G
George Farnsworth
Guest
BBC shows a great set of pics of stupid bike lanes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4794198.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4794198.stm
P
Paul Hobson
Guest
George Farnsworth wrote:
> BBC shows a great set of pics of stupid bike lanes.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4794198.stm
>
>
That's why I ride on the street where vehicles belong and are safe!
This ain't so bad either:
<http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/>
\\paul
> BBC shows a great set of pics of stupid bike lanes.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4794198.stm
>
>
That's why I ride on the street where vehicles belong and are safe!
This ain't so bad either:
<http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/>
\\paul
D
DaWei
Guest
You know, it's a shame... if it wasn't for that idiotically-located
phone booth, it looks like they got the most important thing right- a
well-maintained bike path adjacent to the street. I'm guessing that
whoever came up with the blueprint didn't have that booth in mind;
that's presumably the product of someone else's genius, although I
could be wrong...
phone booth, it looks like they got the most important thing right- a
well-maintained bike path adjacent to the street. I'm guessing that
whoever came up with the blueprint didn't have that booth in mind;
that's presumably the product of someone else's genius, although I
could be wrong...
C
cycledogg
Guest
DaWei wrote:
> You know, it's a shame... if it wasn't for that idiotically-located
> phone booth, it looks like they got the most important thing right- a
> well-maintained bike path adjacent to the street. I'm guessing that
> whoever came up with the blueprint didn't have that booth in mind;
> that's presumably the product of someone else's genius, although I
> could be wrong...
I am guessing they didn't want to spend the money to dig the phone
lines and move the booth when the lane was installed. ??
> You know, it's a shame... if it wasn't for that idiotically-located
> phone booth, it looks like they got the most important thing right- a
> well-maintained bike path adjacent to the street. I'm guessing that
> whoever came up with the blueprint didn't have that booth in mind;
> that's presumably the product of someone else's genius, although I
> could be wrong...
I am guessing they didn't want to spend the money to dig the phone
lines and move the booth when the lane was installed. ??
M
Matt O'Toole
Guest
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:25:56 -0800, DaWei wrote:
> You know, it's a shame... if it wasn't for that idiotically-located
> phone booth, it looks like they got the most important thing right- a
> well-maintained bike path adjacent to the street. I'm guessing that
> whoever came up with the blueprint didn't have that booth in mind;
> that's presumably the product of someone else's genius, although I could
> be wrong...
Why do you think this is a good design (absent the phone booth of course)?
It's horrible, with or without the phone booth.
Such paths put bikes where drivers don't expect them to be -- crossing
driveways, or worse, off to the side at intersections. Cyclists on such
paths can't see cars coming either. This is far more dangerous than
having bikes in the street, where they belong.
Matt O.
> You know, it's a shame... if it wasn't for that idiotically-located
> phone booth, it looks like they got the most important thing right- a
> well-maintained bike path adjacent to the street. I'm guessing that
> whoever came up with the blueprint didn't have that booth in mind;
> that's presumably the product of someone else's genius, although I could
> be wrong...
Why do you think this is a good design (absent the phone booth of course)?
It's horrible, with or without the phone booth.
Such paths put bikes where drivers don't expect them to be -- crossing
driveways, or worse, off to the side at intersections. Cyclists on such
paths can't see cars coming either. This is far more dangerous than
having bikes in the street, where they belong.
Matt O.
T
George Farnsworth wrote:
> BBC shows a great set of pics of stupid bike lanes.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4794198.stm
Somewhere I read (I think it was Chain Reaction's website) of a bike
lane in the SF bay area. It went half way across one of the bay
bridges and stopped!!! That is more boneheaded than any of the bike
lanes on the BBC web site.
To be fair, I later heard that the bike lane was completed.
Tom
> BBC shows a great set of pics of stupid bike lanes.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4794198.stm
Somewhere I read (I think it was Chain Reaction's website) of a bike
lane in the SF bay area. It went half way across one of the bay
bridges and stopped!!! That is more boneheaded than any of the bike
lanes on the BBC web site.
To be fair, I later heard that the bike lane was completed.
Tom
C
C A III A
Guest
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> George Farnsworth wrote:
>> BBC shows a great set of pics of stupid bike lanes.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4794198.stm
>
> Somewhere I read (I think it was Chain Reaction's website) of a bike
> lane in the SF bay area. It went half way across one of the bay
> bridges and stopped!!! That is more boneheaded than any of the bike
> lanes on the BBC web site.
>
> To be fair, I later heard that the bike lane was completed.
>
> Tom
I thought the other half was on the other side of the bridge?
news:[email protected]...
>
> George Farnsworth wrote:
>> BBC shows a great set of pics of stupid bike lanes.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4794198.stm
>
> Somewhere I read (I think it was Chain Reaction's website) of a bike
> lane in the SF bay area. It went half way across one of the bay
> bridges and stopped!!! That is more boneheaded than any of the bike
> lanes on the BBC web site.
>
> To be fair, I later heard that the bike lane was completed.
>
> Tom
I thought the other half was on the other side of the bridge?
M
Michael Warner
Guest
On 21 Mar 2006 18:09:56 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> Somewhere I read (I think it was Chain Reaction's website) of a bike
> lane in the SF bay area. It went half way across one of the bay
> bridges and stopped!!! That is more boneheaded than any of the bike
> lanes on the BBC web site.
That sounds like a disagreement between councils (which are usually
divided by waterways) about whether the lane should be there.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
> Somewhere I read (I think it was Chain Reaction's website) of a bike
> lane in the SF bay area. It went half way across one of the bay
> bridges and stopped!!! That is more boneheaded than any of the bike
> lanes on the BBC web site.
That sounds like a disagreement between councils (which are usually
divided by waterways) about whether the lane should be there.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
D
Dave Larrington
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
DaWei ([email protected]) wrote:
> You know, it's a shame... if it wasn't for that idiotically-located
> phone booth, it looks like they got the most important thing right- a
> well-maintained bike path adjacent to the street. I'm guessing that
> whoever came up with the blueprint didn't have that booth in mind;
> that's presumably the product of someone else's genius, although I
> could be wrong...
s/well-maintained/brand-new/
I expect that a week after the phone box was moved it'll be full of
broken glass and pedestrians, just like 99% of its kin.
I am at a loss to understand how, if pavement (sidewalk) cycling is a
Bad Thing - and we know it is because Politicians, The Media and
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells tell us it is so on a daily basis - the
application of a few bits of white paint magically convert it into a
Good Thing. The Mgt tells us it is so.
And I conclude that it is because The Mgt are completely lacking in
Clue.
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
While you were out at the Rollright Stones, I came and set fire to your
Shed.
DaWei ([email protected]) wrote:
> You know, it's a shame... if it wasn't for that idiotically-located
> phone booth, it looks like they got the most important thing right- a
> well-maintained bike path adjacent to the street. I'm guessing that
> whoever came up with the blueprint didn't have that booth in mind;
> that's presumably the product of someone else's genius, although I
> could be wrong...
s/well-maintained/brand-new/
I expect that a week after the phone box was moved it'll be full of
broken glass and pedestrians, just like 99% of its kin.
I am at a loss to understand how, if pavement (sidewalk) cycling is a
Bad Thing - and we know it is because Politicians, The Media and
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells tell us it is so on a daily basis - the
application of a few bits of white paint magically convert it into a
Good Thing. The Mgt tells us it is so.
And I conclude that it is because The Mgt are completely lacking in
Clue.
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
While you were out at the Rollright Stones, I came and set fire to your
Shed.
D
DaWei
Guest
Well, my impression based on the photo was that it was more of a
park-like setting than a residential area with driveways and so forth.
But then I only looked at the picture for a couple seconds, and of
course I have no idea what the rest of the path looks like. As for
being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
park-like setting than a residential area with driveways and so forth.
But then I only looked at the picture for a couple seconds, and of
course I have no idea what the rest of the path looks like. As for
being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
J
Jeremy Parker
Guest
"DaWei" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You know, it's a shame... if it wasn't for that idiotically-located
> phone booth, it looks like they got the most important thing right-
a
> well-maintained bike path adjacent to the street.
I live fairly near that site. Yesterday I was cycling with the
person who took the photo, although in a different location. The
phone booth in the picture has now gone. However, what you can't
see is that to the right is a row of shops, oriented to pedestrian
traffic. Is it really a good idea to route bikes on the sidewalk,
past all the front doors where people go in and out of those shops.
Fortunately it is not yet illegal in this country to avoid bike
facilities.
>I'm guessing that
> whoever came up with the blueprint didn't have that booth in mind;
> that's presumably the product of someone else's genius, although I
> could be wrong...
Well, never assume malice where stupidity is enough, I suppose, and
never assume stupidity where ignorance is enough.
Jeremy Parker
news:[email protected]...
> You know, it's a shame... if it wasn't for that idiotically-located
> phone booth, it looks like they got the most important thing right-
a
> well-maintained bike path adjacent to the street.
I live fairly near that site. Yesterday I was cycling with the
person who took the photo, although in a different location. The
phone booth in the picture has now gone. However, what you can't
see is that to the right is a row of shops, oriented to pedestrian
traffic. Is it really a good idea to route bikes on the sidewalk,
past all the front doors where people go in and out of those shops.
Fortunately it is not yet illegal in this country to avoid bike
facilities.
>I'm guessing that
> whoever came up with the blueprint didn't have that booth in mind;
> that's presumably the product of someone else's genius, although I
> could be wrong...
Well, never assume malice where stupidity is enough, I suppose, and
never assume stupidity where ignorance is enough.
Jeremy Parker
D
Dave Larrington
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
DaWei ([email protected]) wrote:
> Well, my impression based on the photo was that it was more of a
> park-like setting than a residential area with driveways and so forth.
> But then I only looked at the picture for a couple seconds, and of
> course I have no idea what the rest of the path looks like. As for
> being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
> entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
> behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
Coz this will reinforce the opinion, already common among the Great
Unwashed, that bicycles do not belong on the road, and THEN where would
we be?
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Historians' Right To Work Campaign - We Demand A Continuing Supply Of
History!
DaWei ([email protected]) wrote:
> Well, my impression based on the photo was that it was more of a
> park-like setting than a residential area with driveways and so forth.
> But then I only looked at the picture for a couple seconds, and of
> course I have no idea what the rest of the path looks like. As for
> being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
> entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
> behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
Coz this will reinforce the opinion, already common among the Great
Unwashed, that bicycles do not belong on the road, and THEN where would
we be?
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Historians' Right To Work Campaign - We Demand A Continuing Supply Of
History!
P
Paul Hobson
Guest
DaWei wrote:
> As for
> being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
> entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
> behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
>
The main problem with segregating cyclists from the rest of traffic
arises when, for whatever reason*, the cyclist has to integrate back
into his/her normal position among the cars. That is when drivers get
angry, surprised, annoyed, whatever. That is when the unexpected
happens, which can lead to accidents.
* bike lane ends, conditions are bad, must turn left (right in UK),
whatever.
\\paul
> As for
> being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
> entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
> behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
>
The main problem with segregating cyclists from the rest of traffic
arises when, for whatever reason*, the cyclist has to integrate back
into his/her normal position among the cars. That is when drivers get
angry, surprised, annoyed, whatever. That is when the unexpected
happens, which can lead to accidents.
* bike lane ends, conditions are bad, must turn left (right in UK),
whatever.
\\paul
M
Matt O'Toole
Guest
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:28:34 -0800, DaWei wrote:
> Well, my impression based on the photo was that it was more of a
> park-like setting than a residential area with driveways and so forth.
> But then I only looked at the picture for a couple seconds, and of
> course I have no idea what the rest of the path looks like. As for being
> on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are entitled to
> use them, why is having to contend with drivers right behind you and
> right next to you preferable to a bike path?
No.
First, the kind of accident novices fear while cycling on the street --
being hit from behind -- is vanishingly rare. So you're not really
"contending" with anyone.
