John C. Ratliff

Helmet Head,

No matter how you spin it, that is not what the abstract to this paper says:

From:

https://pubsindex.trb.org/document/vi...sp?lbid=667814

By the way, I will not post from the actual study, as it is copyrighted, and I will not infringe on their copyright. If you want to read the paper, pay the $25 and get the paper.

John

Helmet Head

I recognize it finally. It's not an angle I'm accustomed to seeing. That's at Hillside. Now I remember the unusually long dashed stripes there. So I have to go with the memory problems excuse. Never-the-less, my original statement holds: "in most places I've measured the solid doesn't go to dashed until just a few car lengths from the intersection".

Unless my memory problems are really bad, that's still an exception.

Thanks for going to the trouble of finding that photo. Where/how did you find it?

Helmet Head

John R,

The study says: "All of the sites had a high level of cyclist and motorist interaction, as well as a history of complaints."

That's what I mean by the bike lanes were dangerous.
So they painted them blue, and the bike lanes became less dangerous. How is that evidence supporting advocacy for bike lanes?

Bekologist

jebezzus, obtuseness from a guy that doesn't ride much.

Helemt, leave the transportational cycling to the transportationalists. your infantile damnification of bike infrastructure is quite pathetic. You drive a lot, eh, helmet.

I'd recommend riding a lot more before you continue to damify bike infrastucture with your internet posturing. Don't even recognize your 'commute route' that Pete posted, eh?

From what I've garnered, bike lanes ARE vehicular lanes on roads for bikes, and vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. shouldn't be so tough to grasp, yes?

like ol' bow tie stated on the last page, likely hundreds of studies scientifically support bike infrastructure. its the emotionally ******** "VC" camp that opposes bike infrastructure, despite all the advantages and benefits it brings communities & cyclists.


Build it, and they will ride.

Bekologist

Regarding the blue lanes in portland, referring back to John Ratliff's posting of studies done....

"Significantly higher numbers of motorists yielded to cyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the blue pavement areas, and more cyclists followed the colored bike-lane path......... The overwhelming majority of cyclists and close to a majority of motorists surveyed felt the blue areas enhanced safety. Colored pavement and signage should continue to be used and evaluated in bicycle-motor vehicle conflict areas."

Brian Ratliff

Not trying to put anyone down or anything, but you'd think that an experienced bicycle commuter would know his route right down to the location of the potholes. Especially if he's been riding it for several years. Experience in bicycling is extremely relevent. JF probably has quite a bit of experience, even if he is extremely opinionated. I can learn something from him (and, believe it or not, have) if I get past his caustic words. HH, maybe not so much. I don't think I've learned much from him.

SingingSabre 

Brian, my commute has a road which was just repaved last week. I've ridden said road but 2 or 3 times and know the humps, the bottles, the area next to the driving range, etc already.

I knew HH didn't ride as much as he claimed...but that much?!

gcl8a

Following some links, doing a little searching, I came across this:

ite-espanol.org/meetcon/2005AM/Barber_Wed.pdf

In it, starting on slide 39 or so, they discuss a case study of increased numbers of cyclists with little or no increase in accidents. There is also a slide on the "Benefits of Paint" which I think is referring not only to blue-painting intersections, but adding striping to un-striped roads.

Can't say I've dug beyond that, or even for sure what the conclusion is, but it might be worth looking into.

They state: "In Denmark, bicycle lanes reduced the number of bicycle crashes by 35 percent." I'll try to look up the referenced article for more information, but don't hold your breath. If you find it, and it's in English, have at it. If it's in Danish, let me know (seriously, PM me if you want) and I'll try to translate some of it.

I also have a paper in Danish, sitting behind me right now as it has for a couple of months, that appears to show the opposite (bike lanes increased accident rate), but I haven't gotten around to that one either.

Enjoy.

LazyGirl

Or motorcycles blazing through a traffic jam on the freeway?

Yeah, I think if cars were going 5 MPH in a city, I wouldn't mind riding in the main traffic lanes. Maybe not on the freeway, though, 'cause you never know when the blockage is gonna let up.

LazyGirl

Ok, I'm confused. I've read some stuff on this site, and have come to the conclusion that I don't know what the two sides are arguing about. I especially don't understand how having a bike lane will keep anyone from "vehicularly cycling". And is there a link to these abreviations? I don't know what half of them mean.

"We want bike lanes instead of..." what?

If bike lanes were put in, would something be taken away? What does making a bike lane mean? Do they just take the shoulder and call it a bike lane, or do they actually expand the road? How is it different than not having one?

"Having bike lanes will keep us from doing..." what? "We don't want bike lanes because we'd rather they put in..." what?

If there's a bike lane, are you afraid you won't be able to ride in a regular traffic lane? Do you normally ride on the shoulder anyway, but are afraid of "the white stripe"?

Are bike lanes supposed to replace something? Are they added to the infrastructure? What's the difference between the two? Is it bike lanes vs. ...not having them? Or do VC's (I figured that abreviation out after a week) want something else put in instead?

My solution- an underground tunnel system! Ha ha, not really. But at least I understand that.

natelutkjohn

join the crowd!
Seriously though, the way I see it is that HH and JF are arguing a VERY strict, "their way or the highway", "thank us for saving your life out there" riding mentality, and the other side is arguing that sure, sometimes their ideas work, and others times there are far better ways to ride based on the situation and location - a small fact that someone here, I seem to have forgotten his name (silly me), doesn't quite get.
But I'm looking forward to someone from the other side telling me why I'm wrong. See, if that didn't happen, these threads wouldn't continue indefinitly,

John C. Ratliff

Helmet Head,

You cannot even acknowledge what a study's abstract says, when it's right in front of you. If you only recognize your own spin on everything, then trying to put studies in front of you is a useless activity.

John

PS--Here it is again:

From:

https://pubsindex.trb.org/document/vi...sp?lbid=667814

sbhikes

This guy has a lot of research on cycling:

https://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher.html

Helmet Head

John R, all that study shows is that in certain dangerous locations where cyclists who don't know better way too long to merge, and don't properly yield when they do, bike lanes are not as dangerous after they are painted blue than before they are painted blue.

joejack951

Don't forget that they also added signage instructing motorists to yield to these same cyclists. This begs the question, did the blue paint have anything to do with the improvement or was it the sign itself or some combination of the two? In either case, the bike lane itself certainly did not improve cyclists' safety.

The traffic engineers designing these bike lanes need to open their eyes and look at how all proper lane merges and diverges take place (not at 90 degree angles). If cyclists were being treated as vehicle drivers, this same merge/diverge treatment would work just as well (if not better) without all the extra signage and paint that just clutters up the roadway and is likely to cause confusion.

Helmet Head

At most intersections, bike lanes guide straight cyclists to travel too far right, in particular, to the right of right-turning motorists in the adjacent straight-or-right lane. The only way to fix this is to end the stripe 100 to 200 feet prior to every intersection, including midblock intersections with driveways, etc. In most urban and suburban area, this would mean reducing bike lanes to silly short segments that make lno sense.

It's about the stripe. Bike lane opponents prefer wide outside lanes (WOLs) to the Bike lanes. Picture a street with a bike lane. Now remove the bike lane stripe. Presto, a WOL.

https://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...ering/wols.htm

Whether anything needs to be done to make room for a bike lane, you can do all that anyway, and just no tpaint the stripe.

Having bike lanes will keep us from changing the thinking that bicyclists naturally belong near the curb and are probably doing something wrong if they're anywhere else slowing down motorists.

The direct practical effect of bike lanes on vehicular cyclists is minor. The opposition to them is based on the effect of bike lanes on the behavior of uninitiated cyclists and most motorists at intersections - setting them up for conflicts.

Please read the link referenced above and let me know if you have any other questions.

Helmet Head

Bumps, bottles, etc. are relevant to a cyclist.

I'll verify the length of that dashed bike lane later today (I still have trouble believing it is as long as is shown in the photo - mayb ethat's an old photo). But if it is, that just shows that I simply never paid attention to the striping there. Inattentional blindness. We're all prone to it. Obviously I am!

Bekologist

will you be driving, mr head? you're prone to a lot more than inattentional blindness, that's for sure - like, inflating your bicycling skills and knowledge to the detriment of Bike Forums.

give it a rest, Mr Head. you're a fraud, and we all know it.

There IS a science behind bicycle infrastructure. Ol' Mossy Bow Tie, despite his emotionally stunted, kneejerk reactions, states there are likely hundreds of studies that show the efficacy of bike infrastructure.

There is proof positive, seen in cities across the globe, that bike infrastructure increases cycling and increases the safety of cyclists.

John Ratliff has shown some proof, and Head continues his prattling. pathetic.

joejack951

In my opinion, if roads are going to be signed for 45+mph speed limits with frequent intersections, I'd prefer those roads to have multiple narrow, unshareable lanes. In my experience, this works much better than the same road with a shoulder/bike lane stripe to the right of the outside through lane. I get a whole lane that motorists are used to using for making right turns so there is much less ambiguity about how to treat me near intersections. I'll admit that I have little experience with wide curb lanes on these types of roads. I do regularly ride 45mph roads with multiple narrow lanes ans frequent intersections though. In regards to using a full lane near intersections, the treatment I receive from motorists is leaps and bounds above the treatment I receive when doing the same thing on roads with a shoulder/bike lane. Perhaps with more experience with wide curb lane roads my opinion might begin to favor that setup. I certainly prefer that setup when intersections are less frequent, regardless of speed limit (speed limits generally mean nothing to most motorists at rush hour when I'm normally cycling).

For those roads with high speeds, narrow lanes, and frequent intersections, signage saying that cyclists have the right to use the full lane would be a mild benefit (like I said, I get the best treatment there already) as would sharrows. Both would hopefully encourage proper lane positioning (not curb hugging) by cyclists using these roads. Having the cyclist in the center of the narrow lane that motorists are accustomed to using for right turns and expecting to have through traffic, has in my experience reduced right hook and failure to yield situations to nil.

My question was somewhat rhetorical in the sense that the only way to guarantee that you reach the motorists you need to reach when you need to use the full lane is to actually be there negotiating and using the full lane. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot as to whether or not they've seen the PSAs or read the driver's manual, etc.

I agree that cyclists operating in their own individual style is a huge issue for motorists who have come to expect some sort of conformity of use from all other users of the road. If motorists are used to seeing cyclists hugging the edge of the road, they are going to expect that from any cyclist they see, like the lady yesterday telling me (not in a complimentary way) that she's never seen another cyclist with my mentality. I had merged left early before the road narrowed which also happens to be the location of a frequently used intersection. I guess most cyclists she sees would have stayed right until the last second then cut into the lane.

Bekologist

The blue lane treatments are very limited in application, for high hazard locations, and the study repeatedly referred to by John Ratliff shows a correlative increase in safety due the bike specific infrastructure.


Additionally, Joe, what you find best for 'your' riding is not what your bicycling compatriots, your brothers of wheel, would find expeditious to cycling for 'their' cycling. Personally, I've no problem with narrow lanes, wide lanes OR bike lanes, but bike advocacy is about a lot more than chest puffery and internet skill announcements about claiming the lane on 45 MPH roads. your brothers of wheel do not all want to do that.

so, in debating bike lane advocacy, do you want more cyclists, joe, or just a few that are as ballsy as you, leaving the roads largely the domain of automobiles? I recall you assert you rarely see other bike commuters in your area.....Besides, you should be skilled enough to ride any type of roadway and accomodation, Joe, including a bike laned road, I'll give you that much.



Remember, Joe, vehicular cyclists can and do use the blue bike lanes to bicycle in Portland. Vehicular cyclists use bike infrastrucuture

joejack951

You are missing the point of the study (or I am, but I doubt that unless the abstract is extremely poorly written). The "bike specific infratructure" caused the issue of cyclist/motorist altercations at the poorly designed merge area. Additional signage and/or paint made the poorly designed merge area better. Solving a problem with a bandaid fix is generally not considered a good thing. The additional signage and blue paint are a bandaid fix to a bad original design.

The only way that the blue paint/signage could be directly argued as a safety fix is if the badly designed bike lane did not exist at all before the blue paint/signage was added. Did the bike lane exist in the same form before the blue paint/signage was added? The abtract certainly makes it sound like it did exist before the changes.

Bekologist

Joe, you're being woefully obtuse. Portland bridgeways and their approaches have been made safer by the application of bike specific infrastructure and safety marking and signage. I've ridden the majority of the bridges in Portland, and the bike accomodated ones are much more conducive to cycling and cyclists as a group (not internet, chest puffing & posturing individuals) than the bridge (Sellwood bridge) lacking any bike infrastructure.

joejack951

You are dodging direct questions as usual.

Helmet Head

Exactly. John R, do you acknowledge this, and thus, this study's irrelevancy in the search for science on which to base the advocacy of bike lanes?

Helmet Head

What does this have to do with the study about the effect of painting certain dangerous bike lanes blue?