what it was). The problem with bike lanes (not just mandatory bike lanes), is that motorists do expect cyclists to stay in the bike lane, even if they are riding right next to the stripe (as cyclists often do to take advantage of the cleanest portion of the bike lane). This is why motorists often do not adjust their own lane position when passing cyclists in bike lanes, and end up passing them too closely (this can happen without a bike lane too, but for different reasons, and for which the cyclist has a remedy... see below).
So what happens when there is a pile of glass in the bike lane and the cyclist suddenly has to move a couple of feet to his left, right in front of a passing motorist who is expecting the cyclist to stay in the bike lane and so has not adjusted his lane position accordingly? "A tragic accident that was no one's fault", the officer at the scene will undoubtedly say.
A motorist's expectation that a cyclist will stay in the bike lane is a problem in and of itself, and mandatory bike lanes exacerbate this problem by legally sanctioning this dangerous expectation.
Motorists should pass cyclists with a comfortable safety margin (the distance between the motor vehicle and the cyclist). The greater the speed differential, the greater should be the passing margin. For the most part, this happens naturally when there is no bike lane, and rarely happens when the cyclist is riding in a bike lane. The notable exception is when the lane is wide enough for the motorist to squeeze his vehicle into the lane beside the cyclist, who is riding so close to the right edge as to invite motorists to do exactly this; the remedy is for the cyclist to ride further to the left to make it clear that the motorist cannot safely pass within the lane. Once a motorist is resigned to the fact that he must move at least partially into the adjacent lane to pass, he will almost always do it with the appropriate passing margin for the given speed differentials, and usually will over compensate. That kind of safe and proper interaction between motorist and cyclist is inhibited by a bike lane stripe.
At least that's my experience.
03-01-05 | 01:24 PM
#130
genec
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 27,072
Likes: 4,533
From: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Originally Posted by billh
Serge, I see "current experience" is your forte. That's fine. But it is tangential to my main argument, which is an abstract one, namely that bicycle lanes and mandatory laws governing their use in general do not conflict with general principles of transportation, namely slow traffic keeping to the right, right of all users to the public roadway. They are just one possible direction for designers to go. WOL is another one. I honestly don't know which I prefer. And I'm perfectly willing to concede that all current BL have flaws in design, implementation, or maintenance, or any combination of the three. But that does NOT mean that the concept of the bike lane is therefore to be scrapped. How long have transpo engineers been designing streets for cars? How long bike lanes? I'd wager they have a lot more experience with motor vehicle design. All I'm saying is that it is somewhat of an over-reaction to condemn all bike lanes, when in reality your problem is with current design and implementation. I actually think your critiques of current design are good in that they may be used by engineers to come up with better and better designs. But it seems you are not willing to go that direction, or even to keep an open mind.
Actually his focus is primarily on San Diego BL with which he has his current experience. Bike Lanes in other towns, while still having but the name in common, may not represent the horrors he describes. Further, the implementation of Bike Lanes in other areas such as on 25MPH residential streets in Boston may be exactly the "greatest fear" that some envision.
I generally agree with your premise that (not "all") many of the current BL are early generation and should be updated based on more current, studied, views of traffic handling.
03-01-05 | 01:52 PM
#131
Ride the Road
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,058
Likes: 5
From: Columbus, Ohio
Bikes: Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB
Originally Posted by billh
Well if pedestrians are banned from the road, doesn't that violate their constitutional right to use the public way, as quoted by bt? Maybe the VC movement should change their mantra to "pedestrians fare best when they act and in turn are treated as other users of the road"?
My argument is basically, bicycles <not equal> cars; therefore, bicycle accomodations <not equal> cars.
My argument is basically, bicycles <not equal> cars; therefore, bicycle accomodations <not equal> cars.
Bikes are a lot more like cars than bikes. With a little bit of experience and (possibly) learning, it's not hard to ride in most traffic. (Note, I did not say ALL traffic.) In any case, it's a lot easier to ride a bike through traffic lanes than it is to walk through traffic lanes.
The mantra idea is interesting, although I would prefer, "Cyclists fare worst when treated like pedestrians."
Last edited by Daily Commute; 03-01-05 at 02:08 PM.
