Bike Lane vs Wide outside Lane - benefit to AUTOS?

We've all had the argument ad infinitum about the benefits and
drawbacks of having bike lanes vs wide outside lanes. Upon reflection,
I was thinking how wide outside lanes are slightly more preferable for
cyclists in that
(1) There is no segregation effect
(2) The lane is fully swept by passing cars.

However, what about the idea that well-designed bike lanes are a
benefit to *cars* in that with the stripe, the car driver has a
reference point to make sure he won't collide with the cyclist in the
rare overtaking collision. Now, with this reference, the automobile
would be able to more confidently pass bicycles without moving over,
hence a benefit to the autos, enabling them to proceed straight
through.

FWIW, both bike lanes and wide outside lanes share problems with
potential right-hook collisions. Where they exist, perhaps there should
be a "right-turn yield to bikes" sign?

Am I right on, or am I missing something?

Later,
Nelson Chen

wrote:

We've all had the argument ad infinitum about the benefits and
drawbacks of having bike lanes vs wide outside lanes. Upon reflection,
I was thinking how wide outside lanes are slightly more preferable for
cyclists in that
(1) There is no segregation effect
(2) The lane is fully swept by passing cars.

However, what about the idea that well-designed bike lanes are a
benefit to *cars* in that with the stripe, the car driver has a
reference point to make sure he won't collide with the cyclist in the
rare overtaking collision. Now, with this reference, the automobile
would be able to more confidently pass bicycles without moving over,
hence a benefit to the autos, enabling them to proceed straight
through.

The problem with separate bike lanes is they are not continuous. Some
roads have them and some do not, and they tend to give motorists the
"this is OUR lane, bikes don't belong here" attitude on roads where
bike lanes aren't present. They also take up more space than wider
outside lanes (typically 14' for wider lanes vs 4-6' for separate
lanes).

FWIW, both bike lanes and wide outside lanes share problems with
potential right-hook collisions. Where they exist, perhaps there should
be a "right-turn yield to bikes" sign?

The best way to treat cyclists at intersections is to eliminate the
separate bike lane prior to the intersection, putting everyone in the
same lane and expecting them all to behave the same way. This
eliminates the confusion for cyclists when turning left, and avoids
motorists having to deal with someone on their right when making a
right turn.

John Lansford, PE


--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/

In article .com,
wrote:

benefit to *cars* in that with the stripe, the car driver has a
reference point to make sure he won't collide with the cyclist in the
rare overtaking collision. Now, with this reference, the automobile
would be able to more confidently pass bicycles without moving over,
hence a benefit to the autos, enabling them to proceed straight
through.

The problem (and I seem to recall research from TRL which backs this
up), is that drivers position themselves relative to the white line,
rather than the cyclist, even if it results in them passing
dangerously close to the cyclist if the cyclist is riding near the
white line (which you frequently have to do in the bike lanes around
here to avoid drain covers and potholes in the bike lane).
Without a bike lane most drivers will steer a safe distance around the
cyclist.
--
Mike Quin

wrote in message
oups.com...
We've all had the argument ad infinitum about the benefits and
drawbacks of having bike lanes vs wide outside lanes. Upon reflection,
I was thinking how wide outside lanes are slightly more preferable for
cyclists in that
(1) There is no segregation effect
(2) The lane is fully swept by passing cars.

However, what about the idea that well-designed bike lanes are a
benefit to *cars* in that with the stripe, the car driver has a
reference point to make sure he won't collide with the cyclist in the
rare overtaking collision. Now, with this reference, the automobile
would be able to more confidently pass bicycles without moving over,
hence a benefit to the autos, enabling them to proceed straight
through.

FWIW, both bike lanes and wide outside lanes share problems with
potential right-hook collisions. Where they exist, perhaps there should
be a "right-turn yield to bikes" sign?

Am I right on, or am I missing something?

Later,
Nelson Chen


My experience with the line be it shoulder or bike lane is that cars come
much closer to you. The safest I've ever felt and the most distance given
to me by passing cars is on roads that had been freshly paved and had no
lines what so ever. Without the fog line and the center line every single
vehicle that passed gave me lots of room.

Mike Quin wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

benefit to *cars* in that with the stripe, the car driver has a
reference point to make sure he won't collide with the cyclist in the
rare overtaking collision. Now, with this reference, the automobile
would be able to more confidently pass bicycles without moving over,
hence a benefit to the autos, enabling them to proceed straight
through.

The problem (and I seem to recall research from TRL which backs this
up), is that drivers position themselves relative to the white line,
rather than the cyclist, even if it results in them passing
dangerously close to the cyclist if the cyclist is riding near the
white line (which you frequently have to do in the bike lanes around
here to avoid drain covers and potholes in the bike lane).
Without a bike lane most drivers will steer a safe distance around the
cyclist.
--
Mike Quin

I haven't seen it in print, but long ago based on some close calls of
my own I formulated the same theory: motorists judge their lateral
position relative to the centre line, bikes relative to the road edge.
Thus any point at which the road or lane narrows presents a risk of
interference with neither operator perceiving that they've changed
position.

Chip C

wrote:

FWIW, both bike lanes and wide outside lanes share problems with
potential right-hook collisions. Where they exist, perhaps there
should be a "right-turn yield to bikes" sign?

Am I right on, or am I missing something?

Yielding to whoever may on your right while you're making a right turn is
implicit, otherwise you're making an unsafe lane change. BTW, a "lane" is not
an area marked by paint stripes (which are only a guide), but a particular
vehicle's path of travel.

Matt O.

wrote:

FWIW, both bike lanes and wide outside lanes share problems with
potential right-hook collisions. Where they exist, perhaps there should
be a "right-turn yield to bikes" sign?

Am I right on, or am I missing something?

Such a sign would only encourage the very common sight of a stream of
bikes overtaking and passing a car on the right even as it's half-way
into a right turn. If you're thinking that this is a safe and legal way
to mix bikes and cars, I think you're missing something.

If you're getting your sign painting kit out, whip up some of these:

"bike lane ends - bikes and cars merge"
"all vehicles merge right before turning"
"through traffic must pass on left"

Chip C
Toronto

I agree that separate bike lanes can cause a segregation effect, with
motorists thinking they then have exclusive use of the non-bike lane.
They also take up somewhat more space, though the extra space is
probably negligible.

As to eliminating the bike lanes at intersections, yes that can be done
for major intersections. However, I think it would be impractical for
every little possible turn-off in say the city. A wide outside lane
does *not* eliminate that problem, if the bicycle is near the outside
edge and the auto near the inside edge, FWIW.

Later,
Nelson Chen

Yes, I remember reading about studies that show having the extra line
actually makes cars pass *closer* to the cyclist. Again, as I noted in
my initial post, the line benefits not bikes, but rather *cars*. As
long as the cyclist is *not* hit nor endangered by a passing auto,
things are OK for the cyclist. To the car though, being able to
*easily* pass the bike w/o having to shift lanes or adjust position is
a bonus, hence the benefit to the *auto*, right? I mean, even with a
wide outside lane, the average auto shifts over or takes some sort of
evasive action to comfortably pass the cyclist. If the BL is wisely
built, the auto can safely pass w/o any special action on its part,
hence the auto benefits, right?

Later,
Nelson Chen

"Chip C" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

FWIW, both bike lanes and wide outside lanes share problems with
potential right-hook collisions. Where they exist, perhaps there should
be a "right-turn yield to bikes" sign?

Am I right on, or am I missing something?

Such a sign would only encourage the very common sight of a stream of
bikes overtaking and passing a car on the right even as it's half-way
into a right turn. If you're thinking that this is a safe and legal way
to mix bikes and cars, I think you're missing something.

If you're getting your sign painting kit out, whip up some of these:

"bike lane ends - bikes and cars merge"
"all vehicles merge right before turning"
"through traffic must pass on left"

Chip C
Toronto



Yeah, through traffic should pass those turning right on the left... BUT,
most of the dick-heads who've given me opportunities to do panic brake tests
as they turn right never gave me the chance to move to their left. They
overtook me just before their right turn and then cranked it over right in
front of me. How in the hell was I supposed to move to their left when
traveling 16-20 mph and they did that? If these bozos could manage to
sacrifice about 10 seconds of their lives and just hang behind me as I got
out of their right-turning way, there'd have been no problem. But, they
couldn't, you know, they had a big important reason to cut me off - mainly
that they figured I didn't belong out on "their" street and they were going
to "show" me!

Cal

(who in the 100 miles I rode yesterday had one idiot shouting at me, "that's
what sidewalks are for!", another shouting something unintellible, but
undoubtedly belligerent, and yet another slowing his jacked-up monster truck
wannabe right beside me, putting in his clutch and gunning his huge engine
so I could be appropriately impressed by his "manhood"... I guess. Too bad
the dork didn't throw a rod. He could have really hurt me by that - I might
have died laughing.)