Before & after bike lanes

On Sep 29, 3:58*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote :
The fact is, the paint stripe does NOT make the road wider.
Typically, it narrows the practical width, by promoting debris
accumulation within the bike lane.

The only thing that will make the road wider is a wider road.

Yes, I agree with that.

Unfortunately, with this size road, without the bike lane,
the car is free to take the right.

But you seem to be pleased that the bike lane stripe forces you to
ride far to the right, in whatever debris is there, even when there is
not reasonable space for safe passing. *You've been taught to love the
ghetto.

No but I'm pleased that it prevents the cars from not riding to the left and
taking my space instead. *Not sure why you don't get that.

I guess because I have too much experience riding on narrow roads.
Today, because of needing to stop at a particular agency on my way
home, I rode by a route I've never used during commute time. It
involved a narrow road with lots of pothole patches and a long, long
uphill.

Cars couldn't pass me when there was oncoming traffic. But the lanes
were obviously too narrow for sharing. I therefore rode at or near
lane center. The motorists stayed behind until it was safe to pass.
One motorist briefly honked. I waved a friendly wave.

The roads I most often use are wider, but have no bike lanes. Still,
the same principle applies: if there's room for safe passing within
the lane, I move right and let them pass. If there's not room
(because of too-narrow lane, or potholes at the right, or gravel and
glass or whatever) I move far enough left to be safe.

Putting in a bike lane stripe would not help on any of these roads.
In fact, on one half mile stretch I frequently ride, they put what
seem to be "unofficial" unmarked bike lane stripes, about 2.5 feet
from the curb. Previously, debris collected maybe 6" from the curb.
Now it collects two feet from the curb, and I ride further left as a
result.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 29, 4:21*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Frank Krygowski:

And 50 kph
is, by my standards, a slow & pleasant road. That speed limit is only
5 mph more than our park speed limits.

Might depend on how many people actually limit themselves to 50
kph.

That's 31.25 mph in USA-ian.

In my part of Southeastern Penna, the nearest common analogs to
that are 35 mph zones (30 mph zones being extremely rare).

In the 35 mph zones I frequent, many people are doing 50+.

Likewise, 25 mph zones are commonly traveled at 35-45 mph.

I agree, that's common. Yet I have no worries about riding in a 35
mph zone. (Or 40 or 45.) If I did, I wouldn't ride to work. There'd
be no way to get there.

That doesn't mean I'm against enforcement of the speed limit, though.
The current lax enforcement is, I think, one of the many ways in which
society gives too much privilege to motorists.

- Frank Krygowski

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
On Sep 29, 3:58 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote :
The fact is, the paint stripe does NOT make the road wider.
Typically, it narrows the practical width, by promoting debris
accumulation within the bike lane.

The only thing that will make the road wider is a wider road.

Yes, I agree with that.

No but I'm pleased that it prevents the cars from not riding to the left
and
taking my space instead. Not sure why you don't get that.

I guess because I have too much experience riding on narrow roads.
Today, because of needing to stop at a particular agency on my way
home, I rode by a route I've never used during commute time. It
involved a narrow road with lots of pothole patches and a long, long
uphill.

Cars couldn't pass me when there was oncoming traffic. But the lanes
were obviously too narrow for sharing. I therefore rode at or near
lane center. The motorists stayed behind until it was safe to pass.
One motorist briefly honked. I waved a friendly wave.

Oh we have roads like this and it's pretty much the
same thing. On my daily commute, I have either this scenario or
4 lanes that are much faster with cars going on and off the
highways. Particularly nasty in rain where there's reduced
visibility.

The road that I'm talking about is one that I use for pleasure rides.
I can take the lakeshore road from my house pretty much into old Montreal
and back
for a 80km trip and not really have to fight any cars. It's pretty
cool for me after the daily road battles.

The roads I most often use are wider, but have no bike lanes. Still,
the same principle applies: if there's room for safe passing within
the lane, I move right and let them pass. If there's not room
(because of too-narrow lane, or potholes at the right, or gravel and
glass or whatever) I move far enough left to be safe.

Taking the lane on this road would be bad for everyone. Traffic would
back up for miles. There's a lot of traffic and there's no passing.
I drive on it myself and would not be happy about it.

