Greedy, arrogant bike shop owner

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

Really? Because if you ride at the far left of the lane, you are out
of reach?

Yes, really. A door zone bike lane, to my mind, is one that you
can't avoid the door zone without leaving the bike lane. There are
plenty of that type to be avoided. If the space from the car edge to
the bike lane striping is 5 or more feet, riding safely in the bike
lane is not a problem. Just because the door zone extends into a
bike lane does not automatically create a door zone bike lane.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Peter Cole wrote:

"Terry Morse" wrote

I have some direct experience that contrasts bike lane and non-bike
lane riding. I have almost never been "buzzed", honked at, or yelled
at when riding in a bike lane. I am regularly "buzzed", honked at,
and yelled at by motorists on roads without a bike lane.

Sounds like a problem better solved with education than paint.

Education would be nice. I do my best to "educate" the drivers who
intentionally buzz, honk, or yell -- when I can catch up to them.
They're usually not terribly receptive.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Peter Cole wrote in part:

"R15757" wrote

Good points. But I think the novices that ride in the DZ in the bike lane
are
going to ride in the DZ if there is no bike lane. They will ride there until
they get doored, or until some more experienced rider convinces them not to.
I
don't think the presence of the lane is what keeps them to the right,
necessarily.

This is the usual argument, as well as pointing out that there's an ordinance
against opening a door in a cyclist's path. I don't buy either one. Bad bike
lanes encourage people to ride where they shouldn't and causes motorists to
expect them there too. They provide the illusion of safety while creating a
very real hazard.

I'm not sure about the argument that bike lanes funnel cyclists into the DZ. I
have a feeling these green riders would find their way in there anyway, to meet
their just reward. I agree, however, with your general sentiment. I am still
puzzled by the popularity of these virtual facilities. Many very experienced
riders I know express great love for them, even if they don't need them and
rarely use them. It seems they only show up on streets that specifically don't
need them, and I fear the vehicularists are right about the insidious
psychological effects of lane striping.

In the meantime, the best thing to do with bike lanes might be this: ignore
them. Just pretend it's not there. That's what I do. That's not to say that I
don't find myself riding in the bike lane area quite often anyway, in
lane-sharing situations, but if no cars are coming up I usually want to cruise
further out in the lane. The bike lane stripe is for passing purposes anyway.

Robert

Peter Cole wrote:
the closer the cars pass, the further left I move.

& that is a great little algorithm.
--
david reuteler

Terry Morse wrote:
Yes, really. A door zone bike lane, to my mind, is one that you
can't avoid the door zone without leaving the bike lane. There are
plenty of that type to be avoided. If the space from the car edge to
the bike lane striping is 5 or more feet, riding safely in the bike
lane is not a problem. Just because the door zone extends into a
bike lane does not automatically create a door zone bike lane.

imo, none of the bike lane should be in the door zone. some drivers will
get ****ed if you're on the far left side .. look at all the space you're
wasting .. if you were farther right i could pass more easily.

but the best reason is this .. novice bike riders will ride there not knowing
any better. why on earth create the impression the door zone is a viable
place to ride?
--
david reuteler

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:54:10 -0800, Terry Morse
wrote:

That's not a photo of a door zone bike lane. I've seen door zone
bike lanes, and that's not one of them. That's a
beyond-the-door-zone bike lane, very different.

Really? Because if you ride at the far left of the lane, you are out
of reach? Perhaps you should get a bit more familiar with the
terminology.

If you ride in the middle of that lane, you can be doored, especially
if the parked vehicles are trucks and SUVs and not the narrow
automobiles shown. And that rider is to the left of the lane, not in
the middle. Not all would make that choice.

This is a door zone bike lane.

Those aren't too bad. I've seen better than that, but I've also seen a lot
worse. Some of the worst bike lanes I've ever seen are in Amherst, MA. They
look barely 3' wider than a typical parked car. A Hummer would probably take up
the whole bike lane.

Really the issue is lane width. Bike lanes are fine if the lanes are wide
enough, but not if they're not.

Matt O.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:31:32 +0000, R15757 wrote:

In the meantime, the best thing to do with bike lanes might be this: ignore
them. Just pretend it's not there. That's what I do. That's not to say that I
don't find myself riding in the bike lane area quite often anyway, in
lane-sharing situations, but if no cars are coming up I usually want to cruise
further out in the lane. The bike lane stripe is for passing purposes anyway.

Not everywhere. In California, the law says you have to ride in the lane.
I won't speculate on the purpose, but that's the law, and you can get a
ticket for riding outside the lane just like you can for running a stop,
turning without signalling, or speeding.

Have you seen the door-zone bike lanes that LAB's lobbying arm, America
Bikes, promotes? Take a look at the picture of one on the front page of
their web site for "Complete the Streets", i.e. what the LAB's new
leadership wants done to your streets:

http://www.americabikes.org/bicyclea...letestreets.as
p

As Terry Morse points out further down in this thread, that's hardly a "door
zone" bike lane. If it is, then they must be planning ahead for much-wider
car doors in the future.

I'm sure a whole lot of other folk will chime in to explain why I'm wrong,
but to me, that looks like about as idea a situation as I would expect to
come across. The "door zone" shown is about the width of an entire car.
The only thing I'd like even better would be if there was no car parking at
all, but that's not always practical.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Erik Freitag wrote:

Not everywhere. In California, the law says you have to ride in the
lane. I won't speculate on the purpose, but that's the law, and you
can get a ticket for riding outside the lane just like you can for
running a stop, turning without signalling, or speeding.

Indeed I found it:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm

Matt O.

Let's take this closer to home, where you and I live. Where was LAB
in the hearings for AB1408 last year, the original AB1408 that actually
made
meaningful changes to the CVC related to bicyclists, not the gutted and
weakened
AB1408 which I am just as happy did not pass since other than allowing
recumbent riders to have high handlebars it did zilch.
.......
That was an instance where, in the most populous state a national
organization could have stood forth and helped to bring light on the
matter, but frankly I did not see it happening. Did I blink?

No, you didn't blink. AB1408 was one of the reasons I started to get
involved in the process. I didn't pay much attention to it at the time, I
figured it was someone else's job, I figured other people were onto it etc
etc etc. I should have been calling people and writing letters, and I
didn't.

LAB's current focus is obviously more national than many would like. Or,
perhaps more political. I don't really know, my only real familiarity with
the LAB is the extent to which they organized the DC Bike Summit.

But at the heart of a lot of this is a difference between the John Forrester
(sorry if I mis-spelled his name) way of looking at the world (in which a
bicycle was no different than a car in terms of how it should be treated
etc) and those who feel that a bicycle is something that should be
engineered into the system. I'm sure there is a less-awkward and
more-accurate way to put that (and my guess is that others will better
define it).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com