John Forester

The bikeway issue concerns bicycle transportation as part of the urban transportation pattern, people traveling from one location to another for the purpose of obtaining the different goods or services at the destination. Recreational cycling activity, people cycling merely for the enjoyment or benefit of moving along, does not have purposeful destinations and the corresponding necessary routes, and does not compete with other forms of transportation. Hence it is not a significant part of the transportation pattern.

In my opinion, the happiest group of transportation cyclists are those who cycle in the vehicular manner, because they know and experience the safety, freedom, and status that such cycling provides. It is perhaps correct that transportation cyclists who have the rare advantage that much of their route is along an off-road path with very few traffic complexities from crossing motor traffic, pedestrians, and incompetent cyclists are happier, at least when on such a path, but these are a very small group because so few paths can meet those criteria. For most transportation cyclists, the vehicular-cycling group is the happiest.

Bikeway advocates argue, correctly, that vehicular cycling is unpopular among the general population and vehicular cyclists are few. Members of the general population say that they are much happier cycling on a street with a bike-lane stripe than on a street without, other things being equal. There are two typical answers as to why they prefer streets with bike-lane stripes. They believe that the stripe makes cycling safe without having to learn vehicular cycling, and that the stripe makes cycling legitimate. However, both of these beliefs are the false superstitions that appeal to people who believe that they don't belong on the roadways. On streets with bike-lane stripes they are neither safer nor more legitimate than on streets without bike-lane stripes. And they are less happy than vehicular cyclists because they still don't feel really safe and legitimate roadway users.

Anti-motoring bikeway advocates argue that the greater happiness felt on bike-lane streets by the general public when bicycling is sufficient to persuade so many Americans to switch from motor to bicycle transportation (not completely, of course, but for a large proportion of trips) that motoring will be significantly reduced. However, the evidence shows that the decision to make such a change depends on a large number of factors, among which the greater happiness of bike-lane cycling is a small contributor. In any case, such a change has not been shown to date in American cities.

And, when considering happiness, one needs to consider the unhappiness produced by being an accident victim. Vehicular cyclists have a considerably lower accident rate per mile of travel than do the general public cycling in the typically incompetent manner. There is evidence from two sources, one a comparison between club and university cyclists in the USA, the other between new members and older members of the CTC in England, that the ratio may well be as much as four times more accidents per mile in the general population than in club cyclists, who rode in a much more vehicular manner as of the dates of these studies.

In a sense, the issue boils down to whether it is better to encourage more incompetent cycling or to encourage more competent cycling, with the trade-off being the greater happiness of the competent cyclists against the hoped-for, but not really to be expected, rather small volume switch from motor transportation produced by the small increase in happiness in those who like bike-lane stripes.

phoebeisis

Part of the incompetence of general cyclists vs club cyclist is speed.They can't stay with traffic because they are much, much slower than club cyclists.If bikes are vehicles then speed differential is probably a factor in crashes, since it certainly is with cars.

It would be hard to separate experience from method (VC). Experienced riders who keep right, but don't VC would no doubt be many times safer than an inexperienced rider.
But there are so few VC cyclists-with no reason to believe their numbers will increase-that they won't get what they want because there aren't enough of them to take notice of. You just don't have the votes. Folks who are casually interested in riding will never be anti bike lane, since they will always "feel" safer in a bike lane.

Motorists-all potential voters- have no motivation to allow VC-, and most riders aren't VC, and probably like bike lanes(I'm guessing here), so they aren't for it either.

Maybe if you VCs were actually rich, instead of bike rich, you could buy some votes.
I wonder how many riders in the USA identify themselves as VCs? A few thousand maybe-maybe 10,000?? 110,000,000 people voted in the last election.

There just isn't much motivation to "give" the competent cyclist more "happiness".Now there are far, far more casual "incompetent" cyclists-so they'll win this one(assuming any concessions are made to cyclists).

