noisebeam

Agreed, please do.

I find if I choose to use a BL I spend more time monitoring rear (especially approaching commercial driveways) than I do when I ride in the lane. Far more time and far more often with the need to react to what I see at my rear.
Al

sbhikes

Maybe you guys should take a class.

noisebeam

yoga?
debating?
calculus?

oh, a how to ride in the gutter class? Pls. advise where to sign up. All cycling classes I know of or have taken do not address how to ride in BLs, they are about cycling safety, riding in traffic, negotiating a merge, signaling, looking back, riding in straight line, bike maintenance, legal requirements, turning, etc.
Al

sbhikes

Then maybe you should read a book. You guys obviously have some issues with bike lanes. It's really not that complicated.

noisebeam

Books about using BLs, oh my, what has the world come to.
Really the issue about BLs is yours. We don't need them, there is no conclusive data to support they make roads safer, yet you resort to pissing contests about experience and training of anyone who suggests that they may not be all that.

Designing roads with WOLs is a no brainer, hard to screw up and easy to implement. Adding a stripe adds a level of complexity that time after time has been shown to result in unnessessary striping, unsafe striping, confusing striping, etc. The burden of proof is on BL proponents to demonstrate they can be implemented without error consistently and without creating unintended worse condition in some places while attempting to create perceived safer conditions in others.

Al

I-Like-To-Bike

Iz Zat Zo? Let me know about your experience or information about how easy it is to retrofit WOLs on streets in built up urban areas where few/none have ever been used; say almost any city built up prior to WW2, especially where cheap desert/rural land wasn't available in the city for road widening.

CTAC

Simple. You are using your imagination rather then facts.

Helmet Head

Man, you're getting very good at this.

Who said anything about how easy it is to retrofit WOLs on streets in built up urban areas?
If you have room for a BL, you definitely have room for WOL.
If you have room for a WOL, you might have room for a BL. But maybe not.

If you don't have room for a WOL, a BL is out of the question.

Helmet Head

Easy to say by the dodger of all the tough questions.

CTAC

There are no tough questions here. All your bike lane opposing is a simple *****ing over the idea that someone would rank you lower than a car driver. Safety has nothing to do with that.

Helmet Head

If there not tough, then why don't you answer them? I'm talking about a series of questions from several of us from earlier today.

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. Predictably, it's a statement of opinion about what I've said, without any reference to any of my actual words.

galen_52657

Luckily, not a death... but similar accident to others noted here:

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=238879

1000 oaks

It happened back on 9/16/06, sorry for the late post.

https://https://www1.venturacountystar...000566,00.html

Here is the location of the fatality in Google maps: https://tinyurl.com/ybedeb - It occurred on Westlake Blvd, northbound, perhaps 50 yds north of Cresthaven drive. Westlake Blvd is two lanes (+ a bike lane) in each direction. The street is in a very broad, sweeping turn to the right at that location. The posted speed limit is about 45 mph. The accident occurred about noon, I believe.

Garvin was a member of the Thousand Oaks traffic commission and an avid cyclist, part owner of a local bicycle shop.

teiaperigosa

this thread is very long and I'm not reading all of it (at least not right now)...

just read the first page plus a bit...

and I want to commend Helmet Head for taking the time and composure to reply to all the ignorant and unexperienced responses that simply dismiss criticism of bike lanes

I appreciate the thoughtfullness of your responses, and your posting of the thread in the first place

Helmet Head

Why, thank you teiaperigosa.

Of course, the issue is much bigger than bike lanes. It's really about whether cyclists should ride on roads as if they have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars, which is the pervasive cultural expectation in our society, and supported by bike lanes and their advocacy. Consider this recent statement from Floyd Landis:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...ct06/oct22news

The subconscious implication of this statement, which I bet Landis does not even realize, nor do most people who hear him say it, is that, yes, there are times when cyclists have to ride in a lane position which is in the way of cars, but those situations are relatively rare, and most cyclists try hard at staying out of the way of cars all the other times, like they're supposed to. And, of course, bike lanes help cyclists do that (get out of the way of cars).

In the mean time, Glenn Carvin's family is in deep mourning.

noisebeam

Why is it still even acceptable to have BL stripes painted approaching intersections (where there isn't a RTOL)?

Whether or not one supports BLs, one has to see this practice only leads to driver (cyclist and motorist) confusion. If folks want to (further) advance the standing of BLs, drive for a national standard that avoids their placement in dangerous places.

Al

genec

+100. Heck, even the nationally recognized MUDCD allows for bike lanes next to parked cars..... perhaps we should start with that document first.

Also at this point we know that different states treat BL differently, where as most states treat other traffic signals pretty much the same. (I have to use modifiers in that statement as some states have strange traffic lights, some have right on red, and some even allow stop signs to be yields for bikes)... why can't we all get along?

Helmet Head

Missing the point.

Like all bike lanes, even door zone bike lanes and bike lanes painted all the way up to the intersection demarcate space that is appropriate to be used by cyclists under certain factors and conditions. The space demarcated by a clean door zone bike lane might be fine, for example, to allow faster traffic to pass when no cars happen to be parked. The bike lane on n/b Genesee that goes all the way up to the intersection with Eastgate Mall is fine, if you're turing right/east onto Eastgate mall.

Almost no bike lane demarcates roadway space that should never be used for bicycling.
Almost no bike lane demarcates roadway space that should always be used for bicycling.

All bike lanes demarcate roadway space that, like any other roadway space, should sometimes be used for bicycling, and sometimes not. In others words, all bike lanes are, at best, useless and pointless. At worst, they encourage use of roadway space for bicycling at times when that space is not appropriate for bicycling. That's the point of this thread. To contend that door zone bike lanes or up-to-the-intersection bike lanes are somehow significantly different and significantly worse than other bike lanes is still missing the point... on page 15!

noisebeam

Of course, but some go beyond pointless and are clearly worse than others being far more likely to be dangerous and/or improperly/unsafely used by cyclist. My point is that almost all BL proponents agree that BLs in door zones are bad and should not be designed as such (and some communities have done this) and most agree that BL approaching intersections (at least non-driveway ones) are bad too. I am suggesting that the absolute worst of BLs be corrected with a national standard, while allowing the debate over the stripe less obvious useless and pointless places to rage on. But with an exteme, even if valid, position one can not see this middle ground I suppose.

Really if there were never BLs for the 100yrd. approach to every intersection, including driveway and no BLs next to door zones I don't think the remaining stripe along faster intersectionless roads really is that big a deal.

Al

Helmet Head

Al,

I think you're estimating the "bad" bike lanes to be worse than I think they are, and/or estimating the "good" ones to be not as bad as I think they are, so that the distinction between the good and the bad seems more significant to you than to me.

Well, if you're talking only about bike lanes that are on long stretches of freeway-like intersectionless roads, I'll agree those aren't as problematic (but they still make the cyclist more prone to close passes and inadvertent drift and have debris collection issues). But that's different from simply isolating door zone bike lanes and bike lanes that go all the way up to intersections. There are many thousands of miles of bike lanes that do not fit either of those categories, nor your special category, that are very problematic.

noisebeam

Remind me...

Helmet Head

Any bike lane on a road with no onstreet parking and with driveways less than 100 yards apart fits that category.
I submit that describes the vast majority of bike lanes.

noisebeam

This may come from different local experiences.
The striping at all intersection approaches I find problematic because there are so many minor intersections along arterials, especially in the 1-2hundred yards before and after arterial intersections. These are often heavily used during rush hour as they tend to be for shopping centers, gas stations, grocery stores - places folks stop by on their way home or on the way to work. (more so in the PM commute I find)
I experience the level of driver harrassment goes up massively when I don't use these bike lanes that are in the approach of these type of intersections. Far more harrassment than when there is no stripe, but instead a WOL and I stay center biased and even more so than when a NOL. It makes sense too as drivers see the BL and me not in it and it gives them justifcation for harrassing me as I am out of my designated place holding them up.

Now in the case of straight or curved intersectionless roads with no door zones, but a BL, one may default to riding in the primary lane. But if safe, one will also move over to let faster traffic pass after the visual two way contact has been made. The opportunity for harassment is much lower if not zero. The only real possibilities for not moving over are if there is a patch of debris in the BL or if one sees other vehicles following that one doesn't want to pass you. Both of these are rare and short lived events - very unlikely to lead to harrassment.

Now I know one can and will take the harassment, but that is a different discussion, but here I just wanted to explain why I find BL stripes at intersection approaches to be worse than along intersectionless roads.

Al

noisebeam

If there are roads with driveways each less than 100 yards apart, then that road should not have a BL stripe. It exactly fits the kind of road with BL stripe that I find so problematic and that there should be national guidelines to not have BL stripes in this case.

That is why I said "Remove the stripe 100yrds before every intersection including driveway."

Al

Helmet Head

Well, your original wording was, "Why is it still even acceptable to have BL stripes painted approaching intersections (where there isn't a RTOL)?"

So I assumed you were referring only to intersections big and busy enough to warrant RTOLs if space was available. Apparently, you're also talking at least about intersections with commercial driveway entrances. What about residential driveways? No BL stripe for 100 yards prior to them too?