Size is irrelevant. If it is meant to show a BL merging across a RT lane 200yrds. before exit, then it is grossly out of scale. It clearly shows a BL going across the RT lane at a very steep angle at the very last possible opportunity.
Al

I does help me on my routes. BL markings making my behavior more predictable for motorists and they are far more cooperative. With the BL markings crossing the traffic lane they are slowing down and yield to bicyclists because they know beforehand when the bicyclists is going to cross their path.

Give it up CTAC. You can provide stats, pictures, personal experience and iron-clad proof and those knuckleheads will still continue to disbelieve that bike lanes actually help people.

Of course, every now and then they'll admit they can be helpful and when you call them on it, they scurry under the carpet again like good little cockroaches.

I can see how that second bike lane configuration would help one negotiate freeway interchanges, and how that would probably work better than the typical no-man's land situation in the first drawing.

Oh come on Diane, even you know that 'safe' configuration is a death trap. Guiding cyclists to make a last second turn across a lane is rediculous. I thought you were against having BL to the right of RTing lanes, which this is an example of.
Don't you think something similar to the red line would be a far safer line (with merges left being accompanied by looks back and left arm signals). With this merge starting further back than I diagrammed.
Al

What?!?! Use the CAR lane? You'll get yourself killed!

Aside from a few bike lane defending posters on BF's, your average cyclist and most here on BF's too believe the above and think bike lanes somehow ward off any of the dangers of using the roads.

If you are going to ride on a road with a configuration as shown regardless of the bike lane stripes you had better know how to properly negotiate and merge with faster traffic. No bike lane will save you if you turn in front of an exitting motorist who thought you were going to stop when you thought they were yielding to you because of the bike lane.

No Diane and her ilk are more interested in name calling and berating their opponents. Rather than attempt to argue points in a respectful manner, they prefer taking cheap personal attacks. Things such as

Knuckleheads
cockroaches

or by making fun of their usernames (that is mostly Bek)

Funny how I haven't seen most of the foremost VC advocates lowering themselves to that level. The likes of Helmet Head may regurgitate their positions ad nauseum, but I can't remember the same level of vitriol from the VC crowd.

-D

The BL design in Al's post is a fine example of an incompetent city planner. If, indeed, such a person designed this nightmare.

That's one of the basic problems with BLs. In many cases the people that design these things are not cyclists, have no cycling experience, and think they're helping by SWAGging it and coming up with some of the worst and most dangerous designs.

How to handle a bad design like this? I would negotiate my way into the traffic lane to proceed straight. The heavier the traffic, the earlier I would move over. If it were my first time on this route and this caught me by surprise, I would go with the turn, then turn around and come back in the direction I wanted to go.

Later I would contact the city planner's office about how to correct their mistake.

First off, any off ramp is problematic. You are not going to encourage motorists to pass you on the right by riding off to the right in a bike lane or shoulder. The vehicular way would be to be in the strait lane before the off ramp is even encountered. That way, any vehicles behind can move into the off ramp and proceed without crossing the cyclist's line. Overtaking vehicles going strait would have to merge to an adjacent lane or pass when safe to do so or wait until the interchange was passed.

Otherwise, it would be safest to stop, wait for a big break in traffic taking the off-ramp and cross.

And therein lies the rub. The vast majority of BL's I have encountered are poorly designed and IMO more dangerous than simply not having them at all.

-D

Well, well. Perhaps it's time to retire. There is nothing I can add here except to give kudos to noisebeam, derath, galen, joejack and CommuterRun for the salient points they made.

And if the implications of CTAC's comments don't make obvious the serious false-sense-of-security issues that come with bike lanes, I suppose nothing will.

Of course it helps if "faster traffic" knows how to merge... I saw several instances this AM of folks that not only do not seem to know how to merge, they also act as if they are "privileged" and worked hard to try to cut off other drivers as they drove to the "head of the line."

If they are acting that way with motorists, imagine how they would act toward a cyclist "in their way."

At lunch just now, I was seated at a prime location to watch motorists... and one display just floored me... a female motorist that waited for another motorist and then proceeded to chase a ped off the road.

Love to see that kind of "sharing," it reminds me of how wonderful our driving public can be.

I assumed in this example that the RT lane did not appear as a new lane, but was the right most lane that turned into the RT/exit lane. In this first case (new lane) then one is already in the thru lane so one doesn't need to merge, but should stay centered in lane. In the case of rightmost lane turning into a RT/exit lane, then one needs to merge over in advance, how far in advance depends on cyclist speed, traffic speed and density. In generally the earlier the better. I have such condition on my commute (45mph posted road where right lane turn into exit lane) and I usually find myself getting going from centerish position to left position ~300yrds before exit, then merging into thru lane ~200yrds. before.
Al

I'm serious. Those types of streets are difficult to manage even under your VC style of riding.

His drawing isn't to scale, by the way.

