Bike Lanes?

Wayne Pein said:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've seen bicyclists riding way out in the lane, as if on a motorcycle,
cars backing up behind them, apparently attempting to "make a point"
about what their rights are.

You can read minds? I don't believe it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You don't need bike lanes or bike paths to ride the road. Just ride!
But having them there shouldn't be interpreted as somehow undermining
bike road use by "duping" riders into giving up their rights. How is
riding the road giving up your rights?

Quoted message said:

Road riding doesn't give up rights: it exercises them. Bike lanes result
in reduced rights. Since most bike lanes carry the baggage of being
explicitly mandatory, it is pretty clear bicyclists have less right to
use the standard lane. Even if a specific bike lane law doesn't exist,
motorists act as if one does. Try riding outside the bike lane!

Oh, come on Wayne, it's really not that bad out there. First, where are
bike lanes explicitly mandatory? Second, I've ridden all over the country
and in a few others too. I haven't found drivers particularly hostile
in any one place, or for any regular reason. We all meet the occasional
jerk, on road and off, [censored] at anyone or anything. Their behviour
is random and their "reason" is moot.

Matt O.

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

Road riding doesn't give up rights: it exercises them. Bike lanes result
in reduced rights. Since most bike lanes carry the baggage of being
explicitly mandatory, it is pretty clear bicyclists have less right to
use the standard lane. Even if a specific bike lane law doesn't exist,
motorists act as if one does. Try riding outside the bike lane!

Matt O'Toole said:

Oh, come on Wayne, it's really not that bad out there. First, where are
bike lanes explicitly mandatory? Second, I've ridden all over the country
and in a few others too. I haven't found drivers particularly hostile
in any one place, or for any regular reason. We all meet the occasional
jerk, on road and off, [censored] at anyone or anything. Their behviour
is random and their "reason" is moot.

I invite you to come to Atlanta where cyclists are often referred to as
"hood ornaments" in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. We'll cut through
campus, head up North Ave, go down Peachtree Street and hang a louie on
17th. It'll be fun.

Exhibit A: photos from the new 17th Street Bridge - the fancy new bridge
connecting Midtown to Atlantic Station (our "new, progressive,
pedestrian friendly, mixed-use" development) where cagers and bus
drivers consistently tell me to ride in the bike lane (you'll see why I
don't).
http://flickr.com/photos/p_myron_h/tags/bikelane/

And Exhibit B: GA Code Section 40-6-294 (c)
"Whenever a usable path has been provided adjacent to a roadway and
designated for the exclusive use of bicycle riders, then the appropriate
governing authority may require that bicycle riders use such path and
not use those sections of the roadway so specified by such local
governing authority. The governing authority may be petitioned to remove
restrictions upon demonstration that the path has become inadequate due
to capacity, maintenance, or other causes."
http://www.gohs.state.ga.us/gabikelaws.html

--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

Matt O'Toole said:

Wayne Pein said:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've seen bicyclists riding way out in the lane, as if on a motorcycle,
cars backing up behind them, apparently attempting to "make a point"
about what their rights are.

You can read minds? I don't believe it.

What do *you* think they were doing? Just three oblivious
bicyclists who have no clue as to what's going on behind
them?

In one situation, the car *lightly* tapped the horn to
let them know someone was behind them. Nothing!

What do *you* think was going on?

Since I'll presume you have the same capabilities of mind
reading as I have, I guess you won't be able to say.

SMH

Wayne Pein said:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Quoted message said:

If there were no bike lane stripes, then there couldn't be bad ones.

If there were no shoulder stripes, there would be no bad ones
either. Irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

You doesn't answer the question of why stripe the bike lane? Why not
simply leave the standard lane wide?

I think "adequately wide" shoulder striping is fine. In many
cases, that's all a bike lane is; a shoulder with "Bike" or
bike symbol painted on it. Yet suddenly, it becomes a bad
thing because it has now become a "bike lane" rather than a
shoulder stripe?

