CycleBanter.com - View Single Post - Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

**Bill Z.**

writes:

On Feb 1, 2:14 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
"separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.

Of course, we've discussed this before. But:

Are bike lanes "separate"? Sure seems that way.

LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
engineering matter.

Are they "unequal"? In nearly every instance I've encountered, yes,
they are. For example, gravel and glass and mud accumulation has been
worse; or pavement has been rougher; or maintenance has been worse; or
obstacles such as parked cars, mufflers, "construction ahead" signs,
etc. have made them less desirable than the regular lane.

The bike lanes in the town I live in get regular maintenance and are
clear of debris. The current design standards in our state provide
sufficient clearance to get by parked cars safely.

Do they make bicycling safer? Not noticeably. And they seem to hurt
safety with respect to the common accident modes caused by motorists'
driveway pullouts, left turns and right turns. Ditto for cyclist left
turns, especially by novices.

Bike lanes have no impact on left turns - the novices who start a left
turn from near a curb would do that regardless, and with a properly
designed bike lane, the adjacent traffic lane would be roughly 12 feet
(maybe a bit less) in width. If you stay two feet inside the bike
lane, that puts you 14 feet from lane stripe on the left side of the
adjecent lane. Curiously, this is where John Forrester claims you
should be riding given a wide outside lane - about 14 feet from the
lane stripe so that cars can pass you easily, and close enough to
the stream of traffic that drivers will be leary of just shooting
out in front of you without looking. Your safety is not going to
decrease measurably simply because there was a bike lane stripe
when you end up riding along the same path you'd follow with no
stripe.

Do they signal that bikes are part of the transportation network?
Maybe, but if so, that applies only to those roads where the stripes
are painted.

Actually, when you get a queue of cars 1/4 mile long or longer (which
you'll find in Silicon Valley at the worst intersections), a bike lane
simply lets you jump to the head of the queue without having to
weave around cars spread out all across the lane.

Conversely, it tells certain motorists that bikes don't belong on
unstriped roads.

You mean like HOV lanes tell motorists that buses and cars with more
than one passengers don't belong on unstriped roads? Get real - what
Krygowski claims bike lanes "tell" motorists is just mindless rhetoric.

And for that decidedly mixed benefit, we keep getting examples of
absurdly hazardous bike lanes - obstacles, lousy pavement, crossing
conflicts, barriers preventing left turns, and all the rest.

.... which you don't get when you have decent design standards, and
when your vehicle code allows you to ignore bike lanes that ignore
the standards.

ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to a wide
outside lane without the bike lane stripe, except for the relatively
useless warning to motorists that "bikes may be present," and the
somewhat deceptive encouragement of novice riders that "it's OK to
ride here."

Nope. Look at the design standards for bike lanes versus shoulder
stripes and see which has the better treatment at intersections.

If you must have those benefits, why not use sharrows instead? They
seem a lot more benign.

Why not use both, picking which one is appropriate depending on the
situation? BTW, at least in California, sharrows can only be used
in specific situations. You can't put them anywhere you like.

Also, our town recently removed two old bike lanes that were substandard
according the latest design standards (but not substandard when they were
installed) and those are going to be replaced with sharrows. In one case,
there will be a sharrow in one direction and a bike lane in the other
(6 feet wide with no parking allowed). The one removed was in the
direction where parking was allowed.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB