The case for physically separated bike lanes

[Wayne Pein]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Can you describe to me how/why "getting to work or the grocery store" in
>>>>a 16'lane is more "drama" than getting there in a narrower Bike
>>>>Reservation?
>>>
>>>Not to you, apparently. ;-)
>>
>>Give it a try. You can use logic and reason or myth and lore. I'll try
>>my best to understand ;-)
>
>
> The best I can do is to present the bike plan for Maricopa County (the
> Arizona county that contains Phoenix and the surrounding sprawl).
> It's the best I've seen anywhere...
>
> http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycle/bikeplan/bikeplan.pdf
>
> What's not to like about that?

It's a rah rah plan for bike reservations, small set asides that reduce
bicyclist operating space and rights. It doesn't even pretend to answer
my question.

Wayne

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 4, 9:18 am, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> >>>Can you describe to me how/why "getting to work or the grocery store" in
> >>>a 16'lane is more "drama" than getting there in a narrower Bike
> >>>Reservation?
>
> >> Not to you, apparently. ;-)
>
> >Give it a try. You can use logic and reason or myth and lore. I'll try
> >my best to understand ;-)
>
> The best I can do is to present the bike plan for Maricopa County (the
> Arizona county that contains Phoenix and the surrounding sprawl).
> It's the best I've seen anywhere...
>
> http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycle/bikeplan/bikeplan.pdf
>
> What's not to like about that?

I'd start with the fact that, around here, it's impossible.

Page 13 shows how to implement the plan on a 130 foot right-of-way, a
"principal arterial road." Except our principal arterials have
typical ROWs closer to, oh, 75 feet.

Sure, that suggested cross section could be modified for a narrower
road - but this illustrates (I hope) that much of the US was built
before Brigham Young commanded wide roads for U-turning ox-carts.
Your solutions aren't necessarily applicable where eastern urban
cyclists ride.

But to me, this next bit is more important. Whenever someone starts
touting the bike lane stripe, I'd like them to concentrate on
explaining the following: If you've got adequate pavement width for,
say, a 12 foot outside lane plus a five foot bike lane, exactly what
benefit does the stripe itself provide? Note, I'm asking only about
the white paint!

On wide lanes without stripes, I have all the clearance and room to
maneuver I could ever want, and cars keep the pavement clear of gravel
and junk. Put the stripe down, and I get gravel and glass and car
parts in the bike lane. I get car drivers who think I shouldn't ever
cross the line, and I get fellow cyclists who think the proper way to
make a left turn is from the right gutter.

Some folks imagine it will protect them from motorists not seeing them
and hitting from behind. But don't we all know those are only about
2% of car-bike crashes? And that they happen mostly out in the
country?

The ONLY stripe benefit I envision is this: Some timid cyclists will
feel more welcome on the road. But IMO, that can be accomplished by
"sharrows," which (I hear) are formally approved in the next MUTCD
document. I prefer that idea.

So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit
of the stripe?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[gds]

On Apr 4, 10:07 am, [email protected] wrote:

> So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit
> of the stripe?
>

To me the benefit of the stripe is that it signals to motorists that
they should not be crossing that solid line and thus (at least in most
cases) helping to create some distance between motorists and cyclists
that may not otherwise be there. This is further reinforced by the use
of some more paint to include in the lane cyclist symbols and/or
wording such as "bike lane."
So, in general I agree with yor argument that if the lane is wide
enough then it is wide enough and functional. But I do think the
stripe adds "some" value.
In southern Arizona where many streets have posted speed limits of 45
mph and actual traffic moves at 50+ even a bit more separation is
welcome.
The strip and accompanying signage also work to prevent (reduce) the
number of folks who park their motor vehicls in what is a bicycle
travel lane. Thus, reducing the need to swing into fast moving motor
traffic.
The negative (to me) is mainly what is mentioned above, if cars don't
drive over it the path will tend to fill with debris.

Personally, I pick my cycling routes based on factors such as traffic,
road width, and the presence of a painted lane as I find it helpfull
(but not crucial).

 

[Wayne Pein]

gds wrote:

> On Apr 4, 10:07 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit
>>of the stripe?
>>
>
>
> To me the benefit of the stripe is that it signals to motorists that
> they should not be crossing that solid line and thus (at least in most
> cases) helping to create some distance between motorists and cyclists
> that may not otherwise be there. This is further reinforced by the use
> of some more paint to include in the lane cyclist symbols and/or
> wording such as "bike lane."

Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without.



> So, in general I agree with yor argument that if the lane is wide
> enough then it is wide enough and functional. But I do think the
> stripe adds "some" value.
> In southern Arizona where many streets have posted speed limits of 45
> mph and actual traffic moves at 50+ even a bit more separation is
> welcome.

Again, it's actually less separation with a bike lane stripe.

> The strip and accompanying signage also work to prevent (reduce) the
> number of folks who park their motor vehicls in what is a bicycle
> travel lane. Thus, reducing the need to swing into fast moving motor
> traffic.

A stripe isn't needed for that. NO PARKING signs do just fine.

Wayne

 

[gds]

On Apr 4, 11:53 am, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

> Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without.

Actually, that is not my experience, at least on the roads where I do
the majority of my cycling.


>
> Again, it's actually less separation with a bike lane stripe.

Again, that is not my experience. I find that stiripe creats somewhat
of a "psychological" barrier for motorists without limiting the
flexibility of cyclists to maneuver around obstacles.

>>
> A stripe isn't needed for that. NO PARKING signs do just fine.

I agree that a stripe isn't needed. But I find it helps.

I also agree that a stripe isn't needed for any of the above. But in
my experience it helps.

We've discussed our differing experiences/perceptions before. I think
that the structure of roads out here in the SW as well as driver
behavior is simply different from what you see in the east. My guess
is that different solutions are better in different places as the
total situation is different.

Gary

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 4 Apr 2007 11:44:09 -0700, "gds" <[email protected]> wrote:

>To me the benefit of the stripe is that it signals to motorists that
>they should not be crossing that solid line and thus (at least in most
>cases) helping to create some distance between motorists and cyclists
>that may not otherwise be there.

Not how it works out. Studies have shown that the line gives the
motorist more comfort in passing closer, not further away.

Anything that creates a bit of uncertainty would increase that
distance and the reverse is true. Motorists give an unsteady bicyclist
that isn't holding their line more room as well. So if you are riding
in a bike lane, be sure to weave a bit, to make the motorist nervous
and uncertain. They might just pull into the other lane...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Wayne Pein]

gds wrote:
> On Apr 4, 11:53 am, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without.
>
>
> Actually, that is not my experience, at least on the roads where I do
> the majority of my cycling.
>
>
>
>>Again, it's actually less separation with a bike lane stripe.
>
>
> Again, that is not my experience. I find that stiripe creats somewhat
> of a "psychological" barrier for motorists without limiting the
> flexibility of cyclists to maneuver around obstacles.
>

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/univncmar96.pdf

is just one study that shows that motorists pass closer when there is a
bike lane stripe. There are others.

FWIW, here is my critique of the above study:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/SharedUse_critique.pdf

Wayne

 

[gds]

On Apr 4, 1:06 pm, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> gds wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 11:53 am, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without.
>
> > Actually, that is not my experience, at least on the roads where I do
> > the majority of my cycling.
>
> >>Again, it's actually less separation with a bike lane stripe.
>
> > Again, that is not my experience. I find that stiripe creats somewhat
> > of a "psychological" barrier for motorists without limiting the
> > flexibility of cyclists to maneuver around obstacles.
>
> http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/univncmar96.pdf
>
> is just one study that shows that motorists pass closer when there is a
> bike lane stripe. There are others.
>
> FWIW, here is my critique of the above study:http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/SharedUse_critiq...
>
> Wayne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for the references!
Given the quality of the study (poor! as you say in your critique) it
really doesn't do much to support the argument either way.
And interestingly (at least to me) it focused more on cyclist behavior
(regarding where in "the lane" they rode) than motorist behavior. My
earlier point was that a stripe tends to discourage motorists from
driving over the line and thus close to cyclists. If cyclists choose
to ride closer to the motorists that is a differnt issue.
My personal observation is that stronger, more confident cyclists tend
to ride further to the left to avoid debris, etc. and are less
concerned with being 1.2' closer to motor vehicles. While less
experienced cyclists tend to ride further to the right to be as far
away from cars as possible.

And your point that most car/cycle accidents involve turning and/or
intersection situations rather than simple overtaking is a good one.
All that said my personal preference is for a painted stripe.

 

[Bill]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> It's all about probability. Check out the bike plan for Maricopa
> County I posted in another reply. It works.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

I read most of it and even found a JFK quote....
"Nothing compares with the simple pleasure of a bike ride."
John F. Kennedy

He had it right, and the document was the best thought out I have seen
yet. We need more of the same.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

gds wrote:
>
> Thanks for the references!
> Given the quality of the study (poor! as you say in your critique) it
> really doesn't do much to support the argument either way.