Second, driveways *are* a major hazard. Seasoned cyclists know this from
experience, but statistics back it up. Sight lines are poor -- you can't
see cars pulling out (or in) until it's too late, and they can't see you
either.
Non-standard intersections are a major source of accidents too. Drivers
are not looking anywhere but the main flow of traffic. If you're off to
the side you're invisible.
Whatever you may think, read, or hear about John Forester, his book
"Effective Cycling" covers these matters well. I recommend reading
it, at least the parts about cycling in traffic. Almost every library has
a copy. You'll get a better explanation than I can give in a few
paragraphs here.
Matt O.
> Well, my impression based on the photo was that it was more of a
> park-like setting than a residential area with driveways and so forth.
> But then I only looked at the picture for a couple seconds, and of
> course I have no idea what the rest of the path looks like. As for being
> on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are entitled to
> use them, why is having to contend with drivers right behind you and
> right next to you preferable to a bike path?
No.
First, the kind of accident novices fear while cycling on the street --
being hit from behind -- is vanishingly rare. So you're not really
"contending" with anyone.
Second, driveways *are* a major hazard. Seasoned cyclists know this from
experience, but statistics back it up. Sight lines are poor -- you can't
see cars pulling out (or in) until it's too late, and they can't see you
either.
Non-standard intersections are a major source of accidents too. Drivers
are not looking anywhere but the main flow of traffic. If you're off to
the side you're invisible.
Whatever you may think, read, or hear about John Forester, his book
"Effective Cycling" covers these matters well. I recommend reading
it, at least the parts about cycling in traffic. Almost every library has
a copy. You'll get a better explanation than I can give in a few
paragraphs here.
Matt O.
D
Drew Eckhardt
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
DaWei <[email protected]> wrote:
>As for
>being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
>entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
>behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
Because drivers do a better job watching for things that might damage
their car (road debris, pedestrians, cyclists) on the road than they
do traffic moving at faster than walking speed on parallel bike paths,
especially when that traffic is coming towards them.
The only time I've been hit by a car was by a turning driver while I
was crossing a road between pieces of bike path.
Drivers rarely pull out and block a traffic lane in the road but have
no way NOT to block a bike path crossing the road if they want to look
at traffic.
--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
In 1913 the inflation adjusted (in 2003 dollars) exemption for single people
was $54,567, married couples' exemption $72,756, the next $363,783 was taxed
at 1%, and earnings over $9,094,578 were taxed at the top rate of 7%.
DaWei <[email protected]> wrote:
>As for
>being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
>entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
>behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
Because drivers do a better job watching for things that might damage
their car (road debris, pedestrians, cyclists) on the road than they
do traffic moving at faster than walking speed on parallel bike paths,
especially when that traffic is coming towards them.
The only time I've been hit by a car was by a turning driver while I
was crossing a road between pieces of bike path.
Drivers rarely pull out and block a traffic lane in the road but have
no way NOT to block a bike path crossing the road if they want to look
at traffic.
--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
In 1913 the inflation adjusted (in 2003 dollars) exemption for single people
was $54,567, married couples' exemption $72,756, the next $363,783 was taxed
at 1%, and earnings over $9,094,578 were taxed at the top rate of 7%.
S
Stephen Harding
Guest
Dave Larrington wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DaWei ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>>Well, my impression based on the photo was that it was more of a
>>park-like setting than a residential area with driveways and so forth.
>>But then I only looked at the picture for a couple seconds, and of
>>course I have no idea what the rest of the path looks like. As for
>>being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
>>entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
>>behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
>
> Coz this will reinforce the opinion, already common among the Great
> Unwashed, that bicycles do not belong on the road, and THEN where would
> we be?
I just wonder how much of a factor this truly is?
There are motor vehicle drivers that don't believe bicyclists belong
on the streets, or almost equivalently, don't believe they're
required to share the road with a mere bicycle.
They feel that way with or without bike lanes.
If putting a line on a road reinforces some misinformed motor
vehicle operator's belief that bikes belong in road lanes or not
on the road at all, it's still an incorrect belief.