Putting in a bike lane stripe would not help on any of these roads.
In fact, on one half mile stretch I frequently ride, they put what
seem to be "unofficial" unmarked bike lane stripes, about 2.5 feet
from the curb. Previously, debris collected maybe 6" from the curb.
Now it collects two feet from the curb, and I ride further left as a
result.

I know, but in this case, the bike lane works. It's not perfect but it
allows me a place to ride where it's decent. It's actually decent for
both cars and bikes. And it's mostly bikes in the bike lane as
opposed to skaters, dog walkers etc that you get on bike paths.

As for the debris, I must be spoiled since living here. The roads, though
famous for
potholes are usually kept pretty clean.

On Sep 29, 4:35*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
On 9/29/2010 3:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
*You've been taught to love the
ghetto.

On a twisty road, motorists often cut corners. You can see this in the
wear of the paint stripes and cleared areas of the pavement.

Some roads are striped such that the outside lane is narrowed
artificially, leaving a wide paved shoulder. This will help prevent
motorists from cutting corners, although an explicit bike lane makes it
clearer that bicycles may be encountered in that space.

However, with the motorist positioned toward the road-center side of
the car (the "driver's side," not the "passenger side") he can see
quite a way around corners. And if a cyclist is knowledgeable enough
to stay out of the gutter, he's visible for a considerable distance
behind.

Pay attention as you drive a twisty road. I've done this quite a bit
in Appalachian driving - asked myself "How far ahead could I see a
cyclist?" It's never so little as to constitute a hazard. And if it
were, it would mean I was driving far too fast for conditions.

Even on straight roads, narrowing the lanes artificially may calm
traffic somewhat just by making staying in the lane a bit more challenging.

Is there any data proving that?

If debris accumulates in shoulders or bike lanes it's proof that drivers
aren't driving there, which is good for cyclists, particularly on narrow
twisty roads. The fix for debris hazards is more frequent sweeping.

Funny you should mention that. I noticed today that the street
sweepers had just cleaned one of my daily commuting streets. That's
the second time this year!

The point is, you may say "The solution is obvious: Sweep
frequently!" But the city says "We've got a 5 million dollar deficit,
potholes that need patching, police we're forced to lay off, a fire
station that we can't afford to keep open, school buses we can't
afford to run... and you want us to sweep your bike lanes???? Are you
nuts????"

- Frank Krygowski

On 9/29/2010 1:14 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:


"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
On 9/29/2010 7:47 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
[...]
Besides, it's not always a question of giving up 6 "reasonably open"
lanes (btw where do you find this except an interstate?) In the West
Island section of Montreal, my main path to get to
the city is along Lakeshore. This is a two lane winding road with a
speed
limit mostly at 50kph. There is a solid center line preventing passing
due to the curves. There is a bike lane on each side. Without the
bike lanes it would be a nightmare for both drivers and cyclists.[...]

How does the bike lane increase the width of the pavement?

Don't understand your question. Without the bike lanes the cyclist
would have to ride in the single lane with the cars. The traffic would
back up for miles.

If the street is wide enough for the cars to pass the bicycles with the
white line painted on the surface, the street would still be the same
width without the line, therefore the cars could still pass the bicycles.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
On 9/29/2010 1:14 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:


"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
On 9/29/2010 7:47 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
[...]
Besides, it's not always a question of giving up 6 "reasonably open"
lanes (btw where do you find this except an interstate?) In the West
Island section of Montreal, my main path to get to
the city is along Lakeshore. This is a two lane winding road with a
speed
limit mostly at 50kph. There is a solid center line preventing passing
due to the curves. There is a bike lane on each side. Without the
bike lanes it would be a nightmare for both drivers and cyclists.[...]

How does the bike lane increase the width of the pavement?

Don't understand your question. Without the bike lanes the cyclist
would have to ride in the single lane with the cars. The traffic would
back up for miles.

If the street is wide enough for the cars to pass the bicycles with the
white line painted on the surface, the street would still be the same
width without the line, therefore the cars could still pass the bicycles.

The purpose of the bike lane is to allocate the space for bikes. Without
that and just a bit wider lane, the car has as much right to it as the bike.
I get that this isn't always useful but in cases like this one, it provides
the
cyclist a lane.

On Sep 29, 4:15*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:35*pm, Peter Cole wrote:

On 9/29/2010 3:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
*You've been taught to love the
ghetto.

