noisebeam

Exactly. This is especially true for places like AZ where motorist are not permitted by law to merge into a bike lane.

If the stripe does not fully end at intersection approaches without a RTOL, the least that could be done is put a RTOL arrow in the part of bike lane defined by the dotted/dashed line.

Al

Helmet Head

Huh. How about ending (not just dotting, Gene) the bike lane stripe and placing a straight arrow/chevron biased center-left in the straight-or-right wide lane (it has to be wide because right now it is a traffic lane plus a bike lane, and we're talking about eliminating the bike lane stripe, which leaves at least an 11 + 4 = 15' wide lane), and a right turn arrow biased far right in the wide lane? That is, instead of having a standard "straight or right" arrow, place separate "straight only" and "right only" arrows side-by-side in the lane, each biased appropriately to one side or the other of the lane. This would encourage the appropriate destination positioning drivers of cars and trucks, but especially for motorcyclists and bicyclists.

Whatever initial minor ambiguity such markings might create is probably a good thing in terms of getting everyone to pay more attention to what is going on and what they're doing.

I don't think I've ever seen this idea before.

noisebeam

That didn't come across right. I am not and would never advocate for a bike lane with dashed stripe up to intersection with a mini RTOL arrow it it. I was just saying if there must be such a stripe, the least that could be done it put a mini-RTOL arrow in it. The idea is to call it as it is, a lane that is only useful (yet still not always ideal for cyclists) for drivers who are turning right.

Al

Helmet Head

I understood that. I pictured it and that's what gave me the idea I described above. Take what you described, then remove the dotted stripe, make that mini-RTOL arrow into a standard RTOL arrow, but right biased in the 15+' wide lane, and add a standard straight-only narrow to the left of it.

What about that?

noisebeam

Yeah, I'd suggested something similar several months ago. Didn't fly with the lane crowd, and if I recall right some in the NW of the US claimed such implementations or similar existed, but when asked could not provide any locations of specifically where.

Al

Helmet Head

Well, the lane crowd likes colored pavement. How about adding, say, green stones to the left biased 11' of pavement in the 15' wide lane, and red stones to the right biased 11' of pavement, which would create a 7' wide swath of red and green in the shared center of the lane. The straight only arrow would be in the center of the green portion, and the right only arrow in the red portion.

noisebeam

Paint the center white and bring that Italian touch to cycling

Helmet Head

Bravisimo!


Man, that was funny Al. It's really brilliant how you pictured what I wrote and realized it evoked the Italian flag!

On that note, have a great weekend!

Ed Holland

With a change of palette, this could also work in France.

There was a scheme to colourise the bike lanes and bus lanes (green and red respectively) in Oxford (UK) a few years ago. It doesn't make a lot of difference by itself, but makes it look as if the council is really doing something.

The fact that cars cross the bike lanes in front of cyclists has nothing to do with the bike lane, and everything to do with the driver paying too little respect or attention to fellow road users.

Ed

genec

yeah but the fact is I have see the same errant behavior (wide sweeping turns and turns NOT from the right lane) where BL didn't even exist... so discussion of BLs as the cause of poor motorist behavior is moot. The BL is not the factor. That is the bottom line.

Helmet Head

These are not unrelated issues.

I'm convinced the bike lane stripe makes it more likely that the motorists will not pay attention to the particular fellow road users near the edge of the road, because the stripe serves as the perceived edge of the driver's conception of "the road" (as in "get off 'the road'!") and as the edge of the driver's primary zone of attention.

So cyclists on the other side of the bike lane stripe are less relevant to the drivers than they would be if the stripe were not there, and, so, less likely to grab the motorists' attention. If you're an avid mirror user and a student of driver behavior, and pay attention to this, it should be pretty evident.

genec

For cyclists everywhere!

Helmet Head

And your point is what? Are you suggesting that because you've witnessed wide turns happen at all intersections that right turners are just as likely to make wide sweeping turns at intersections without bike lanes as they are at intersections with bike lanes? If that is your point, do you have any basis for contending this other than seeing someone take a wide turn at an intersection without a BL? If that's not your point, what is?

I'm not suggesting that there are no wide turners at intersections without bike lanes, but I am saying the right turning compliance appears to be significantly higher with 22100/21717 at intersections without bike lanes than at intersections with bike lanes (dotted or solid all the way to the intersection). Are you seriously challenging this point?

genec

The BL may encourage wide sweeping turns... but the fact is that this is because the motorists are ill informed.

Yes, indeed I see sweeping wide turns by motorists all the time in areas where BL do not exist, there is only one BL in all of the Clairemont area, so it is quite common for me to see behavior that is not predicated by BL.

Helmet Head

Being ill informed is a relatively insignificant factor. The significant factor is that merging into a narrow stripe-demarcated space is behavior that is inconsistent with what drivers are otherwise expected to do. I've informed friends, family members and co-workers about this law, and they still obviously and purposefully avoid driving into bike lanes prior to turning right. It's just not natural to do so. And no, they generally do not look back for cyclists passing them on the right as they slow to turn right, because doing that too is unnatural.

Yes, Gene, I see it quite often too. I still don't understand your point, or how it's relevant to any point we're discussing much less disagreeing about.

Ed Holland

Yes. There are situations where this allows each lane user to proceed unobstructed by the other. This does not absolve responsibility of either user (with regard to the safety of others) where there is a reason to cross the line.

Helmet Head

Actually, the ambiguity of ROW that exists when the stripe is absent also puts more responsibility on the overtaker than exists when ROW is clarified by a stripe. So in that sense the stripe does absolve some responsibility on the part of the overtaking driver, and, more importantly, explains why the cyclist is less relevant to the motorist and less likely to be given much respect and attention. And you've said the problem has "everything to do with the driver paying too little respect or attention to fellow road users." That's precisely why I'm opposed to having the ROW-clarifying BL stripe at intersection approaches. It's also arguably why no stripes exist in intersections. Actually, in a way the "intersection" for through cyclists and right turning motorists starts earlier (because that's where their paths conflict), and so that's another way to understand why the stripe separating their paths should be removed before actually reaching the intersection.

I bolded that last one because that's a new concept, so far as I know. That is, I don't recall reading that argument before.

John Forester

I have long commented that bike-lane designers usually fail to provide the appropriate distance for what the traffic engineers call weaving and other lane changing and merging movements. Where these movements should occur differs for every pair of participants.

genec

My point is that drivers make wide sweeping turns irrespective of bike lanes. Bike lanes do not matter. Drivers drive this way regardless of bike lanes. There is no point in bringing bike lanes into a discussion of why drivers make wide sweeping turns as drivers make wide sweeping turns anyway.

Did you get the point. Drivers make wide sweeping turns. It is NOT because of bike lanes. Don't blame bike lanes for something drivers do anyway. Did you get the point yet?

Drivers make wide sweeping turns due to poor driving habits. Period.

joejack951

This is possibly true when turning right from a WOL (I've never sat and watched for very long though generally I wouldn't agree) but I rarely if ever see this from a driver turning right from a NOL without a shoulder/bike lane. If what you are saying is true and what I am saying is true, a reasonable conclusion is that how a road is striped plays a large part in how motorists will turn right. Basically, if you want to get rid of wide sweeping turns, make the lane narrow and next to the curb, not buffered from it either with space, a bike lane, or a shoulder.

genec

OK fair enough, and then lower the speed limit.

Helmet Head

Gene, when are you going to realize that speed limit has very little to do with how fast people drive on a given road (unless of course a police cruiser is spotted in the vicinity)?

genec

Yeah unfortunately that is probably true... but we still don't have to even "suggest" that driving 55 is OK on surface streets... remember 55 was the national speed limit from 1974 to 1995. Now it seems we are moving freeway designs and speeds to the surface streets.

No, it is not my imagination... roadway speeds ARE increasing.

Frankly, drive 70+ on the limited access freeways... I don't care; but 55 is not an appropriate speed for shared roads.

Bekologist

i just spent a week in LA- people drive 35mph streets at 60

bike lanes made streets like Santa Monica much more bikeable than W. Sunset heading west out of Hollywood.

donnamb 

Amazing, isn't it? And my aunt keeps wondering why I don't visit her more.