An Incident

On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

Yeah dig for it. This should be good.

On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I agree that bike lanes encourage prospective cyclists. ...

I am not a fan of bike lanes but they do encourage beginning riders.
To be more precise, they encourage prospective cyclists to ride *in
the street and with traffic.* But creating psychological comfort for
beginners is certainly not the answer to the problems of street
cycling.

On Jun 9, 2:52 pm, wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

Yeah dig for it. This should be good.

OK, I found one I have on disk, and references to others.

"Evaluation of Shared-Use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles,"
Floride Dept. of Transportation Ped/Bike Safety Office, found (on p.
14) that mean separation distance between cyclists and passing cars
was 6.44 ft for wide curb lanes, vs. 5.93 ft for bike lanes.

The other reference was to “An Evaluation of Red Shoulder as a
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility,� by The University of North
Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. I read this one long ago and
I think I have a hardcopy of it, but haven't looked for it yet. In
any case, some filed discussion of that paper says (I quote):

"Eighty six percent of bicyclists perceived that there was more space
between themselves and passing motorists with the added shoulder, and
14
percent felt there was no change. In fact, the actual spacing between
bicycles and motor vehicles was 0.62 feet less with the red shoulders
than before their placement.

"Nearly eighty six percent of bicyclists’ perceptions were not only
wrong, they were completely opposite of reality."

BTW, the "red shoulder" in the title is obviously a bike lane.

It's not difficult to see why motorists would pass closer to cyclists
in a bike lane. First, the motorists feel more confident that the
cyclist is not going to move left in front of them - that is, they
feel the cyclist is trapped by the line.

Likewise, the cyclist feels more confident riding closer to passing
traffic. It's a false sense of security, because the line doesn't
keep the car from hitting him from behind; but hits-from-behind are
very rare anyway.

But most important, the cyclist probably _needs_ to ride further left
when there's a bike lane, simply because bike lanes tend to accumulate
debris, and the density of debris is least where cars come closest to
blowing it off - that is, the lanes are cleanest right next to the
stripe.

There are some nice debris shots at
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...rystripes..htm

- Frank Krygowski

In article
,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jun 9, 2:52 pm, wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

Yeah dig for it. This should be good.

OK, I found one I have on disk, and references to others.

"Evaluation of Shared-Use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles,"
Floride Dept. of Transportation Ped/Bike Safety Office, found (on p.
14) that mean separation distance between cyclists and passing cars
was 6.44 ft for wide curb lanes, vs. 5.93 ft for bike lanes.


Was any mention made of the distance the cyclist was riding from the
curb in either case?

snip

It's not difficult to see why motorists would pass closer to cyclists
in a bike lane. First, the motorists feel more confident that the
cyclist is not going to move left in front of them - that is, they
feel the cyclist is trapped by the line.

Likewise, the cyclist feels more confident riding closer to passing
traffic. It's a false sense of security, because the line doesn't
keep the car from hitting him from behind; but hits-from-behind are
very rare anyway.



But most important, the cyclist probably _needs_ to ride further left
when there's a bike lane, simply because bike lanes tend to accumulate
debris, and the density of debris is least where cars come closest to
blowing it off - that is, the lanes are cleanest right next to the
stripe.

There are some nice debris shots at
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...arystripes.htm

- Frank Krygowski

There is another point that bears on the discussion. It's my impression
-- subjective it is, but it's been corroborated by residents living on
the streets concerned -- that, contingent upon the design, bike lanes
can reduce the speed of motorized traffic. This is so when a lane or
two, previously devoted to autos is eliminated to make room for bike
ways and/or medians. (Frank do you have a study in your collection
attesting to this?)

In encouraging slower traffic which, in turn, correlates to greater
safety for everyone, bikeways obliquely minimize danger.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:44:22 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote, in part:

But most important, the cyclist probably _needs_ to ride further left
when there's a bike lane, simply because bike lanes tend to accumulate
debris, and the density of debris is least where cars come closest to
blowing it off - that is, the lanes are cleanest right next to the
stripe.

It also places the cyclist closer to where opposing traffic is
looking for a vehicle.

When a driver is focused on getting an opening for their left turn
they're looking for traffic in the travel lane. They're less likely
to be looking bikes somewhere near the shoulder. They still might
misjudge your speed but at least they've a better chance of seeing
you. I like to stand up if I see that situation taking shape.

Bike lanes aren't much different than paved shoulders in many places
where they exist. Just different signs. Drivers will use bike lanes
or shoulders to get around a left turning vehicle in front of them.
--
zk

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:30:02 -0400, Luke
wrote:


There is another point that bears on the discussion. It's my impression
-- subjective it is, but it's been corroborated by residents living on
the streets concerned -- that, contingent upon the design, bike lanes
can reduce the speed of motorized traffic. This is so when a lane or
two, previously devoted to autos is eliminated to make room for bike
ways and/or medians. (Frank do you have a study in your collection
attesting to this?)

This too is my impression from having two new stripes painted in the
door zone along my regular route. There was also a yellow median
divider painted that's almost the width or a standard lane. Two
traffic lanes and a parking lane have been reduced to one lane, bike
lane and parking lane.

It's all within a school and playground speed-zone everybody had
previously ignored. At least now they slow down somewhat. They're
still not doing 30KmH during daylight or school hours but more like
50 instead of seventy.

The bike lane is longer and fits into our "bike route" system but I
use only a half or whole block of it*. The painted median has been
handier for me than the bike lane. Previous to the paint, I had to
enter into traffic, which wasn't hard because of the wide curb lane,
and then I had to cross four lanes on the fly within a half-block,
for the back lane, or else go to the intersection and push the
pedestrian button to make the left turn. Other cyclists frequently
use the sidewalk for that block. Riding the street, it's all a
matter of timing. Overly polite drivers and cell phone zombies can
spoil the flow. Some drivers freak when they see you standing in the
middle of the road, Others know they too can safely use the painted
median for a left turn at this intersection.

*W. 49th Ave eastbound from Heather to Tisdall northbound for
Vancouver locals.
--
zk

On Jun 9, 9:30 pm, Luke wrote:
In article
,



Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:52 pm, wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

Yeah dig for it. This should be good.

OK, I found one I have on disk, and references to others.

"Evaluation of Shared-Use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles,"
Floride Dept. of Transportation Ped/Bike Safety Office, found (on p.
14) that mean separation distance between cyclists and passing cars
was 6.44 ft for wide curb lanes, vs. 5.93 ft for bike lanes.

Was any mention made of the distance the cyclist was riding from the
curb in either case?

In the Florida study, cyclists definitely rode further from the curb
when a bike lane was present. Looking at those debris photos again,
it's easy to see why they would.
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...arystripes.htm

Riding further from the curb is fine with me. The cyclist is more
visible to all motorists. But I like the fact that when I ride there
with no bike lane stripe, cars are more likely to move further left to
give me more room. And I like the fact that I can completely control
my road position when there is no stripe. I don't have problems like
Oregon cyclists do, where they could get ticketed if they leave the
bike lane.




There is another point that bears on the discussion. It's my impression
-- subjective it is, but it's been corroborated by residents living on
the streets concerned -- that, contingent upon the design, bike lanes
can reduce the speed of motorized traffic. This is so when a lane or
two, previously devoted to autos is eliminated to make room for bike
ways and/or medians. (Frank do you have a study in your collection
attesting to this?)

Not that I'm aware of.

I've heard people say they felt the same thing. But I think one needs
to be very careful about such judgments. The fact is, there is a huge
deceptive effect associated with bike facilities. As I stated in my
other post, riders were overwhelmingly convinced cars gave more
distance with bike lanes, but riders were flat wrong. They actually
gave less room.

In encouraging slower traffic which, in turn, correlates to greater
safety for everyone, bikeways obliquely minimize danger.

In the bike lane studies I've read, none have demonstrated any actual
increase in safety. People more knowledgeable than I have claimed
that it's not only what I've read - that there simply are no studies
with data that proves safety advantages (or disadvantages) for bike
lanes. Any changes are down in the statistical noise. But most
cyclists are overwhelmingly convinced they're much safer. Again, flat
wrong.

I think the lack of data is partly because cycling is so blasted safe,
it's hard to do a small-area study that "catches" enough data to give
statistically robust answers. ISTM that in such a situation, one
needs to analyze the mechanics of crashes to see what the effects of
such a design change would be. IOW, what sorts of crash mechanisms
would bike lanes help? What crash mechanisms would they hurt? Which
are more common? Which are more serious?

Bike lanes try to protect against a tiny percentage of crashes, the
"hit from behind" crashes. To do so, they make more likely the much
more common right hook, left cross, and driver pullout crashes. They
also tempt novice cyclists to turn left from the curb.

We have very few bike lanes around here. But in the past year, one of
our club members almost got hit because of one. He was in a bike lane
that veered right, which is the direction that most bikes and most
cars go at that intersection. Trouble was, he was going straight. He
barely missed a right hook.

And he's no novice. He's ridden for probably 25 years. He was a well-
known racer years ago, noted for his 200 mile training rides and other
adventures. But even he got sucked in by that bike lane.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 05:27:56 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, catzz66
wrote:

I wonder what experience shows in towns that have extensive
bike lanes.

Cagers yell at you when you take the lane to avoid hazards and
they pass on blind corners with double yellow lines, even if you
are riding at the speed limit. When you catch up with them at a
stoplight and ask them if they know that a double yellow line
means no passing, *they* yell that cyclists "blocking traffic"
will cause accidents!

Since "bike lanes" are rarely swept or maintained, unlike the
main roadway, they are often useless, and only create the
impression that cagers don't have to share the road.

For such purposes, I greatly prefer "Share the Road" signs.

=v= "Share the Road" is completely useless. It is synonymous
with "stop taking the lane and get out of my way" with a certain
population of motorists, and that's the very population that
needs to be reached with a different message.

=v= "Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane" (BAUFL) is a much less
ambiguous message:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jym/355367806/

If you must have something on the road surface as well,
perhaps "Sharrows."
See http://home.swbell.net/mpion/sharesigns.html

=v= I like sharrows, though I don't know how effective they
are (they're still considered experimental). I like to point
at them when motorists tell me to go ride on the sidewalk or
in a bike lane.
_Jym_