bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: The case for physically separated bike lanes I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: http://nyc.theoildrum.com/node/2416 Note that www.theoildrum.com has widespread readership, and this post made it to the first couple of pages on Digg today. Matt O.   Date: 17 Apr 2007 20:41:59 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 17, 8:57 am, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com > wrote: > Wolfgang Strobl <n...@mystrobl.de> wrote: > >k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com>: > > >>Peter (and I) are pragmatists on this issue. > > >So am I. I've yet do to find a _good_ bicycle lane. Peple on the german > >newsgroup de.rec.fahrrad are asking for an example of a "good bikeway > >(tm)" for years, but in vain. A bicycle lane would have qualified, too. > > I'd send them to: > > http://www.mcdot.icopa.gov/bicycle/BikePlan/bikeplan.PDF k, you keep pointing to that. I don't see anywhere that it addresses the issue of distinguishing benefits of bike lane stripes from benefits of wide pavement. It appears to be a document saying "Let's put in bike lanes." I'll admit, after 30 years of hearing "We need bike lanes!" there are cyclists who think that they really do need bike lanes, and who will ride more when they appear. But I'm not convinced that they actually benefit cyclists who are actually riding. (Perhaps the same "ride more" effect could have been provided more cheaply by first promoting, then distributing, St. Christopher medals?) - Frank Krygowski   Date: 17 Apr 2007 20:36:33 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 17, 3:23 am, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > Wolfgang Strobl wrote: > > k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com>: > > >> Peter (and I) are pragmatists on this issue. > > So am I. I've yet do to find a _good_ bicycle lane. > > From the pictures you've posted, I believe you. Come to AZ or CA and see > how terrific they can be. I think you really mean "Come to AZ or CA and see how terrific wide pavement can be." As usual, I think the real issue is the width of available pavement. If you don't have, say, 14 feet for an outside lane, you won't get a bike lane stripe in it - or if you get one, it will be a disaster like the ones Wolfgang shows. If you do have 14 feet for an outside lane, you don't need the bike lane stripe. It certainly seems to be the guys from wide-pavement western US that say "Bike lanes are great." People from (typically) narrow-pavement eastern US, plus Germany, say "These things don't work." It's the width that matters, not the stripe. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 17 Apr 2007 00:43:29 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes In article <uao823t3ed78pie0albk5hegvgtkn0hk3e@4ax.com >, Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de > writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats): > >>In article <f7ju03536eec34k70h8ukcvun56cvpsj3v@4ax.com>, >> NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) writes: >>> On Sat, 31 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt >>> O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video >>>> touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: >>>> >>> segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes >>> belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it. >> >>I think in certain places bike lanes can be useful. >>Especially where steep upgrades slow a rider down >>on an otherwise fast paced road. > > Like http://0x1a.de/static/siebengebirgsstr3/20070314-04.html, for > example? I has an 8 % grade, here and fits your description, perfectly. Yes. That will keep motorists calmed down, instead of becoming volcanic with frustration because they're "stuck behind a slow cyclist". I see nothing wrong with /organizing/ (note I'm not saying "segregating") road users according to speed in such circumstances. Everybody gets to go; everybody's happy. On 2-lane highways, where there are upgrades, there are often passing lanes where slower cars can allow the faster cars to pass without having to cross the centre line. In this sort of situation bike lanes provide a similar psychological relief. And a lot of sharing the streets and roads inescapably /does/ involve some psychological consideration of the people with whom we share those streets and roads. Even if some of them don't return the favour. John Forester talks much about his Cyclist Inferiority Complex theory, and I think much of the antipathy about bike lanes is an idealogical manifestation of that attitude. But there's no shame in considerately allowing people to go, while we go too. As long as we cyclists are not pushed around, out of our rightful place. We are not hogs. Bike lanes in highway tunnels might be nice, too. On the other hand, in curved tunnels (like the China Bar tunnel on the Fraser Canyon Highway) it might not make much difference. Best thing in that situation is to be there early in the morning before there's much traffic, turn your lights on, and go like hell to get to the other end ASAP :-) cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 17 Apr 2007 00:03:49 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes In article <o6p823186on95dgus0pmnoi9ki24nf4fej@4ax.com >, Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de > writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats): > >>Some folks maintain different-coloured pavement for the >>bike lane enhances visibility and safety. Maybe it does? > > In a fantasy world, perhaps. In reality, the additional color often > makes the pavement more slippery for cyclists, when wet. We have lots of > examples of this, around here. > > Speaking about visibility, channelizing attention using features like > this makes biyclists _less_ visible. In other words, it's even worse > then a simple stripe. So many people look at the Dutch fietspaden and think they're perfect for everywhere. I opine those were largely implemented during post-war reconstruction. Rather than being slapped down as Urban Design afterthoughts, I think the Dutch took advantage of an opportunity to make their cycling facilities more integral features of their overall traffic system, and it works for them, along with their flat terrain. North American cities are not ready for fietspaden, and if they tried to implement them, the results would be half-hearted, incomplete and self-nullifying. Probably even dangerous. Here in Vancouver BC, on our designated bike routes (traffic-calmed streets shared with motorized traffic) there are spots where designers, in fits of "artistic expression" had different pavements installed. Especially bricks. I hate transiting from one kind of surface to another almost as much as I hate Raised Features and concrete roads. There's a danger in people cherry-picking features of Dutch or other European bicycle facilities and implementing just those cherry-picked features, without the other stuff that supplements or supports them. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 18 Apr 2007 22:14:09 From: Jeremy Parker Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote [snip] > So many people look at the Dutch fietspaden and think they're > perfect for everywhere. I opine those were largely implemented > during post-war reconstruction. Rather than being slapped down > as Urban Design afterthoughts, I think the Dutch took advantage > of an opportunity to make their cycling facilities more integral > features of their overall traffic system, and it works for them, > along with their flat terrain. North American cities are not > ready for fietspaden, and if they tried to implement them, the > results would be half-hearted, incomplete and self-nullifying. > Probably even dangerous. [snip] I think that Dutch bike facility building began about 1930 as part of the intercity road building that began as cars became common. I think that the first cycle tracks were built as a demonstration project by the All Dutch Cyclists Union. That wasn't (and isn't) quite such a cycling oriented organization as it sounds. It is more commonly known by the second name it adopted - the Royal Dutch Touring Club - when it decided to admit motorists in the early 1900s It's rather is if the USA's League of American Wheelmen/Bicyclists had decided to admit motorists, and mutated into the AAA. I think that there wasn't so much war damage in the Netherlands as some other places, owing to the Germans having overrun the Netherlands so quickly. I think, though, that downtown Rotterdam was blitzed, and had to be totally rebuilt in modern style, with a new street pattern, after the war. I haven't seen it, but I have never ever heard of downtown Rotterdam quoted as an example of how to build bike facilities. I think the roadbuilding program continued when economic recovery picked up after the war, in the late 1940s. This might well have been with the help of the shall Plan, so US money might have been behind some of the Netherlands' bike network I don't think there was anything like the US drift to the suburbs in that period. There would have been some "new town" building, though, especially associated with such projects as draining the Zuyder Zee. During that period the Swedish and the English were among the world's leaders in town planning, and the Dutch may well have observed Britain's Stevenage as an example of how to build bike oriented towns. Most towns stayed the way they always had been, without bike facilities When I was growing up in Europe in the 1940s it was generally believed that the Netherlands, and Denk, had lots of bikes because they were flat, and compact, and that they had lots of cycle tracks because they had lots of bikes I think that after WWII the world, including the Netherlands, home of Shell Oil, regarded mass motorisation as the wave of the future. The first step in this was the moped, and the controversy began, was the moped a sort of bicycle, or was it a sort of motorcycle. In 1952 the Dutch voted to define it as a bicycle, and for the next twenty years Dutch cycle tracks became, de facto, moped tracks. That's why they tend to have sight lines suitable for vehicles going quite fast, but surfaces suitable only for vehicles with sprung suspensions In 1973 the first oil crisis hit, and the Arabs cut off the flow to the Netherlands and Shell. As a fuel conservation measure, driving a car on Sundays became illegal. The Netherlands, and the world, assumed there would be an oil shortage for the foreseeable future, and the foreseeable future did last for at least five years. The Dutch assumed that the fuel shortage would cause a mass switch to more fuel efficient vehicles, i.e. mopeds. Foreseeing an increase in moped accidents to correspond with the increase in mopeds they passed a compulsory helmet law (for mopeds, not bikes) Moped riding and moped buying immediately collapsed, and bike riding began to increase for the first time in years. Meanwhile bike riding had begun to revive in the USA. The low point was probably symbolized when the Verrezano Narrows Bridge was built without sidewalk or cycle track, and the revival began when Dr Paul Dudley White advised President Eisenhower to take up cycling after his heart attack. Davis, California, became overrun with bikes when the Agricultural School of the University of California was expanded into a full scale university in the early 1960s. The citizens of Davis were rather horrified to fined their streets cluttered up with bikes, and wanted to ban them. Eco-warrior types were beginning to campaign that it was the cars that should be banned instead. This became an issue in the town elections of 1966, and the result was compromise: apartheid (Suitably, the Dutch for separation). Special ghettos in the gutter were ked out for bikes, and thus was the bike lane invented Jeremy Parker   Date: 17 Apr 2007 07:55:00 From: Wolfgang Strobl Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org >: >I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. I have. A case against physically separated bike lanes has been painted on my route to work on Tuesday, 13th ch 2007. Have a look at A few pictures speak a thousand words, so have a look at <http://0x1a.de/static/siebengebirgsstr3/Thumbnails.html > The bicycle symbol in http://0x1a.de/static/siebengebirgsstr3/20070314-13.html is exactly 80 cm (== 0.8 meter) wide. For another example, now >10 years old, see http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/radwege.htm For examples of "This design is standard, here in Germany. :-( Now imagine the very same design, but * on a winding road, * half as wide and * descending." see above. http://0x1a.de/static/siebengebirgsstr3/20070405-31.html or http://0x1a.de/static/siebengebirgsstr3/20070314-04.html -- Radhelme sind die Bachblüten des Straßenverkehrs   Date: 09 Apr 2007 19:07:14 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 8, 8:46 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bob wrote: > > > On Apr 5, 11:46 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > > >> Bob wrote: > > > > > > > > > Since what I was replying to was your statement, "Frankly, I think the > > numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck full of logic and > > reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters is bereft of > > it.", I'd say that any burden to prove (that's *prove*, not assert) > > the logic of your argument and the lack of same by any who disagree > > with your rests on your shoulders. > > No, I don't think so. > > Given that the study you quote downthread doesn't say what you at least > imply it does and having read > > your critique of that study, I doubt you can do either. Pomposity > > isn't logic. It is merely pompous. > > > > Regards, > > Bob Hunt > > It says what I said it says, and I stand by my critique of it. > > "In general, the motorist positioned their vehicle (sic), on average, > between 5.9 ft (bicycle lane) and 6.4 ft (wide curb lane) from the > bicyclist as the passing maneuver was initiated. Since this distance is > obviously controlled by the motorist, ....." > > Sounds like closer passing with a bike lane to me, and that motorists > chose it. And, it's been corroborated by other studies. > > How do you like them apples? > > Wayne Anyone who bothers to read the entire report will see that your quote is at best sloppy editing or at worst an intentional misrepresention of the report's findings. That you cut off the quote where you do certainly appears to my cynical eyes to be a case of intentional misrepresentation. You should have included the stated conclusions just a paragraph or so further into the report which said: " 1) Motorists are much less likely to encroach into the adjacent lane when passing a bicyclist on facilities with paved shoulders or bicycle lanes. 2) Motorists have less variation in their lane placement when passing a bicyclist on a paved shoulder or bicycle lane. 3) Bicyclists are more likely to ride further from the edge of the roadway in a bicycle lane or paved shoulder than they are in a wide curb lane. This increased distance from the roadway edge only ginally reduces the separation distance between the bicyclists and motorists, but significantly increases the distance to the right of the bicyclist which can be used, if needed, as "escape" space. " In short, and again, the study you cite simply does not say what you claim it does. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 10 Apr 2007 12:41:29 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bob wrote: > > > Anyone who bothers to read the entire report will see that your quote > is at best sloppy editing or at worst an intentional misrepresention > of the report's findings. That you cut off the quote where you do > certainly appears to my cynical eyes to be a case of intentional > misrepresentation. You should have included the stated conclusions > just a paragraph or so further into the report which said: > " 1) Motorists are much less likely to encroach into the adjacent lane > when passing a bicyclist on facilities with paved shoulders or bicycle > lanes. > 2) Motorists have less variation in their lane placement when > passing a bicyclist on a paved shoulder or bicycle lane. > 3) Bicyclists are more likely to ride further from the edge of the > roadway in a bicycle lane or paved shoulder than they are in a wide > curb lane. This increased distance from the roadway edge only > ginally reduces the separation distance between the bicyclists and > motorists, but significantly increases the distance to the right of > the bicyclist which can be used, if needed, as "escape" space. " > In short, and again, the study you cite simply does not say what you > claim it does. > My quote of theirs is not intentional misrepresentation. It points out a finding that they seemingly intentionally underemphasized. I've written several other critiques of the same authors who consistently do sloppy work, and write unsupported conclusions. Anyone who bothers to read my entire critique of the report will see that I've addressed the three issues above in great detail. Their conclusions are based on sloppy research and faulty reasoning. You clearly are selectively ignoring my criticisms, and like a good layman, mindlessly accept the conclusions of a document without questioning its methodology and veracity. Wayne     Date: 09 Apr 2007 22:27:13 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bob took a bite out of them apples: > Anyone who bothers to read the entire report will see that your quote > is at best sloppy editing or at worst an intentional misrepresention > of the report's findings. That you cut off the quote where you do > certainly appears to my cynical eyes to be a case of intentional > misrepresentation. You should have included the stated conclusions > just a paragraph or so further into the report which said: > " 1) Motorists are much less likely to encroach into the adjacent lane > when passing a bicyclist on facilities with paved shoulders or bicycle > lanes. > 2) Motorists have less variation in their lane placement when > passing a bicyclist on a paved shoulder or bicycle lane. > 3) Bicyclists are more likely to ride further from the edge of the > roadway in a bicycle lane or paved shoulder than they are in a wide > curb lane. This increased distance from the roadway edge only > ginally reduces the separation distance between the bicyclists and > motorists, but significantly increases the distance to the right of > the bicyclist which can be used, if needed, as "escape" space. " > In short, and again, the study you cite simply does not say what you > claim it does. > > Regards, > Bob Hunt Too good not to re-post. Brava.       Date: 10 Apr 2007 12:43:23 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill Sornson wrote: > Bob took a bite out of them apples: > > >>Anyone who bothers to read the entire report will see that your quote >>is at best sloppy editing or at worst an intentional misrepresention >>of the report's findings. That you cut off the quote where you do >>certainly appears to my cynical eyes to be a case of intentional >>misrepresentation. You should have included the stated conclusions >>just a paragraph or so further into the report which said: >>" 1) Motorists are much less likely to encroach into the adjacent lane >>when passing a bicyclist on facilities with paved shoulders or bicycle >>lanes. >> 2) Motorists have less variation in their lane placement when >>passing a bicyclist on a paved shoulder or bicycle lane. >> 3) Bicyclists are more likely to ride further from the edge of the >>roadway in a bicycle lane or paved shoulder than they are in a wide >>curb lane. This increased distance from the roadway edge only >>ginally reduces the separation distance between the bicyclists and >>motorists, but significantly increases the distance to the right of >>the bicyclist which can be used, if needed, as "escape" space. " >>In short, and again, the study you cite simply does not say what you >>claim it does. >> >>Regards, >>Bob Hunt > > > Too good not to re-post. Brava. > > Yet another sheep who chooses to accept a document on face value and ignores published criticisms. Bah! Wayne         Date: 10 Apr 2007 10:03:51 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> Bob took a bite out of them apples: >> >> >>> Anyone who bothers to read the entire report will see that your >>> quote is at best sloppy editing or at worst an intentional >>> misrepresention of the report's findings. That you cut off the >>> quote where you do certainly appears to my cynical eyes to be a >>> case of intentional misrepresentation. You should have included the >>> stated conclusions just a paragraph or so further into the report >>> which said: " 1) Motorists are much less likely to encroach into >>> the adjacent lane when passing a bicyclist on facilities with paved >>> shoulders or bicycle lanes. >>> 2) Motorists have less variation in their lane placement when >>> passing a bicyclist on a paved shoulder or bicycle lane. >>> 3) Bicyclists are more likely to ride further from the edge of the >>> roadway in a bicycle lane or paved shoulder than they are in a wide >>> curb lane. This increased distance from the roadway edge only >>> ginally reduces the separation distance between the bicyclists >>> and motorists, but significantly increases the distance to the >>> right of the bicyclist which can be used, if needed, as "escape" >>> space. " In short, and again, the study you cite simply does not say >>> what you >>> claim it does. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bob Hunt >> >> >> Too good not to re-post. Brava. >> >> > Yet another sheep who chooses to accept a document on face value and > ignores published criticisms. Bah! The issuse was your blatant misrepresentation of it. HTH   Date: 07 Apr 2007 23:15:20 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 7, 1:39 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote: > Does a white line mean you cannot park. I don't think so. Not officially.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Actually, it can. Bus stops aren't always posted as no parking zones and fire hydrants rarely are yet even the most brain dead parker knows they can be ticketed for blocking either. All that's really required is an ordinance and education but- in the interest of fairness to drivers looking for a legal parking place- one "no parking in bike lane" sign erected or a similiar message in paint on the pavement every few blocks would be more than enough legal notice. In most municipalities I'm familiar with if an entire block is non-parking there are at least two "no parking" signs *unless* there is a bike lane there. Then it's one sign every two blocks. As I said, it's cheaper. Regards, Bob Hunt   Date: 07 Apr 2007 22:59:02 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 7, 4:47 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 7, 2:13 pm, "Bob" <hunr...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 3:16 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > > > They may be reported but not necessarily as traffic accidents, so they may > > > not be included in traffic statistics. Accident rates for paths can > > > be (and are) calculated from path use statistics, compiled by park > > > authorities, etc. -- whoever is in charge of the bike paths. So we > > > have a pretty good idea how safe (or dangerous) bike paths are. > > > > If two bikes collide in the middle of a park in your area, is it > > > reported as a traffic accident? > > > > I know of one bike path (in another state or province) that parallels a > > > main road and crosses many side streets. If there's a bike-car incident > > > at one of these side street crossings, it's reported as a traffic > > > accident, but if there's a bike/bike or bike-ped collision in the middle > > > of the block, it is not. It's reported as a park incident or whatever, and > > > makes it into park statistics but not traffic statistics. > > > > This is a problem. > > > > I would like to see a national standard for reporting of bike accidents, > > > to address this problem, but also some more basic data collection, like > > > was the cyclist using lights at night, etc. Major metro police depts. are > > > pretty good about this stuff, but everywhere else... it's pretty > > > unstructured, to put it kindly. > > > > Matt O. > > > I agree with you that the unavailability of reliable statistics is a > > problem. > > Me too. Considering all the hand-wringing we do about safety, it's > surprising we so seldom have good data. > > > My own experience both on roads and on separate bike paths > > just leads me to a different conclusion than does yours. Based solely > > on my own observations and experience I'd say the vast majority of > > bike path crashes don't result in anything worse than a little road > > (path?) rash. The same can't be said about crashes on the road. > > Oh, I disagree. The vast majority of crashes on the road really don't > result in anything worse than a little road rash. > > Don't be too exclusive in your definition of "crash" or "road." Start > with little kids buzzing around their neighborhoods, getting skinned > knees and such. Those count. > > Even if you restrict things to, say, adult cyclists, the most common > crashes are single bike slips and falls. Then you get things like > bike-bike collisions, bike-dog interactions, etc. For the majority of > those, I'd bet road rash is the worst injury. > > Car-bike crashes, which would have the greatest tendency to do the > most damage, are only 1/6 of US club cyclist crashes, according to > Forester. And I'd bet that fraction is even lower for non-club > American cyclists. Most folks tend to ride closer to home on low- > traffic streets. My bet is their rare injuries are very minor indeed. > > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You make a good point that most cycling accidents anywhere don't result in more than a little road rash but what Matt and I were both writing about were bike vs bike, bike vs ped and car vs bike crashes so I'll stand by what I wrote. Call me oldfashioned but I wouldn't classify merely falling off a bike as a crash, whatever the reason. In a child it's best called an "whoops" and in an adult it's called... well, I won't use those terms in a public forum. ;-) Regards, Bob Hunt   Date: 07 Apr 2007 14:47:18 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 7, 2:13 pm, "Bob" <hunr...@aol.com > wrote: > On Apr 5, 3:16 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > > > They may be reported but not necessarily as traffic accidents, so they may > > not be included in traffic statistics. Accident rates for paths can > > be (and are) calculated from path use statistics, compiled by park > > authorities, etc. -- whoever is in charge of the bike paths. So we > > have a pretty good idea how safe (or dangerous) bike paths are. > > > If two bikes collide in the middle of a park in your area, is it > > reported as a traffic accident? > > > I know of one bike path (in another state or province) that parallels a > > main road and crosses many side streets. If there's a bike-car incident > > at one of these side street crossings, it's reported as a traffic > > accident, but if there's a bike/bike or bike-ped collision in the middle > > of the block, it is not. It's reported as a park incident or whatever, and > > makes it into park statistics but not traffic statistics. > > > This is a problem. > > > I would like to see a national standard for reporting of bike accidents, > > to address this problem, but also some more basic data collection, like > > was the cyclist using lights at night, etc. Major metro police depts. are > > pretty good about this stuff, but everywhere else... it's pretty > > unstructured, to put it kindly. > > > Matt O. > > I agree with you that the unavailability of reliable statistics is a > problem. Me too. Considering all the hand-wringing we do about safety, it's surprising we so seldom have good data. > My own experience both on roads and on separate bike paths > just leads me to a different conclusion than does yours. Based solely > on my own observations and experience I'd say the vast majority of > bike path crashes don't result in anything worse than a little road > (path?) rash. The same can't be said about crashes on the road. Oh, I disagree. The vast majority of crashes on the road really don't result in anything worse than a little road rash. Don't be too exclusive in your definition of "crash" or "road." Start with little kids buzzing around their neighborhoods, getting skinned knees and such. Those count. Even if you restrict things to, say, adult cyclists, the most common crashes are single bike slips and falls. Then you get things like bike-bike collisions, bike-dog interactions, etc. For the majority of those, I'd bet road rash is the worst injury. Car-bike crashes, which would have the greatest tendency to do the most damage, are only 1/6 of US club cyclist crashes, according to Forester. And I'd bet that fraction is even lower for non-club American cyclists. Most folks tend to ride closer to home on low- traffic streets. My bet is their rare injuries are very minor indeed. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 07 Apr 2007 11:13:44 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 5, 3:16 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote: > On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:12:56 -0700, Bob wrote: > > On Apr 2, 5:55 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > >> Accident rates for separate bike paths are actually worse than for > >> bikes on roads. Bike-ped collisions are common and often serious, but > >> usually not reported as traffic accidents when they occur on separate > >> bike paths. > > > If most are not reported then how do we know there *are* more crashes or > > their relative severity? > > They may be reported but not necessarily as traffic accidents, so they may > not be included in traffic statistics. Accident rates for paths can > be (and are) calculated from path use statistics, compiled by park > authorities, etc. -- whoever is in charge of the bike paths. So we > have a pretty good idea how safe (or dangerous) bike paths are. > > If two bikes collide in the middle of a park in your area, is it > reported as a traffic accident? > > I know of one bike path (in another state or province) that parallels a > main road and crosses many side streets. If there's a bike-car incident > at one of these side street crossings, it's reported as a traffic > accident, but if there's a bike/bike or bike-ped collision in the middle > of the block, it is not. It's reported as a park incident or whatever, and > makes it into park statistics but not traffic statistics. > > This is a problem. > > I would like to see a national standard for reporting of bike accidents, > to address this problem, but also some more basic data collection, like > was the cyclist using lights at night, etc. Major metro police depts. are > pretty good about this stuff, but everywhere else... it's pretty > unstructured, to put it kindly. > > Matt O. I agree with you that the unavailability of reliable statistics is a problem. My own experience both on roads and on separate bike paths just leads me to a different conclusion than does yours. Based solely on my own observations and experience I'd say the vast majority of bike path crashes don't result in anything worse than a little road (path?) rash. The same can't be said about crashes on the road. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 07 Apr 2007 18:42:16 From: nash Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes If two bikes collide in the middle of a park in your area, is it > reported as a traffic accident? <<<<<<<<<< No just an award for being so stupid. Happy Easter BTW   Date: 07 Apr 2007 11:00:32 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 5, 11:46 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bob wrote: > > > I guess since you assert that your position is logical and any > > different view is illogical we should all just accept your assertion > > as fact. Case closed. Next issue. > > Why don't you show that my arguments are illogical rather than taking a > shot at me? > > Regards, > Wayne Since what I was replying to was your statement, "Frankly, I think the numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck full of logic and reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters is bereft of it.", I'd say that any burden to prove (that's *prove*, not assert) the logic of your argument and the lack of same by any who disagree with your rests on your shoulders. Given that the study you quote downthread doesn't say what you at least imply it does and having read your critique of that study, I doubt you can do either. Pomposity isn't logic. It is merely pompous. Regards, Bob Hunt   Date: 07 Apr 2007 10:45:55 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 4, 3:06 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > gds wrote: > > On Apr 4, 11:53 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > > >>Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without. > > > Actually, that is not my experience, at least on the roads where I do > > the majority of my cycling. > > >>Again, it's actually less separation with a bike lane stripe. > > > Again, that is not my experience. I find that stiripe creats somewhat > > of a "psychological" barrier for motorists without limiting the > > flexibility of cyclists to maneuver around obstacles. > > http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/univnc96.pdf > > is just one study that shows that motorists pass closer when there is a > bike lane stripe. There are others. > The document you quote doesn't say that. What it says is that given the same total roadway width cyclists tend to ride further from the curb line when there is a striped bike lane. That is hardly what you seem to be claiming, that motorists allow less separation distance from cyclists when there is a striped bike lane than they do when there is no pavement king. The stripe changes *cyclist* behavior, not motorist behavior. BTW, that study also concludes that the separation difference is so negligible- 5'10" separation with the stripe versus 6'5" without the stripe assuming the same total roadway width- as to have no real impact on safety so why stripe the lane? Simple- it is cheaper to paint a line on the pavement than erect no parking signs. Eliminate the need to swerve around parked cars and safety is enhanced. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 08 Apr 2007 21:46:11 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bob wrote: > On Apr 5, 11:46 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >> Bob wrote: > > > > Since what I was replying to was your statement, "Frankly, I think the > numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck full of logic and > reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters is bereft of > it.", I'd say that any burden to prove (that's *prove*, not assert) > the logic of your argument and the lack of same by any who disagree > with your rests on your shoulders. No, I don't think so. Given that the study you quote downthread doesn't say what you at least imply it does and having read > your critique of that study, I doubt you can do either. Pomposity > isn't logic. It is merely pompous. > > Regards, > Bob Hunt It says what I said it says, and I stand by my critique of it. “In general, the motorist positioned their vehicle (sic), on average, between 5.9 ft (bicycle lane) and 6.4 ft (wide curb lane) from the bicyclist as the passing maneuver was initiated. Since this distance is obviously controlled by the motorist, .....” Sounds like closer passing with a bike lane to me, and that motorists chose it. And, it's been corroborated by other studies. How do you like them apples? Wayne       Date: 08 Apr 2007 20:01:16 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein wrote: > Bob wrote: > >> On Apr 5, 11:46 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> Bob wrote: >> >> >> >> Since what I was replying to was your statement, "Frankly, I think >> the numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck full of >> logic and reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters is >> bereft of it.", I'd say that any burden to prove (that's *prove*, >> not assert) the logic of your argument and the lack of same by any >> who disagree with your rests on your shoulders. > > > No, I don't think so. > > Given that the study you quote downthread doesn't say what you at > least imply it does and having read >> your critique of that study, I doubt you can do either. Pomposity >> isn't logic. It is merely pompous. >> >> Regards, >> Bob Hunt > > > It says what I said it says, and I stand by my critique of it. > > “In general, the motorist positioned their vehicle (sic), on average, > between 5.9 ft (bicycle lane) and 6.4 ft (wide curb lane) from the > bicyclist as the passing maneuver was initiated. Since this distance > is obviously controlled by the motorist, .....” > > Sounds like closer passing with a bike lane to me, and that motorists > chose it. And, it's been corroborated by other studies. > > How do you like them apples? I have very seldom been "buzzed" (passed way too closely) while in a ked bike lane. It happens frequently on "busy" (35+ mph) roads without them. If a car has ample "laneage", why would the driver drift into or near the bike lane? Too many drivers are deathly afraid of drifting LEFT of their lane, so stay too far right for comfort unless that thick white line is there. Thems are my apples and I like 'em just fine. Bill S. > > Wayne         Date: 09 Apr 2007 11:24:46 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill Sornson wrote: > > I have very seldom been "buzzed" (passed way too closely) while in a ked > bike lane. It happens frequently on "busy" (35+ mph) roads without them. Is the total space the same on those "busy" roads without bike lanes as it is on the bike lane roads? That is, on a bike lane road there is the bike lane space of x feet plus the adjacent "motor vehicle" lane of y feet, amounting to, say 16 feet. Is the "shared" lane on the non-bike lane road the same 16 feet? Further, what is your lateral position on the non-bike lane road? Are you assertive and use significant space as bicycling education dictates? Buzzing is motorists' way to purposefully intimidate bicyclists. They choose to do it. > If a car has ample "laneage", why would the driver drift into or near the > bike lane? Who said they would do that? Too many drivers are deathly afraid of drifting LEFT of their > lane, so stay too far right for comfort unless that thick white line is > there. > That is not what the research shows. Wayne           Date: 09 Apr 2007 19:39:12 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:24:46 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: > >Is the total space the same on those "busy" roads without bike lanes as >it is on the bike lane roads? That is, on a bike lane road there is the >bike lane space of x feet plus the adjacent "motor vehicle" lane of y >feet, amounting to, say 16 feet. Is the "shared" lane on the non-bike >lane road the same 16 feet? And the answer is that generally the 'planners' choose the streets where bike lanes are placed on the basis of the least cost theory - if the street is already wide enough and all that is needed is a stripe, then that is the first choice. If someone points out that the street is already used easily and safely by cyclists, the planners will say that, great, it will encourage more cycling. The tight road that would require 3 foot more ROW on both sides to have a real bike lane will not be considered - way too expensive. When a lane is shoehorned in, bike lane fans will say that the problem is in the design, not the concept. An inverse Catch 22, where bike lanes are never at fault. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...           Date: 09 Apr 2007 08:49:23 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > > >> >> I have very seldom been "buzzed" (passed way too closely) while in a >> ked bike lane. It happens frequently on "busy" (35+ mph) roads >> without them. > > Is the total space the same on those "busy" roads without bike lanes > as it is on the bike lane roads? That is, on a bike lane road there > is the bike lane space of x feet plus the adjacent "motor vehicle" > lane of y feet, amounting to, say 16 feet. Is the "shared" lane on > the non-bike lane road the same 16 feet? No. In the real world (not some imaginary Lane Utopia), busy roads without bike lanes are seldom as wide as those with them. > Further, what is your lateral position on the non-bike lane road? Are > you assertive and use significant space as bicycling education > dictates? Yes. Many of the roads I ride also have parked cars, so I'm "extra assertive" in order to avoid the door zone. Riding them is much more stressful and sometimes dangerous than the roads I know with bike lanes. Period. > Buzzing is motorists' way to purposefully intimidate bicyclists. They > choose to do it. Some do; others are simply crappy drivers. (An elderly lady -- with her /mother/ in the passenger seat -- recently passed me WAY too closely on a busy 4-lane road with parked cars on both sides. Caught up to her at a light and gave her grief, and she only could say "sorry" -- she knew she had done it because I yelled as she had passed. She either was careless or didn't know any better; it wasn't to "intimidate" me at all.) >> If a car has ample "laneage", why would the driver drift into or >> near the bike lane? > > Who said they would do that? You claim they pass significantly closer than they do bike laned riders. Not my experience at all. >> Too many drivers are deathly afraid of drifting LEFT of their >> lane, so stay too far right for comfort unless that thick white line >> is there. > That is not what the research shows. One road in particular comes to mind. Drivers pass me "tight" often, rather than dare cross the yellow line even though it's perfectly clear on the other side. Same thing happens in two-lane situations, where they're afraid to move into the left lane even if no other car is there. When there's a bike lane this situation doesn't arise; they simply pass me in their lane (usually well to the left of me so there's no issue at all). Given the choice, I'll take a road with a decent bike lane ANY day. You can do what you want. (Gee, sounds a lot like those OTHER threads about lids, doesn't it?) Bill S.             Date: 09 Apr 2007 15:13:09 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill Sornson wrote: >> Wayne Pein wrote: >>Is the total space the same on those "busy" roads without bike lanes >>as it is on the bike lane roads? That is, on a bike lane road there >>is the bike lane space of x feet plus the adjacent "motor vehicle" >>lane of y feet, amounting to, say 16 feet. Is the "shared" lane on >>the non-bike lane road the same 16 feet? > > > No. In the real world (not some imaginary Lane Utopia), busy roads without > bike lanes are seldom as wide as those with them. There are plenty of Lane Utopias in existence. Further, simply removing a bike lane stripe creates Lane Utopia. >>Further, what is your lateral position on the non-bike lane road? Are >>you assertive and use significant space as bicycling education >>dictates? > > > Yes. Many of the roads I ride also have parked cars, so I'm "extra > assertive" in order to avoid the door zone. Riding them is much more > stressful and sometimes dangerous than the roads I know with bike lanes. > Period. You are comparing apples and oranges. The appropriate comparison is bike lane plus normal lane with a wide lane of equal width. Like the two pictures here on page 1: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/wol_width.pdf > > You claim they pass significantly closer than they do bike laned riders. > Not my experience at all. According to the research it is. Research also shows that bicyclists have poor perceptions of passsing distance. 100% of 91 bicyclists got it wrong. Most of them thought it was the opposite of reality. Motorists passed closer but bicyclists thought it was further. > One road in particular comes to mind. Drivers pass me "tight" often, rather > than dare cross the yellow line even though it's perfectly clear on the > other side. Same thing happens in two-lane situations, where they're afraid > to move into the left lane even if no other car is there. When there's a > bike lane this situation doesn't arise; they simply pass me in their lane > (usually well to the left of me so there's no issue at all). If the lane is as wide as a bike lane plus the "motor vehicle" lane motorists will pass well to the left of you. Wayne               Date: 09 Apr 2007 15:02:24 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein wrote: > There are plenty of Lane Utopias in existence. Further, simply > removing a bike lane stripe creates Lane Utopia. Well if /that/ ain't revealing! LOL                 Date: 09 Apr 2007 18:33:54 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > >>There are plenty of Lane Utopias in existence. Further, simply >>removing a bike lane stripe creates Lane Utopia. > > > Well if /that/ ain't revealing! LOL > > Sure is! Thanks for coming up with the Lane Utopia moniker: busy roads with outside lanes as wide a "motor vehicle" lane plus a bike lane. I like that. We've got a couple of them here. Their great because bicyclists can choose their lateral position without government nannies with paint cans doing so. And you can pass stopped busses without changing lanes. Basically they treat bicycle drivers as equal road users, rather than as a special category requiring their own space, like pedestrians. Wayne         Date: 09 Apr 2007 08:30:00 From: _ Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:01:16 -0700, Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: >> Bob wrote: >> >>> On Apr 5, 11:46 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Bob wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Since what I was replying to was your statement, "Frankly, I think >>> the numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck full of >>> logic and reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters is >>> bereft of it.", I'd say that any burden to prove (that's *prove*, >>> not assert) the logic of your argument and the lack of same by any >>> who disagree with your rests on your shoulders. >> >> >> No, I don't think so. >> >> Given that the study you quote downthread doesn't say what you at >> least imply it does and having read >>> your critique of that study, I doubt you can do either. Pomposity >>> isn't logic. It is merely pompous. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bob Hunt >> >> >> It says what I said it says, and I stand by my critique of it. >> >> “In general, the motorist positioned their vehicle (sic), on average, >> between 5.9 ft (bicycle lane) and 6.4 ft (wide curb lane) from the >> bicyclist as the passing maneuver was initiated. Since this distance >> is obviously controlled by the motorist, .....” >> >> Sounds like closer passing with a bike lane to me, and that motorists >> chose it. And, it's been corroborated by other studies. >> >> How do you like them apples? > > I have very seldom been "buzzed" (passed way too closely) while in a ked > bike lane. It happens frequently on "busy" (35+ mph) roads without them. > If a car has ample "laneage", why would the driver drift into or near the > bike lane? Too many drivers are deathly afraid of drifting LEFT of their > lane, so stay too far right for comfort unless that thick white line is > there. > > Thems are my apples and I like 'em just fine. > This is the same Bill Sornson who prefers (by his own statement) to ignore data that conflicts with his faith about the efficacy of magic foam hats.     Date: 08 Apr 2007 21:23:55 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bob wrote: > > > The document you quote doesn't say that. What it says is that given > the same total roadway width cyclists tend to ride further from the > curb line when there is a striped bike lane. That is hardly what you > seem to be claiming, that motorists allow less separation distance > from cyclists when there is a striped bike lane than they do when > there is no pavement king. The stripe changes *cyclist* behavior, > not motorist behavior. Sorry Bob. The study found that motorists passed bicyclists .5 feet closer in a bike lane than in a wide lane. And yes, motorist behavior is changed. BTW, that study also concludes that the > separation difference is so negligible- 5'10" separation with the > stripe versus 6'5" without the stripe assuming the same total roadway > width- as to have no real impact on safety so why stripe the lane? > Simple- it is cheaper to paint a line on the pavement than erect no > parking signs. Eliminate the need to swerve around parked cars and > safety is enhanced. > > Regards, > Bob Hunt I don't think the study says anything about cost of stripes vs signs or eliminating inept bicyclist swerving around parked cars and how that enhances safety. Regards, Wayne     Date: 07 Apr 2007 18:39:10 From: nash Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes "Bob" <hunrobe@aol.com > wrote in message news:1175967955.245208.45110@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 4, 3:06 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> gds wrote: >> > On Apr 4, 11:53 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> >> >>Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than >> >>without. >> >> > Actually, that is not my experience, at least on the roads where I do >> > the majority of my cycling. >> >> >>Again, it's actually less separation with a bike lane stripe. >> >> > Again, that is not my experience. I find that stiripe creats somewhat >> > of a "psychological" barrier for motorists without limiting the >> > flexibility of cyclists to maneuver around obstacles. >> >> http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/univnc96.pdf >> >> is just one study that shows that motorists pass closer when there is a >> bike lane stripe. There are others. >> > > The document you quote doesn't say that. What it says is that given > the same total roadway width cyclists tend to ride further from the > curb line when there is a striped bike lane. That is hardly what you > seem to be claiming, that motorists allow less separation distance > from cyclists when there is a striped bike lane than they do when > there is no pavement king. The stripe changes *cyclist* behavior, > not motorist behavior. BTW, that study also concludes that the > separation difference is so negligible- 5'10" separation with the > stripe versus 6'5" without the stripe assuming the same total roadway > width- as to have no real impact on safety so why stripe the lane? > Simple- it is cheaper to paint a line on the pavement than erect no > parking signs. Eliminate the need to swerve around parked cars and > safety is enhanced. > > Regards, > Bob Hunt Does a white line mean you cannot park. I don't think so. Not officially.   Date: 06 Apr 2007 20:02:55 From: John Kane Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 6, 3:52 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote: > On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:29:10 -0700, frkrygow wrote: > > "FHWA has announced that they plan to issue the draft > > of the next edition of the MUTCD for public review & > > content later this year, with a final publication date > > sometime in 2009. Until the final version of the next > > MUTCD is published (in '09), this king is considered > > experimental, and FHWA approval is needed before > > use on roadways open to public travel." > > > So it takes longer than I thought, because there's another "review & > > comment" stage I wasn't aware of. Your friend was right, it has a > > long way to go. But I'm betting it will get there. To me, it looks > > like a good compromise. > > That's great Frank, thanks. > > The bureaucracy this stuff has to go through is unbelievable sometimes. > We're looking at 2009, while the serious effort at this probably started > 3-4 years ago. So it takes at least half a decade to implement a > relatively minor change in the MUTCD. > > Matt O. Try coordinating something like that ! Half a decade is not bad speed especially if it is a consensus document. :) Getting the principals together is like herding cats. Any competent bureaucracy could probably do a good job in 6 months but, perhaps, not quite as good , and the political fall-out from all those whose ox got gored would be incredible. Some of that time delay is to improve the product and some is to protect the politician and the civil servant from outraged special interest groups. A pet peeve: You may not have noticed it but few politicians rush to defend civil servants. It is much easier to sluff off the blame for an unpopular decision onto the civil servant even if all he/she were doing was following the government's policies.   Date: 06 Apr 2007 10:29:10 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 5, 6:48 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote: > On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:05:01 -0700, frkrygow wrote: > > > > > Well, I see I jumped the gun. It's been recommended for inclusion, > > but I guess it's not 100% certain. > > > But its certainly sounds probable. I don't know why FHWA would deny > > the recommendation. > > >http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/sls/index.html > > > Does your friend have other info? > > I have no idea, but I could try to find out. Anyway, thanks for the link. > OK, I got new info today by e-mail. Here's a quote: "FHWA has announced that they plan to issue the draft of the next edition of the MUTCD for public review & content later this year, with a final publication date sometime in 2009. Until the final version of the next MUTCD is published (in '09), this king is considered experimental, and FHWA approval is needed before use on roadways open to public travel." So it takes longer than I thought, because there's another "review & comment" stage I wasn't aware of. Your friend was right, it has a long way to go. But I'm betting it will get there. To me, it looks like a good compromise. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 06 Apr 2007 15:52:31 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:29:10 -0700, frkrygow wrote: > "FHWA has announced that they plan to issue the draft > of the next edition of the MUTCD for public review & > content later this year, with a final publication date > sometime in 2009. Until the final version of the next > MUTCD is published (in '09), this king is considered > experimental, and FHWA approval is needed before > use on roadways open to public travel." > > So it takes longer than I thought, because there's another "review & > comment" stage I wasn't aware of. Your friend was right, it has a > long way to go. But I'm betting it will get there. To me, it looks > like a good compromise. That's great Frank, thanks. The bureaucracy this stuff has to go through is unbelievable sometimes. We're looking at 2009, while the serious effort at this probably started 3-4 years ago. So it takes at least half a decade to implement a relatively minor change in the MUTCD. Matt O.   Date: 05 Apr 2007 14:05:01 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 5, 4:28 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote: > On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:07:59 -0700, frkrygow wrote: > > The ONLY stripe benefit I envision is this: Some timid cyclists will > > feel more welcome on the road. But IMO, that can be accomplished by > > "sharrows," which (I hear) are formally approved in the next MUTCD > > document. I prefer that idea. > > From whom did you hear this? One of our local VDOT dudes (an avid > cyclist) is on that committee. Last I heard from him, he thought it still > had a long way to go. Well, I see I jumped the gun. It's been recommended for inclusion, but I guess it's not 100% certain. But its certainly sounds probable. I don't know why FHWA would deny the recommendation. http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/sls/index.html Does your friend have other info? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 05 Apr 2007 18:48:14 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:05:01 -0700, frkrygow wrote: > On Apr 5, 4:28 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:07:59 -0700, frkrygow wrote: >> > The ONLY stripe benefit I envision is this: Some timid cyclists will >> > feel more welcome on the road. But IMO, that can be accomplished by >> > "sharrows," which (I hear) are formally approved in the next MUTCD >> > document. I prefer that idea. >> >> From whom did you hear this? One of our local VDOT dudes (an avid >> cyclist) is on that committee. Last I heard from him, he thought it still >> had a long way to go. > > Well, I see I jumped the gun. It's been recommended for inclusion, > but I guess it's not 100% certain. > > But its certainly sounds probable. I don't know why FHWA would deny > the recommendation. > > http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/sls/index.html > > Does your friend have other info? I have no idea, but I could try to find out. Anyway, thanks for the link. Matt O.   Date: 04 Apr 2007 19:35:12 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > k Hickey wrote: > > Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > > >>Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. > >>However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically > >>separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The > >>problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their > >>limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere. > > > Wayne, I think that you're solidly a zealot, unlike almost everyone > > else in this discussion. When you consider separate bike lanes "an > > abomination of abomination", it's clear that reason and logic have > > long since left the building. > > k, > > Perhaps you should read more carefully. Bike lanes are merely an > abomination. *Physically separated* bike lanes are an abomination of an > abomination. > > Frankly, I think the numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck > full of logic and reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters > is bereft of it. I guess since you assert that your position is logical and any different view is illogical we should all just accept your assertion as fact. Case closed. Next issue. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 05 Apr 2007 12:46:48 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bob wrote: > > I guess since you assert that your position is logical and any > different view is illogical we should all just accept your assertion > as fact. Case closed. Next issue. > Why don't you show that my arguments are illogical rather than taking a shot at me? Regards, Wayne     Date: 04 Apr 2007 22:22:31 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes "Bob" <hunrobe@aol.com > wrote: >On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> k Hickey wrote: >> > Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> >> >>Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. >> >>However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically >> >>separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The >> >>problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their >> >>limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere. >> >> > Wayne, I think that you're solidly a zealot, unlike almost everyone >> > else in this discussion. When you consider separate bike lanes "an >> > abomination of abomination", it's clear that reason and logic have >> > long since left the building. >> >> k, >> >> Perhaps you should read more carefully. Bike lanes are merely an >> abomination. *Physically separated* bike lanes are an abomination of an >> abomination. >> >> Frankly, I think the numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck >> full of logic and reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters >> is bereft of it. > >I guess since you assert that your position is logical and any >different view is illogical we should all just accept your assertion >as fact. Case closed. Next issue. Thanks for clearing this up for me, Bob... I'd somehow missed the fact that my position (and presumably all those who do seem to like bike lanes, including virtually every cyclist I've talked to about them in the Phoenix, Arizona area) was without logic. I guess we're doomed to enjoy the bike lanes even though we should be nauseated by the very sight of 'em. ;-) k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame   Date: 04 Apr 2007 19:12:56 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 2, 5:55 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:58:10 -0700, Bob wrote: > > On Apr 1, 12:18 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2007.subsume.com> > > wrote: > >> Why no proper analysis of traffic flow? My guess is that it would show > >> how stupid it is to have people biking at 15+mph right next to people > >> standing on the sidewalk. > > Accident rates for separate bike paths are actually worse than for bikes > on roads. Bike-ped collisions are common and often serious, but usually > not reported as traffic accidents when they occur on separate bike paths. If most are not reported then how do we know there *are* more crashes or their relative severity? > > If you think that is stupid how stupid do you think I and all the other > > road riders are for biking at 15-20 mph "right next to" traffic going > > 40-50 mph? > > According to car-bike collision statistics, this isn't a major > issue. "Hit from behind" accidents, which cyclists worry most about, > are quite rare. Which is pretty much my point. The poster I was replying to had asserted that bikes travelling at 15+ mph in proximity to much slower or even stationary pedestrians is an inherently dangerous situation. > The most common accidents are at intersections or driveways, especially > where people are riding on sidewalks, and especially against the flow of > traffic. This is the major problem with separated bike lanes as shown in > this video. They'd be fine if they didn't cross driveways or > intersections, weren't two-way, and weren't off to the side -- where sight > lines are poor, and where drivers aren't looking for cross traffic. > > Imagine driving a car, making a left turn across normal traffic, but then > having to account for the equivalent of 15mph, two-way bike traffic on the > sidewalk. (This is why we're required to walk bikes in crosswalks.) Now > imagine a poor driver, one who's impatient, agitated, distracted, tired, > drunk, senile, or just not too bright, trying to cope with this situation. > > Why create what we know to be the most dangerous situation? > > If you can solve all these problems, then fine, separate bike paths are > great. They do encourage more people to ride. The possibility of a "left hook" crash exists whether there is a segregated bike lane similiar to those in the video or the bikes are in the same lane as motor vehicles but picture a north-south roadway with a two way bike lane ont the east side of the roadway. Can a vehicle on that roadway making a turn to go west possibly strike a cyclist? You just decreased the odds by 50%. :-) > >> I wouldn't be too surprised to see an increase in bike-pedestrian > >> crashes that results from parked car drivers having to cross the bike > >> path. > > > I wouldn't be surprised if there was an offsetting drop in bike vs car > > door and bike vs motor vehicle crashes. > > Sometimes we're in a position of choosing one bad thing over a perceived > worse one. Welcome to public safety management. > > > There are no universally > > applicable solutions just as there are no perfect solutions. > > Absolutely. But we have a better chance of solving problems when we > deconstruct each situation, and actually design a solution, according to > accepted best practices. The danger is thinking we've discovered a pat > solution for everything. We're actually in agreement. I wasn't claiming the pictured bike lanes are perfect, simply that the design shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because they aren't a panacea or because of the notion held by some that separating bikes from cars somehow unfairly discriminates against us. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 05 Apr 2007 16:16:57 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:12:56 -0700, Bob wrote: > On Apr 2, 5:55 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: >> Accident rates for separate bike paths are actually worse than for >> bikes on roads. Bike-ped collisions are common and often serious, but >> usually not reported as traffic accidents when they occur on separate >> bike paths. > > If most are not reported then how do we know there *are* more crashes or > their relative severity? They may be reported but not necessarily as traffic accidents, so they may not be included in traffic statistics. Accident rates for paths can be (and are) calculated from path use statistics, compiled by park authorities, etc. -- whoever is in charge of the bike paths. So we have a pretty good idea how safe (or dangerous) bike paths are. If two bikes collide in the middle of a park in your area, is it reported as a traffic accident? I know of one bike path (in another state or province) that parallels a main road and crosses many side streets. If there's a bike-car incident at one of these side street crossings, it's reported as a traffic accident, but if there's a bike/bike or bike-ped collision in the middle of the block, it is not. It's reported as a park incident or whatever, and makes it into park statistics but not traffic statistics. This is a problem. I would like to see a national standard for reporting of bike accidents, to address this problem, but also some more basic data collection, like was the cyclist using lights at night, etc. Major metro police depts. are pretty good about this stuff, but everywhere else... it's pretty unstructured, to put it kindly. Matt O.   Date: 04 Apr 2007 16:18:10 From: Anthony DeLorenzo Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Personally, I always felt that the system of bikeways used in Vancouver was the best for commuting: "On the commuter bikeways, bikes share the road with cars on mostly local/residential streets that are parallel to major arterial streets. A safe, direct and convenient route with fewer cars, less noise and better air quality make the bikeways a good choice for cyclists traveling to school or work. To allow cyclists to activate traffic signals, push buttons have been installed at the curb at pedestrian/ cyclists signals and bicycle logos have been painted on the roadway over the most sensitive area at 'loop detected' signals. Traffic circles, diverters, medians and other traffic calming measures discourage non-local car drivers." (Source: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/general.htm) The routes were all quiet and fast. I was able to do a 45-minute commute in the same time it took the express bus running along the main street a few blocks over.Best of both worlds, IMHO: No separate lanes but no fast-moving, heavy traffic either. Regards, Anthony   Date: 04 Apr 2007 13:19:59 From: gds Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 4, 1:06 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > gds wrote: > > On Apr 4, 11:53 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > > >>Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without. > > > Actually, that is not my experience, at least on the roads where I do > > the majority of my cycling. > > >>Again, it's actually less separation with a bike lane stripe. > > > Again, that is not my experience. I find that stiripe creats somewhat > > of a "psychological" barrier for motorists without limiting the > > flexibility of cyclists to maneuver around obstacles. > > http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/univnc96.pdf > > is just one study that shows that motorists pass closer when there is a > bike lane stripe. There are others. > > FWIW, here is my critique of the above study:http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/SharedUse_critiq... > > Wayne- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thanks for the references! Given the quality of the study (poor! as you say in your critique) it really doesn't do much to support the argument either way. And interestingly (at least to me) it focused more on cyclist behavior (regarding where in "the lane" they rode) than motorist behavior. My earlier point was that a stripe tends to discourage motorists from driving over the line and thus close to cyclists. If cyclists choose to ride closer to the motorists that is a differnt issue. My personal observation is that stronger, more confident cyclists tend to ride further to the left to avoid debris, etc. and are less concerned with being 1.2' closer to motor vehicles. While less experienced cyclists tend to ride further to the right to be as far away from cars as possible. And your point that most car/cycle accidents involve turning and/or intersection situations rather than simple overtaking is a good one. All that said my personal preference is for a painted stripe.     Date: 04 Apr 2007 18:05:04 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes gds wrote: > > > Thanks for the references! > Given the quality of the study (poor! as you say in your critique) it > really doesn't do much to support the argument either way. The motorist overtaking distance data are robust since that is a simple measurement. Other data are not. > And interestingly (at least to me) it focused more on cyclist behavior > (regarding where in "the lane" they rode) than motorist behavior. My > earlier point was that a stripe tends to discourage motorists from > driving over the line and thus close to cyclists. If cyclists choose > to ride closer to the motorists that is a differnt issue. > My personal observation is that stronger, more confident cyclists tend > to ride further to the left to avoid debris, etc. and are less > concerned with being 1.2' closer to motor vehicles. While less > experienced cyclists tend to ride further to the right to be as far > away from cars as possible. That is all true, but it does not negate the reality of motorist less change of trajectory resulting in closer passes when a stripe is present. Here is a draft paper of mine critiqing another study that examined the issue. Sorry for the long post, but I don't have it ready for web upload yet. Introduction This paper illustrates the poor perceptual abilities of bicyclists with respect to the overtaking speed and distance of motor vehicle traffic. Discussion In Florida, a 35 mph speed limit two-lane road with 9.5 foot lanes and 1,700 vehicles per day had 3 foot shoulders added “for bicyclists” to a 1.1 mile section. These shoulders were painted red in an effort to perceptually maintain a narrow road although it was widened by 3 feet. This in turn was intended to attenuate motorist speed. The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center evaluated this project in a 1998 paper entitled “An Evaluation of Red Shoulders as a Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility.” www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/research/redstudy.pdf One component of the evaluation was a mail-back questionnaire comprising three questions, which was answered by more than 90 bicyclists. These questions are shown below. Following each question, I offer analysis of the results. “Question 1. Do you feel that widening Lakeshore Drive and adding the painted red shoulders has resulted in: a. Slower speeds for cars and trucks 12 (13.2%) b. Faster speeds for cars and trucks 6 ( 6.6%) c. No change in the speeds of cars and trucks 73 (80.2%) Total 91 (100.0%)” Analysis: The results for this question show that a combined 19.8% of bicyclists perceived that speeds were either slower or faster. In fact, there was no measured change in the speed of motor vehicles due to adding the shoulders. Thus, nearly 1 in 5 bicyclists were wrong on speed estimation. “Question 2. As a result of adding the painted red shoulders, do you feel that there is: a. More space between bicyclists and passing vehicles 79 (85.9%) b. Less space between bicyclists and passing vehicles 0 (0%) c. No change in the space between bicyclists and passing vehicles 13 (14.1%) Total 92 (100.0%)” Analysis: Eighty six percent of bicyclists perceived that there was more space between themselves and passing motorists with the added shoulder, and 14 percent felt there was no change. In fact, the actual spacing between bicycles and motor vehicles was 0.62 feet less with the red shoulders than before their placement. Nearly eighty six percent of bicyclists’ perceptions were not only wrong, they were completely opposite of reality. The remaining 14 percent were merely wrong. Thus, one hundred percent of bicyclists were wrong at judging overtaking spacing. According to the report, “[Speed] Data were obtained using pneumatic tubes and digital counters at locations with and without the red shoulders,” and overall aggregate speed did not change after the installation of the red shoulders. However, it is possible that motorists passed bicyclists at higher speed with the red shoulders than previously without shoulders. Motorist overtaking speed was not measured, but such a result would be consistent with the reduced caution exhibited by closer passes on the shoulder section, is an expected result of reducing/removing bicyclists’ “friction” by placing them behind a stripe in their own space. If bicycle users are out of the standard travel lane and to the right of a stripe in their own space, there is little need for motorists to move over or slow, much as they do not need to move over or slow when passing other motorists in adjacent lanes on a multi-lane road. “Question 3. Compared to ordinary unpainted paved shoulders, do the painted red shoulders: a. Make you feel more safe 75 (79.0%) b. Make you feel less safe 3 (3.2%) c. Make no difference in how safe you feel 17 (17.9%) Total 95 (100.0%)” Analysis: Seventy nine percent of respondents felt more safe with the shoulders. Nearly 4 of 5 bicyclists say they felt more safe, yet the operational analysis shows that motorists passed closer, and likely faster. As further evidence of the faulty perceptions of bicyclists, many responding to the survey with write-in comments considered the 3-foot red shoulders to be bike lanes, even though no bike lane signs were placed. The UNC investigators did not extend the effort to determine the perceptions of the motoring public, the vast majority of the users of the roadway. Given that some bicyclists thought the shoulder space was a bike lane and used it as such, it is reasonable to think that some, perhaps most, motorists would believe it to be a bike lane, and thus bicyclists should use it and not the travel lane, which has then become the “motor vehicle” lane. Other motorists who didn’t think it was a formal bike lane would likely believe bicyclists should be to the right of the shoulder line and operate on the shoulder. In either case, bicyclists using the travel lane as legitimate users of the roadway would be considered as encroaching into what is considered motorists’ space, and would be ripe for harassment and intimidation. Wayne     Date: 04 Apr 2007 21:02:29 From: Bill Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes gds wrote: > > Thanks for the references! > Given the quality of the study (poor! as you say in your critique) it > really doesn't do much to support the argument either way. I read most of it and.... 1. At least they did do a study. 2. It isn't that bad and is way better than nothing. > And interestingly (at least to me) it focused more on cyclist behavior > (regarding where in "the lane" they rode) than motorist behavior. My > earlier point was that a stripe tends to discourage motorists from > driving over the line and thus close to cyclists. If cyclists choose > to ride closer to the motorists that is a differnt issue. > My personal observation is that stronger, more confident cyclists tend > to ride further to the left to avoid debris, etc. and are less > concerned with being 1.2' closer to motor vehicles. Could that be more experienced cyclists are more stupid, arrogant, or what? In town I keep to about 12-14 MPH maximum in the door zone, and I don't try to "TAKE" the lane even if I am doing 20 MPH since the motor crowd always wants to do 30 in a 25 zone. While less > experienced cyclists tend to ride further to the right to be as far > away from cars as possible. I am not "Less experienced" by a long shot and I still stay to the right and will ride wrong way when there is heavy traffic and a 55-65 MPH speed limit. Right or wrong, this has saved me from semi-convoys a number of times. > > And your point that most car/cycle accidents involve turning and/or > intersection situations rather than simple overtaking is a good one. That's how I got hit a week before Christmas, eye contact and the guy still started from a stop sign and hit me. I didn't register like a semi coming his way would have. > All that said my personal preference is for a painted stripe. > You can have it. A stripe is pretty useless to me if there is only an inch of pavement on the bicycle side of the stripe and then weeds and stickers. There's a reason I prefer to ride up into the mountains and ride old wagon trail roads.....no cars. Bill Baka       Date: 04 Apr 2007 18:10:23 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill wrote: > gds wrote: > >> >> Thanks for the references! >> Given the quality of the study (poor! as you say in your critique) it >> really doesn't do much to support the argument either way. > > > I read most of it and.... > 1. At least they did do a study. > 2. It isn't that bad and is way better than nothing. The study is not credible for most of it's efforts. It is worse than nothing because it leads people to believe its specious results and conclusions. Faulty studies are a drain. Wayne         Date: 05 Apr 2007 08:47:36 From: _ Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:10:23 -0400, Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill wrote: > >> gds wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks for the references! >>> Given the quality of the study (poor! as you say in your critique) it >>> really doesn't do much to support the argument either way. >> >> >> I read most of it and.... >> 1. At least they did do a study. >> 2. It isn't that bad and is way better than nothing. > > The study is not credible for most of it's efforts. It is worse than > nothing because it leads people to believe its specious results and > conclusions. Faulty studies are a drain. > > Wayne Prime example: TRT and the plethora of MHLs.       Date: 04 Apr 2007 14:40:54 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill wrote: > In town I keep to about 12-14 MPH maximum in the door zone, and > I don't try to "TAKE" the lane even if I am doing 20 MPH since the > motor crowd always wants to do 30 in a 25 zone. Psst, Bill: taking the lane has nothing to do with one's speed. HTH         Date: 04 Apr 2007 21:53:13 From: Bill Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill Sornson wrote: > Bill wrote: > >> In town I keep to about 12-14 MPH maximum in the door zone, and >> I don't try to "TAKE" the lane even if I am doing 20 MPH since the >> motor crowd always wants to do 30 in a 25 zone. > > Psst, Bill: taking the lane has nothing to do with one's speed. HTH > > Sure. Try taking the lane at 12 MPH in front of a red neck in a hurry in a beat up old pickup truck. You risk your life your way, I'll do it my way. Bill Baka           Date: 04 Apr 2007 15:47:57 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> Bill wrote: >> >>> In town I keep to about 12-14 MPH maximum in the door zone, and >>> I don't try to "TAKE" the lane even if I am doing 20 MPH since the >>> motor crowd always wants to do 30 in a 25 zone. >> >> Psst, Bill: taking the lane has nothing to do with one's speed. HTH >> >> > Sure. Try taking the lane at 12 MPH in front of a red neck in a hurry > in a beat up old pickup truck. You risk your life your way, I'll do it > my way. Bill Baka Taking the lane has nothing to do with speed. HTH   Date: 04 Apr 2007 12:09:22 From: gds Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 4, 11:53 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without. Actually, that is not my experience, at least on the roads where I do the majority of my cycling. > > Again, it's actually less separation with a bike lane stripe. Again, that is not my experience. I find that stiripe creats somewhat of a "psychological" barrier for motorists without limiting the flexibility of cyclists to maneuver around obstacles. >> > A stripe isn't needed for that. NO PARKING signs do just fine. I agree that a stripe isn't needed. But I find it helps. I also agree that a stripe isn't needed for any of the above. But in my experience it helps. We've discussed our differing experiences/perceptions before. I think that the structure of roads out here in the SW as well as driver behavior is simply different from what you see in the east. My guess is that different solutions are better in different places as the total situation is different. Gary     Date: 17 Apr 2007 01:02:01 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes In article <46247541$0$17161$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > writes: > Good lord, no wonder you people (not an Imus ref.) hate bike lanes. Those > things are atrocities. That's what's meant by "physically separated" bike lanes, as per the subject line. Physically separated bike lanes are not just extra pavement and a painted line alongside existing roads, they are separate "bicycle streets" juxtaposed parallel to real streets, and are mostly an urban feature. In fact, they might be best described as Bicycle Sidewalks. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 18 Apr 2007 22:27:02 From: Jeremy Parker Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:ptu10f.jd21.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <46247541$0$17161$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes: > >> Good lord, no wonder you people (not an Imus ref.) hate bike >> lanes. Those >> things are atrocities. > > That's what's meant by "physically separated" bike lanes, > as per the subject line. [snip] Of course, there is no such thing as a "physically separated bike lane" That's just a euphemism for the facility that dare not speak its name, the cycle track. "Cycle track" has become an obscenity, not to be spoken in polite society. The problems with cycle tracks have been known for some time. Half a century ago, here in Britain, one for Britain's greatest town planners and traffic engineers, Professor Sir Colin Buchanan,. wrote, in his book "Mixed Blessing, The Motor in Britain" "The meagre efforts to separate cyclists from motor traffic have failed, tracks are inadequate, the problem of treating them at junctions and intersections is completely unsolved, and the attitude of cyclists themselves to these admittedly unsatisfactory tracks has not been as helpful as it might have been." Jeremy Parker     Date: 04 Apr 2007 16:06:43 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes gds wrote: > On Apr 4, 11:53 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > > >>Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without. > > > Actually, that is not my experience, at least on the roads where I do > the majority of my cycling. > > > >>Again, it's actually less separation with a bike lane stripe. > > > Again, that is not my experience. I find that stiripe creats somewhat > of a "psychological" barrier for motorists without limiting the > flexibility of cyclists to maneuver around obstacles. > http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/univnc96.pdf is just one study that shows that motorists pass closer when there is a bike lane stripe. There are others. FWIW, here is my critique of the above study: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/SharedUse_critique.pdf Wayne   Date: 04 Apr 2007 11:44:09 From: gds Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 4, 10:07 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit > of the stripe? > To me the benefit of the stripe is that it signals to motorists that they should not be crossing that solid line and thus (at least in most cases) helping to create some distance between motorists and cyclists that may not otherwise be there. This is further reinforced by the use of some more paint to include in the lane cyclist symbols and/or wording such as "bike lane." So, in general I agree with yor argument that if the lane is wide enough then it is wide enough and functional. But I do think the stripe adds "some" value. In southern Arizona where many streets have posted speed limits of 45 mph and actual traffic moves at 50+ even a bit more separation is welcome. The strip and accompanying signage also work to prevent (reduce) the number of folks who park their motor vehicls in what is a bicycle travel lane. Thus, reducing the need to swing into fast moving motor traffic. The negative (to me) is mainly what is mentioned above, if cars don't drive over it the path will tend to fill with debris. Personally, I pick my cycling routes based on factors such as traffic, road width, and the presence of a painted lane as I find it helpfull (but not crucial).     Date: 04 Apr 2007 22:38:50 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On 4 Apr 2007 11:44:09 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com > wrote: > To me the benefit of the stripe is that it signals to motorists that > they should not be crossing that solid line no, it signals to most of them that the other side of the stripe is the bike ghetto, and bikes don't belong in THEIR lane.     Date: 04 Apr 2007 15:02:07 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On 4 Apr 2007 11:44:09 -0700, "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com > wrote: >To me the benefit of the stripe is that it signals to motorists that >they should not be crossing that solid line and thus (at least in most >cases) helping to create some distance between motorists and cyclists >that may not otherwise be there. Not how it works out. Studies have shown that the line gives the motorist more comfort in passing closer, not further away. Anything that creates a bit of uncertainty would increase that distance and the reverse is true. Motorists give an unsteady bicyclist that isn't holding their line more room as well. So if you are riding in a bike lane, be sure to weave a bit, to make the motorist nervous and uncertain. They might just pull into the other lane... Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...     Date: 04 Apr 2007 14:53:50 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes gds wrote: > On Apr 4, 10:07 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit >>of the stripe? >> > > > To me the benefit of the stripe is that it signals to motorists that > they should not be crossing that solid line and thus (at least in most > cases) helping to create some distance between motorists and cyclists > that may not otherwise be there. This is further reinforced by the use > of some more paint to include in the lane cyclist symbols and/or > wording such as "bike lane." Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without. > So, in general I agree with yor argument that if the lane is wide > enough then it is wide enough and functional. But I do think the > stripe adds "some" value. > In southern Arizona where many streets have posted speed limits of 45 > mph and actual traffic moves at 50+ even a bit more separation is > welcome. Again, it's actually less separation with a bike lane stripe. > The strip and accompanying signage also work to prevent (reduce) the > number of folks who park their motor vehicls in what is a bicycle > travel lane. Thus, reducing the need to swing into fast moving motor > traffic. A stripe isn't needed for that. NO PARKING signs do just fine. Wayne       Date: 17 Apr 2007 08:26:02 From: Wolfgang Strobl Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com >: >gds wrote: > >> On Apr 4, 10:07 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >>>So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit >>>of the stripe? >>> >> >> >> To me the benefit of the stripe is that it signals to motorists that >> they should not be crossing that solid line and thus (at least in most >> cases) helping to create some distance between motorists and cyclists >> that may not otherwise be there. This is further reinforced by the use >> of some more paint to include in the lane cyclist symbols and/or >> wording such as "bike lane." > >Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without. That's what the German "Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen" (BASt) found many years ago, when studying the matter. There is more distance of motorists to the curbsite, when there is no cyclist in sight (so the lane collects debris), but motorists will pass cyclists closer, with a bike lane stripe than without. -- Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen       Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:04:10 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >gds wrote: >> To me the benefit of the stripe is that it signals to motorists that >> they should not be crossing that solid line and thus (at least in most >> cases) helping to create some distance between motorists and cyclists >> that may not otherwise be there. This is further reinforced by the use >> of some more paint to include in the lane cyclist symbols and/or >> wording such as "bike lane." > >Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without. I think I understand the problem... Wayne lives in a different universe than I do. ;-) There's no ('scuze me, "NO") comparison between the number of brush-back drive-by buzzes I get in Arizona (with its wide bike lanes) compared to Florida (with no bike lanes). Not even remotely close. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame         Date: 05 Apr 2007 12:49:55 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes k Hickey wrote: > I think I understand the problem... Wayne lives in a different > universe than I do. ;-) > > There's no ('scuze me, "NO") comparison between the number of > brush-back drive-by buzzes I get in Arizona (with its wide bike lanes) > compared to Florida (with no bike lanes). Not even remotely close. > k, I'm beginning to believe that you don't understand the issue at all. The issue is comparing the same total space, not 18 feet of Arizona total space vs 11 ft of Florida total space. Wayne           Date: 10 Apr 2007 19:27:24 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: > >> I think I understand the problem... Wayne lives in a different >> universe than I do. ;-) >> >> There's no ('scuze me, "NO") comparison between the number of >> brush-back drive-by buzzes I get in Arizona (with its wide bike lanes) >> compared to Florida (with no bike lanes). Not even remotely close. > >k, I'm beginning to believe that you don't understand the issue at >all. The issue is comparing the same total space, not 18 feet of Arizona >total space vs 11 ft of Florida total space. I've ridden in a number of urban areas (several with populations you can't have in the US), and my perception is the same in all cases... a well-designed, well-executed bike lane system reduces the natural conflicts between vehicles with wildly different velocities. I used the example I did because your assertion was that it was the lane itself that caused the problems - when it's obvious that's not true for my example, and countless others. As I said, feel free to come ride the 6-lane, 50mph aterial highways here in the Phoenix, Arizona east valley. You can ride those without bike lanes, and I'll stick to those with wide, clearly ked 6' / 2m wide lanes. We'll both wear blood pressure monitors and see who's having more fun. ;-) k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame         Date: 05 Apr 2007 14:05:48 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message news:dmp8135du52dl41161vve8qhbu0lbb3e02@4ax.com... > There's no ('scuze me, "NO") comparison between the number of > brush-back drive-by buzzes I get in Arizona (with its wide bike lanes) > compared to Florida (with no bike lanes). Not even remotely close. This may be a function of the relative attitudes of drivers in different state, and have nothing to do with bike lanes. OK, my sum total experience with Florida was less than a week in Fort Lauderdale a few years ago. Nonetheless, based on that brief time, I found that, as both a pedestrian and as a cyclist, I had to be much more assertive with drivers to get any sort of respect, compared to here. I don't think bike lanes figure in here, especially when you're talking about one's experience as a pedestrian. It has to do with how motorists regard non-motorized road users, which may be based on a number of cultural factors, not the amount of pavement on the ground or where they've painted the stripes. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky         Date: 05 Apr 2007 09:24:00 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:04:10 -0700, k Hickey <k@habcycles.com > wrote: >I think I understand the problem... Wayne lives in a different >universe than I do. ;-) > >There's no ('scuze me, "NO") comparison between the number of >brush-back drive-by buzzes I get in Arizona (with its wide bike lanes) >compared to Florida (with no bike lanes). Not even remotely close. And, of course, that has nothing to do with it. The question is what the Arizona drivers would do with exactly the same amount of asphalt. And personal perceptions aren't as reliable as you seem to think - as long as the cars don't violate 'their' space - the bike lane - bicyclists often feel that there was more room than before, when there is not. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...   Date: 04 Apr 2007 10:07:59 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 4, 9:18 am, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com > wrote: > Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >k Hickey wrote: > > >>>Can you describe to me how/why "getting to work or the grocery store" in > >>>a 16'lane is more "drama" than getting there in a narrower Bike > >>>Reservation? > > >> Not to you, apparently. ;-) > > >Give it a try. You can use logic and reason or myth and lore. I'll try > >my best to understand ;-) > > The best I can do is to present the bike plan for icopa County (the > Arizona county that contains Phoenix and the surrounding sprawl). > It's the best I've seen anywhere... > > http://www.mcdot.icopa.gov/bicycle/bikeplan/bikeplan.pdf > > What's not to like about that? I'd start with the fact that, around here, it's impossible. Page 13 shows how to implement the plan on a 130 foot right-of-way, a "principal arterial road." Except our principal arterials have typical ROWs closer to, oh, 75 feet. Sure, that suggested cross section could be modified for a narrower road - but this illustrates (I hope) that much of the US was built before Brigham Young commanded wide roads for U-turning ox-carts. Your solutions aren't necessarily applicable where eastern urban cyclists ride. But to me, this next bit is more important. Whenever someone starts touting the bike lane stripe, I'd like them to concentrate on explaining the following: If you've got adequate pavement width for, say, a 12 foot outside lane plus a five foot bike lane, exactly what benefit does the stripe itself provide? Note, I'm asking only about the white paint! On wide lanes without stripes, I have all the clearance and room to maneuver I could ever want, and cars keep the pavement clear of gravel and junk. Put the stripe down, and I get gravel and glass and car parts in the bike lane. I get car drivers who think I shouldn't ever cross the line, and I get fellow cyclists who think the proper way to make a left turn is from the right gutter. Some folks imagine it will protect them from motorists not seeing them and hitting from behind. But don't we all know those are only about 2% of car-bike crashes? And that they happen mostly out in the country? The ONLY stripe benefit I envision is this: Some timid cyclists will feel more welcome on the road. But IMO, that can be accomplished by "sharrows," which (I hear) are formally approved in the next MUTCD document. I prefer that idea. So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit of the stripe? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 12 Apr 2007 08:31:10 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 12, 8:33 am, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > It wouldn't be the only way your world differs from mine! > >(For one thing, mine is less full of fear!) > > Says the guy who's apparently terrified of riding over a little > gravel? LOL. Nope, never said I was terrified of gravel. I'll avoid it on paved roads when possible, largely because where there's gravel, there's often glass or other sharp debris. Glass causes flat tires. And maybe you're different, but I prefer avoiding flat tires. > >> No price worth mentioning. If removing the stripe also convinces 1% > >> of the motorists that "I'm in their way now", I'd say I overpaid for > >> avoiding the occasional bit of dirt. > > >There is a certain amount of fear there, I see! > > No fear involved. I do like eliminating annoyance (which is why I'm > done with this thread). ?? Does that mean you worry about annoying drivers who have room to pass five feet to your left in a wide lane? Wow. I'd call that overly deferential. You _do_ have a right to the road, you know! > > >I can't see how a person riding, say, three feet from the right edge > >of a fifteen foot lane would be considered "in the way" by anyone but > >a psychopath. Psychopaths are far, far less than 1% of the > >population. > > But maybe not less than 1% of the drivers. Mmm. For you, it _is_ a fear, then > > >And I doubt psychopaths would be mollified by a white line anyway. > > Dunno, but it's been many, many months since I've been buzzed by a > car. Can you say the same? I recall one "buzz" in the past, oh, six months. It was on a residential collector road, where the two lanes were each probably ten feet wide - that is, quite narrow. I was taking the lane, of course. There was no oncoming traffic and passing was permitted (no double yellow, etc.). The SUV driver honked and passed with about two feet of clearance, rather than giving the room that was possible. No psychopath, no real danger - just a jerk. I simply shake my head at such jerks. There's no way any paint stripe on that road could prevent such an incident. It's the width that matters, not the stripe. And that road will never, in my lifetime, have enough width for a bike lane anyway. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 12 Apr 2007 18:04:05 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On Apr 12, 8:33 am, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote: >> No fear involved. I do like eliminating annoyance (which is why I'm >> done with this thread). > >?? Does that mean you worry about annoying drivers who have room to >pass five feet to your left in a wide lane? Wow. I'd call that >overly deferential. You _do_ have a right to the road, you know! You're consistent in analyzing my writing, at least. It's really quite clear (though apparently not to you). Sigh... I really AM done with this thread, for one more obvious reason... k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame     Date: 05 Apr 2007 16:28:20 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:07:59 -0700, frkrygow wrote: > The ONLY stripe benefit I envision is this: Some timid cyclists will > feel more welcome on the road. But IMO, that can be accomplished by > "sharrows," which (I hear) are formally approved in the next MUTCD > document. I prefer that idea. From whom did you hear this? One of our local VDOT dudes (an avid cyclist) is on that committee. Last I heard from him, he thought it still had a long way to go. Matt O.     Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:02:05 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >The ONLY stripe benefit I envision is this: Some timid cyclists will >feel more welcome on the road. But IMO, that can be accomplished by >"sharrows," which (I hear) are formally approved in the next MUTCD >document. I prefer that idea. > >So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit >of the stripe? I've spent many years riding in many different environments, and nowhere else has there been less hostility toward me as a cyclist than in Arizona, where we DO have a separation between cars and bikes. In Florida, where there was none, I would regularly be buzzed purposely and dangerously by people who presumably figured I didn't belong in "their" lane. So to me, having less motorized hostility directed my way, AND the reduction in chances of being hit from behind (however unlikely) is a big plus. The fact that it encorages others to join the ranks of the self-propelled is also a big plus. What I can't understand is why some people think of such a system in such entirely negative terms (i.e. "abomination of an abomination"). k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame   Date: 04 Apr 2007 07:06:59 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 2, 9:53 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote: > On 2 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" > > <p...@vecchios.com> wrote: > >Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it > >comes to constructing anything-> MONEY. What is more likely, taking > >existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate > >the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an > >existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be > >farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed? > > Having sat through a few of these conversations at various Motor > Vehicle Administrations and Departments, your comments don't really > follow. The choices that are, in fact, budgetarily neutral are either > repainting traffic lanes and having, as an example, a 10-10-10 traffic > lane with a 4 foot bike lane or a 10-10-14 lane, left to right (in the > U.S) with no lane. That is a low cost choice in either case and > basically a no cost solution to give cyclists more room if it is at > the current repainting cycle for that roadway. > > Adding ANY asphalt is a different story. Bike lanes run where curbs > and drains run, where telephone posts are planted and where the edges > of current ROW runs. The money for the asphalt is only one issue - I > can remember a discussion of adding two feet to U.S. 1 which would > have required digging up and moving every single drain assembly > (basically a 8 foot deep by 10 foot long by 4 foot wide piece of > concrete and metal) for two miles in both directions. And that still > left the curbs, sidewalks and telephone posts. And the price of > disrupting businesses. Might have been nice, even for the motorists, > but it never happened. Where Boulder needs bike shoulder/lanes is outside of town, where there are no curbs, drains and such..just need a wider lane with a shoulder. I have given up on bike lanes in Boulder proper as the talking heads have put their $ into a multiuse path that serves no cyclist well in terms of 'getting there'. > > In most cases, adding bike lanes boiled down to how easily they could > narrow other travel lanes to accomodate the wider curb lane and then > whether or not that last stripe was worthwhile. It wasn't an issue of > adding asphalt. > > Curtis L. Russell > Odenton, MD (USA) > Just someone on two wheels...   Date: 04 Apr 2007 06:53:41 From: Rick Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 3, 12:19 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote: > On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:46:45 -0700, Rick wrote: > > On Apr 3, 9:27 am, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:49:10 -0700, Rick wrote: > >> > Federal > >> > funding is basically frozen at this time as they try to put back in > >> > controls that allowed the 'Big Dig' fiasco, but I have no doubt that > >> > there is no way that the feds will come up with any sort of real > >> > financing for a proposal like that. > > >> There are no frozen fed funds. TEA continues as usual, albeit with > >> some cutbacks. > > > No, they are effectively frozen. They are allocated in the budget, but > > not being disbursed at this time until new guidelines for review are > > finalized. Once the guidelines are in place then there will be a > > bottleneck as projects slowly get reviewed. Without disbursement, > > projects which have allocations cannot be contracted. Having funds > > available, and writing checks are distinctly different; you are talking > > of funding being in the budget. That does no good until they are > > allowed to write the checks. > > This is the same political gibberish that happens every year in one form > or another. It has nothing to do with the Big Dig, or any of that other > nonsense. It's business as usual. > > How many grants have you written, "Rick?" Rick is my real name. And the reasons I state are the reasons that the Feds are giving for not releasing the funds for our two bridges, which were on track to have contracts signed this month with construction starting this summer but are now delayed to whenever. That is reality, not political, not gibberish. - rick   Date: 04 Apr 2007 05:31:41 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 2, 5:12 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: > > > see above...I agree that a wider road is key, I just think people > > somewhat observe lines. If you assume they KNOW how far to move over, > > some cyclists will still get nailed. If they know to just stay between > > the lines, and us over to the side, I think less accidents. > > You fail to recognize that by "us" staying over to the side in a narrow > defined space, turning and merging type collisions are increased. You > also discount our reduced maneuvering space, loss of rights, and the > greater liklihood of debris. This paper describes in detail the problems > bicyclists face by riding near the side:http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/High_Speed.pdf > It's a 1.5 mb file. > > Designing an infrastructure with shoulders and other "safe crashing" > features more readily enables motorists to go "asleep:" at the worst > actually asleep, at the least in a brain dead fog. > > Wayne Perhaps but with limited $, it is the best chance for being adopted and it is MUCH better than sharing a non shouldered lane right now. I think we need to stop trying for the ideal, cuz that's not gonna happen, and look for immediate solutions to sharing a lane with a car. If not, forget about cycling increasing.   Date: 04 Apr 2007 05:16:22 From: John Kane Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 1, 3:23 pm, sally <s...@sally.com > wrote: > "Sir Ridesalot" <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote innews:1175450142.5760= 92.83560@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > I do not think that segregating cyclists from the motoring lanes is > > necessarily a good idea. > > I think physically separated lanes make sense if you are investing in a l= arge > network of such lanes (as some European and Asian countries are doing). = It > is much less useful if your road network still requires bicyclists to "sh= are > the road" for most of their mileage. Actually the stats don't seem to agree. The European experience seems to indicate that separated facilities are more dangerous. I don't have the correct citiations for this at the moment but you can find some of them referenced in the wiki here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#_note-11 A friend and I almost were hit by a cyclist in Munich who was correctly riding on a separated path. It ran between the building entrances and the main sidewalk. There are also issues such as the fact the in many cases the road got there first and has the best route. A separated lane (actually a cycle path is what I am thinking of) gets the inferior route. As for separated paths I have tried a couple in Qu=E9bec. The one in Montreal (St Denis?) scared me half to death. It ran between the side walk and the on-street parking so one had to deal with all the people getting out of or returning to their cars.   Date: 04 Apr 2007 04:58:22 From: John Kane Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 1, 10:58 pm, "Bob" <hunr...@aol.com > wrote: > On Apr 1, 12:18 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2007.subsume.com> > wrote: > > > In article <pan.2007.03.31.19.43.24.273...@letterboxes.org>, > > Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > > > I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video > > > touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: > > > >http://nyc.theoildrum.com/node/2416 > > > Too obviously staged and one-sided. It is a mindless drumbeat of safety > > over everything else, yet the thing the video shows as unsafe are not > > the existing paths themselves, but the *drivers*. Why force the > > cyclists to change their behavior when they are not the source of the > > problem? > > Maybe because it is easier and more effective to build a physical > facility than it would be to achieve the utopian ideal of eliminating > negligent, inconsiderate, inattentive, and just plain dumb human > actions? > > >Why no call to first ticket and tow any vehicle blocking a > > bike path? For a city seemingly eager to fine pedestrians for > > jaywalking, it is strange that they don't go after the bigger revenue > > streams that their traffic mismanagement enables. > > Of course, ticket and tow but according to NYCMap there are > approximately 6200 miles of paved roads in NYC. How many parking > enforcement people and tow truck drivers would it take to eliminate > the problem through enforcement? Probably not all that many. For some reason drivers appear to get very upset when they return to find their car has been towed away to a lot 20 km from where they left it. The word gest out and I suspect that things change. Besides tow trucks are usually private enterprise (at least here) and I am sure there would not be any shortage of happy towers competing to haul the offenders away. The likely problem would be to keep them from towing everything in sight. :( IIRC Toronto did some aggressive ticket and tow in the China Town area behind City Hall about 15 years ago with fairly fast results. Does anyone know how effect the blow-up-the-car approach was in Northern Ireland? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 03 Apr 2007 11:46:45 From: Rick Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 3, 9:27 am, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote: > On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:49:10 -0700, Rick wrote: > > Federal > > funding is basically frozen at this time as they try to put back in > > controls that allowed the 'Big Dig' fiasco, but I have no doubt that > > there is no way that the feds will come up with any sort of real > > financing for a proposal like that. > > There are no frozen fed funds. TEA continues as usual, albeit with some > cutbacks. No, they are effectively frozen. They are allocated in the budget, but not being disbursed at this time until new guidelines for review are finalized. Once the guidelines are in place then there will be a bottleneck as projects slowly get reviewed. Without disbursement, projects which have allocations cannot be contracted. Having funds available, and writing checks are distinctly different; you are talking of funding being in the budget. That does no good until they are allowed to write the checks. - rick     Date: 03 Apr 2007 15:19:13 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:46:45 -0700, Rick wrote: > On Apr 3, 9:27 am, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:49:10 -0700, Rick wrote: >> > Federal >> > funding is basically frozen at this time as they try to put back in >> > controls that allowed the 'Big Dig' fiasco, but I have no doubt that >> > there is no way that the feds will come up with any sort of real >> > financing for a proposal like that. >> >> There are no frozen fed funds. TEA continues as usual, albeit with >> some cutbacks. > > No, they are effectively frozen. They are allocated in the budget, but > not being disbursed at this time until new guidelines for review are > finalized. Once the guidelines are in place then there will be a > bottleneck as projects slowly get reviewed. Without disbursement, > projects which have allocations cannot be contracted. Having funds > available, and writing checks are distinctly different; you are talking > of funding being in the budget. That does no good until they are > allowed to write the checks. This is the same political gibberish that happens every year in one form or another. It has nothing to do with the Big Dig, or any of that other nonsense. It's business as usual. How many grants have you written, "Rick?" Matt O.   Date: 02 Apr 2007 20:41:25 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes In article <4611488e$0$27088$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. > However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically > separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. What I find most abominable is not the lanes themselves, but the Raised Features that always get mentioned when such lanes are suggested or proposed. And not just big stuff like abutments and bollards. As we all know, sticky-uppy bumps that a pedestrian might trip over in the dark can be a downright recipe for catastrophe for a bike + rider. Sometimes even the bike lane itself is a Raised Feature, with a little curb sharply dropping off to the adjacent "real" street. I picture urban designers gleefully wringing their hands with anticipation, hoping to get a chance to go all artsie-fartsie with Raised Features. Those thinks that do all the "physically separating" can be hazards themselves, if poorly or improperly implemented. Some folks maintain different-coloured pavement for the bike lane enhances visibility and safety. Maybe it does? I looked at the link Matt provided (didn't look at the video though, I've only got dial-up.) The diagram on the front page shows a physically separated bike lane situated between a sidewalk and a parking lane. That puts the bike lane out of the driver's side door zone, but into the passenger side door zone. I think this would tend to put parked cars in the position of obscuring sightlines, both for riders looking out for drivers getting out of their cars & making for the sidewalk, and for those drivers looking out for oncoming cyclists as they attempt to walk across the bike lane, to the sidewalk. In short, this placement of the bike lane looks to me like it forces pedestrians (who have just gotten out of their cars) onto it as jaywalkers. Same thing for people going from the sidewalk, across the bike lane to their cars, but at least they'll be more visible. In that situation, both rider and driver have to be heads up; one can't do all the attention paying for the other guy, too, cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 17 Apr 2007 08:15:46 From: Wolfgang Strobl Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats): >Some folks maintain different-coloured pavement for the >bike lane enhances visibility and safety. Maybe it does? In a fantasy world, perhaps. In reality, the additional color often makes the pavement more slippery for cyclists, when wet. We have lots of examples of this, around here. Speaking about visibility, channelizing attention using features like this makes biyclists _less_ visible. In other words, it's even worse then a simple stripe. -- Thank you for observing all safety precautions       Date: 17 Apr 2007 00:16:54 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wolfgang Strobl wrote: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats): > >> Some folks maintain different-coloured pavement for the >> bike lane enhances visibility and safety. Maybe it does? > In a fantasy world, perhaps. In reality, the additional color often > makes the pavement more slippery for cyclists, when wet. We have lots > of examples of this, around here. What color pavement is slipperier than others? > Speaking about visibility, channelizing attention using features like > this makes biyclists _less_ visible. In other words, it's even worse > then a simple stripe. What color pavement renders cyclists less visible? Bill "just a little fascinated" S.   Date: 02 Apr 2007 16:49:10 From: Rick Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 1, 4:53 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com > wrote: > On Apr 1, 12:11 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) > wrote: > > > On Sat, 31 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt > > > O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > > I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video > > > touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: > > > segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes > > belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it. > > I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was > unconscious for 15 minutes..... Only 15 minutes? You were lucky. And you, at least, know who hit you. Not sure how long I was out; after I was found, response was called, I was worked on at the scene, transported to the hospital, etc. etc. I finally regained consciousness while being scanned for possible brain damage. What/who hit me has never been identified. > It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a > 'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer > if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane, > whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years > ago, i would not have been hit. Moving a bicycle outwards and away > from traffic is a GOOD thing. By stamping one's foot and telling car > drivers to 'get used to it' is short sighted. Like us saying to cars > to 'stay off the road on Sundays', when we ride more. There is a difference between having a wide shoulder and having a physically segregated lane. Physically segregated lanes are VERY expensive, probably provide some better protection, but as with most things some of that protection is an illusion. I can support wider shoulders; that can be built over time on many roads (not all). Physically segregated networks will cost many hundreds of billions of dollars ... for each state. And where will the funding come from? California estimates that just repairing existing roads to minimal standards for all users will cost $160B, the cost of catching up after funding cuts that started in the 70's. A bond measure passed last year will provide $20B. A $1 increase in the gas tax, if one could ever pass it, would provide another $20B. Try to argue that the state should add another $100B+ for segregated bicycle networks and anyone with any political savvy will laugh uncontrollably. Federal funding is basically frozen at this time as they try to put back in controls that allowed the 'Big Dig' fiasco, but I have no doubt that there is no way that the feds will come up with any sort of real financing for a proposal like that. I am on a committee that advises our city council on issues related to transportation. We have a decent bike network and are always trying to improve it. But the reality of money continually hits home; we can get around $250K/year on average for bicycle improvements and that does not go far. The City Council is quite bike friendly, several of them ride regularly and some even escort their children to school on bikes. The $250K is not a pittance thrown to quiet the cyclists, it is what can be carved out of a tight budget. If fed funds can be un- frozen we will spend about $6M this year, using federal and county money to build bridges over two freeways that divide the city both geographically and culturally. $1M of the cost, more or less, will come from 'developer mitigation' funds, money the city gets from developers to help pay for the burden the developments place on they city infrastructure; I am not sure how much of the mitigation kitty this will take, as a percentage, but my guess is it is a big chunk. I see no way we will get money to segregate cyclists. And what money we do get for striping bike lanes all goes to the faster arterials and collectors, not quieter residential roads. BTW, we do have a policy that all re-paving project must include striping of lanes, so as time progresses we will get much of the city striped. Money is the 500 lb gorilla in any argument about bicycling facilities, and so far those advocating for physically segregated facilities seem to have pie in the sky ideals of where that money will come from. When we had this discussion locally a couple of months back, the largest proponents of segregation believed that global warming concerns would cause the purse strings to loosen and funds to magically appear for all sorts of alternative transportation projects. Yes, and the easter bunny will leave a brand new Record gruppo on my front porch this weekend, too ;-) - rick     Date: 03 Apr 2007 20:27:43 From: Jeremy Parker Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes "Rick" <CyclistRick@gmail.com > wrote > > There is a difference between having a wide shoulder and having a > physically segregated lane. Indeed. Cars hit bikes where their paths intersect. Thus separation requires eliminating especially those dangerous locations where paths intersect. Such places are known, for obvious reasons, as intersections. Building a physically segregated bike lane across a city would have much the same effect as building a Berlin wall. To get from one side of a city to the other would require motorists to drive out to its beltway, round the beltway, and back in on the other side. Don't laugh. plagued by an excess of traffic, some European cities, Gothenburg, Sweden, for example, have introduced traffic control systems which amount to just that principle for reducing motorized traffic. It works quite well, apparently I live in England, quite near a couple of interesting bike experiments. About an hour's drive from me (or train ride; the train takes bikes, of course) there's Cambridge, which operates an anti car system about as car hostile as Gothenburg's. Cambridge has a higher modal split for cycling than does Amsterdam. Even closer to me, on the same train line, is Stevenage, which was the model for the world for bike facilities. It was the town that taught the Dutch how to do things, and it inspired the USA too. Stevenage built their bike paths in the easiest way. It has a population of a bout 100 000 now, I think, but was built on a "greenfield" site. They were able to built the bike path network first, adding the houses afterwards. The main bike paths are 12 feet wide, with an 8 foot sidewalk on one side, i.e. total width 20 feet, not counting the grass verges. Except for very minor roads, intersections are grade separated. The bike paths are depressed a little bit at the intersections, but most of the elevation difference is the road going up, not the bike path going down. Perhaps the nicest thing about the Stevenage path system is that there is no compulsion to use it. It's perfectly legal to use the surface level streets instead, and the motorists don't seem to bother you if you do use the streets. Stevenage is about as good a system for cyclists as you are going to get. You couldn't build anything like that in an existing city without dynamiting a very large number of buildings first. However, Stevenage doesn't seem to have much more cycling than anywhere else. Jeremy Parker     Date: 03 Apr 2007 12:27:33 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:49:10 -0700, Rick wrote: > Federal > funding is basically frozen at this time as they try to put back in > controls that allowed the 'Big Dig' fiasco, but I have no doubt that > there is no way that the feds will come up with any sort of real > financing for a proposal like that. There are no frozen fed funds. TEA continues as usual, albeit with some cutbacks. > I am on a committee that advises our city council on issues related to > transportation. Great. Matt O.   Date: 02 Apr 2007 14:22:59 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 2, 6:08 am, _ <jtay...@NOSPAMeastlink.ca > wrote: > On 2 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: > > > Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could > > have been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty > > simple. > > If she had been three feet further to your left she would not have hit you. she was asleep > > It was her fault, no? see above > > What happened to her? Careless driving resulting in an injury. > > Was what happened to her (if anything) sufficient to have a discouraging > effect on motorists running down cyclists? of course not...she could have only been punished more if she had killed me. > > If not, there is a solution which is simpler, cheaper, and quicker than any > road construction or modification - change the presumption of fault in > motorcar vs. cycle collisions; afetr all, you have a *right* to be there, > motorists do not... see above...I agree that a wider road is key, I just think people somewhat observe lines. If you assume they KNOW how far to move over, some cyclists will still get nailed. If they know to just stay between the lines, and us over to the side, I think less accidents.     Date: 02 Apr 2007 19:12:31 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: > see above...I agree that a wider road is key, I just think people > somewhat observe lines. If you assume they KNOW how far to move over, > some cyclists will still get nailed. If they know to just stay between > the lines, and us over to the side, I think less accidents. > > You fail to recognize that by "us" staying over to the side in a narrow defined space, turning and merging type collisions are increased. You also discount our reduced maneuvering space, loss of rights, and the greater liklihood of debris. This paper describes in detail the problems bicyclists face by riding near the side: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/High_Speed.pdf It's a 1.5 mb file. Designing an infrastructure with shoulders and other "safe crashing" features more readily enables motorists to go "asleep:" at the worst actually asleep, at the least in a brain dead fog. Wayne   Date: 02 Apr 2007 06:01:24 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 1, 10:06 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: > > > > > On Apr 1, 12:11 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) > > wrote: > > >>On Sat, 31 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt > > >>O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > >>>I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video > >>>touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: > > >>segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes > >>belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it. > > > I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was > > unconscious for 15 minutes..... > > > It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a > > 'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer > > if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane, > > whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years > > ago, i would not have been hit. > > Maybe, maybe not. A bike lane does not guarantee not getting hit from > behind. > > http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf > > I wrote the report, having examined 3000 collisions. > > Also, riding in a bike lane or shoulder makes other collision mechanisms > more likely. > > Moving a bicycle outwards and away > > > from traffic is a GOOD thing. > > Not necessarily true. > > I think that bike lanes are appropriate on roads where you want to > encourage faster and more motor traffic, and there are few/no cross > traffic junctions. In other words, controlled access freeways. > > Bike lanes are little more than named shoulders. Shoulders are intended > to prevent run-off-road collisons and provide a buffer from roadside > elements. That are not intended for vehicular travel. They are placed on > roads intended to facilitate faster motoring and enable motorists to be > automatons. > > A wide lane of 15 or 16 feet accomplishes much/all of what a bike lane > does without segregating bicyclists or reducing their space and rights. > A wide lane is more likely to be free of debris than a bike lane. A wide > lane is more appropriate on "normal" non-freeway type roads where > "accommodating" bicyclists is useful. Really though, a wide lane or a > bike lane is first a way to make it easier for motorists to pass, and > this makes some bicyclists feel more comfortable and safe, but they are > not really operationally benefical to bicyclists. > > Wayne Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it comes to constructing anything- > MONEY. What is more likely, taking existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed? Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could have been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty simple.     Date: 02 Apr 2007 18:55:56 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: > On Apr 1, 10:06 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: >> A wide lane of 15 or 16 feet accomplishes much/all of what a bike lane >> does without segregating bicyclists or reducing their space and rights. >> A wide lane is more likely to be free of debris than a bike lane. A wide >> lane is more appropriate on "normal" non-freeway type roads where >> "accommodating" bicyclists is useful. Really though, a wide lane or a >> bike lane is first a way to make it easier for motorists to pass, and >> this makes some bicyclists feel more comfortable and safe, but they are >> not really operationally benefical to bicyclists. Well they're operationally beneficial to other users in the presence of bicyclists. > Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it > comes to constructing anything-> MONEY. What is more likely, taking > existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate > the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an > existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be > farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed? > > Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could have > been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty simple. The right that matters here is often right of way, as in land to build a wider road, which often isn't available, and if it is, is very expensive. Slapping 3' of asphalt on a shoulder doesn't work, even though it's done frequently. It doesn't bear the weight of a motor vehicle, and will quickly become broken up, eroded, etc., besides not being smooth enough to ride comfortably on in the first place. Right now in VA we're adding proper roadbed-supported shoulder during maintenance repaving projects. It costs $400k per mile. We could build miles and miles of multi-use path for that, especially if there's already good roadbed, as with an old rail line. Matt O.     Date: 02 Apr 2007 11:53:33 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On 2 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote: >Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it >comes to constructing anything-> MONEY. What is more likely, taking >existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate >the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an >existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be >farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed? Having sat through a few of these conversations at various Motor Vehicle Administrations and Departments, your comments don't really follow. The choices that are, in fact, budgetarily neutral are either repainting traffic lanes and having, as an example, a 10-10-10 traffic lane with a 4 foot bike lane or a 10-10-14 lane, left to right (in the U.S) with no lane. That is a low cost choice in either case and basically a no cost solution to give cyclists more room if it is at the current repainting cycle for that roadway. Adding ANY asphalt is a different story. Bike lanes run where curbs and drains run, where telephone posts are planted and where the edges of current ROW runs. The money for the asphalt is only one issue - I can remember a discussion of adding two feet to U.S. 1 which would have required digging up and moving every single drain assembly (basically a 8 foot deep by 10 foot long by 4 foot wide piece of concrete and metal) for two miles in both directions. And that still left the curbs, sidewalks and telephone posts. And the price of disrupting businesses. Might have been nice, even for the motorists, but it never happened. In most cases, adding bike lanes boiled down to how easily they could narrow other travel lanes to accomodate the wider curb lane and then whether or not that last stripe was worthwhile. It wasn't an issue of adding asphalt. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...       Date: 03 Apr 2007 01:10:45 From: Bill Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Curtis L. Russell wrote: > On 2 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" > <peter@vecchios.com> wrote: > >> Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it >> comes to constructing anything-> MONEY. What is more likely, taking >> existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate >> the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an >> existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be >> farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed? > > Having sat through a few of these conversations at various Motor > Vehicle Administrations and Departments, your comments don't really > follow. The choices that are, in fact, budgetarily neutral are either > repainting traffic lanes and having, as an example, a 10-10-10 traffic > lane with a 4 foot bike lane or a 10-10-14 lane, left to right (in the > U.S) with no lane. That is a low cost choice in either case and > basically a no cost solution to give cyclists more room if it is at > the current repainting cycle for that roadway. > > Adding ANY asphalt is a different story. Bike lanes run where curbs > and drains run, where telephone posts are planted and where the edges > of current ROW runs. The money for the asphalt is only one issue - I > can remember a discussion of adding two feet to U.S. 1 which would > have required digging up and moving every single drain assembly > (basically a 8 foot deep by 10 foot long by 4 foot wide piece of > concrete and metal) for two miles in both directions. And that still > left the curbs, sidewalks and telephone posts. And the price of > disrupting businesses. Might have been nice, even for the motorists, > but it never happened. > > In most cases, adding bike lanes boiled down to how easily they could > narrow other travel lanes to accomodate the wider curb lane and then > whether or not that last stripe was worthwhile. It wasn't an issue of > adding asphalt. > > Curtis L. Russell > Odenton, MD (USA) > Just someone on two wheels... Looking at the above kind of 'How things work in the real world' explains a lot. We have bike lanes, but only on one side of the road, so they are bidirectional, since you can't ride safely on the other side of the road. In town at least they have a parking lane on both sides, but every car is a 'door zone' so caution is always in order. Planners don't have to live in the world they create. Most of the planners are fat, bald, old men who are more worried about money than health. That's real world. Bill Baka         Date: 09 Apr 2007 13:39:02 From: SMS Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill wrote: > Planners don't have to live in the world they create. Most of the > planners are fat, bald, old men who are more worried about money than > health. That's real world. > Bill Baka LOL, it's been about seven years of arguing about a bicycle bridge across I-280 from Cupertino to Sunnyvale. Of course they couldn't just do a bicycle bridge across the freeway, it's got to be a showpiece as well. Looks like it is about to begin construction, and be done by 2010. I daresay that it will be one of the most beautiful bike bridges in the country, provided it doesn't share the same fate as the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The suspension would be unnecessary if they provided a support in the median, see: "http://www.cupertino.org/img/business/bridge1.jpg"           Date: 09 Apr 2007 21:03:12 From: Bill Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes SMS wrote: > Bill wrote: > >> Planners don't have to live in the world they create. Most of the >> planners are fat, bald, old men who are more worried about money than >> health. That's real world. >> Bill Baka > > LOL, it's been about seven years of arguing about a bicycle bridge > across I-280 from Cupertino to Sunnyvale. Of course they couldn't just > do a bicycle bridge across the freeway, it's got to be a showpiece as > well. Looks like it is about to begin construction, and be done by 2010. > I daresay that it will be one of the most beautiful bike bridges in the > country, provided it doesn't share the same fate as the Tacoma Narrows > Bridge. The suspension would be unnecessary if they provided a support > in the median, see: > > "http://www.cupertino.org/img/business/bridge1.jpg" It looks too fancy. I have lived and worked there so I know about the need, but I also know how tightwad the authorities can be about spending too much on something for non gas tax paying cyclists. I rode 280/680 before it opened and they had a bicycle day to commemorate the completion, but that of course is ancient history, back in the early 70's or late 60's (memory fuzzy). Bill Baka         Date: 02 Apr 2007 18:52:12 From: nash Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:ZybQh.1355$Q23.154@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... > Curtis L. Russell wrote: >> On 2 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" >> <peter@vecchios.com> wrote: >> >>> Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it >>> comes to constructing anything-> MONEY. What is more likely, taking >>> existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate >>> the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an >>> existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be >>> farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed? >> >> Having sat through a few of these conversations at various Motor >> Vehicle Administrations and Departments, your comments don't really >> follow. The choices that are, in fact, budgetarily neutral are either >> repainting traffic lanes and having, as an example, a 10-10-10 traffic >> lane with a 4 foot bike lane or a 10-10-14 lane, left to right (in the >> U.S) with no lane. That is a low cost choice in either case and >> basically a no cost solution to give cyclists more room if it is at >> the current repainting cycle for that roadway. >> >> Adding ANY asphalt is a different story. Bike lanes run where curbs >> and drains run, where telephone posts are planted and where the edges >> of current ROW runs. The money for the asphalt is only one issue - I >> can remember a discussion of adding two feet to U.S. 1 which would >> have required digging up and moving every single drain assembly >> (basically a 8 foot deep by 10 foot long by 4 foot wide piece of >> concrete and metal) for two miles in both directions. And that still >> left the curbs, sidewalks and telephone posts. And the price of >> disrupting businesses. Might have been nice, even for the motorists, >> but it never happened. >> >> In most cases, adding bike lanes boiled down to how easily they could >> narrow other travel lanes to accomodate the wider curb lane and then >> whether or not that last stripe was worthwhile. It wasn't an issue of >> adding asphalt. >> >> Curtis L. Russell >> Odenton, MD (USA) >> Just someone on two wheels... > > Looking at the above kind of 'How things work in the real world' explains > a lot. We have bike lanes, but only on one side of the road, so they are > bidirectional, since you can't ride safely on the other side of the road. > In town at least they have a parking lane on both sides, but every car is > a 'door zone' so caution is always in order. > Planners don't have to live in the world they create. Most of the planners > are fat, bald, old men who are more worried about money than health. > That's real world. > Bill Baka yeah, maybe people should arm wrestle for office positions. Least it is more balanced that way.           Date: 02 Apr 2007 20:31:14 From: Bill Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes nash wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >> Looking at the above kind of 'How things work in the real world' explains >> a lot. We have bike lanes, but only on one side of the road, so they are >> bidirectional, since you can't ride safely on the other side of the road. >> In town at least they have a parking lane on both sides, but every car is >> a 'door zone' so caution is always in order. >> Planners don't have to live in the world they create. Most of the planners >> are fat, bald, old men who are more worried about money than health. >> That's real world. >> Bill Baka > > yeah, maybe people should arm wrestle for office positions. Least it is > more balanced that way. > > Why not? Get rid of some of the too old to think hanger on types. Damn politicians never want to retire. Picture this..... Bicycle day for the Senate and Congress. Would Teddy Kennedy make it in or crash in a creek? Sorry, couldn't resist. Bill Baka     Date: 02 Apr 2007 13:08:24 From: _ Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On 2 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: > Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could > have been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty > simple. If she had been three feet further to your left she would not have hit you. It was her fault, no? What happened to her? Was what happened to her (if anything) sufficient to have a discouraging effect on motorists running down cyclists? If not, there is a solution which is simpler, cheaper, and quicker than any road construction or modification - change the presumption of fault in motorcar vs. cycle collisions; afetr all, you have a *right* to be there, motorists do not...   Date: 01 Apr 2007 19:58:10 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 1, 12:18 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote: > In article <pan.2007.03.31.19.43.24.273...@letterboxes.org>, > Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > > I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video > > touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: > > >http://nyc.theoildrum.com/node/2416 > > Too obviously staged and one-sided. It is a mindless drumbeat of safety > over everything else, yet the thing the video shows as unsafe are not > the existing paths themselves, but the *drivers*. Why force the > cyclists to change their behavior when they are not the source of the > problem? Maybe because it is easier and more effective to build a physical facility than it would be to achieve the utopian ideal of eliminating negligent, inconsiderate, inattentive, and just plain dumb human actions? >Why no call to first ticket and tow any vehicle blocking a > bike path? For a city seemingly eager to fine pedestrians for > jaywalking, it is strange that they don't go after the bigger revenue > streams that their traffic mismanagement enables. Of course, ticket and tow but according to NYCMap there are approximately 6200 miles of paved roads in NYC. How many parking enforcement people and tow truck drivers would it take to eliminate the problem through enforcement? > Why no proper analysis of traffic flow? My guess is that it would show > how stupid it is to have people biking at 15+mph right next to people > standing on the sidewalk. If you think that is stupid how stupid do you think I and all the other road riders are for biking at 15-20 mph "right next to" traffic going 40-50 mph? > I wouldn't be too surprised to see an > increase in bike-pedestrian crashes that results from parked car drivers > having to cross the bike path. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an offsetting drop in bike vs car door and bike vs motor vehicle crashes. There are no universally applicable solutions just as there are no perfect solutions. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 02 Apr 2007 18:55:56 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:58:10 -0700, Bob wrote: > On Apr 1, 12:18 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2007.subsume.com> > wrote: >> Why no proper analysis of traffic flow? My guess is that it would show >> how stupid it is to have people biking at 15+mph right next to people >> standing on the sidewalk. Accident rates for separate bike paths are actually worse than for bikes on roads. Bike-ped collisions are common and often serious, but usually not reported as traffic accidents when they occur on separate bike paths. > If you think that is stupid how stupid do you think I and all the other > road riders are for biking at 15-20 mph "right next to" traffic going > 40-50 mph? According to car-bike collision statistics, this isn't a major issue. "Hit from behind" accidents, which cyclists worry most about, are quite rare. The most common accidents are at intersections or driveways, especially where people are riding on sidewalks, and especially against the flow of traffic. This is the major problem with separated bike lanes as shown in this video. They'd be fine if they didn't cross driveways or intersections, weren't two-way, and weren't off to the side -- where sight lines are poor, and where drivers aren't looking for cross traffic. Imagine driving a car, making a left turn across normal traffic, but then having to account for the equivalent of 15mph, two-way bike traffic on the sidewalk. (This is why we're required to walk bikes in crosswalks.) Now imagine a poor driver, one who's impatient, agitated, distracted, tired, drunk, senile, or just not too bright, trying to cope with this situation. Why create what we know to be the most dangerous situation? If you can solve all these problems, then fine, separate bike paths are great. They do encourage more people to ride. >> I wouldn't be too surprised to see an increase in bike-pedestrian >> crashes that results from parked car drivers having to cross the bike >> path. > > I wouldn't be surprised if there was an offsetting drop in bike vs car > door and bike vs motor vehicle crashes. Sometimes we're in a position of choosing one bad thing over a perceived worse one. Welcome to public safety management. > There are no universally > applicable solutions just as there are no perfect solutions. Absolutely. But we have a better chance of solving problems when we deconstruct each situation, and actually design a solution, according to accepted best practices. The danger is thinking we've discovered a pat solution for everything. Matt O.   Date: 01 Apr 2007 12:29:53 From: Brian Huntley Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 1, 1:55 pm, "Sir Ridesalot" <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca > wrote: > I lived in Toronto, Ontario Canada where some of the so called bike > paths had the *WEST* bound bicycle traffic separated from the *EAST* > bound motor vehicle traffic by only a painted line. I never rode that > path when travelling west because I preferred the west bound road > where the closing speeds were much less. I saw the result where a west > bound cyclist on the path swerved into an east bound vehicle -- not > pretty at all. > To me some so called bicycle paths are dangerous in their design. A > path like the ones here in town that end suddenly just feet from a > major intersection is a good example of a dangerous design. I live in Toronto currently, and know of no two-way on-street bike lanes like that. (I'm not saying we don't have any bad ones.) Where was/is this? As to the sudden ending ones (College Street comes to mind), they're actually fairly well signed with warnings about the impending end of the lane - though the signs tend to be much higher than a cyclist's line of sight. The dashed line to the left of the lane is a backup warning, however.   Date: 01 Apr 2007 10:55:42 From: Sir Ridesalot Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On 31, 3:43 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote: > I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video > touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: > > http://nyc.theoildrum.com/node/2416 > > Note thatwww.theoildrum.comhas widespread readership, and this post made > it to the first couple of pages on Digg today. > > Matt O. Hi there. I do not think that segregating cyclists from the motoring lanes is necessarily a good idea. I lived in Toronto, Ontario Canada where some of the so called bike paths had the *WEST* bound bicycle traffic separated from the *EAST* bound motor vehicle traffic by only a painted line. I never rode that path when travelling west because I preferred the west bound road where the closing speeds were much less. I saw the result where a west bound cyclist on the path swerved into an east bound vehicle -- not pretty at all. Many (not all) people who ride and advocate bike paths are not very skilled riders. Therefore it is very important that when designing bike paths or bike lanes people of low riding (i.e. children) skills be kept in mind. To me some so called bicycle paths are dangerous in their design. A path like the ones here in town that end suddenly just feet from a major intersection is a good example of a dangerous design. Also in order to ride more than a few feet on some of the litter strewn bike paths I have seen one would require armoured tyres in order not to get a puncture. Recycling trucks that have picked up glass bottles, jars etcetera often leave a nice trail of crushed glass along the bike path as they pull out. Cheers from Peter     Date: 01 Apr 2007 19:23:25 From: sally Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes "Sir Ridesalot" <i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca > wrote in news:1175450142.576092.83560@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > I do not think that segregating cyclists from the motoring lanes is > necessarily a good idea. I think physically separated lanes make sense if you are investing in a large network of such lanes (as some European and Asian countries are doing). It is much less useful if your road network still requires bicyclists to "share the road" for most of their mileage.   Date: 01 Apr 2007 12:18:25 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes In article <pan.2007.03.31.19.43.24.273816@letterboxes.org >, Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote: > I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video > touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: > > http://nyc.theoildrum.com/node/2416 Too obviously staged and one-sided. It is a mindless drumbeat of safety over everything else, yet the thing the video shows as unsafe are not the existing paths themselves, but the *drivers*. Why force the cyclists to change their behavior when they are not the source of the problem? Why no call to first ticket and tow any vehicle blocking a bike path? For a city seemingly eager to fine pedestrians for jaywalking, it is strange that they don't go after the bigger revenue streams that their traffic mismanagement enables. Why no proper analysis of traffic flow? My guess is that it would show how stupid it is to have people biking at 15+mph right next to people standing on the sidewalk. I wouldn't be too surprised to see an increase in bike-pedestrian crashes that results from parked car drivers having to cross the bike path. All in all, I'd say it's a pro-car movement rather than a pro-bike one. Instead, the planning needs to be pro-people, because transit should be about getting *us* from place to place, and not our vehicles. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org   Date: 01 Apr 2007 04:53:56 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 1, 12:11 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) wrote: > On Sat, 31 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt > > O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video > > touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: > > segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes > belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it. I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was unconscious for 15 minutes..... It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a 'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane, whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years ago, i would not have been hit. Moving a bicycle outwards and away from traffic is a GOOD thing. By stamping one's foot and telling car drivers to 'get used to it' is short sighted. Like us saying to cars to 'stay off the road on Sundays', when we ride more.     Date: 10 Apr 2007 18:41:56 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 10, 11:41 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bob wrote: > > > Anyone who bothers to read the entire report will see that your quote > > is at best sloppy editing or at worst an intentional misrepresention > > of the report's findings. That you cut off the quote where you do > > certainly appears to my cynical eyes to be a case of intentional > > misrepresentation. You should have included the stated conclusions > > just a paragraph or so further into the report which said: > > " 1) Motorists are much less likely to encroach into the adjacent lane > > when passing a bicyclist on facilities with paved shoulders or bicycle > > lanes. > > 2) Motorists have less variation in their lane placement when > > passing a bicyclist on a paved shoulder or bicycle lane. > > 3) Bicyclists are more likely to ride further from the edge of the > > roadway in a bicycle lane or paved shoulder than they are in a wide > > curb lane. This increased distance from the roadway edge only > > ginally reduces the separation distance between the bicyclists and > > motorists, but significantly increases the distance to the right of > > the bicyclist which can be used, if needed, as "escape" space. " > > In short, and again, the study you cite simply does not say what you > > claim it does. > > My quote of theirs is not intentional misrepresentation. It points out a > finding that they seemingly intentionally underemphasized. I've written > several other critiques of the same authors who consistently do sloppy > work, and write unsupported conclusions. > > Anyone who bothers to read my entire critique of the report will see > that I've addressed the three issues above in great detail. Their > conclusions are based on sloppy research and faulty reasoning. You > clearly are selectively ignoring my criticisms, and like a good layman, > mindlessly accept the conclusions of a document without questioning its > methodology and veracity. > > Wayne- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The issue is not your self-published criticism but your misrepresentation here of the study's authors' conclusions. You are free to pretend that because you possess the ability to post your opinions on a website that must mean you also possess expertise on that subject. All I ask is that you restrict yourself to stating your own opinions without misstating those of others. Regards, Bob Hunt       Date: 11 Apr 2007 09:28:33 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bob wrote: > > The issue is not your self-published criticism but your > misrepresentation here of the study's authors' conclusions. You are > free to pretend that because you possess the ability to post your > opinions on a website that must mean you also possess expertise on > that subject. All I ask is that you restrict yourself to stating your > own opinions without misstating those of others. > > Regards, > Bob Hunt > You are not free to distort my words and you are not free to pretend that you know anything about research methodology. The fact that, in their and your opinion, the closer passing distance of motorists in bike lanes did not warrant mentioning in their specious conclusions does not nullify that the effect exists. I state the findings. You and others pretend they don't exist. Wayne     Date: 09 Apr 2007 11:24:41 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 9, 11:49 am, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > > > Is the total space the same on those "busy" roads without bike lanes > > as it is on the bike lane roads? ... > > No. In the real world (not some imaginary Lane Utopia), busy roads without > bike lanes are seldom as wide as those with them. Which perfectly illustrates the point! Bike lane fans look at a 50 foot wide road _with_ a bike lane stripe, compare it with a 30 foot road _without_ a bike lane stripe, and say "It's so much nicer when there's a stripe!" Baloney. It's so much nicer when there's plenty of roadway to share - stripe or no stripe! If you've got enough width, the stripe adds nothing of value. It just causes road debris to accumulate. If you don't have enough width, painting a stripe is simply not done, and wouldn't help if it were. The difference is the road width, not the white paint. Why do so many bike lane fans have trouble understanding that? - Frank Krygowski       Date: 09 Apr 2007 15:20:01 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 9, 11:49 am, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: >> Wayne Pein wrote: >>> >>> Is the total space the same on those "busy" roads without bike lanes >>> as it is on the bike lane roads? ... >> >> No. In the real world (not some imaginary Lane Utopia), busy roads >> without bike lanes are seldom as wide as those with them. > > Which perfectly illustrates the point! > > Bike lane fans look at a 50 foot wide road _with_ a bike lane stripe, > compare it with a 30 foot road _without_ a bike lane stripe, and say > "It's so much nicer when there's a stripe!" Try reading what Wayne actually /writes/. HTH > Baloney. It's so much nicer when there's plenty of roadway to share - > stripe or no stripe! Shocking. > If you've got enough width, the stripe adds nothing of value. It just > causes road debris to accumulate. Ah, the magic properties of dry white paint. Where does the debris go without it? > If you don't have enough width, painting a stripe is simply not done, > and wouldn't help if it were. Shocking. > The difference is the road width, not the white paint. Why do so many > bike lane fans have trouble understanding that? Good stuff, even for you. LOL         Date: 10 Apr 2007 12:13:14 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill Sornson wrote: > Try reading what Wayne actually /writes/. HTH Yea. Give it a try. But please, add a little reading comprehension. Wayne           Date: 10 Apr 2007 09:33:58 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> Try reading what Wayne actually /writes/. HTH > > > Yea. Give it a try. But please, add a little reading comprehension. This was pretty clear: "...simply removing a bike lane stripe creates Lane Utopia." It was absurd then; it's absurd now.         Date: 10 Apr 2007 12:25:32 From: _ Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On 9 Apr 2007 16:35:32 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 9, 6:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: >> >> Try reading what Wayne actually /writes/. HTH > > I was responding to what Bill Sornson actually wrote. > Frank, Bill Sornson has an awful lot of trouble with correctly attributing quotes - just check back in the threads if you like and you'll find three times (at least) in the past few weeks where he has complained about a quote from somebody or other and what's really happened is that his attribution is just plain wrong.       Date: 09 Apr 2007 15:30:25 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > If you've got enough width, the stripe adds nothing of value. It just > causes road debris to accumulate. It makes some people feel better. It allows motorists to speed on by. It reduces bicyclist space and rights. It allows bean counters to say they did something for bicyclists. So you're wrong Frank, because some people value these things ;-) Wayne     Date: 01 Apr 2007 12:06:38 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: > On Apr 1, 12:11 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) > wrote: > >>On Sat, 31 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt >> >>O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: >> >>>I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video >>>touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: >> >>segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes >>belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it. > > > I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was > unconscious for 15 minutes..... > > It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a > 'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer > if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane, > whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years > ago, i would not have been hit. Maybe, maybe not. A bike lane does not guarantee not getting hit from behind. http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf I wrote the report, having examined 3000 collisions. Also, riding in a bike lane or shoulder makes other collision mechanisms more likely. Moving a bicycle outwards and away > from traffic is a GOOD thing. Not necessarily true. I think that bike lanes are appropriate on roads where you want to encourage faster and more motor traffic, and there are few/no cross traffic junctions. In other words, controlled access freeways. Bike lanes are little more than named shoulders. Shoulders are intended to prevent run-off-road collisons and provide a buffer from roadside elements. That are not intended for vehicular travel. They are placed on roads intended to facilitate faster motoring and enable motorists to be automatons. A wide lane of 15 or 16 feet accomplishes much/all of what a bike lane does without segregating bicyclists or reducing their space and rights. A wide lane is more likely to be free of debris than a bike lane. A wide lane is more appropriate on "normal" non-freeway type roads where "accommodating" bicyclists is useful. Really though, a wide lane or a bike lane is first a way to make it easier for motorists to pass, and this makes some bicyclists feel more comfortable and safe, but they are not really operationally benefical to bicyclists. Wayne       Date: 10 Apr 2007 20:22:15 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 10, 10:31 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >You're apparently in an area with amazingly wide ROWs. Compared to > >many older northern cities, I'm betting you've also got smoother > >pavement, fewer pothole problems, less road grit spread during the > >winter, less trash in the summer - because those are the things I see > >in bike lanes, even well-designed ones. (And I've seen many that were > >not well-designed.) > > >And while I can't claim 100% recall, I don't remember any bike lane > >where the simple presence of the stripe itself added any real > >benefit. Just give me a wide outside lane, please. > > OK then - let's approach this from another angle. Let's assume that > the roads here have plenty of width for inclusion (or not) of a bike > lane. Let's assume they're in great shape (they are). Let's even > assume that people here are less antagonistic toward cyclists (hmmm, > could it be that the bikes aren't always in their way "asserting their > rights"?). k, if the outside lanes are 15+ feet wide, cyclists don't generally _need_ to "assert their rights." They have space in which to ride. (Your confusion on this, and other points, makes me wonder if you've ever ridden in older cities!) > Assuming all that, why would you lose by adding a line to form the > bike lane? Still more than enough room for traffic. No pot hole / > debris problems to worry about. In my experience, what I lose is freedom from gravel, glass and other junk at the right side of the road. I'll also note that in some places, I've lost the expectation of safe passage - like the relatively new bike lane in Columbus that tried to route me to the right of a RTOL, even though I was going straight. And I've lost cooperation from certain motorists, who thought I should be in the bike lane even though I wanted to make a left turn. And for what? So people don't run into me from behind? Sorry, I'm way past fearing that bogeyman. It's not that I think bike lanes are totally evil. I just think they're more detrimental than beneficial, and I think it's sad that they get as much unthinking advocacy as they do. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 10 Apr 2007 20:44:34 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On Apr 10, 10:31 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote: >> OK then - let's approach this from another angle. Let's assume that >> the roads here have plenty of width for inclusion (or not) of a bike >> lane. Let's assume they're in great shape (they are). Let's even >> assume that people here are less antagonistic toward cyclists (hmmm, >> could it be that the bikes aren't always in their way "asserting their >> rights"?). > >k, if the outside lanes are 15+ feet wide, cyclists don't generally >_need_ to "assert their rights." They have space in which to ride. >(Your confusion on this, and other points, makes me wonder if you've >ever ridden in older cities!) As I've said many times, yes - I've ridden in many different urban environments. And if you'll re-read what I've written, it's always been from the position that wider lanes WITH bike lanes are great. I'm not sure what you're reading (into my comments, that is...). >> Assuming all that, why would you lose by adding a line to form the >> bike lane? Still more than enough room for traffic. No pot hole / >> debris problems to worry about. > >In my experience, what I lose is freedom from gravel, glass and other >junk at the right side of the road. Not really a problem here - I'm sure there's somewhat more debris than would be the case if the cars consistently rolled over the same part of the road I use, but that's a price I'll pay. And again, we're talking about well-maintained 45mph ked (50mph actual) roads - not too much debris stays put anyway. >I'll also note that in some places, I've lost the expectation of safe >passage - like the relatively new bike lane in Columbus that tried to >route me to the right of a RTOL, even though I was going straight. >And I've lost cooperation from certain motorists, who thought I should >be in the bike lane even though I wanted to make a left turn. Those are just examples of bad planning, and shouldn't influence your opinion of what a bike lane SHOULD be. >And for what? So people don't run into me from behind? Sorry, I'm >way past fearing that bogeyman. That's only one (small) part of the issue. I thought we had established that by now. >It's not that I think bike lanes are totally evil. I just think >they're more detrimental than beneficial, and I think it's sad that >they get as much unthinking advocacy as they do. It's a sign of a weak position when one side has to assume the other isn't "thinking".... k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame           Date: 12 Apr 2007 10:23:38 From: Patrick Lamb Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes k Hickey wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> On Apr 10, 10:31 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote: > >>> OK then - let's approach this from another angle. Let's assume that >>> the roads here have plenty of width for inclusion (or not) of a bike >>> lane. Let's assume they're in great shape (they are). Let's even >>> assume that people here are less antagonistic toward cyclists (hmmm, >>> could it be that the bikes aren't always in their way "asserting their >>> rights"?). >> k, if the outside lanes are 15+ feet wide, cyclists don't generally >> _need_ to "assert their rights." They have space in which to ride. >> (Your confusion on this, and other points, makes me wonder if you've >> ever ridden in older cities!) > > As I've said many times, yes - I've ridden in many different urban > environments. And if you'll re-read what I've written, it's always > been from the position that wider lanes WITH bike lanes are great. > I'm not sure what you're reading (into my comments, that is...). OK, so bike lanes may be great IF you have a huge (by older, eastern US standards) ROW; IF you have huge (by older, eastern US standards) outer lanes; and IF you have regular, frequent, effective street cleaning which includes the bike lanes. >>> Assuming all that, why would you lose by adding a line to form the >>> bike lane? Still more than enough room for traffic. No pot hole / >>> debris problems to worry about. >> In my experience, what I lose is freedom from gravel, glass and other >> junk at the right side of the road. > > Not really a problem here - I'm sure there's somewhat more debris than > would be the case if the cars consistently rolled over the same part > of the road I use, but that's a price I'll pay. And again, we're > talking about well-maintained 45mph ked (50mph actual) roads - not > too much debris stays put anyway. Just how often do the street sweepers hit your bike lane? >> I'll also note that in some places, I've lost the expectation of safe >> passage - like the relatively new bike lane in Columbus that tried to >> route me to the right of a RTOL, even though I was going straight. >> And I've lost cooperation from certain motorists, who thought I should >> be in the bike lane even though I wanted to make a left turn. > > Those are just examples of bad planning, and shouldn't influence your > opinion of what a bike lane SHOULD be. When you factor in the costs of widening a road to provide the kind of width you're talking about, which, IME, would often entail condemning extra ROW; well, it ain't gonna happen around here for a bike lane! Maybe it could be required for new development. But when so many of the suburbs around here don't want to pay the price to widen a paved horse trail to a five lane highway, I get the sense you're talking about a different world than mine (and my little world sounds a lot like Frank's). >> And for what? So people don't run into me from behind? Sorry, I'm >> way past fearing that bogeyman. > > That's only one (small) part of the issue. I thought we had > established that by now. Did I miss something? That, and the alleged psychological benefit that will have people coming out of the woodwork to ride in the new bike lane, are the only positives I remember. The negatives include drivers pulling out in front of cyclists in a bike lane from side streets and driveways, right hooks and left hooks, all because the cagers don't think to check the bike lane; door zone issues, right turn only lanes, and perceived inability to make left turns, because the cyclist is supposed to stay in the bike lane, and has 5-7 lanes to get across. Pat       Date: 07 Apr 2007 15:10:12 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes In article <u7ma135ntftk5je6i79odfbrd8hmhkbt40@4ax.com >, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > writes: > Myself, I'm increasingly starting to believe that ambiguity is better > than the tightly regimented traffic environment we've been building. David Hay's "Legal Brief" column: Legislative Slumber, in Momentum Magazine's issue #24 http://www.momentumplanet.ca/?q=node/141 offers some interesting food for thought about the question of liability in bike-car interactions in bike lanes. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 02 Apr 2007 14:16:47 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere. From motorists who yell "Get off the road," to decision makers and planners who want to do something, anything "for" bicyclists, to bicyclist segregationists themselves, there is no shortage of people who want to micromanage/regulate bicyclists' roadway position. Strange bedfellows. If you love, something let it be free. Wayne         Date: 11 Apr 2007 19:32:21 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 11, 8:28 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bob wrote: > > > The issue is not your self-published criticism but your > > misrepresentation here of the study's authors' conclusions. You are > > free to pretend that because you possess the ability to post your > > opinions on a website that must mean you also possess expertise on > > that subject. All I ask is that you restrict yourself to stating your > > own opinions without misstating those of others. > > > Regards, > > Bob Hunt > > You are not free to distort my words and you are not free to pretend > that you know anything about research methodology. The fact that, in > their and your opinion, the closer passing distance of motorists in bike > lanes did not warrant mentioning in their specious conclusions does not > nullify that the effect exists. > > I state the findings. You and others pretend they don't exist. > > Wayne In fact, I have neither distorted your words (I simply supplied the rest of the quote that you conveniently omitted) nor have I claimed any special expertise. I've left those two endeavors to you. You've responded by consistently misstating the conclusions of the study you quoted through your selective editing and claiming expertise without demonstrating any credentials beyond self-published criticism. Lacking any demonstration of such credentials, how are we to judge whether you are an expert in research methodology or simply a pompous windbag? My vote is for pompous windbag. Regards, Bob Hunt           Date: 12 Apr 2007 14:22:58 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bob wrote: >> >>I state the findings. You and others pretend they don't exist. >> >>Wayne > > > In fact, I have neither distorted your words (I simply supplied the > rest of the quote that you conveniently omitted) nor have I claimed > any special expertise. I've left those two endeavors to you. You've > responded by consistently misstating the conclusions of the study you > quoted through your selective editing and claiming expertise without > demonstrating any credentials beyond self-published criticism. Lacking > any demonstration of such credentials, how are we to judge whether you > are an expert in research methodology or simply a pompous windbag? My > vote is for pompous windbag. > Regards, > Bob Hunt > You are a stalker. Get over it. The original question revolved around whether motorists passed bicyclists closer in a bike lane or a wide lane. I posted the finding that motorists passed closer in a bike lane. Go back and read the thread. The other findings in that study are not germaine to the question, hence I did not note them. Got it? Quit lawyering. It's very unbecoming. The study conclusions are irrelvant. The data findings are what is important, assuming they are credible. Pons and Fleishman concluded they had invented cold fusion. Care to buy a nice desktop cold fusion machine? Going cheap! I don't have to show my credentials to demonstrate that I understand research methodology or am capable of critiquing studies. My writings show that I do. Furthermore, one doesn't have to understand research methodology to understand my criticisms. One only needs half a brain. If you don't like my critiques, critique them and show you know something. But you can't, so I can only conclude that you're a stalker who doesn't know much and who tries to make up for it by yapping like a chiwawa. Regards, Wayne         Date: 09 Apr 2007 16:35:32 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 9, 6:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Apr 9, 11:49 am, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > >> Wayne Pein wrote: > > >>> Is the total space the same on those "busy" roads without bike lanes > >>> as it is on the bike lane roads? ... > > >> No. In the real world (not some imaginary Lane Utopia), busy roads > >> without bike lanes are seldom as wide as those with them. > > > Which perfectly illustrates the point! > > > Bike lane fans look at a 50 foot wide road _with_ a bike lane stripe, > > compare it with a 30 foot road _without_ a bike lane stripe, and say > > "It's so much nicer when there's a stripe!" > > Try reading what Wayne actually /writes/. HTH I was responding to what Bill Sornson actually wrote. > > If you've got enough width, the stripe adds nothing of value. It just > > causes road debris to accumulate. > > Ah, the magic properties of dry white paint. Where does the debris go > without it? I'll treat that as a serious question - because I suspect you actually do NOT understand. When the white paint convinces motorists they can never, ever let their tires cross it, then every piece of gravel, broken glass, trash etc. that lands in the bike lane stays there until someone purposefully sweeps it away. In lots of locales, that sweeping is a rare event. Remove the white stripe, and motorists occasionally travel over that pavement when cyclists are not present. That means their tires clear the bits of junk off the roadway. The same section of road gets clean and stays cleaner. It should be an easy difference to observe. Hell, I notice it just driving by in a car, let alone while riding a bike. - Frank Krygowski           Date: 17 Apr 2007 08:36:10 From: Wolfgang Strobl Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com: >Remove the white stripe, and motorists occasionally travel over that >pavement when cyclists are not present. That means their tires clear >the bits of junk off the roadway. The same section of road gets clean >and stays cleaner. > >It should be an easy difference to observe. Hell, I notice it just >driving by in a car, let alone while riding a bike. It's more visible when looking how a road dries after rain. http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/radstreifen3/DSCF0054.jpg may illustrate the point. Or perhaps the first picture in http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/hausdorffstr/index.html which, btw. documents a severe accident caused by a bicycle line, recently. A right turning truck knocked a cyclist down and hurt her sevberely. -- Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen             Date: 17 Apr 2007 00:20:29 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wolfgang Strobl wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com: > >> Remove the white stripe, and motorists occasionally travel over that >> pavement when cyclists are not present. That means their tires clear >> the bits of junk off the roadway. The same section of road gets >> clean and stays cleaner. >> >> It should be an easy difference to observe. Hell, I notice it just >> driving by in a car, let alone while riding a bike. > > It's more visible when looking how a road dries after rain. > http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/radstreifen3/DSCF0054.jpg > may illustrate the point. That's not a bike lane; that's a gutter. > Or perhaps the first picture in > http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/hausdorffstr/index.html > which, btw. documents a severe accident caused by a bicycle line, > recently. A right turning truck knocked a cyclist down and hurt her > sevberely. Good lord, no wonder you people (not an Imus ref.) hate bike lanes. Those things are atrocities. BS (really)           Date: 10 Apr 2007 12:20:14 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 9, 6:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: >>Ah, the magic properties of dry white paint. Where does the debris go >>without it? > > > I'll treat that as a serious question - because I suspect you actually > do NOT understand. > > When the white paint convinces motorists they can never, ever let > their tires cross it, then every piece of gravel, broken glass, trash > etc. that lands in the bike lane stays there until someone > purposefully sweeps it away. In lots of locales, that sweeping is a > rare event. > > Remove the white stripe, and motorists occasionally travel over that > pavement when cyclists are not present. That means their tires clear > the bits of junk off the roadway. The same section of road gets clean > and stays cleaner. > > It should be an easy difference to observe. Hell, I notice it just > driving by in a car, let alone while riding a bike. > If people read has been written (and actually understood it), we wouldn't have to constantly be explaining fundamental truths to people who think they know it all but are, in fact, ignorant of many things. http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/Debris.pdf clearly describes and graphically shows why bike lanes harbor debris, while normal lanes, even the same width as bike lane plus motor vehicle lane, stay free from debris in bicyclists' typical position. Wayne           Date: 10 Apr 2007 15:37:20 From: Stephen Harding Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 9, 6:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > >>>If you've got enough width, the stripe adds nothing of value. It just >>>causes road debris to accumulate. >> >>Ah, the magic properties of dry white paint. Where does the debris go >>without it? > > I'll treat that as a serious question - because I suspect you actually > do NOT understand. > > When the white paint convinces motorists they can never, ever let > their tires cross it, then every piece of gravel, broken glass, trash > etc. that lands in the bike lane stays there until someone > purposefully sweeps it away. In lots of locales, that sweeping is a > rare event. > > Remove the white stripe, and motorists occasionally travel over that > pavement when cyclists are not present. That means their tires clear > the bits of junk off the roadway. The same section of road gets clean > and stays cleaner. > > It should be an easy difference to observe. Hell, I notice it just > driving by in a car, let alone while riding a bike. Wonder what explains the worn off white paint of the bike lane, on a very wide road going through my fair college town? SMH           Date: 09 Apr 2007 22:23:21 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 9, 6:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: >> Try reading what Wayne actually /writes/. HTH > I was responding to what Bill Sornson actually wrote. Which was in reply to what Wayne wrote. (Hint: he decries bike lanes regardless of road width.) Please do keep up.             Date: 10 Apr 2007 12:42:19 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill Sornson wrote: > Which was in reply to what Wayne wrote. (Hint: he decries bike lanes > regardless of road width.) Please do keep up. > > Hint: you don't comprehend what I write. Try harder. Wayne               Date: 10 Apr 2007 10:02:31 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> Which was in reply to what Wayne wrote. (Hint: he decries bike >> lanes regardless of road width.) Please do keep up. >> >> > Hint: you don't comprehend what I write. Try harder. "Further, simply removing a bike lane stripe creates Lane Utopia." What's hard to comprehend about that? You're a zealot. HTH         Date: 09 Apr 2007 13:16:14 From: gds Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 9, 11:24 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > The difference is the road width, not the white paint. Why do so many > bike lane fans have trouble understanding that? > We don't! I think that if you read this thread carefully a number of us who live in the west have pointed out that - at least out here- these two things covary. That is we have wider roads and they have stripes. You would also have noticed that at least some of some commenting in this way have noted that we also have expereince cycling in regions where the roads are narrow. So, of course if a road is so narrow that it is not practicle to have a separated lane then there shouldn't be one. But this really goes to roadway planning, funding, and construction. In my experience out here in the SW governmen(s) are much more willing to plan, fund, and build wider roadways and include some extra paint. And it works! So, rather than parse out the amount of improvement that can best be attributed to rodd width vs. that which can be attributed to the paint I'll just say the combination works. And part of that is attributable to the paint because in some places we have wide roadways without the paint and they are not as nice to cycle on.         Date: 03 Apr 2007 06:27:40 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. >However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically >separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The >problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their >limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere. Wayne, I think that you're solidly a zealot, unlike almost everyone else in this discussion. When you consider separate bike lanes "an abomination of abomination", it's clear that reason and logic have long since left the building. Like it or not, many of us live where workable bicycle lanes add to the enjoyment of riding. You'd be much better off realizing that it's not about politics or virtual car/penis envy or anything else - but just getting to work or the grocery store with the least drama. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame           Date: 17 Apr 2007 08:20:11 From: Wolfgang Strobl Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes k Hickey <k@habcycles.com >: >Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >>Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. >>However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically >>separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The >>problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their >>limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere. > >Wayne, I think that you're solidly a zealot, unlike almost everyone >else in this discussion. When you consider separate bike lanes "an >abomination of abomination", it's clear that reason and logic have >long since left the building. Just the opposite. It describes the history of bicycle ways quite accurately. -- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana           Date: 11 Apr 2007 13:28:12 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 11, 2:40 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > > Hey, I'm all for taking the lane in many situations -- and do so assertively > and regularly. I have to do it much less often, of course, on roads that do > feature a bike lane. A cyclist has to take the lane less often on roads with a sufficiently wide outside lane. It's the available width that makes the necessary difference. It's not the stripe. - Frank Krygowski           Date: 11 Apr 2007 08:56:37 From: Marz Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes > It's a sign of a weak position when one side has to assume the other > isn't "thinking".... > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame Maybe not thinking far enough. Cycle lanes in most forms do nothing to make cycling safer overall and in the long term are totally detrimental to cycling awareness. laters, z             Date: 11 Apr 2007 10:12:07 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes z wrote: >> It's a sign of a weak position when one side has to assume the other >> isn't "thinking".... >> >> k Hickey >> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com >> Home of the $795 ti frame > > Maybe not thinking far enough. > > Cycle lanes in most forms do nothing to make cycling safer overall and > in the long term are totally detrimental to cycling awareness. Oh, gee, well, those "facts" end the discussion! LOL On my ride yesterday, the very first road was wide, divided 4-lane, fast (50+) traffic with bike lanes on each side. So I thought about what would happen if the white line was removed, and the answer was obvious: the /dotted/ line dividing the two east-bound lanes (and west-bound lanes) would immediately be moved to the right to make both lanes wider. (The middle island and side curbs are set in place, of course.) So the nice, wide road would stay the same, but with 4 (2 + 2) appreciably wider lanes. Cars would drive to the right of their current positions -- always choosing more space between each other when given -- and bike riders would be squeezed closer to the gutter lane. ("Taking the lane" on this road would be suicidally stupid.) A road with a narrow left lane and a big fat right lane is unrealistic; it will quickly become two equally ample lanes. Result: LESS SPACE for bike riders on the right. I lost/ignored the OP in this thread, so if the first argument was indeed for /physically separated/ bike lanes, well then I don't think they're necessary or even desirable in most cases. But a clearly delineated space for bike traffic is not only safer and more enjoyable in the vast majority of cases, it also REMINDS MOTORISTS that bikes are normal parts of traffic and do indeed belong put there. (I also like "Share the Road" signs; never hurts to offer 'em a clue.) Finally, near the end of my ride on a busy 4-lane road /without/ bike lanes I got buzzed by an asshole in a huge white pickup truck. I yelled and then almost caught him at a stop light, so he gave me the finger as he turned right while I glared at him going thru the intersection. That almost definitely would not have happened if there'd been a decent bike lane where he passed me, unless he does that shit intentionally. And even then, it's easier to prove (or at least argue) driver error or mal intent if they "cross the line" to hit a rider. Otherwise they can always say the bike swerved or some such lie. Given the choice, I'll take a road with a nice bike lane any day. It's safer and thus more relaxing and thus more fun. Wayne and Frank can do WTH they want (lidded or not, too :) ). Bill S.               Date: 11 Apr 2007 14:22:14 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill Sornson wrote: > > On my ride yesterday, the very first road was wide, divided 4-lane, fast > (50+) traffic with bike lanes on each side. So I thought about what would > happen if the white line was removed, and the answer was obvious: Drum roll. Fantasy Island music. the > /dotted/ line dividing the two east-bound lanes (and west-bound lanes) would > immediately be moved to the right to make both lanes wider. (The middle > island and side curbs are set in place, of course.) Why would that happen? Why wouldn't the left lane stay the same width? > > So the nice, wide road would stay the same, but with 4 (2 + 2) appreciably > wider lanes. Cars would drive to the right of their current positions -- > always choosing more space between each other when given -- and bike riders > would be squeezed closer to the gutter lane. ("Taking the lane" on this > road would be suicidally stupid.) > > A road with a narrow left lane and a big fat right lane is unrealistic; it > will quickly become two equally ample lanes. Result: LESS SPACE for bike > riders on the right. You really have a wild imagination. Wayne                 Date: 11 Apr 2007 11:44:11 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> >> On my ride yesterday, the very first road was wide, divided 4-lane, >> fast (50+) traffic with bike lanes on each side. So I thought about >> what would happen if the white line was removed, and the answer was >> obvious: > > Drum roll. Fantasy Island music. > > the >> /dotted/ line dividing the two east-bound lanes (and west-bound >> lanes) would immediately be moved to the right to make both lanes >> wider. (The middle island and side curbs are set in place, of >> course.) > > Why would that happen? Why wouldn't the left lane stay the same width? Because it's a pretty narrow lane, and if the right lane opened up then drivers would immediately move right to give themselves more room. Why have a narrow left lane and a /three-times-wider/ right lane? I'll address the rest later; gotta go. >> So the nice, wide road would stay the same, but with 4 (2 + 2) >> appreciably wider lanes. Cars would drive to the right of their >> current positions -- always choosing more space between each other >> when given -- and bike riders would be squeezed closer to the gutter >> lane. ("Taking the lane" on this road would be suicidally stupid.) >> >> A road with a narrow left lane and a big fat right lane is >> unrealistic; it will quickly become two equally ample lanes. Result: >> LESS SPACE for bike riders on the right. > > You really have a wild imagination. Ooops, nothing to address. WHat I say is perfectly obvious and logical. Maybe next time I'll take a picture for you.                   Date: 11 Apr 2007 15:02:16 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill Sornson wrote: > Because it's a pretty narrow lane, and if the right lane opened up then > drivers would immediately move right to give themselves more room. Why have > a narrow left lane and a /three-times-wider/ right lane? Quit the exaggeration. A 10-12 foot left lane and a 15-16 foot right lane is a realistic configuration. Nobody has ever suggested your scenario above except you in Distortion Land. > > I'll address the rest later; gotta go. When you do, please give us rough estimates of the dimensions of current configuration so we can see how you came up with a 3 to 1 ratio. Wayne                     Date: 11 Apr 2007 14:10:31 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> Because it's a pretty narrow lane, and if the right lane opened up >> then drivers would immediately move right to give themselves more >> room. Why have a narrow left lane and a /three-times-wider/ right >> lane? > > Quit the exaggeration. A 10-12 foot left lane and a 15-16 foot right > lane is a realistic configuration. Nobody has ever suggested your > scenario above except you in Distortion Land. Yes, you know the road I rode just yesterday better than I. If you add the abnormally wide bike lane (with room to the right of it, too) to the current right lane, the result would be damned close to three times as wide as this particularly skinny left lane. (Put it this way: if they ever re-paint the lane line -- even with keeping the bike lane -- they would almost certainly widen the left lane a bit because it's /effectively/ much narrower than the right one currently.) >> I'll address the rest later; gotta go. > When you do, please give us rough estimates of the dimensions of > current configuration so we can see how you came up with a 3 to 1 > ratio. I'm including the extra space that's currently to the /right/ of this unusually wide bike lane. Regardless of specific dimensions, the FACT remains that removing the bike lane would result in two significantly wider traffic lanes with less space left for bike traffic. Dangerous on this particular road. Any objective person could see this readily; sorry to leave you out of it.               Date: 11 Apr 2007 18:15:44 From: nash Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message news:461d16e8$0$4937$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > z wrote: >>> It's a sign of a weak position when one side has to assume the other >>> isn't "thinking".... >>> >>> k Hickey >>> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com >>> Home of the $795 ti frame >> >> Maybe not thinking far enough. >> >> Cycle lanes in most forms do nothing to make cycling safer overall and >> in the long term are totally detrimental to cycling awareness. > > Oh, gee, well, those "facts" end the discussion! LOL > > On my ride yesterday, the very first road was wide, divided 4-lane, fast > (50+) traffic with bike lanes on each side. So I thought about what would > happen if the white line was removed, and the answer was obvious: the > /dotted/ line dividing the two east-bound lanes (and west-bound lanes) > would immediately be moved to the right to make both lanes wider. (The > middle island and side curbs are set in place, of course.) > > So the nice, wide road would stay the same, but with 4 (2 + 2) appreciably > wider lanes. Cars would drive to the right of their current positions -- > always choosing more space between each other when given -- and bike > riders would be squeezed closer to the gutter lane. ("Taking the lane" on > this road would be suicidally stupid.) > > A road with a narrow left lane and a big fat right lane is unrealistic; it > will quickly become two equally ample lanes. Result: LESS SPACE for bike > riders on the right. > > I lost/ignored the OP in this thread, so if the first argument was indeed > for /physically separated/ bike lanes, well then I don't think they're > necessary or even desirable in most cases. But a clearly delineated space > for bike traffic is not only safer and more enjoyable in the vast majority > of cases, it also REMINDS MOTORISTS that bikes are normal parts of traffic > and do indeed belong put there. (I also like "Share the Road" signs; > never hurts to offer 'em a clue.) > > Finally, near the end of my ride on a busy 4-lane road /without/ bike > lanes I got buzzed by an asshole in a huge white pickup truck. I yelled > and then almost caught him at a stop light, so he gave me the finger as he > turned right while I glared at him going thru the intersection. That > almost definitely would not have happened if there'd been a decent bike > lane where he passed me, unless he does that shit intentionally. And even > then, it's easier to prove (or at least argue) driver error or mal intent > if they "cross the line" to hit a rider. Otherwise they can always say > the bike swerved or some such lie. > > Given the choice, I'll take a road with a nice bike lane any day. It's > safer and thus more relaxing and thus more fun. Wayne and Frank can do > WTH they want (lidded or not, too :) ). > > Bill S. Maybe you just lucked out on the driver population. lane or no lane they push me off the road thus my new t-shirt saying I am allowed the whole lane. That is the only bike lane I need and it always goes from A-B haha                 Date: 11 Apr 2007 11:40:58 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes nash wrote: > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message > news:461d16e8$0$4937$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> z wrote: >>>> It's a sign of a weak position when one side has to assume the >>>> other isn't "thinking".... >>>> >>>> k Hickey >>>> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com >>>> Home of the $795 ti frame >>> >>> Maybe not thinking far enough. >>> >>> Cycle lanes in most forms do nothing to make cycling safer overall >>> and in the long term are totally detrimental to cycling awareness. >> >> Oh, gee, well, those "facts" end the discussion! LOL >> >> On my ride yesterday, the very first road was wide, divided 4-lane, >> fast (50+) traffic with bike lanes on each side. So I thought about >> what would happen if the white line was removed, and the answer was >> obvious: the /dotted/ line dividing the two east-bound lanes (and >> west-bound lanes) would immediately be moved to the right to make >> both lanes wider. (The middle island and side curbs are set in >> place, of course.) So the nice, wide road would stay the same, but with 4 >> (2 + 2) >> appreciably wider lanes. Cars would drive to the right of their >> current positions -- always choosing more space between each other >> when given -- and bike riders would be squeezed closer to the gutter >> lane. ("Taking the lane" on this road would be suicidally stupid.) >> >> A road with a narrow left lane and a big fat right lane is >> unrealistic; it will quickly become two equally ample lanes. Result: >> LESS SPACE for bike riders on the right. >> >> I lost/ignored the OP in this thread, so if the first argument was >> indeed for /physically separated/ bike lanes, well then I don't >> think they're necessary or even desirable in most cases. But a >> clearly delineated space for bike traffic is not only safer and more >> enjoyable in the vast majority of cases, it also REMINDS MOTORISTS >> that bikes are normal parts of traffic and do indeed belong put >> there. (I also like "Share the Road" signs; never hurts to offer >> 'em a clue.) Finally, near the end of my ride on a busy 4-lane road >> /without/ bike >> lanes I got buzzed by an asshole in a huge white pickup truck. I >> yelled and then almost caught him at a stop light, so he gave me the >> finger as he turned right while I glared at him going thru the >> intersection. That almost definitely would not have happened if >> there'd been a decent bike lane where he passed me, unless he does >> that shit intentionally. And even then, it's easier to prove (or at >> least argue) driver error or mal intent if they "cross the line" to >> hit a rider. Otherwise they can always say the bike swerved or some >> such lie. Given the choice, I'll take a road with a nice bike lane any >> day. It's safer and thus more relaxing and thus more fun. Wayne and >> Frank can do WTH they want (lidded or not, too :) ). >> >> Bill S. > Maybe you just lucked out on the driver population. > lane or no lane they push me off the road thus my new t-shirt saying > I am allowed the whole lane. That is the only bike lane I need and > it always goes from A-B haha Hey, I'm all for taking the lane in many situations -- and do so assertively and regularly. I have to do it much less often, of course, on roads that do feature a bike lane.           Date: 11 Apr 2007 08:08:13 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 10, 11:44 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >On Apr 10, 10:31 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote: > >> OK then - let's approach this from another angle. Let's assume that > >> the roads here have plenty of width for inclusion (or not) of a bike > >> lane. Let's assume they're in great shape (they are). Let's even > >> assume that people here are less antagonistic toward cyclists (hmmm, > >> could it be that the bikes aren't always in their way "asserting their > >> rights"?). > > >k, if the outside lanes are 15+ feet wide, cyclists don't generally > >_need_ to "assert their rights." They have space in which to ride. > >(Your confusion on this, and other points, makes me wonder if you've > >ever ridden in older cities!) > > As I've said many times, yes - I've ridden in many different urban > environments. And if you'll re-read what I've written, it's always > been from the position that wider lanes WITH bike lanes are great. > I'm not sure what you're reading (into my comments, that is...). Wide lanes WITHOUT bike lanes are great, too. In fact, they're greater, in my experience. Re-read my description of roads in and around Portland, for example. Again: It's the width, not the stripe, that confers the benefits. > > >> Assuming all that, why would you lose by adding a line to form the > >> bike lane? Still more than enough room for traffic. No pot hole / > >> debris problems to worry about. > > >In my experience, what I lose is freedom from gravel, glass and other > >junk at the right side of the road. > > Not really a problem here - I'm sure there's somewhat more debris than > would be the case if the cars consistently rolled over the same part > of the road I use, but that's a price I'll pay. I see no reason to pay that price. I see no practical benefits to offset that detriment. > And again, we're > talking about well-maintained 45mph ked (50mph actual) roads - not > too much debris stays put anyway. ISTM you're also talking about a place that gets relatively little gravel thrown on it during snow season, right? And correct me if I'm wrong, but are those roads that don't suffer many freeze-thaw cycles, with the resulting potholes? My point is this: You may have many circumstances that allow for pleasant cycling on the roads you describe. To give the credit to a paint stripe seems extremely simplistic. My bet is that if the paint stripes magically disappeared, you'd notice no detriments; instead, you'd notice some benefit - not having to "pay the price" of riding through occasional road debris. > > >I'll also note that in some places, I've lost the expectation of safe > >passage - like the relatively new bike lane in Columbus that tried to > >route me to the right of a RTOL, even though I was going straight. > >And I've lost cooperation from certain motorists, who thought I should > >be in the bike lane even though I wanted to make a left turn. > > Those are just examples of bad planning, and shouldn't influence your > opinion of what a bike lane SHOULD be. Those are examples of what bike lanes ARE. Yes, in some ideal world that would never happen. But it's not the world I live in. > >And for what? So people don't run into me from behind? Sorry, I'm > >way past fearing that bogeyman. > > That's only one (small) part of the issue. I thought we had > established that by now. Not as far as I know! Hell, in this thread we've had people touting that part of the issue as (apparently) the main part. IIRC, Peter claimed that the stripe was needed so drivers know how far to move over to pass cyclists. We had others claiming that (despite data to the contrary) the stripe caused motorists to pass with more clearance. If those aren't related to "fear from the rear" what are they about? And indeed, if that's not the issue, what IS the stripe about? Remember, this is compared to a simple wide outside lane. What DOES the stripe accomplish, if there's already plenty of room? > >It's not that I think bike lanes are totally evil. I just think > >they're more detrimental than beneficial, and I think it's sad that > >they get as much unthinking advocacy as they do. > > It's a sign of a weak position when one side has to assume the other > isn't "thinking".... Not necessarily. Often those on one side of an issue aren't really thinking, k. You can usually tell who's actually thinking by seeing whether they discuss specific issues, as opposed to vague generalities; and by whether they bring actual data to the discussion, as Wayne has done. - Frank Krygowski             Date: 11 Apr 2007 18:39:08 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On Apr 10, 11:44 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote: >> Not really a problem here - I'm sure there's somewhat more debris than >> would be the case if the cars consistently rolled over the same part >> of the road I use, but that's a price I'll pay. > >I see no reason to pay that price. I see no practical benefits to >offset that detriment. It's a value judgment, Frank. Since the "debris" is a virtual non-issue for me, there doesn't have to be much of a benefit to offset it. I really don't mind if the cars don't regularly inhabit my part of the road, given the fact that so many of the cars aren't really being piloted at any given point in time. And yes, I know that the struck-from-behind accident is relatively rare - but if I can reduce my exposure to even rare accidents, I will tend to do so. >My point is this: You may have many circumstances that allow for >pleasant cycling on the roads you describe. To give the credit to a >paint stripe seems extremely simplistic. Try reading what I've written (and written and written....) before. You apparently haven't really done so. > My bet is that if the paint >stripes magically disappeared, you'd notice no detriments; instead, >you'd notice some benefit - not having to "pay the price" of riding >through occasional road debris. No price worth mentioning. If removing the stripe also convinces 1% of the motorists that "I'm in their way now", I'd say I overpaid for avoiding the occasional bit of dirt. >> Those are just examples of bad planning, and shouldn't influence your >> opinion of what a bike lane SHOULD be. > >Those are examples of what bike lanes ARE. Yes, in some ideal world >that would never happen. But it's not the world I live in. But the lanes I describe ARE as well. They're great, they work, and they get universally great reviews from those of us who ride them all the time. That's the "world I live in". I guess I don't have enough of a victim mentality to live in your world. ;-) >And indeed, if that's not the issue, what IS the stripe about? >Remember, this is compared to a simple wide outside lane. What DOES >the stripe accomplish, if there's already plenty of room? It keeps the bloody road department from widening the other lanes with "your space", if you must know. ;-) >> >It's not that I think bike lanes are totally evil. I just think >> >they're more detrimental than beneficial, and I think it's sad that >> >they get as much unthinking advocacy as they do. >> >> It's a sign of a weak position when one side has to assume the other >> isn't "thinking".... > >Not necessarily. Often those on one side of an issue aren't really >thinking, k. ... or not reading carefully. >You can usually tell who's actually thinking by seeing whether they >discuss specific issues, as opposed to vague generalities; and by >whether they bring actual data to the discussion, as Wayne has done. And the icopa County Bike Plan (a huge .pdf file with many megabytes of bike lane theory and planning) and reports from local riders doesn't constitute "data"? I suppose I should mention that I'm not trying to be selective in the "data" I present either (unlike some in this discussion)... I didn't cherry pick the bike plan document, but assumed anyone interested would draw their own conclusions. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame           Date: 03 Apr 2007 19:50:25 From: Jeremy Parker Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes > > Like it or not, many of us live where workable bicycle lanes add to > the enjoyment of riding. Here in Britain, nearly fifty years ago, in 1958, Professor Sir Colin Buchanan, one of Britain's most famous town planners and traffic engineers, wrote in his book "Mixed Blessing, The Motor in Britain" "The meagre efforts to separate cyclists from motor traffic have failed, tracks are inadequate, the problem of treating them at junctions and intersections is completely unsolved, and the attitude of cyclists themselves to these admittedly unsatisfactory tracks has not been as helpful as it might have been." Actually, back in those days bike lanes had not been invented. There were only cycle tracks. Nowadays, because cycle tracks are as bad as they always were, they have become the cycle facility that dare not speak its name. People have to use euphemisms, like "segregated bike lane" Jeremy Parker           Date: 03 Apr 2007 13:05:08 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes k Hickey wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: > > >>Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. >>However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically >>separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The >>problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their >>limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere. > > > Wayne, I think that you're solidly a zealot, unlike almost everyone > else in this discussion. When you consider separate bike lanes "an > abomination of abomination", it's clear that reason and logic have > long since left the building. k, Perhaps you should read more carefully. Bike lanes are merely an abomination. *Physically separated* bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. Frankly, I think the numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck full of logic and reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters is bereft of it. > > Like it or not, many of us live where workable bicycle lanes add to > the enjoyment of riding. You'd be much better off realizing that it's > not about politics or virtual car/penis envy or anything else - but > just getting to work or the grocery store with the least drama. > Can you describe to me how/why "getting to work or the grocery store" in a 16'lane is more "drama" than getting there in a narrower Bike Reservation? Wayne             Date: 12 Apr 2007 21:34:55 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 12, 9:56 pm, "Bob" <hunr...@aol.com > wrote: > > As for the rest, perhaps *your* "original question" was solely whether > motorists passed bicyclists closer in a bike lane or a wide lane but > it wasn't *the* "original question". The original question was, "Are > the physically separated bike lanes in this video a good or bad > thing?". I thought the _original_ question was something like "Hey Eve, what are you doing with that apple?" And the original answer was "It's my Mac Powerbook. I'm logging onto the internet to start an argument about bicycles." It's been going on for a long time, you see. - Frank Krygowski             Date: 12 Apr 2007 18:56:23 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 12, 1:22 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bob wrote: > > >>I state the findings. You and others pretend they don't exist. > > >>Wayne > > > In fact, I have neither distorted your words (I simply supplied the > > rest of the quote that you conveniently omitted) nor have I claimed > > any special expertise. I've left those two endeavors to you. You've > > responded by consistently misstating the conclusions of the study you > > quoted through your selective editing and claiming expertise without > > demonstrating any credentials beyond self-published criticism. Lacking > > any demonstration of such credentials, how are we to judge whether you > > are an expert in research methodology or simply a pompous windbag? My > > vote is for pompous windbag. > > Regards, > > Bob Hunt > > You are a stalker. Get over it. > > The original question revolved around whether motorists passed > bicyclists closer in a bike lane or a wide lane. I posted the finding > that motorists passed closer in a bike lane. Go back and read the > thread. The other findings in that study are not germaine to the > question, hence I did not note them. Got it? Quit lawyering. It's very > unbecoming. > > The study conclusions are irrelvant. The data findings are what is > important, assuming they are credible. Pons and Fleishman concluded they > had invented cold fusion. Care to buy a nice desktop cold fusion > machine? Going cheap! > > I don't have to show my credentials to demonstrate that I understand > research methodology or am capable of critiquing studies. My writings > show that I do. Furthermore, one doesn't have to understand research > methodology to understand my criticisms. One only needs half a brain. If > you don't like my critiques, critique them and show you know something. > But you can't, so I can only conclude that you're a stalker who doesn't > know much and who tries to make up for it by yapping like a chiwawa. > > Regards, > Wayne- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You must have an interesting definition of "stalker" if you apply it to anyone that- while replying to your posts in a *discussion* group- points out that the authors of a study you quote to support your position reached a different conclusion than you. On second thought, maybe you just have an unusual idea of what constitutes discussion. As for the rest, perhaps *your* "original question" was solely whether motorists passed bicyclists closer in a bike lane or a wide lane but it wasn't *the* "original question". The original question was, "Are the physically separated bike lanes in this video a good or bad thing?". The most prominent feature of the bike lanes in that video wasn't painted lines on the pavement but physical barriers erected between motor traffic and bike traffic. Since you didn't even mention that feature in any of your posts I'd say that either: A) You ignored the question, preferring to answer one of your own or; B) Your writings fail to show that you are capable of critiquing the proposals of others. Regards, Bob Hunt BTW- The word is "chihuahua", not "chiwawa". I almost always ignore misspellings as we are all capable of them but this one had me momentarily scratching my head wondering, "What the hell is a chiwawa? Is that a special term used in research methodology?"               Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:32:28 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bob wrote: > On Apr 12, 1:22 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >>Bob wrote: >> >> >>>>I state the findings. You and others pretend they don't exist. >> >>>>Wayne >> >>>In fact, I have neither distorted your words (I simply supplied the >>>rest of the quote that you conveniently omitted) nor have I claimed >>>any special expertise. I've left those two endeavors to you. You've >>>responded by consistently misstating the conclusions of the study you >>>quoted through your selective editing and claiming expertise without >>>demonstrating any credentials beyond self-published criticism. Lacking >>>any demonstration of such credentials, how are we to judge whether you >>>are an expert in research methodology or simply a pompous windbag? My >>>vote is for pompous windbag. >>>Regards, >>>Bob Hunt >> >>You are a stalker. Get over it. >> >>The original question revolved around whether motorists passed >>bicyclists closer in a bike lane or a wide lane. I posted the finding >>that motorists passed closer in a bike lane. Go back and read the >>thread. The other findings in that study are not germaine to the >>question, hence I did not note them. Got it? Quit lawyering. It's very >>unbecoming. >> >>The study conclusions are irrelvant. The data findings are what is >>important, assuming they are credible. Pons and Fleishman concluded they >>had invented cold fusion. Care to buy a nice desktop cold fusion >>machine? Going cheap! >> >>I don't have to show my credentials to demonstrate that I understand >>research methodology or am capable of critiquing studies. My writings >>show that I do. Furthermore, one doesn't have to understand research >>methodology to understand my criticisms. One only needs half a brain. If >>you don't like my critiques, critique them and show you know something. >>But you can't, so I can only conclude that you're a stalker who doesn't >>know much and who tries to make up for it by yapping like a chiwawa. >> >>Regards, >>Wayne- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > > You must have an interesting definition of "stalker" if you apply it > to anyone that- while replying to your posts in a *discussion* group- > points out that the authors of a study you quote to support your > position reached a different conclusion than you. On second thought, > maybe you just have an unusual idea of what constitutes discussion. > As for the rest, perhaps *your* "original question" was solely whether > motorists passed bicyclists closer in a bike lane or a wide lane but > it wasn't *the* "original question". The original question was, "Are > the physically separated bike lanes in this video a good or bad > thing?". The most prominent feature of the bike lanes in that video > wasn't painted lines on the pavement but physical barriers erected > between motor traffic and bike traffic. Since you didn't even mention > that feature in any of your posts I'd say that either: > A) You ignored the question, preferring to answer one of your own or; > B) Your writings fail to show that you are capable of critiquing the > proposals of others. Stop it Bob, you're killing me with laughter and yourself with foot-in- mouth disease. From my second post in this thread dated, 4/2: "Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere." > BTW- The word is "chihuahua", not "chiwawa". I almost always ignore > misspellings as we are all capable of them but this one had me > momentarily scratching my head wondering, "What the hell is a chiwawa? > Is that a special term used in research methodology?" Type chiwawa into Google. Wayne             Date: 10 Apr 2007 08:14:56 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 10, 1:23 am, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Apr 9, 6:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > >> Try reading what Wayne actually /writes/. HTH > > I was responding to what Bill Sornson actually wrote. > > Which was in reply to what Wayne wrote. (Hint: he decries bike lanes > regardless of road width.) Please do keep up. As usual, Bill, you deal in failed, grade-school "gotcha" quips. You refuse to address the substance of posts. Do you now understand the reason so many bike lanes harbor so much trash? - Frank Krygowski               Date: 10 Apr 2007 09:37:59 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: {Usual Ample Condescending Bullshit snipped} > Do you now understand the reason so many bike lanes harbor so much > trash? Not my experience on the roads here at all. Perhaps your public services are lacking, or there are not enough riders to keep your lanes clear. No wonder you're so sour. Understandingly, BS             Date: 03 Apr 2007 18:29:34 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: > >> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. >>>However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically >>>separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The >>>problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their >>>limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere. >> >> >> Wayne, I think that you're solidly a zealot, unlike almost everyone >> else in this discussion. When you consider separate bike lanes "an >> abomination of abomination", it's clear that reason and logic have >> long since left the building. > >k, > >Perhaps you should read more carefully. Bike lanes are merely an >abomination. *Physically separated* bike lanes are an abomination of an >abomination. > >Frankly, I think the numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck >full of logic and reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters >is bereft of it. If the term "abomination of an abomination" doesn't sound over the top to you, then you're beyond the "logic and reason" phase of the discussion (waaaaaay beyond). >> Like it or not, many of us live where workable bicycle lanes add to >> the enjoyment of riding. You'd be much better off realizing that it's >> not about politics or virtual car/penis envy or anything else - but >> just getting to work or the grocery store with the least drama. >> > >Can you describe to me how/why "getting to work or the grocery store" in >a 16'lane is more "drama" than getting there in a narrower Bike >Reservation? Not to you, apparently. ;-) k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame               Date: 03 Apr 2007 19:09:45 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:29:34 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, k Hickey <k@habcycles.com > wrote: > >Can you describe to me how/why "getting to work or the grocery store" in > >a 16'lane is more "drama" than getting there in a narrower Bike > >Reservation? > > Not to you, apparently. ;-) > or many others. striped lanes simply do NOT work as well as wider outside lanes with no kings anywhere the roads are sanded in the winter (usually with pea gravel these days) or there is much broken glass. wider lanes tend to have less gravel, debris, and broken glass than ked bike lanes.                 Date: 04 Apr 2007 06:23:30 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) wrote: >On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:29:34 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, k >Hickey <k@habcycles.com> wrote: > >> >Can you describe to me how/why "getting to work or the grocery store" in >> >a 16'lane is more "drama" than getting there in a narrower Bike >> >Reservation? >> >> Not to you, apparently. ;-) >> >or many others. striped lanes simply do NOT work as well as >wider outside lanes with no kings anywhere the roads are >sanded in the winter (usually with pea gravel these days) or >there is much broken glass. wider lanes tend to have less >gravel, debris, and broken glass than ked bike lanes. Winter "sanding" isn't a big issue here in Arizona (by a long, long shot). And yes, having cars driving over the portion of the road you ride on all the time will keep more dirt and debris off. OTOH, I find it comforting that cars AREN'T driving over "my portion of the road" all the time. Here's my rationale - most car drivers put as little mental energy into the process of driving as possible. Their measure of "good driving" consists of nothing more than 'keeping it between the lines". They tend to stay inside the lines, even when they're not paying much attention. It follows that if you're riding three feet to the right of "their line", there's less chance they'll drive through the bit of road you happen to be inhabiting when they pass (while applying makeup, changing the CD or text messaging). It's all about probability. Check out the bike plan for icopa County I posted in another reply. It works. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                   Date: 04 Apr 2007 13:53:27 From: Bill Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes k Hickey wrote: > It's all about probability. Check out the bike plan for icopa > County I posted in another reply. It works. > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame I read most of it and even found a JFK quote.... "Nothing compares with the simple pleasure of a bike ride." John F. Kennedy He had it right, and the document was the best thought out I have seen yet. We need more of the same. Bill Baka                     Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:14:05 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: >> It's all about probability. Check out the bike plan for icopa >> County I posted in another reply. It works. > >I read most of it and even found a JFK quote.... >"Nothing compares with the simple pleasure of a bike ride." >John F. Kennedy > >He had it right, and the document was the best thought out I have seen >yet. We need more of the same. The system works, and works well. It encourages those who would otherwise not consider riding a bike on the (admittedly busy) roads in the Phoenix area. As a result, we have a growing number of bike commuters in the east valley (Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale). An informal poll of all the cyclists I interact with in this area hasn't yielded a single opinion that this isn't the best urban bike system they've ever been exposed to. Still, some are so blinded by preconceptions and biases that they would grind the Phoenix east valley bike lanes to rubble if they could get away with it. Go figger. I'd invite them to come to Phoenix and ride a few hundred miles on the arterial roads WITH a bike lane, and then a few hundred miles on the same size roads WITHOUT a bike lane. If they honestly prefer the latter, I can only surmise that they love conflict and danger in their daily ride. To me, riding on a six-lane road with ~50mph (80km/h) traffic isn't really all that much fun. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                       Date: 05 Apr 2007 15:39:34 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes k Hickey wrote: > Still, some are so blinded by preconceptions and biases that they > would grind the Phoenix east valley bike lanes to rubble if they could > get away with it. Go figger. I'd invite them to come to Phoenix and > ride a few hundred miles on the arterial roads WITH a bike lane, and > then a few hundred miles on the same size roads WITHOUT a bike lane. > If they honestly prefer the latter, I can only surmise that they love > conflict and danger in their daily ride. To me, riding on a six-lane > road with ~50mph (80km/h) traffic isn't really all that much fun. > You like to compare apples and oranges. Look at the pictures here: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/index.htm and here: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/wol_width.pdf Wayne                         Date: 10 Apr 2007 19:36:05 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: > >> Still, some are so blinded by preconceptions and biases that they >> would grind the Phoenix east valley bike lanes to rubble if they could >> get away with it. Go figger. I'd invite them to come to Phoenix and >> ride a few hundred miles on the arterial roads WITH a bike lane, and >> then a few hundred miles on the same size roads WITHOUT a bike lane. >> If they honestly prefer the latter, I can only surmise that they love >> conflict and danger in their daily ride. To me, riding on a six-lane >> road with ~50mph (80km/h) traffic isn't really all that much fun. > >You like to compare apples and oranges. > >Look at the pictures here: >http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/index.htm > >and here: >http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/wol_width.pdf I miss your point - I'm not comparing any apples to any oranges. Just wide, smooth, well-maintained arterial roads in the Phoenix Arizona east valley with and without bike lanes. Otherwise, they're identical. C'mon down (over, whatever...) and try riding both and try to tell me that you actually enjoy "mixing it up with 50mph traffic" more than having to ride in a wide, smooth, well-maintained 6' / 2m bike lane. If so, I question either your honesty or intelligence. ;-) k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                   Date: 04 Apr 2007 12:32:16 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes k Hickey wrote: > > And yes, having cars driving over the portion of the road you ride on > all the time will keep more dirt and debris off. OTOH, I find it > comforting that cars AREN'T driving over "my portion of the road" all > the time. > > Here's my rationale - most car drivers put as little mental energy > into the process of driving as possible. Their measure of "good > driving" consists of nothing more than 'keeping it between the lines". > They tend to stay inside the lines, even when they're not paying much > attention. > > It follows that if you're riding three feet to the right of "their > line", there's less chance they'll drive through the bit of road you > happen to be inhabiting when they pass (while applying makeup, > changing the CD or text messaging). > Yes, that is a standard Fear From the Rear rationale. However, motorists as a whole are not as inept as you state. The Overtaking type collision statistics bear this out. Wayne                   Date: 04 Apr 2007 16:19:53 From: nash Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes It's all about probability. Check out the bike plan for icopa County I posted in another reply. It works. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If the bike paths were the red lines it would not work in Surrey cause of the geography. We have one going west/east for about 4 miles.               Date: 03 Apr 2007 21:39:22 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes k Hickey wrote: >> >>Can you describe to me how/why "getting to work or the grocery store" in >>a 16'lane is more "drama" than getting there in a narrower Bike >>Reservation? > > > Not to you, apparently. ;-) Give it a try. You can use logic and reason or myth and lore. I'll try my best to understand ;-) Wayne                 Date: 13 Apr 2007 22:07:42 From: Bob Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 13, 12:32 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bob wrote: > > A) You ignored the question, preferring to answer one of your own or; > > B) Your writings fail to show that you are capable of critiquing the > > proposals of others. > > Stop it Bob, you're killing me with laughter and yourself with foot-in- > mouth disease. > > From my second post in this thread dated, 4/2: > > "Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. > However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically > separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The > problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their > limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere." > I stand corrected. You did indeed give an opinion on the question. Unfortunately, the two sentences containing your answer became buried in the rest of your pedantry. > > BTW- The word is "chihuahua", not "chiwawa". I almost always ignore > > misspellings as we are all capable of them but this one had me > > momentarily scratching my head wondering, "What the hell is a chiwawa? > > Is that a special term used in research methodology?" > > Type chiwawa into Google. > Buy a dictionary. I'll leave the last word in our exchange to you. That should make you feel better. Regards, Bob Hunt                 Date: 11 Apr 2007 19:47:58 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 11, 9:39 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >On Apr 10, 11:44 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote: > >> Not really a problem here - I'm sure there's somewhat more debris than > >> would be the case if the cars consistently rolled over the same part > >> of the road I use, but that's a price I'll pay. > > >I see no reason to pay that price. I see no practical benefits to > >offset that detriment. > > It's a value judgment, Frank. Since the "debris" is a virtual > non-issue for me, there doesn't have to be much of a benefit to offset > it. I really don't mind if the cars don't regularly inhabit my part > of the road, given the fact that so many of the cars aren't really > being piloted at any given point in time. And yes, I know that the > struck-from-behind accident is relatively rare - but if I can reduce > my exposure to even rare accidents, I will tend to do so. I guess that's what it comes down to, then. You are worried enough about being hit from the rear - even in a wide lane - that you'll accept running over a certain amount of gravel and glass. I'm more worried about running over the gravel and glass I've encountered in bike lanes, I'm not worried about being hit from behind, and I think the stripe has negligible protective effect. The difference in attitudes may be due to differences in locales. Except that it's been the same for me in locales literally all the way across the US. Perhaps your locale really is different than the hundreds of towns I've cycled in. Perhaps your bike lanes really are wonderful, and don't share the detriments I've found in many dozens of other such lanes. It wouldn't be the only way your world differs from mine! (For one thing, mine is less full of fear!) > > My bet is that if the paint > >stripes magically disappeared, you'd notice no detriments; instead, > >you'd notice some benefit - not having to "pay the price" of riding > >through occasional road debris. > > No price worth mentioning. If removing the stripe also convinces 1% > of the motorists that "I'm in their way now", I'd say I overpaid for > avoiding the occasional bit of dirt. There is a certain amount of fear there, I see! I can't see how a person riding, say, three feet from the right edge of a fifteen foot lane would be considered "in the way" by anyone but a psychopath. Psychopaths are far, far less than 1% of the population. And I doubt psychopaths would be mollified by a white line anyway. - Frank Krygowski                   Date: 12 Apr 2007 05:33:24 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On Apr 11, 9:39 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote: >> It's a value judgment, Frank. Since the "debris" is a virtual >> non-issue for me, there doesn't have to be much of a benefit to offset >> it. I really don't mind if the cars don't regularly inhabit my part >> of the road, given the fact that so many of the cars aren't really >> being piloted at any given point in time. And yes, I know that the >> struck-from-behind accident is relatively rare - but if I can reduce >> my exposure to even rare accidents, I will tend to do so. > >I guess that's what it comes down to, then. You are worried enough >about being hit from the rear - even in a wide lane - that you'll >accept running over a certain amount of gravel and glass. I'm more >worried about running over the gravel and glass I've encountered in >bike lanes, I'm not worried about being hit from behind, and I think >the stripe has negligible protective effect. And I think we've concluded that both "dire effects" (having to ride over a little gravel, or slightly increasing the chance of being struck from behind) are minimal, so it comes down to personal preference. Which is my point, really... When someone has the opinion that merely painting a stripe on an otherwise wide enough lane turns it into "an abomination", I think it's clear that there's an underlying bias of some sort affecting the judgment. >The difference in attitudes may be due to differences in locales. >Except that it's been the same for me in locales literally all the way >across the US. > >Perhaps your locale really is different than the hundreds of towns >I've cycled in. Perhaps your bike lanes really are wonderful, and >don't share the detriments I've found in many dozens of other such >lanes. It wouldn't be the only way your world differs from mine! >(For one thing, mine is less full of fear!) Says the guy who's apparently terrified of riding over a little gravel? LOL. You can't really read what I wrote and conclude I'm "full of fear" (but we've had the discussion about your reading comprehension already). ;-) >> > My bet is that if the paint >> >stripes magically disappeared, you'd notice no detriments; instead, >> >you'd notice some benefit - not having to "pay the price" of riding >> >through occasional road debris. >> >> No price worth mentioning. If removing the stripe also convinces 1% >> of the motorists that "I'm in their way now", I'd say I overpaid for >> avoiding the occasional bit of dirt. > >There is a certain amount of fear there, I see! No fear involved. I do like eliminating annoyance (which is why I'm done with this thread). >I can't see how a person riding, say, three feet from the right edge >of a fifteen foot lane would be considered "in the way" by anyone but >a psychopath. Psychopaths are far, far less than 1% of the >population. But maybe not less than 1% of the drivers. >And I doubt psychopaths would be mollified by a white line anyway. Dunno, but it's been many, many months since I've been buzzed by a car. Can you say the same? k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                 Date: 10 Apr 2007 13:08:54 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 10, 12:37 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > {Usual Ample Condescending Bullshit snipped} > > > Do you now understand the reason so many bike lanes harbor so much > > trash? > > Not my experience on the roads here at all. > > Perhaps your public services > are lacking, or there are not enough riders to keep your lanes clear. Nice theory, except I've observed this in countless other places. Two that quickly come to mind are Missoula, MT (home of Adventure Cycling Association) and the eastern suburbs of Portland, OR (with one of the greatest numbers of cyclists per capita in the US, IIRC). When we rode into the Portland suburbs from the east, I was leading the way. As soon as we hit bike-laned streets, I had to continually call out "Gravel; Glass; Trash; Glass..." as we rode along. It became a joke. When we got into Portland proper, we followed one of the many bike- laned streets to go due west. At a certain point, the bike lane jogged north a block or two. We conferred and decided "to hell with that." We continued due west on the major arterial to cross the Willamette River. As soon as we abandoned the bike lane, we agreed that rode became _much_ better for riding. So it's not just my area (which, BTW, has blessedly few bike lanes). It's everywhere I've been that has bike lanes. Some are free of trash - I assume because the street sweepers have been by recently. Most have periodic piles of trash, glass or gravel, where they would not have it if there were no stripe. Frank Krygowski                 Date: 04 Apr 2007 06:18:40 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: > >>>Can you describe to me how/why "getting to work or the grocery store" in >>>a 16'lane is more "drama" than getting there in a narrower Bike >>>Reservation? >> >> Not to you, apparently. ;-) > >Give it a try. You can use logic and reason or myth and lore. I'll try >my best to understand ;-) The best I can do is to present the bike plan for icopa County (the Arizona county that contains Phoenix and the surrounding sprawl). It's the best I've seen anywhere... http://www.mcdot.icopa.gov/bicycle/bikeplan/bikeplan.pdf What's not to like about that? k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                   Date: 04 Apr 2007 12:40:24 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes k Hickey wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: > > >>k Hickey wrote: >> >> >>>>Can you describe to me how/why "getting to work or the grocery store" in >>>>a 16'lane is more "drama" than getting there in a narrower Bike >>>>Reservation? >>> >>>Not to you, apparently. ;-) >> >>Give it a try. You can use logic and reason or myth and lore. I'll try >>my best to understand ;-) > > > The best I can do is to present the bike plan for icopa County (the > Arizona county that contains Phoenix and the surrounding sprawl). > It's the best I've seen anywhere... > > http://www.mcdot.icopa.gov/bicycle/bikeplan/bikeplan.pdf > > What's not to like about that? It's a rah rah plan for bike reservations, small set asides that reduce bicyclist operating space and rights. It doesn't even pretend to answer my question. Wayne         Date: 02 Apr 2007 18:33:58 From: Bill Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wayne Pein wrote: > Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination. > However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically > separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The > problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their > limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere. > > From motorists who yell "Get off the road," to decision makers and > planners who want to do something, anything "for" bicyclists, to > bicyclist segregationists themselves, there is no shortage of people who > want to micromanage/regulate bicyclists' roadway position. Strange > bedfellows. > > If you love, something let it be free. > > Wayne > That is probably true for most of the country. Here they have made a token effort by paving some old railroad rights of way, the tops of levees, and a few odd spots that nobody even go to. Planning? Maybe, but not good planning. Haphazard is the best I can rate it. Bill Baka     Date: 01 Apr 2007 06:57:54 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote: >On Apr 1, 12:11 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) >wrote: >> On Sat, 31 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt >> >> O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: >> > I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video >> > touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: >> >> segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes >> belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it. > >I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was >unconscious for 15 minutes..... > >It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a >'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer >if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane, >whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years >ago, i would not have been hit. Moving a bicycle outwards and away >from traffic is a GOOD thing. By stamping one's foot and telling car >drivers to 'get used to it' is short sighted. Like us saying to cars >to 'stay off the road on Sundays', when we ride more. Peter (and I) are pragmatists on this issue. I'm fortunate to live where there are SIX foot (2m), non-parking bike lanes on many of the major roads, and they work. Period. Peter's unfortunate enough to have suffered the consequence of not having such facilities at a particular point in time. To others though, it's become a virtual penis envy campaign where their perceived minority status has become the bigger issue. I'm at a loss as to how else anyone could look at the icopa County bike lane facilities and pronounce them "not as good as sharing 45mph lanes with cars". k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame       Date: 17 Apr 2007 08:03:06 From: Wolfgang Strobl Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes k Hickey <k@habcycles.com >: >Peter (and I) are pragmatists on this issue. So am I. I've yet do to find a _good_ bicycle lane. Peple on the german newsgroup de.rec.fahrrad are asking for an example of a "good bikeway (tm)" for years, but in vain. A bicycle lane would have qualified, too. >I'm fortunate to live >where there are SIX foot (2m), non-parking bike lanes on many of the >major roads, and they work. Period. Around here, we have some such, and they don't. Period. -- Thank you for observing all safety precautions         Date: 17 Apr 2007 05:57:46 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de > wrote: >k Hickey <k@habcycles.com>: > >>Peter (and I) are pragmatists on this issue. > >So am I. I've yet do to find a _good_ bicycle lane. Peple on the german >newsgroup de.rec.fahrrad are asking for an example of a "good bikeway >(tm)" for years, but in vain. A bicycle lane would have qualified, too. I'd send them to: http://www.mcdot.icopa.gov/bicycle/BikePlan/bikeplan.PDF >>I'm fortunate to live >>where there are SIX foot (2m), non-parking bike lanes on many of the >>major roads, and they work. Period. > >Around here, we have some such, and they don't. Period. Yep. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame         Date: 17 Apr 2007 00:23:24 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes Wolfgang Strobl wrote: > k Hickey <k@habcycles.com>: > >> Peter (and I) are pragmatists on this issue. > So am I. I've yet do to find a _good_ bicycle lane. From the pictures you've posted, I believe you. Come to AZ or CA and see how terrific they can be. >> I'm fortunate to live >> where there are SIX foot (2m), non-parking bike lanes on many of the >> major roads, and they work. Period. > Around here, we have some such, and they don't. Period. All your pics show atrocious lanes. Pity.   Date: 31 Mar 2007 23:54:22 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes In article <f7ju03536eec34k70h8ukcvun56cvpsj3v@4ax.com >, NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) writes: > On Sat, 31 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt > O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote: > >> I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video >> touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: >> > segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes > belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it. I think in certain places bike lanes can be useful. Especially where steep upgrades slow a rider down on an otherwise fast paced road. Cars are often segregated from one another -- that's what left turn bays etc are all about. I'm certainly against just slap-dashing bike lanes all over the place, but I'm not going to be idealogically opposed to them. They're an option I'd like to keep open, but used discriminately and intelligently. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 17 Apr 2007 07:58:28 From: Wolfgang Strobl Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats): >In article <f7ju03536eec34k70h8ukcvun56cvpsj3v@4ax.com>, > NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) writes: >> On Sat, 31 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt >> O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote: >> >>> I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video >>> touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: >>> >> segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes >> belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it. > >I think in certain places bike lanes can be useful. >Especially where steep upgrades slow a rider down >on an otherwise fast paced road. Like http://0x1a.de/static/siebengebirgsstr3/20070314-04.html, for example? I has an 8 % grade, here and fits your description, perfectly. -- Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen   Date: 31 Mar 2007 22:11:39 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Sat, 31 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote: > I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video > touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes: > segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.     Date: 08 Apr 2007 08:20:36 From: John Kane Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 5, 2:46 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 4, 11:02 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote: > > > > > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > >The ONLY stripe benefit I envision is this: Some timid cyclists will > > >feel more welcome on the road. But IMO, that can be accomplished by > > >"sharrows," which (I hear) are formally approved in the next MUTCD > > >document. I prefer that idea. > > > >So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit > > >of the stripe? > > > I've spent many years riding in many different environments, and > > nowhere else has there been less hostility toward me as a cyclist than > > in Arizona, where we DO have a separation between cars and bikes. In > > Florida, where there was none, I would regularly be buzzed purposely > > and dangerously by people who presumably figured I didn't belong in > > "their" lane. > > > So to me, having less motorized hostility directed my way, AND the > > reduction in chances of being hit from behind (however unlikely) is a > > big plus. > > Based on my experience, you're overestimating the impact of the 6" > paint stripe, and ignoring much else. > > For example, you've mentioned how wide your roads are. If you move > from an old area with narrow lanes & no stripes to a new area with > much wider lanes plus stripes, how do you know the benefit you > perceive is caused by the stripe? Is it not caused by the extra width > available? And as Claire says, is it not caused by the area's > culture? > > You're apparently in an area with amazingly wide ROWs. Compared to > many older northern cities, I'm betting you've also got smoother > pavement, fewer pothole problems, less road grit spread during the > winter, less trash in the summer - because those are the things I see > in bike lanes, even well-designed ones. (And I've seen many that were > not well-designed.) > > And while I can't claim 100% recall, I don't remember any bike lane > where the simple presence of the stripe itself added any real > benefit. Just give me a wide outside lane, please. > > - Frank Krygowski I actually know of one in Ottawa Ontario. Of course, it only works in morning rush hours :) It is set up to show riders and drivers that cycles are likely to be going straight across a bridge and not taking the entrance ramp to another street. The problem is that outside of morning rush hour the parking rules change at the next block and if you're using it in evening rush hour you run into parked cars. I could not figure out why a friend was so against this lane. I rode it to work every morning and it really had improved traffic patterns. Then I had to go back in to work late one afternoon and suddenly realised why Bob so disliked it. After morning rush hour it funnelled the rider into an awkward (and possibly danagerous ?) position. Otherwise I tend to find bike lanes more likely to lead to dangerous moves such as not moving left soon enough when planing to make a left turn. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 05 Apr 2007 11:46:37 From: Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes On Apr 4, 11:02 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >The ONLY stripe benefit I envision is this: Some timid cyclists will > >feel more welcome on the road. But IMO, that can be accomplished by > >"sharrows," which (I hear) are formally approved in the next MUTCD > >document. I prefer that idea. > > >So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit > >of the stripe? > > I've spent many years riding in many different environments, and > nowhere else has there been less hostility toward me as a cyclist than > in Arizona, where we DO have a separation between cars and bikes. In > Florida, where there was none, I would regularly be buzzed purposely > and dangerously by people who presumably figured I didn't belong in > "their" lane. > > So to me, having less motorized hostility directed my way, AND the > reduction in chances of being hit from behind (however unlikely) is a > big plus. Based on my experience, you're overestimating the impact of the 6" paint stripe, and ignoring much else. For example, you've mentioned how wide your roads are. If you move from an old area with narrow lanes & no stripes to a new area with much wider lanes plus stripes, how do you know the benefit you perceive is caused by the stripe? Is it not caused by the extra width available? And as Claire says, is it not caused by the area's culture? You're apparently in an area with amazingly wide ROWs. Compared to many older northern cities, I'm betting you've also got smoother pavement, fewer pothole problems, less road grit spread during the winter, less trash in the summer - because those are the things I see in bike lanes, even well-designed ones. (And I've seen many that were not well-designed.) And while I can't claim 100% recall, I don't remember any bike lane where the simple presence of the stripe itself added any real benefit. Just give me a wide outside lane, please. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 10 Apr 2007 19:31:24 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On Apr 4, 11:02 pm, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote: >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >The ONLY stripe benefit I envision is this: Some timid cyclists will >> >feel more welcome on the road. But IMO, that can be accomplished by >> >"sharrows," which (I hear) are formally approved in the next MUTCD >> >document. I prefer that idea. >> >> >So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit >> >of the stripe? >> >> I've spent many years riding in many different environments, and >> nowhere else has there been less hostility toward me as a cyclist than >> in Arizona, where we DO have a separation between cars and bikes. In >> Florida, where there was none, I would regularly be buzzed purposely >> and dangerously by people who presumably figured I didn't belong in >> "their" lane. >> >> So to me, having less motorized hostility directed my way, AND the >> reduction in chances of being hit from behind (however unlikely) is a >> big plus. > >Based on my experience, you're overestimating the impact of the 6" >paint stripe, and ignoring much else. > >For example, you've mentioned how wide your roads are. If you move >from an old area with narrow lanes & no stripes to a new area with >much wider lanes plus stripes, how do you know the benefit you >perceive is caused by the stripe? Is it not caused by the extra width >available? And as Claire says, is it not caused by the area's >culture? > >You're apparently in an area with amazingly wide ROWs. Compared to >many older northern cities, I'm betting you've also got smoother >pavement, fewer pothole problems, less road grit spread during the >winter, less trash in the summer - because those are the things I see >in bike lanes, even well-designed ones. (And I've seen many that were >not well-designed.) > >And while I can't claim 100% recall, I don't remember any bike lane >where the simple presence of the stripe itself added any real >benefit. Just give me a wide outside lane, please. OK then - let's approach this from another angle. Let's assume that the roads here have plenty of width for inclusion (or not) of a bike lane. Let's assume they're in great shape (they are). Let's even assume that people here are less antagonistic toward cyclists (hmmm, could it be that the bikes aren't always in their way "asserting their rights"?). Assuming all that, why would you lose by adding a line to form the bike lane? Still more than enough room for traffic. No pot hole / debris problems to worry about. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame     Date: 05 Apr 2007 00:18:52 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes In article <3cp813deupssb344v8ec2tkuj7m7c05c9f@4ax.com >, k Hickey <k@habcycles.com > writes: > What I can't understand is why some people think of such a system in > such entirely negative terms (i.e. "abomination of an abomination"). Again, we're talking about Physically Separated bike lanes. The Euro thing that so many advocates like to point to, with bike lanes raised above the street level, maybe with different coloured pavement, and a bunch of fancy stuff like bronze fenceposts with heavy chain strung along them to basically fence-off the bike lane from the adjacent street. A sort of "bicycle sidewalk" in denser, short-distance urban cores. Hey, throw in some bike-lane-directed traffic lights while you're at it. Y'know what? I think it works in certain places, where the local cultures have adopted it, and have adapted to it. But to apply such a design to less urbanly dense areas would be abominable. Or at least, stupid overkill. Maybe it would work in downtown Phoenix; maybe not so much in Kingman. cheers, Tom - Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca