| |
Main
Date: 23 Sep 2006 22:32:36
From: Luke
Subject: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.
Unlike photos I've seen of similar configurations in Europe, there are
no physical barriers separating bicycle and auto traffic; there are
only small posts placed at intervals (IIRC they averaged about 7 meters
apart), meant as visual kers.
IMO it's a haphazard arrangement: I felt uneasy riding against the flow
of auto traffic without the presence of a barrier. Further, it
reinforces the often misguided notion -- in this case, doubly so --
that cyclists require extra measures in order to safely coexist with
motorists.
Luke
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 21:35:40
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> > I'll make you a deal for the future. I won't criticize you for your
> > unintentional omissions of pertinent facts if you will stop assuming a
> > basic disagreement every time we exchange views. Fair enough?
>
> Well, it's worth a try. I'll note a few things that may make this
> difficult:
>
> 1) Written communication just isn't as effective as face-to-face
> discussion. Misunderstandings are common.
>
> 2) Usenet seems to generate disagreement.
>
> 3) From what I can tell, we're both disgustingly human!
>
> But again, it's worth a try.
>
> (Personally, I think we'd get along very well "in real life.")
>
> - Frank Krygowski
We likely would. I take exception to being called disgusting though.
That's a joke so let's not start. ;-)
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 19:43:36
From:
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
Bob wrote:
>
> I'll make you a deal for the future. I won't criticize you for your
> unintentional omissions of pertinent facts if you will stop assuming a
> basic disagreement every time we exchange views. Fair enough?
Well, it's worth a try. I'll note a few things that may make this
difficult:
1) Written communication just isn't as effective as face-to-face
discussion. Misunderstandings are common.
2) Usenet seems to generate disagreement.
3) From what I can tell, we're both disgustingly human!
But again, it's worth a try.
(Personally, I think we'd get along very well "in real life.")
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 13:25:56
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> My first post in this thread was about the concept of a two-way bike
> lane on one side of a road. Here's the quote:
>
> "FWIW, the AASHTO guide to the design of bike facilities lists about
> ten
> reasons NOT to put a two-way bike lane adjacent to a roadway. (Of
> course, AASHTO isn't a Canadian agency.)
>
> "Nonetheless, our local metro park's landscape architect - whom they
> put
> in charge of bike lane design! - thinks it's a fine idea. He also
> thinks it's a good idea to put full-sized bollards (i.e. heavy posts)
> in the middle of the bike lane as well as at its edge. Oh, and they've
> now added rumble strips to trip any cyclists who make it through the
> other hazards. "
>
Frank-
You should have made it clear in that first post that this path was
not, "a two lane bike lane put adjacent to a roadway", but an
*existing* motor vehicle lane *converted* to a two lane bike path. Had
you said that your statement that the design was a change for the
worse- bollards slowing and obstructing cyclists, rumble strips too
close to cyclists, etc- would have made more sense. If you think about
that in connection with your statement that 20 mph was a safe speed
before the bollards/rumble strips, I'm sure you'll see what I mean
since a newly-constructed bikeway doesn't- or at least *shouldn't*-
narrow the roadway. Personally, I've never had any problem keeping up
with traffic in a park (long uphill stretches excepted- <g >) so I've
never felt any need to be separated from motorized traffic in a park
setting. I would have probably objected to the very idea of a separate
bike lane on the roadway as an unnecessary expenditure of tax money on
that basis alone.
I'll make you a deal for the future. I won't criticize you for your
unintentional omissions of pertinent facts if you will stop assuming a
basic disagreement every time we exchange views. Fair enough?
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 09:32:43
From:
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
Bob wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > Bob, who seems to be entering sparring mode again, wrote:
> > > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > The curves and dips did not make 20 mph unsafe _until_ this design was
> > > > implemented.
> > >
> > > What you are in effect saying is that it was safer to go faster than
> > > the character of the roadway safely permits before the rumble strips
> > > were installed because before their installation the cyclist that was
> > > going too fast to stay in his own lane coulde simply abandon his lane
> > > and ride into the hopefully clear motor vehicle traffic lane.
> >
> > I'd have edited that into about three sentences, for readability.
>
> Before you accuse me of "entering sparring mode", suggest I edit my
> posts, or advise me to "read upthread" you should re-read your own
> posts, Frank. From your original post on you've described the road in
> question as a one way north-south road and your complaints have been
> over the installation of bollards and rumble strips.
My first post in this thread was about the concept of a two-way bike
lane on one side of a road. Here's the quote:
"FWIW, the AASHTO guide to the design of bike facilities lists about
ten
reasons NOT to put a two-way bike lane adjacent to a roadway. (Of
course, AASHTO isn't a Canadian agency.)
"Nonetheless, our local metro park's landscape architect - whom they
put
in charge of bike lane design! - thinks it's a fine idea. He also
thinks it's a good idea to put full-sized bollards (i.e. heavy posts)
in the middle of the bike lane as well as at its edge. Oh, and they've
now added rumble strips to trip any cyclists who make it through the
other hazards. "
Regarding the one-way nature, I said:
"They have a one-way (for motorists) north-south road upon which they
want two-way access for bikes. ...But, to achieve this, they put a
two-way bike lane on the west side of that road."
Regarding the direction of traffic, lane widths, etc. I said in another
post:
"Face north. The pavement's typically 24 feet wide. Starting from the
east side, you have 12 feet of "vehicle" lane, a double yellow, almost
six feet of northbound bike lane, a stripe, then almost six feet of
southbound bike lane. The rumble strip is down the double yellow. "
I didn't mention that the MV traffic goes north, and I should have.
Sorry.
> Now you write:
> > But: This road used to be two-way.
>
> You didn't think it was important to include that "minor" detail?
Honestly, I didn't because you're the first person who's ever spent any
energy defending the design. Well, except for the designer, of course
- whose most cogent defense has been, as I recall: "I don't know... I
just worry about the bikes riding where there are cars."
> > Without trying to correct your apparent mistaken visualization of the
> > situation, let me just say that the people that have agreed with us so
> > far (in writing) are the bicycle coordinator for the state of Ohio,
> > John Forester, John Schubert, AASHTO, the Ohio Bicycle Facilities
> > design manual, etc. etc.
>
> I have to presume that all these experts have seen this bike facility
> because if they haven't then your assertion that they agree with you
> that it is a dangerous facility is nothing more than your
> interpretation of what they've written.
I know Forester and the bike coordinator have seen accurate engineering
drawings. I think the state bike coordinator saw the actual facility,
but I'm not positive. Schubert (and others I haven't mentioned) have
seen ASCII art with full description.
> > And why defend a facility condemned by such experts if you haven't even
> > seen it?
>
> You began the post this is in reply to by accusing me of being
> argumentative. I wasn't.
Hmm. Here's one of your recent paragraphs:
"What you are in effect saying is that it was safer to go faster than
the character of the roadway safely permits before the rumble strips
were installed because before their installation the cyclist that was
going too fast to stay in his own lane coulde simply abandon his lane
and ride into the hopefully clear motor vehicle traffic lane. Of course
if that one way motor vehicle lane happens to be southbound only, the
cyclist most likely to have to swing that wide would be entering
*oncoming* motor vehicle traffic since the northbound bike lane is the
closer to the rumble strip/motor vehicle lane. It's small wonder the
parks people aren't heeding your advice if you're offering them
rationalizations like that. "
It does seem to me that you're doing a lot to defend the facility. And
your final sentence, "It's small wonder..." sure seems argumentative to
me.
FWIW, Bob, this has not been a solo effort on my part. Yes, as club
safety chairman, I've been very involved. But at this point, those
speaking to the park trustees have included the president of a large
bike company, the club's officers, a cycling lawyer, park volunteers, a
local newsman, a Safe Kids activist, as well as at least one or two
non-club cyclists. Other contributors have been, as I mentioned,
noteworthy experts in cycling facility design, who have provided
letters or e-mails.
There are internal politics within the park system that are greatly
complicating the fight, and we are having serious trouble because of
those politics. But you should understand that our communications with
park officials have been much more thorough than what I'm able to post
here. They've seen photocopies of design standards, drawings of the
existing layout, drawings of proposed alternatives (with letters of
agreement from our experts), and more. I'll also note that one
prominent park employee has privately agreed with us, and complimented
us on our "extremely professional" presentation and attitude.
Thus the "It's no wonder..." statement is inappropriate at best.
> Next you made what I think most would
> interpret as a snide rek about my ability to construct a sentence.
Well, in your defense, this isn't a literary discussion group.
But I still think there's room for improvement in this:
> > > What you are in effect saying is that it was safer to go faster than
> > > the character of the roadway safely permits before the rumble strips
> > > were installed because before their installation the cyclist that was
> > > going too fast to stay in his own lane coulde simply abandon his lane
> > > and ride into the hopefully clear motor vehicle traffic lane.
Maybe I shouldn't have said so. Sorry I've offended you. Again.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 00:34:50
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Bob, who seems to be entering sparring mode again, wrote:
> > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > The curves and dips did not make 20 mph unsafe _until_ this design was
> > > implemented.
> >
> > What you are in effect saying is that it was safer to go faster than
> > the character of the roadway safely permits before the rumble strips
> > were installed because before their installation the cyclist that was
> > going too fast to stay in his own lane coulde simply abandon his lane
> > and ride into the hopefully clear motor vehicle traffic lane.
>
> I'd have edited that into about three sentences, for readability.
Before you accuse me of "entering sparring mode", suggest I edit my
posts, or advise me to "read upthread" you should re-read your own
posts, Frank. From your original post on you've described the road in
question as a one way north-south road and your complaints have been
over the installation of bollards and rumble strips.
Now you write:
> But: This road used to be two-way.
You didn't think it was important to include that "minor" detail?
> Without trying to correct your apparent mistaken visualization of the
> situation, let me just say that the people that have agreed with us so
> far (in writing) are the bicycle coordinator for the state of Ohio,
> John Forester, John Schubert, AASHTO, the Ohio Bicycle Facilities
> design manual, etc. etc.
I have to presume that all these experts have seen this bike facility
because if they haven't then your assertion that they agree with you
that it is a dangerous facility is nothing more than your
interpretation of what they've written.
> There's a high probability you've got something wrong.
>
> >
> > > However, ISTM that even if the park adopted your
> > > rationalization, they'd be obligated to put up signs saying something
> > > like "Dangerous facility - Speed limit 15 mph" or whatever.
> >
> > If speed limit signs would actually do any good then cool, erect them
> > but why "dangerous facility"?
>
> Because it violates all known design standards. Why have the standards
> if they are to be ignored?
>
> And why defend a facility condemned by such experts if you haven't even
> seen it?
You began the post this is in reply to by accusing me of being
argumentative. I wasn't. Next you made what I think most would
interpret as a snide rek about my ability to construct a sentence.
Following that you criticized my reading comprehension. I write and
read just as well as you do. Then you accused me of rationalization, a
word commonly understood to mean an attempt to offer a reasonable
sounding explanation for an unreasonable act. I offered a couple of
possible explanations for the decisions you so roundly condemn and
asked for additional information. You ended by saying that I'm
defending a facility that I've never seen. I'm not defending rumble
strips, bollards, or even the existence of the path. I wrote that I
could imagine a couple of reasons the parks people might have installed
bollards and rumble strips but that without a more accurate and
complete description of the roadway and adjacent path I had no idea if
those reasons were valid. If this is how you answer fairly
straightforward questions I wonder why you haven't managed to win over
the parks people to your views.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 00:34:46
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Bob, who seems to be entering sparring mode again, wrote:
> > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > The curves and dips did not make 20 mph unsafe _until_ this design was
> > > implemented.
> >
> > What you are in effect saying is that it was safer to go faster than
> > the character of the roadway safely permits before the rumble strips
> > were installed because before their installation the cyclist that was
> > going too fast to stay in his own lane coulde simply abandon his lane
> > and ride into the hopefully clear motor vehicle traffic lane.
>
> I'd have edited that into about three sentences, for readability.
Before you accuse me of "entering sparring mode", suggest I edit my
posts, or advise me to "read upthread" you should re-read your own
posts, Frank. From your original post on you've described the road in
question as a one way north-south road and your complaints have been
over the installation of bollards and rumble strips.
Now you write:
> But: This road used to be two-way.
You didn't think it was important to include that "minor" detail?
> Without trying to correct your apparent mistaken visualization of the
> situation, let me just say that the people that have agreed with us so
> far (in writing) are the bicycle coordinator for the state of Ohio,
> John Forester, John Schubert, AASHTO, the Ohio Bicycle Facilities
> design manual, etc. etc.
I have to presume that all these experts have seen this bike facility
because if they haven't then your assertion that they agree with you
that it is a dangerous facility is nothing more than your
interpretation of what they've written.
> There's a high probability you've got something wrong.
>
> >
> > > However, ISTM that even if the park adopted your
> > > rationalization, they'd be obligated to put up signs saying something
> > > like "Dangerous facility - Speed limit 15 mph" or whatever.
> >
> > If speed limit signs would actually do any good then cool, erect them
> > but why "dangerous facility"?
>
> Because it violates all known design standards. Why have the standards
> if they are to be ignored?
>
> And why defend a facility condemned by such experts if you haven't even
> seen it?
You began the post this is in reply to by accusing me of being
argumentative. I wasn't. Next you made what I think most would
interpret as a snide rek about my ability to construct a sentence.
Following that you criticized my reading comprehension. I write and
read just as well as you do. Then you accused me of rationalization, a
word commonly understood to mean an attempt to offer a reasonable
sounding explanation for an unreasonable act. I offered a couple of
possible explanations for the decisions you so roundly condemn and
asked for additional information. You ended by saying that I'm
defending a facility that I've never seen. I'm not defending rumble
strips, bollards, or even the existence of the path. I wrote that I
could imagine a couple of reasons the parks people might have installed
bollards and rumble strips but that without a more accurate and
complete description of the roadway and adjacent path I had no idea if
those reasons were valid. If this is how you answer fairly
straightforward questions I wonder why you haven't managed to win over
the parks people to your views.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 10:26:37
From:
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
Bob, who seems to be entering sparring mode again, wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The curves and dips did not make 20 mph unsafe _until_ this design was
> > implemented.
>
> What you are in effect saying is that it was safer to go faster than
> the character of the roadway safely permits before the rumble strips
> were installed because before their installation the cyclist that was
> going too fast to stay in his own lane coulde simply abandon his lane
> and ride into the hopefully clear motor vehicle traffic lane.
I'd have edited that into about three sentences, for readability.
But: This road used to be two-way. The downhill sections were
_always_ ridden at 20 mph or more by everyone I rode with, because that
was the natural coasting speed due to the grades. The somewhat sharp
curves at the major dip were no problem as long as a cyclist rode on
the right - that is, followed THE most fundamental traffic rule. It
was a narrow road, but it was safe.
Why were the curves no problem? Because a proper-side cyclist never
encountered anyone coming at him head on. If he came upon a much
slower same-direction cyclist, he had plenty of width to pass him
without facing oncoming traffic. If a faster car came from behind, the
cyclist simply took the lane.
With this present design, a cyclist heading south (check my description
upthread to get your directions right) can round that same curve and
find, perhaps, two side-by-side cyclists coming at him head on, with
everyone doing 20 mph. Note, that's a 40 mph closing speed. And if
the northbound cyclists are novices who a) don't know enough to ride on
the east side and avoid this facility, and b) don't think about
oncoming cylcists , then hell breaks loose. Even if it's just one
wobbly northbound cyclist, hell can break loose. And when that
happens, it's likely that _someone_ is going to hit those rumble
strips.
> Of course
> if that one way motor vehicle lane happens to be southbound only,
Read upthread once again.
> the
> cyclist most likely to have to swing that wide would be entering
> *oncoming* motor vehicle traffic since the northbound bike lane is the
> closer to the rumble strip/motor vehicle lane. It's small wonder the
> parks people aren't heeding your advice if you're offering them
> rationalizations like that.
Without trying to correct your apparent mistaken visualization of the
situation, let me just say that the people that have agreed with us so
far (in writing) are the bicycle coordinator for the state of Ohio,
John Forester, John Schubert, AASHTO, the Ohio Bicycle Facilities
design manual, etc. etc.
There's a high probability you've got something wrong.
>
> > However, ISTM that even if the park adopted your
> > rationalization, they'd be obligated to put up signs saying something
> > like "Dangerous facility - Speed limit 15 mph" or whatever.
>
> If speed limit signs would actually do any good then cool, erect them
> but why "dangerous facility"?
Because it violates all known design standards. Why have the standards
if they are to be ignored?
And why defend a facility condemned by such experts if you haven't even
seen it?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 21:54:45
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
First frkrygow@gmail.com writes:
> I'd have edited that into about three sentences, for readability.
THEN he writes:
{5 KBs of "readable" blather snipped}
Irony. Heh.
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 21:24:52
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> The curves and dips did not make 20 mph unsafe _until_ this design was
> implemented.
What you are in effect saying is that it was safer to go faster than
the character of the roadway safely permits before the rumble strips
were installed because before their installation the cyclist that was
going too fast to stay in his own lane coulde simply abandon his lane
and ride into the hopefully clear motor vehicle traffic lane. Of course
if that one way motor vehicle lane happens to be southbound only, the
cyclist most likely to have to swing that wide would be entering
*oncoming* motor vehicle traffic since the northbound bike lane is the
closer to the rumble strip/motor vehicle lane. It's small wonder the
parks people aren't heeding your advice if you're offering them
rationalizations like that.
> However, ISTM that even if the park adopted your
> rationalization, they'd be obligated to put up signs saying something
> like "Dangerous facility - Speed limit 15 mph" or whatever.
If speed limit signs would actually do any good then cool, erect them
but why "dangerous facility"? Because if you go faster than the speed
limit the risk to yourself or others increases? That's true of *all*
speed limits yet I don't recall ever seeing a speed limit sign anywhere
bearing a similar warning. Would adding that phrase to a speed limit
sign directed at cyclists somehow make it more effective or would you
just be trying to have your opinion memorialized by way of a sign?
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 20:31:46
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
n5hsr wrote:
>
> Double yellow, since 1971, not only means oncoming traffic, it means no
> passing as well.
An unbroken line of white or yellow means do not cross. An unbroken
double yellow line does indeed mean no passing by traffic in either
lane. While there's no reason it *couldn't* be used on a one way
roadway, in everyday usage an unbroken double yellow line is almost
universally used on two way roads because on a one way roadway a single
unbroken yellow line achieves the same result using half the paint. ;-)
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2006 10:21:56
From: Chris Y.F.N.W.