On a twisty road, motorists often cut corners. You can see this in the
wear of the paint stripes and cleared areas of the pavement.

Some roads are striped such that the outside lane is narrowed
artificially, leaving a wide paved shoulder. This will help prevent
motorists from cutting corners, although an explicit bike lane makes it
clearer that bicycles may be encountered in that space.

However, with the motorist positioned toward the road-center side of
the car (the "driver's side," not the "passenger side") he can see
quite a way around corners. *And if a cyclist is knowledgeable enough
to stay out of the gutter, he's visible for a considerable distance
behind.

Pay attention as you drive a twisty road. *I've done this quite a bit
in Appalachian driving - asked myself "How far ahead could I see a
cyclist?" *It's never so little as to constitute a hazard. *And if it
were, it would mean I was driving far too fast for conditions.

Even on straight roads, narrowing the lanes artificially may calm
traffic somewhat just by making staying in the lane a bit more challenging.

Is there any data proving that?

If debris accumulates in shoulders or bike lanes it's proof that drivers
aren't driving there, which is good for cyclists, particularly on narrow
twisty roads. The fix for debris hazards is more frequent sweeping.

Funny you should mention that. *I noticed today that the street
sweepers had just cleaned one of my daily commuting streets. *That's
the second time this year!

The point is, you may say "The solution is obvious: Sweep
frequently!" *But the city says "We've got a 5 million dollar deficit,
potholes that need patching, police we're forced to lay off, a fire
station that we can't afford to keep open, school buses we can't
afford to run... and you want us to sweep your bike lanes???? *Are you
nuts????"

This is why we should all drive more -- generate gas tax for road
maintenance.
On the narrow twisty roads around here, we don't have shoulders.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianellin/3433416816/ (my favorite
slalom course).
Soon the killer leaves will arrive. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nymphobrainiac/4037976846/
Rather than sweep them, shut down the road! -- Jay Beattie.

On Sep 29, 8:18*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:


The purpose of the bike lane is to allocate the space for bikes. *Without
that and just a bit wider lane, the car has as much right to it as the bike.
I get that this isn't always useful but in cases like this one, it provides
the
cyclist a lane.

I think you're somewhat confused on "right of way" concepts.

This might help.
http://ohiobikelawyer.com/uncategori...e-road-stinks/

or

http://tinyurl.com/24ehjmj

- Frank Krygowski

On 9/29/2010 7:18 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"Tom Sherman wrote in message
...
On 9/29/2010 1:14 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:


"Tom Sherman wrote in message
...
On 9/29/2010 7:47 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
[...]
Besides, it's not always a question of giving up 6 "reasonably open"
lanes (btw where do you find this except an interstate?) In the West
Island section of Montreal, my main path to get to
the city is along Lakeshore. This is a two lane winding road with a
speed
limit mostly at 50kph. There is a solid center line preventing passing
due to the curves. There is a bike lane on each side. Without the
bike lanes it would be a nightmare for both drivers and cyclists.[...]

How does the bike lane increase the width of the pavement?

Don't understand your question. Without the bike lanes the cyclist
would have to ride in the single lane with the cars. The traffic would
back up for miles.

If the street is wide enough for the cars to pass the bicycles with the
white line painted on the surface, the street would still be the same
width without the line, therefore the cars could still pass the bicycles.

The purpose of the bike lane is to allocate the space for bikes. Without
that and just a bit wider lane, the car has as much right to it as the bike.
I get that this isn't always useful but in cases like this one, it provides
the
cyclist a lane.


You fail to understand rules of right-of-way here. The vehicle
(motorized or not) has the right to use the lane farthest to the right
[1] (or the only lane on two-lane roads), regardless of whether the
traffic behind wants to go faster or not (with a few exceptions, like
California's pull over rule if more than 5 vehicles are being held up).

The cyclist inferiority attitude "I must get out of the way of the
cagers" is dismaying.

[1] Left for Japan and Commonwealth islands.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:14:37 -0400, "Duane Hebert"
wrote:

Don't understand your question. Without the bike lanes the cyclist
would have to ride in the single lane with the cars. The traffic would
back up for miles.

By what magical means does painting a line on a lane that isn't wide
enough to share make it wide enough to share?

By encouraging drivers to overtake with minus-one inches between their
door handles and my elbow?

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net