An Incident

Jorg Lueke wrote:
On Jun 7, 5:27 am, catzz66 wrote:
We don't have bike lanes where I live, and I think I am probably a lot
better off without them. I can usually figure out a way to avoid the
most dangerous streets by riding one street or so off the main drag, but
I would expect motorists to think bikes are confined to bike lanes if we
had them. I wonder what experience shows in towns that have extensive
bike lanes.

Rivers make alternative routes hard, it's either the bridge or
swimming with your bike on your back.


Floaties? =] Rivers would definitely present a problem for me, too.

On Jun 7, 11:26 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
catzz66 wrote:
We don't have bike lanes where I live, and I think I am probably a lot
better off without them. I can usually figure out a way to avoid the
most dangerous streets by riding one street or so off the main drag,
but I would expect motorists to think bikes are confined to bike
lanes if we had them. I wonder what experience shows in towns that
have extensive bike lanes.

So your solution when there are no bike lanes is to find other routes, yet
you think you're better off without bike lanes.

Strange logic, that.

I imagine Bill is confusing cause and effect.

Bike lanes are normally put on roads that have enough room for bike
lanes. (Duh!) Those roads are often better for cycling whether or
not they have the magic stripes.

And if you have a "dangerous street" that's a main drag, how exactly
does the stripe help? Does it help, say, teach novice cyclists to
make left turns from the right side bike lane? Does it tempt novices
to pass cars on the right, so they can get right hooked? Does it run
the novices into door zones? Does it collect plenty of gravel and
broken glass?

FWIW, when I visit certain cities that abound in bike lanes, I
sometimes prefer the streets without them. I clearly recall
specifically avoiding them because of piles of glass.

- Frank Krygowski

On Jun 7, 9:23 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 7, 8:38 am, Jorg Lueke wrote:

On Jun 6, 8:09 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jun 6, 8:37 pm, Jorg Lueke wrote:

How would colored bike lanes help? If anything, bike lanes seem to
make left turns more difficult. At least some motorists think a
cyclist should never leave them. And sadly, some cyclists think the
same thing, and try to turn left from a right-side bike lane.

- Frank Krygowski

It would make people aware that bikes belong on the road and not the
sidewalk.

For such purposes, I greatly prefer "Share the Road" signs. If you
must have something on the road surface as well, perhaps "Sharrows."

Seehttp://home.swbell.net/mpion/sharesigns.html

But more education is better. I'd favor public service announcements
on TV, radio and in newspapers explaining that cyclists have a right
to the road. And explaining that cyclists should normally make left
turns from a position toward the road center, not from the curb.

- Frank Krygowski

We do have spots with signs and that has to help too. Public service
announcements would be good, I'm just now seeing a spate of
commercials about watching for motorcyclists. What would be ideal as
far as Saint Paul and the river is concerned would be to convert the
train bridge for bikes and peds. The one wouldn't even have to enter
downtown.

On Jun 7, 11:26 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

catzz66 wrote:

We don't have bike lanes where I live, and I think I am probably a lot
better off without them. I can usually figure out a way to avoid the
most dangerous streets by riding one street or so off the main drag,
but I would expect motorists to think bikes are confined to bike
lanes if we had them. I wonder what experience shows in towns that
have extensive bike lanes.

So your solution when there are no bike lanes is to find other routes, yet
you think you're better off without bike lanes.

Strange logic, that.



Logic's not so complicated. With no bike lanes, motorists are
accustomed to seeing bikes in the street as being the norm.

On Jun 7, 11:24 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
catzz66 wrote:
On Jun 7, 11:26 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

catzz66 wrote:

We don't have bike lanes where I live, and I think I am probably a
lot better off without them. I can usually figure out a way to
avoid the most dangerous streets by riding one street or so off
the main drag, but I would expect motorists to think bikes are
confined to bike lanes if we had them. I wonder what experience
shows in towns that have extensive bike lanes.

So your solution when there are no bike lanes is to find other
routes, yet you think you're better off without bike lanes.

Strange logic, that.

Logic's not so complicated. With no bike lanes, motorists are
accustomed to seeing bikes in the street as being the norm.

But...but...you said you find other routes when there aren't dedicated bike
lanes!

It's getting cloudier and cloudier where you are...

sigh

I'm perfectly capable of riding busy streets, and do so often. I
don't feel endangered when I do. And we don't have many bike lanes
around here - thank God - so that's not part of the equation.

But I often choose to ride less traveled parallel roads. It's not a
safety worry, it's an aesthetic thing. Cars are noisy and smelly.

- Frank Krygowski

catzz66 wrote:

We don't have bike lanes where I live, and I think I am probably a lot
better off without them. I can usually figure out a way to avoid the
most dangerous streets by riding one street or so off the main drag, but
I would expect motorists to think bikes are confined to bike lanes if we
had them. I wonder what experience shows in towns that have extensive
bike lanes.

SLC has an extensive system of bike lanes, and there are some out in
the 'burbs. I was riding down a street that is partially signed about two
weeks ago, when a passing testosterone-poisoning case screamed at me at
the top of his lungs, admonishing me to remove myself from the sexually
promiscuous road and ride on the sidewalk.
Cretins don't look at signs.


Bill

__o | You don't stop riding because you get old.
_`\(,_ | You get old because you stop riding.
(_)/ (_) |

On Jun 5, 4:19*pm, Jorg Lueke wrote:
* * * * Yesterday was not a good day to be biking to work. *In the mornings I
need to go through Saint Paul to cross the river over one of the
bridges. *As I come in from the East this means I need to make a left
turn and since the right-hand left turn lane grows out of the left
lane of the road I have to make a switch. *I have found the best tome
for this is two blocks prior to the turn because if I wait any longer
the traffic is too heavy to get across the lanes safely. *So for two
blocks, about 20-30 seconds I may be slowing down some commuters. *One
irritated fellow bellowed something out his window at me that sounded
like “ncdjehjfjenf ..Lance Armstrong ,.dcd//sddmklsdm”. *I promptly
gave him a one finger salute although in retrospect a smile and a wave
may have been more effective.
* * * * Later I was getting ready to turn onto a trail with a van behind me.
The van was fine, but as I made a right turn onto the trail a biker
whizzing down the hill onto the street zoomed full speed in front of
the van. *In this case the biker was being an ass since the traffic
clearly has the right of way and the trail has a stop sign. *Usually
it's enough to slow down and pay attention, just plowing into traffic
is stupid.
* * * * All this would end up being small potatoes next to the ride home.
There is a three mile stretch from work to where I can turn onto the
trails. *The shoulder is decent though the traffic does go 50, but
it's not much of an issue. *At the very end of the three miles I, once
again, need to make a left turn to get onto the trail. *I look, no one
is coming, I get into the lane pedal towards the light when a truck
veers out behind me with the driver cursing. *Something like “Get the &
%^ out of the road”. *As luck would have it he missed the light and I
rode up next to him. *Again the tirade, “Why are you guys on the #$
road, I almost &&* hit you. *Why don't you ride on the sidewalk?” *I
then explained to him that there was no sidewalk, that even if there
were bikes belonged on the road, and that I really needed to just make
this one left turn. *After exchanging some unplesantries under the
influence of an adrenaline shot he ended by muttering “You're gonna
get hit. *I'm telling you you're gonna get hit.” *Then the light
changed.
* * * * What is frustrating about all this is that 11 of the 19 miles I ride
each way are on trails, and 7.5 of the reminder I am on the side of
the road where I can usually be passed with relative ease. *But, on
those few spots where I need to merge with traffic there are still too
many people who can't bother to wait a few seconds.

Left turns on a busy arterial street are one of the least happy events
of bicycle commuting. If traffic is relatively light, I occupy the
turn lane, assuming turning traffic passing me can stay in the next
lane to pass. When traffic is heavy, I stay in the curb lane and
either wait for a break in the traffic, before crossing, or overshoot
and make a U turn at a break in the boulevard further ahead, where
there is room in the middle to wait if necessary. That's a strategy
to deal with one particular road configuration that I most frequently
encounter.

On Jun 7, 11:24 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

catzz66 wrote:

On Jun 7, 11:26 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

catzz66 wrote:

We don't have bike lanes where I live, and I think I am probably a
lot better off without them. I can usually figure out a way to
avoid the most dangerous streets by riding one street or so off
the main drag, but I would expect motorists to think bikes are
confined to bike lanes if we had them. I wonder what experience
shows in towns that have extensive bike lanes.
BS wrote:
So your solution when there are no bike lanes is to find other
routes, yet you think you're better off without bike lanes.

Strange logic, that.
Catzz replied:
Logic's not so complicated. With no bike lanes, motorists are
accustomed to seeing bikes in the street as being the norm.
BS wrote:
But...but...you said you find other routes when there aren't dedicated bike
lanes!

It's getting cloudier and cloudier where you are...



You got me mixed up with someone else, Bill. My comment above says that
we don't have bike lanes where I live.

In article
,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jun 7, 11:26 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
catzz66 wrote:
We don't have bike lanes where I live, and I think I am probably a lot
better off without them. I can usually figure out a way to avoid the
most dangerous streets by riding one street or so off the main drag,
but I would expect motorists to think bikes are confined to bike
lanes if we had them. I wonder what experience shows in towns that
have extensive bike lanes.

So your solution when there are no bike lanes is to find other routes, yet
you think you're better off without bike lanes.

Strange logic, that.

I imagine Bill is confusing cause and effect.

Bike lanes are normally put on roads that have enough room for bike
lanes. (Duh!) Those roads are often better for cycling whether or
not they have the magic stripes.


True. When the motive behind bike lanes is expediency their net effect
can be negligible and often detrimental.

And if you have a "dangerous street" that's a main drag, how exactly
does the stripe help? Does it help, say, teach novice cyclists to
make left turns from the right side bike lane? Does it tempt novices
to pass cars on the right, so they can get right hooked? Does it run
the novices into door zones? Does it collect plenty of gravel and
broken glass?

Often explicitly demarcating a space for cyclists on major carterials
is an effective incentive in encouraging prospective cyclists, as well
as making for more elbow room and less duress for experienced cyclists.
While not making for a safer ride, they certainly can make for a more
pleasant one.

As for the ramifications of bike lanes on cyclist's safety, I won't
generalize. The spectrum runs from atrocious gutter traps, funneling
cyclists into door zones, to absolutely indispensable corridors on six
lane highway bridges.

What's clear, around Toronto anyway, is that planners and traffic
engineers are disposed to consult guidelines, not, as in the case of
their auto-centric efforts, bound to standards. The wildly inconsistent
outcomes reflect that the quality of the results is not of the highest
priority.


FWIW, when I visit certain cities that abound in bike lanes, I
sometimes prefer the streets without them. I clearly recall
specifically avoiding them because of piles of glass.

- Frank Krygowski

On Jun 9, 11:35 am, Luke wrote:
In article
,



Frank Krygowski wrote:

And if you have a "dangerous street" that's a main drag, how exactly
does the stripe help? Does it help, say, teach novice cyclists to
make left turns from the right side bike lane? Does it tempt novices
to pass cars on the right, so they can get right hooked? Does it run
the novices into door zones? Does it collect plenty of gravel and
broken glass?

Often explicitly demarcating a space for cyclists on major carterials
is an effective incentive in encouraging prospective cyclists, as well
as making for more elbow room and less duress for experienced cyclists.
While not making for a safer ride, they certainly can make for a more
pleasant one.

I agree that bike lanes encourage prospective cyclists. But in a way,
that's sad - people shouldn't need a stripe to feel that they can ride
on a road. I think those prospective cyclists are twice bamboozled -
once in thinking that cycling is dangerous, and again in thinking the
stripe somehow makes it safer.

From what I've read, I don't think bike lanes generate any more "elbow
room." ISTR at least one study that showed that motorists actually
pass closer when there is a bike lane. I'll dig for that study, if
anyone's interested.

- Frank Krygowski