On Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:11:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote, among MUCH else:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:11:49 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Fine. What would you say if a straight-ahead lane for motorists was placed to the right of a lane marked with a big split arrow, telling motorists they could either turn right or go straight?

I'd say it must have been a mistake.

And yet, that's how bike lanes are routinely arranged.

The point is, it's stupid to have the vehicle (including bicycle) on the right going straight, while the vehicle to the left is allowed or even encouraged to turn right. It's never done with motor vehicle lanes, despite the protection afforded by bodywork, seatbelts and airbags. Why should it be done to bicyclists?

Setting aside "encouraged" (whatever that means in this context)...

"Encouraged" means if a motorist sees a big arrow bent to the right, he's being told he's welcome to turn right at that location. And "allowed" means a motorist does NOT see a "No Right Turn" sign.

... it's
because bicycles fundamentally belong as far right as practicable when
sharing the road with faster traffic.

The only thing that might potentially make that statement reasonable would be if you understand that "as far right as practicable" can often mean at lane center, or a few feet right of the left edge of a lane, or in a left turn lane in the center of the roadway.

But based on your usual statements, I strongly suspect that you did NOT mean that. I think you mean that bicyclists should be corralled to the right, not delaying motorists, no matter what. Otherwise, I don't think you'd be defending straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right turning traffic.

You're failing to understand the "matter is impenetrable" part of traffic physics, just as you failed to understand that "the last time" you were in Portland counts as precisely _one_ time.

You're throwing out years of data (actually, eight years worth of data - I misspoke when I said one year's worth) in favor of your one-time observation. You're lobbying for subjecting cyclists to more danger in hopes of getting more butts on bikes.

And all this from a guy whose own traffic behavior can't guarantee which side of the road you'll use. And who revels in fourth-grade insults.

- Frank Krygowski