The Human Car

+1 I have also noticed a pattern (even in more bike friendly areas) in that the ~third car back in pack does not see what the first two cars shifted over for so they don’t shift over resulting in a buzz of the cyclist. (Note this does not imply a cyclist won’t get buzzed by a solitary motorist just explaining another problem with WOL.)

Bekologist

narrow lanes, bikes get stuck in traffic, and get blamed for holding up traffic. wide outside lanes, bikes CAN get stuck in traffic, as cars will be skewed all over the wide lane, cars drive in any position in wide lane, wide lanes do not encourage road bicycling or visible road position by 'average bicyclist', wide lanes can encourage bicyclist harassment.

bike lanes, can be positioned to the left of right turn only lanes, bikes will NOT get stuck in traffic, bicyclists have clear lane, cars have clear lane, bikes do NOT hold up traffic, bikes will not encourage driver harrasment due lane position.

The Human Car

Your Government Conspiracy Theories to propagate cyclist’s inferiority are laughable. Gee I want segregated facilities (expressways) for my automobile so I must be brainwashed by the government and have motorist-inferiority syndrome. You logic does not work when applied to other things. Your logic is simply a way to resort to name calling when your arguments have failed.

Bikeways get the wrong way and the sidewalk cyclists in a better and safer road position. Bikeways are not about just reducing rear end collisions which you are constantly misdirecting arguments. And studies do show that bikeways work in this aspect.

And VC increasing the level of skill needed to ride a bike is a better option? Keeping the current ambiguity between a WOL, NOL and NSNOL (Not So Narrow OL) I do not find helpful for cyclists or the general public.

And it has already been pointed out that bikeways are increasing their modal share and I will point out that here mass transit has a 10% modal share so numbers approaching 10% I think are very encouraging.

sbhikes

Yes, I find a lot of motorist harassment and general stupidity happens on WOLs (and even more so on not-so-narrow-outside-lanes), too.

Motorists need bike lanes because otherwise they can't figure out what to do. They'll even try to pass you on the right sometimes. I can figure out what to do just fine bike lanes or not. It's them what's incompetent. I'd rather have incompetent motorists who at least know what to do, than stupid ones who have no idea.

rando

seems obvious to me. a designated lane for bicycles helps both motorists and cyclists. not necessary on all roads, but a huge advantage on some or most high speed ones.

joejack951

Ok, fine. Bike lanes solve the supposed problem of motorists not knowing how to go straight past a cyclist off to the side. I'll give you that (although I've never experienced any problems of the sort). How then do bike lanes offer any help at intersections? How does Mr. Incompetent Motorist suddenly figure out how to handle a bike lane at an intersection when he previously couldn't figure out how to go straight?

Bekologist

yep, so glaringly obvious, john delusionally created an 'inferiority complex' to damnify on-road bike infrastructure.

Helmet Head

Why? If you believe 'inferiority complex' is a false construct created in order to oppose bike lanes, what is your explanation for Forester's motivation to "damnify on-road bike infrastructure?"

Bekologist

joe, bike lanes can provide dedicated space for bicyclists leading up to intersections.

signs 'cars yield to bikes' and knowledge of same helps drivers 'figure it out'.

how do drivers handle bikes leading up to intersections with WOLs and bicyclists attempting to control the lane to prevent a righthook? pass agressively on left OR right.

there's 'problems' operating bikes on the roads, REGARDLESS of road striping or bike infrastructure.

however, if cyclists' rights to use of full lane is preserved, and mandatory sidepath rules are fought, then bike specific infrastructure has the ability to make communities more bikeable.

that the League of American Bicyclists- (who sent john forester packing, by the way!) can differentiate between different cities in America as being better, versus not-so-good for bicycling, speaks volumes to the efficacy of bike infrastructure in communities.

Bekologist

the guy is delusional, hates the idea of bike infrastructure, and is in bed with the car loving, bike adverse, sprawl loving, american dream coalition.

www.americandreamcoalition.org

Helmet Head

But WHY do you think he hates bike infrastructure? What do you believe is the reason that he hates bike infrastructure?

Bekologist

start another thread about why john hates bike infrastructure.

his canned response is sophistic mastery. he'd win laurels back in ancient Greece, dude.


this thread has been beat to death by the anti-accomodationalists, despite admittances that

a) bike infrastructure works well for some roads
b) it is vehicular to ride in bike lanes
c) studies show the efficacy of bike infrastructure at increasing modal share, improving road position, and decreasing indexed accident rates for bicyclists.
d) bike lanes can increase the 'bikeability' and decrease car/bike friction on roads, versus narrow lanes or wide lanes alone.


plueaze. you ride in bike lanes, vehicularily, when you occasionally ride a bike for your commute. we've seen the pictures of your commute, with bike lanes along high speed arterials. in steady traffic, your riding in the bike lanes, vehicularily.

The Human Car

+1 Motorist Inferiority Complex, that has to be the explanation.

Seriously if there were just 10’ or 14’ lanes VCing would be a lot simpler and easer for everyone to understand but when you through into the mix 12’ and 13’ lanes that really complicates the matter. We need consistent road widths and right hand stripes help.

invisiblehand

I do think that bike lanes help emphasize that cyclists belong roads. I also think that they provide a reminder to motorists that cyclists may be traveling on bike-lanes roads more than a simple sign on the side of the road. My perception is that most motorists are cognizant of lanes but relatively unaware of their placement within lanes.

From Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and the DC area, it appears to me that bike lanes have more debris than wide-outside lanes. I also gather that there is a greater expectation that the cyclist stay in a bike lane than a road marked with a sharrow or ordinary WOL. But for whatever reason, I don't get yelled or honked at often.

I suspect that traffic flow is better for both autos and bicycles with bike lanes and appropriate signs, which is important for political purposes. From what I gather from a brief review of studies, the transportation community may not fully understand the specific impact from various facilities on safety. But as a transportation package, it appears that implementing WOLs, bike lanes, bikeways, sharrows, appropriate signs, awareness, and so on makes cycling safer. If one can demonstrate that such a program makes transportation better for both motorists and cyclists, it seems that we would be more likely to get resources dedicated to cyclists.

As others have opined, my guess is that the relative advantages of bike lanes and WOLs is probably dependent on traffic speed and density.

In response to Joe, I think that from a pure engineering standpoint, being a bike lane is an inferior position than taking a lane for some of the reason discussed in the forum. However, I think that it is more than compensated for by the constant visual reminder that cyclists belong on and use the road. This also assumes that the bike lane brings the rider to the left of any right-turn lane and that the cyclist actually centers him or herself in the typical motorist position. Anecdotally, I observe most cyclists in the same position as a bike lane when traveling through an intersection with a WOL. So it isn't clear to me that the engineering advantage would be realized in an empirical setting anyway.

I-Like-To-Bike

Ask Forester. If you and he aren't too occupied with speculating about everybody else's motivations maybe you two can figure out your own motivations. Besides just saving the world for the Real Cyclists.

John Forester

You say that my explanation for the existence of the bikeway standards, cyclist inferiority, is laughable. You have no evidence for your claim. The first California bikeway design standards were horribly dangerous. I worked for about three years to get the dangers reduced. The dangers existed because the bikeway designers considered cyclists to be incapable of cycling in the vehicular manner, and also because the designers wanted to clear the way for motorists. This is historical fact, which you choose, for your own ideology, to ignore.

And you claim that bikeways, probably meaning bike-lane stripes in your context, reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling? Well then, specify the particular parts of vehicular-cycling skill that are not needed to ride safely in a city that has a bike-lane system. I doubt that you can do it; nobody else has. You claim that bikeways increase the modal share for cycling. Any validity to that claim has to lie in the public superstition that you have just been proclaiming, that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners. Enticing people onto the roads with false promises of safety instead of providing the training that they need for safe cycling is immoral.

John Forester

Please specify what you mean by "bikeable".

TRaffic Jammer

Specify what parts of regular know-what-the-hell-is going-on-around-you-and-react-accordingly do you not understand? You've been slogging this system for how long? Change the message and/or get a new PR agency.
You and HH are both terrible salesmen. You claim to have been doing this for ages yet.....bogusnees and bad vibes surround you and you disciple , brother. Adapt and survive, or go way of the do-do.

Is there one way to approach surfing a wave...no
Is there one way to approach freeride downhill...no
Is there one way to approach skateboarding...no

Safety isn't all about one thing...especially in traffic...adaptability, and always having a way out/defensive...even when rippin' traffic a new one. Ask anyone that participates in an extreme sport with the risk of great bodily harm or death. Relying on one aspect of anything to keep you safe is ********...

John Forester

Cycling in traffic is not an extreme sport, but just one more typical task.

TRaffic Jammer

ahhh but then you aren't doin' it the right way either.

Letsee...rollin' where someone can merely turn on you and smash you into parked cars..sorry I didn't see you.
Turn and send you flying onto the sidewalk/poles/mailboxes, ..sorry I didn't see you.
Open their door to facilitate you plowing into it, ..sorry I didn't see you.
Actively try to scare you off the road because they feel you don't belong there.....sorry I didn't care to see you.

Riding within a foot of a ton of glass and metal with a 12 speaker Bose stereo, while I ride in spandex shorts @ 40km/h...repeat past dozens/hundreds of such obstacles until destination is reached..sounds extreme enough.

Bekologist

how laughable....considering bicycling in today's american road climate a 'typical task,' akin to doing laundry, folding clothes, changing a light bulb.

delusional, john.

I ride any road, but to consider it a 'typical' task for americans is laughable.

TRaffic Jammer

Just getting a "typical" North American on a bike is a challenge enough.

John Forester

We consider motoring to work a typical task, don't we? Aside from the added complications of clothing, low load capacity, addition time, and such, so is cycling to work.

TRaffic Jammer

No.... "we" don't ..... I take my driving very seriously, no matter how far or for what reason I'm behind the wheel. It's the way I was trained to drive. There is nothing "typical" about being behind the wheel, maybe this is symptomatic of VC's disconnect with what's actually happening on the roads.

John Forester

Don't play semantic games for pointless purposes. The large majority of employed adults drive to work. Hence, driving to work is a typical task. Only a small proportion of employed adults take the train to work, Hence, taking the train to work is not the typical way.