Shoulder stripes are not there for the bicyclist. They are
there for the motorist.

My primary support in favor of bike lanes is that I think it
may get people out using their bikes for transport (or leisure
I suppose) that might otherwise decline to do so because of
motor traffic.

If it can get more people out pedaling the road, that's a good
thing, and the more motorists see bicyclists riding the road,
striped shoulder or "bike lane", perhaps will make the activity
more acceptable to motorists.

But ultimately, who cares if motorists "accept" bicyclists
sharing the road with them? Lane or no lane, laws in most
states, if not all, say a bicycle is a "road vehicle" with
as much access to the lane as safety demands. Stripe or no
stripe, that doesn't change that access.

SMH

Matt O'Toole said:

Wayne Pein said:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Oh, come on Wayne, it's really not that bad out there. First, where are
bike lanes explicitly mandatory? Second, I've ridden all over the country
and in a few others too. I haven't found drivers particularly hostile
in any one place, or for any regular reason. We all meet the occasional
jerk, on road and off, [censored] at anyone or anything. Their behviour
is random and their "reason" is moot.

Matt O.

Try taking the lane on my local E street bridge going south and you will
be dead before you get over the bridge, guaranteed. Everybody rides on
the sidewalk on this bridge. No bike lane and it turns into freeway on
the south side of the bridge so people are already doing 50-60MPH over
the bridge. No possibility of a bike lane and if a truck doesn't get you
the muni bus right behind him will.
Death trap for roadies that think they have any rights on this bridge.
Bill Baka

Matt O'Toole said:

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:53:08 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Road riding doesn't give up rights: it exercises them. Bike lanes result
in reduced rights. Since most bike lanes carry the baggage of being
explicitly mandatory, it is pretty clear bicyclists have less right to
use the standard lane. Even if a specific bike lane law doesn't exist,
motorists act as if one does. Try riding outside the bike lane!

Oh, come on Wayne, it's really not that bad out there. First, where are
bike lanes explicitly mandatory? Second, I've ridden all over the country
and in a few others too. I haven't found drivers particularly hostile
in any one place, or for any regular reason. We all meet the occasional
jerk, on road and off, [censored] at anyone or anything. Their behviour
is random and their "reason" is moot.

Matt, you are misinterpreting me. When I said "Try riding outside the
bike lane!" I meant that if you ride to the left of the line as a matter
of course along a road section (not merely to make a left, for example),
you will be subject to increased harassment from motorists. Further, a
police officer is likely to tell you to get in the bike lane.

I believe the majority of states have mandatory bike lane laws. Further,
many municipalities have them. Even if a law doesn't exist, some
motorists will take exception to you being outside the bike lane. Some
motorists will take exception to you being to the left of a paved
shoulder stripe that is not designated as a bike lane.

Wayne

Stephen Harding said:

Wayne Pein said:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Quoted message said:

If there were no bike lane stripes, then there couldn't be bad ones.

If there were no shoulder stripes, there would be no bad ones
either. Irrelevant.

There are no bad shoulders because they are not for vehicular travel.
They are for vehicle recovery and to prevent run-off-road type collisions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You doesn't answer the question of why stripe the bike lane? Why not
simply leave the standard lane wide?

I think "adequately wide" shoulder striping is fine.

See above.

In many

Quoted message said:

cases, that's all a bike lane is; a shoulder with "Bike" or
bike symbol painted on it. Yet suddenly, it becomes a bad
thing because it has now become a "bike lane" rather than a
shoulder stripe?

Bicycles, as vehicles, should operate in travel lanes, not on shoulders.

Quoted message said:

Shoulder stripes are not there for the bicyclist. They are
there for the motorist.

So why do you ride on them?

Wayne

Wayne Pein wrote:

<big snip>

Quoted message said:

Bicycles, as vehicles, should operate in travel lanes, not on shoulders.

