A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 1st 08, 10:28 PM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

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
Ads
  #12  
Old February 2nd 08, 12:51 AM posted to ba.bicycles, rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 230
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

On Feb 1, 2:28*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:

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.


Bill...a scant quarter mile from my house the bike lane is completely
obliterated by cars forcing me and every other cyclist into the
'regular' lane as they wait to get onto the metered freeway entrance,
also in Silicon Valley. So why did they bother to paint those bike
lanes? Motorists routinely ignore them when it is perceived as
'inconvenient', they might lose their precious place in the queue.

And you talk of sharrows? How can you share with people who want it
ALL?

Personally, I think there is no solution, and won't be until the OIL
RUNS OUT!
Used to be you could count on the goodwill of strangers in our
country, but now...don't forget what happened to Blanche DuBois.

ABS
  #13  
Old February 2nd 08, 02:33 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
there might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.
Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
design standards in effect when the lane was installed.
Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before
turning
across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
drivers don't belong on the road).

I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
a Google search.


The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.

We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
(pun intended) by emotion.

As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.

21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
Highways Code.

Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.

[Yawn]

Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly makes
a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of us live
in California!!!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
  #14  
Old February 2nd 08, 02:37 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

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....

What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly behaving
cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for transportation
during the license suspension period.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
  #15  
Old February 2nd 08, 02:40 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.

Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
that's where cyclists should be.

I understand the attractions of them, but....

I have had assholes swerve towards me while passing, then point at the
"bike path" on the sidewalk while yelling "get off the road".

People of that type should have their motor vehicle license revoked for
at least 5 years.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
  #16  
Old February 2nd 08, 02:46 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Bill Zaumen wrote:
...
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....

Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant difference
- motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes literally),
but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own space.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
  #17  
Old February 2nd 08, 03:16 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
vey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 380
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Tom Sherman wrote:
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....

What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly behaving
cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for transportation
during the license suspension period.


I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that people
in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving anyway.

Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then there
is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against them. I'm
trying to determine why both of these things are true, but ask any cop
around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they start rolling
their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at least 20 people
a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended license and then
watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."


  #18  
Old February 2nd 08, 03:24 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Eric Vey wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
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....

What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly
behaving cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for
transportation during the license suspension period.


I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that people
in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving anyway.

Around here, many do not have licenses - generally they run from the
police, ditch the unlicensed and/or stolen car, and try to escape on
foot. They are not to blame, since they are what the system wants them
to be, a permanent underclass.

Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then there
is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against them. I'm
trying to determine why both of these things are true, but ask any cop
around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they start rolling
their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at least 20 people
a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended license and then
watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."

Yet another undesirable group in Florida?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
  #19  
Old February 2nd 08, 04:12 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
CJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.

Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
that's where cyclists should be.

I understand the attractions of them, but....

I have had assholes swerve towards me while passing, then point at the
"bike path" on the sidewalk while yelling "get off the road".

MMMOOOOOOMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYY

The big kids are pickin' on me again.

Cliff



  #20  
Old February 2nd 08, 05:07 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

writes:

On Feb 1, 2:28*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:

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.


Bill...a scant quarter mile from my house the bike lane is completely
obliterated by cars forcing me and every other cyclist into the
'regular' lane as they wait to get onto the metered freeway entrance,
also in Silicon Valley. So why did they bother to paint those bike
lanes? Motorists routinely ignore them when it is perceived as
'inconvenient', they might lose their precious place in the queue.


Roads are a shared facility. Motorists are supposed to merge into
a bike lane before turning across it, and may merge into the bike
lane when within 200 feet of a turn. If you have drivers merging
in way before that, report the problem to the police. After enough
drivers get some "coupons", the problem will go away.

It's better for you if they merge into a bike lane before turning
across it - at least you won't be cut off.

And you talk of sharrows? How can you share with people who want it
ALL?


Sharrows are used to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a bicycle
and car to procede side-by-side. They are a good idea, just like
those symbols they put on the road when two lanes merge.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obstructions [email protected] Techniques 336 October 18th 11 01:11 AM
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City Mike Jacoubowsky General 201 February 9th 08 05:36 PM
Station St bike lane Bonbeach: cars parked in bike lane AndrewJ Australia 8 March 30th 06 10:37 AM
Cross City Bike lane scotty72 Australia 4 October 19th 05 01:47 PM
Bike Lane vs Wide outside Lane - benefit to AUTOS? [email protected] Techniques 29 June 8th 05 10:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.