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/