This is an option. Because of this, if this lane configuration must exist, there should be stop line at the end of the BL before it crosses the exit lane the crossing should be marked as a x-walk. Not an ideal nor desired layout, but at least it tells cyclist who choose to stay dangerously right biased to treat crossing as one where they must stop & look.
Al

This type of situation was discussed by us here:
https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/189419-texas-charity-ride-bloodbath.html

Al

I agree with you that your retirement is long overdue.

In the example I provided I can actually see cars yielding to the bicyclists just because of the markings and signage. All you have is complete speculations.

You are claiming that there is 'unadvertent drift' because motorist are saying that they did not see anything? Think about that:
"I saw him, but that jerk should have jumped outta my way" - manslaughter
"I saw him, but I thought it is okay to sqeeze in" - reckless driving
"I did not see him" - accident
What answer would the motorist choose from the listed above?

"I did not see him"

But then how many motorists are targeting cyclists in an effort to kill?

Motorist might try to pass too close to "teach a lesson." But out and out target to kill? Nah. Although "but I thought it was okay to sqeeze in" might also be the real reason... I think too many motorists take chances that are flat out unwarranted, ever. This is not Hollywood, folks.

I tend to think that generally the motorists were pre-occupied and were not paying attention. Perhaps eyelids slowly snapping shut...

But I honestly do not believe that anyone goes out to commit mayhem. There might be a freak case or two... like those idiots that shoot up schools, but they are like what, 1 in 150,000,000?

Well, my only incident with a car driver was when he tried to teach me a lesson. I'm not saying that he wanted to actually kill me, but that what he actually was doing.

The guy passed me honking within inches from my hand and then tried to block me from passing him on the right on the stop sign (there was a line of cars and he had to wait for his turn). This last movement could result in an accident if I did not foresee it.

What do you think he would say to the police? "I did not see him". What HH would say? "Inadvertent drift".

Yup. I have seen jerks play "games" with their motor vehicles, never has anyone tried to teach me a lesson, but they sure have done stupid stuff... just because they were "afraid" of a bicycle.

But I tend to agree... I wonder how many "inadvertent drifts" were just motorists not paying attention, or worse, pushing their vehicle a bit fast.

This video says it all to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-izycNgKsyA

Well, that's essentially a crosswalk - where vehicle drivers are required to give ROW priority to those crossing.

Do you realize that by advocating these kinds of facilities for cyclists, you are advocating for cyclists to act and be treated like pedestrians while riding in traffic?

Such advocacy is fundamentally in conflict with vehicular cycling and the interests of vehicular cyclists.

On my commute I have a freeway overpass crossing. Some cyclists use it vehicularly, merging left early, while others ride slowly on the sidewalk, all the way across, and then use the crosswalk to cross. The two systems - vehicular and pedestrian - work fine, and either is available to cyclists. But when you make a cyclist specific facility that requires cyclists to act and be treated like pedestrians rather than vehicle drivers, that's something else again.

As much as we may butt heads from time to time... it is these specific types of facilities that tend to drive me nuts. These are the very things that even make me rant against "facilities."

Gene, do you agree that the type of "bike lane crossing" signs and markings that CTAC is promoting is something that would require cyclists to act and be treated as pedestrians rather than as vehicle drivers?

I don't think it is quite ped mode... unless grade changes and sidewalks are involved.

I don't like how they make the cyclist go across the ramp, but on the other hand that is exactly how I cross the hiway 5 at Genesee off ramp... at the opportune moment. (after lots of signaling and patience while waiting for a motorist to clearly see me and slow down... meaning: I am almost in ped mode)

What I don't like about it is that some cyclists are going to just ride across blindly. What I would prefer is a BL that becomes dashed just prior to the desired crossing point and then is dashed at the cross area, and then continues on as a solid.

But given the opportunity, I would eliminate that type of ramp all together... as motorists tend to feel they are on the hiway the moment they hit those ramps.

On the flip side, what Al shows in post 229 is better... but locally we had problems with that also... remember the KVR off ramp to 163?

The best thing is to use the "quick crossing" but move it back a bit... off of the actual on ramp and sign the heck out of it. Paint it odd colors if possible, to alert motorists. (a'la Portland) And put signs on it to alert cyclists. Make sure all road users are aware of an unusual situation.

The problem is that cyclists are going to try to cross from right to left across a ramp where motorists are accelerating... bad combination, no matter how you do it. Best to get the cyclists crossing before the motorists are in the acceleration mode. The best way to do that is make the motorists stop and turn before they get on the ramp... rather than use a sweeping ramp.

Since that road change is probably not possible, then moving the crossing back to before the ramp starts is preferable... make the motorists cross a straight bike lane, not the cyclists crossing a straight on ramp.

JMHO

I'm not going to die in the name of the vehicular cycling or anything else. If something makes people safer that is good.

I'd disagree that making drivers aware of the bicyclst presense and giving a bicycle priority in some cases makes such a bicyclist a pedestrian.

My picture was not up to scale. Your picture describes it much better. Lane change starts about 200 yards before the crossing.