While a generally believe the driving public (at least in my
pedaling grounds) is quite tolerant of bicyclists on "their"
roads, it is not infrequent that I get passed by seemingly mere
fractions of a millimeter by a motorist who, despite having room
to move over, or even enter part of the other traffic lane due to
no oncoming traffic, will still decline to do so.
This happens on roads with bike lanes, no shoulder markings,
narrow shoulder markings and broad markings. Doesn't matter.
If it will get more bicyclists riding the road (where you actually
travel somewhere as opposed to recreational riding away from
interaction with motor traffic), so much the better I say.
SMH
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DaWei ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>>Well, my impression based on the photo was that it was more of a
>>park-like setting than a residential area with driveways and so forth.
>>But then I only looked at the picture for a couple seconds, and of
>>course I have no idea what the rest of the path looks like. As for
>>being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
>>entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
>>behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
>
> Coz this will reinforce the opinion, already common among the Great
> Unwashed, that bicycles do not belong on the road, and THEN where would
> we be?
I just wonder how much of a factor this truly is?
There are motor vehicle drivers that don't believe bicyclists belong
on the streets, or almost equivalently, don't believe they're
required to share the road with a mere bicycle.
They feel that way with or without bike lanes.
If putting a line on a road reinforces some misinformed motor
vehicle operator's belief that bikes belong in road lanes or not
on the road at all, it's still an incorrect belief.
While a generally believe the driving public (at least in my
pedaling grounds) is quite tolerant of bicyclists on "their"
roads, it is not infrequent that I get passed by seemingly mere
fractions of a millimeter by a motorist who, despite having room
to move over, or even enter part of the other traffic lane due to
no oncoming traffic, will still decline to do so.
This happens on roads with bike lanes, no shoulder markings,
narrow shoulder markings and broad markings. Doesn't matter.
If it will get more bicyclists riding the road (where you actually
travel somewhere as opposed to recreational riding away from
interaction with motor traffic), so much the better I say.
SMH
T
Tom Keats
Guest
In article <F9wVf.1691$Po1.1315@trndny01>,
Stephen Harding <[email protected]> writes:
> While a generally believe the driving public (at least in my
> pedaling grounds) is quite tolerant of bicyclists on "their"
> roads, it is not infrequent that I get passed by seemingly mere
> fractions of a millimeter by a motorist who, despite having room
> to move over, or even enter part of the other traffic lane due to
> no oncoming traffic, will still decline to do so.
I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of those are new/learning
drivers. Y'know, how they concentrate so much on maintaining a
straight line and staying between the lane lines, because that's
been drilled into them.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Stephen Harding <[email protected]> writes:
> While a generally believe the driving public (at least in my
> pedaling grounds) is quite tolerant of bicyclists on "their"
> roads, it is not infrequent that I get passed by seemingly mere
> fractions of a millimeter by a motorist who, despite having room
> to move over, or even enter part of the other traffic lane due to
> no oncoming traffic, will still decline to do so.
I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of those are new/learning
drivers. Y'know, how they concentrate so much on maintaining a
straight line and staying between the lane lines, because that's
been drilled into them.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
W
Wayne Pein
Guest
Stephen Harding wrote:
> Dave Larrington wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> DaWei ([email protected]) wrote:
>>
>>> Well, my impression based on the photo was that it was more of a
>>> park-like setting than a residential area with driveways and so forth.
>>> But then I only looked at the picture for a couple seconds, and of
>>> course I have no idea what the rest of the path looks like. As for
>>> being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
>>> entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
>>> behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
>>
>>
>> Coz this will reinforce the opinion, already common among the Great
>> Unwashed, that bicycles do not belong on the road, and THEN where
>> would we be?
>
>
> I just wonder how much of a factor this truly is?
>
> There are motor vehicle drivers that don't believe bicyclists belong
> on the streets, or almost equivalently, don't believe they're
> required to share the road with a mere bicycle.
>
> They feel that way with or without bike lanes.
>
> If putting a line on a road reinforces some misinformed motor
> vehicle operator's belief that bikes belong in road lanes or not
> on the road at all, it's still an incorrect belief.
>
> While a generally believe the driving public (at least in my
> pedaling grounds) is quite tolerant of bicyclists on "their"
> roads, it is not infrequent that I get passed by seemingly mere
> fractions of a millimeter by a motorist who, despite having room
> to move over, or even enter part of the other traffic lane due to
> no oncoming traffic, will still decline to do so.
>
> This happens on roads with bike lanes, no shoulder markings,
> narrow shoulder markings and broad markings. Doesn't matter.
>
> If it will get more bicyclists riding the road (where you actually
> travel somewhere as opposed to recreational riding away from
> interaction with motor traffic), so much the better I say.
>
Why reinforce an incorrect belief?
Why should all bicyclists' space be reduced by a bike lane stripe to the
worst part of the road while easier/faster overtaking for motorists is
enabled/encouraged at the best part of the road?
You seem to want to dupe unwary people to ride a bike on the road even
if it gives up our rights to the full use of the lane/road. Without the
bike lane stripe, it would be a very wide lane. Can't these people ride
under that condition?
Wayne
> Dave Larrington wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> DaWei ([email protected]) wrote:
>>
>>> Well, my impression based on the photo was that it was more of a
>>> park-like setting than a residential area with driveways and so forth.
>>> But then I only looked at the picture for a couple seconds, and of
>>> course I have no idea what the rest of the path looks like. As for
>>> being on the street, while I definitely agree that bicyclists are
>>> entitled to use them, why is having to contend with drivers right
>>> behind you and right next to you preferable to a bike path?
>>
>>
>> Coz this will reinforce the opinion, already common among the Great
>> Unwashed, that bicycles do not belong on the road, and THEN where
>> would we be?
>
>
> I just wonder how much of a factor this truly is?
>
> There are motor vehicle drivers that don't believe bicyclists belong
> on the streets, or almost equivalently, don't believe they're
> required to share the road with a mere bicycle.
>
> They feel that way with or without bike lanes.
>
> If putting a line on a road reinforces some misinformed motor
> vehicle operator's belief that bikes belong in road lanes or not
> on the road at all, it's still an incorrect belief.
>
> While a generally believe the driving public (at least in my
> pedaling grounds) is quite tolerant of bicyclists on "their"
> roads, it is not infrequent that I get passed by seemingly mere
> fractions of a millimeter by a motorist who, despite having room
> to move over, or even enter part of the other traffic lane due to
> no oncoming traffic, will still decline to do so.
>
> This happens on roads with bike lanes, no shoulder markings,
> narrow shoulder markings and broad markings. Doesn't matter.
>
> If it will get more bicyclists riding the road (where you actually
> travel somewhere as opposed to recreational riding away from
> interaction with motor traffic), so much the better I say.
>
Why reinforce an incorrect belief?
Why should all bicyclists' space be reduced by a bike lane stripe to the
worst part of the road while easier/faster overtaking for motorists is
enabled/encouraged at the best part of the road?
You seem to want to dupe unwary people to ride a bike on the road even
if it gives up our rights to the full use of the lane/road. Without the
bike lane stripe, it would be a very wide lane. Can't these people ride
under that condition?
Wayne
S
Stephen Harding
Guest
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>> I just wonder how much of a factor this truly is?
>>
>> There are motor vehicle drivers that don't believe bicyclists belong
>> on the streets, or almost equivalently, don't believe they're
>> required to share the road with a mere bicycle.
>>
>> They feel that way with or without bike lanes.
>>
>> If putting a line on a road reinforces some misinformed motor
>> vehicle operator's belief that bikes belong in road lanes or not
>> on the road at all, it's still an incorrect belief.
>>
>> While a generally believe the driving public (at least in my
>> pedaling grounds) is quite tolerant of bicyclists on "their"
>> roads, it is not infrequent that I get passed by seemingly mere
>> fractions of a millimeter by a motorist who, despite having room
>> to move over, or even enter part of the other traffic lane due to
>> no oncoming traffic, will still decline to do so.
>>
>> This happens on roads with bike lanes, no shoulder markings,
>> narrow shoulder markings and broad markings. Doesn't matter.
>>
>> If it will get more bicyclists riding the road (where you actually
>> travel somewhere as opposed to recreational riding away from
>> interaction with motor traffic), so much the better I say.
>
> Why reinforce an incorrect belief?
I guess there have been studies that show at least some motorists
believe that a bike should only be in the lane if a bike lane is
present, but my experience is that the vast majority of motorists
are quite reasonable about sharing the road with a person on a bike.
Doesn't matter whether there's a marked lane or not.
> Why should all bicyclists' space be reduced by a bike lane stripe to the
> worst part of the road while easier/faster overtaking for motorists is
> enabled/encouraged at the best part of the road?
>
> You seem to want to dupe unwary people to ride a bike on the road even
> if it gives up our rights to the full use of the lane/road. Without the
> bike lane stripe, it would be a very wide lane. Can't these people ride
> under that condition?
Perhaps if more people pedaled the roads, offending motorists
would come to understand bicycles *really are* road vehicles?
I've seen bicyclists riding way out in the lane, as if on a
motorcycle, cars backing up behind them, apparently attempting
to "make a point" about what their rights are. Critical Mass
types do that in some locations, just to make a point.
You don't need bike lanes or bike paths to ride the road. Just
ride! But having them there shouldn't be interpreted as somehow
undermining bike road use by "duping" riders into giving up
their rights. How is riding the road giving up your rights?
There are good bike lanes and bad ones. I find most of the bike
lanes I ride are pretty much where I would ride whether they
were there or not. They don't channel me over to parts of the
road that are "unrideable".
If there is no bike lane, or the shoulder is unacceptably narrow,
I "take the lane". Some motorists (kids primarily) get annoyed
at being "delayed" by a mere bicycle, but most handle the situation
without any problem whatsoever.
No one needs to be duped. No one needs to exercise their rights
to make points.
SMH
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>> I just wonder how much of a factor this truly is?
>>
>> There are motor vehicle drivers that don't believe bicyclists belong
>> on the streets, or almost equivalently, don't believe they're
>> required to share the road with a mere bicycle.
>>
>> They feel that way with or without bike lanes.
>>
>> If putting a line on a road reinforces some misinformed motor
>> vehicle operator's belief that bikes belong in road lanes or not
>> on the road at all, it's still an incorrect belief.
>>
>> While a generally believe the driving public (at least in my
>> pedaling grounds) is quite tolerant of bicyclists on "their"
>> roads, it is not infrequent that I get passed by seemingly mere
>> fractions of a millimeter by a motorist who, despite having room
>> to move over, or even enter part of the other traffic lane due to
>> no oncoming traffic, will still decline to do so.
>>
>> This happens on roads with bike lanes, no shoulder markings,
>> narrow shoulder markings and broad markings. Doesn't matter.
>>
>> If it will get more bicyclists riding the road (where you actually
>> travel somewhere as opposed to recreational riding away from
>> interaction with motor traffic), so much the better I say.
>
> Why reinforce an incorrect belief?
I guess there have been studies that show at least some motorists
believe that a bike should only be in the lane if a bike lane is
present, but my experience is that the vast majority of motorists
are quite reasonable about sharing the road with a person on a bike.
Doesn't matter whether there's a marked lane or not.
> Why should all bicyclists' space be reduced by a bike lane stripe to the
> worst part of the road while easier/faster overtaking for motorists is
> enabled/encouraged at the best part of the road?
>
> You seem to want to dupe unwary people to ride a bike on the road even
> if it gives up our rights to the full use of the lane/road. Without the
> bike lane stripe, it would be a very wide lane. Can't these people ride
> under that condition?
Perhaps if more people pedaled the roads, offending motorists
would come to understand bicycles *really are* road vehicles?
I've seen bicyclists riding way out in the lane, as if on a
motorcycle, cars backing up behind them, apparently attempting
to "make a point" about what their rights are. Critical Mass
types do that in some locations, just to make a point.
