Lately I've been taking pictures of bike lanes with various oddities: Poor maintenance, poor design, odd usages. Does anyone else have pictures of their favorite bike lane ... or follies?

This is the picture of the worst bike lane I've encountered. Actually, I'm not sure anymore whether its supposed to be a bike lane, except that the section before it is and the the cars on the roadway are going 50+ and they just restriped with 6in+ stripes. Its wide, but there's no escape from from potholes. How do we get so many potholes without winter frost cycles?

If bike lanes are safe enough for bicyclists, why do the people working on the sidewalk and vegetation 10 feet away from the roadbed feel the need to put up a line of cones along the lane? If you were on this road, which side of the cones would you go on?

Forget the pine cones. These weeds really do take up the entire lane. The picture doesn't do it justice -- its not an optical illusion caused by the bend in the road.

Bike lanes are supposed to be about 4 ft (1.2 M). But somehow it seems like cheating when the (3 ft?) stencil doesn't even fit between the lane markers. They couldn't just widen the BL by 6 inches? Its not like its a narrow road.

So you're biking along and come up to some rail tracks. Suddenly, the bike lane turns 90 degrees so that the biker can cross the tracks at right angles and then, just as suddenly the lane turns back another 90 degrees. Thoughtful? Except the bends are not maintained. Ever. Note in the picture that you can't even see the outside lane marker because its so covered in dirt and debris. Anyone attempting to negotiate this curve even at half speed is likely to skid into the wall. Meanwhile, the tracks on the roadway are swept clean by the passing traffic.

The community where this path exists obviously spent a lot of money. Unfortunately, it suffers from these problems:

1. Scored like a sidewalk making the ride as bumpy as pothole city
2. Sidewalk right next to path, and pedestrians apparently don't differentiate between the two
3. Paths lead you away from the main arteries out of the community

I should have tried harder to get the forefront of this shot. The bike lane logo was stenciled just 15 feet or so before this lane suddenly disappears. If I don't need the bike lane for the narrow road ahead, why did I need one for the wider lane before?

looks like some communities need to work on their civic infrastructure, Mark.

Don't complain to us, man, take it to city hall!


Here's some 'substandard' bike lanes in my neck of the woods.

Sadly, I think some local governments just put some paint down so they can claim they are accomodating cyclists. On paper, it might look like they are putting forth at least a monetary effort, but the pics tell it all.

Funny how bike facilities are put up, but speed limits are never enforced with more vigilance.

That pic of Mark's that shows the bike lane with cones, and a truck approaching, suggests to me that bike lanes should be much wider alongside faster roads, especially when used by trucks.

You mean our corrupt, scandal-ridden, bribe-taking city halls?

But I shouldn't have to complain at all. There's a law that requires me to be in the lanes except for a long list of exceptions. Unfortunately, no one except bikers know the exceptions and aren't ever likely to since driver's education is OPTIONAL in this state. If the government mandates the use of a facility, then the onus should be on the government to properly design and maintain those facilities -- or erase the lines.

If those are your substandard lanes, then you're doing well. How does the lane in #3 work ? It looks like the bikes can go both ways in any part of the lane, but that leaves the car going only way. Is there another lane somewhere else for cars going the other direction?

Speed limits? What are those? This is the typical layout for long stretches of road here where the posted speeds are 50+ with occasional drivers practicing for the Indy 500. These are the good lanes. They're maintained sometimes so you don't have to look at the same roadkill or hub cap forever. However, they will periodically and arbitrarily take lanes away. For instance, a gated community has its own turn in lanes, so they took the BL away for 100 yards. Gotta get a picture of that -- with high speed traffic behind you you're forced to suddenly pop into the auto lanes (or, more likely, ignore the "right turn only" signs).

I think this could be a fun thread with a couple of guidelines:
1. You take the picture yourself (i.e not find example on the web)
2. The examples posted are truely BLs, not shoulders. The exception is for states that classify shoulders as BLs (i.e. Vermont)
3. Everyone understands that examples of poor BLs does not mean that all BLs are bad

Also for bonus points if anyone tells stories of using the pictures or reports to work with the responsible government body to get them fixed (or not)

Al

The same side of the cones as that big white truck.

I need to start carrying my camera so I can get a shot of the two and a half foot wide bike lane of which one and a half feet are gutter!

Great pics, Mark!

Of course, the "good" ones aren't much better, since all bike lanes make sense only from the PnP paradigm that is based on the assumption that bikes belong on the road, but out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right as opposed to the VC paradigm that is based on the assumption that bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so.

Ah, now I get the poll in the other thread... It's all about trying to get bike lane advocates in the same bed as your mythical PnP opponents.

Mark: We've got good and bad bike lanes here. Next time I'm on commute, I'll get some pictures.

Paint n Path advocates = bike lane advocates, by definition.

What the poll in the thread was about (or has largely evolved into), and still is, is to determine whether the fundamental difference between PnP and VC advocates is a difference in paradigm use. While I'm fairly sure that is the case, I am not 100% convinced. I'm hoping that thread will confirm that this is the case, or help uncover what is.

Here's the thing, we all believe things based on certain assumptions. Sometimes we're not even aware of the assumptions we're making. A lot of what I do here is test my beliefs regarding cycling advocacy and safety issues. Try to uncover the assumptions, and test them. Why I get so much resistance to doing this I don't understand.

I'll try to get some pictures today.

HH, in case you hadn't noticed, Mark has taken pictures of BAD bike lanes.

Bek, the "bad" qualifier in front of "bike lanes" is redundant from the perspective of the VC paradigm which is based on the assumption that you reject, which is: bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so..

You can only have a "good" bike lane from the perspective of the PnP paradigm, which is based on the assumption which many of your posts make it appear that you believe, namely that while bikes belong on the road, they should get and stay out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right.. Bike lanes facilitate exactly that, so they make sense from that paradigm.

what the heck you talking about, Helmet Head, putting words in my mouth???

Those are NOT my beliefs about well designed, multimodal accomodations, integrated with the existing roadways.

You state in another thread, that a "vehicular cyclist" will ride to the left of a bike lane stripe,

and in a photo puzzler, you state you'd ride to the left of the line pictured below,

you make it abundantly clear YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO RIDE YOUR BIKE. This is all basic, Bicycling 101 stuff, Helmet Head, available thru local bike advocacy groups, or over the internet.

But it was interesting to see yours as well. Obviously, they have chosen a different "path" in pugetopolis.

Actually, civil engineers seem to have been given so much leeway in BL/path design, that it would be good to see what's out there. That way you won't be thrown for a loop the first time you roll into a community using outer barrel clover leaf underpath loops. For instance, if I came to your town I would be at least momentarily confused by the bike lane / intersection in the middle of the road. Maybe its a great idea ... dunno ... but I've never seen it implemented here.

Gotta fun one here. This is Chandler Blvd. heading west just before it crosses I-10.

The images are frame grabs from video and show a sequence.

1. You can see the last bit of standard 4-5ft width BL.
2. Then it narrows to about 2ft.
3. Then it turns dashed to allow for RTOL crossing, but remains narrow.
4. After the dash.
5. Then is basically looks like a narrow shoulder.

I normally don't ride in it, but did for the video grab. The actual video shows it better:

3.5MB Video of Narrowing BL (right click, save target as..., then open from local)

Al

I'll repeat myself:
Bike lanes make sense from the VC paradigm. It is only you (and your disciples) who confuses VC with riding down the center of the lane and only pulling to the right when necessary rather than the reverse of that (staying to the right and moving left when necessary.) Center lane biasing is not VC. That is your own spin on VC.

VC is the part about having the same rights, obligations and responsibilities as any other driver of a vehicle. Just because we disagree on how far to the right is practicable and safe at any moment in time does not mean that what we do is not adhering to vehicular cycling practices.

Can we just keep this thread to showing truely BAD bike lanes, that is ones that even most bike lane proponets would agree are bad and keep the VC/BL debate elsewhere.

We all know about how most 'good' bike lanes are 'bad' to some folks already.

For the record, it is not the 'bad' bike lanes that turn me off of BLs, but 'good' BLs put in inappropriate places. We already have several threads to debate where those places are.

Of course this is by no means 'my' thread and by no means do I have any 'right' to suggest the rules, but I think if we follow what I suggest it will keep this thread from further derailing into those kinda threads we all get too excited about. I think MarkS started a good one and I hate to see it completely dissipate into endless debate. If Mark disagrees I'll retract this and my similar previous post and we can all go at it here.

Al