I read most of it and....
1. At least they did do a study.
2. It isn't that bad and is way better than nothing.

> And interestingly (at least to me) it focused more on cyclist behavior
> (regarding where in "the lane" they rode) than motorist behavior. My
> earlier point was that a stripe tends to discourage motorists from
> driving over the line and thus close to cyclists. If cyclists choose
> to ride closer to the motorists that is a differnt issue.
> My personal observation is that stronger, more confident cyclists tend
> to ride further to the left to avoid debris, etc. and are less
> concerned with being 1.2' closer to motor vehicles.

Could that be more experienced cyclists are more stupid, arrogant, or
what? In town I keep to about 12-14 MPH maximum in the door zone, and I
don't try to "TAKE" the lane even if I am doing 20 MPH since the motor
crowd always wants to do 30 in a 25 zone.

While less
> experienced cyclists tend to ride further to the right to be as far
> away from cars as possible.

I am not "Less experienced" by a long shot and I still stay to the right
and will ride wrong way when there is heavy traffic and a 55-65 MPH
speed limit. Right or wrong, this has saved me from semi-convoys a
number of times.
>
> And your point that most car/cycle accidents involve turning and/or
> intersection situations rather than simple overtaking is a good one.

That's how I got hit a week before Christmas, eye contact and the guy
still started from a stop sign and hit me. I didn't register like a semi
coming his way would have.

> All that said my personal preference is for a painted stripe.
>
You can have it. A stripe is pretty useless to me if there is only an
inch of pavement on the bicycle side of the stripe and then weeds and
stickers.

There's a reason I prefer to ride up into the mountains and ride old
wagon trail roads.....no cars.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bill wrote:

> In town I keep to about 12-14 MPH maximum in the door zone, and
> I don't try to "TAKE" the lane even if I am doing 20 MPH since the
> motor crowd always wants to do 30 in a 25 zone.

Psst, Bill: taking the lane has nothing to do with one's speed. HTH

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> In town I keep to about 12-14 MPH maximum in the door zone, and
>> I don't try to "TAKE" the lane even if I am doing 20 MPH since the
>> motor crowd always wants to do 30 in a 25 zone.
>
> Psst, Bill: taking the lane has nothing to do with one's speed. HTH
>
>
Sure. Try taking the lane at 12 MPH in front of a red neck in a hurry in
a beat up old pickup truck. You risk your life your way, I'll do it my way.
Bill Baka

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill wrote:

> gds wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for the references!
>> Given the quality of the study (poor! as you say in your critique) it
>> really doesn't do much to support the argument either way.
>
>
> I read most of it and....
> 1. At least they did do a study.
> 2. It isn't that bad and is way better than nothing.

The study is not credible for most of it's efforts. It is worse than
nothing because it leads people to believe its specious results and
conclusions. Faulty studies are a drain.

Wayne

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bill wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> In town I keep to about 12-14 MPH maximum in the door zone, and
>>> I don't try to "TAKE" the lane even if I am doing 20 MPH since the
>>> motor crowd always wants to do 30 in a 25 zone.
>>
>> Psst, Bill: taking the lane has nothing to do with one's speed. HTH
>>
>>
> Sure. Try taking the lane at 12 MPH in front of a red neck in a hurry
> in a beat up old pickup truck. You risk your life your way, I'll do it
> my way. Bill Baka

Taking the lane has nothing to do with speed. HTH

 

[Anthony DeLorenzo]

Personally, I always felt that the system of bikeways used in
Vancouver was the best for commuting:

"On the commuter bikeways, bikes share the road with cars on mostly
local/residential streets that are parallel to major arterial streets.
A safe, direct and convenient route with fewer cars, less noise and
better air quality make the bikeways a good choice for cyclists
traveling to school or work. To allow cyclists to activate traffic
signals, push buttons have been installed at the curb at pedestrian/
cyclists signals and bicycle logos have been painted on the roadway
over the most sensitive area at 'loop detected' signals. Traffic
circles, diverters, medians and other traffic calming measures
discourage non-local car drivers." (Source:
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/general.htm)

The routes were all quiet and fast. I was able to do a 45-minute
commute in the same time it took the express bus running along the
main street a few blocks over.Best of both worlds, IMHO: No separate
lanes but no fast-moving, heavy traffic either.

Regards,
Anthony

 

[Bob]

On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination.
> >>However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically
> >>separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The
> >>problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their
> >>limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere.
>
> > Wayne, I think that you're solidly a zealot, unlike almost everyone
> > else in this discussion. When you consider separate bike lanes "an
> > abomination of abomination", it's clear that reason and logic have
> > long since left the building.
>
> Mark,
>
> Perhaps you should read more carefully. Bike lanes are merely an
> abomination. *Physically separated* bike lanes are an abomination of an
> abomination.
>
> Frankly, I think the numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck
> full of logic and reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters
> is bereft of it.

I guess since you assert that your position is logical and any
different view is illogical we should all just accept your assertion
as fact. Case closed. Next issue.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>The ONLY stripe benefit I envision is this: Some timid cyclists will
>feel more welcome on the road. But IMO, that can be accomplished by
>"sharrows," which (I hear) are formally approved in the next MUTCD
>document. I prefer that idea.
>
>So again: If everything's equal except the stripe, what's the benefit
>of the stripe?

I've spent many years riding in many different environments, and
nowhere else has there been less hostility toward me as a cyclist than
in Arizona, where we DO have a separation between cars and bikes. In
Florida, where there was none, I would regularly be buzzed purposely
and dangerously by people who presumably figured I didn't belong in
"their" lane.

So to me, having less motorized hostility directed my way, AND the
reduction in chances of being hit from behind (however unlikely) is a
big plus. The fact that it encorages others to join the ranks of the
self-propelled is also a big plus.

What I can't understand is why some people think of such a system in
such entirely negative terms (i.e. "abomination of an abomination").

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

>gds wrote:

>> To me the benefit of the stripe is that it signals to motorists that
>> they should not be crossing that solid line and thus (at least in most
>> cases) helping to create some distance between motorists and cyclists
>> that may not otherwise be there. This is further reinforced by the use
>> of some more paint to include in the lane cyclist symbols and/or
>> wording such as "bike lane."
>
>Actually, motorists will pass closer with a bike lane stripe than without.

I think I understand the problem... Wayne lives in a different
universe than I do. ;-)

There's no ('scuze me, "NO") comparison between the number of
brush-back drive-by buzzes I get in Arizona (with its wide bike lanes)
compared to Florida (with no bike lanes). Not even remotely close.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> It's all about probability. Check out the bike plan for Maricopa
>> County I posted in another reply. It works.
>
>I read most of it and even found a JFK quote....
>"Nothing compares with the simple pleasure of a bike ride."
>John F. Kennedy
>
>He had it right, and the document was the best thought out I have seen
>yet. We need more of the same.

The system works, and works well. It encourages those who would
otherwise not consider riding a bike on the (admittedly busy) roads in
the Phoenix area. As a result, we have a growing number of bike
commuters in the east valley (Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale). An informal
poll of all the cyclists I interact with in this area hasn't yielded a
single opinion that this isn't the best urban bike system they've ever
been exposed to.

Still, some are so blinded by preconceptions and biases that they
would grind the Phoenix east valley bike lanes to rubble if they could
get away with it. Go figger. I'd invite them to come to Phoenix and
ride a few hundred miles on the arterial roads WITH a bike lane, and
then a few hundred miles on the same size roads WITHOUT a bike lane.
If they honestly prefer the latter, I can only surmise that they love
conflict and danger in their daily ride. To me, riding on a six-lane
road with ~50mph (80km/h) traffic isn't really all that much fun.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination.
>> >>However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically
>> >>separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The
>> >>problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their
>> >>limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere.
>>
>> > Wayne, I think that you're solidly a zealot, unlike almost everyone
>> > else in this discussion. When you consider separate bike lanes "an
>> > abomination of abomination", it's clear that reason and logic have
>> > long since left the building.
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> Perhaps you should read more carefully. Bike lanes are merely an
>> abomination. *Physically separated* bike lanes are an abomination of an
>> abomination.
>>
>> Frankly, I think the numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck
>> full of logic and reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters
>> is bereft of it.
>
>I guess since you assert that your position is logical and any
>different view is illogical we should all just accept your assertion
>as fact. Case closed. Next issue.

Thanks for clearing this up for me, Bob... I'd somehow missed the fact
that my position (and presumably all those who do seem to like bike
lanes, including virtually every cyclist I've talked to about them in
the Phoenix, Arizona area) was without logic. I guess we're doomed to
enjoy the bike lanes even though we should be nauseated by the very
sight of 'em. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame