My biggest concern with bike lanes is based on the premise that in
order to ride in the safest manner in traffic, a cyclist must learn
"dynamic lateral lane positioning with a bias towards lane center".
Bike lanes, by their very existence, even the supposedly well-designed
ones, make cycling much more dangerous to almost all cyclists because
they inhibit novice cyclists from learning "dynamic lane positioning"
and discourage experienced cyclists from practicing it. Further, this
inhibition and discouragement applies to cyclists brainwashed by bike
lanes to ride dangerously ("statically positioned") even on roadways
without bike lanes.

Study after study shows that the safest and most effective way to ride
a bicycle in traffic involves dynamic lateral lane positioning by the
cyclist, where the appropriate lateral lane position at any particular
time varies depending on the current conditions, which are constantly
changing. The ever-changing factors that the traffic cyclist must
constantly re-evaluate include:

1. Destination of the cyclist.
2. Volume and speed of other traffic.
3. Speed of the cyclist.
4. Speed, lane position and destination of motorists in the
cyclist's immediate vicinity.
5. Response of nearby motorists to the cyclists' requests for the
motorists to yield the right-of-way.
6. Pavement condition (pot holes, presence of grease slick, water,
rubble, sand, trash, etc.)
7. Ambient light.
8. Weather.
9. Time needed to reach next intersection.
10. etc. etc.

Taking into account all these factors (and others) and adjusting the
cyclist's lateral lane position accordingly makes him much safer
because it makes him more visible and predictable, and being visible
and predictable is the cornerstone of safe cycling.

In general, whenever (but not only when) there is no one behind who
would be slowed down by the cyclist, the thru cyclist is safer riding
in the center of the lane (somewhere between the left and right tire
tracks of regular motor traffic). He is safer in the center than
along the edge of the road because he is more visible and predictable in
that position. He is more visible because he is riding where
motorists tend to look and focus: the area of the roadway where cars
are normally driven. He is more predictable because he is riding
where through motorists drive; off to the side is where turning
traffic tends to travel. If the thru cyclist rides along the edge of
the roadway he is more likely to be misjudged to be preparing for a
turn rather than continuing straight. A cyclist riding in the center
of the lane is more visible and predictable to motorists approaching
from behind (for whom the cyclist can move aside when they are close
enough and it is safe to do so), and he is more visible and
predictable to motorists in cross traffic that can potentially move
into or in front of him if they don't see him or misjudge his
destination intent.

A bias to riding in the center should make the cyclist safer even from
the rare but deadly motorist-passing-cyclist type collisions. In those
collisions it is often the case that the motorist was never aware of
the presence of the cyclist (or only became aware of his presence when
it was too late), and simply drifted into him. It is only logical
that such collisions would be avoided if the motorist could be made
aware of the presence of the cyclist. It also seems clear that a
motorist is much more likely to be aware of a cyclist who is riding in
the center of the lane in his path up ahead, and, only when noticed,
moves aside closer to the edge to allow the motorist to pass, than he
is likely to be aware of a cyclist who is riding near the edge (and
never in the motorist's path) the entire time.

The problem with bike lanes is that they inhibit novice cyclists from
learning dynamic lane positioning, and discourage even experienced
cyclists from practicing it. In fact, bike lanes encourage the exact
opposite: static lateral lane positioning, primarily at the edge of
the roadway (with the occasional supposedly "well-designed" BL placed
to the left of a right turn lane - but never-the-less communicating
that there is one particular "correct" static lateral lane position
for a cyclist, regardless of the factors outlined above). Worse, even
the best bike lanes are monuments to the concept that the cyclist's
primary directive is to stay out of the way of motorists, a dangerous
lesson conveyed by the very existence of bike lanes not only to
cyclists, but to motorists and law enforcement officers as well.

I don't know which came first: bike lanes, or the idea that cyclists
should keep to the side "out of the way" of motorists. But I do know
that bike lanes foster and propogate that dangerous idea. How many
cyclists must needlessly be injured or killed before cyclists finally
get fed up with these dangerous facilities?

Even the best bike lanes teach cyclists to ride unsafely, inhibit them
from learning to ride safely, and discourage cyclists from practicing
safe cycling. Bike lanes, even the best ones, teach motorists and law
enforcement officers that safe cyclist behavior is incorrect. That, in
a nutshell, is my biggest concern with bike lanes.

Serge

We paint a stripe on the road where we want you to ride. Nevermind that you rode there anyway, before we painted the stripe. Now, we are giving you your "own lane" to ride in (even though you already had it.) What do you call someone who "gives" you something you already had, while taking away the rest?

Soon, this "bike lane" becomes a substandard place to ride, filled with debris and parked cars, or worse, the "bike lane" was painted next to curbside parking to begin with, which is a death-trap. Motorists hate to see you leave your "bike lane" (to avoid the natural debris and the drain grates that fill them) and venture into "theirs," since you've already been given your "own lane." Bicycle riders should be more reasonable, after all we've given them.

(And if we need that space back, remember, we "gave" it to you in the first place, and so we can take it back.)

(Serge, you are too cool in my book, but I think the length of your posts chill some people down. )

I know. I can't seem to find a happy medium between the opening post in this thread, and simply writing:

My biggest concerns with bike lanes are twofold.

1) They do nothing to reduce collisions at (or near) intersections and,

2) drivers use bike lanes as an extra lane for them and drive, pass or park in them.

Bike lanes do nothing to reduce collisions, period.

What's wrong with drivers using bike lanes? At least in CA, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane prior to making a right turn, and are allowed to do so up to 200 feet before the turn.

What's wrong with drivers merging into the bike lane to make a right turn if cyclists are supposed to merge left to go straight?

Ask closetbiker. He was the one expressing concern about motorists using bike lanes as an "extra lane" and for parking.

As far as I'm concerned, what's wrong is that most motorists see bike lanes as shoulders and don't understand that they're supposed to merge into the bike lane prior to making the turn, and most cyclists don't realize they are supposed to exit the bike lane and move to the left if they're not turning right. The fact that so many get it wrong indicates inherent poor design. To solve this particular issue with bike lanes alone, they should end at least 200 feet (think 10-12 car lengths) prior to every intersection (earlier at big multi-lane intersections). That still doesn't address the multitude of other problems with bike lanes.

I'm all for bike lanes to be used like "bike sidewalks".
Meaning, like pedestrians are allowed to be on the sidewalk but also on the street, we should be allowed in the car lanes as well as in the bike lane. Everyone has to understand the dynamics involved and where everybody's place is (which isn't happening in america).
Riders have to know when and when not to use bike lanes, know to ride far enough from parked cars, know when to take the lane, know to keep their eyes open (which isn't happening for a lot of people).
When I'm going slow and there's a bike lane, I appreciate it because a) I know enough to judge how large doors are and ride far enough b) i'm not blocking cars c) i know enough to anticipate when to move into a car lane if a car is double parked.
OTOH, when I'm moving faster, I will be in the car lane, I won't take the bike lane even if there is one because the pedestrians eyes are usually focused on the car lane.
If I'm moving really fast, I will fully merge with the cars.

-- Speaking from my own urban commuting experience, I think that
BIKE LANES ARE GOOD.

At least the ones I have used.

Technically, the drivers are not merging into the bike lanes here in California. The bike lane disappears 200 feet from the intersection here. Now you suddenly have a motorized vehicle and a bicycle, sharing one lane, even if it's a two vehicle wide lane. Who has the right of way? Legislated confusion**********?
Most of our bike lanes are just a stripe establishing a 5-8 foot bike lane on the right side of a very wide road, but every driveway and intersection puts two vehicles suddenly in the same spot. I'm not worried about the bike lanes in between intersections, as I can take them and leave them, which I do when I need to. My observations are that most drivers don't know that they don't always have the right of way when they "overtake" a bicycle(I think they should be waiting behind us, especially when 15 of us are taking the entire right turn lane to make a right turn).
Even without bike lanes on a very wide road, drivers don't know what to do when they want to turn into a driveway. With a bike lane there, (you have an excellent point), even the cyclists coming up behind the driver think the car should wait until they all pass, even though the cyclists should be out far enough to be vehicles behind the turning car. (These are all just my opinions, and could be wrong, concerning where/how we should ride.)

I was talking about cars driving in bike lanes as a lane of traffic for cars. Not passing through them on the way to turn right. I mean, traffic backed up, driver moves on over and passes everyone on the right side of the road by driving in the bike lane.

The trick with bike lanes is to ride as if they aren't even there. . Use them like part of the road. The facile argument about being placed in the door zone, well, if you are riding right to let cars pass you are in the door zone anyway. Ride traffic side edge of the bike lane to stay out of the door zone. And if you need to take the lane, because of drivers, other bikes, turning traffic, merging traffic, do so. Bike lanes aren't rails. The bike lanes out here seem to work pretty well for cyclists. There's even a stretch of pretty fast four lane where the city took a lane away from the cars in order to make a bike lane (with parking as well, of course.) Every cyclist I've spoken to has, without exception, heartily endorsed the change.

My guess is that the idea probably came first, as a natural evolution of having roads where vehicle speeds (maybe potential speeds) exceed the capabilities of cyclists by a considerable margin. I think about when I'm in a car going up a steep mountain road and get stuck behind a Winnebago struggling to maintain 15 MPH. I just want that sucker to get out of the way. As luck would have it, many such roads have developed "truck lanes" or turnouts to facilitate getting around. Perhaps bike lanes are an extension of that idea.

Not that I consider BIKE = WINNEBAGO or anything like that, but there is an obvious discrepancy in capability of both "Winnebagos on mountain roads" and "bicycles on roads where speeds exceed 20 MPH" and I could see how people could get the idea that there's a need for separation.

I'm not saying bike lanes are a good idea.

Or a bad one.

So...
Sharing space in a bike lane with cars = bad.
Sharing space with cars in the street = good.

I don't get it?

Confused motorists = bike lanes are bad.
Confused cyclists = bike lanes are bad.

Where does motorists' and cyclists' responsibility to be good drivers come in?

I think Bekologist has the most reasonable argument so far.

I understand Serge's point but I don't think things are quite as black and white as he and Forester make them out to be. Bike lanes/paths DO have some positive aspects. For one thing they make people FEEL safer. This means more people using bikes and a wider cross section of the community, i.e. young/ old/ male/ female. It makes it more difficult to for your average SUV driver to write off cyclists as annoying young punks who shouldnt be on the road.

Bike paths/ lanes also make a statement that bicycles have a place in the city. Maybe not always the place that they want to be but at least they are acknowledged as a legitimate form of transport.

They also reduce that particularly nasty and often fatal form of accident the rear end collision from a high speed car.

Of course bike lanes have many disadvantages as well (dooring / pedestrian/ cyclist inattention / intersections). You have to learn how to take action to minimise these risks. I have seen two cyclists down in Munich and both times they were lying on a cycle path and it looked as if a car had tried to right turn over the path and had failed to give right of way to the cyclist.

I just feel that the truth lies somewhere between the Serge/Forester position and the opposite position. On my commute through the city I choose a combination of roads, cycle paths and even the odd short stretch of pavement (walking pace only) . Some cycles paths I won't use at all as they are to dangerous. Some I use with appropriate caution at intersections and so on. Some I am quite happy to use where the road is high speed and there are no intersections. Sometimes I use the road and take the whole lane.

Cycling will never be 100% safe whatever approach is taken.

Just a little example from this morning.

There are several intersections where I cross a main road on a residential street. 80% of car traffic turns right. I always move out of the bike lane and position myself to the left of those right turning cars, like behind their left wheel. Then as the line of right turners moves forward I do to and often end up at the front of the lane on the left side and right turners keep turning right to my right.

This morning I did the same. Noted one bike rider on sidewalk ready to cross on the cross walk. A second bike rider was in the bike lane. Light turned green, I had to wait for right turning cars who were watching out for these cyclists in lane and the cross walk going straight. They passed and car started to turn right and I started to move. Suddenly a third bike rider came up in bike lane and went in front of right turning car which hit brakes hard. Bike passed and me and car went forward (on yellow)

Now if these riders had not be 'trained' by bike lane myself and the right turning cars would have spend much less time at intersection AND there would not have been the near collision. Now I realize that the problem is the bike riders who should not be going straight from the bike lane that is on the right side of the road, but I really blame the bike lane and its design as it gives the message that one must ride in it.

Now this is just one small example and some could say it is the result of poorly designed bike lanes that don't end well before intersection. Also contributing is that there is a push button on the side of the road for cyclist to press to activate light signal - but clearly the only cyclists that need to push the button are ones going left or straight and this button forces them to the right side of the road - really stupid, not to mention the city won't tune the inductive sensors for bikes as the push button is there. The way I handle it every morning (and on several intersections like this) is if there is already a car in left turn lane, no need to push button. If there is a car waiting to turn right (which don't activate inductive sensors as they are biased toward left side of lane) then I squeeze between car and push button then wheel bike around back of right turning car. If there is no car I push button and then wheel bike to left side of lane. If there is no car, but one approaching I push button then hold up my hand and stop car and walk in front of it to get to left side of lane. Like I said 90% of cars turn right (10% left turners and 10% go straight) at these intersections so being on the left side is very helpful to me and them.

Al

Neither will driving, walking, etc. But this does not mean that road designs can not be optimized for the safety of all using them.

Al

Hang in there, Serge....You've gotten many people thinking & communicating about a very important cycling topic.....we all owe a debt of gratitude to you for that....You've certainly helped me focus my thoughts.....as a recently retired 34 year transit bus driver, I agree with your ideas at least 95%.....

noisebeam Your logic is much better than your math -
Joe

But, but I did say 80% at the begining of the message Maybe its my typing, well probably 50% of the time it is, the other 60% its my math.

