You are not logged in.
I live on West Terrace Dr., which is right along Great Northern. For anyone that rides that area knows there is a two way bike lane on the southbound side for about 85-90% of Great Northern.
At times there are cyclist riding in the northbound car lane, completely on the other side of the road from where the bike lane is.
They are not anywhere close to the beginning or end of the bike lane. So its not like a waiting to get over to the bike lane sorta thing...
I have driven the entire distance of Great Northern behind bikers like this.
Could somebody please enlighten me on why someone would completely avoid the designated bike lane, and obstruct traffic intentionally?
I'm just trying to understand this mentality. Hopefully a group of cyclist can shed some light on this.
Best Regards,
Austin
Offline
The short answer is that the bike lane is on the wrong side of the street.
It's a two way bike lane. The entire size of the bike lane for traffic in both directions is about the width of your typical car lane.
Last edited by r0kud (2009-12-18 10:30:40)
Offline
The long answer ...
It's a sub-standard two way bike lane set up in a non-standard configuration.
The bike lanes are very narrow -- what, 3' across? Considering that a cyclist on his bike is around 2' wide, that doesn't leave much extra. So if cyclists are going both directions in the bike lanes, they're about 1' apart from each other -- not acceptable. Also consider that there's a slight down grade southbound, so the cyclists going south are likely going 20+ mph, and the cyclists going north are going much slower -- and are likely weaving a bit due to their lower speed.
No, the two bike lanes together are not about as wide as a typical car lane. Together they're about as wide as a typical bike lane ...
And the cyclists going north in the bike lane are about 1' away from car traffic going south -- again, not acceptable.
The cyclists have a good reason not to use it, especially when going northbound..
The road really isn't wide enough for a proper bike lane, so the CoA should just restripe it all, removing the south bound bike lane entirely and making the north bound one of a proper width. Or make the road wider and put down proper bike lanes, which is of course much more difficult.
You may call it "obstructing traffic" but we call it "avoiding a dangerous situation".
Offline
*Very* well put, dougmc. I was going to write up a response, but now I'm just going to give a thumbs-up on your post. I find that 2-way bike lane to be frightening.
Offline
The long answer ...
It's a sub-standard two way bike lane set up in a non-standard configuration.
Ok, so we have established there is a dedicated bike lane for Great Northern cyclists.
The bike lanes are very narrow -- what, 3' across? Considering that a cyclist on his bike is around 2' wide, that doesn't leave much extra. So if cyclists are going both directions in the bike lanes, they're about 1' apart from each other -- not acceptable. Also consider that there's a slight down grade southbound, so the cyclists going south are likely going 20+ mph, and the cyclists going north are going much slower -- and are likely weaving a bit due to their lower speed.
Other riders seem to not have a problem with using that lane. As a matter of fact, I see very very large groups (8-10+) of riders use that lane very efficiently, and doing so with traffic on either side.
So if we go with that kind of logic... Then the vehicle lane is not wide enough because of the bikers. So ill drive in the bike lane? Hrmm...
And the cyclists going north in the bike lane are about 1' away from car traffic going south -- again, not acceptable.
It gives you a birds-eye view of oncoming traffic.
The cyclists have a good reason not to use it, especially when going northbound..
The road really isn't wide enough for a proper bike lane, so the CoA should just restripe it all, removing the south bound bike lane entirely and making the north bound one of a proper width. Or make the road wider and put down proper bike lanes, which is of course much more difficult.
And the 183 flyover to MoPac isn't wide enough. But you don't see me using the shoulder because I think the city should re-stripe the flyover for more than one car.
You may call it "obstructing traffic" but we call it "avoiding a dangerous situation".
Riding on the street with motorist is a dangerous situation. Period. There is nothing safe about riding no the street with other vehicles. Even with several inches of steel protection, people still die in their cars, even in low speed wrecks.
Why should the people that pay taxes for their vehicle to drive on the road have to pay for someone obstructing traffic on a non-taxed vehicle which isn't funded to build and maintain the roads? This is an annual tax that is levied on the owner of the vehicle which in turn gives him the right to use a public road.
Just like any motorist that drives- driving is a privilege, not a right. Same with bikers. Biking with motorist is a privilege, not a right. Can't we respect that on some level and use your designated lane? Regardless of whats inconvenient to your extracurricular activities.
Last edited by r0kud (2009-12-18 14:26:02)
Offline
Point #1. Who pays taxes or who doesn't pay taxes has absolutely nothing to do with who has a right to road use. You might as will argue that 10 year olds walking to school don't have rights to the sidewalk. Who has the right to use public roads is established by law, not by who pays taxes.
Point #2. The fact that some cyclists use the bike lane says nothing about it's safety. As a cyclist who has been on that road, I can tell you it is less safe than having no bike lane at all on that road. If you rode it and compared it to other cycling routes, you would most likely agree. You can't figure that out by driving by in a car.
Point #3. Cycling is not merely an extracurricular activity. That's certainly one aspect of it, but many of us commute to work, run errands, and do other things that would otherwise require a car. When you see a cyclist, think of how much worse traffic would be if he or she was driving instead.
Point #4. I agree with you that cyclists should be courteous road users - just as motorists should be - and we all know that there are many cyclists and motorists who are not. Don't assume, however, that a cyclist momentarily slowing traffic is automatically being discourteous. There may be very good safety reasons for him or her to be doing that; reasons that you may not fully understand until you yourself are on two wheels in that situation.
Offline
Just because `other riders' don't have a problem with that lane, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't. By that reasoning, we don't need bike lanes anywhere -- after all, `other riders' are perfectly happy riding in the main traffic lanes (I happen to be one of these riders, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good bike lane.) And I'll decide what levels of danger are acceptable on my part and which aren't, thank you -- I don't need some motorist telling me where I should and shouldn't ride.
I don't want a bird's eye view of oncoming traffic that's coming within 1' of me. I want a few feet. Don't worry about the view -- I can see oncoming cars even on normally sized bike lanes, and I don't like seeing them come almost right at me.
In Texas, there is no law obligating cyclists to use the bike lane. There *is* a (city of Austin I think) law that prohibits driving in the bike lane (with exceptions for turns, parking, etc.) So your attempt at logic there fails -- the situations are not analogous.
As for being in the street is dangerous, "Period.", people die in their beds too. So lying in bed is dangerous? Danger is relative, and in my opinion using this bike lane (especially southbound) is more dangerous than using the lane. And again, I'll decide what level of danger is or is not appropriate for me, not you. If a cyclist is nice, he'll move to the bike lane to let you pass if he notices you behind you -- and I'm guessing that most do (I certainly do) -- but he's not legally obligated to do so.
As for the tired "cyclists don't pay taxes" argument, let's see. Gasoline taxes are dedicated to the state highway system and schools by the Texas Constitution. How many dollars of gasoline taxes pay for Great Northern Blvd? Zero. Car registration fees go to the counties and state, who do not pay for roads inside city limits. Dollars that go to pay for Great Northern Blvd? Zero. Well, what does pay for this road? Sales taxes, property taxes -- neither of which is tied to your car. Also, cars are exempt from city sales taxes -- but bikes aren't. So I'm not really sure about this, but it may be that not a single penny from any of the taxes on your car went to pay for this road -- but some of the taxes on my bike did.
Either way, you're WAY off base with your taxes argument.
Offline
Rokud, you started this thread asking for a reasonable explanation of why cyclists would ride in the northbound multi-vehicle traffic lane (there is no such thing as a 'car' lane on Great Northern), instead of the two-way bike lane. There are at least two:
First, the northbound bike lane makes cyclists uncomfortable because it requires you to ride in between two opposing lanes of traffic and too close to both of them. (Have you ever driven your car on a road where you were forced to drive in between two opposing lanes of traffic? I can't think of an instance when I have. It's weird and uncomfortable.)
Second, the bike lane is oddly designed, and for cyclists who happen to encounter this street for the first time, it's not immediately obvious where you're supposed to ride OR where/how you're supposed to safely enter the lane. I remember being confused by the lane markings the first time I happened to ride along Great Northern.
These reasons may sound unreasonable to YOU, but if you really want to understand someone else's behavior, walk (or ride) a mile in their shoes. Why don't you hop on a bike and try cycling up Great Northern a few times in the northbound bicycle lane, especially when there are both bicycles and cars traveling southbound on either side of you. You might feel safe enough doing that, but it will probably demonstrate to you that reasonable minds can disagree about whether that northbound bike lane is actually safe to ride in - especially when it is perfectly legal to ride on the right side of the road in the lane shared with other vehicles.
Offline
Your tax argument is highly bogus. Great Northern receives $0.00 in funding from gas taxes or vehicle registrations; it is funded purely by the city of Austin through mostly property and sales taxes, which you obviously pay whether or not you drive.
Offline
Could somebody please enlighten me on why someone would completely avoid the designated bike lane, and obstruct traffic intentionally?
I'd encourage you to try riding the Great Northern bike lane yourself. Apart from the fact that it's a non-standard layout (somewhat understandable, as there are no intersections along that side) and substandard width, near the curb it is poorly paved, has a fair amount of debris, and occasional obstructions from overhanging vegetation. There are patches where only the northbound lane is really passable.
It's an iffy compromise all around.
Offline
First I want to second (or third or ??) the notion that the bike lanes on Great Northern are both confusing to someone who hasn't ridden there before, and generally a poor design for all the reasons mentioned above. My question is how did they end up this way? And is there some way to get the city to get rid of them? I would much prefer this road to have no bike lanes than what is there.
Offline
Back when this thread was new, I asked the Bicycle Advisory Council if there were any plans to fix it in the works (they don't get to decide, but the city does listen to them, and they tend to know what's going on), and while the response I got wasn't exactly supportive of the current setup, it was defended as making some sense by a few of the members, and the general sentiment seemed to be that fixing it would take resources away from other initiatives.
So I get the impression that it's going to stay as-is for a while.
As for how it became this way, it sounds like somebody originally thought it was a good idea (as there's no interruptions on the east side) and this was done a long time ago, perhaps back before we'd learned how to do them properly? At least that's my take on things.
Offline
I got the chance to "thread the needle" the other day while biking north up the bike lane on Great Northern Blvd. Luckily it's a very quiet road, but it's still obviously not designed correctly. It seems as if it was designed for walkers or joggers, not cyclists. (and poorly at that, still).
Offline
[ Generated in 0.015 seconds, 7 queries executed - Memory usage: 589.42 KiB (Peak: 604.55 KiB) ]