You don't need bike lanes or bike paths to ride the road. Just
ride! But having them there shouldn't be interpreted as somehow
undermining bike road use by "duping" riders into giving up
their rights. How is riding the road giving up your rights?
There are good bike lanes and bad ones. I find most of the bike
lanes I ride are pretty much where I would ride whether they
were there or not. They don't channel me over to parts of the
road that are "unrideable".
If there is no bike lane, or the shoulder is unacceptably narrow,
I "take the lane". Some motorists (kids primarily) get annoyed
at being "delayed" by a mere bicycle, but most handle the situation
without any problem whatsoever.
No one needs to be duped. No one needs to exercise their rights
to make points.
SMH
W
Wayne Pein
Guest
Stephen Harding wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Why should all bicyclists' space be reduced by a bike lane stripe to
>> the worst part of the road while easier/faster overtaking for
>> motorists is enabled/encouraged at the best part of the road?
>
> >
>
>> You seem to want to dupe unwary people to ride a bike on the road even
>> if it gives up our rights to the full use of the lane/road. Without
>> the bike lane stripe, it would be a very wide lane. Can't these people
>> ride under that condition?
>
>
> Perhaps if more people pedaled the roads, offending motorists
> would come to understand bicycles *really are* road vehicles?
>
> I've seen bicyclists riding way out in the lane, as if on a
> motorcycle, cars backing up behind them, apparently attempting
> to "make a point" about what their rights are. Critical Mass
> types do that in some locations, just to make a point.
Critical Mass is not relavent to this topic.
>
> You don't need bike lanes or bike paths to ride the road. Just
> ride! But having them there shouldn't be interpreted as somehow
> undermining bike road use by "duping" riders into giving up
> their rights. How is riding the road giving up your rights?
Road riding doesn't give up rights: it exercises them. Bike lanes result
in reduced rights. Since most bike lanes carry the baggage of being
explicitly mandatory, it is pretty clear bicyclists have less right to
use the standard lane. Even if a specific bike lane law doesn't exist,
motorists act as if one does. Try riding outside the bike lane!
>
> There are good bike lanes and bad ones. I find most of the bike
> lanes I ride are pretty much where I would ride whether they
> were there or not. They don't channel me over to parts of the
> road that are "unrideable".
If there were no bike lane stripes, then there couldn't be bad ones.
You doesn't answer the question of why stripe the bike lane? Why not
simply leave the standard lane wide?
Wayne
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Why should all bicyclists' space be reduced by a bike lane stripe to
>> the worst part of the road while easier/faster overtaking for
>> motorists is enabled/encouraged at the best part of the road?
>
> >
>
>> You seem to want to dupe unwary people to ride a bike on the road even
>> if it gives up our rights to the full use of the lane/road. Without
>> the bike lane stripe, it would be a very wide lane. Can't these people
>> ride under that condition?
>
>
> Perhaps if more people pedaled the roads, offending motorists
> would come to understand bicycles *really are* road vehicles?
>
> I've seen bicyclists riding way out in the lane, as if on a
> motorcycle, cars backing up behind them, apparently attempting
> to "make a point" about what their rights are. Critical Mass
> types do that in some locations, just to make a point.
Critical Mass is not relavent to this topic.
>
> You don't need bike lanes or bike paths to ride the road. Just
> ride! But having them there shouldn't be interpreted as somehow
> undermining bike road use by "duping" riders into giving up
> their rights. How is riding the road giving up your rights?
Road riding doesn't give up rights: it exercises them. Bike lanes result
in reduced rights. Since most bike lanes carry the baggage of being
explicitly mandatory, it is pretty clear bicyclists have less right to
use the standard lane. Even if a specific bike lane law doesn't exist,
motorists act as if one does. Try riding outside the bike lane!
>
> There are good bike lanes and bad ones. I find most of the bike
> lanes I ride are pretty much where I would ride whether they
> were there or not. They don't channel me over to parts of the
> road that are "unrideable".
If there were no bike lane stripes, then there couldn't be bad ones.
You doesn't answer the question of why stripe the bike lane? Why not
simply leave the standard lane wide?
Wayne
Similar threads