Al

Yes, I know. Whenever I see this, the guy passing everyone on the right side driving in the bike lane is (eventually) going to turn right. My point was that as long as he is within 200 feet (10-12 car lengths) of the turn, it's legal.


Wow! Thank you!

I do find it interesting that no one has even addressed, much less attempted to refute, the argument I presented in my opening post (that the very existence of bike lanes inhibits novice cyclists and discourages experienced cyclists from riding safely in traffic).

I agree with Bekologist (the trick with bike lanes is to treat them as if they are not there). That's what Forester says, and that's what I do, of course. But my point is novice cyclists don't do that, and even most experienced cyclists don't know to do that. After 30 years of cycling it never occured to me, until I read Effective Cycling.

I don't necessarily disagree with royalflash. Perhaps bike lanes do have some positive aspects. But the positive aspects are insignificant compared to the enormous negative aspects of bike lanes. And I do not agree that reducing rear-end collisions is one of those positive aspects - I am not aware of any study or evidence that shows that such collisions are reduced when bike lane stripes are painted on a street (street widening and/or restriping to accomodate bike lanes could have such an effect, but attributing the reduction to the painting of a stripe is without basis). So we should have bike lanes because they make novice cyclists FEEL safer, despite the fact that they inhibit most of them from ever learning to ride safely, and actually encourage unsafe behavior in traffic? Royalflash does acknowledge many (not all - does not even address the main one I raised in the opening post here) of the disadvantages of bike lanes, but seems to wave them aside with a casual, "you have to learn how to take action to minimise these risks." You? You who? You the novice cyclist who FEELs safer in a bike lane and is completely oblivious to all the additional dangers imposed on him or her by the bike lane? Like I asked in my opening post,

How many cyclists must needlessly be injured or killed before cyclists finally get fed up with these dangerous facilities?

Royalflash concludes by contending that "the truth" lies somewhere in between what Forester & I (though I've never read or heard Forester say what I've argued in the opening post of this thread) contend and the "opposite position". Presumably the two opposing positions are: "All bike lanes should be painted over" vs. "the more bike lanes the better, regardless of whether they are well designed or not" . So the "somewhere in between" position is something like "Many bike lanes should be painted over, but the well-designed ones should stay". Which of course ignores the argument in my opening post.

Royalflash then describes how he uses bike lanes, which is the Forester/Bekologist/******* "just ignore them" approach. That's great. That's great for the few of us who were lucky enough to learn this approach before we were maimed or killed from the miseducation we received from bike lanes. Goody for us, and too bad for all the rest. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it for me.

It's time for to go public with the big secret: cycling in traffic can be safe, though you have to learn a few things about it, and bike lanes have nothing to do with it. In fact, bike lanes, even the "well designed" ones, only make cycling in traffic less safe, because they encourage behavior that is contrary to what needs to be learned to cycle safely in traffic, and inhibit and discourage behavior that is consistent with safety.

Serge

Serge- your writing on these matters is clear and re-inforces my opinion that bike lanes only lead to trouble. Thank you.

An important point that I want to make that shifts the thinking from 'bike lanes are bad' to better accomidating cyclists is that while bike lanes are not wanted, curb side lanes that are wide enough to safely allow a truck to pass a cyclist while the cyclist is 3ft from curb do in my opinion make cycling safer and more enjoyable.

Al

Don't feel bad. There are three types of people: those that are good at math, and those that are not.

Thank you, and good point. However, I'm not aware of how WOLs (Wide Outside Lanes) make cycling safer. Are motorist-passing-cyclist collision types less frequent on roads with WOLs than on roads with narrow lanes? I'm not so sure.

Regarding enjoyment... if the cyclist is concerned about holding up others, which happens to some extent on roads with narrow lanes, then WOLs make cycling more enjoyable by alleviating the cyclist of that concern. To me, though, that's pretty minor. Roads where passing is so difficult that the "holding up" is significant are only a tiny portion of those with narrow lanes. In fact, I can't think of a single one that so qualifies in San Diego (doesn't mean there aren't any - I just can think of any). In any case, some cyclists are concerned even when the "holding up" is relatively insignificant (measured in 10s of seconds of delay for the motorist), and, so, for them, the WOL does make cycling more enjoyable. However, we do have to balance the real (and often enormous) costs of road widening against the value of making cycling more enjoyable for a very small group of people. It's hard to justify and be fiscally responsible at the same time.