Positive news article

Michael J Rodney Sr. said:

Legislation would give bike users more access
Pantagraph staff

SPRINGFIELD -- Bicycle riders may see more bike lanes and routes in

Illinois

Quoted message said:

cities under legislation narrowly approved in the House on Friday.
In a move opposed by municipal officials across the state, the

measure would

Quoted message said:

designate bike riders as intended users of streets and roads.

The proposal, approved on a 60-55 vote, seeks to address a 1998 court

ruling

Quoted message said:

that discouraged cities and towns from designating bike routes or

bike lanes

Quoted message said:

because of liability concerns.

State Rep. Bill Black, a Danville Republican, was among those voting

"no."

Quoted message said:

He said the law could result in more car-bike accidents because many

of the

Quoted message said:

streets and roads in his district are too narrow to accommodate both

cars

Quoted message said:

and bicycles.

"In my district, they don't have any room for error," said Black.

"You are

Quoted message said:

putting young people at risk."

House Bill 2390 now moves to the Senate for further debate.

The article isn't very positive, unless you just mean the news that the
bill passed. Personally I dislike bike lanes intensely, so none of that
article would be positive.

Peter Cole said:

The article isn't very positive, unless you just mean the news that the
bill passed. Personally I dislike bike lanes intensely, so none of that
article would be positive.

We have lot's of bike lanes around here and they work great.

Rich said:

Peter Cole said:

The article isn't very positive, unless you just mean the news that

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bill passed. Personally I dislike bike lanes intensely, so none of

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

article would be positive.

We have lot's of bike lanes around here and they work great.

Where's "here"? I'm in Boston, they don't work so well. I'm told by
experts they don't work well anywhere.

Peter Cole said:

Rich said:

We have lot's of bike lanes around here and they work great.

Where's "here"? I'm in Boston, they don't work so well. I'm told by
experts they don't work well anywhere.

Loveland and Fort Collins CO. Have your "experts" been here?

Rich

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Rich said:

Peter Cole said:

The article isn't very positive, unless you just mean the news that

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bill passed. Personally I dislike bike lanes intensely, so none of

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

article would be positive.

We have lot's of bike lanes around here and they work great.

Where's "here"? I'm in Boston, they don't work so well. I'm told by
experts they don't work well anywhere.

In Corvallis, Oregon we have bike lanes on almost all arterials and many
other streets. We have one of the highest ridership rates in the U.S. One
census reported 10% of all in town trips are by bicycle. We have a
sufficient (not critical) mass that cars are use to us and this minimizes
problems at intersections. It is rare for a car to make an abrupt right
turn across a bicycle lane like I understand it is a common problem in
many communities where bicycles are not a major transportation method.
Bike lanes are kept clean and in the fall they are swept much more often
than the rest of the streets so leaves are rarely a problem. There are
bicycle censors in all lanes where there are lights and these seem to
work very well.

Alan Acock

Peter Cole said:

Rich said:

Peter Cole said:

The article isn't very positive, unless you just mean the news that

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bill passed. Personally I dislike bike lanes intensely, so none of

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

article would be positive.

We have lot's of bike lanes around here and they work great.

Where's "here"? I'm in Boston, they don't work so well. I'm told by
experts they don't work well anywhere.

They're outstanding here in the Phoenix, Arizona east valley. The
bike lanes are 6' / 2m wide and there are enough of them that you can
get pretty close to anywhere in the area on them (or other low-traffic
designated road that may not have lane striping). There are also
pedestrian / bike bridges over major roads I have to cross (or paths
under some of them)

I've ridden in plenty of urban areas, and have seen "bad bike
lanes"... but you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bath
water.

If you want to see what I believe is one of the best bike lane /
transportation plans in the nation, check out:

www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycle/BikePlan/bikeplan.PDF

(caution - big file)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Peter Cole said:

The article isn't very positive, unless you just mean the news that the
bill passed. Personally I dislike bike lanes intensely, so none of that
article would be positive.

I think bike lanes work very well here in Chicago, but that's not the
important thing about the bill. The lawsuit the story talks about held
that cyclists are "permitted" users of the streets and roads, but not
"intended" users. The plaintiff in that case went over the handlebars, as
I recall, when his tire got caught in a gap between planks on a bridge, or
something like that. The court held that roads must be kept safe for their
intended use, but the cyclist couldn't sue because that's not who the
bridge was intended for, even though a narrow gap like that, parallel to
the direction of traffic, made it unsafe for bicycles.

The side effect of this decision was that many units of government here in
Illinois didn't want to do ANYTHING that might be interpreted as implying
that bicycles belong on the street. They worried that this would make
cyclists intended users, thus creating a possibility of legal exposure
that could otherwise be avoided. That meant no bike lanes, but it also
meant no anything else. Widening curb lanes, if done to make cycling
safer, share-the-road signs, bicycle-friendly bridge surfacing, or
anything else that could be used to prove that the county or city intended
bikes to use streets would have the same effect. So this bill is a good
thing all around, whatever one's opinion of bike lanes.

--
Paul Turner

Peter Cole said:

Quoted message said:

House Bill 2390 now moves to the Senate for further debate.

The article isn't very positive, unless you just mean the news that the
bill passed. Personally I dislike bike lanes intensely, so none of that
article would be positive.

I live in Illinois. The bill is only incidentaly related to bike
lanes. Here is the synopsis from the Illinois General Assembly web
page:

Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Illinois Vehicle
Code. Provides that a person riding a bicycle is an intended
and permitted user of any highway in Illinois except for a
highway on which bicycle use has been specifically prohibited
by law and the prohibition is indicated by appropriate
signage. Provides that the new language does not create
liability for any public entity for the failure to remedy any
surface condition of a highway that is hazardous to a person
riding a bicycle if that surface condition is not hazardous to
a passenger car. Provides that, except as expressly provided
by law, the new language does not impose an obligation to
further improve existing highways or to maintain them to a
higher standard for bicyclists.

Since 1998 Illinois has been the only state where bicycles are not
considered intended and permitted users of highways. This means that
a town or city which creates bike lanes, bike routes, or places
warning signs may expose themselves to liability. It is ok to like
this bill even if you dislike bike lanes. See:

http://www.biketraffic.org/content.php?id=81_0_11_0

There you go again!

Tell us some tings that you LIKE!

Colorado Bicycler said:

There you go again!

Tell us some tings that you LIKE!

Quoting.

Peter Cole said:

The article isn't very positive, unless you just mean the news
that the bill passed. Personally I dislike bike lanes intensely,
so none of that article would be positive

Peter,

Thanks to the Boub court decision in Illinois, government agencies are
not liable for any damages and injuries to bicyclists that result from
a defective road surface -- even if that same road surface leads to
recoverable damages for a motorist -- because bicyclists are not
"intended" users of the road. The 1998 lawsuit mentioned in the article
had little to do with bike lanes and paths, but rather it denied equal
protection of the law for all road users.

RFM

Rich said:

Peter Cole said:

Rich said:

We have lot's of bike lanes around here and they work great.

Where's "here"? I'm in Boston, they don't work so well. I'm told by
experts they don't work well anywhere.

Loveland and Fort Collins CO. Have your "experts" been here?

Gotta agree with Rich on this one. Fort Collins is
probably the easiest town to traverse on a bike
that I've ever been to. The ubiquitous bike lanes
(which in this case are 6-foot-plus wide spaces on the
right of nearly all roads, marked off by a single solid
eight-inch-wide line) have much to do with this.
In crowded urban areas with lots of side parking, bike
lanes can be problematic if they encourage beginning
riders to stay too far right when much space may be
available left of the lane--but Ft. Collins aint one of
those places. With two major fully separated MUPS
as well, the Fort is a showcase for bike facilities and
a problem for anyone who thinks these facilities are always
bad for cyclists.

Robert

o

Quoted message said:

Rich wrote:

Quoted message said:

Gotta agree with Rich on this one. Fort Collins is
probably the easiest town to traverse on a bike
that I've ever been to. The ubiquitous bike lanes
(which in this case are 6-foot-plus wide spaces on the
right of nearly all roads, marked off by a single solid
eight-inch-wide line) have much to do with this.
In crowded urban areas with lots of side parking, bike
lanes can be problematic if they encourage beginning
riders to stay too far right when much space may be
available left of the lane--but Ft. Collins aint one of
those places. With two major fully separated MUPS
as well, the Fort is a showcase for bike facilities and
a problem for anyone who thinks these facilities are always
bad for cyclists.

I admit that the east coast cities (that I'm familiar with) often tend
to have bad bike lanes due mostly to insufficient road width. It's easy
to see how this kind of lane can be more dangerous than an unmarked
road.

The biggest flaw in bike lanes (even "good" ones) is that they're a
"solution" to an almost non-existent problem, that then creates new
(serious) problems. Specifically, painted lanes aim to protect cyclists
from "hit from behind" incidents which are very rare, and in trying
(success is debatable) to do so introduce new turning/merging hazards
which add to the already most frequent collision scenarios.

The turning/merging hazards come largely from cyclist's faith that
motorists won't appear in the lanes and motorist's faith that cyclists
won't appear outside of them. This "segregation by paint" becomes
confusing (from lack of standards among other things) at intersections,
which are, by far, the most dangerous places to be on a bike.

Apparently, there isn't much evidence in the form of formal studies
measuring the +/- safety change with the addition/removal of bike
lanes. This means that the vigorous striping that's going on in so
many locales is driven by anticipated/perceived safety improvements
rather than predicted/actual ones. I think it's a placebo effect and a
dangerous one. What evidence there is seems to support the conclusion
that the net effect of bike lanes on safety is negative.

Setting the actual safety issues aside, I originally said I don't like
bike lanes, and that would remain true even if some new studies
disproved my current safety beliefs. I just don't like being corralled
into them, particularly at intersections and densely built up areas. As
for the purported "story behind the story" of this article, I'm of a
divided mind on the whole road hazard liability thing. While I'd like
responsible authorities to consider bicycles when constructing and
maintaining road facilities, I don't expect unique bicycle hazards to
disappear. I'm not sure it's entirely reasonable to consider bicycles
"intended users" of the road in all senses of that term. Also, it might
seem a wholly good thing in itself, but I fear the unintended
consequences. There's no free lunch.

As Paul says, this is about a lot more than just "bike lanes".
Communities are afraid that doing *anything* to accommodation bicycles
make them "intended" users of the road--for example, putting in
bike-safe grates.

As I understand it, it hasn't necessarily stopped all communities
making roads more bike-friendly. But it is a significant impediment
nevertheless.

See background here:

http://www.bikelib.org/boubcase/sb275.htm

--Brent

Peter Cole said:

I admit that the east coast cities (that I'm familiar with) often

tend

Quoted message said:

to have bad bike lanes due mostly to insufficient road width. It's

easy

Quoted message said:

to see how this kind of lane can be more dangerous than an unmarked
road....
Setting the actual safety issues aside, I originally said I don't

like

Quoted message said:

bike lanes, and that would remain true even if some new studies
disproved my current safety beliefs. I just don't like being

corralled

Quoted message said:

into them, particularly at intersections and densely built up areas.

....

And, as usual, it's necessary to remind people about what the choices
really are. It's not about enough space to ride. It's about whether
or not to add a paint stripe.

Some people tend to say "We have terrific bike lanes. The motor
vehicle lane is 11 feet wide and the bike lane is 5 feet wide, and
there's plenty of room to ride safely. And they sweep the trash
monthly!"

But if you had one lane 16 feet wide (i.e. same pavement) and no bike
lane stripe, there's plenty of room to share, and there's no need to
sweep it monthly. Passage of cars when bikes aren't present takes care
of the sweeping automatically. There's no need to carefully avoid
running straight-through bike lanes to the right of RTOLanes (something
which is frequently botched). There's less need to worry about newbie
cyclists trying to turn left from the bike lane on the far right, and
less need to worry about zombie drivers suddenly cutting off a cyclist
in the bike lane during their right turn. There's no need to worry
that some motorist thinks the cyclist isn't allowed outside the striped
bike lane.

A wide enough lane is what's needed. If there isn't enough pavement
for a wide enough lane, the paint stripe is useless. If there is
enough pavement, adding a stripe of paint does negligible good, and can
do considerable harm.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

As Paul says, this is about a lot more than just "bike lanes".
Communities are afraid that doing *anything* to accommodation bicycles
make them "intended" users of the road--for example, putting in
bike-safe grates.

As I understand it, it hasn't necessarily stopped all communities
making roads more bike-friendly. But it is a significant impediment
nevertheless.

Many many years ago, around here, the bars on a road grate were parallel
to the edge of the road, and my cyclists were injured. Hmmm, what can a
city do, it would cost millions to replace all of those grates, and with
skinny tires popular at the time, it would mean a complete redesign.
Until some bright light realized that the grates were square, so
whenever they opened a grate, for inspection or cleaning, city staff
would make sure that the bars were turned so that the bars were no
longer parallel to the edge of the road. End of problem....

W

Quoted message said:

A wide enough lane is what's needed. If there isn't enough pavement
for a wide enough lane, the paint stripe is useless. If there is
enough pavement, adding a stripe of paint does negligible good, and can
do considerable harm.

I don't disagree with your central premise (lanes wide enough for cars
and bikes together are good), but do think there's a statistical
advantage to having the stripe.

If you were to plot the lateral position of 1,000,000 cars over two
sections of 17' wide lanes, one with a strip at 6' and one without, I
dare say you'd have more cars spending more time in the right 6' of
the lane.

I'm not worried about the ones that see me, but those that for
whatever reason (dialing the cell phone, changing the CD, reading the
paper, putting on make-up) whose mission statement seems to be keeping
the car more or less between the lines while they attend to "more
important things" and nothing more precise... they worry me. I'd
rather them NOT think of the right 6' of the roadway as someplace they
should be.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

I'm not worried about the ones that see me, but those that for
whatever reason (dialing the cell phone, changing the CD, reading the
paper, putting on make-up) whose mission statement seems to be

keeping

Quoted message said:

the car more or less between the lines while they attend to "more
important things" and nothing more precise... they worry me. I'd
rather them NOT think of the right 6' of the roadway as someplace

they

Quoted message said:

should be.

Again, you're worried about being struck from behind, that's not where
the most danger is. Lanes are rather benign in this context, although
the protective effect is speculative. The problem comes at
intersections.

Mark Hickey said:

You're right - getting hit from behind isn't our biggest threat, but
the extra buffer from the automobile traffic afforded by the wide

bike

Quoted message said:

lanes in my area makes riding on those roads much more pleasant.

Yes,

Quoted message said:

cars should always give us that much room with or without a stripe...
but they simply don't.

Yeah, out in the "sun belt" you guys have a lot more high-speed roads
(put it another way, you don't have the scads of ancient wagon paths
that became our secondary roads). I really don't like high-speed
traffic at my elbow, either. If I only had those roads to ride on, I'd
be more favorable towards lanes just from the "back off factor". Stripe
the highways, leave the urban areas alone!

We whine, but we're really a bit spoiled. I had a cycling friend who
moved to CO a few years ago, he is really distressed about how much the
cycling sucks in comparison. Maybe if I lived there I'd change my mind
about lanes & paths, in New England they just seem stupid.