On Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:39:26 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.

Bike lanes can set up right hooks. There is no doubt about that. As for road splits, see ORS 814.420(3)(e):

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.
(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.
(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for the purpose of:
(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is authorized.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.
(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation.

There is one place on my way to work where the bike lane stops at an "off ramp", and the sinage suggest that the cyclists must get of his/her bike and take a crosswalk across the two exiting lanes -- rather than riding down the road, merging across the exiting lanes and going straight, where the bike lane resumes. Right he http://www.flickr.com/photos/6062650...otolist-akZf9f (I think closed for a running event -- it's miserable at rush hour).

This is a corollary of my prior comment on legislation by sinage. I wonder whether the City can make me get off my bike and take a crosswalk. Considering that I have not gotten a ticket after 29 years of riding down that road, I suspect they don't care if I stay on my bike and continue straight. Having cyclists stop there also wreaks havoc on MV and bicycle traffic because traffic backs up to let the cyclist cross, and then the cyclist drops off the sidwalk into the through bicycle lane, usually as I'm rolling up full speed after having crossed the two exiting traffic lanes. OTOH, the crosswalk is a good option for some cyclists who are terrified of mixing it up with fast moving traffic. It shouldn't be mandatory, though.

-- Jay Beattie.