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



John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:

> On 15 Aug 2007 09:20:11 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
>
> >One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed
> >up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan,
> >and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack
> >parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from
> >that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too
> >close to the gutter pan.
>
> What is a gutter pan?

The concrete area on the side of some roads that allows rainwater
to run to a drain. The asphalt ends where the cutter pan
starts. We have these in our area. When installed, the connection
is flat and smooth. After a decade or so, weathering causes a gap
between the two, parallel to the direction of travel. It's the sort
of thing that can trap a wheel, if not completely, at least enough to
require a quick correction to get out of it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> writes:

> A Muzi wrote:
> >>> [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >>>> One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone
> >>>> messed up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the
> >>>> gutter pan, and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up
> >>>> with a crack parallel to the direction of travel, so you need
> >>>> enough clearance from that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane
> >>>> while not getting too close to the gutter pan.
> >
> >> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> What is a gutter pan?
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
> >
> > The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right?
> > We'd never willingly ride over that **** otherwise. With the logo
> > we're supposed to persevere and be grateful for the indulgence of the
> > Powers That Be deigning to give us Our Own Lane with our own tax
> > dollars??
>
> JFTR I've never seen a bike lane like that around my area. (I think there
> might be a few cases that used to be and have been fixed quite nicely,
> however.)

FYI (I thought I pointed this out but it isn't in the quoted text),
the lane I mentioned was removed shortly after the bike lane stripe
was painted, and re-installed after the problem was fixed (either by
cutting back the gutter pan or by restriping the other lanes so the
bike lane could be put in in accordance with state standards.

We have a few very old bike lanes that are a bit two narrow, being
some of the first installed in California, so they went in before the
design standards existed. These are being fixed over time.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
A Muzi <[email protected]> writes:

> >> [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >>> One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed
> >>> up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan,
> >>> and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack
> >>> parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from
> >>> that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too
> >>> close to the gutter pan.
>
> > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> What is a gutter pan?
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>
> The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right?
> We'd never willingly ride over that **** otherwise. With the logo
> we're supposed to persevere and be grateful for the indulgence of the
> Powers That Be deigning to give us Our Own Lane with our own tax
> dollars??

This is fundamentally a silly statment - the picture shows a bike lane
stripe to the left of a gutter pan. From the picture, I can't tell
the width of the asphault in the bike lane - to meet standards, it
should be 3 feet in width or more. The logo is a standard symbol that
is required every so often. It is not to impress bicyclists - drivers
are supposed to stay out of bike lanes unless turning across them
(in which case they must be within 200 feet of their turn before
merging into the lane, yielding to any bicycles already in the lane).
Similarly there are rules governing bicyclists. So the logo is
there so that you don't have guess what kind of lane it is by
being able to tell a 3 inch shoulder stripe from a 5 inch bike lane
stripe (both solid white stripes) reliably.

There is no requirement that the logo has to be totally on the
asphault.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Per [email protected]:
>Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets
>with no bike lanes?

There's a conflict that I sometimes see with some bike lanes: To
ride far enough away from parked cars to avoid getting doored,
sometimes the cyclist has to encroach on the car lane.

You do that enough and eventually you'll find drivers that
consider you to be out of line - riding in *their* lane instead
of that perfectly good bike lane - and who will harass you
accordingly, sometimes passing with way, way, way too little
room.

A few lessons like that - or even the prospect of same - and
people who aren't doing a lot of deep thinking on the subject
(i.e. most people...) will stay well within the defective bike
lane... and get doored from time-to-time.
--
PeteCresswell
 
On Aug 15, 7:42 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:35:54 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 15 Aug 2007 09:20:11 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >wrote:
>
> >>One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed
> >>up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan,
> >>and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack
> >>parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from
> >>that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too
> >>close to the gutter pan.
>
> >What is a gutter pan?
>
> Dear John,
>
> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fog

Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.
 
[email protected] wrote:

>
> Even if one feels compelled to ride in the bike lane, it doesn't mean
> you have to ride in the door zone, because some portion of the lane is
> outside the DZ. I agree that NO portion of any bike lane should be in
> a door zone (and in places like Seattle and Denver new bike lanes are
> outside of the doorzones in their entirety). It is not a bike lane
> stripe that 'lures' people to ride in the DZ, but ignorance about the
> DZ. This is shown by the simple fact that some people ride in the DZ
> whether there is a 'door zone bike lane' or not.


Bike lanes are marketed as safe havens for those too timid or
unknowledgable to ride on normal roads. If a portion of the bike lane is
indeed outside the door zone, it is the extreme left side of it. These
biyclists are not going to be thinking about riding on the left side of
the bike lane. They are scared of overtaking motor vehicles and are
inclined to ride as far away from motor vehicles as posssible.



>
> If doorings are what concerns you, you should advocate for bike lane
> striping that compels riders to remain outside of the DZ (like the
> striping of new lanes in Seattle and Denver), rather than leave the
> street unstriped and leave unsuspecting novices to their own devices.

Bike lane striping isn't needed to guide the ignorant. Simple "parking
crosses" are sufficient.
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf

Unsuspecting novices shouldn't ride bikes in situations for which they
are ill equipped anymore than unsuspecting motor vehicle drivers should
drive motor vehicles. If you are going to ride in a complex traffic
environment you should be competent.



> So is it really doorings of unsuspecting cyclists that has you
> concerned, Wayne?

I'm concerned about government installed and sanctioned hazards.

Wayne
 
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> goodone wrote:
>
>
> >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>
> > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.
>
> Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane.

Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be
ineptness), that depends on the width of the asphault inside the bike
lane. If it is three feet wide, the lane meets the design standards
and and riding inside the bike lane while staying on the asphault
should be easy for almost anyone.

If it is substandard, the city that installed it is taking a liability
risk if there is an accident (e.g., if someone catches a wheel in the
slot that forms after the surface degrades at the joint between the
asphault and the gutter pan).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Bob Quindazzi wrote:
>
>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed.
>
>Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike lanes, and
>they work great. That's not to say that one should become DEPENDENT on
>them, but they're terrific when done right. (And /some/ roads are downright
>dangerous without them.)
>
>Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, there are
>some.)
>
>BS
>


Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on
cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving
current roads.

I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great
during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools
prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education"
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>goodone wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>>
>>>Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.
>>
>>Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane.
>
>
> Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be
> ineptness), that depends on the width of the asphault inside the bike
> lane. If it is three feet wide, the lane meets the design standards
> and and riding inside the bike lane while staying on the asphault
> should be easy for almost anyone.

Don't try to justify maliciousness with ineptitude. It shows you to be a
bike lane apologist.

Clearly this lane is not 3 ft of asphalt, so your point is irrelevant.

Further, people who know something about bicycling argue that 3 ft of
pavement is substandard, irrespective of the fact that foolish
guidelines say it is fine. It's not merely the ability to stay on
asphalt that is important, as you assert. If that were the case, almost
anyone could ride on 2 ft of pavement.

Wayne
 
Wayne Pein wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> Even if one feels compelled to ride in the bike lane, it doesn't mean
>> you have to ride in the door zone, because some portion of the lane
>> is outside the DZ. I agree that NO portion of any bike lane should
>> be in a door zone (and in places like Seattle and Denver new bike
>> lanes are outside of the doorzones in their entirety). It is not a
>> bike lane stripe that 'lures' people to ride in the DZ, but
>> ignorance about the DZ. This is shown by the simple fact that some
>> people ride in the DZ whether there is a 'door zone bike lane' or
>> not.
>
>
> Bike lanes are marketed

Bzzt. "Marketed"?!? Only in Pein's World.

> ... as safe havens for those too timid or
> unknowledgable to ride on normal roads. If a portion of the bike lane
> is indeed outside the door zone, it is the extreme left side of it.
> These biyclists are not going to be thinking about riding on the left
> side of the bike lane. They are scared of overtaking motor vehicles
> and are inclined to ride as far away from motor vehicles as posssible.

Riders like that are in danger all on their own. On roads without bike
lanes they hug the gutter or ride on sidewalks. Hell, getting comfortable
in traffic via /well designed/ bike lanes is a good way to learn how/where
to ride in general. You own/take the space on the right (or correct) side
of the road to the left of the door zone. If a BL gives a novice a bit more
confidence to learn this, then that's an extra bonus.

Only poorly designed bike lanes are detriments.


>> If doorings are what concerns you, you should advocate for bike lane
>> striping that compels riders to remain outside of the DZ (like the
>> striping of new lanes in Seattle and Denver), rather than leave the
>> street unstriped and leave unsuspecting novices to their own devices.
>
> Bike lane striping isn't needed to guide the ignorant. Simple "parking
> crosses" are sufficient.
> http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf
>
> Unsuspecting novices shouldn't ride bikes in situations for which they
> are ill equipped anymore than unsuspecting motor vehicle drivers
> should drive motor vehicles. If you are going to ride in a complex
> traffic environment you should be competent.
>
>
>
>> So is it really doorings of unsuspecting cyclists that has you
>> concerned, Wayne?
>
> I'm concerned about government installed and sanctioned hazards.

Rare, and usually quickly corrected.

BS
 
"Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.bicycles.misc [email protected] wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 10:47 am, "OughtFour" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure what that was about, but I hope this reporter does a better
>>> job
>>> on bike lanes, which can kill people if done badly. There are some very
>>> bad
>>> ones in Cambridge.
>>
>> 'Can kill people?' I'm no fan of bike lanes, but to call the poorly
>> designed ones deadly is pretty damn silly.
>>
>> Got any examples of bike lanes killing people?
>
> http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm
>
> Classic bike lane as car-door lane fatality.