03-01-05 | 02:13 PM
#132
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by Daily Commute
Saying that bicycles are not the same as cars does not explain why cyclists can't use the road. (I can hear the applause for the triple negative, thank you.)
Bikes are a lot more like cars than bikes. With a little bit of experience and (possibly) learning, it's not hard to ride in most traffic. (Note, I did not say ALL traffic.) In any case, it's a lot easier to ride a bike through traffic lanes than it is to walk through traffic lanes.
The mantra idea is interesting, although I would prefer, "Cyclists fare worst when treated like pedestrians."
Bikes are a lot more like cars than bikes. With a little bit of experience and (possibly) learning, it's not hard to ride in most traffic. (Note, I did not say ALL traffic.) In any case, it's a lot easier to ride a bike through traffic lanes than it is to walk through traffic lanes.
The mantra idea is interesting, although I would prefer, "Cyclists fare worst when treated like pedestrians."
03-01-05 | 02:16 PM
#133
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by genec
Actually his focus is primarily on San Diego BL with which he has his current experience. Bike Lanes in other towns, while still having but the name in common, may not represent the horrors he describes. Further, the implementation of Bike Lanes in other areas such as on 25MPH residential streets in Boston may be exactly the "greatest fear" that some envision.
I generally agree with your premise that (not "all") many of the current BL are early generation and should be updated based on more current, studied, views of traffic handling.
I generally agree with your premise that (not "all") many of the current BL are early generation and should be updated based on more current, studied, views of traffic handling.
03-01-05 | 02:39 PM
#134
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by billh
Serge, I see "current experience" is your forte. That's fine. But it is tangential to my main argument, which is an abstract one, namely that bicycle lanes and mandatory laws governing their use in general do not conflict with general principles of transportation, namely slow traffic keeping to the right, right of all users to the public roadway.
However, I will give you this: in the abstract, it is probably theoretically possible to create a completely separate transportation system for cyclists, and perhaps bike lanes would be part of that (I'm thinking of some that are equipped with built-in sweeping/vacuum system, for example, along with traffic signals that use laser technology and high-tech signals to prevent conflicts, etc. etc.). My point is we are a long, long way from that type of system, and all current bike lane designs are not a step in that direction. I would further argue that there is no such need for a system, for the current vehicular system works quite effectively for cycling, so what problem would this incredible fantastic and unimaginably expensive system for cyclists actually be solving?
They are just one possible direction for designers to go. WOL is another one. I honestly don't know which I prefer.
And I'm perfectly willing to concede that all current BL have flaws in design, implementation, or maintenance, or any combination of the three.
But that does NOT mean that the concept of the bike lane is therefore to be scrapped.
How long have transpo engineers been designing streets for cars? How long bike lanes? I'd wager they have a lot more experience with motor vehicle design. All I'm saying is that it is somewhat of an over-reaction to condemn all bike lanes, when in reality your problem is with current design and implementation. I actually think your critiques of current design are good in that they may be used by engineers to come up with better and better designs. But it seems you are not willing to go that direction, or even to keep an open mind.
Last edited by Serge Issakov; 03-01-05 at 02:45 PM.
03-01-05 | 02:40 PM
#135
Ride the Road
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,058
Likes: 5
From: Columbus, Ohio
Bikes: Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB
Originally Posted by billh
For the umpteenth time . . . BL are ON the road, thus . . . cyclists are USING the road. This is not some grave violation of your right to the public way.
Mandatory sidepath laws (this thread's topic) keep cyclists out of the correct place at virtually every intersection.
How can you turn left if a cop can ticket you for leaving the bike lane 1/2 a block before the turn? You can't, because mandatory bike lane laws keep you off the road.
How can you position yourself to avoid a right hook? You can't, because you need to be in the line of traffic to do so and bike lane laws keep you off the road.
03-01-05 | 03:26 PM
#136
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by Daily Commute
It is not even in the same league as sending black people to the back of the bus, but it is stupid policy. Bike lanes are adjacent to, but not on, the road. Just like sidewalks are adjacent to, but not on the road.
Mandatory sidepath laws (this thread's topic) keep cyclists out of the correct place at virtually every intersection.
How can you turn left if a cop can ticket you for leaving the bike lane 1/2 a block before the turn? You can't, because mandatory bike lane laws keep you off the road.
How can you position yourself to avoid a right hook? You can't, because you need to be in the line of traffic to do so and bike lane laws keep you off the road.
Mandatory sidepath laws (this thread's topic) keep cyclists out of the correct place at virtually every intersection.
How can you turn left if a cop can ticket you for leaving the bike lane 1/2 a block before the turn? You can't, because mandatory bike lane laws keep you off the road.
How can you position yourself to avoid a right hook? You can't, because you need to be in the line of traffic to do so and bike lane laws keep you off the road.
03-01-05 | 03:28 PM
#137
Ride the Road
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,058
Likes: 5
From: Columbus, Ohio
Bikes: Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB
Originally Posted by billh
Yeah, I will have to give up on this one because you don't really get where I'm coming from. I refuse to talk design or enforcement issues. The thread topic said "bike lanes" not "sidepath". I think the two terms may be used interchangeably in some contexts not. Anyway, I am not interested enough to pursue this distinction with you, except to say that anything to the left of the gutter pan is "on the road" in my book.
Last edited by Daily Commute; 03-01-05 at 03:36 PM.
03-01-05 | 03:33 PM
#138
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
I gotta go with billh on this one - a bike lane is "on the road" in terms of any definitions with which I'm familiar. Now is it on the "roadway"? Is it part of the "highway"? That I'm not as sure about. I could look it up, but I would want to know why it matters before I would bother...
[adding later]
Just saw the rephrase. That implies the part of the roadway where the bike lane is is not useful, ever, with which I disagree.
I will agree that bike lanes keep cyclists off the other useful parts of the roadway in an arbitrary and unjustified manner...
And this goes back to my static/dynamic argument. Bike lanes - no matter how they are designed; for this is true about the abstract idea of bike lanes - are inherently static.
But determining what part of the roadway is useful for who when is a dynamic process. In the inherent nature of ALL bike lanes is the assumption that the appropriate/useful place for a cyclist at any given time is in one particular lateral position on the road: where the bike lane happens to be. But what is appropriate/useful for a cyclist varies dynamically with conditions and factors (volume and speed of traffic, destination and speed of the cyclist, condition of the roadway, obstacles, dangerous conditions, weather, lighting conditions, etc. etc.). The static nature that is inherent in the abstract concept of a bike lane makes this critique applicable to ALL bike lanes, be they San Diegan, Santa Barabaran, Bostonian or Parisian, past, present or future.
[adding later]
Just saw the rephrase. That implies the part of the roadway where the bike lane is is not useful, ever, with which I disagree.
I will agree that bike lanes keep cyclists off the other useful parts of the roadway in an arbitrary and unjustified manner...
And this goes back to my static/dynamic argument. Bike lanes - no matter how they are designed; for this is true about the abstract idea of bike lanes - are inherently static.
But determining what part of the roadway is useful for who when is a dynamic process. In the inherent nature of ALL bike lanes is the assumption that the appropriate/useful place for a cyclist at any given time is in one particular lateral position on the road: where the bike lane happens to be. But what is appropriate/useful for a cyclist varies dynamically with conditions and factors (volume and speed of traffic, destination and speed of the cyclist, condition of the roadway, obstacles, dangerous conditions, weather, lighting conditions, etc. etc.). The static nature that is inherent in the abstract concept of a bike lane makes this critique applicable to ALL bike lanes, be they San Diegan, Santa Barabaran, Bostonian or Parisian, past, present or future.
Last edited by Serge Issakov; 03-01-05 at 03:43 PM.
03-01-05 | 03:36 PM
#139
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by Serge *******
Actually, while I concluded "at least that's my experience", if you read my post carefully, I think you will find that it is a valid critique of bike lanes in the abstract.
However, I will give you this: in the abstract, it is probably theoretically possible to create a completely separate transportation system for cyclists, and perhaps bike lanes would be part of that (I'm thinking of some that are equipped with built-in sweeping/vacuum system, for example, along with traffic signals that use laser technology and high-tech signals to prevent conflicts, etc. etc.). My point is we are a long, long way from that type of system, and all current bike lane designs are not a step in that direction. I would further argue that there is no such need for a system, for the current vehicular system works quite effectively for cycling, so what problem would this incredible fantastic and unimaginably expensive system for cyclists actually be solving?