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
Group: rec.bicycles.misc
Date: Sat, Sep 23, 2006, 10:32pm
From: lucasiragusa@rogers.com (Luke)
>Cycling about Montreal (Quebec,
>Canada) recently, I was struck by a
>common approach to bike ways
>implemented by the city. Instead of
>painting lanes at the right extremity of a
>curb lane or reserving a wide shoulder
>for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists
>travelling in the same direction as
>motorized traffic, it's common in this city
>to encounter two way bikeways placed
>on one side of a thoroughfare.
>Luke
Personally, I believe that bike lanes themselves are counterintuitive,
as thier very existence implies that cyclists don't belong on the road,
"should get on the sidewalk", ectetera. And I have noticed many times
when a roadway has a bike lane motorists do tend to think we should
"stay in our place". There is another thread (I believe in this group)
where it is pointed out that riders that hug the curb, instead of taking
their rightful place in traffic are more at risk of being sideswiped,
and I believe this validates my point nicely.
Oh, were fine riding in bikelanes, as long as we do stay in our place,
but may the gods protect those who must venture out of it to avoid the
hazards that invariably get swept onto the side of the road, or to make
a left turn. And to require cyclists to ride AGAINST the flow of
traffic, especially with no barrier betwixt is nothing short of
negligent homicide!
No. I still say we need tougher laws that truly validate the cyclist's
rights as a legal vehicle with all the rights (and responsibilities) as
other vehicles. And to educate those who are employed to enforce those
laws, as well as other motorists.
- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"
Messages sent to the above "E" addy will be lost forever!
to E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net
My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2006 15:08:44
From:
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:21:56 -0400, dedendaddy4spammers@webtv.net
(Chris Y.F.N.W.) wrote:
>Group: rec.bicycles.misc
>Date: Sat, Sep 23, 2006, 10:32pm
>From: lucasiragusa@rogers.com (Luke)
>
>>Cycling about Montreal (Quebec,
>>Canada) recently, I was struck by a
>>common approach to bike ways
>>implemented by the city. Instead of
>>painting lanes at the right extremity of a
>>curb lane or reserving a wide shoulder
>>for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists
>>travelling in the same direction as
>>motorized traffic, it's common in this city
>>to encounter two way bikeways placed
>>on one side of a thoroughfare.
>
>>Luke
>
>Personally, I believe that bike lanes themselves are counterintuitive,
>as thier very existence implies that cyclists don't belong on the road,
>"should get on the sidewalk", ectetera. And I have noticed many times
>when a roadway has a bike lane motorists do tend to think we should
>"stay in our place". There is another thread (I believe in this group)
>where it is pointed out that riders that hug the curb, instead of taking
>their rightful place in traffic are more at risk of being sideswiped,
>and I believe this validates my point nicely.
>
>Oh, were fine riding in bikelanes, as long as we do stay in our place,
>but may the gods protect those who must venture out of it to avoid the
>hazards that invariably get swept onto the side of the road, or to make
>a left turn. And to require cyclists to ride AGAINST the flow of
>traffic, especially with no barrier betwixt is nothing short of
>negligent homicide!
>
>No. I still say we need tougher laws that truly validate the cyclist's
>rights as a legal vehicle with all the rights (and responsibilities) as
>other vehicles. And to educate those who are employed to enforce those
>laws, as well as other motorists.
Perhaps making the driver of a motorcar automatically at fault in any
collision involving a cycle; it's been done elsewhere (Netherlands) ,
with great success.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2006 17:43:27
From: n5hsr
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
<jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message
news:7egih2d84nisi8maeot11d3co1gv24r6ba@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:21:56 -0400, dedendaddy4spammers@webtv.net
> (Chris Y.F.N.W.) wrote:
>
>>Group: rec.bicycles.misc
>>Date: Sat, Sep 23, 2006, 10:32pm
>>From: lucasiragusa@rogers.com (Luke)
>>
>>>Cycling about Montreal (Quebec,
>>>Canada) recently, I was struck by a
>>>common approach to bike ways
>>>implemented by the city. Instead of
>>>painting lanes at the right extremity of a
>>>curb lane or reserving a wide shoulder
>>>for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists
>>>travelling in the same direction as
>>>motorized traffic, it's common in this city
>>>to encounter two way bikeways placed
>>>on one side of a thoroughfare.
>>
>>>Luke
>>
>>Personally, I believe that bike lanes themselves are counterintuitive,
>>as thier very existence implies that cyclists don't belong on the road,
>>"should get on the sidewalk", ectetera. And I have noticed many times
>>when a roadway has a bike lane motorists do tend to think we should
>>"stay in our place". There is another thread (I believe in this group)
>>where it is pointed out that riders that hug the curb, instead of taking
>>their rightful place in traffic are more at risk of being sideswiped,
>>and I believe this validates my point nicely.
>>
>>Oh, were fine riding in bikelanes, as long as we do stay in our place,
>>but may the gods protect those who must venture out of it to avoid the
>>hazards that invariably get swept onto the side of the road, or to make
>>a left turn. And to require cyclists to ride AGAINST the flow of
>>traffic, especially with no barrier betwixt is nothing short of
>>negligent homicide!
>>
>>No. I still say we need tougher laws that truly validate the cyclist's
>>rights as a legal vehicle with all the rights (and responsibilities) as
>>other vehicles. And to educate those who are employed to enforce those
>>laws, as well as other motorists.
>
> Perhaps making the driver of a motorcar automatically at fault in any
> collision involving a cycle; it's been done elsewhere (Netherlands) ,
> with great success.
Here in Illinois if you hit a cyclist, you might as well kiss your driving
license goodbye.
Charles of Schaumburg
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2006 22:57:50
From: Kristian M Zoerhoff
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
In article <gMadnRoiT5lYMYTYnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com >, n5hsr@comcast.net
says...
>
> <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message
> news:7egih2d84nisi8maeot11d3co1gv24r6ba@4ax.com...
> >
> > Perhaps making the driver of a motorcar automatically at fault in any
> > collision involving a cycle; it's been done elsewhere (Netherlands) ,
> > with great success.
>
> Here in Illinois if you hit a cyclist, you might as well kiss your driving
> license goodbye.
Says who?
An 80-some-year-old man ran down a club cyclist in Joliet; he got off with a
ticket and a fine. SMIDSY isn't as rampant here as in other places, but don't
assume the local states' attorneys are on the ball.
Sending this on over to r.b.soc now that we're getting traffic laws involved. I
recently posted over there about how I think it's time traffic offenses were
elevated to misdemeanors, felonies if death occurs. This dovetails nicely into
that thread.
--
__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com
(_)/ (_)
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2006 06:28:45
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
n5hsr wrote:
> "AustinMN" <tacooper260@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159192892.167483.6160@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Bob wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> > Since it is a one way roadway and one way roadways don't generally have
> >> > any "center double yellow line", I'm still unclear about where these
> >> > rumble strips are. Do they separate the motor vehicle lane from the
> >> > MUP, two motor vehicle lanes, or the north and southbound bike lanes? I
> >> > don't necessarily agree with the reasoning of the first two but I can
> >> > understand it. The last is just plain dumb though.
> >>
> >> Face north. The pavement's typically 24 feet wide. Starting from the
> >> east side, you have 12 feet of "vehicle" lane, a double yellow, almost
> >> six feet of northbound bike lane, a stripe, then almost six feet of
> >> southbound bike lane. The rumble strip is down the double yellow.
> >
> > Is the motor vehcile traffic travelling north? Double yellow lines
> > (or, for that matter single yellow lines) on US roadways are only to be
> > used to indicate traffic moving in opposite directions. Any driver
> > seeing the double yellow line will assume traffic on the other side is
> > oncoming, which it is not.
> >
> > Austin
> >
>
> Double yellow, since 1971, not only means oncoming traffic, it means no
> passing as well.
Hadn't thought of that; not only is the northbound bicycle on the wrong
side of the road, but when MV traffic slows, it's illegal for him to
pass.
Austin
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 07:18:34
From:
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
AustinMN wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Face north. The pavement's typically 24 feet wide. Starting from the
> > east side, you have 12 feet of "vehicle" lane, a double yellow, almost
> > six feet of northbound bike lane, a stripe, then almost six feet of
> > southbound bike lane. The rumble strip is down the double yellow.
>
> Is the motor vehcile traffic travelling north?
Yes.
> Double yellow lines
> (or, for that matter single yellow lines) on US roadways are only to be
> used to indicate traffic moving in opposite directions. Any driver
> seeing the double yellow line will assume traffic on the other side is
> oncoming, which it is not.
Correct. There's not much that's right about this installation.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 07:01:32
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Bob wrote:
<snip >
> > Since it is a one way roadway and one way roadways don't generally have
> > any "center double yellow line", I'm still unclear about where these
> > rumble strips are. Do they separate the motor vehicle lane from the
> > MUP, two motor vehicle lanes, or the north and southbound bike lanes? I
> > don't necessarily agree with the reasoning of the first two but I can
> > understand it. The last is just plain dumb though.
>
> Face north. The pavement's typically 24 feet wide. Starting from the
> east side, you have 12 feet of "vehicle" lane, a double yellow, almost
> six feet of northbound bike lane, a stripe, then almost six feet of
> southbound bike lane. The rumble strip is down the double yellow.
Is the motor vehcile traffic travelling north? Double yellow lines
(or, for that matter single yellow lines) on US roadways are only to be
used to indicate traffic moving in opposite directions. Any driver
seeing the double yellow line will assume traffic on the other side is
oncoming, which it is not.
Austin
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 19:17:54
From: n5hsr
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
"AustinMN" <tacooper260@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159192892.167483.6160@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> > Since it is a one way roadway and one way roadways don't generally have
>> > any "center double yellow line", I'm still unclear about where these
>> > rumble strips are. Do they separate the motor vehicle lane from the
>> > MUP, two motor vehicle lanes, or the north and southbound bike lanes? I
>> > don't necessarily agree with the reasoning of the first two but I can
>> > understand it. The last is just plain dumb though.
>>
>> Face north. The pavement's typically 24 feet wide. Starting from the
>> east side, you have 12 feet of "vehicle" lane, a double yellow, almost
>> six feet of northbound bike lane, a stripe, then almost six feet of
>> southbound bike lane. The rumble strip is down the double yellow.
>
> Is the motor vehcile traffic travelling north? Double yellow lines
> (or, for that matter single yellow lines) on US roadways are only to be
> used to indicate traffic moving in opposite directions. Any driver
> seeing the double yellow line will assume traffic on the other side is
> oncoming, which it is not.
>
> Austin
>
Double yellow, since 1971, not only means oncoming traffic, it means no
passing as well.
Charles of Schaumburg
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 19:28:24
From:
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
Bob wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> > Worse, the one-way road has over a dozen tiny parking "pullout" areas,
> > plus one small parking lot. Just before and just after each of these,
> > the park officials put telephone pole bollards in the middle of the
> > pavement, in the middle of the bike lane, and at the road's edge. The
> > rationale? "If a driver parks, he may forget he's on a one-way road
> > and drive down the bike lane. The poles will protect the cyclists."
>
> Since there really no functional difference between a path being
> intersected by a roadway and being interrupted by a parking pullout- in
> both instances the risk of car vs bike collisions increase for the very
> same reasons- ITSM that the real problem isn't the bollards but the
> existence of too many parking pullouts.
There are differences, though. One major difference is this: in any
normal situation, where a person wants to park his vehicle and he has
to cross an opposing traffic lane to do so, the people in the traffic
lane do not lose their right of way. They are expected to move past
unhindered, and he is expected to wait until it's clear before crossing
that lane.
Given that the bikes are not (and should not be) required to stop, the
bollards in question are a much bigger hazard than bollards at an
entrance to a separate MUP, where the cyclists are typically expected
to stop and yield to cross traffic. They pass these bollards at
speed, not at 5 mph.
Also, in the "MUP entrance" example, the bollards serve a purpose: to
physically exclude motor vehicles. Here, they can't even do that;
anyone wanting to drive down the bike lane can do so, simply by driving
past the bollards, then swinging into the ked bike lane.
The main thing, though, is that except for separate MUP entrances,
AASHTO forbids such collision hazards even within three feed of the
_side_ of a path. They clearly don't want them _in_ the path. Again,
visit http://www.piercecountytrails.org/gatchels.html to see why.
> > On the newest section of that same road, the park decided to further
> > separate bikes from cars by grinding rumble strips into the pavement,
> > on the center (double yellow) line. That portion of the road has
> > fairly sharp curves, plus a big dip (downhill then uphill).
>
> Since it is a one way roadway and one way roadways don't generally have
> any "center double yellow line", I'm still unclear about where these
> rumble strips are. Do they separate the motor vehicle lane from the
> MUP, two motor vehicle lanes, or the north and southbound bike lanes? I
> don't necessarily agree with the reasoning of the first two but I can
> understand it. The last is just plain dumb though.
Face north. The pavement's typically 24 feet wide. Starting from the
east side, you have 12 feet of "vehicle" lane, a double yellow, almost
six feet of northbound bike lane, a stripe, then almost six feet of
southbound bike lane. The rumble strip is down the double yellow.
I can understand why someone ignorant of bicycling would put the rumble
strip there, but I disagree with its existence. One of Ohio's new
design manuals says: "Rumble strips affect control of the bike, and
are dangerous... Rumble strips generally should not be used on the
shoulders of raodways designated as bicycle routes or having
substantial volumes of bicycle traffic...Also, gaps should be
provided... ahead of intersections ... to permit bicycles to merge with
traffic." Of course, nobody at ODOT ever conceived of the application
this park has installed, so they limited their discussion to rumble
strips on shoulders. The intent is clear, though - at least, to me.
>
> > The problem is, bikes can easily hit 20+ mph on that section, and the
> > curves plus head-to-head closing speed may mean the cyclists might have
> > to swerve to avoid a head on bike-bike collision. Or a novice cyclist
> > may simply drift. In either case, if they hit the rumble strips, it is
> > at best rattling; it could easily throw a cyclist. I know one person
> > who broke a hip when he fell hitting rumble strips in another state.
>
> Sorry but if curves and dips in the roadway make 20 mph an unsafe speed
> the problem isn't rumble strips. The problem is people operating their
> vehicles (bike or car, there's no difference) at unsafe speeds or
> simply not paying attention and drifting out of their lane.
The curves and dips did not make 20 mph unsafe _until_ this design was
implemented. However, ISTM that even if the park adopted your
rationalization, they'd be obligated to put up signs saying something
like "Dangerous facility - Speed limit 15 mph" or whatever.
> > Furthermore, the rumble strips prevent northbound cylcists from
> > accessing the induction loop that triggers a green light at the north
> > end intersection.
>
> The induction loop doesn't extend to *all* lanes of traffic? Bad
> design.
Of course!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2006 10:45:49
From:
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:07:42 -0400, dedendaddy4spammers@webtv.net
> (Chris Y.F.N.W.) wrote:
>
> >Please define for this iggeramous the following:
> >
> >"bollards"
> >
>
> On land, these are similar to the nautical versions. Vertical posts,
> usually around a yard high and half a foot in diameter; used and
> spaced to prevent motorcars from intruding upon spaces where it it is
> desired they should not.
>
FWIW, the bollards in my example are sections of wooden telephone
poles. They are closer to ten inches in diameter, and over four feet
high. But either set of dimensions makes them formidable collision
hazards.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2006 11:07:42
From: Chris Y.F.N.W.
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
Please define for this iggeramous the following:
"bollards"
"AASHTO"
Thanks :-3)
- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"
Messages sent to the above "E" addy will be lost forever!
to E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net
My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2006 15:27:52
From:
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:07:42 -0400, dedendaddy4spammers@webtv.net
(Chris Y.F.N.W.) wrote:
>Please define for this iggeramous the following:
>
>"bollards"
>
On land, these are similar to the nautical versions. Vertical posts,
usually around a yard high and half a foot in diameter; used and
spaced to prevent motorcars from intruding upon spaces where it it is
desired they should not.
>
>"AASHTO"
>
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2006 15:26:22
From: Kristian M Zoerhoff
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
In article <15776-4519423E-2723@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net >,
dedendaddy4spammers@webtv.net says...
> Please define for this iggeramous the following:
>
> "bollards"
A short vertical post. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollard >
> "AASHTO"
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. They're the
ones who set highway design standards (including Interstate highways), and
created the Federal Highway system back in 1926 (the U.S.-XX highways).
--
__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com
(_)/ (_)
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2006 15:21:35
From: Chris Y.F.N.W.
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
Thanks, Kristian :-3)
- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"
Messages sent to the above "E" addy will be lost forever!
to E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net
My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 12:10:18
From: n5hsr
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
"Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote in message
news:230920062232369411%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
>
> Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
> common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
> painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
> wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
> the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
> encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.
>
> Unlike photos I've seen of similar configurations in Europe, there are
> no physical barriers separating bicycle and auto traffic; there are
> only small posts placed at intervals (IIRC they averaged about 7 meters
> apart), meant as visual kers.
>
> IMO it's a haphazard arrangement: I felt uneasy riding against the flow
> of auto traffic without the presence of a barrier. Further, it
> reinforces the often misguided notion -- in this case, doubly so --
> that cyclists require extra measures in order to safely coexist with
> motorists.
>
> Luke
OK, what location is this in? Some of the bike lanes we've got in Chicago
are bad enough. They are there but along a major CTA bus rote. So what
does the bus do when he needs to let off passengers? Pull into the bike
lane and up to the curb. There used to be one where the lane was both a
bus-only and a bike lane. . . .
Charles of Schaumburg
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 12:15:04
From: n5hsr
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
"n5hsr" <n5hsr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:9ISdnU8hcpYsJovYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:230920062232369411%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
>>
>> Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
>> common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
>> painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
>> wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
>> the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
>> encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.
>>
>> Unlike photos I've seen of similar configurations in Europe, there are
>> no physical barriers separating bicycle and auto traffic; there are
>> only small posts placed at intervals (IIRC they averaged about 7 meters
>> apart), meant as visual kers.
>>
>> IMO it's a haphazard arrangement: I felt uneasy riding against the flow
>> of auto traffic without the presence of a barrier. Further, it
>> reinforces the often misguided notion -- in this case, doubly so --
>> that cyclists require extra measures in order to safely coexist with
>> motorists.
>>
>> Luke
>
> OK, what location is this in? Some of the bike lanes we've got in Chicago
> are bad enough. They are there but along a major CTA bus rote. So what
> does the bus do when he needs to let off passengers? Pull into the bike
> lane and up to the curb. There used to be one where the lane was both a
> bus-only and a bike lane. . . .
>
> Charles of Schaumburg
>
Oops, I saw the reference to Montreal, I was wondering about the other place
that Frank K was refering to.
Charles of Schaumburg
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 09:27:48
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I agree that bollards at separate MUP entrances are acceptable
> (although there are safer alternatives). What this park district has
> done is different. Here it is:
>
> They have a one-way (for motorists) north-south road upon which they
> want two-way access for bikes. Given the geography of the area, this
> is very reasonable.
>
> But, to achieve this, they put a two-way bike lane on the west side of
> that road. From the very start, the local bike club, the state's
> bicycle coordinator, and several facility design experts said that was
> wrong, that the northbound bikes should be on the east. But the park
> is a separate kingdom (or, these days, queendom). We couldn't get that
> change. (That's despite a case where the park nearly got sued due to a
> head-on collision between two cyclists on one of that path's blind
> curves.)
I'll agree that ideally the northbound bike lane should be on the east
side of the road with the southbound lane on the west. Unless there was
an overpowering financial reason for doing it the way you describe, the
decision was just plain dumb. That said though, being sued means next
to nothing. Anyone can file a lawsuit for almost any reason. Being
"nearly sued" means even less.
> Worse, the one-way road has over a dozen tiny parking "pullout" areas,
> plus one small parking lot. Just before and just after each of these,
> the park officials put telephone pole bollards in the middle of the
> pavement, in the middle of the bike lane, and at the road's edge. The
> rationale? "If a driver parks, he may forget he's on a one-way road
> and drive down the bike lane. The poles will protect the cyclists."
Since there really no functional difference between a path being
intersected by a roadway and being interrupted by a parking pullout- in
both instances the risk of car vs bike collisions increase for the very
same reasons- ITSM that the real problem isn't the bollards but the
existence of too many parking pullouts.
> We pointed out that the poles are a serious collision hazard to the
> cyclists. We showed that AASHTO allows no obstructions within 3 feet
> of the _edge_ of a bike trail, let alone in its dead center. No
> matter. The designers said things like "We're doing this for your
> safety."
>
> I've not yet given the park trustees this information.
> http://www.piercecountytrails.org/gatchels.html
>
> > Rumble strips on
> > a MUP though? That's a new one on me. What's the rationale behind them?
>
> On the newest section of that same road, the park decided to further
> separate bikes from cars by grinding rumble strips into the pavement,
> on the center (double yellow) line. That portion of the road has
> fairly sharp curves, plus a big dip (downhill then uphill).
Since it is a one way roadway and one way roadways don't generally have
any "center double yellow line", I'm still unclear about where these
rumble strips are. Do they separate the motor vehicle lane from the
MUP, two motor vehicle lanes, or the north and southbound bike lanes? I
don't necessarily agree with the reasoning of the first two but I can
understand it. The last is just plain dumb though.
> The problem is, bikes can easily hit 20+ mph on that section, and the
> curves plus head-to-head closing speed may mean the cyclists might have
> to swerve to avoid a head on bike-bike collision. Or a novice cyclist
> may simply drift. In either case, if they hit the rumble strips, it is
> at best rattling; it could easily throw a cyclist. I know one person
> who broke a hip when he fell hitting rumble strips in another state.
Sorry but if curves and dips in the roadway make 20 mph an unsafe speed
the problem isn't rumble strips. The problem is people operating their
vehicles (bike or car, there's no difference) at unsafe speeds or
simply not paying attention and drifting out of their lane.
> Furthermore, the rumble strips prevent northbound cylcists from
> accessing the induction loop that triggers a green light at the north
> end intersection.
The induction loop doesn't extend to *all* lanes of traffic? Bad
design.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 16:10:23
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
"Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote in message
news:230920062232369411%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
>
> Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
> common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
> painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
> wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
> the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
> encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.
This is what our city is planning to do with West Lake Sammamish Parkway. I
think the reason is because the people on the east side of the street (along
the lake) have more money and are more politically powerful. They have this
idea that if there's no bike lane on their side of the street, they won't
have to look for cyclists as they pull out of their driveways.
If they just had a wide shoulder on both sides, and a little walking trail
for pedestrians, then we'd all be happy.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 11:59:38
From: Luke
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
In article <230920062232369411%lucasiragusa@rogers.com >, Luke
<lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote:
> Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
> common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
> painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
> wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
> the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
> encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.
>
> Unlike photos I've seen of similar configurations in Europe, there are
> no physical barriers separating bicycle and auto traffic; there are
> only small posts placed at intervals (IIRC they averaged about 7 meters
> apart), meant as visual kers.
>
> IMO it's a haphazard arrangement: I felt uneasy riding against the flow
> of auto traffic without the presence of a barrier. Further, it
> reinforces the often misguided notion -- in this case, doubly so --
> that cyclists require extra measures in order to safely coexist with
> motorists.
>
> Luke
Oh, I remembered I took a photo of these bikeways; it's been uploaded
to:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=251386081&size=l
or
http://tinyurl.com/o882d
This bike lane configuration was common thoughout Ile de Montreal.
Making left hand turns from such a setup would be, um, interesting.
Luke
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 00:25:45
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
"Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote in message
news:240920061159380149%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
>
> Oh, I remembered I took a photo of these bikeways; it's been uploaded
> to:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=251386081&size=l
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/o882d
>
> This bike lane configuration was common thoughout Ile de Montreal.
> Making left hand turns from such a setup would be, um, interesting.
>
Thanks for the picture. I would think right hooks would also be a very
serious problem. It also looks like, from the picture, that there's a big
temptation for pedestrians to treat it as part of the sidewalk.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 08:23:19
From:
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
Bob wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > FWIW, the AASHTO guide to the design of bike facilities lists about ten
> > reasons NOT to put a two-way bike lane adjacent to a roadway. (Of
> > course, AASHTO isn't a Canadian agency.)
> >
> > Nonetheless, our local metro park's landscape architect - whom they put
> > in charge of bike lane design! - thinks it's a fine idea. He also
> > thinks it's a good idea to put full-sized bollards (i.e. heavy posts)
> > in the middle of the bike lane as well as at its edge. Oh, and they've
> > now added rumble strips to trip any cyclists who make it through the
> > other hazards.
> >
> > We've been battling this foolishness for years, with almost no success.
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> I know in this area many MUPs have obstructions like the posts you
> mention at points where the MUP intersects a street/highway. The idea
> is supposed to be to deny the path to things like ATVs, snowmobiles,
> and cars and to encourage cyclists to actually *stop* before crossing
> the intersecting road. They are a bit of a psychological pain but don't
> cause any real problems.
I agree that bollards at separate MUP entrances are acceptable
(although there are safer alternatives). What this park district has
done is different. Here it is:
They have a one-way (for motorists) north-south road upon which they
want two-way access for bikes. Given the geography of the area, this
is very reasonable.
But, to achieve this, they put a two-way bike lane on the west side of
that road. From the very start, the local bike club, the state's
bicycle coordinator, and several facility design experts said that was
wrong, that the northbound bikes should be on the east. But the park
is a separate kingdom (or, these days, queendom). We couldn't get that
change. (That's despite a case where the park nearly got sued due to a
head-on collision between two cyclists on one of that path's blind
curves.)
Worse, the one-way road has over a dozen tiny parking "pullout" areas,
plus one small parking lot. Just before and just after each of these,
the park officials put telephone pole bollards in the middle of the
pavement, in the middle of the bike lane, and at the road's edge. The
rationale? "If a driver parks, he may forget he's on a one-way road
and drive down the bike lane. The poles will protect the cyclists."
We pointed out that the poles are a serious collision hazard to the
cyclists. We showed that AASHTO allows no obstructions within 3 feet
of the _edge_ of a bike trail, let alone in its dead center. No
matter. The designers said things like "We're doing this for your
safety."
I've not yet given the park trustees this information.
http://www.piercecountytrails.org/gatchels.html
> Rumble strips on
> a MUP though? That's a new one on me. What's the rationale behind them?
On the newest section of that same road, the park decided to further
separate bikes from cars by grinding rumble strips into the pavement,
on the center (double yellow) line. That portion of the road has
fairly sharp curves, plus a big dip (downhill then uphill).
The problem is, bikes can easily hit 20+ mph on that section, and the
curves plus head-to-head closing speed may mean the cyclists might have
to swerve to avoid a head on bike-bike collision. Or a novice cyclist
may simply drift. In either case, if they hit the rumble strips, it is
at best rattling; it could easily throw a cyclist. I know one person
who broke a hip when he fell hitting rumble strips in another state.
Furthermore, the rumble strips prevent northbound cylcists from
accessing the induction loop that triggers a green light at the north
end intersection.
There's more. But basically, we have some very pleasant people in
charge of that park, who - unfortunately - think they are helping
cyclist by inventing their own design manuals. And as is often the
case, they are theoretically supervised by three trustees who are not
willing to do their job - that is, rock their boat when necessary.
If there were a "Worst Cycling Facilities" hall of shame, I'd enter
this path.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 19:44:24
From: Mike Causer
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 08:23:19 -0700, frkrygow wrote:
> If there were a "Worst Cycling Facilities" hall of shame, I'd enter this
> path.
There is: http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/
click "Facility of the month". Why not take a couple of pics & submit
them?
Mike
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 00:07:40
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> FWIW, the AASHTO guide to the design of bike facilities lists about ten
> reasons NOT to put a two-way bike lane adjacent to a roadway. (Of
> course, AASHTO isn't a Canadian agency.)
>
> Nonetheless, our local metro park's landscape architect - whom they put
> in charge of bike lane design! - thinks it's a fine idea. He also
> thinks it's a good idea to put full-sized bollards (i.e. heavy posts)
> in the middle of the bike lane as well as at its edge. Oh, and they've
> now added rumble strips to trip any cyclists who make it through the
> other hazards.
>
> We've been battling this foolishness for years, with almost no success.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
I know in this area many MUPs have obstructions like the posts you
mention at points where the MUP intersects a street/highway. The idea
is supposed to be to deny the path to things like ATVs, snowmobiles,
and cars and to encourage cyclists to actually *stop* before crossing
the intersecting road. They are a bit of a psychological pain but don't
cause any real problems. In that respect they are similar to so-called
traffic calming measures like islands and cul-de-sacs. Rumble strips on
a MUP though? That's a new one on me. What's the rationale behind them?
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 05:36:06
From: mark
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
Luke wrote:
> Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
> common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
> painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
> wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
> the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
> encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.
>
> Unlike photos I've seen of similar configurations in Europe, there are
> no physical barriers separating bicycle and auto traffic; there are
> only small posts placed at intervals (IIRC they averaged about 7 meters
> apart), meant as visual kers.
>
> IMO it's a haphazard arrangement: I felt uneasy riding against the flow
> of auto traffic without the presence of a barrier. Further, it
> reinforces the often misguided notion -- in this case, doubly so --
> that cyclists require extra measures in order to safely coexist with
> motorists.
>
> Luke
We've got a few spots like that on the multi-use paths in this county.
In one spot the multi-use path turns off the highway into the woods,
which is fine, but it's not too well ked. So oblivious tourists end
up cycling on the shoulder of the road, against the flow of traffic,
while the actual multi-use path is a few yards away in the woods. There
are no barriers between the multi-use path and the highway where the
path does run alongside the highway, just a painted white line. Not
safe, in my opinion.
k
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 21:38:49
From:
Subject: Re: Counterintuitive Bike Lane?
|
Luke wrote:
> Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
> common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
> painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
> wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
> the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
> encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.
>
> Unlike photos I've seen of similar configurations in Europe, there are
> no physical barriers separating bicycle and auto traffic; there are
> only small posts placed at intervals (IIRC they averaged about 7 meters
> apart), meant as visual kers.
>
> IMO it's a haphazard arrangement: I felt uneasy riding against the flow
> of auto traffic without the presence of a barrier. Further, it
> reinforces the often misguided notion -- in this case, doubly so --
> that cyclists require extra measures in order to safely coexist with
> motorists.
I agree that it's a dumb idea.
FWIW, the AASHTO guide to the design of bike facilities lists about ten
reasons NOT to put a two-way bike lane adjacent to a roadway. (Of
course, AASHTO isn't a Canadian agency.)
Nonetheless, our local metro park's landscape architect - whom they put
in charge of bike lane design! - thinks it's a fine idea. He also
thinks it's a good idea to put full-sized bollards (i.e. heavy posts)
in the middle of the bike lane as well as at its edge. Oh, and they've
now added rumble strips to trip any cyclists who make it through the
other hazards.
We've been battling this foolishness for years, with almost no success.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
