Counterintuitive Bike Lane?

Luke said:

Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.

Unlike photos I've seen of similar configurations in Europe, there are
no physical barriers separating bicycle and auto traffic; there are
only small posts placed at intervals (IIRC they averaged about 7 meters
apart), meant as visual markers.

IMO it's a haphazard arrangement: I felt uneasy riding against the flow
of auto traffic without the presence of a barrier. Further, it
reinforces the often misguided notion -- in this case, doubly so --
that cyclists require extra measures in order to safely coexist with
motorists.

I agree that it's a dumb idea.

FWIW, the AASHTO guide to the design of bike facilities lists about ten
reasons NOT to put a two-way bike lane adjacent to a roadway. (Of
course, AASHTO isn't a Canadian agency.)

Nonetheless, our local metro park's landscape architect - whom they put
in charge of bike lane design! - thinks it's a fine idea. He also
thinks it's a good idea to put full-sized bollards (i.e. heavy posts)
in the middle of the bike lane as well as at its edge. Oh, and they've
now added rumble strips to trip any cyclists who make it through the
other hazards.

We've been battling this foolishness for years, with almost no success.

- Frank Krygowski

Luke said:

Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.

Unlike photos I've seen of similar configurations in Europe, there are
no physical barriers separating bicycle and auto traffic; there are
only small posts placed at intervals (IIRC they averaged about 7 meters
apart), meant as visual markers.

IMO it's a haphazard arrangement: I felt uneasy riding against the flow
of auto traffic without the presence of a barrier. Further, it
reinforces the often misguided notion -- in this case, doubly so --
that cyclists require extra measures in order to safely coexist with
motorists.

Luke

We've got a few spots like that on the multi-use paths in this county.
In one spot the multi-use path turns off the highway into the woods,
which is fine, but it's not too well marked. So oblivious tourists end
up cycling on the shoulder of the road, against the flow of traffic,
while the actual multi-use path is a few yards away in the woods. There
are no barriers between the multi-use path and the highway where the
path does run alongside the highway, just a painted white line. Not
safe, in my opinion.

mark

Quoted message said:

FWIW, the AASHTO guide to the design of bike facilities lists about ten
reasons NOT to put a two-way bike lane adjacent to a roadway. (Of
course, AASHTO isn't a Canadian agency.)

Nonetheless, our local metro park's landscape architect - whom they put
in charge of bike lane design! - thinks it's a fine idea. He also
thinks it's a good idea to put full-sized bollards (i.e. heavy posts)
in the middle of the bike lane as well as at its edge. Oh, and they've
now added rumble strips to trip any cyclists who make it through the
other hazards.

We've been battling this foolishness for years, with almost no success.

- Frank Krygowski

I know in this area many MUPs have obstructions like the posts you
mention at points where the MUP intersects a street/highway. The idea
is supposed to be to deny the path to things like ATVs, snowmobiles,
and cars and to encourage cyclists to actually *stop* before crossing
the intersecting road. They are a bit of a psychological pain but don't
cause any real problems. In that respect they are similar to so-called
traffic calming measures like islands and cul-de-sacs. Rumble strips on
a MUP though? That's a new one on me. What's the rationale behind them?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob said:

Quoted message said:

FWIW, the AASHTO guide to the design of bike facilities lists about ten
reasons NOT to put a two-way bike lane adjacent to a roadway. (Of
course, AASHTO isn't a Canadian agency.)

Nonetheless, our local metro park's landscape architect - whom they put
in charge of bike lane design! - thinks it's a fine idea. He also
thinks it's a good idea to put full-sized bollards (i.e. heavy posts)
in the middle of the bike lane as well as at its edge. Oh, and they've
now added rumble strips to trip any cyclists who make it through the
other hazards.

We've been battling this foolishness for years, with almost no success.

- Frank Krygowski

I know in this area many MUPs have obstructions like the posts you
mention at points where the MUP intersects a street/highway. The idea
is supposed to be to deny the path to things like ATVs, snowmobiles,
and cars and to encourage cyclists to actually *stop* before crossing
the intersecting road. They are a bit of a psychological pain but don't
cause any real problems.

I agree that bollards at separate MUP entrances are acceptable
(although there are safer alternatives). What this park district has
done is different. Here it is:

They have a one-way (for motorists) north-south road upon which they
want two-way access for bikes. Given the geography of the area, this
is very reasonable.

But, to achieve this, they put a two-way bike lane on the west side of
that road. From the very start, the local bike club, the state's
bicycle coordinator, and several facility design experts said that was
wrong, that the northbound bikes should be on the east. But the park
is a separate kingdom (or, these days, queendom). We couldn't get that
change. (That's despite a case where the park nearly got sued due to a
head-on collision between two cyclists on one of that path's blind
curves.)

Worse, the one-way road has over a dozen tiny parking "pullout" areas,
plus one small parking lot. Just before and just after each of these,
the park officials put telephone pole bollards in the middle of the
pavement, in the middle of the bike lane, and at the road's edge. The
rationale? "If a driver parks, he may forget he's on a one-way road
and drive down the bike lane. The poles will protect the cyclists."

We pointed out that the poles are a serious collision hazard to the
cyclists. We showed that AASHTO allows no obstructions within 3 feet
of the _edge_ of a bike trail, let alone in its dead center. No
matter. The designers said things like "We're doing this for your
safety."

I've not yet given the park trustees this information.
http://www.piercecountytrails.org/gatchels.html

Quoted message said:

Rumble strips on
a MUP though? That's a new one on me. What's the rationale behind them?

On the newest section of that same road, the park decided to further
separate bikes from cars by grinding rumble strips into the pavement,
on the center (double yellow) line. That portion of the road has
fairly sharp curves, plus a big dip (downhill then uphill).

The problem is, bikes can easily hit 20+ mph on that section, and the
curves plus head-to-head closing speed may mean the cyclists might have
to swerve to avoid a head on bike-bike collision. Or a novice cyclist
may simply drift. In either case, if they hit the rumble strips, it is
at best rattling; it could easily throw a cyclist. I know one person
who broke a hip when he fell hitting rumble strips in another state.

Furthermore, the rumble strips prevent northbound cylcists from
accessing the induction loop that triggers a green light at the north
end intersection.

There's more. But basically, we have some very pleasant people in
charge of that park, who - unfortunately - think they are helping
cyclist by inventing their own design manuals. And as is often the
case, they are theoretically supervised by three trustees who are not
willing to do their job - that is, rock their boat when necessary.

If there were a "Worst Cycling Facilities" hall of shame, I'd enter
this path.

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>, Luke

Quoted message said:

Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.

Unlike photos I've seen of similar configurations in Europe, there are
no physical barriers separating bicycle and auto traffic; there are
only small posts placed at intervals (IIRC they averaged about 7 meters
apart), meant as visual markers.

IMO it's a haphazard arrangement: I felt uneasy riding against the flow
of auto traffic without the presence of a barrier. Further, it
reinforces the often misguided notion -- in this case, doubly so --
that cyclists require extra measures in order to safely coexist with
motorists.

Luke

Oh, I remembered I took a photo of these bikeways; it's been uploaded
to:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=251386081&size=l

or

http://tinyurl.com/o882d

This bike lane configuration was common thoughout Ile de Montreal.
Making left hand turns from such a setup would be, um, interesting.

Luke

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

Quoted message said:

Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.

This is what our city is planning to do with West Lake Sammamish Parkway. I
think the reason is because the people on the east side of the street (along
the lake) have more money and are more politically powerful. They have this
idea that if there's no bike lane on their side of the street, they won't
have to look for cyclists as they pull out of their driveways.

If they just had a wide shoulder on both sides, and a little walking trail
for pedestrians, then we'd all be happy.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Quoted message said:

I agree that bollards at separate MUP entrances are acceptable
(although there are safer alternatives). What this park district has
done is different. Here it is:

They have a one-way (for motorists) north-south road upon which they
want two-way access for bikes. Given the geography of the area, this
is very reasonable.

But, to achieve this, they put a two-way bike lane on the west side of
that road. From the very start, the local bike club, the state's
bicycle coordinator, and several facility design experts said that was
wrong, that the northbound bikes should be on the east. But the park
is a separate kingdom (or, these days, queendom). We couldn't get that
change. (That's despite a case where the park nearly got sued due to a
head-on collision between two cyclists on one of that path's blind
curves.)

I'll agree that ideally the northbound bike lane should be on the east
side of the road with the southbound lane on the west. Unless there was
an overpowering financial reason for doing it the way you describe, the
decision was just plain dumb. That said though, being sued means next
to nothing. Anyone can file a lawsuit for almost any reason. Being
"nearly sued" means even less.

Quoted message said:

Worse, the one-way road has over a dozen tiny parking "pullout" areas,
plus one small parking lot. Just before and just after each of these,
the park officials put telephone pole bollards in the middle of the
pavement, in the middle of the bike lane, and at the road's edge. The
rationale? "If a driver parks, he may forget he's on a one-way road
and drive down the bike lane. The poles will protect the cyclists."

Since there really no functional difference between a path being
intersected by a roadway and being interrupted by a parking pullout- in
both instances the risk of car vs bike collisions increase for the very
same reasons- ITSM that the real problem isn't the bollards but the
existence of too many parking pullouts.

Quoted message said:

We pointed out that the poles are a serious collision hazard to the
cyclists. We showed that AASHTO allows no obstructions within 3 feet
of the _edge_ of a bike trail, let alone in its dead center. No
matter. The designers said things like "We're doing this for your
safety."

I've not yet given the park trustees this information.
http://www.piercecountytrails.org/gatchels.html

Quoted message said:

Rumble strips on
a MUP though? That's a new one on me. What's the rationale behind them?

On the newest section of that same road, the park decided to further
separate bikes from cars by grinding rumble strips into the pavement,
on the center (double yellow) line. That portion of the road has
fairly sharp curves, plus a big dip (downhill then uphill).

Since it is a one way roadway and one way roadways don't generally have
any "center double yellow line", I'm still unclear about where these
rumble strips are. Do they separate the motor vehicle lane from the
MUP, two motor vehicle lanes, or the north and southbound bike lanes? I
don't necessarily agree with the reasoning of the first two but I can
understand it. The last is just plain dumb though.

Quoted message said:

The problem is, bikes can easily hit 20+ mph on that section, and the
curves plus head-to-head closing speed may mean the cyclists might have
to swerve to avoid a head on bike-bike collision. Or a novice cyclist
may simply drift. In either case, if they hit the rumble strips, it is
at best rattling; it could easily throw a cyclist. I know one person
who broke a hip when he fell hitting rumble strips in another state.

Sorry but if curves and dips in the roadway make 20 mph an unsafe speed
the problem isn't rumble strips. The problem is people operating their
vehicles (bike or car, there's no difference) at unsafe speeds or
simply not paying attention and drifting out of their lane.

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, the rumble strips prevent northbound cylcists from
accessing the induction loop that triggers a green light at the north
end intersection.

The induction loop doesn't extend to *all* lanes of traffic? Bad
design.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

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

Quoted message said:

Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.

Unlike photos I've seen of similar configurations in Europe, there are
no physical barriers separating bicycle and auto traffic; there are
only small posts placed at intervals (IIRC they averaged about 7 meters
apart), meant as visual markers.

IMO it's a haphazard arrangement: I felt uneasy riding against the flow
of auto traffic without the presence of a barrier. Further, it
reinforces the often misguided notion -- in this case, doubly so --
that cyclists require extra measures in order to safely coexist with
motorists.

Luke

OK, what location is this in? Some of the bike lanes we've got in Chicago
are bad enough. They are there but along a major CTA bus rote. So what
does the bus do when he needs to let off passengers? Pull into the bike
lane and up to the curb. There used to be one where the lane was both a
bus-only and a bike lane. . . .

Charles of Schaumburg

"n5hsr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Cycling about Montreal (Quebec, Canada) recently, I was struck by a
common approach to bike ways implemented by the city. Instead of
painting lanes at the right extremity of a curb lane or reserving a
wide shoulder for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists travelling in
the same direction as motorized traffic, it's common in this city to
encounter two way bikeways placed on one side of a thoroughfare.

Unlike photos I've seen of similar configurations in Europe, there are
no physical barriers separating bicycle and auto traffic; there are
only small posts placed at intervals (IIRC they averaged about 7 meters
apart), meant as visual markers.

IMO it's a haphazard arrangement: I felt uneasy riding against the flow
of auto traffic without the presence of a barrier. Further, it
reinforces the often misguided notion -- in this case, doubly so --
that cyclists require extra measures in order to safely coexist with
motorists.

Luke

OK, what location is this in? Some of the bike lanes we've got in Chicago
are bad enough. They are there but along a major CTA bus rote. So what
does the bus do when he needs to let off passengers? Pull into the bike
lane and up to the curb. There used to be one where the lane was both a
bus-only and a bike lane. . . .

Charles of Schaumburg

Oops, I saw the reference to Montreal, I was wondering about the other place
that Frank K was refering to.

Charles of Schaumburg

frkrygow said:

If there were a "Worst Cycling Facilities" hall of shame, I'd enter this
path.

There is: http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/
click "Facility of the month". Why not take a couple of pics & submit
them?

Mike

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

Quoted message said:

Oh, I remembered I took a photo of these bikeways; it's been uploaded
to:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=251386081&size=l

or

http://tinyurl.com/o882d

This bike lane configuration was common thoughout Ile de Montreal.
Making left hand turns from such a setup would be, um, interesting.

Thanks for the picture. I would think right hooks would also be a very
serious problem. It also looks like, from the picture, that there's a big
temptation for pedestrians to treat it as part of the sidewalk.

Bob said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Worse, the one-way road has over a dozen tiny parking "pullout" areas,
plus one small parking lot. Just before and just after each of these,
the park officials put telephone pole bollards in the middle of the
pavement, in the middle of the bike lane, and at the road's edge. The
rationale? "If a driver parks, he may forget he's on a one-way road
and drive down the bike lane. The poles will protect the cyclists."

Since there really no functional difference between a path being
intersected by a roadway and being interrupted by a parking pullout- in
both instances the risk of car vs bike collisions increase for the very
same reasons- ITSM that the real problem isn't the bollards but the
existence of too many parking pullouts.

There are differences, though. One major difference is this: in any
normal situation, where a person wants to park his vehicle and he has
to cross an opposing traffic lane to do so, the people in the traffic
lane do not lose their right of way. They are expected to move past
unhindered, and he is expected to wait until it's clear before crossing
that lane.

Given that the bikes are not (and should not be) required to stop, the
bollards in question are a much bigger hazard than bollards at an
entrance to a separate MUP, where the cyclists are typically expected
to stop and yield to cross traffic. They pass these bollards at
speed, not at 5 mph.

Also, in the "MUP entrance" example, the bollards serve a purpose: to
physically exclude motor vehicles. Here, they can't even do that;
anyone wanting to drive down the bike lane can do so, simply by driving
past the bollards, then swinging into the marked bike lane.

The main thing, though, is that except for separate MUP entrances,
AASHTO forbids such collision hazards even within three feed of the
_side_ of a path. They clearly don't want them _in_ the path. Again,
visit http://www.piercecountytrails.org/gatchels.html to see why.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the newest section of that same road, the park decided to further
separate bikes from cars by grinding rumble strips into the pavement,
on the center (double yellow) line. That portion of the road has
fairly sharp curves, plus a big dip (downhill then uphill).

Since it is a one way roadway and one way roadways don't generally have
any "center double yellow line", I'm still unclear about where these
rumble strips are. Do they separate the motor vehicle lane from the
MUP, two motor vehicle lanes, or the north and southbound bike lanes? I
don't necessarily agree with the reasoning of the first two but I can
understand it. The last is just plain dumb though.

Face north. The pavement's typically 24 feet wide. Starting from the
east side, you have 12 feet of "vehicle" lane, a double yellow, almost
six feet of northbound bike lane, a stripe, then almost six feet of
southbound bike lane. The rumble strip is down the double yellow.

I can understand why someone ignorant of bicycling would put the rumble
strip there, but I disagree with its existence. One of Ohio's new
design manuals says: "Rumble strips affect control of the bike, and
are dangerous... Rumble strips generally should not be used on the
shoulders of raodways designated as bicycle routes or having
substantial volumes of bicycle traffic...Also, gaps should be
provided... ahead of intersections ... to permit bicycles to merge with
traffic." Of course, nobody at ODOT ever conceived of the application
this park has installed, so they limited their discussion to rumble
strips on shoulders. The intent is clear, though - at least, to me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem is, bikes can easily hit 20+ mph on that section, and the
curves plus head-to-head closing speed may mean the cyclists might have
to swerve to avoid a head on bike-bike collision. Or a novice cyclist
may simply drift. In either case, if they hit the rumble strips, it is
at best rattling; it could easily throw a cyclist. I know one person
who broke a hip when he fell hitting rumble strips in another state.

Sorry but if curves and dips in the roadway make 20 mph an unsafe speed
the problem isn't rumble strips. The problem is people operating their
vehicles (bike or car, there's no difference) at unsafe speeds or
simply not paying attention and drifting out of their lane.

The curves and dips did not make 20 mph unsafe _until_ this design was
implemented. However, ISTM that even if the park adopted your
rationalization, they'd be obligated to put up signs saying something
like "Dangerous facility - Speed limit 15 mph" or whatever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, the rumble strips prevent northbound cylcists from
accessing the induction loop that triggers a green light at the north
end intersection.

The induction loop doesn't extend to *all* lanes of traffic? Bad
design.

Of course!

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Bob wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since it is a one way roadway and one way roadways don't generally have
any "center double yellow line", I'm still unclear about where these
rumble strips are. Do they separate the motor vehicle lane from the
MUP, two motor vehicle lanes, or the north and southbound bike lanes? I
don't necessarily agree with the reasoning of the first two but I can
understand it. The last is just plain dumb though.

Face north. The pavement's typically 24 feet wide. Starting from the
east side, you have 12 feet of "vehicle" lane, a double yellow, almost
six feet of northbound bike lane, a stripe, then almost six feet of
southbound bike lane. The rumble strip is down the double yellow.

Is the motor vehcile traffic travelling north? Double yellow lines
(or, for that matter single yellow lines) on US roadways are only to be
used to indicate traffic moving in opposite directions. Any driver
seeing the double yellow line will assume traffic on the other side is
oncoming, which it is not.

Austin

AustinMN said:

Quoted message said:

Face north. The pavement's typically 24 feet wide. Starting from the
east side, you have 12 feet of "vehicle" lane, a double yellow, almost
six feet of northbound bike lane, a stripe, then almost six feet of
southbound bike lane. The rumble strip is down the double yellow.

Is the motor vehcile traffic travelling north?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Double yellow lines
(or, for that matter single yellow lines) on US roadways are only to be
used to indicate traffic moving in opposite directions. Any driver
seeing the double yellow line will assume traffic on the other side is
oncoming, which it is not.

Correct. There's not much that's right about this installation.

- Frank Krygowski

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bob wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since it is a one way roadway and one way roadways don't generally have
any "center double yellow line", I'm still unclear about where these
rumble strips are. Do they separate the motor vehicle lane from the
MUP, two motor vehicle lanes, or the north and southbound bike lanes? I
don't necessarily agree with the reasoning of the first two but I can
understand it. The last is just plain dumb though.

Face north. The pavement's typically 24 feet wide. Starting from the
east side, you have 12 feet of "vehicle" lane, a double yellow, almost
six feet of northbound bike lane, a stripe, then almost six feet of
southbound bike lane. The rumble strip is down the double yellow.

Is the motor vehcile traffic travelling north? Double yellow lines
(or, for that matter single yellow lines) on US roadways are only to be
used to indicate traffic moving in opposite directions. Any driver
seeing the double yellow line will assume traffic on the other side is
oncoming, which it is not.

Austin

Double yellow, since 1971, not only means oncoming traffic, it means no
passing as well.

Charles of Schaumburg

n5hsr said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bob wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

> Since it is a one way roadway and one way roadways don't generally have
> any "center double yellow line", I'm still unclear about where these
> rumble strips are. Do they separate the motor vehicle lane from the
> MUP, two motor vehicle lanes, or the north and southbound bike lanes? I
> don't necessarily agree with the reasoning of the first two but I can
> understand it. The last is just plain dumb though.

Face north. The pavement's typically 24 feet wide. Starting from the
east side, you have 12 feet of "vehicle" lane, a double yellow, almost
six feet of northbound bike lane, a stripe, then almost six feet of
southbound bike lane. The rumble strip is down the double yellow.

Is the motor vehcile traffic travelling north? Double yellow lines
(or, for that matter single yellow lines) on US roadways are only to be
used to indicate traffic moving in opposite directions. Any driver
seeing the double yellow line will assume traffic on the other side is
oncoming, which it is not.

Austin

Double yellow, since 1971, not only means oncoming traffic, it means no
passing as well.

Hadn't thought of that; not only is the northbound bicycle on the wrong
side of the road, but when MV traffic slows, it's illegal for him to
pass.

Austin

Group: rec.bicycles.misc
Date: Sat, Sep 23, 2006, 10:32pm
From: [email hidden] (Luke)

Quoted message said:

Cycling about Montreal (Quebec,
Canada) recently, I was struck by a
common approach to bike ways
implemented by the city. Instead of
painting lanes at the right extremity of a
curb lane or reserving a wide shoulder
for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists
travelling in the same direction as
motorized traffic, it's common in this city
to encounter two way bikeways placed
on one side of a thoroughfare.

Quoted message said:

Luke

Personally, I believe that bike lanes themselves are counterintuitive,
as thier very existence implies that cyclists don't belong on the road,
"should get on the sidewalk", ectetera. And I have noticed many times
when a roadway has a bike lane motorists do tend to think we should
"stay in our place". There is another thread (I believe in this group)
where it is pointed out that riders that hug the curb, instead of taking
their rightful place in traffic are more at risk of being sideswiped,
and I believe this validates my point nicely.

Oh, were fine riding in bikelanes, as long as we do stay in our place,
but may the gods protect those who must venture out of it to avoid the
hazards that invariably get swept onto the side of the road, or to make
a left turn. And to require cyclists to ride AGAINST the flow of
traffic, especially with no barrier betwixt is nothing short of
negligent homicide!

No. I still say we need tougher laws that truly validate the cyclist's
rights as a legal vehicle with all the rights (and responsibilities) as
other vehicles. And to educate those who are employed to enforce those
laws, as well as other motorists.

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Messages sent to the above "E" addy will be lost forever!

to E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

Please define for this iggeramous the following:

"bollards"

"AASHTO"

Thanks :-3)

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Messages sent to the above "E" addy will be lost forever!

to E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:21:56 -0400, [email hidden]

(Chris Y.F.N.W.) said:

Group: rec.bicycles.misc
Date: Sat, Sep 23, 2006, 10:32pm
From: [email hidden] (Luke)

Quoted message said:

Cycling about Montreal (Quebec,
Canada) recently, I was struck by a
common approach to bike ways
implemented by the city. Instead of
painting lanes at the right extremity of a
curb lane or reserving a wide shoulder
for the purpose -- both meant for cyclists
travelling in the same direction as
motorized traffic, it's common in this city
to encounter two way bikeways placed
on one side of a thoroughfare.

Quoted message said:

Luke

Personally, I believe that bike lanes themselves are counterintuitive,
as thier very existence implies that cyclists don't belong on the road,
"should get on the sidewalk", ectetera. And I have noticed many times
when a roadway has a bike lane motorists do tend to think we should
"stay in our place". There is another thread (I believe in this group)
where it is pointed out that riders that hug the curb, instead of taking
their rightful place in traffic are more at risk of being sideswiped,
and I believe this validates my point nicely.

Oh, were fine riding in bikelanes, as long as we do stay in our place,
but may the gods protect those who must venture out of it to avoid the
hazards that invariably get swept onto the side of the road, or to make
a left turn. And to require cyclists to ride AGAINST the flow of
traffic, especially with no barrier betwixt is nothing short of
negligent homicide!

No. I still say we need tougher laws that truly validate the cyclist's
rights as a legal vehicle with all the rights (and responsibilities) as
other vehicles. And to educate those who are employed to enforce those
laws, as well as other motorists.

Perhaps making the driver of a motorcar automatically at fault in any
collision involving a cycle; it's been done elsewhere (Netherlands) ,
with great success.