A reasonable position to take... for now...
My point exactly - which is why I advocate WOLs over BLs.
Fine. Don't scrap the concept. But how about coming up with a workable concept of a bike lane before you implement it?
Again, I believe my critiques are not with any particular design details, they target the fundamental concept of having a separate striped lane on the roadway specifically for cyclists alongside a lane for motorists. Any implementation of that concept has fundamental problems that I have pointed out repeatedly. As to Gene's contention that I'm primarily talking about San Diego style bike lanes... I'm not. I'm specifically addressing this abstract notion of a bike lane, descriped as simply as a separate striped lane for cyclists on the roadway alongside lanes used by motorists. I submit that anything that does not fit that description is not a bike lane, no matter how you design or implement it. And anything that does fit that description, has all the problems I have described.
However, I will give you this: in the abstract, it is probably theoretically possible to create a completely separate transportation system for cyclists, and perhaps bike lanes would be part of that (I'm thinking of some that are equipped with built-in sweeping/vacuum system, for example, along with traffic signals that use laser technology and high-tech signals to prevent conflicts, etc. etc.). My point is we are a long, long way from that type of system, and all current bike lane designs are not a step in that direction. I would further argue that there is no such need for a system, for the current vehicular system works quite effectively for cycling, so what problem would this incredible fantastic and unimaginably expensive system for cyclists actually be solving?
A reasonable position to take... for now...
My point exactly - which is why I advocate WOLs over BLs.
Fine. Don't scrap the concept. But how about coming up with a workable concept of a bike lane before you implement it?
Again, I believe my critiques are not with any particular design details, they target the fundamental concept of having a separate striped lane on the roadway specifically for cyclists alongside a lane for motorists. Any implementation of that concept has fundamental problems that I have pointed out repeatedly. As to Gene's contention that I'm primarily talking about San Diego style bike lanes... I'm not. I'm specifically addressing this abstract notion of a bike lane, descriped as simply as a separate striped lane for cyclists on the roadway alongside lanes used by motorists. I submit that anything that does not fit that description is not a bike lane, no matter how you design or implement it. And anything that does fit that description, has all the problems I have described.
Serge, obviously you don't object to lane stripes for motor vehicles, or do you? I forgot. Motor vehicles have no problem using those lanes. Similarly, most cyclists do not have problems using a BL (this is just my impression, I do not have a study to cite). Obviously, there are times when motorists must change lanes, avoid obstacles, etc; but perhaps most of the time they are happy using the marked lane. I believe a similar argument may be made for cyclists and bike lanes. I took Road I and the instructor showed the videos of "all the problems with" bike lanes: cyclists moving out of the lane into the traffic, right hooks, etc. I remember chuckling and thinking how ridiculous the objection was at the time. I still feel the same way. I think John Forrester must have got a bug up his butt very early in his assessment of bike lanes, probably due to inferior early designs. Too bad he has made spreading the "bad news" a lifetime mission to the detriment of the cylcing community at large.
03-01-05 | 03:37 PM
#140
Arizona Dessert
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 2,170
From: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Bill and others
I am quite puzzled as to the passion in arguing why use of BL when present should be mandatory. It totally boggles my mind as to why anyone would want BLs to be mandatory whereas I do see both sides of the pro/anti-BL debate.
First let us completely put aside the debate over BL vs. WOL vs. nothing. Assume for the question(s) below that BLs exist (not a hard assumption as they do in most cities) and that they are not going away (also very likely.)
Now to the question:
Why would anyone, especially a cyclist, want the use of BL when present to be mandatory or even mandatory with a list of exceptions? What benefit is gained for the cyclist?
Al
I am quite puzzled as to the passion in arguing why use of BL when present should be mandatory. It totally boggles my mind as to why anyone would want BLs to be mandatory whereas I do see both sides of the pro/anti-BL debate.
First let us completely put aside the debate over BL vs. WOL vs. nothing. Assume for the question(s) below that BLs exist (not a hard assumption as they do in most cities) and that they are not going away (also very likely.)
Now to the question:
Why would anyone, especially a cyclist, want the use of BL when present to be mandatory or even mandatory with a list of exceptions? What benefit is gained for the cyclist?
Al
03-01-05 | 03:37 PM
#141
Ride the Road
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,058
Likes: 5
From: Columbus, Ohio
Bikes: Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB
Originally Posted by Serge *******
I gotta go with billh on this one - a bike lane is "on the road" in terms of any definitions with which I'm familiar. Now is it on the "roadway"? Is it part of the "highway"? That I'm not as sure about. I could look it up, but I would want to know why it matters before I would bother...
03-01-05 | 03:45 PM
#142
Ride the Road
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,058
Likes: 5
From: Columbus, Ohio
Bikes: Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB
Originally Posted by billh
Serge, obviously you don't object to lane stripes for motor vehicles, or do you? I forgot. Motor vehicles have no problem using those lanes.
Originally Posted by billh
Similarly, most cyclists do not have problems using a BL (this is just my impression, I do not have a study to cite).
03-01-05 | 03:58 PM
#143
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,063
Likes: 1
From: Toronto
Without reading all the flaming, I think that this question is covered by exisiting legislation in Toronto, that being riding "as far to the right as practical and safe". If there are snowbanks in the bike lane as there are around here right now, no one is going to ticket you... and if there are parked cars and or trash there, as there also tend to be, then so be it... into traffic we go. If there is a empty lane, bike or not, you can bet I am going to take it to pass a long row of cars rather than try to sqeeze through somewhere else.
see another can of worms at https://getoutofthebikelane.com/
see another can of worms at https://getoutofthebikelane.com/
03-01-05 | 04:06 PM
#144
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by billh
Serge, obviously you don't object to lane stripes for motor vehicles, or do you? I forgot.
[quote]Motor vehicles have no problem using those lanes. Similarly, most cyclists do not have problems using a BL (this is just my impression, I do not have a study to cite).
Yes, most of the time most cyclists don't have any problems using a BL. So what?
Obviously, there are times when motorists must change lanes, avoid obstacles, etc; but perhaps most of the time they are happy using the marked lane.
Now add to this the need for "wiggle room" on either side of a bicycle, since it is a balanced device. Obstacles that cars simply drive over must be swerved around by bicycles and motorcycles - which is why motorists need to pass cyclists with a greater safety passing margin than when passing cars.
Finally consider your own point - that bike lane stripes allow motorists to "know" where cyclists will be riding - in the bike lane; on their side of the stripe. This alleviates the responsibility, both legally and intuitively, that motorists otherwise have to pass cyclists with a safe passing margin.
Most cyclists don't seem to mind this. They "feel safe" because they are on their side of the line, and motorists are on their side. No matter how close they get, they're not going to get hit. So, yes, most cyclists don't have any problems using bike lanes. Until that day that they suddenly have to swerve a couple of feet to the left to avoid something, just as a motorist is passing them from behind... Ignorance is bliss...
Let me put it this way: one of the big problems with bike lanes is precisely because they allow motorists to treat cyclists in bike lanes "just like any other vehicle driver in his own lane". This is a problem because cyclists in bike lanes are NOT "just like any other vehicle driver in his own lane". Bike lanes are not just any other lane. They are inherently prone to collecting debris which forces the occupant to ride along the edge, and the occupant is a balanced cyclist who needs more passing safety margin than do 4 wheeled vehicles. So treating cyclists in a bike lane "just like any other vehicle driver in his own lane" is a big problem. It's inherently dangerous.
I believe a similar argument may be made for cyclists and bike lanes. I took Road I and the instructor showed the videos of "all the problems with" bike lanes: cyclists moving out of the lane into the traffic, right hooks, etc. I remember chuckling and thinking how ridiculous the objection was at the time. I still feel the same way.
03-01-05 | 04:33 PM
#145
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,947
Likes: 1
From: Absecon, NJ
Bikes: Puch Luzern, Puch Mistral SLE, Bianchi Pista, Motobecane Grand Touring, Austro-Daimler Ultima, Legnano, Raleigh MountainTour, Cannondale SM600
Originally Posted by noisebeam
I am quite puzzled as to the passion in arguing why use of BL when present should be mandatory. It totally boggles my mind as to why anyone would want BLs to be mandatory whereas I do see both sides of the pro/anti-BL debate.
Now to the question:
Why would anyone, especially a cyclist, want the use of BL when present to be mandatory or even mandatory with a list of exceptions? What benefit is gained for the cyclist?
Now to the question:
Why would anyone, especially a cyclist, want the use of BL when present to be mandatory or even mandatory with a list of exceptions? What benefit is gained for the cyclist?
03-01-05 | 04:54 PM
#146
genec
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 27,072
Likes: 4,533
From: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Originally Posted by serge
Most cyclists don't seem to mind this. They "feel safe" because they are on their side of the line, and motorists are on their side. No matter how close they get, they're not going to get hit. So, yes, most cyclists don't have any problems using bike lanes. Until that day that they suddenly have to swerve a couple of feet to the left to avoid something, just as a motorist is passing them from behind...
03-01-05 | 05:41 PM
#147
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
. . . life force ebbing . .. must drink caffeine . . . thank God it is time to go home . . . on my commute home . . . thankfully devoid of bike lanes . . . lest it bring back recurring nightmares of this thread . . . going, going . . . gone.
03-01-05 | 06:12 PM
#148
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by gene
Originally Posted by Serge *******
Most cyclists don't seem to mind this. They "feel safe" because they are on their side of the line, and motorists are on their side. No matter how close they get, they're not going to get hit. So, yes, most cyclists don't have any problems using bike lanes. Until that day that they suddenly have to swerve a couple of feet to the left to avoid something, just as a motorist is passing them from behind...
That is not at all the case in a WOL because in a WOL there is no stripe separating the motorists from the cyclists. If you watch traffic in a WOL you will see motorists consistenly slow down and adjust their positions as they pass any cyclists, particularly if the cyclists are not hugging the right edge but are riding about 3 feet to the right of traffic. This is the effect of the absence of a stripe: motorists behave as if they actually are consciously aware of and concerned about the cyclist's presence "in their lane" as a significant event.
Remember, in the case of a WOL, the cyclist has the right-of-way in the motorist's lane. When he is in a separate bike lane, he has no right-of-way in the motorist's lane. This is not only a legal technicality, for it makes a real intuitive difference when a motorist sees a cyclist up ahead in the motorist's lane, rather than in a separate bike lane.
So dodging a pot hole in a WOL is generally safer because any passing motorists are likely to be passing slower (which means they are less likely to reach you during your swerve around the hole, and are more likely to be able to slow enough to not hit you) and/or with a wider passing margin, than when they are passing cyclists in an adjacent and separate bike lane.
Also, in a WOL the cyclist is keeping a buffer of clean pavement to his right that is often not available in a bike lane. Therefore, emergency reflexive responses are more likely to be left when in a bike lane than when in a WOL.
That's the difference.
Does that answer your question?
Last edited by Serge Issakov; 03-01-05 at 06:18 PM.
03-01-05 | 06:35 PM
#149
Immoderator
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,630
Likes: 5
From: POS Tennessee
Bikes: Gary Fisher Simple City 8, Litespeed Obed
Man, I was just looking through Playstation 2 games, and this thought struck me: With all the "Maddens NFL" and "Tony Hawk Proskater" type games, there should be a "Serge Isaakov's Vehicular Cycling" game that you could hook up to your trainer in the winter. You could dodge cars (from behind, natch!) and navigate glass-strewn and door-infested bike lanes. This game would be completely rad! Alas, much like my Hall & Oates Fighting Game, it'll probably never happen...
__________________
Originally Posted by Bikeforums
Your rights end where another poster's feelings begin.
03-01-05 | 06:56 PM
#150
Been Around Awhile
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 30,664
Likes: 1,980
From: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Originally Posted by noisebeam
Now to the question:
Why would anyone, especially a cyclist, want the use of BL when present to be mandatory or even mandatory with a list of exceptions? What benefit is gained for the cyclist?