Bike Lane vs Wide outside Lane - benefit to AUTOS?

On 6 Jun 2005 11:44:13 -0700, wrote:

... In Austin, (having re-established residency in a
supposedly bike-friendly town), Shoal Creek Boulevard, maybe the best
"bike street" in town, was recently messed up by the drive to establish
separate bike lanes. Loony plans to take the car lanes from one side to
the other, to establish alternate street parking zones (i.e., taking
homefront parking away from more than half the residents of SCB),
resulted in "traffic islands", concrete curb-like obstructions meant to
stop motor vehicles from driving two abreast, were installed, with the
MV's moved to the center of the road via a white lane stripe on the
right. Now it's more difficult for everybody. DUH. Plus, many days
there are more "islands" than parked vehicles-- IOW, obstructions to
safe passage have increased, with some being permanent (hoping not)
since they can't be started up and driven away. This was resident
reaction to a perceived incursion by "bikers", and the "transportation
experts" (city employees, some of them) who were going to take their
parking away and basically screw up their neighborhood for no good
reason.

Heights Boulevard here in Houston used to be a four-lane road from
near I-10 up to 20th St, with a wide median that was mostly trees and
grass. It now has one vehicle lane each way (well marked, normal
width) and a very wide shoulder lane that's reserved for bikes and
*parked* cars. It works surprisingly well. Even a dual-wheel pickup
parked a foot and a half from the curb still leaves a good four feet
of space to get by, better than the width of many of the striped bike
lanes. Peddies aren't a problem; they're on the jogging path down the
median strip, which now has added landscaping and the occasional
gazebo. The bike lane is even wide enough that it's possible to
cruise right past a city bus stopped at the bus stops. The only
poblem is that in many respects, it's a bike lane to nowhere. Several
"bike routes" cross it, but these are mostly of the "we made a mark on
a map and called it a bike route" nature, not (for the most part)
dedicated right-of-way (striped or otherwise) that has been provided.
If the old railroad right-of-way from the MKT ever gets converted to
a bike path as was originally planned, the Heights Boulevard bike
lanes will hook to something pretty useful...but that's a long way off
at this point, if it ever happens.





--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack wrote:
Heights Boulevard here in Houston used to be a four-lane road from
near I-10 up to 20th St, with a wide median that was mostly trees and
grass. It now has one vehicle lane each way (well marked, normal
width) and a very wide shoulder lane that's reserved for bikes and
*parked* cars. It works surprisingly well.

The only time I regularly rode off a bikepath in Houston was with a
group, so anything that works there is a surprise (IMHO).

The only
poblem is that in many respects, it's a bike lane to nowhere. Several
"bike routes" cross it, but these are mostly of the "we made a mark on
a map and called it a bike route" nature, not (for the most part)
dedicated right-of-way (striped or otherwise) that has been provided.

I'm all for the Amsterdam model, don't get me wrong, but the reason
bikes are #1 pecking order there is that they are somewhat of a
majority. Here, I'm happy with/without stripes, let alone "dedicated
lanes" (not until the oil runs out in the USA), depending on the
average motorist attitude, so to speak. That's the problem in Houston,
where during my (almost) four years there, at least a couple of groups
of cyclists were struck by cars, with fatalities. IOW, deliberate
actions by crazed motorists. In Austin, the bikepaths are suggested
routes that "we" sometimes follow, sometimes not. It's a different
world here. Not to say anything nirvana-like.

If the old railroad right-of-way from the MKT ever gets converted to
a bike path as was originally planned, the Heights Boulevard bike
lanes will hook to something pretty useful...but that's a long way off
at this point, if it ever happens.

Well, maybe after the new Womens Field Hockey stadium is built for the
2xxx Olympics... (ref., "Sports Arena/Medical Center Trolley Scam").

I used to ride the Wed. Nighter from Planetary Cycles. Out to UofH,
then to downtown, to Memorial Park, the Galleria (or close), home on N.
(which runs east-west) Braeswood. Craziest thing I've ever done on a
bicycle. Great ride, fun people. But somewhat nuts... --TP

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

What is the defense?


snip


What is there to do when somebody makes such an impulsive move? Seems like
there's less than a second between 'business as usual' and the situation
reaching it's climax.

The countermeasure is to ride further into the lane. This compels most
motorists to be more cautious (slow down, wait behind, change lanes,
etc.) or to have to swing wide to make a right turn in front of you. If
they want to do it, they can, but they have to really work for it. Also,
if you are further out, you then have leeway to your right to do a Quick
Right in the eventuality that you need it.

People can mariginalize bicyclists in spite of your best efforts if they
really want to. The point is to reduce the incidence by controlling
motorists to the extent that you can.

I've had a couple of motorists over the years screech their tires
rushing to turn in front of me. But their idiocy is more annoyance than
real danger (assuming they are competent in their maneuver) because I
can handle everything they throw at me short of purposefully hitting me
from behind.

Wayne

Wayne Pein wrote:

I've had a couple of motorists over the years screech their tires
rushing to turn in front of me. But their idiocy is more annoyance
than real danger (assuming they are competent in their maneuver)
because I can handle everything they throw at me short of
purposefully hitting me from behind.

This is my point. I don't find it difficult to avoid these situations, by
riding defensively. If a car comes by me and starts to turn, I can always hit
my brakes -- unless I'm going too fast.

A *car* can't do a right hook at 20 MPH either.

Oncoming traffic making a left turn into you is a much greater danger, IMO.

Matt O.

Per Matt O'Toole:
This is why you shouldn't be going 16-20 MPH where you could get right-hooked.
I consider right-hook near misses to be a lack of defensive riding on the
cyclist's part.

What is the defense? Some months ago, somebody almost nailed me - and
looking back on it, I can't figure out what I could have done to prevent it
short of riding on the sidewalk and stopping at every intersection/exit lane
(which I often do - MTB and all that....)

This one was a clapped-out 1980-something sedan wearing hair curlers, and
sucking on a cigarette - probably late for an appearance on Jerry Springer.

Traffic was steady - but moderate - giving her room to punch it in an effort to
dive into that turn ahead of me.

What is there to do when somebody makes such an impulsive move? Seems like
there's less than a second between 'business as usual' and the situation
reaching it's climax.
--
PeteCresswell

Per Wayne Pein:
because I
can handle everything they throw at me short of purposefully hitting me
from behind.

Don't rule that out. I've witnessed it. Chased the guy in my car until I
could flag down a cop. Guy told his story to the cop....got off scott free -
not even a ticket.

The biker escaped with bruises and a banged-up bike.

But now there's one more headjob driving around that knows he can do that with
impunity.
--
PeteCresswell

Matt O'Toole wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:



I've had a couple of motorists over the years screech their tires
rushing to turn in front of me. But their idiocy is more annoyance
than real danger (assuming they are competent in their maneuver)
because I can handle everything they throw at me short of
purposefully hitting me from behind.



This is my point. I don't find it difficult to avoid these situations, by
riding defensively. If a car comes by me and starts to turn, I can always hit
my brakes -- unless I'm going too fast.

A *car* can't do a right hook at 20 MPH either.



Generally true at right angle intersections.


Oncoming traffic making a left turn into you is a much greater danger, IMO.




Yea, the Left Cross tends to be more serious because of the higher speed
of impact. On the other hand, you can see it coming, and the
countermeasure is essentially the same as for Right Hook.

Wayne

"Matt O'Toole" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Yes, I remember reading about studies that show having the extra line
actually makes cars pass *closer* to the cyclist. Again, as I noted in
my initial post, the line benefits not bikes, but rather *cars*. As
long as the cyclist is *not* hit nor endangered by a passing auto,
things are OK for the cyclist. To the car though, being able to
*easily* pass the bike w/o having to shift lanes or adjust position is
a bonus, hence the benefit to the *auto*, right?

Yup. Really, the whole idea of bike lanes is to sweep bikes to the side
of the
road, out of the way of everyone eles. Unfortunately bike lanes appeal to
novice cyclists who don't understand these traffic dynamics, and assume
the
white stripe will protect them.

I mean, even with a
wide outside lane, the average auto shifts over or takes some sort of
evasive action to comfortably pass the cyclist.

Hopefully!

If the BL is wisely
built, the auto can safely pass w/o any special action on its part,
hence the auto benefits, right?

Yup.

Bike lanes are OK where there's adequate width according to AASHTO vehicle
separation standards. But this isn't the norm across the US. Space is
key.
Where space is limited, motor vehicle operators must share it. That means
waiting until it's safe to pass, then passing safely. In VA we now define
passing safely as at least 3' away.

Matt O.



Even in those cases it still doesn't address important issues. Road debris
is swept clear of car lanes onto shoulders and bike lanes by the cars. The
farther right from the white line the more debris. I usually try to stay
close to the white line for that reason. Motor vehicle drivers however see
that white line as their boundry. When that white line is there they don't
see the boundry as three feet from me it's just the white line. So even
when there are wide shoulders or bike lanes I'm still getting uncomfortably
wizzed by cars.

You've got it right on that bike lanes are really "stay off the road lanes",
and that novice cyclists see it as a safety net and don't understand the
full dynamics.

On 6 Jun 2005 17:17:05 -0700, wrote:



Werehatrack wrote:
Heights Boulevard here in Houston used to be a four-lane road from
near I-10 up to 20th St, with a wide median that was mostly trees and
grass. It now has one vehicle lane each way (well marked, normal
width) and a very wide shoulder lane that's reserved for bikes and
*parked* cars. It works surprisingly well.

The only time I regularly rode off a bikepath in Houston was with a
group, so anything that works there is a surprise (IMHO).

Still true, unfortunately.

The only
poblem is that in many respects, it's a bike lane to nowhere. Several
"bike routes" cross it, but these are mostly of the "we made a mark on
a map and called it a bike route" nature, not (for the most part)
dedicated right-of-way (striped or otherwise) that has been provided.

I'm all for the Amsterdam model, don't get me wrong, but the reason
bikes are #1 pecking order there is that they are somewhat of a
majority. Here, I'm happy with/without stripes, let alone "dedicated
lanes" (not until the oil runs out in the USA), depending on the
average motorist attitude, so to speak. That's the problem in Houston,
where during my (almost) four years there, at least a couple of groups
of cyclists were struck by cars, with fatalities. IOW, deliberate
actions by crazed motorists. In Austin, the bikepaths are suggested
routes that "we" sometimes follow, sometimes not. It's a different
world here. Not to say anything nirvana-like.

The daughter-unit returned a similar report after a recent sojourn to
the last sign of civilization on 290, and has been pestering me to
remount the racks on the Escort for a weekend run; it might happen in
July.

If the old railroad right-of-way from the MKT ever gets converted to
a bike path as was originally planned, the Heights Boulevard bike
lanes will hook to something pretty useful...but that's a long way off
at this point, if it ever happens.

Well, maybe after the new Womens Field Hockey stadium is built for the
2xxx Olympics... (ref., "Sports Arena/Medical Center Trolley Scam").

A minor sign of sanity has been seen in that debacle's aftermath;
having destroyed the utility of Main Street for any useful purpose by
putting the rails down the middle of it, they've now figured out that
the line is never going to be useful until they extend it to somewhere
that people might want to go in that manner; there is serious talk of
running it out to Hobby Airport, and the consensus is that this would
probably work if they also make sure it goes past a number of cheap
park-n-ride lots. But when it comes to sports palace atrocities, at
least the recent pronouncements from the IOC have at last quashed the
remaining enthusiasm for trying to lure an Olympic-size debacle to
Houston. The IOC has openly stated that due to security concerns,
priority in selection will be given to locales that are NOT large
cities. This is perhaps the best thing that could happen to the
Olympics; take the spectacle out, and let it go back to being a
competition.

I used to ride the Wed. Nighter from Planetary Cycles. Out to UofH,
then to downtown, to Memorial Park, the Galleria (or close), home on N.
(which runs east-west) Braeswood. Craziest thing I've ever done on a
bicycle. Great ride, fun people. But somewhat nuts...

No more nuts than some of the other rides. Heck, the Tour de Pants
was pretty close to that route. For a less structured but equally
eclectic run, try tagging along with the Urban Animals sometime, if
they're in the mood. (They've been banned from Rice U now because
there's a snob in the administration who's terrified that their
rollerblades might tear up the tiles around his pet fountain.)
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

we have extensive state coded bike lanes here paid for by out of state
condo owners.
works ok wearing dayglo.
but a moments inattention...