Bike lanes or not?

Every cyclist everywhere should do everything they can to support the creation of more and more bike lanes. They encourage more cycling, a healthier populace, a cleaner environment, easier access for emergency vehicles (with less traffic), etc. There can be no reasonable argument against them.

I'm not in the mood to write my full opinion on this, but I'll give you all a few of my opinion/feelings..

Yes, it would make things safer for cyclists and maybe allow more people to ride, but I do not like the idea of being 'confined' to a lane. I live in a somewhat rural area, and I occasionally ride in the city, so, I do not ride on the most dangerous roads out there, so let me just say that.

Obviously, you are not forced to ride in the lanes, but one of the things I like about cycling is that I can go pretty much wherever I want whenever I want. I don't want cycling to become an activity full of rules and 'designated' areas to ride in.

I could see something like this start to make 'non cyclists' say, "Why are you in the cycling lanes?"

I wrote this briefly, so feel free to critique it, I'm gladly open to people's response to my opinion.

Later

TrekDedicated said:

I'm not in the mood to write my full opinion on this, but I'll give you all a few of my opinion/feelings..

Yes, it would make things safer for cyclists and maybe allow more people to ride, but I do not like the idea of being 'confined' to a lane. I live in a somewhat rural area, and I occasionally ride in the city, so, I do not ride on the most dangerous roads out there, so let me just say that.

Obviously, you are not forced to ride in the lanes, but one of the things I like about cycling is that I can go pretty much wherever I want whenever I want. I don't want cycling to become an activity full of rules and 'designated' areas to ride in.

I could see something like this start to make 'non cyclists' say, "Why are you in the cycling lanes?"

I wrote this briefly, so feel free to critique it, I'm gladly open to people's response to my opinion.

Later

I tend to agree with you, I don't mind bike lanes but I feel just as safe riding on roads without them providing they have adequate width to share the lane. In fact, my biggest concern with bike lanes is that drivers will assume that I "must" stay in my bike lane. This could be paticularly dangerous if I need to make a left turn without an intersection crosswalk. Of course I haven't had any problems riding with bike lanes so I may be just thinking too hard.

TrekDedicated said:

Obviously, you are not forced to ride in the lanes, but one of the things I like about cycling is that I can go pretty much wherever I want whenever I want. I don't want cycling to become an activity full of rules and 'designated' areas to ride in.

While I think there should be support for more bike lanes/paths, what tends to happen on most of the ones I have been on is: they arent long or complete enough for a road cyclist; they arent challenging enough; they tend to get used for other purposes (walking, strollers, rollerbladers, skateboards etc) making it very hard to ride on them anyway. This isnt always the case, but it has been on bike paths I have been on. Maybe bike lanes being attached to the more major roads would remain truly a cycling lane.

Thing is, I tend not to want to ride on the busier of the routes either. I dont care the the constant traffic buzz. Freedom also is a factor. I look for roads sort of less trafficked and, if I have to drive to them to start, so be it. Sometimes I choose to ride for a ways on a busy stretch to get to the better parts of course. Lanes will no doubt help, especially in the case of Florida where cyclists havent many choices, but I'd be happy if simply roads were better maintained and had at least reasonable margins/emergency lanes.

Quoted post said:

There can be no reasonable argument against them.

1. They typically disappear at intersections, the most dangerous place for a cyclist. Just as well, because when present, they either require turning cars to cross the lane or route the cyclist to the right of the right turn lane.
2. Sticking to the bike lanes impedes proper lane usage WRT left turns.
3. Where do busses stop? (hint: in the bike lane.)
4. When there is on-street parking, the bike lane inevitably relegates cyclists to the door zone. 8-foot wide bike lanes just aren't in the budget.
5. By removing the cyclists from the traffic lane, cyclists fade into the motorists' background. Thus it's easier to right-hook a cyclist and claim SMDSY (Sorry mate, didn't see ya!)
6. That painted line does not prevent cars from crossing and hitting cyclists, especially in Florida where even curbs barely slow them down.

In short, bike lanes are put there for the comfort of motorists, not for the safety of bikes. But in spite of the shortcomings, bike lanes are better than separate paths, which are nothing more than repackaged sidewalks. For some reason, novices who don't know any better seem to gravitate toward both.

Bike lanes stink! If I lived in this community, I would much rather share the road with motorists. Then I could look at the "lawns and landscaping" that the homeowners want to preserve. (Think about it--why should they want their homes to be less beautiful?)

Where are your facts? I bet that nobody here can prove that bike lanes are safer than riding in the streets and roads. Bike lanes are more dangerous for cyclists! It isn't that hard to learn how to ride safely in the road. Think about it!

blazingpedals said:

1. They typically disappear at intersections, the most dangerous place for a cyclist. Just as well, because when present, they either require turning cars to cross the lane or route the cyclist to the right of the right turn lane.
2. Sticking to the bike lanes impedes proper lane usage WRT left turns.
3. Where do busses stop? (hint: in the bike lane.)
4. When there is on-street parking, the bike lane inevitably relegates cyclists to the door zone. 8-foot wide bike lanes just aren't in the budget.
5. By removing the cyclists from the traffic lane, cyclists fade into the motorists' background. Thus it's easier to right-hook a cyclist and claim SMDSY (Sorry mate, didn't see ya!) 6. That painted line does not prevent cars from crossing and hitting cyclists, especially in Florida where even curbs barely slow them down.

In short, bike lanes are put there for the comfort of motorists, not for the safety of bikes. But in spite of the shortcomings, bike lanes are better than separate paths, which are nothing more than repackaged sidewalks. For some reason, novices who don't know any better seem to gravitate toward both.

Read the well expressed points above (emphasis mine as I think that's the biggest point cyclist need to consider -- do you really need something else to make you invisible).....bike lanes are a disaster for cyclists and are very dangerous. If someone wants to make roads better for cylists, wide shared lanes are the way to go AND taxpayers of the world unite, they are cheaper to install for the municipalities.

And to the points above, I'd like to add that bike lanes collect all the road debris, broken glass, minor bits of detris that make cycling sooooo much fun. Regular traffic sweeps the stuff into cycling lane and we don't make enough whooosh to move it further. Now how's that for a scientific explanation...whooosh...well, you know what I mean...