Do you really believe this is the best approach in all or most cases?

Example, out west bicycling is allowed on the (shoulder of) the
interstates outside of metro areas. So, I have ridden on the shoulder
of I-10 a number of times. The speed limit in this area is 75 mph. Do
you think "taking the lane" is a good choice here?

gds said:

Wayne Pein said:

Bicycles, as vehicles, should operate in travel lanes, not on shoulders.

Quoted message said:

Do you really believe this is the best approach in all or most cases?

Example, out west bicycling is allowed on the (shoulder of) the
interstates outside of metro areas. So, I have ridden on the shoulder
of I-10 a number of times. The speed limit in this area is 75 mph. Do
you think "taking the lane" is a good choice here?

My position has long been that bicyclists should as a matter of course
use the travel lane on normal roads. However, on freeway or near freeway
design roads using the shoulder is acceptable or preferable.

Wayne

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein wrote:

<big snip>

Quoted message said:

Bicycles, as vehicles, should operate in travel lanes, not on shoulders.

Do you really believe this is the best approach in all or most cases?

Example, out west bicycling is allowed on the (shoulder of) the
interstates outside of metro areas. So, I have ridden on the shoulder
of I-10 a number of times. The speed limit in this area is 75 mph. Do
you think "taking the lane" is a good choice here?

Looking for absolutes, are you? Then sure, go ahead, in all cases.....

sheesh...

jb

Wayne Pein said:

Matt O'Toole said:

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:53:08 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Road riding doesn't give up rights: it exercises them. Bike lanes result
in reduced rights. Since most bike lanes carry the baggage of being
explicitly mandatory, it is pretty clear bicyclists have less right to
use the standard lane. Even if a specific bike lane law doesn't exist,
motorists act as if one does. Try riding outside the bike lane!

Oh, come on Wayne, it's really not that bad out there. First, where are
bike lanes explicitly mandatory? Second, I've ridden all over the
country
and in a few others too. I haven't found drivers particularly hostile
in any one place, or for any regular reason. We all meet the occasional
jerk, on road and off, [censored] at anyone or anything. Their behviour
is random and their "reason" is moot.

Matt, you are misinterpreting me. When I said "Try riding outside the
bike lane!" I meant that if you ride to the left of the line as a matter
of course along a road section (not merely to make a left, for example),
you will be subject to increased harassment from motorists. Further, a
police officer is likely to tell you to get in the bike lane.

I believe the majority of states have mandatory bike lane laws. Further,
many municipalities have them. Even if a law doesn't exist, some
motorists will take exception to you being outside the bike lane. Some
motorists will take exception to you being to the left of a paved
shoulder stripe that is not designated as a bike lane.

Wayne

Yeah,
And as I mentioned taking the lane on a road that turns into a freeway
just where the sidewalk ends is suicide, and I have the bridge to prove
it. 0.0% bike lane and a 6" perpendicular jump to the sidewalk. I have
been almost hit by pickup mirrors while walking on the sidewalk with no
bike.
Take the lane? What kind of flowers for the funeral?
Bill Baka

Jim Boyer said:

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein wrote:

<big snip>

Quoted message said:

Bicycles, as vehicles, should operate in travel lanes, not on shoulders.

Do you really believe this is the best approach in all or most cases?

Example, out west bicycling is allowed on the (shoulder of) the
interstates outside of metro areas. So, I have ridden on the shoulder
of I-10 a number of times. The speed limit in this area is 75 mph. Do
you think "taking the lane" is a good choice here?

Looking for absolutes, are you? Then sure, go ahead, in all cases.....

sheesh...

jb

Must be a city boy. In the country they won't 'waste' the extra asphalt
to make a decent ridable shoulder area and the bridges are so old that
there is barely room for the cars, buses, semis, (and #%%^ SUVs), much
less a bike lane.
No absolutes in this world, just birth, taxes, and death. The rest is up
to how you handle it.
Bill

Paul Hobson said:

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

Road riding doesn't give up rights: it exercises them. Bike lanes
result in reduced rights. Since most bike lanes carry the baggage of
being explicitly mandatory, it is pretty clear bicyclists have less
right to use the standard lane. Even if a specific bike lane law
doesn't exist, motorists act as if one does. Try riding outside the
bike lane!

Matt O'Toole said:

Oh, come on Wayne, it's really not that bad out there. First, where
are bike lanes explicitly mandatory? Second, I've ridden all over the
country and in a few others too. I haven't found drivers particularly
hostile in any one place, or for any regular reason. We all meet the
occasional jerk, on road and off, [censored] at anyone or anything.
Their behviour is random and their "reason" is moot.

I invite you to come to Atlanta where cyclists are often referred to as
"hood ornaments" in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. We'll cut through
campus, head up North Ave, go down Peachtree Street and hang a louie on
17th. It'll be fun.

Exhibit A: photos from the new 17th Street Bridge - the fancy new bridge
connecting Midtown to Atlantic Station (our "new, progressive,
pedestrian friendly, mixed-use" development) where cagers and bus
drivers consistently tell me to ride in the bike lane (you'll see why I
don't).
http://flickr.com/photos/p_myron_h/tags/bikelane/

It really doesn't look that bad to me. It wouldn't kill you to ride
through the gravel, or you could zip down the left side of the bike lane
or along the line with no trouble. If people honk at you it's their
problem. They'll honk at you when you're driving a car or truck too.
Dangerous, you say? Look at accident rates -- still way lower than
driving. Being hit from behind is vanishingly rare.

You guys are just whiners.

How is it you can think your situation is so special, and different from
any other major metro area in the world? Do you think Los Angeles, or
Boston, or DC, or Sydney, or Mexico City, or Paris are really any better?
There are streets in any of the above places that I would avoid, but for
the most part cycling is the same all over the world, with the same
issues, the same challenges, and the same solutions.

Quoted message said:

And Exhibit B: GA Code Section 40-6-294 (c) "Whenever a usable path has
been provided adjacent to a roadway and designated for the exclusive use
of bicycle riders, then the appropriate governing authority may require
that bicycle riders use such path and not use those sections of the
roadway so specified by such local governing authority. The governing
authority may be petitioned to remove restrictions upon demonstration
that the path has become inadequate due to capacity, maintenance, or
other causes." http://www.gohs.state.ga.us/gabikelaws.html

That's a mandatory sidepath law, covering paths adjacent to the roadway --
not bike lanes in the roadway itself. Most states' vehicle codes say, "As
far to the right as practicable," or something to that effect -- period.
Read 'em and see for yourself.

Matt O.

Wayne Pein said:

gds said:

Wayne Pein said:

Bicycles, as vehicles, should operate in travel lanes, not on shoulders.

Quoted message said:

Do you really believe this is the best approach in all or most cases?

Example, out west bicycling is allowed on the (shoulder of) the
interstates outside of metro areas. So, I have ridden on the shoulder
of I-10 a number of times. The speed limit in this area is 75 mph. Do
you think "taking the lane" is a good choice here?

My position has long been that bicyclists should as a matter of course
use the travel lane on normal roads. However, on freeway or near freeway
design roads using the shoulder is acceptable or preferable.

Wayne

OK, thanks for the reply. I agree that how one uses the road and/or
shoulder is a matter of judgement by the rider.

But seriously, I think that there is a lot of variation in situation.
So, here in southern Arizona there are many great roads that have huge,
well maintained shoulders. The motor traffic is 50 mph + on these and
most cyclists choose to use the wide shoulder.
We also have back country roads that have essentially no shoulder and
on those most cyclists tend to use a fair amount of the travel lane.

Jim Boyer said:

Quoted message said:

Looking for absolutes, are you? Then sure, go ahead, in all cases.....

Clarification not absolutes! I read the remark as pretty absolute. The
reply clarified that.

gds said:

Jim Boyer said:

Quoted message said:

Looking for absolutes, are you? Then sure, go ahead, in all cases.....

Clarification not absolutes! I read the remark as pretty absolute. The
reply clarified that.

Mr. Barnard: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU [censored]! YOUR TYPE REALLY MAKES ME
PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
Man: Look, I came here for an argument! I'm not just going to stand here...
Mr. Barnard: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!

^^^ Notice the cagy crossthread reference in the first line.

ObBike: It's amazing how many people I saw out on bikes on my way home
yesterday. A far cry from two or three months ago. I'm
thinking it might be time to put the "Not a tow truck" sign on
the back of my bike.

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
When I was in school, I cheated on my metaphysics exam: I looked into
the soul of the boy sitting next to me.
-- Woody Allen

I saw this before, and I laughed heartily.
Jim Gagnepain
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/

Wayne Pein said:

Stephen Harding said:

Wayne Pein said:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Quoted message said:

If there were no bike lane stripes, then there couldn't be bad ones.

If there were no shoulder stripes, there would be no bad ones
either. Irrelevant.

There are no bad shoulders because they are not for vehicular travel.
They are for vehicle recovery and to prevent run-off-road type collisions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You doesn't answer the question of why stripe the bike lane? Why not
simply leave the standard lane wide?

I think "adequately wide" shoulder striping is fine.

See above.

In many

Quoted message said:

cases, that's all a bike lane is; a shoulder with "Bike" or
bike symbol painted on it. Yet suddenly, it becomes a bad
thing because it has now become a "bike lane" rather than a
shoulder stripe?

Bicycles, as vehicles, should operate in travel lanes, not on shoulders.

Depends on the width of the shoulder and how far out in the
travel lane one is talking about.

We have conflicting requirements (probably in most state law).
Generally, a bike is a "road vehicle" and has the right to use
as much of the road to ensure safety. (Isn't required to ride
through potholes and junk along the edge of a road).

Yet at the same time, vehicles in many states that do not
maintain the speed limit or minimum legal speed are required
to keep as far to the right as possible and/or even allow
backed up traffic to pass. In Texas, I recall a requirement
to pull over and allow cars to pass whenever three or more
backed up behind if you were unable to maintain minimum posted
speeds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shoulder stripes are not there for the bicyclist. They are
there for the motorist.

So why do you ride on them?

Rephrase.

Shoulder stripes are there for the aid of the motorists.
Just as you said above.

Whether they are there are there or not is largely irrelevant
for a bicyclist.

Whether they are marked "Bike" or not is also not particularly
relevant. They're a convenience but don't change legal rights
or responsibilities one way or another, except in cases where
a state might require their use if available, over a road.

I presume those restrictions are for safety and smoothness of
traffic flow reasons. Sometimes restrictions are required
for the benefit of a majority.

There are roads trucks aren't supposed to travel. There are
lanes in which vehicles with less than N people are not supposed
to travel.

I don't think anyone would argue motorist rights are being lost
due to those restrictions.

SMH

SMH

Stephen Harding said:

Shoulder stripes are there for the aid of the motorists.
Just as you said above.

Whether they are there are there or not is largely irrelevant
for a bicyclist.

I'll agree to this extent: I believe the proper technique is to ignore
the presence of such stripes. I ride as I would if the stripe were
non-existent.

Quoted message said:

There are roads trucks aren't supposed to travel. There are
lanes in which vehicles with less than N people are not supposed
to travel.

I don't think anyone would argue motorist rights are being lost
due to those restrictions.

Well, that's mostly because motorists don't _have_ a right to be
motorists, let alone to be motorists in a particular lane.

Motoring is an activity that imposes some significant danger on others.
Thus, it's restricted and licensed.

- Frank Krygowski