That was the incident I had in mind. Really awful when it happened.
 
Bob Quindazzi wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Quindazzi wrote:
>>
>>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed.
>>
>> Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike
>> lanes, and they work great. That's not to say that one should
>> become DEPENDENT on them, but they're terrific when done right.
>> (And /some/ roads are downright dangerous without them.)
>>
>> Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes,
>> there are some.)
>>
>> BS
>>
>
>
> Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on
> cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving
> current roads.

Good bike lanes ARE improvements to the roads. Virtually all the bike clubs
around here use routes that feature them, and NOT because they don't know
how to ride roads without them. It's because they're better and safer, all
things considered.

> I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great
> during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools
> prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education"

Wow. Well that sure lends perspective to the issue. ROTFL Nobel Peace
Prize for...WAYNE PEIN! LOL
 
On Aug 16, 8:20 am, Bob Quindazzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Bob Quindazzi wrote:
>
> >> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed.
>
> >Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike lanes, and
> >they work great. That's not to say that one should become DEPENDENT on
> >them, but they're terrific when done right. (And /some/ roads are downright
> >dangerous without them.)
>
> >Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, there are
> >some.)
>
> >BS
>
> Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on
> cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving
> current roads.
>
> I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great
> during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools
> prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education"

Egads! Bike lanes as racist homelands. That clearly wins the RBT
hyperbole award for 2007!

I have bike lanes almost all the way in to work. They are great
compared to the prior set-up which was a narrow and busy traffic lane,
a fog line and no shoulder. The quasi-evil part of bike lanes or
"bike trails" is that under local law, you have to be in them if they
are deemed "safe" (a ticketed cyclist has to prove the lane has not
been deemed safe). There are some dangerous "bike trails" (separate
from traffic) that I never use, and if some cop does not like me
riding in traffic, then I could get busted. -- Jay Beattie.
 
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:48:44 -0700, Jay Beattie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Aug 16, 8:20 am, Bob Quindazzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bob Quindazzi wrote:
>>
>> >> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed.
>>
>> >Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike lanes, and
>> >they work great. That's not to say that one should become DEPENDENT on
>> >them, but they're terrific when done right. (And /some/ roads are downright
>> >dangerous without them.)
>>
>> >Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, there are
>> >some.)
>>
>> >BS
>>
>> Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on
>> cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving
>> current roads.
>>
>> I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great
>> during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools
>> prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education"
>
>Egads! Bike lanes as racist homelands. That clearly wins the RBT
>hyperbole award for 2007!
>
>I have bike lanes almost all the way in to work. They are great
>compared to the prior set-up which was a narrow and busy traffic lane,
>a fog line and no shoulder. The quasi-evil part of bike lanes or
>"bike trails" is that under local law, you have to be in them if they
>are deemed "safe" (a ticketed cyclist has to prove the lane has not
>been deemed safe). There are some dangerous "bike trails" (separate
>from traffic) that I never use, and if some cop does not like me
>riding in traffic, then I could get busted. -- Jay Beattie.


Well Jay, I think you've just proven my point.
 
In article
<[email protected]>
,
Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:

> There are some dangerous "bike trails" (separate
> from traffic) that I never use, and if some cop does not like me
> riding in traffic, then I could get busted.

This is what makes bicycle lanes a bad idea.
The camel's nose is in the tent.

--
Michael Press
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story
Replies
135
Views
4K
Road Cycling
Bill Sornson
B
Acheno84
Bike lanes
Replies
6
Views
1K
Road Cycling
cyclintom
cyclintom
Corzhens
Hazardous Bike Lanes
Replies
26
Views
4K
Commuting and Road Safety
briannagodess
briannagodess
CAMPYBOB
Cleveland Screws Up Bike Lanes
Replies
9
Views
2K
Road Cycling
pwarbi
pwarbi
CoolCat
Reducing Bike Lanes
Replies
5
Views
1K
Commuting and Road Safety
gavinfree
G
hollowbackerdale
Dedicated Bike Lanes Need Or Not?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Commuting and Road Safety
joshposh
joshposh
Gelsemium
Bike Lanes
Replies
18
Views
3K
Next Generation
ambal
ambal
steve
Bike Lanes: Safe Cycling Haven Or 'door Zone Of Death'?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Commuting and Road Safety
adfnio
adfnio
S
Bike Lanes and Sidewalks
Replies
37
Views
5K
Commuting and Road Safety
Grant-53
Grant-53
Daiho
Bike lanes unconstitutional in the US
Replies
13
Views
2K
Bike Cafe
ZXD22
ZXD22
Top Bottom Back