G
- Status
M
Mark Hickey
Guest
Erik Freitag <[email protected]> wrote:
>In <[email protected]> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible to get doored in every bike lane in Tempe, but certainly
>> anyone who's ridden enough "non bike lane miles" to learn how to survive won't have a problem
>> riding the Tempe bike lanes.
>What do your bike lanes do at intersections? 90% of mine have a dotted line to the left, but stay
>on the right (that is to say, wrong) side of the street. There are a few (that would be the other
>10%) places that have a straight-through bike lane.
>
>California law says I'm supposed to go to the left of the dotted line if I want to go straight, but
>there are some very stern, very frank motorists who think I'm supposed to disappear at the corner
>and re- appear on the other side of the intersection.
It's a mixed bag. On intersections with right turn lanes, the bike lane disappears until the other
side of the intersection (there is little time or distance for this to be a real problem - even
coasting from the end of the bike lane marking to the intersection won't put you in the way of many
cars who are going to have to slow down to make the right turn anyway).
There are other intersections that "squeezes out" the bike lane for maybe 50m (150') on either side
of the intersecting road. For those, you just merge in with traffic. Again, I don't find this to be
much of a problem and I very seldom have drivers take exception to my riding "in their lane".
Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
>In <[email protected]> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible to get doored in every bike lane in Tempe, but certainly
>> anyone who's ridden enough "non bike lane miles" to learn how to survive won't have a problem
>> riding the Tempe bike lanes.
>What do your bike lanes do at intersections? 90% of mine have a dotted line to the left, but stay
>on the right (that is to say, wrong) side of the street. There are a few (that would be the other
>10%) places that have a straight-through bike lane.
>
>California law says I'm supposed to go to the left of the dotted line if I want to go straight, but
>there are some very stern, very frank motorists who think I'm supposed to disappear at the corner
>and re- appear on the other side of the intersection.
It's a mixed bag. On intersections with right turn lanes, the bike lane disappears until the other
side of the intersection (there is little time or distance for this to be a real problem - even
coasting from the end of the bike lane marking to the intersection won't put you in the way of many
cars who are going to have to slow down to make the right turn anyway).
There are other intersections that "squeezes out" the bike lane for maybe 50m (150') on either side
of the intersecting road. For those, you just merge in with traffic. Again, I don't find this to be
much of a problem and I very seldom have drivers take exception to my riding "in their lane".
Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
A
Arif Khokar
Guest
Brent P wrote:
> I will ask you the question no bike lane supporter has ever been able to answer. WHAT IS A WELL
> DESIGNED BIKE LANE AND HOW DOES IT PREVENT ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION TO INTERSECTIONS?
I think that the only way to address that is to have the bike lane end about 500 to 1000 feet before
the intersection (and have advance signage telling the cyclist to merge into the appropriate lane
depending on what direction he's going).
> I will ask you the question no bike lane supporter has ever been able to answer. WHAT IS A WELL
> DESIGNED BIKE LANE AND HOW DOES IT PREVENT ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION TO INTERSECTIONS?
I think that the only way to address that is to have the bike lane end about 500 to 1000 feet before
the intersection (and have advance signage telling the cyclist to merge into the appropriate lane
depending on what direction he's going).
G
Garmonboezia
Guest
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> It's not surprising that you can't understand something that you've never
experienced.
>
Yup, I have no idea what it's like to sit on Mercer waiting for the light to change so I can move up
another 10 feet. No sympathy either.
news:[email protected]:
>
> It's not surprising that you can't understand something that you've never
experienced.
>
Yup, I have no idea what it's like to sit on Mercer waiting for the light to change so I can move up
another 10 feet. No sympathy either.
F
Frank Krygowski
Guest
Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
> > I will ask you the question no bike lane supporter has ever been able to answer. WHAT IS A WELL
> > DESIGNED BIKE LANE AND HOW DOES IT PREVENT ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION TO INTERSECTIONS?
>
> I think that the only way to address that is to have the bike lane end about 500 to 1000 feet
> before the intersection (and have advance signage telling the cyclist to merge into the
> appropriate lane depending on what direction he's going).
That would be an improvement. But what it leads to is a stripe on the pavement between
intersections, where most people realize it's not needed. (After all, "hit from behind" is a very,
very tiny percentage of car-bike crashes).
And then, no stripe at intersections, which is where almost all the accidents happen, and where
people may logically wish something could be done - but where bike lanes make things worse.
It makes me wonder, what's the point? Why not just a reasonably wide outside lane?
--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
> > I will ask you the question no bike lane supporter has ever been able to answer. WHAT IS A WELL
> > DESIGNED BIKE LANE AND HOW DOES IT PREVENT ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION TO INTERSECTIONS?
>
> I think that the only way to address that is to have the bike lane end about 500 to 1000 feet
> before the intersection (and have advance signage telling the cyclist to merge into the
> appropriate lane depending on what direction he's going).
That would be an improvement. But what it leads to is a stripe on the pavement between
intersections, where most people realize it's not needed. (After all, "hit from behind" is a very,
very tiny percentage of car-bike crashes).
And then, no stripe at intersections, which is where almost all the accidents happen, and where
people may logically wish something could be done - but where bike lanes make things worse.
It makes me wonder, what's the point? Why not just a reasonably wide outside lane?
--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
B
Brent P
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Arif Khokar wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> I will ask you the question no bike lane supporter has ever been able to answer. WHAT IS A WELL
>> DESIGNED BIKE LANE AND HOW DOES IT PREVENT ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION TO INTERSECTIONS?
> I think that the only way to address that is to have the bike lane end about 500 to 1000 feet
> before the intersection (and have advance signage telling the cyclist to merge into the
> appropriate lane depending on what direction he's going).
Considering most places where I find bike lanes have intersections closer together than that, it
would mean no bike lane at all.
But even if this were a suburban area where such might be doable geography wise the merges are
needless pain for cyclists. Merges are not as easy on a bicycle as they are with a motor vehicle. I
generally go into a sprint, aim for a hole in traffic and go for it. Often motorists will press
their right foot down and close the hole.
If the post merge lane is going to be as wide as the bike lane + regular lane then it's best to just
not have the bike lane at all.
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> I will ask you the question no bike lane supporter has ever been able to answer. WHAT IS A WELL
>> DESIGNED BIKE LANE AND HOW DOES IT PREVENT ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION TO INTERSECTIONS?
> I think that the only way to address that is to have the bike lane end about 500 to 1000 feet
> before the intersection (and have advance signage telling the cyclist to merge into the
> appropriate lane depending on what direction he's going).
Considering most places where I find bike lanes have intersections closer together than that, it
would mean no bike lane at all.
But even if this were a suburban area where such might be doable geography wise the merges are
needless pain for cyclists. Merges are not as easy on a bicycle as they are with a motor vehicle. I
generally go into a sprint, aim for a hole in traffic and go for it. Often motorists will press
their right foot down and close the hole.
If the post merge lane is going to be as wide as the bike lane + regular lane then it's best to just
not have the bike lane at all.
F
Frank Krygowski
Guest
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> | P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> | >
> | > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> | >
> | > | I've got to say, the idea of an "opportunity to drive" is foreign to
> | > | me. It's not that I never drive - but it's like having an "opportunity" to take out the
> | > | garbage. I'm not interested in doing it any more than I have to.
> | >
> | > Some folks can't grasp the concept of driving for fun, or for pleasure, or to get to a place
> | > that offers much better riding than their local areas.
> |
> | I'm familiar with the concept of driving for fun. I remember being 17 years old. "Wowee! I can
> | drive! This is so cool!"
> |
> | Then I grew up.
>
> Substitute "riding a bicycle" and "I can ride" to see the silliness of your comments.
Um... let's see, are you trying to say it's very mature to consume gasoline and produce pollution
for purely recreational purposes? Or are you trying to say it's juvenile to use an efficient and
health-giving method of transportation?
> | > Some folks live sheltered lives, or have an ingrained fear of autos.
> |
> | Oh, doubtlessly! But in America, the ones living the most sheltered lives are those who fear
> | going anywhere but in their cars. (Somehow, the auto enthusiasts don't notice that close link
> | between them and the fearful, frail lady down the street.)
>
> Why do you assume that people who enjoy driving are fearful of going anywhere but in their cars?
> That's quite bizarre.
I'll try again, since you're having trouble understanding.
I didn't say that those who enjoy driving are fearful. I said they have much in common with
fearful people.
It's quite common these days for people to be afraid of walking around their towns. It's even
more common for people to be afraid of riding a bicycle. Those fearful people travel almost
exclusively by car.
Many driving enthusiasts also travel almost exclusively by car. They typically feel cool and macho
while doing it. Yet the "cool, macho" thing they are doing is exactly the same thing the timid,
fearful people are doing: using an expensive, oversized metal box to haul their tiny body around.
Sure, the motivations are different. But the results are the same. And the guy stuck in traffic next
to you can't tell if you're there because you're timid, or there because you're so cool. It makes no
difference.
> | BTW, I've never met anyone who considered my life sheltered. I've encountered some wistful envy
> | instead.
>
> What qualities does your life have that would make one wistfully envious? Especially if they don't
> know the first thing about your life...
You _don't_ know the first thing about my life. But the people I'm speaking of do.
One of the things I've done with my life is to reduce my car expenses, and use the monetary savings
to gain memorable experiences. One notable example of that was when my family sold a car
(deliberately going from a two car to a one car family) and used the proceeds to finance a one-month
bicycle tour of England and Scotland. Some of the photos I took on that tour were used in Bicycling
magazine, including one used as the cover photo. All in all, the trip was a very memorable
experience. And we've had many more similar experiences.
I've found that if you reduce your use of motor vehicles and television, life gets much, much more
interesting. (I know that's an anti-American statement, but there it is.)
--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
>
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> | P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> | >
> | > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> | >
> | > | I've got to say, the idea of an "opportunity to drive" is foreign to
> | > | me. It's not that I never drive - but it's like having an "opportunity" to take out the
> | > | garbage. I'm not interested in doing it any more than I have to.
> | >
> | > Some folks can't grasp the concept of driving for fun, or for pleasure, or to get to a place
> | > that offers much better riding than their local areas.
> |
> | I'm familiar with the concept of driving for fun. I remember being 17 years old. "Wowee! I can
> | drive! This is so cool!"
> |
> | Then I grew up.
>
> Substitute "riding a bicycle" and "I can ride" to see the silliness of your comments.
Um... let's see, are you trying to say it's very mature to consume gasoline and produce pollution
for purely recreational purposes? Or are you trying to say it's juvenile to use an efficient and
health-giving method of transportation?
> | > Some folks live sheltered lives, or have an ingrained fear of autos.
> |
> | Oh, doubtlessly! But in America, the ones living the most sheltered lives are those who fear
> | going anywhere but in their cars. (Somehow, the auto enthusiasts don't notice that close link
> | between them and the fearful, frail lady down the street.)
>
> Why do you assume that people who enjoy driving are fearful of going anywhere but in their cars?
> That's quite bizarre.
I'll try again, since you're having trouble understanding.
I didn't say that those who enjoy driving are fearful. I said they have much in common with
fearful people.
It's quite common these days for people to be afraid of walking around their towns. It's even
more common for people to be afraid of riding a bicycle. Those fearful people travel almost
exclusively by car.
Many driving enthusiasts also travel almost exclusively by car. They typically feel cool and macho
while doing it. Yet the "cool, macho" thing they are doing is exactly the same thing the timid,
fearful people are doing: using an expensive, oversized metal box to haul their tiny body around.
Sure, the motivations are different. But the results are the same. And the guy stuck in traffic next
to you can't tell if you're there because you're timid, or there because you're so cool. It makes no
difference.
> | BTW, I've never met anyone who considered my life sheltered. I've encountered some wistful envy
> | instead.
>
> What qualities does your life have that would make one wistfully envious? Especially if they don't
> know the first thing about your life...
You _don't_ know the first thing about my life. But the people I'm speaking of do.
One of the things I've done with my life is to reduce my car expenses, and use the monetary savings
to gain memorable experiences. One notable example of that was when my family sold a car
(deliberately going from a two car to a one car family) and used the proceeds to finance a one-month
bicycle tour of England and Scotland. Some of the photos I took on that tour were used in Bicycling
magazine, including one used as the cover photo. All in all, the trip was a very memorable
experience. And we've had many more similar experiences.
I've found that if you reduce your use of motor vehicles and television, life gets much, much more
interesting. (I know that's an anti-American statement, but there it is.)
--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
P
Pete Fagerlin
Guest
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
| >
| > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| > | P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
| > | >
| > | > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > | > news:[email protected]...
| > | >
| > | > | I've got to say, the idea of an "opportunity to drive" is foreign to
| > | > | me. It's not that I never drive - but it's like having an "opportunity" to take out the
| > | > | garbage. I'm not interested in doing it any more than I have to.
| > | >
| > | > Some folks can't grasp the concept of driving for fun, or for pleasure, or to get
to a
| > | > place that offers much better riding than their local areas.
| > |
| > | I'm familiar with the concept of driving for fun. I remember being 17 years old. "Wowee! I can
| > | drive! This is so cool!"
| > |
| > | Then I grew up.
| >
| > Substitute "riding a bicycle" and "I can ride" to see the silliness of your comments.
|
| Um... let's see, are you trying to say it's very mature to consume gasoline and produce pollution
| for purely recreational purposes? Or are you trying to say it's juvenile to use an efficient and
| health-giving method of transportation?
I'm not surprised that you missed the parallel between your silly comments and the silly comments of
people that think that folks who ride "haven't grown up."
Maybe if you read it again you'll get it. Maybe.
| > | > Some folks live sheltered lives, or have an ingrained fear of autos.
| > |
| > | Oh, doubtlessly! But in America, the ones living the most sheltered lives are those who fear
| > | going anywhere but in their cars. (Somehow, the auto enthusiasts don't notice that close link
| > | between them and the fearful, frail lady down the street.)
| >
| > Why do you assume that people who enjoy driving are fearful of going anywhere but in
their
| > cars? That's quite bizarre.
|
| I'll try again, since you're having trouble understanding.
|
| I didn't say that those who enjoy driving are fearful. I said they have much in common with
| fearful people.
|
| It's quite common these days for people to be afraid of walking around their towns. It's even
| more common for people to be afraid of riding a bicycle. Those fearful people travel almost
| exclusively by car.
|
| Many driving enthusiasts also travel almost exclusively by car. They typically feel cool and macho
| while doing it. Yet the "cool, macho" thing they are doing is exactly the same thing the timid,
| fearful people are doing: using an expensive, oversized metal box to haul their tiny body around.
|
| Sure, the motivations are different. But the results are the same. And the guy stuck in traffic
| next to you can't tell if you're there because you're timid, or there because you're so cool. It
| makes no difference.
Truly bizarre and yet more evidence of how sheltered your life is regarding driving for pleasure.
| > | BTW, I've never met anyone who considered my life sheltered. I've encountered some wistful
| > | envy instead.
| >
| > What qualities does your life have that would make one wistfully envious? Especially
if
| > they don't know the first thing about your life...
|
| You _don't_ know the first thing about my life.
Obviously, hence my question.
|But the people I'm
| speaking of do.
|
| One of the things I've done with my life is to reduce my car expenses, and use the monetary
| savings to gain memorable experiences.
Bully for you. Some folks don't have to reduce car expenses to gain memorable experiences. They can
enjoy both.
One notable
| example of that was when my family sold a car (deliberately going from a two car to a one car
| family) and used the proceeds to finance a one-month bicycle tour of England and Scotland. Some of
| the photos I took on that tour were used in Bicycling magazine, including one used as the cover
| photo. All in all, the trip was a very memorable experience. And we've had many more similar
| experiences.
Kind of a bizarre tangent, but whatever. Perhaps selling a car was the only way for you to take such
a vacation but that is not the only way that many, many people can afford to take vacations, and
still keep their car(s).
| I've found that if you reduce your use of motor vehicles and television, life gets much, much more
| interesting. (I know that's an anti-American statement, but there it is.)
I find that I agree with you about most TV but life can be very, very interesting when using a motor
vehicle, especially when you usually get 25-26 mpg on the highway and you spends hours in the 4-5
mpg zone (I know that will bunch the panties of the anti-car freaks, but there it is).
p.s. After reading what you have shared about your life, I'm far from wistfully envious. In fact, it
makes me appreciate my life all the more.
| P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
| >
| > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| > | P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
| > | >
| > | > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > | > news:[email protected]...
| > | >
| > | > | I've got to say, the idea of an "opportunity to drive" is foreign to
| > | > | me. It's not that I never drive - but it's like having an "opportunity" to take out the
| > | > | garbage. I'm not interested in doing it any more than I have to.
| > | >
| > | > Some folks can't grasp the concept of driving for fun, or for pleasure, or to get
to a
| > | > place that offers much better riding than their local areas.
| > |
| > | I'm familiar with the concept of driving for fun. I remember being 17 years old. "Wowee! I can
| > | drive! This is so cool!"
| > |
| > | Then I grew up.
| >
| > Substitute "riding a bicycle" and "I can ride" to see the silliness of your comments.
|
| Um... let's see, are you trying to say it's very mature to consume gasoline and produce pollution
| for purely recreational purposes? Or are you trying to say it's juvenile to use an efficient and
| health-giving method of transportation?
I'm not surprised that you missed the parallel between your silly comments and the silly comments of
people that think that folks who ride "haven't grown up."
Maybe if you read it again you'll get it. Maybe.
| > | > Some folks live sheltered lives, or have an ingrained fear of autos.
| > |
| > | Oh, doubtlessly! But in America, the ones living the most sheltered lives are those who fear
| > | going anywhere but in their cars. (Somehow, the auto enthusiasts don't notice that close link
| > | between them and the fearful, frail lady down the street.)
| >
| > Why do you assume that people who enjoy driving are fearful of going anywhere but in
their
| > cars? That's quite bizarre.
|
| I'll try again, since you're having trouble understanding.
|
| I didn't say that those who enjoy driving are fearful. I said they have much in common with
| fearful people.
|
| It's quite common these days for people to be afraid of walking around their towns. It's even
| more common for people to be afraid of riding a bicycle. Those fearful people travel almost
| exclusively by car.
|
| Many driving enthusiasts also travel almost exclusively by car. They typically feel cool and macho
| while doing it. Yet the "cool, macho" thing they are doing is exactly the same thing the timid,
| fearful people are doing: using an expensive, oversized metal box to haul their tiny body around.
|
| Sure, the motivations are different. But the results are the same. And the guy stuck in traffic
| next to you can't tell if you're there because you're timid, or there because you're so cool. It
| makes no difference.
Truly bizarre and yet more evidence of how sheltered your life is regarding driving for pleasure.
| > | BTW, I've never met anyone who considered my life sheltered. I've encountered some wistful
| > | envy instead.
| >
| > What qualities does your life have that would make one wistfully envious? Especially
if
| > they don't know the first thing about your life...
|
| You _don't_ know the first thing about my life.
Obviously, hence my question.
|But the people I'm
| speaking of do.
|
| One of the things I've done with my life is to reduce my car expenses, and use the monetary
| savings to gain memorable experiences.
Bully for you. Some folks don't have to reduce car expenses to gain memorable experiences. They can
enjoy both.
One notable
| example of that was when my family sold a car (deliberately going from a two car to a one car
| family) and used the proceeds to finance a one-month bicycle tour of England and Scotland. Some of
| the photos I took on that tour were used in Bicycling magazine, including one used as the cover
| photo. All in all, the trip was a very memorable experience. And we've had many more similar
| experiences.
Kind of a bizarre tangent, but whatever. Perhaps selling a car was the only way for you to take such
a vacation but that is not the only way that many, many people can afford to take vacations, and
still keep their car(s).
| I've found that if you reduce your use of motor vehicles and television, life gets much, much more
| interesting. (I know that's an anti-American statement, but there it is.)
I find that I agree with you about most TV but life can be very, very interesting when using a motor
vehicle, especially when you usually get 25-26 mpg on the highway and you spends hours in the 4-5
mpg zone (I know that will bunch the panties of the anti-car freaks, but there it is).
p.s. After reading what you have shared about your life, I'm far from wistfully envious. In fact, it
makes me appreciate my life all the more.
B
Brent P
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Arif Khokar wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> I will ask you the question no bike lane supporter has ever been able to answer. WHAT IS A WELL
>> DESIGNED BIKE LANE AND HOW DOES IT PREVENT ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION TO INTERSECTIONS?
> I think that the only way to address that is to have the bike lane end about 500 to 1000 feet
> before the intersection (and have advance signage telling the cyclist to merge into the
> appropriate lane depending on what direction he's going).
Considering most places where I find bike lanes have intersections closer together than that, it
would mean no bike lane at all.
But even if this were a suburban area where such might be doable geography wise the merges are
needless pain for cyclists. Merges are not as easy on a bicycle as they are with a motor vehicle. I
generally go into a sprint, aim for a hole in traffic and go for it. Often motorists will press
their right foot down and close the hole.
If the post merge lane is going to be as wide as the bike lane + regular lane then it's best to just
not have the bike lane at all.
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> I will ask you the question no bike lane supporter has ever been able to answer. WHAT IS A WELL
>> DESIGNED BIKE LANE AND HOW DOES IT PREVENT ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION TO INTERSECTIONS?
> I think that the only way to address that is to have the bike lane end about 500 to 1000 feet
> before the intersection (and have advance signage telling the cyclist to merge into the
> appropriate lane depending on what direction he's going).
Considering most places where I find bike lanes have intersections closer together than that, it
would mean no bike lane at all.
But even if this were a suburban area where such might be doable geography wise the merges are
needless pain for cyclists. Merges are not as easy on a bicycle as they are with a motor vehicle. I
generally go into a sprint, aim for a hole in traffic and go for it. Often motorists will press
their right foot down and close the hole.
If the post merge lane is going to be as wide as the bike lane + regular lane then it's best to just
not have the bike lane at all.
T
Tom Keats
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Brent
P) writes:
> But even if this were a suburban area where such might be doable geography wise the merges are
> needless pain for cyclists. Merges are not as easy on a bicycle as they are with a motor vehicle.
I assume you're referring to cloverleaf-type on-ramps, like this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
. ----> BIKE---> / --------------------------/ /
/--------------
. / . / R /
. A . / C /
I don't like those much, either. The further into the lane one rides, the more on-ramp one has to
get past, while the closer to the shoulder/on-ramp one rides, the more visibility and timing become
problematic. Our local Barnett Hwy is fraught with bike lanes and these luxuriously curved and
reverse-funnel'd (from the POV of cars) on-ramp thingies. Fortunately, ingressing traffic is
generally quite light along there, so it can be gotten-away with.
> I generally go into a sprint, aim for a hole in traffic and go for it.
I sometimes go into a sprint and try to break the sound barrier. Or at least, the speed limit. Or
slow down, timing to either keep ahead of, or lag behind a break in the traffic coming up behind me,
so ingressors can take advantage of that break, without hitting me. Timing is everything. It's those
holes in the traffic that trigger the ingressors to make their move. I prefer to stay out of those
holes. Sometimes, car traffic beside one can be sheltering. But, I live in a land where cyclists are
legislatively relegated to the highways' shoulders.
> Often motorists will press their right foot down and close the hole.
And motorists often can also move to the inside lane, to let any ingressors into the outside lane.
On bike it's no sweat to slow down a bit and let somebody in. Again, timing is everything. I like to
envision a well-choreographed merge as the two sides of a closing zipper, where nobody is put-out by
much. This type of intersection surely acquaints one with the [few] limitations of bicycles --
especially where we can't really, truly participate in merging. As you say: merges are not so easy
on a bicycle. In British Columbia, they're usually not even lawfully possible.
> If the post merge lane is going to be as wide as the bike lane + regular lane then it's best to
> just not have the bike lane at all.
Bicycle overpasses ;-) Before that happens, in the meantime, good eyes attached to a functional
brain, and occasional shifting to the big ring will have to get us by.
cheers, Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca
P) writes:
> But even if this were a suburban area where such might be doable geography wise the merges are
> needless pain for cyclists. Merges are not as easy on a bicycle as they are with a motor vehicle.
I assume you're referring to cloverleaf-type on-ramps, like this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
. ----> BIKE---> / --------------------------/ /
/--------------
. / . / R /
. A . / C /
I don't like those much, either. The further into the lane one rides, the more on-ramp one has to
get past, while the closer to the shoulder/on-ramp one rides, the more visibility and timing become
problematic. Our local Barnett Hwy is fraught with bike lanes and these luxuriously curved and
reverse-funnel'd (from the POV of cars) on-ramp thingies. Fortunately, ingressing traffic is
generally quite light along there, so it can be gotten-away with.
> I generally go into a sprint, aim for a hole in traffic and go for it.
I sometimes go into a sprint and try to break the sound barrier. Or at least, the speed limit. Or
slow down, timing to either keep ahead of, or lag behind a break in the traffic coming up behind me,
so ingressors can take advantage of that break, without hitting me. Timing is everything. It's those
holes in the traffic that trigger the ingressors to make their move. I prefer to stay out of those
holes. Sometimes, car traffic beside one can be sheltering. But, I live in a land where cyclists are
legislatively relegated to the highways' shoulders.
> Often motorists will press their right foot down and close the hole.
And motorists often can also move to the inside lane, to let any ingressors into the outside lane.
On bike it's no sweat to slow down a bit and let somebody in. Again, timing is everything. I like to
envision a well-choreographed merge as the two sides of a closing zipper, where nobody is put-out by
much. This type of intersection surely acquaints one with the [few] limitations of bicycles --
especially where we can't really, truly participate in merging. As you say: merges are not so easy
on a bicycle. In British Columbia, they're usually not even lawfully possible.
> If the post merge lane is going to be as wide as the bike lane + regular lane then it's best to
> just not have the bike lane at all.
Bicycle overpasses ;-) Before that happens, in the meantime, good eyes attached to a functional
brain, and occasional shifting to the big ring will have to get us by.
cheers, Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca
B
Brent P
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Brent
> P) writes:
>
>> But even if this were a suburban area where such might be doable geography wise the merges are
>> needless pain for cyclists. Merges are not as easy on a bicycle as they are with a motor vehicle.
>
> I assume you're referring to cloverleaf-type on-ramps, like this:
No. Rather as was suggested, a bicycle lane than vanishes at intersections requiring the cyclist to
merge over a lane before each intersection.
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Brent
> P) writes:
>
>> But even if this were a suburban area where such might be doable geography wise the merges are
>> needless pain for cyclists. Merges are not as easy on a bicycle as they are with a motor vehicle.
>
> I assume you're referring to cloverleaf-type on-ramps, like this:
No. Rather as was suggested, a bicycle lane than vanishes at intersections requiring the cyclist to
merge over a lane before each intersection.
M
Mark Hickey
Guest
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>Are you freaking dense? Bike lanes can only serve to make the road more dangerous for cyclists
>compared to simply having a wide curb lane. A painted line does nothing to stop hit-from behind as
>a painted line is not a barrier, the sleepy/drunk/abusive/whatever driver still crosses it like it
>wasn't there. Meanwhile bike lanes complicate intersections.
This is the one anti-bike lane argument I've never understood.
"Since cars can drift over the line they're supposed to stay to the left of, it's better to remove
that line and have all the bikes riding to the left of the line the cars are supposed to stay to
the left of"
(replace "left" with "right" if you're in the UK, Japan, Oz, etc.)
Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
>Are you freaking dense? Bike lanes can only serve to make the road more dangerous for cyclists
>compared to simply having a wide curb lane. A painted line does nothing to stop hit-from behind as
>a painted line is not a barrier, the sleepy/drunk/abusive/whatever driver still crosses it like it
>wasn't there. Meanwhile bike lanes complicate intersections.
This is the one anti-bike lane argument I've never understood.
"Since cars can drift over the line they're supposed to stay to the left of, it's better to remove
that line and have all the bikes riding to the left of the line the cars are supposed to stay to
the left of"
(replace "left" with "right" if you're in the UK, Japan, Oz, etc.)
Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
B
Brent P
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Are you freaking dense? Bike lanes can only serve to make the road more dangerous for cyclists
>>compared to simply having a wide curb lane. A painted line does nothing to stop hit-from behind as
>>a painted line is not a barrier, the sleepy/drunk/abusive/whatever driver still crosses it like it
>>wasn't there. Meanwhile bike lanes complicate intersections.
> This is the one anti-bike lane argument I've never understood.
>
> "Since cars can drift over the line they're supposed to stay to the left of, it's better to remove
> that line and have all the bikes riding to the left of the line the cars are supposed to stay to
> the left of"
Bicycle lanes exist due an irrational fear of hit-from-behind. Somehow people feel that the painted
line will keep motorists further away from them. In practice it doesn't. With many setups it will
bring the motorist CLOSER to the cyclist. After all, if they don't cross the line it's ok to pass
within a 1/4 of an inch. Riding in the same spot without the line the typical driver would move
over to pass.
The type of driver that will hit a cyclist while passing comes in two flavors, incompetence and
hostile. A driver that is drunk or falls asleep at the wheel or otherwise drifts towards the edge of
the road is not going to be stopped by a painted line. The hostile driver that is hell-bent on
running down a cyclist or 'teaching him a lesson' is not going to respect the painted line.
And lastly, I've seen countless sober drivers make use of the area striped off as a bike lane
because it was paved surface they could use.
So, the bike lane stripe isn't a solution for hit from behind, it just creates a warm fuzzy feeling,
a political feel good.
I've never seen anything accomplished by a bicycle lane that couldn't be done better with a wide
curb lane.
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Are you freaking dense? Bike lanes can only serve to make the road more dangerous for cyclists
>>compared to simply having a wide curb lane. A painted line does nothing to stop hit-from behind as
>>a painted line is not a barrier, the sleepy/drunk/abusive/whatever driver still crosses it like it
>>wasn't there. Meanwhile bike lanes complicate intersections.
> This is the one anti-bike lane argument I've never understood.
>
> "Since cars can drift over the line they're supposed to stay to the left of, it's better to remove
> that line and have all the bikes riding to the left of the line the cars are supposed to stay to
> the left of"
Bicycle lanes exist due an irrational fear of hit-from-behind. Somehow people feel that the painted
line will keep motorists further away from them. In practice it doesn't. With many setups it will
bring the motorist CLOSER to the cyclist. After all, if they don't cross the line it's ok to pass
within a 1/4 of an inch. Riding in the same spot without the line the typical driver would move
over to pass.
The type of driver that will hit a cyclist while passing comes in two flavors, incompetence and
hostile. A driver that is drunk or falls asleep at the wheel or otherwise drifts towards the edge of
the road is not going to be stopped by a painted line. The hostile driver that is hell-bent on
running down a cyclist or 'teaching him a lesson' is not going to respect the painted line.
And lastly, I've seen countless sober drivers make use of the area striped off as a bike lane
because it was paved surface they could use.
So, the bike lane stripe isn't a solution for hit from behind, it just creates a warm fuzzy feeling,
a political feel good.
I've never seen anything accomplished by a bicycle lane that couldn't be done better with a wide
curb lane.
S
Scott In Aztlan
Guest
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:01:56 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>Bicycle lanes exist due an irrational fear of hit-from-behind. Somehow people feel that the painted
>line will keep motorists further away from them. In practice it doesn't.
Maybe that's because there are so many arrogant cyclists who will ride ON TOP OF the white line
instead of cenetered in the bike line like they're supposed to.
>With many setups it will bring the motorist CLOSER to the cyclist. After all, if they don't cross
>the line it's ok to pass within a 1/4 of an inch. Riding in the same spot without the line the
>typical driver would move over to pass.
Sure, I've been known to "buzz" an arrogant cyclist. But if a cyclist is obeying the rules, I'll
give him as wide a berth as possible; I'll even cross the double-yellow line to do it (if oncoming
traffic permits).
I play nice with people who play nice. People with a "me first" attitude neither desrerve nor get
nice treatment.
--
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a
place of honor with all that's good."
- George Washington, Father of our Country
>Bicycle lanes exist due an irrational fear of hit-from-behind. Somehow people feel that the painted
>line will keep motorists further away from them. In practice it doesn't.
Maybe that's because there are so many arrogant cyclists who will ride ON TOP OF the white line
instead of cenetered in the bike line like they're supposed to.
>With many setups it will bring the motorist CLOSER to the cyclist. After all, if they don't cross
>the line it's ok to pass within a 1/4 of an inch. Riding in the same spot without the line the
>typical driver would move over to pass.
Sure, I've been known to "buzz" an arrogant cyclist. But if a cyclist is obeying the rules, I'll
give him as wide a berth as possible; I'll even cross the double-yellow line to do it (if oncoming
traffic permits).
I play nice with people who play nice. People with a "me first" attitude neither desrerve nor get
nice treatment.
--
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a
place of honor with all that's good."
- George Washington, Father of our Country
T
Tom Keats
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Scott in Aztlan
<[email protected]> writes:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:01:56 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Bicycle lanes exist due an irrational fear of hit-from-behind. Somehow people feel that the
>>painted line will keep motorists further away from them. In practice it doesn't.
>
> Maybe that's because there are so many arrogant cyclists who will ride ON TOP OF the white line
> instead of cenetered in the bike line like they're supposed to.
Where does it say cyclists are *compelled* to ride inside the line?
>>With many setups it will bring the motorist CLOSER to the cyclist. After all, if they don't cross
>>the line it's ok to pass within a 1/4 of an inch. Riding in the same spot without the line the
>>typical driver would move over to pass.
>
> Sure, I've been known to "buzz" an arrogant cyclist.
What appears to be arrogance could just be safety-tactical -- enhancing visibility, or avoiding
hazards such as broken pavement or debris in the bike lane. Sounds like _you're_
> But if a cyclist is obeying the rules,
I _dare_ you to cite, with references, the rules as they apply to cyclists.
> I'll give him as wide a berth as possible; I'll even cross the double-yellow line to do it (if
> oncoming traffic permits).
A yard's passing clearance is adequate, thank you. Histrionically giving such a wide berth is
stoopidly redundant.
> I play nice with people who play nice. People with a "me first" attitude neither desrerve nor get
> nice treatment.
Neither do people who aim their cars at other people.
To other readers: please forgive my momentary vulgarity. This loser got my dander up.
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
<[email protected]> writes:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:01:56 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Bicycle lanes exist due an irrational fear of hit-from-behind. Somehow people feel that the
>>painted line will keep motorists further away from them. In practice it doesn't.
>
> Maybe that's because there are so many arrogant cyclists who will ride ON TOP OF the white line
> instead of cenetered in the bike line like they're supposed to.
Where does it say cyclists are *compelled* to ride inside the line?
>>With many setups it will bring the motorist CLOSER to the cyclist. After all, if they don't cross
>>the line it's ok to pass within a 1/4 of an inch. Riding in the same spot without the line the
>>typical driver would move over to pass.
>
> Sure, I've been known to "buzz" an arrogant cyclist.
What appears to be arrogance could just be safety-tactical -- enhancing visibility, or avoiding
hazards such as broken pavement or debris in the bike lane. Sounds like _you're_
> But if a cyclist is obeying the rules,
I _dare_ you to cite, with references, the rules as they apply to cyclists.
> I'll give him as wide a berth as possible; I'll even cross the double-yellow line to do it (if
> oncoming traffic permits).
A yard's passing clearance is adequate, thank you. Histrionically giving such a wide berth is
stoopidly redundant.
> I play nice with people who play nice. People with a "me first" attitude neither desrerve nor get
> nice treatment.
Neither do people who aim their cars at other people.
To other readers: please forgive my momentary vulgarity. This loser got my dander up.
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
F
Frank Krygowski
Guest
Scott in Aztlan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:01:56 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >Bicycle lanes exist due an irrational fear of hit-from-behind. Somehow people feel that the
> >painted line will keep motorists further away from them. In practice it doesn't.
>
> Maybe that's because there are so many arrogant cyclists who will ride ON TOP OF the white line
> instead of cenetered in the bike line like they're supposed to.
My experience with bike lanes has indicated that, very frequently, the center of the bike lane is
unrideable. Why? Because it's filled with gravel, broken glass and parts shed by junker cars.
Given that situation, the cyclist is under no obligation to ride through the center of the bike
lane. Cyclists _do_ have a legal right to the road, and therefore are free to ride not only ON TOP
of the white line, but to the left of the white line if necessary.
Those who think otherwise should feel free to contact the state highway patrol for an education.
> >With many setups it will bring the motorist CLOSER to the cyclist. After all, if they don't cross
> >the line it's ok to pass within a 1/4 of an inch. Riding in the same spot without the line the
> >typical driver would move over to pass.
>
> Sure, I've been known to "buzz" an arrogant cyclist.
Hmm. Another yahoo who plays vigilante law enforcement, using the threat of his car as a
deadly weapon.
We'll archive your post, should it be needed in a court case.
--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
>
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:01:56 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >Bicycle lanes exist due an irrational fear of hit-from-behind. Somehow people feel that the
> >painted line will keep motorists further away from them. In practice it doesn't.
>
> Maybe that's because there are so many arrogant cyclists who will ride ON TOP OF the white line
> instead of cenetered in the bike line like they're supposed to.
My experience with bike lanes has indicated that, very frequently, the center of the bike lane is
unrideable. Why? Because it's filled with gravel, broken glass and parts shed by junker cars.
Given that situation, the cyclist is under no obligation to ride through the center of the bike
lane. Cyclists _do_ have a legal right to the road, and therefore are free to ride not only ON TOP
of the white line, but to the left of the white line if necessary.
Those who think otherwise should feel free to contact the state highway patrol for an education.
> >With many setups it will bring the motorist CLOSER to the cyclist. After all, if they don't cross
> >the line it's ok to pass within a 1/4 of an inch. Riding in the same spot without the line the
> >typical driver would move over to pass.
>
> Sure, I've been known to "buzz" an arrogant cyclist.
Hmm. Another yahoo who plays vigilante law enforcement, using the threat of his car as a
deadly weapon.
We'll archive your post, should it be needed in a court case.
--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
D
Don Quijote
Guest
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<mVSea.170782$F1.6980@sccrnsc04>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Edward Dike, III wrote:
>
> > Replace "sheltered" with "productive", "free", or "high standard" and you'll have it nailed.
>
> The definition of 'free' becoming increasingly more narrow.
I think it can be a long list:
- free to go homeless
- free to die from chaotic traffic
- free to be unemployed
- free not to go to the doctor (since you ain't got insurance)
and many, many other types of 'freedoms'...
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
> In article <[email protected]>, Edward Dike, III wrote:
>
> > Replace "sheltered" with "productive", "free", or "high standard" and you'll have it nailed.
>
> The definition of 'free' becoming increasingly more narrow.
I think it can be a long list:
- free to go homeless
- free to die from chaotic traffic
- free to be unemployed
- free not to go to the doctor (since you ain't got insurance)
and many, many other types of 'freedoms'...
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
D
Don Quijote
Guest
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> | > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> | > | P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > Not everyone is forced to drive in rush hour traffic and even if they are, there
> are many
> | > | > opprotunities to drive where/when traffic isn't an issue.
> | > |
> | > | I've got to say, the idea of an "opportunity to drive" is foreign to
> | > | me. It's not that I never drive - but it's like having an "opportunity" to take out the
> | > | garbage. I'm not interested in doing it any more than I have to.
> | >
> | > Some folks can't grasp the concept of driving for fun, or for pleasure, or to > get to
> a place that offers much better riding than their local areas.
> |
> | is like, and while I could see how it could be fun for them, it doesn't melt my butter.
>
> You "anti-car,, bikes are the only solution" loons crack me up.
It crack me up too --besides pissing me up-- the 'car only solution' that's dominated America in the
last decades... How about separation of cars and bicycles?
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> | > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> | > | P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > Not everyone is forced to drive in rush hour traffic and even if they are, there
> are many
> | > | > opprotunities to drive where/when traffic isn't an issue.
> | > |
> | > | I've got to say, the idea of an "opportunity to drive" is foreign to
> | > | me. It's not that I never drive - but it's like having an "opportunity" to take out the
> | > | garbage. I'm not interested in doing it any more than I have to.
> | >
> | > Some folks can't grasp the concept of driving for fun, or for pleasure, or to > get to
> a place that offers much better riding than their local areas.
> |
> | is like, and while I could see how it could be fun for them, it doesn't melt my butter.
>
> You "anti-car,, bikes are the only solution" loons crack me up.
It crack me up too --besides pissing me up-- the 'car only solution' that's dominated America in the
last decades... How about separation of cars and bicycles?
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
P
P E T E F A G E
Guest
"Don Quijote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
| > "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:[email protected]...
| > | "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:<[email protected]>...
| > | > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > | > news:[email protected]...
| > | > | P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Not everyone is forced to drive in rush hour traffic and even if they are,
there
| > are many
| > | > | > opprotunities to drive where/when traffic isn't an issue.
| > | > |
| > | > | I've got to say, the idea of an "opportunity to drive" is foreign to
| > | > | me. It's not that I never drive - but it's like having an "opportunity" to take out the
| > | > | garbage. I'm not interested in doing it any more than I have to.
| > | >
| > | > Some folks can't grasp the concept of driving for fun, or for pleasure, or to >
get to
| > a place that offers much better riding than their local areas.
| > |
| > | is like, and while I could see how it could be fun for them, it doesn't melt my butter.
| >
| > You "anti-car,, bikes are the only solution" loons crack me up.
|
| It crack me up too --besides pissing me up-- the 'car only solution' that's dominated America in
| the last decades... How about separation of cars and bicycles?
"car only solution" loon?
Explain my bikes then. Explain me riding my bikes to work, and to shop.
"How about separation of cars and bicycles?"
Bike paths are less safe than the road. No thanks.
news:[email protected]...
| "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
| > "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:[email protected]...
| > | "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:<[email protected]>...
| > | > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > | > news:[email protected]...
| > | > | P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Not everyone is forced to drive in rush hour traffic and even if they are,
there
| > are many
| > | > | > opprotunities to drive where/when traffic isn't an issue.
| > | > |
| > | > | I've got to say, the idea of an "opportunity to drive" is foreign to
| > | > | me. It's not that I never drive - but it's like having an "opportunity" to take out the
| > | > | garbage. I'm not interested in doing it any more than I have to.
| > | >
| > | > Some folks can't grasp the concept of driving for fun, or for pleasure, or to >
get to
| > a place that offers much better riding than their local areas.
| > |
| > | is like, and while I could see how it could be fun for them, it doesn't melt my butter.
| >
| > You "anti-car,, bikes are the only solution" loons crack me up.
|
| It crack me up too --besides pissing me up-- the 'car only solution' that's dominated America in
| the last decades... How about separation of cars and bicycles?
"car only solution" loon?
Explain my bikes then. Explain me riding my bikes to work, and to shop.
"How about separation of cars and bicycles?"
Bike paths are less safe than the road. No thanks.
M
Marc
Guest
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Are you freaking dense? Bike lanes can only serve to make the road more dangerous for cyclists
>>compared to simply having a wide curb lane. A painted line does nothing to stop hit-from behind as
>>a painted line is not a barrier, the sleepy/drunk/abusive/whatever driver still crosses it like it
>>wasn't there. Meanwhile bike lanes complicate intersections.
>
>This is the one anti-bike lane argument I've never understood.
>
>"Since cars can drift over the line they're supposed to stay to the left of, it's better to remove
>that line and have all the bikes riding to the left of the line the cars are supposed to stay to
>the left of"
If there is a line, then the cars will never drive on the area. If they never drive there, then it
will generally collect enough debris to be unsafe to bike on. Allowing cars into the same area as a
bike improves bike safety.
If the bike lane is separately marked, cars seem to use the area in a manner they would not if it
were part of the lane. They will park blocking the entirety of a bike lane, when they wouldn't if it
was part of a regular lane. Also, the complexity of a seperate-but-inequal lane at intersections
makes safe travel impossible. Cars legally turn right from the lane to the left of bikes legally
traveling forward, all with a green light. Cars don't look for bikes running parallel before
turning. I have seen the results of this oversight.
Bikes, even in the presence of a line, generally have the right to take a full lane when necessary.
A bike doing this (only out of necessity) will generate much more resentment and hostility when
there is a separate lane that the drivers hate anyway. A mad driver is generally an unsafe driver.
Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Are you freaking dense? Bike lanes can only serve to make the road more dangerous for cyclists
>>compared to simply having a wide curb lane. A painted line does nothing to stop hit-from behind as
>>a painted line is not a barrier, the sleepy/drunk/abusive/whatever driver still crosses it like it
>>wasn't there. Meanwhile bike lanes complicate intersections.
>
>This is the one anti-bike lane argument I've never understood.
>
>"Since cars can drift over the line they're supposed to stay to the left of, it's better to remove
>that line and have all the bikes riding to the left of the line the cars are supposed to stay to
>the left of"
If there is a line, then the cars will never drive on the area. If they never drive there, then it
will generally collect enough debris to be unsafe to bike on. Allowing cars into the same area as a
bike improves bike safety.
If the bike lane is separately marked, cars seem to use the area in a manner they would not if it
were part of the lane. They will park blocking the entirety of a bike lane, when they wouldn't if it
was part of a regular lane. Also, the complexity of a seperate-but-inequal lane at intersections
makes safe travel impossible. Cars legally turn right from the lane to the left of bikes legally
traveling forward, all with a green light. Cars don't look for bikes running parallel before
turning. I have seen the results of this oversight.
Bikes, even in the presence of a line, generally have the right to take a full lane when necessary.
A bike doing this (only out of necessity) will generate much more resentment and hostility when
there is a separate lane that the drivers hate anyway. A mad driver is generally an unsafe driver.
Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
- Status
