Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story



On Aug 20, 1:00 pm, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > Wayne Pein wrote:

>
> >>G.T. wrote:

>
> >>I know that when I'm in bike lanes around here I never get

>
> >>>crowded but two times in the last week I've had a couple cars get
> >>>waaaaaaaaaaaay to close to me in regular lanes. I'm getting to the
> >>>point where I'm going to start riding in the left side of the right
> >>>hand lane like a motorcycle so cars will move over a lane rather
> >>>than pass me with only inches to spare.

>
> >>Bingo!

>
> > He "never gets crowded" in bike lanes. Bingo indeed! LOL

>
> He'd never get crowded in a wide lane or a lane that he fully used. So
> why should he settle for a narrow Bike Lane, aka Bike Bantustan or Bike
> Reservation?
>


Does this mean we can have casinos in bike lanes, or perhaps banks
with numbered accounts and favorable tax laws? Cheap liquor and
cigarettes? It's bike-lane party time, baby! -- Jay Beattie.
 
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:


>> It's a typical road -- 4 lanes with parking on both sides and a
>> median in the middle. No bike lane; can't recall off-hand whether
>> there's a white line for the parking zone, but it doesn't matter. Fast
>> traffic. Limit 35 or 40; cars go 50+ all the time. (See below
>> for further explanation; missed the "wide lane" descriptor.)


> I ride on a similar road everyday, except there is no parking. Cars
> may do 50, but generally not in my presence. They slow down and move
> over.


The parked cars make all the difference, of course. How far from the side
of the road does one ride with no parked cars present versus when they're
there? HUGE difference.

Of course you know this, Troller. HAND
 
Jay Beattie wrote:

> On Aug 20, 1:00 pm, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:


>>He'd never get crowded in a wide lane or a lane that he fully used. So
>>why should he settle for a narrow Bike Lane, aka Bike Bantustan or Bike
>>Reservation?
>>

>
>
> Does this mean we can have casinos in bike lanes, or perhaps banks
> with numbered accounts and favorable tax laws? Cheap liquor and
> cigarettes? It's bike-lane party time, baby! -- Jay Beattie.
>


Yes, but we also have to accept higher risk for a lot of bad things,
like alcoholism, suicide, etc. :-(

Wayne
 
Bill Sornson wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:

>
>
>>>It's a typical road -- 4 lanes with parking on both sides and a
>>>median in the middle. No bike lane; can't recall off-hand whether
>>>there's a white line for the parking zone, but it doesn't matter. Fast
>>>traffic. Limit 35 or 40; cars go 50+ all the time. (See below
>>>for further explanation; missed the "wide lane" descriptor.)

>
>
>>I ride on a similar road everyday, except there is no parking. Cars
>>may do 50, but generally not in my presence. They slow down and move
>>over.

>
>
> The parked cars make all the difference, of course. How far from the side
> of the road does one ride with no parked cars present versus when they're
> there? HUGE difference.
>
> Of course you know this, Troller. HAND
>
>


Ignoramus,

When cars are parked, the "side of the road" is the end of extended
doors, which is about 10' out. So you ride an appropriate distance left
of that based on available remaining lane width, your speed,
destination, and cross traffic conditions. You ascertain your need to
control overtaking motorists, increase your conspicuity, and create good
sight triangles.

When there are no cars parked, the side of the road is the edge of
usable pavement, and you ride an appropriate distance left of that based
on available remaining lane width, your speed, destination, and cross
traffic conditions. You ascertain your need to control overtaking
motorists, increase your conspicuity, and create good sight triangles.

So, there is NO difference in how you ride. You just have a different
definition for "side of the road."

Of course, you don't know this. But now you do.

Like I said earlier, arguing with you is like wallpapering fog.

Wayne
 
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:

>>
>>
>>>> It's a typical road -- 4 lanes with parking on both sides and a
>>>> median in the middle. No bike lane; can't recall off-hand whether
>>>> there's a white line for the parking zone, but it doesn't matter.
>>>> Fast traffic. Limit 35 or 40; cars go 50+ all the time. (See
>>>> below for further explanation; missed the "wide lane" descriptor.)

>>
>>
>>> I ride on a similar road everyday, except there is no parking. Cars
>>> may do 50, but generally not in my presence. They slow down and move
>>> over.

>>
>>
>> The parked cars make all the difference, of course. How far from
>> the side of the road does one ride with no parked cars present
>> versus when they're there? HUGE difference.
>>
>> Of course you know this, Troller. HAND
>>
>>

>
> Ignoramus,
>
> When cars are parked, the "side of the road" is the end of extended
> doors, which is about 10' out. So you ride an appropriate distance
> left of that based on available remaining lane width, your speed,
> destination, and cross traffic conditions. You ascertain your need to
> control overtaking motorists, increase your conspicuity, and create
> good sight triangles.
>
> When there are no cars parked, the side of the road is the edge of
> usable pavement, and you ride an appropriate distance left of that
> based on available remaining lane width, your speed, destination, and
> cross traffic conditions. You ascertain your need to control
> overtaking motorists, increase your conspicuity, and create good
> sight triangles.
> So, there is NO difference in how you ride. You just have a different
> definition for "side of the road."
>
> Of course, you don't know this. But now you do.
>
> Like I said earlier, arguing with you is like wallpapering fog.


You're the one who compared your no-parked-cars road to the one I described;
they're not similar whatsoever.

Happy Papering...
 
"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Per William O'Hara:
>>I do not. Remember cars can not pass you if they do not have reasonable
>>room. They will have to wait.

>
> Was that written tongue-in-cheek?


No. You can not pass if you do not have reasonable room.

I would like Massachusetts to officially determine the distance by statute
as Maine has done. It should be at least four feet.

People pass me with 2" after forcing me onto the White line or the edge.

I ride in a lot of places without any shoulder or anything past the travel
lane. Most of Massachusetts roads are substandard. Motorists complain
about the overwhelming lack of maintenance for Route 138, but most roads in
general have insufficient subroadbed in terms of depth and width. Travel
lanes are too narrow. The biggest evidence is the premature failure of the
hard top on the sides of the road.

Bicyclists have it tough when people can't wait.

Think about a bike going 20mph and some knucle has to pass the bicycle at
30 mph. How much time saving was acheived by the motorist? There are so
many places on my local routes that do not have passing room and are only
30mph for the maxium speed limit.

Massachusetts have a horrible driving culture representative of me first
generation and poor roads.

--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
 
!Jones <****@off.com> wrote in news:p14hc3p81c8njicbpi9jhuemfgff383ult@
4ax.com:

> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:16:34 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "William
> O'Hara" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>People also treat horses with more respect. They don't rush to pass the
>>Horse and turn right in front of them like they do in Boston or the
>>suburbs.

>
> The world is full of rude, inconsiderate people. These people will be
> found in cars, boats, driving busses and trucks, and (yes, it's true)
> riding bicycles. Bicycle lanes are a good investment in a city's
> infrastructure and I support their construction wholeheartedly;
> however, if a rider is careless and complacent, then he or she will
> probably meet the fender of a similar driver.
>
> Consider what the hikers and equestrians say about the people on
> "mountain" bicycles. How do you feel about trails being closed to
> bicycles as more and more are doing?
>
> I tend to agree with you. I'd just point out that it cuts both ways.


I tend to think that bicycle lanes should be closed only to bicycles.

I also have noticed for a long time that people complain about mountain
bikers around here, but there is heavy damage from ATV instead.

They complain at Ames Nowell and Wompatuck, where it is illegal ATV instead
of the mountain bike.

The aggitators in California are crazy and the placement of piano wire
should be evidence to you that the mountain bikers are not of wild bunch
that many suggest.

--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
 
Per William O'Hara:
>No. You can not pass if you do not have reasonable room.


To indulge in some semantic pedantry.... Drivers *may* not pass
without reasonable room (i.e. "May" implying permission). But
they *can* pass any time/any way they please ("Can" implying
ability).

I say that because I know for sure that there are people out
there who will just plain hit you with their vehicle because
they're angry at you - and get away with it. I've seen it done
in Philadelphia.
--
PeteCresswell
 
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:15:37 -0400, Wayne Pein wrote:

> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>Anyone putting in bike lanes would have to refer to published
>>>guidelines. They're not hard to understand. Yet, there are ubiquitous
>>>examples of ridiculously placed bike lanes all over the country.
>>>Likely, the people putting them in knew they were doing it wrong but
>>>didn't care, the overarching principle being to install bike lanes no
>>>matter what. That's malicious.
>>>
>>>There are numberous examples of substandard, dangerous, and otherwise
>>>poorly placed bike lanes in "Bicycle Friendly" Carrboro, NC and
>>>adjacent bicycle friendly wannabe Chapel Hill.

>>
>>
>>
>> Implicit in your comment is that proper, well designed bike lanes are
>> good things (or, at least in Pein's World, not too terribly
>> objectional).
>>
>> I declare progress! LOL

>
> Bike lanes are appropriate on freeways. Period. Elsewhere, they're
> objectional to varying degrees.


The bike lanes I saw today all over east Irvine, CA (Irvine Spectrum
Area), looked pretty good to me -- especially compared to the disaster of
northern VA, which in every other way is just like Irvine (type of
development and overall layout, demographics, etc.)

Irvine's arterial roads, like most built since the 60s in CA, have main
traffic lanes at least 12' wide, sometimes 14', with bike lanes at least
5' wide outboard of those.

Bikes and motor vehicles coexist well on these roads, despite speed limits
of 40-50 MPH, and de facto speeds higher than that. In contrast, NoVA has
4 and 6 lane arterials with 12' outer lanes, no bike lanes, and often no
sidewalks. Despite speed limits of 35 MPH, traffic moves at the same
40-50 MPH because that's what drivers feel comfortable with on arterial
roads with few intersections, cross streets, or driveways. This is a
disaster for cyclists (not to mention pedestrians).

Sprawl development is inevitable, at least for the near future. But as
cyclists we'd be better off if we could get our highway departments on the
east coast to build new roads more like they do out west, with enough room
for everyone to begin with.

Commercial strips with driveways and cross streets and de facto speeds
under 35 MPH may be addressed differently.

Matt O.
 
Matt O'Toole wrote:

In contrast, NoVA has
> 4 and 6 lane arterials with 12' outer lanes, no bike lanes, and often no
> sidewalks. Despite speed limits of 35 MPH, traffic moves at the same
> 40-50 MPH because that's what drivers feel comfortable with on arterial
> roads with few intersections, cross streets, or driveways. This is a
> disaster for cyclists (not to mention pedestrians).


I ride everyday on such a 5 lane road. My presence as a bicyclist slows
motorists and they move over, many changing lanes.

>
> Sprawl development is inevitable, at least for the near future. But as
> cyclists we'd be better off if we could get our highway departments on the
> east coast to build new roads more like they do out west, with enough room
> for everyone to begin with.


A 12' lane is plenty of room for a 2' bicyclist. The purpose of wide
lanes or bike lanes (like multiple lanes, in general) boils down to
making it easier for motorists to pass, a dubious advantage for bicyclists.

http://www.cyclistview.com/overtaking/index.htm
demonstrates numerous videos in which motorists are shown to move over.

http://www.cyclistview.com/overtaking/files/A-Draft-Rebuttal-of-Walker-Paper-Rev-3.pdf
shows a draft graph of data from the above videos showing the more lane
a bicyclist uses, the better is motorist overtaking behavior.

Wayne
 
"Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

(snip)

the more lane
> a bicyclist uses, the better is motorist overtaking behavior.
>
> Wayne
>


That's my experience, too. I feel it's the cyclist's responsibility to
make himself visually apparent: bright, light-colored clothing, plenty of
blinking/flashing and steady rear lights at night (headlight also, of
course), and well out in the lane. Skulking along on the extreme right edge
of the lane in the gutter simply encourages drivers to stay well in the lane
and to pass at normal speed. They're probably less likely to notice the
cyclist, too, since he is not in the location for a "real" vehicle. And, it
exposes the cyclist to all the debris and drain grates in the gutter area,
as well as other tube-popping irregularities found there.

Cal
 
Pein's World o' Paranoia wrote:
> Matt O'Toole wrote (in part):


>> In contrast, NoVA has
>> 4 and 6 lane arterials with 12' outer lanes, no bike lanes, and
>> often no sidewalks. Despite speed limits of 35 MPH, traffic moves
>> at the same 40-50 MPH because that's what drivers feel comfortable
>> with on arterial roads with few intersections, cross streets, or
>> driveways. This is a disaster for cyclists (not to mention
>> pedestrians).


> I ride everyday on such a 5 lane road. My presence as a bicyclist
> slows motorists and they move over, many changing lanes.


You DELETED what Matt wrote before that: "The bike lanes I saw today all
over east Irvine, CA (Irvine Spectrum
Area), looked pretty good to me -- especially compared to the disaster of
northern VA, which in every other way is just like Irvine (type of
development and overall layout, demographics, etc.)."

