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 other things):
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.


You said "for motorists". Bike lanes aren't for motorists.

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.


The big arrow means "allowed".

... 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.


Of course. It might be anywhere. It depends.

You asked why the bike lane should be placed to the right of
other lanes that *may* turn right. I answered.

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.


http://www.retroland.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/spitballs_650x300_a01_11020.jpg

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.


Failing to understand impenetrable matter? You know that "off the
rails" thing I mentioned... ?

I understand that one time was one time. I took issue with *your*
supposition that my "one time... trumped... data". I never said
any such thing about it; that observation was totally FWIW.

However, since *you* brought up trumping data, I responded that
one time was not the only time. (Jeez, Frank, I'm getting close
to that point of losing my patience to clarify what you keep
snipping.)

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.


I do not reject any data; I just take it FWIW.

(Got those exposure numbers for me yet?)

My one-time observation is what it is - real time, full human
perception, firsthand "expert" analysis. Take it FWIW. I did.

You're lobbying for subjecting cyclists to more danger in hopes of getting more butts on bikes.


Actually, I don't really hope for more butts on bikes at all;
I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel. More people riding would make
my world like Portland where cops actually ticket bicyclists
and bicyclists get in each others way and... but I love bicycling
so much it hardly seems fair not to *support* enabling others to
participate. I'm certainly not "lobbying" for anything - just
arguing with you, mostly - and even then I say do your own thing
and let me do mine and go in peace. So put down your lance, Don
Quixote.

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.


I do not mean that bicyclists should be corralled, I am not failing to
understand the "matter is impenetrable" part of traffic physics, I am
not throwing out data, I am not lobbying for subjecting cyclists to more
danger. Frank, all of those assertions are ludicrous.

But yeah, I won't guarantee what line I'm going to take until about the
time I do, and I guess I do kind of get a kick out of razzing you ;-)

(*Ludicrous*)