Bekologist

john foresters wildly inaccurate skew surrounding the 'psychology' of bicyclists is absurd.

check out the paper "the four types of cyclist" by Roger Geller for an grounded in reality perspective on public perceptions of bicycling participation.

the four types of cyclist

regards bicycling infrastructure. the empirical evidence is overwhelming that social interventions that facilitate public bicycling show proven positive results. slower traffic speeds, roadway space for bicycling, bike parking, intersection considerations for bicyclists, urban planning that favors compact urban development, laws that protect vulnerable road users and pedestrians, policies promoting public biking for health,

are are elements of promoting bicycling. the essence of the VC vision is "make 'em ride like a car, DAMMIT!' and that really fails as an actual tool to promote bicycling on public roads and highways.

the essence of the VC vision is absolutely ludicrous when looking at human nature. pompous diatribes that bicyclists are ignorant masses until they are willing to mix it up in 50mph traffic isn't selling bicycling to anyone.

BTW.

Genec- I just went to see Mikhael Collvile-Anderson speak, the person the original quote is attributable. he was speaking in Seattle about marketing bicycling to the sub-conscious environmentalist. really a quippy talk about the bull in the china shop (car) and needing to do something about it in america, making bicycling as safe and natural as a thing to do to get to and fro, building in infrastructure, and NOT selling bicycling with a big deal about the 'message' of bicycling.

just market bicycling, build it up, make it normal, the 'default' way to travel.

Collvile Anderson's take on bicycling suggested a real fresh way of looking at bicycle transportation.

currently in america it is still much too much safety driven marketing and that message slows the uptake of bicycling. well, so do the road and traffic conditions

Bekologist

false postulation. that is not the public perception but johns sophistry at work.

again, false postulation to shore up johns sophistry. there are overwhelming operational and safety benefits from bikeway networks, to the extent the american highway safety mavens explicitly endorse bikeways and bikeways planning as part of the transportation mix.

motor vehicle traffic needs to be reduced for many reasons including better bicycling conditions but this is not the reason for bicyclist advocacy. bicyclist specific advocacy includes popular uptake in bicycling as well as safer cycling conditions amidst motor vehicle traffic on public roads.

actually john, theres studies that show positive strong correlations between miles of bikelane and cyclist participation in a city. cross study of 40 US cities. for each mile of bikeway. this is referred to in John Pucher, Dill and Handy's latest monograph on bicycling interventions. let me look at it, hold on....

phoebeisis

bekologist-so there is evidence that bike lanes increase riding.
My riding experience is small town Louisiana (1958-68) NOLA(1973- present)-and Baton Rouge(35-40 years ago)-no bike lanes .I go to Flagstaff AZ for maybe 6 days in the summer-lots of bike lanes. It was a real eye opener riding in lanes. The drivers are very bike friendly-not sure why.
Maybe the bike lanes "make" drivers more aware? Of course it is a college town/city with lots of riding...

Thanks
Charlie

danarnold

No, there is no evidence that bike lanes increase cycling. This issue has been discussed ad naseum in earlier posts on this thread. Although it is logical to believe that some bike lanes have had a causative effect on increasing ridership, the data only suggests a correlation, not causation. Bike lanes tend to be built where there is already a strong ridership base demanding them. The likely, not proven, greater factors for increasing cycling are economic and cultural. When cycling is 'cool' more people cycle. Huge increases in gasoline price (probably through taxation) would result in more cycling, as would greater concern for the environment.

phoebeisis

So,"bike lanes, we don't need no stinkin' bike lanes!" This is about it for the VCs. Sorry,I just couldn't resist.
The evidence can be argued, but the bikes lanes in Flagstaff sure "feel" nice. If inexperienced riders try them, they will never vote against them. I've ridden 10,000's of miles, 99.9 city/suburban and I loved it.Granted,I keep right.Anecdotes aren't proof, but they will be votes.

Try it, you'll like it will be impossible for VCs to overcome. People don't vote based just on the numbers.
Charlie

Socrate

So I wasted way too long trying to respond to anything in the overblown debate in this thread, but I'm giving up. The above post from the first page is a good representation of how over-thought this is.

In that "4-types-of-cyclists" link, it said that hard-core cyclists represent 0.7% of the population (and that's in a city like Portland!) You're not going to have an effect on the political process because you're all freaks (I say that in a warm, encouraging way).

Bike safe and don't be a jerk.

genec

Interesting read...

I disagree on one small item however... I firmly believe that the "Strong and Fearless" cyclist will ride anywhere... they will brave any and all conditions if only for the "political" message that "cyclists belong."

"Strong and Fearless" cyclists will take the lane on interstate freeways... and would have no problem "venturing too far up West Burnside into the West Hills."

The equivalent motorist is someone who would drive the AlCan highway because it is there.

But by definition, this group will always remain a tiny subset of the much larger population of those that will otherwise cycle.

On the other hand, it is the group of "Interested but Concerned" that is totally overlooked by Forester and his ilk... the strict VC crowd is not interested in engaging new cyclists. This is the dividing line between advocating for more cyclists and merely preaching to the "effective" cyclists.

The group identified as "Interested but Concerned" will jump on a bike, provided it is as easy as hopping in a car.

Bekologist

that's what Mikhael Colville-Anderson was hinting at in his talk last night.

bicycling can be made a normal way of getting around, natural, safe, lawful and 'vehicular' (whatever that is!) activity on public rights of way. bicycling can even become the default mode of travel in cities in the 21st century. the proliferation of the incredibly useful machine the bicycle made getting around by bike a normal, liberating, proletariat activity around the turn of the 20th century. you know the influence of the bicycle on the womens' liberation movement, yes?

a bike trumps a car as far as personal mobility is concerned on a very basic, human scaled level. it is a more compact, efficient machine that has health benefits!

squirtdad

This whole lane argument drives me crazy. The logic applied by 'strict' VC types, if you were to apply it logically to the roads and cars would say there is no need for any lane markings at all for cars or anyone, because all road usrs should be competent.

Lane markings are tools, visual aides and indicators of what is allowed and not allowed (passing vs no passing). to users of roads. Saying that bike lanes will restrict cyclists to the lanes only is like saying having a right and left lanes restrict drivers to those lanes.

Knowing how to ride and being comfortable without bikes lanes is also important.

My personal experience and observation are that bike lanes are a tremendous benefit to cyclists.

On the other side, I am not in favor of 'use mup laws" and heavy bike specific infratructure as that will tend to reinforce the ideas the bike don't belong on the steets.

Cyclist come in a wide spectrum of skills. The only way to really improve skills is to get people on the road. If they start on a MUP and then maybe a bike lane....that is a good thing. If they get comfortable riding on local streets, they will get skilled at traffice interactions...ie taking the lane for a stop sign.

There are roads I avoid (lincoln ave for San Jose types) because they are not great for cyclists and I have other options for getting to my destination. It's not that I couldn't or wouldn't cycle in a VC style, there is no need to. Personal choice...and I do cycle in A VH style when it is called for.

invisiblehand

Hmmmm ... I don't follow. Can you explain?

Are you saying a competent driver should be able to judge their lateral position on a four lane highway without paint?

squirtdad

yes....if the argument is that a competent VC cycliist does not need a bike lane, then if you extend that thinking, then competent drivers should not need lane markings.

Really more making the point that a bike lane is a tool and aid, just like lane striping.

Ed Holland

Recently, there was a nasty stretch of 101 northbound, near San Jose airport, that was missing stripes...

Not good... not good at all.

My take on bike lanes, of which I am in favour generally, is that they are more beneficial on some roads than others. As phoebeisis points out, and I have often said in this forum, there is such a spectrum of cyclist confidence/experience/speeds/road-sense etc. that there is no single solution to road design that will satisfy everyone.

genec

Exactly... which is why the whole anti-bike lane argument by strict Fosterites falls flat on it's face.

If lane lines are so terrible, remove them all from the road. Opps "we can't do that."

In reality it has been done by Hans Mondermann, and it works. But oops, suddenly drivers become more aware and responsible for all their actions.


Also what is too often glossed over are the design of roads... as roadways move to higher and higher speeds, visual guides become more and more important. Reduce the speeds on the roadways and again no lines are needed. It really is simple.

invisiblehand

What do you think the "lane argument" is?

I'm not trying to start an argument here. I don't see the connection you are making. But I can't understand the connection until I know your understanding of the VC anti-bike lane argument.

Regarding the highlighted section, one is for a type of action by all vehicles while the other is for a special class of vehicle. In a sense, the segration you discuss -- if there is a right turn lane, you can't make a right turn from another lane unless it is also marked for a right turn and if there is a left turn lane, you can't make a left turn from another lane unless it is also marked for a left turn -- is already there.

They might both be tools. A stop sign and lane striping are both tools but they have different functions. I fail to see why if someone doesn't like the tool labeled "stop sign" that they also should dislike the tool "lane striping".