/Good/ bike lanes work great and are hugely beneficial. Deleting people's
positive experiences and opinions of them doesn't change that.

Bill "nice try though" S.
 
On Sep 5, 12:02 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> /Good/ bike lanes work great and are hugely beneficial. Deleting people's
> positive experiences and opinions of them doesn't change that.


If the pavement is already wide enough for easy lane sharing, what
exactly does that white stripe do that's "hugely beneficial"?

It doesn't add space. It doesn't add visibility. It doesn't give
cyclists any more right to the road. What is "hugely beneficial"?

- Frank Krygowski
 
Bill Sornson wrote:

> Pein's World o' Paranoia wrote:
>
>>Matt O'Toole wrote (in part):

>
>
>>> In contrast, NoVA has
>>>4 and 6 lane arterials with 12' outer lanes, no bike lanes, and
>>>often no sidewalks. Despite speed limits of 35 MPH, traffic moves
>>>at the same 40-50 MPH because that's what drivers feel comfortable
>>>with on arterial roads with few intersections, cross streets, or
>>>driveways. This is a disaster for cyclists (not to mention
>>>pedestrians).

>
>
>>I ride everyday on such a 5 lane road. My presence as a bicyclist
>>slows motorists and they move over, many changing lanes.

>
>
> You DELETED what Matt wrote before that: "The bike lanes I saw today all
> over east Irvine, CA (Irvine Spectrum
> Area), looked pretty good to me -- especially compared to the disaster of
> northern VA, which in every other way is just like Irvine (type of
> development and overall layout, demographics, etc.)."
>
> /Good/ bike lanes work great and are hugely beneficial. Deleting people's
> positive experiences and opinions of them doesn't change that.
>
> Bill "nice try though" S.
>
>


Stalking Ignoramus,

Didn't I ask you to stop stalking me? Can't resist though, can you?

Wayne
 
Bill Sornson wrote:

> You DELETED what Matt wrote before that: "The bike lanes I saw today all
> over east Irvine, CA (Irvine Spectrum
> Area), looked pretty good to me -- especially compared to the disaster of
> northern VA, which in every other way is just like Irvine (type of
> development and overall layout, demographics, etc.)."
>
> /Good/ bike lanes work great and are hugely beneficial. Deleting people's
> positive experiences and opinions of them doesn't change that.
>
> Bill "nice try though" S.


Stalking Ignoramus,

I responded to another part of his post and added a couple of links to
further the conversation. You, in contrast, typically add nothing, as in
your response above, choosing instead to stalk me and offer nothing but
inane blather.

Wayne
 
Peni's Paranoia World:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Pein's World o' Paranoia wrote:
>>> Matt O'Toole wrote (in part):



>>>> In contrast, NoVA has
>>>> 4 and 6 lane arterials with 12' outer lanes, no bike lanes, and
>>>> often no sidewalks. Despite speed limits of 35 MPH, traffic moves
>>>> at the same 40-50 MPH because that's what drivers feel comfortable
>>>> with on arterial roads with few intersections, cross streets, or
>>>> driveways. This is a disaster for cyclists (not to mention
>>>> pedestrians).



>>> I ride everyday on such a 5 lane road. My presence as a bicyclist
>>> slows motorists and they move over, many changing lanes.



>> You DELETED what Matt wrote before that: "The bike lanes I saw
>> today all over east Irvine, CA (Irvine Spectrum
>> Area), looked pretty good to me -- especially compared to the
>> disaster of northern VA, which in every other way is just like
>> Irvine (type of development and overall layout, demographics, etc.)."
>>
>> /Good/ bike lanes work great and are hugely beneficial. Deleting
>> people's positive experiences and opinions of them doesn't change
>> that. Bill "nice try though" S.



> Stalking Ignoramus,
>
> Didn't I ask you to stop stalking me? Can't resist though, can you?



Let's get this straight. You delete that which refutes your paranoid
position, leaving only something out of context that /seems/ to conform to
your distorted view.

I point this out, and reiterate what every experienced road cyclist knows:
good bike lanes are effective and beneficial; bad ones aren't.

Summary: you'd prefer that your "presence as a bicyclist slows motorists
and they move over, many changing lanes" to having a smooth, wide, dedicated
space available solely for cyclists. One can only conclude that (wait for
it)...YOU'RE AN AGENDA-DRIVEN (so to speak) NUT!

HTH

Bill "if you can't stand opposing views then plonk me" S.