B
Bill Z.
Guest
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes
> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you,
> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything
> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being
> > injured.
>
> It doesn't surprise me at all, but all the same it would be much,
> much, much better if they supported things that *actually* reduce the
> chances, rather than things that they assume reduce them, but have no
> clear track record of actually doing so.
>
> > Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more
> > comfortable when there is one.
>
> For some values of "comfortable".
We have very wide roads around here by European standards. One effect
the bike lanes have is to make inexperienced cyclists more comfortable
riding further from the curb than they otherwise would, and that
decreases the chance of being cut off by a turning vehicle, but
doesn't reduce it to zero. For experts, the bike lanes make very
little difference (as long as they follow current design standards).
The additional cost of a bike lane in cases where you would otherwise
put in a shoulder stripe is nearly zero.
>
> > And our traffic engineers like them as
> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes
> > double as breakdown lanes
>
> So when I'm cycling along there's asuddenly a broken down vehicle in
> my way, and now I have to go out into the main traffic flow /where
> nobody expects me because there is a bike lane/. That's not a Good
> Thing. They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no
> effort and they get to think they're doing something useful.
You mean you have to do a lane change just as you would if you were in
a traffic lane and a vehicle broke down in front of you? Even
California drivers aren't that stupid (and believe me, around here we
really have our share of idiots). And keep in mind that if there
wasn't a bike lane in this case, there would be a shoulder stripe
anyway. You'd end up riding in just about the same place on the
roadway. One thing that happens when they put in bike lanes (and when
there is sufficient road width) is that they will put a "through" bike
lane to the right of the right turn lane (change to left for the UK),
and indicate a transition.
Where the bike lanes tend to really help experienced cyclists is on
heavily traveled commute routes in which cars back up at lights for
very long distances. The bike lanes tend to "organize" the cars
better so that you can jump to the head of the queue. I'd pass the
stopped vehicles slowly and carefully anyway, but at least you don't
have a slalom course to deal with.
>
> The most common effect of these lanes is to force cyclists closer to
> the kerb than it's often wise to cycle, and allows drivers to think
> it's fine to overtake with minimal clearance just as long as there's a
> white line between them and the cyclist.
That one is not true - it puts the cyclists further from the curb.
Most people where I live stay way too close to the curb because they
can't judge the distance from the lane divider well enough and are
afraid they may be too close to a car. The bike lane stripe gives
them something to guide on. The trick in making it work safely is
to give the cars no more lane width than the drivers really need.
Then, if you ride a couple of feet from the bike lane stripe, you'll
be in just about the same position on the roadway that an experienced
cyclist would be.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes
> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you,
> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything
> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being
> > injured.
>
> It doesn't surprise me at all, but all the same it would be much,
> much, much better if they supported things that *actually* reduce the
> chances, rather than things that they assume reduce them, but have no
> clear track record of actually doing so.
>
> > Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more
> > comfortable when there is one.
>
> For some values of "comfortable".
We have very wide roads around here by European standards. One effect
the bike lanes have is to make inexperienced cyclists more comfortable
riding further from the curb than they otherwise would, and that
decreases the chance of being cut off by a turning vehicle, but
doesn't reduce it to zero. For experts, the bike lanes make very
little difference (as long as they follow current design standards).
The additional cost of a bike lane in cases where you would otherwise
put in a shoulder stripe is nearly zero.
>
> > And our traffic engineers like them as
> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes
> > double as breakdown lanes
>
> So when I'm cycling along there's asuddenly a broken down vehicle in
> my way, and now I have to go out into the main traffic flow /where
> nobody expects me because there is a bike lane/. That's not a Good
> Thing. They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no
> effort and they get to think they're doing something useful.
You mean you have to do a lane change just as you would if you were in
a traffic lane and a vehicle broke down in front of you? Even
California drivers aren't that stupid (and believe me, around here we
really have our share of idiots). And keep in mind that if there
wasn't a bike lane in this case, there would be a shoulder stripe
anyway. You'd end up riding in just about the same place on the
roadway. One thing that happens when they put in bike lanes (and when
there is sufficient road width) is that they will put a "through" bike
lane to the right of the right turn lane (change to left for the UK),
and indicate a transition.
Where the bike lanes tend to really help experienced cyclists is on
heavily traveled commute routes in which cars back up at lights for
very long distances. The bike lanes tend to "organize" the cars
better so that you can jump to the head of the queue. I'd pass the
stopped vehicles slowly and carefully anyway, but at least you don't
have a slalom course to deal with.
>
> The most common effect of these lanes is to force cyclists closer to
> the kerb than it's often wise to cycle, and allows drivers to think
> it's fine to overtake with minimal clearance just as long as there's a
> white line between them and the cyclist.
That one is not true - it puts the cyclists further from the curb.
Most people where I live stay way too close to the curb because they
can't judge the distance from the lane divider well enough and are
afraid they may be too close to a car. The bike lane stripe gives
them something to guide on. The trick in making it work safely is
to give the cars no more lane width than the drivers really need.
Then, if you ride a couple of feet from the bike lane stripe, you'll
be in just about the same position on the roadway that an experienced
cyclist would be.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
