On 9/8/2019 7:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 3:49:38 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 12:52:55 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/8/2019 2:09 PM, AK wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 12:27:49 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

I ride with my outside handlebar overlapping the outer bike lane line. In some cases I take the car lane if there are problems with the bike lane such as roots of trees causing bumps of the lane being filled with leaves so that you can't see dangers such as pot holes or boards of the like.

I have to dodge a lot of glass both in the bike lane and sidewalk.

We have street cleaners, but are lucky if they come once every couple of months.

In other words, both Tom and AK are pointing out that bike lanes aren't
the wonderful paradise that so many people claim. Maintenance is often
crappy, debris is common, and around here (as where AK lives) sweeping
of debris is rare.

So riders often ride as close to the stripe as possible. This results in
closer passes than there would be if they removed the damned stripe and
kept the same pavement width. Then the occasional car tires passing over
that rightward section of pavement would sweep debris into the gutter.

"Protected" bike lanes have all that and worse. A city near me installed
a few blocks of that nonsense, then hosted a visit from officials from a
different city. The foreign officials asked "So how do you keep the
pavement clean? Did you buy a special small-scale street sweeper?" The
host city official said something like "Um... we don't know yet."

And as a bonus, bicyclist are hidden far off to the side, out of the
view of motorists. Until, that is, they pop into view in front of the
motorist at an intersection or a driveway. Surprise!!!

--
- Frank Krygowski

I don't know where you come off with your idea that bike lanes don't help. We have a lot of areas around here where bike lanes appear and disappear intermittently and where ever they disappear the traffic IMMEDIATELY moves over and crowds bicycle traffic.

They do create more real estate for riding, but they can be implemented in ways that make cycling more dangerous.

I don't see that bike lanes create more real estate for riding - unless,
that is, the officials widened a road specifically to build a bike lane.

In almost every case, what's done is to add a stripe to existing
pavement. The total paved "real estate" is the same. Except that the
three feet closest to the edge now has gravel and trash in it.

On whole, however, I agree they are a benefit. I do not like the trend towards separate MUPs -- taking out a sidewalk and bike lane and putting in a giant raised surface separate from traffic for both bikes and pedestrians that it intersected by streets, e.g. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2324/3...1aab9f0f_c.jpg

See how the side streets now cut up the MUP and require endless stopping? The prior bike lane flowed with traffic. This facility was a giant step backwards, IMO, and not the miracle facility claimed by the facility freaks. I rode in it today, and all I wanted to do was get out of it and onto the street.

AASHTO defines that as a sidepath, and gives quite a few reasons it's a
bad idea in most cases. They say it should be considered only where
motor vehicle traffic is very heavy and high speed. I agree.

The first one I ever encountered was in Iowa. It was alongside a highway
that would have been fine for riding; but we used it because we weren't
sure if Iowa had a mandatory sidepath law or not.

It was stupid. They had a stop sign on the sidepath for every gravel
driveway that crossed it. Who thinks of these things?


--
- Frank Krygowski