An Incident

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 7, 11:24 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> catzz66 wrote:
> >> On Jun 7, 11:26 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
> >>> catzz66 wrote:
>
> >>>> We don't have bike lanes where I live, and I think I am probably a
> >>>> lot better off without them. I can usually figure out a way to
> >>>> avoid the most dangerous streets by riding one street or so off
> >>>> the main drag, but I would expect motorists to think bikes are
> >>>> confined to bike lanes if we had them. I wonder what experience
> >>>> shows in towns that have extensive bike lanes.
>
> >>> So your solution when there are no bike lanes is to find other
> >>> routes, yet you think you're better off without bike lanes.
>
> >>> Strange logic, that.
>
> > Logic's not so complicated. With no bike lanes, motorists are
> > accustomed to seeing bikes in the street as being the norm.
>
> But...but...you said you find other routes when there aren't dedicated bike
> lanes!
>
> It's getting cloudier and cloudier where you are...

<sigh>

I'm perfectly capable of riding busy streets, and do so often. I
don't feel endangered when I do. And we don't have many bike lanes
around here - thank God - so that's not part of the equation.

But I often choose to ride less traveled parallel roads. It's not a
safety worry, it's an aesthetic thing. Cars are noisy and smelly.

- Frank Krygowski

D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch

catzz66 <catzz66@threeletterservice.com> wrote:

> We don't have bike lanes where I live, and I think I am probably a lot
> better off without them. I can usually figure out a way to avoid the
> most dangerous streets by riding one street or so off the main drag, but
> I would expect motorists to think bikes are confined to bike lanes if we
> had them. I wonder what experience shows in towns that have extensive
> bike lanes.

SLC has an extensive system of bike lanes, and there are some out in
the 'burbs. I was riding down a street that is partially signed about two
weeks ago, when a passing testosterone-poisoning case screamed at me at
the top of his lungs, admonishing me to remove myself from the sexually
promiscuous road and ride on the sidewalk.
Cretins don't look at signs.


Bill

__o | You don't stop riding because you get old.
_`\(,_ | You get old because you stop riding.
(_)/ (_) |

Ron Wallenfang

On Jun 5, 4:19*pm, Jorg Lueke <jlueke_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> * * * * Yesterday was not a good day to be biking to work. *In the mornings I
> need to go through Saint Paul to cross the river over one of the
> bridges. *As I come in from the East this means I need to make a left
> turn and since the right-hand left turn lane grows out of the left
> lane of the road I have to make a switch. *I have found the best tome
> for this is two blocks prior to the turn because if I wait any longer
> the traffic is too heavy to get across the lanes safely. *So for two
> blocks, about 20-30 seconds I may be slowing down some commuters. *One
> irritated fellow bellowed something out his window at me that sounded
> like “ncdjehjfjenf ..Lance Armstrong ,.dcd//sddmklsdm”. *I promptly
> gave him a one finger salute although in retrospect a smile and a wave
> may have been more effective.
> * * * * Later I was getting ready to turn onto a trail with a van behind me.
> The van was fine, but as I made a right turn onto the trail a biker
> whizzing down the hill onto the street zoomed full speed in front of
> the van. *In this case the biker was being an ass since the traffic
> clearly has the right of way and the trail has a stop sign. *Usually
> it's enough to slow down and pay attention, just plowing into traffic
> is stupid.
> * * * * All this would end up being small potatoes next to the ride home.
> There is a three mile stretch from work to where I can turn onto the
> trails. *The shoulder is decent though the traffic does go 50, but
> it's not much of an issue. *At the very end of the three miles I, once
> again, need to make a left turn to get onto the trail. *I look, no one
> is coming, I get into the lane pedal towards the light when a truck
> veers out behind me with the driver cursing. *Something like “Get the &
> %^ out of the road”. *As luck would have it he missed the light and I
> rode up next to him. *Again the tirade, “Why are you guys on the #$
> road, I almost &&* hit you. *Why don't you ride on the sidewalk?” *I
> then explained to him that there was no sidewalk, that even if there
> were bikes belonged on the road, and that I really needed to just make
> this one left turn. *After exchanging some unplesantries under the
> influence of an adrenaline shot he ended by muttering “You're gonna
> get hit. *I'm telling you you're gonna get hit.” *Then the light
> changed.
> * * * * What is frustrating about all this is that 11 of the 19 miles I ride
> each way are on trails, and 7.5 of the reminder I am on the side of
> the road where I can usually be passed with relative ease. *But, on
> those few spots where I need to merge with traffic there are still too
> many people who can't bother to wait a few seconds.

Left turns on a busy arterial street are one of the least happy events
of bicycle commuting. If traffic is relatively light, I occupy the
turn lane, assuming turning traffic passing me can stay in the next
lane to pass. When traffic is heavy, I stay in the curb lane and
either wait for a break in the traffic, before crossing, or overshoot
and make a U turn at a break in the boulevard further ahead, where
there is room in the middle to wait if necessary. That's a strategy
to deal with one particular road configuration that I most frequently
encounter.

catzz66

> On Jun 7, 11:24 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>>catzz66 wrote:
>>
>>>>On Jun 7, 11:26 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>>>>catzz66 wrote:
>>
>>>>>>We don't have bike lanes where I live, and I think I am probably a
>>>>>>lot better off without them. I can usually figure out a way to
>>>>>>avoid the most dangerous streets by riding one street or so off
>>>>>>the main drag, but I would expect motorists to think bikes are
>>>>>>confined to bike lanes if we had them. I wonder what experience
>>>>>>shows in towns that have extensive bike lanes.
>>BS wrote:
>>>>>So your solution when there are no bike lanes is to find other
>>>>>routes, yet you think you're better off without bike lanes.
>>
>>>>>Strange logic, that.
>>Catzz replied:
>>>Logic's not so complicated. With no bike lanes, motorists are
>>>accustomed to seeing bikes in the street as being the norm.
>>BS wrote:
>>But...but...you said you find other routes when there aren't dedicated bike
>>lanes!
>>
>>It's getting cloudier and cloudier where you are...
>
>

You got me mixed up with someone else, Bill. My comment above says that
we don't have bike lanes where I live.

Luke

In article
<c033f815-8ffc-424f-992f-572a9d24a9d7@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 7, 11:26 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> > catzz66 wrote:
> > > We don't have bike lanes where I live, and I think I am probably a lot
> > > better off without them. I can usually figure out a way to avoid the
> > > most dangerous streets by riding one street or so off the main drag,
> > > but I would expect motorists to think bikes are confined to bike
> > > lanes if we had them. I wonder what experience shows in towns that
> > > have extensive bike lanes.
> >
> > So your solution when there are no bike lanes is to find other routes, yet
> > you think you're better off without bike lanes.
> >
> > Strange logic, that.
>
> I imagine Bill is confusing cause and effect.
>
> Bike lanes are normally put on roads that have enough room for bike
> lanes. (Duh!) Those roads are often better for cycling whether or
> not they have the magic stripes.
>

True. When the motive behind bike lanes is expediency their net effect
can be negligible and often detrimental.

> And if you have a "dangerous street" that's a main drag, how exactly
> does the stripe help? Does it help, say, teach novice cyclists to
> make left turns from the right side bike lane? Does it tempt novices
> to pass cars on the right, so they can get right hooked? Does it run
> the novices into door zones? Does it collect plenty of gravel and
> broken glass?

Often explicitly demarcating a space for cyclists on major carterials
is an effective incentive in encouraging prospective cyclists, as well
as making for more elbow room and less duress for experienced cyclists.
While not making for a safer ride, they certainly can make for a more
pleasant one.

As for the ramifications of bike lanes on cyclist's safety, I won't
generalize. The spectrum runs from atrocious gutter traps, funneling
cyclists into door zones, to absolutely indispensable corridors on six
lane highway bridges.

What's clear, around Toronto anyway, is that planners and traffic
engineers are disposed to consult guidelines, not, as in the case of
their auto-centric efforts, bound to standards. The wildly inconsistent
outcomes reflect that the quality of the results is not of the highest
priority.

>
> FWIW, when I visit certain cities that abound in bike lanes, I
> sometimes prefer the streets without them. I clearly recall
> specifically avoiding them because of piles of glass.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 9, 11:35 am, Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> wrote:
> In article
> <c033f815-8ffc-424f-992f-572a9d24a...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > And if you have a "dangerous street" that's a main drag, how exactly
> > does the stripe help? Does it help, say, teach novice cyclists to
> > make left turns from the right side bike lane? Does it tempt novices
> > to pass cars on the right, so they can get right hooked? Does it run
> > the novices into door zones? Does it collect plenty of gravel and
> > broken glass?
>
> Often explicitly demarcating a space for cyclists on major carterials
> is an effective incentive in encouraging prospective cyclists, as well
> as making for more elbow room and less duress for experienced cyclists.
> While not making for a safer ride, they certainly can make for a more
> pleasant one.

I agree that bike lanes encourage prospective cyclists. But in a way,
that's sad - people shouldn't need a stripe to feel that they can ride
on a road. I think those prospective cyclists are twice bamboozled -
once in thinking that cycling is dangerous, and again in thinking the
stripe somehow makes it safer.

From what I've read, I don't think bike lanes generate any more "elbow
room." ISTR at least one study that showed that motorists actually
pass closer when there is a bike lane. I'll dig for that study, if
anyone's interested.

- Frank Krygowski

r15757@aol.com

On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From what I've read, I don't think bike lanes generate any more "elbow
> room." ISTR at least one study that showed that motorists actually
> pass closer when there is a bike lane. I'll dig for that study, if
> anyone's interested.

Yeah dig for it. This should be good.

r15757@aol.com

On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that bike lanes encourage prospective cyclists. ...

I am not a fan of bike lanes but they do encourage beginning riders.
To be more precise, they encourage prospective cyclists to ride *in
the street and with traffic.* But creating psychological comfort for
beginners is certainly not the answer to the problems of street
cycling.

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 9, 2:52 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From what I've read, I don't think bike lanes generate any more "elbow
> > room." ISTR at least one study that showed that motorists actually
> > pass closer when there is a bike lane. I'll dig for that study, if
> > anyone's interested.
>
> Yeah dig for it. This should be good.

OK, I found one I have on disk, and references to others.

"Evaluation of Shared-Use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles,"
Floride Dept. of Transportation Ped/Bike Safety Office, found (on p.
14) that mean separation distance between cyclists and passing cars
was 6.44 ft for wide curb lanes, vs. 5.93 ft for bike lanes.

The other reference was to “An Evaluation of Red Shoulder as a
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility,� by The University of North
Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. I read this one long ago and
I think I have a hardcopy of it, but haven't looked for it yet. In
any case, some filed discussion of that paper says (I quote):

"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."

BTW, the "red shoulder" in the title is obviously a bike lane.

It's not difficult to see why motorists would pass closer to cyclists
in a bike lane. First, the motorists feel more confident that the
cyclist is not going to move left in front of them - that is, they
feel the cyclist is trapped by the line.

Likewise, the cyclist feels more confident riding closer to passing
traffic. It's a false sense of security, because the line doesn't
keep the car from hitting him from behind; but hits-from-behind are
very rare anyway.

But most important, the cyclist probably _needs_ to ride further left
when there's a bike lane, simply because bike lanes tend to accumulate
debris, and the density of debris is least where cars come closest to
blowing it off - that is, the lanes are cleanest right next to the
stripe.

There are some nice debris shots at
http://www.humantransport.org/bicyc...arystripes..htm

- Frank Krygowski

Luke

In article
<4819f69a-b37b-4e05-b54d-6ff6129a4ee3@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 9, 2:52 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From what I've read, I don't think bike lanes generate any more "elbow
> > > room." ISTR at least one study that showed that motorists actually
> > > pass closer when there is a bike lane. I'll dig for that study, if
> > > anyone's interested.
> >
> > Yeah dig for it. This should be good.
>
> OK, I found one I have on disk, and references to others.
>
> "Evaluation of Shared-Use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles,"
> Floride Dept. of Transportation Ped/Bike Safety Office, found (on p.
> 14) that mean separation distance between cyclists and passing cars
> was 6.44 ft for wide curb lanes, vs. 5.93 ft for bike lanes.
>

Was any mention made of the distance the cyclist was riding from the
curb in either case?

<snip>

> It's not difficult to see why motorists would pass closer to cyclists
> in a bike lane. First, the motorists feel more confident that the
> cyclist is not going to move left in front of them - that is, they
> feel the cyclist is trapped by the line.
>
> Likewise, the cyclist feels more confident riding closer to passing
> traffic. It's a false sense of security, because the line doesn't
> keep the car from hitting him from behind; but hits-from-behind are
> very rare anyway.


>
> But most important, the cyclist probably _needs_ to ride further left
> when there's a bike lane, simply because bike lanes tend to accumulate
> debris, and the density of debris is least where cars come closest to
> blowing it off - that is, the lanes are cleanest right next to the
> stripe.
>
> There are some nice debris shots at
> http://www.humantransport.org/bicyc...carystripes.htm
>
> - Frank Krygowski

There is another point that bears on the discussion. It's my impression
-- subjective it is, but it's been corroborated by residents living on
the streets concerned -- that, contingent upon the design, bike lanes
can reduce the speed of motorized traffic. This is so when a lane or
two, previously devoted to autos is eliminated to make room for bike
ways and/or medians. (Frank do you have a study in your collection
attesting to this?)

In encouraging slower traffic which, in turn, correlates to greater
safety for everyone, bikeways obliquely minimize danger.

