John Forester

One needs to separate the physical from the advocacy. I think that some of us are agreed that a bike lane that does not contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles might be a good thing. However, the possible locations for such are very few, say long bridges or tunnels where there is no turning or crossing traffic, either by cyclists or by motorists. Under such circumstances, one could categorize such bike lanes as mere conveniences. However, the advocacy for bike lanes covers bike lanes in many more places, bike lanes that contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and because that advocacy cannot demonstrate that movements contradicting the rules of the road are better than the movements that agree with the rules of the road, that advocacy advances superstitions instead of facts and reason, as we have read throughout these discussions. Advocacy, in a field that involves dangerous vehicular conflicts, must be based on facts and reason rather than on superstition, particularly when the superstition is in direct contradiction with the known facts and known engineering principles.

That is the basis for a vehicular cyclist reaching the conclusion that all bike lanes are bad; it is politically impossible to get one good bike lane, where needed, without getting all the many bad ones, because the advocacy that gets any bike lane is not more than superstition, with some modicum of motorist conveniency thrown in.

Bekologist

ah, but that basis is flawed.

gosmsgo

What people are "these people."

What you probably do not know is that VC is really the law in most places. In Missouri the state bicycle laws read like a road 1 course.

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of
traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care
when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn,
when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle or when on a
one-way street.

Well hell, they just explained "taking the lane."

genec

The reality is that both VC and bike lane design and use depend on obedience of the law.... which is why both can fail when pushed to extremes as the majority road users don't know the applicable laws. (Neither do many cyclists, frankly... )

The strictly VC crowd touts that the "the rules of the road" are the basis for the VC method... but that essentially means that bigger and faster rule the road, and the slow guy (cyclist) gets shunted to the side... right where the bike lanes go... The bike lane crowd says that BL work just fine as long as the laws are obeyed... but the laws are not widely known, and motorists flout enough laws each year to kill 45,000 of their fellows.

Sort of puts it all in a strange spin, eh?

Script

Evidently you?

Script

Trying to achieve a goal by using an extreme position that alienates even some potential supporters is probably not a good idea.

Couldn't there be another way to accomplish safe cycling for all that is inclusive instead of extreme?

Maybe not, just a hope. Yeah...hope isn't a very good strategy either.

gosmsgo

I am starting to question if you are reading what I am writing or if you just hit "reply."

The rules of the road do not in any way say that the bigger and faster win. They say that the slower traffic stays to the right. Ever been on an interstate? That is the normal traffic flow in the united states.

Here is a typical road from right to left.

Parked cars - they are the slowest

bicycles - they are usually the next slowest vehicle.

autos


Tell me what is so wacky about the way that I ride.

I ride in the right tire track 95% of the time.

I "take the lane" when approaching an intersection, when the lane is too narrow to share with a motor vehicle, when I am going the speed limit or when I am about to turn left.

I never filter....even if the line of cars is 999999 miles long.

I know, crazy isnt it.

gosmsgo

Do you guys understand why someone would think that having a possible straight thru cyclists on the right side of a possible right turning car at an intersection is dangerous?

Lets start with that.

John Forester

You are wrong, genec. Either you don't understand, or you are deliberately pretending that you don't. The VC principles are not based on the traffic laws, but on the physical and human-factors realities that are expressed in the principles of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and in the traffic laws which are legislators' best effort at expressing the physical principles. You, genec, are expressing the view that, in the physical sphere, if a legislature passed a law that G = 1000 cm/sec/sec the universe would comply. Just as, apparently a true account, some rural legislature in the American heartland passed a statute that the ratio between the diameter and the circumference of a circle was 3.0.

We in the VC field know only too well what happens when legislatures enact bicycle traffic statutes that contradict the real physical principles of traffic operation: trouble, that's what.

WaltPoutine

Agreed completely. Extremist advocacy of bikelanes that funnels most bicycle advocacy energy and funding into the construction of facilities instead of education (of bicyclists, motorists and law enforcement) is an alienating position.

Hear hear. Time for the bikelane zealots and extermists to pipe down and unite with the rest of us in pushing for a pragmatic, reality-based program of education and start undoing some of the damage caused by 30 years of construction of dangerous facilities

-=(8)=-

..........and we should start floating witches again instead of
the lengthy and costly method of trying them using actual evidence.

gosmsgo

The LAB with their "bicycle friendly communities" awards are not helping. Cities are rewarded partly based upon sheer miles of bike lanes regardless of if they are in door zones or any other awful place.

Once cities realize they can get publicity by simply mindlessly painting lines on their road they get hooked on it like a drug. Even the blood on the street is not a wake up call anymore.

gosmsgo

Hey John,

If thats really you and I assume it is....

I met a chap named Peter Boor while in D.C. He was telling me about the original effecting cycling course that was 33 hours long. I would love to take something like that. I am an LCI and while I really like the road 1 curriculum and have had ridiculous results with it I feel like their are many "LCI's" out there who really do not know that much. I feel like practically anyone could show up at an LCI seminar and "pass." At least thats the way I felt at mine. I think anytime 15 people are at something and everyone passes it probably does not mean that much.

Your thoughts?

Do you know Peter?

Allister

And that's where I believe you are mistaken. I think it is possible to provide bikelanes in many more places, and to do it in a manner that doesn't contradict the rules. Problems with turning traffic can readily be designed out, (including not adding a bikelane, or even removing one, if that is the most appropriate option).

Bad bikelanes exist, no doubt, but i think it's unfair to blame bikelane advocates for that. The experience in this city shows that bad bikelanes happen despite the efforts of advocates, not because of them.

Instead of all this pointless bickering about whether or not bikelanes are good, to which the answer is, and always has been, 'it depends...', how about settling down and figuring out together the best design for bikelanes that a)comply with the rules of the road b)provide a level of safety equal to or greater than riding in the 'normal' lanes and c)results in minimum conflict between vehicle classes ie. bikes and cars. If you think it's impossible, you are more than welcome to remove yourself from the process.

I've been carefully observing various intersections around here, and taking alternate routes to work to see some other configurations. They are all on major commuting routes into the city. There is not a single one, except the ones that are already adequate, where a simple, carefully considered treatment of paint (be it bikelane or not) could easily improve the safety and visibility of cyclists using the route, and at the same time encourage them away from getting left of left turning vehicles (right for US). In some cases, that would mean removing a section of bikelane.

For any desired outcome in designing an intersection or road, there are always going to be various options, each with their pros and cons. Saying that a bikelane treatment should never be used is just as poe-eyed as saying they should always be used, and both attitudes should be dicouraged.

ChipSeal

Al, by the term "intersection", are you meaning driveway entrances as well?

Also, the AASHTO guidelines are finally being revised, due for publication in 2009.

ChipSeal

Well, perhaps bike lane advocates ought to stop advocating for more bike lanes in your city, until they get the existing bike lanes fixed! Otherwise it will be even more bad bike lanes.

Why can't bike lane advocates enlist those who oppose bike lanes (Like me.) to help them remove existing bad bike lanes? It seems that it would be a natural alignment of interests.

It seems to me that bike lane advocates do not seek to fix bad bike lanes, but rather clamor "more please!" Is it any wonder then that I am suspicious that bike lane advocate's primary interest lies somewhere other than with cyclists safety?

genec

I like your idea.

On the other hand... while bike lane advocates tend to clamor for more bike lanes... it is usually politicians that seem to grandstand about putting in "something." When cycle facilities are constructed with the same care that goes into designing the best roads, then cyclists can rejoice... but right now that is not the case. Of course it might help if were more cyclists... designing poor facilities or insisting on only vehicular cycling is NOT going to promote cycling one bit.

Build bad roads and I bet motorists drive less.

gosmsgo

Come to my town. Give me a call. I will have you meet the dozens of people who VC changed their life last year.

Or you could just keep talking and not listening. : )

Bekologist

some US cities are hiring design teams with bicyclists to help with their master plans, gene. To design well thought out and implemented bike infrastructure.

I'm thinking Toole ? Design is one team?

MarkS

Of course we do. But that just means that you have some badly implemented lanes. You should be advocating for lanes to be correctly implemented. Here (same county as genec) most of the lane lines turn to dotted lines long before the intersection.

Allister

You don't think they're doing both? Do you think cyclists are so stupid as to accept sub-standard facilities without a fight, or at least a lengthy complaint? You're pointing your finger at the wrong people.

And thanks for ignoring the meat of the post, particularly 'In some cases, that would mean removing a section of bikelane.', but you will go on your little anti-bikelane-advocate tirade nonetheless.

John Forester

Yes, I remember Peter; I suppose that I last saw him some ten years ago. He sold Dorris and me our Santana tandem.

The original Effective Cycling course took 10 Saturday mornings, teaching several cycling skills, including traffic cycling, and providing enjoyment as well. In those days there were people who wanted to learn about cycling as a useful and enjoyable skill, and were prepared to spend the time to learn it. Nowadays it doesn't appear that there are many such people. They want something provided over one weekend, instead. If you look at my website, johnforester.com, and follow the leads to the Bicycle Transportation Engineering Organization, and then to the articles on education, you will find the course described in the Effective Cycling Instructor's Manual. And articles describing the courses and the training of instructors.

The true measure of the difficulty of a course is not the passing/flunking proportions. If a course is well-constructed and well-taught, then nearly all the students should pass. The criteria for passing the course is the real measure of the course. My final examination consisted of a multiple-choice test, an essay test, and a bicycle driving test that included easy traffic, dense traffic, diagonal railroad tracks (when available), left and right turns with multiple lanes and multiple turn lanes, right-turn-only lanes, wide lane to narrow lane, and some other traffic oddments as available. For each test, the minimum passing score was 70%. I don't remember the distribution of scores for the written tests, but on the bicycle driving test almost everybody who took the whole course earned 90% or above, average about 95%. Using the same scoring system, the population average scores of the morning commuter cyclists was about a flunking 55%.

John Forester

Dotted lines don't do the required job. The problem with bike lanes is that they contradict the rules of the road. The problem with bike-lane advocacy is that it contradicts the principle of the rules of the road. There is no political way to get only good bike lanes as long as bike-lane advocacy is based on superstition, and if it were not based on superstition there would be very few bike lanes. When you advocate unreason, you necessarily produce unreasonable results. There is no way to correct that problem.

noisebeam

Of course.

noisebeam

Very much agreed. When the line changes from solid to dotted it marks a bike lane. Cyclist are always allowed to leave the space marked as a bike lane for a variety of 'ride to the right' exceptions which vary by US state - changing the line from solid to dotted does not change that.

The only thing the solid to dotted changes in Arizona is that motor vehicles are permitted to cross the line.

Al