CTAC

Would you prefer them to drive a car then? They would not ride unless they feel safe.

noisebeam

I would prefer they learn how to cycle in traffic before cycling in traffic. If that means not cycling, then so be it.
Why do you advocate making cyclists feel safe to get them cycling, if they are not actually prepared to be safe? Your tempting them with false security into an activity they are not prepared for.
Al

Helmet Head

+1

genec

So erase the white lines and leave up the signs... life should be much better then.

Now convince the politicians that this will work.

noisebeam

That has always been my position. WOL with additional 'StR' type signage and markings that do not indicate any particular roadway position unless all vehicles must use same roadway position.

I am also fine (neutral) with a BL stripe on long stretches of intersectionless roads that have high speed limits and volumes.

Al

Helmet Head

Politicians? Try convincing the "bike" advocates like CTAC.

genec

Well the "bike" advocates use "bike lanes" to request funding through politicians from Federal sources to widen roads. The Federal sources understand the concept based on "alternative transportation" and "bike lanes." Wider roads can be WOL.

You want changes, that is where the changes need to take place. At the top.

The "bike advocates" are only using the "resources" that have been set up by the "rule makers."

While you're at it, convince those at the top that the 85th percentile rule for establishing speeds on roads in California should include all legal vehicles that use that road.

derath

+10

I was actually about to post the EXACT same thing.

-D

Helmet Head

The desire for road widening accounts only for a tiny percentage of the bike lanes that "bike" advocates call for.
It is true that most "bike" money is targetted for "facilities", and a large percentage of that pot goes to "bike lanes". But like with all addictions, the best response is to just say NO.

Edit: Also, you're kidding yourself if you think decisions like this are made "at the top" by the "rule makers". Modern American politics are all about "special interests", and the tiny political niche of bicycling advocacy is no different. The relevant "special interests" in this niche are the bike manufacters and those "on the dole" one way or another: traffic engineers, law enforcement, "bike planners", motorist advocacy (AAA), advocacy lobbyists, etc. They all benefit from more and more bike lanes.

genec

LOL... right, let me know when politicians can be trained to keep hands out of the kitty.

Free money... free money... Like I said... you have to start at the top for that one.

Helmet Head

Huh? The only benefit that politicians get from using money in the kitty on bike lanes is to appease the special interests (see the Edit: portion of my previous post).

noisebeam

Want to see an example of the desire for more lanes and more bike lane look alikes at the expense of common sense and safety? It also shows how narrow BLs come to be. So desperate to be 'cycle friendly' a too narrow lane was called a 'bike route' instead and roadside bushes are being trimmed to extract a few extra inches of riding room in the gutter.

https://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#article

(note no need for anyone to comment on the other letters in this great collection of examples of narrow lane and letters to the editor. A great read as I pointed out in another thread I just posted this link and pretty much reads like an A&S thread)

Al

genec

OK then, in reality you will have to change all those "on the dole" and anyone else benefitting from BL before all BL can be erased. Sounds like one huge upstream swim.

OR you can admit that the intertia for moving that monster is too huge, and that the reality is BL are not going away... at which point you should join the "BL crew" and work within the system to improve BL rather than remain the lone voice in trying to remove them. I know you are not really "alone..." but the weight of all those "on the dole" is far greater than those lonely cyclists out there trying to rid the world of BL.

As long as cycling advocacy remains splintered... the results will be pretty much what we see today. As soon as that advocacy comes together in a single unified voice... we can have the same power as the ADA or MADD.

Otherwise... You're just spittin' into the wind...

Your choice.

CTAC

It's called daydreaming, right?

genec

No, it's called teaching kids how to ride bikes at the same time we teach reading writing and arithmetic.

Since driving or being part of traffic is so much part of our society... why is it that we don't teach how to do this as part of our educational system?

The reality is bike riding and bike rodeos used to be part of the lessons available at public schools... and in some areas it still is.

Time to bring it back everywhere. Just like PE and shop, and music.

CTAC

Lanes do the same. I'd prefer sharrows and signage over bike lanes for low volume traffic streets. Lanes are better for high speed high volume multilane roads, where 'sharing' is impossible or impractical.

noisebeam

Better the daydream than the alternate nightmare that results from encouraging those who don't know by painting stripes.
Look, lack of stripes is not going to make all people learn how to cycle in traffic, but it will make some give second thought to how they are going to get from A to B safely. With stripes one is incorrectly telling novices there is a safe way from A to B and no further learning or skills are needed.
Al

Helmet Head

I think the most important concept for cycling advocates to convey is that knowing how to ride a bike is not the same thing as knowing how to ride a bike in traffic. The difference isn't enormous, but it is significant. And if you're not sure what it is, that's a good sign you haven't learned it yet.

noisebeam

No, re-read our entire conversation on this. Lanes do worse. They 'put' cyclist away, they discourage sharing the road. Sharing the road is always possible, essential and practical - the alternate is separated bike paths.

But yes, on long stretches of intersectionless high speed high volume roads (i.e. not any urban or suburban) there may be a case for a bike lane.

Al

sbhikes

Lanes do no such thing.

Please, before anybody listens to the anti-advocates, consider that

a) only a small amount of people attend their bicycle advocacy meetings in their respective cities,
b) most of those who do attend drive to the meetings,
c) those of us who live in towns and cities with healthy bike advocacy groups also have a lot of on-street facilities,
d) those of use who have healthy bike advocacy groups also ride to the meetings,
e) those of us who live in places with lots of on-street facilities also have many more cyclists plying the roads than those of us who do not, despite worse weather in some cases.

We who actually ride on roads with well-designed bike lanes should be the ones to judge them. The rest of you have no idea.

noisebeam

Well I ride in a LAB awarded Silver Level Bike Friendly City (just like Santa Barbara) and ride on roads with both AASHTO guideline BLs, those without any specific facilities and roads with WOLs. I think that is a broad experience to base what does and doesn't work.

Al

galen_52657

Oh, yes we do!

Bike lanes in these parts may be much less extensive than out west, but any deviation in design standard is minimal at best. The only thing you may have going for you is the fact that after a certain amount of exposure, at least some of the general public will take notice and possibly show a little deference to cyclists.

But the fact remains, bike lanes as currently configured on both coasts (and in the middle one would presume) are woefully inadequate:

1) Totally insufficient in width - a five foot wide bike lane is only suitable for single file cycling. A cyclist overtaking another cyclist at speed would have to (shudder) negotiate with motor traffic, merge left out of the bike lane and overtake the slower cyclist before returning to the bike lane.

2) Still fail to address the right hook and left hook at intersections.

3) Give novices a false sense of security which will ultimately lead to them to have difficulty on the majority of roads that have no bike lane.

And a host of other issues which have all been detected in infinite detail here....

Helmet Head

If you're centered it gives you only 1.5 feet of buffer on each side.
If you're at the stripe, your buffer on the right increases to a respectable 3' or so (assuming the bike lane is actually 5' in width), but the buffer on your left quickly approaches zero.

sbhikes

It is NOT the responsibility of bike lanes to address right/left hooks. That is your responsibility.

The lanes don't provide any more of a "false sense of security" than any other crazy scheme you can think up, and don't prevent nor preclude any of the necessary merging and monitoring you otherwise have to do. They do reduce the amount of paranoid monitoring you have to do of your rear.

All of you seem to have a problem in that you do not know how to use bike lanes. Bek has been pointing that out for some time, and I can see that it is probably true.

Helmet Head

If you're so sure we don't know how to use bike lanes, please, tell us what you think we're doing wrong.