If instead you are saying that a bike lane is simply more stripes ... OK. But if you think that those stripes have some meaning to drivers, can you think of reasons why it might produce negative consequences for those special vehicles?

Do you see a difference in a lane for all traffic and a separate lane for a different class of vehicle?

Look ... the argument that bike lanes can't produce positive results is just as silly as bike lanes always produce positive results.

John Forester

Squirtdad argues that normal traffic-lane stripes and bike-lane stripes are equivalent because both provide guidance in steering the vehicle. But this is legally incorrect. Normal traffic-lane stripes provide guidance without discriminating between vehicles, while bike-lane stripes discriminate between types of vehicles, so that the guidance that they provide is often contrary to the normal rules of the road. Consider what would occur on the roadways if one lane were designated for Fords only.

Bekologist

and therein lies the absurd equality notion of the vehikularists, that bicycle traffic and motor vehicle traffic are equivalent use of public roads and highways.

pompous diatribes that bicyclists are ignorant masses until they are willing to mix it up in 50mph traffic isn't selling bicycling to anyone.

that idea goes against human nature and how bicycles and motor vehicle traffic will mix on public roads.

providing roadway space for bicycling traffic is one thing;

bikeway planning, bike lane stripes as part of that network, bikeway signage, etc etc and other social interventions are empowering tools to encourage lawful roadway bicycling.

get people off the passive wasteful way of urban transportation and onto the bikewagen. What I'm going to call the bikewagen, should be actually Volksbike, shouldn't it??- an Active, healthy, clean, fun, cheap, social way of getting about town.

Idealized notions of simplistic traffic sorting rules is

1) unrealistic and
2) very anti-populist regarding how society best facilitate bicycling on public roads and highways.

danarnold

So, Bek, you completely buy into the cyclist inferiority complex.

chipcom 

Ya know, maybe the whole problem with bike lanes is the name. Lanes are a good thing, they breed order. Where the trouble starts is when we assign them to a non-dominant class of vehicle that is considered a toy to many. Thus 'bike lane' means 'in your less-equal place', which makes the hard-core vc folks crazy. I like having my own lane, though I don't care if it's a 'car' lane or a 'bike' lane...they are all just lanes and should be treated as such both by highway designers and governing bodies responsible for traffic laws. But we still have the problem of the name and the perception it brings...but I can't think of a good new name. 'the little lane' obviously wouldn't help, and 'alternative transportation lane' breeds visions of tree-hugging hippy liberals in the minds of inbred wingnuts.

So what can we rename 'bike lanes' to that will enable drivers to take them seriously and save the egos of the vc'ilistas from feeling inferior?

(Yes, I know there are also safety issues...which I believe treating them as any other lane, same rules, just different proportions, might go a long way toward solving.)

danarnold

You make a good point. I don't so much mind what I've been calling the 'foggy' line. That's the line that looks like a fog line, nothing about 'bicycle' anywhere in the lane or about the lane, but it demarcates a natural lane for bikes. I prefer it to a designated 'bike lane' because under the law, I do not have to use it. The fog line simply designates where the shoulder starts. Bikes don't have to use the shoulder.

One of the problems with bike lanes is that even if bicycles are not by law limited to use them, motorists quite naturally assume they are.

Bekologist

There's an inferiority complex attached to bikes not being the equivalent to a motor vehicle?

hardly, dan. it's called 'realism' versus idealogues simplistic notions of rudimentary traffic sorting rules.

My bike doesn't do 55 MPH unless I'm coming down a really big, steep hill with good pavement.

a bike is NOT the equivalent of a motor vehicle.

Bekologist

I think calling them ZE lanes would be pretty cool.

zero emissions. usable by such. and big.

Volksbike in ZE lanes.

VC in 50mph lanes? a wild, wacky joke of a plan.

genec

Yeah, like Bus lanes and Truck lanes and Taxi lanes... "different class of vehicles..."

Do you understand the difference between a human powered vehicle and a motor/engine powered vehicle?

randya

so you'd be OK with a bike lane as long as it doesn't have a bicyclist symbol in it? oy vey!



PS - I don't believe that your state has a mandatory use law, so you are under no obligation to use it. My state does, and I still don't feel obligated to use it under certain circumstances.