Before & after bike lanes

"NFN Smith" wrote in message ...
De-lurking, and jumping in late...

damyth wrote:

I fail to understand is why any cyclist is willing to give up six
"reasonably open" lanes (largely devoid of pedestrians) for one _very_
dangerous lane consisting of pedestrians, cars, delivery trucks,
bicyclists, roller-bladers, baby strollers, salmons, what have you.
The "safety in numbers" argument becomes even more of a fallacy as
bike ridership goes up, as that single bike lane becomes more
congested.

This is really the core issue.

A lot of times, the perspective of municipal planners with bike lanes is
merely as a way of getting bike traffic out of the way of motorists.
From the perspective of a motorist, it's all "slow moving traffic", and
the planners often don't recognize that there's a variety of speeds and
skill levels of cyclists (ranging from adult fast-fitness riders, to
small children), and that bike lanes often are magnets for other
traffic, as described above. And it's a different discussion, but
off-road "bike paths" are even worse.

Thus, not even counting for people riding bicycles that ride against
traffic (whether it's indifference, ignorance, or misunderstanding that
bikes are subject to pedestrian rules), the speed of a bicycle going 12
or 15 miles an hour (or faster) is more incompatible with pedestrians,
and slower bicycles than it is with motor vehicular traffic.

All the motorist cares about is that slow moving traffic is out of his
way. However, for a casual adult cyclist (without skills of riding in
traffic) or children, the bike lane can be a way of allowing them to use
the street. The problem then becomes with the rider that can handle
riding in traffic -- by necessity, the rider needs to be in traffic with
other motor vehicles (and away from the impediments of the bike line),
but the motorist is unlikely to know (or care) about the difference,
only noticing that the cyclist is not riding in the lane where he's
"supposed" to be, and therefore, impeding the motorist.

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.

A few times I've seen cyclists riding side by side where
one is in the lane and one is on the road. They are usually not
riding at speed. There is usually a line of cars for blocks behind them.
Since I'm behind as well, I get to hear how happy the motorists are.
This makes for a great "share the road" atmosphere.
I can agree with the motorists as I'd like to pass as well but can't.

At any rate, my point is that some roads need lanes if cars and bikes
are going to share them.

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?

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

"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.

On Sep 29, 8:47*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

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.

This is what I don't understand. If the pavement is wide enough to
fit a proper bike lane plus a proper car lane, why would a shared lane
be a "nightmare"? The pavement width would be the same. And 50 kph
is, by my standards, a slow & pleasant road. That speed limit is only
5 mph more than our park speed limits.

A few times I've seen cyclists riding side by side where
one is in the lane and one is on the road. *They are usually not
riding at speed. *There is usually a line of cars for blocks behind them. *
Since I'm behind as well, I get to hear how happy the motorists are. * *
This makes for a great "share the road" atmosphere.
I can agree with the motorists as I'd like to pass as well but can't.

If that's a significant problem, ISTM that "Cyclists Ride Single File"
signs would be the proper strategy. No paint stripe needed.

At any rate, my point is that some roads need lanes if cars and bikes
are going to share them. *

FWIW, I'm actually open to the possibility that some roads might
benefit from bike lanes. However, I can't recall hearing cogent
reasons for any specific roads. When I try to visualize such a
situation, then visuallize erasing the bike lane stripe, it always
seems to be better.

- Frank Krygowski

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Sep 29, 8:47 am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

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.

This is what I don't understand. If the pavement is wide enough to
fit a proper bike lane plus a proper car lane, why would a shared lane
be a "nightmare"? The pavement width would be the same. And 50 kph
is, by my standards, a slow & pleasant road. That speed limit is only
5 mph more than our park speed limits.

First it depends on what you mean by a "proper bike lane" These are about 3 feet wide.
The actual car lanes are barely wide enough for a car, much less the buses that also
ride on this road.
In a perfect world I guess your point is valid but I find this one somewhat
less than perfect.

On Sep 29, 2:22*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote:

This is what I don't understand. *If the pavement is wide enough to
fit a proper bike lane plus a proper car lane, why would a shared lane
be a "nightmare"? *The pavement width would be the same. *And 50 kph
is, by my standards, a slow & pleasant road. That speed limit is only
5 mph more than our park speed limits.

First it depends on what you mean by a "proper bike lane" *These are about 3 feet wide.
The actual car lanes are barely wide enough for a car, much less the buses that also
ride on this road.
In a perfect world I guess your point is valid but I find this one somewhat
less than perfect. *

I don't think that paint stripe makes it any more perfect!

So if a bus comes by, bulging over the lane stripes, do you really
think it's a good idea to have him something like 6" from your left
arm?

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.

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.

- Frank Krygowski

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Sep 29, 2:22 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote:

This is what I don't understand. If the pavement is wide enough to
fit a proper bike lane plus a proper car lane, why would a shared lane
be a "nightmare"? The pavement width would be the same. And 50 kph
is, by my standards, a slow & pleasant road. That speed limit is only
5 mph more than our park speed limits.

First it depends on what you mean by a "proper bike lane" These are about 3 feet wide.
The actual car lanes are barely wide enough for a car, much less the buses that also
ride on this road.
In a perfect world I guess your point is valid but I find this one somewhat
less than perfect.

I don't think that paint stripe makes it any more perfect!


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.
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.

"Duane Hebert" wrote in message ...
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Sep 29, 2:22 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
This would work though:
http://www.treehugger.com/Tatsuro-Ki...FREE-image.jpg

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.
When I make a point of doing a true 25 in my car through the
zones that go through neighborhoods with kids playing people
behind me are often obviously angry/impatient.

--
PeteCresswell

On 9/29/2010 3:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:22 pm, "Duane wrote:
"Frank wrote:

This is what I don't understand. If the pavement is wide enough to
fit a proper bike lane plus a proper car lane, why would a shared lane
be a "nightmare"? The pavement width would be the same. And 50 kph
is, by my standards, a slow& pleasant road. That speed limit is only
5 mph more than our park speed limits.

First it depends on what you mean by a "proper bike lane" These are about 3 feet wide.
The actual car lanes are barely wide enough for a car, much less the buses that also
ride on this road.
In a perfect world I guess your point is valid but I find this one somewhat
less than perfect.

I don't think that paint stripe makes it any more perfect!

So if a bus comes by, bulging over the lane stripes, do you really
think it's a good idea to have him something like 6" from your left
arm?

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.

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.

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.

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

Motorists do use lane markers as visual cues. Freeways would be
free-for-all's otherwise.

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.