Zoot Katz

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:44:22 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote, in part:

>But most important, the cyclist probably _needs_ to ride further left
>when there's a bike lane, simply because bike lanes tend to accumulate
>debris, and the density of debris is least where cars come closest to
>blowing it off - that is, the lanes are cleanest right next to the
>stripe.

It also places the cyclist closer to where opposing traffic is
looking for a vehicle.

When a driver is focused on getting an opening for their left turn
they're looking for traffic in the travel lane. They're less likely
to be looking bikes somewhere near the shoulder. They still might
misjudge your speed but at least they've a better chance of seeing
you. I like to stand up if I see that situation taking shape.

Bike lanes aren't much different than paved shoulders in many places
where they exist. Just different signs. Drivers will use bike lanes
or shoulders to get around a left turning vehicle in front of them.
--
zk

Bill Sornson

Luke wrote:
> In article
> <4819f69a-b37b-4e05-b54d-6ff6129a4ee3@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 9, 2:52 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From what I've read, I don't think bike lanes generate any more
>>>> "elbow room." ISTR at least one study that showed that motorists
>>>> actually pass closer when there is a bike lane. I'll dig for that
>>>> study, if anyone's interested.
>>>
>>> Yeah dig for it. This should be good.
>>
>> OK, I found one I have on disk, and references to others.
>>
>> "Evaluation of Shared-Use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor
>> Vehicles," Floride Dept. of Transportation Ped/Bike Safety Office,
>> found (on p. 14) that mean separation distance between cyclists and
>> passing cars was 6.44 ft for wide curb lanes, vs. 5.93 ft for bike
>> lanes.
>>
>
> Was any mention made of the distance the cyclist was riding from the
> curb in either case?

Where I live, bike lanes are rare on wide, two-lane (1 + 1) roads, because
indeed they're unnecessary. /Of course/ cars pass with ample room, because
(wait for it) there IS ample room.

On higher-speed, 4- or (less common) 6-lane roads, in contrast, the lanes
are appreciably narrower. /Of course/ cars pass somewhat closer, because
there's (wait for it) LESS ROOM. Bike lanes help prevent cars from moving
too far right, as they would tend to do in order to add distance from others
to their left. Without bike lanes, it's much more common for cyclists to
get squeezed or brushed right -- often with a corresponding "get off the
road" comment. The dedicated bike lanes tell motorists that bikes do,
indeed, belong out there.

A well designed, safe and effective bike lane is a beautiful thing. It's
too bad more elitist (sounds nicer than snobby)cyclists can't appreciate
that.

> <snip>

snip

Zoot Katz

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:30:02 -0400, Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com>
wrote:

>
>There is another point that bears on the discussion. It's my impression
>-- subjective it is, but it's been corroborated by residents living on
>the streets concerned -- that, contingent upon the design, bike lanes
>can reduce the speed of motorized traffic. This is so when a lane or
>two, previously devoted to autos is eliminated to make room for bike
>ways and/or medians. (Frank do you have a study in your collection
>attesting to this?)

This too is my impression from having two new stripes painted in the
door zone along my regular route. There was also a yellow median
divider painted that's almost the width or a standard lane. Two
traffic lanes and a parking lane have been reduced to one lane, bike
lane and parking lane.

It's all within a school and playground speed-zone everybody had
previously ignored. At least now they slow down somewhat. They're
still not doing 30KmH during daylight or school hours but more like
50 instead of seventy.

The bike lane is longer and fits into our "bike route" system but I
use only a half or whole block of it*. The painted median has been
handier for me than the bike lane. Previous to the paint, I had to
enter into traffic, which wasn't hard because of the wide curb lane,
and then I had to cross four lanes on the fly within a half-block,
for the back lane, or else go to the intersection and push the
pedestrian button to make the left turn. Other cyclists frequently
use the sidewalk for that block. Riding the street, it's all a
matter of timing. Overly polite drivers and cell phone zombies can
spoil the flow. Some drivers freak when they see you standing in the
middle of the road, Others know they too can safely use the painted
median for a left turn at this intersection.

*W. 49th Ave eastbound from Heather to Tisdall northbound for
Vancouver locals.
--
zk

Dennis P. Harris

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 05:27:56 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, catzz66
<catzz66@threeletterservice.com> wrote:

> I wonder what experience shows in towns that have extensive
> bike lanes.

Cagers yell at you when you take the lane to avoid hazards and
they pass on blind corners with double yellow lines, even if you
are riding at the speed limit. When you catch up with them at a
stoplight and ask them if they know that a double yellow line
means no passing, *they* yell that cyclists "blocking traffic"
will cause accidents!

Since "bike lanes" are rarely swept or maintained, unlike the
main roadway, they are often useless, and only create the
impression that cagers don't have to share the road.