BIKE: Bike Lanes vs WCLs (and longer than some bike lanes, I'm sorry to say)

[Thorne]

Thanks, Mike, for the coherent and even-handed statement of bike lane pros and
cons.  I'd like to add some commentary along the same lines--in brackets
below.  I'll just follow your points, as work is busy.  I'm not attacking you
in any; I'm just seeking a way for cyclists and others to evaluate the way we
plan and design accommodations for cyclists.  If I'm not as even-handed, it's
because I'm rebutting, not because I won't concede points (as we're having a
discussion, not a debate).  


"There's (sic) no good studies proving that bike lanes or wide curb lanes are
better than each other (sic). ALL theories you hear on which one is better are
resting on somebody's opinion. I'm one of the people who thinks we
overprescribe bike lanes, but it bugs me that so many Forsterites are so
hostile to them in general. Both bike lanes and wide curb lanes have their
place."

[And there I thought "Foresterins" was the correct term.  Opinions, of course,
can be informed by facts, study, experience, and logic.  I often run across
those whose opinion is that the only way to make cycling safe is to remove
bikes from traffic with a segregated facility.  Usually, some facts, logic, or
experience is sufficient to dispel that notion.  Bike lanes are "segregation
'lite,'" if you will.  Segregated facilities have their places.  Let's think
carefully about where those places are.  You say that both BLs and WCLs "have
their place"--often its the same danged place, actually.]

"The theory that we can reengineer the 98% of Austin that needs it to a grid
pattern like Hyde Park where we don't need EITHER facility is just
ludicrous."

[Straw man alert!]

". . . when bike lanes are appropriate:

"1. Where there are lots of inexperienced bicyclists"

[Attracting cyclists to riding is a worthy goal and perhaps bike lanes are the
most effective tool available to us to use to achieve it.  Let's do so by
attracting people to facilities that don't expose them to greater dangers than
their experience would lead them to handle well.  It appears that the big
attractor for the inexperienced cyclist is that the bike lane tells him where
to ride and that it's a safe place to ride.  But if you ask the inexperienced
cyclist what the bike lane is doing to make it safe, the answer is often that
it assures against being hit from behind.  That is a rare collision,
especially in the daylight, and the bike lane hasn’t been shown to reduce
even the incidence of that.  The bike also lane hasn't been shown to improve
the much greater dangers to cyclists from the front (crossing traffic and
turning traffic).  I think, but can't prove, that bike lanes actually increase
those dangers.  This, the objective opinion of someone who is trying to be
fair and has seriously thought about the issue and his experiences, but I know
my memory and perception are unreliable to some degree.  I had figured the
stripes would discourage the drive out/right hook collisions, but my
experience on the streets surprises me on this one.]

"Where not to put bike lanes:

"1. Low-speed or congested roadways where turning volume is very high"

[E.g. SCB--note the number of cross-streets and driveways and the relatively
low speeds.]

"4. Where you can't commit to 'no parking'."
[Agreed, but there are few places more attractive to a potential parker than a
nice wide bike lane with a stripe to keep moving cars away from the stopped
ones.  This is why I would like to propose, but can't show, that a bike lane
too narrow to get the whole car in, might be better.  The stripe to the right
of one's left tires may make the parker feel exposed to traffic, to the
riders' benefit.  We've seen how a striped bike lane attracts efforts to
designate the space for parking, right Mike?  As Mike has said before, a bike
lane with parking in it is worse than no bike lane at all.  Positively a
Foresterian statement.  It has to do with freedom to choose the road position
with changing conditions ahead.]

"Things I believe that are PROs for bike lanes:

"1. Bike lanes attract new cyclists; wide curb lanes do not. . . . Patrick
agreed, and so do most people who actually work in the field (not the people
who commute and criticize; but the people who are paid to try to increase
cycling in their particular city).

"3. You can't attract new cyclists to a road like Jollyville without a 
bike lane stripe. Period. The automobile traffic moves too fast. A wide 
curb lane simply doesn't provide the space that new cyclists think they 
need in a way which makes sense to them, coming from the world of the 
automobile."

[Whom do you want to attract to ride roads like Jollyville?  A 10-year old and
her little brother?  The truly novice rider?  If that's not your target, think
about whether they'll be attracted anyway and think about what direction the
inexperienced rider may want to go in that lane and how well they'll do
negotiating with Jollyvillian traffic.  Later you address traffic enforcement
against cyclist operator error, and sure, I'd like to see dangerous and
illegal cycling earn tickets as an educational tool, but I don't think that's
a likely priority for APD.  Further, how do we address the rider who is
attracted to bike lanes but wants to get from point A to point N?  Can he do
it only on bike lanes?  Rarely do bike lanes continue for more than a few
hundred meters.  

[When he asks you whether it's safe to ride on streets without the attractive
lane to get to the next attractive lane, he is best served by the
Foresteresque 5 principles: (1) Ride (generally) on the right side of the
roadway, not on the left and never on the sidewalk; (2) Yield to crossing
traffic at superior streets; (3) Yield to overtaking traffic before changing
lanes; (4) Position yourself according to your destination when approaching an
intersection; and (5) Position yourself according to your speed relative to
other traffic between intersections.

[Then he can start to apply those Foresterista principles even when riding in
a bike lane, to avoid the real dangers the lane doesn't address.  Wait a
second--did Forester invent those principles?  Those sound just like a clear
restatement of the rules and traditions of the road everyone should be
following, from bicycle, to Camaro, to Expedition, to Peterbuilt.  Hmmmm.]

"4. If you accept riding on shoulders on 360, you should accept riding in 
bike lanes on Jollyville. The argumentative convulsions some Forsterites 
go through to defend shoulders from the same logic they use against bike 
lanes are breathtaking. (They do this, I think, because they know that 
even most Forsterites don't want to share a lane at 65; the same 
anti-bike-lane reasoning with a few exceptions would logically apply to 
shoulder-riding)."

[Straw man?  Apples and oranges?  Actually, the common shoulder is a nice
place for this Foresteroid to ride--there aren't many intersections exposing
one to cross-traffic and turning traffic moving across the cyclist's path. 
Where there are few intersections, there are few conflicts riding far right
can contribute to.  Coming up to an intersection?  Yield to traffic from the
rear and get into the rightmost lane going to your destination (yield to any
cross traffic if the intersecting road is a superior one--and, as always, also
watch out for other vehicle operators not following the rules of the road). 
Does the bike lane on Jollyville contribute to safe operation at
intersections?  How many points of conflict does the cyclist riding in the
lane cross?]

"6. Even on low-speed roadways, utility for the population AS A WHOLE 
sometimes demands the channelization of low-speed traffic."

[Separation of modes is appropriate for that reason, yes.  First, identify a
traffic problem.  Then, see whether a bike lane would help.  If so, paint
away!  Don't start with saying, "more people might ride here if there was a
stripe here," or, "more stripes is doubleplusgood for bikes."  (I'm not saying
you said that, Mike.)  Solve a problem, don't put down a solution where there
isn't one and don't create one.]

"7. . . .  it is possible to have a better average passing distance on a
roadway with a wide curb lane, but still have a better overall level of safety
in passing distance with a bike lane . . . you shouldn't use "average passing
distance" to compare the facilities."

[OK, let's even assume _arguendo_ that safety for the cyclist being passed is
increased by better passing margins as a result of the stripe.  What about the
greater dangers from the front?  Even if the risk of a fatal passing error is
lessened by the stripe, and it might not be, it's the whole package we're
considering.  Does the stripe may contribute to or prevent accidents overall
or is it an attempt to solve the overtaking or passing collisions at the
expense of making other collision rates worse.  I wish we had the numbers one
way or the other reliably; we don't.  Without the numbers, how do we know that
the bike lane stripe is not better than a decorative motif?  We do posit that
it attracts the inexperienced riders.  Well, maybe the bike lane is a stepping
stone for the inexperienced to get some experience.  "You will not regret it,
if you live ( http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/taming.html -- a
must read, if you ask me)."]

"8. The idea (stolen from a semi-Forsterite) that we can easily get roads 
restriped with wide curb lanes is in reality not true. If you want space 
for bikes to be taken from car lanes, it generally has to be a bike 
lane. (I don't know why this is, but it seems to be true, although 
Austin has an exception or two here)."

[I'd think the answer is 'politics;' there are far more people who like the
idea of segregating bicycle traffic from other traffic than there are people
who realize it ain't no good solution to nothing.  To borrow from NRA
hysteria, I think there is a tendency to have each bike lane become a piece of
the argument for getting bicycles off of the streets altogether.  I wouldn't
get that hysterical, though I'm coming to believe it.  Perhaps the argument
borrowed was more along the lines of, "if the curb lane is wide enough for
cyclists to ride on safely anyway, that street is easier to get an unnecessary
lane painted on it than it is to get a helpful bike lane painted on a street
that presently doesn't allow cyclists enough room to share the curb lane
safely."  We can get a stripe (can we?) on S. Congress from Riverside to
Nelly, where riding was always good, but not on the next couple of blocks
farther south, where riding is not so good.  Of course in that example, the
right-turn-only lane by the school makes it difficult for me to see where a
safety-enhancing bike lane might be placed.  We can get a stripe on S.
Congress south of Oltorf, but we can't get one on S. 1st just south of the
bridge.  Lots of room on SCB for one and it got painted, but it was never
needed anyway, in my opinion, and is nearly useless as is.]

"CONS for bike lanes

"1. Car drivers do tend to think you need to stay in the bike lane (even 
when obstructed, unsafe, whatever . . . Also, car drivers often think you
should only ride on roads that have bike lanes."

[Check.  NRA-style hysteria has some merit?  I'd add also, some new cyclists
also think that one should ride only on roads that have bike lanes.  I've had
a self-proclaimed 'cyclist' (who was driving a big blue 1970's Chrysler
product at the time--9 mpg city, I'd guess) shoutingly and angrily decry my
moving left out of the bike lane so I didn't end up in a right-turn-only lane
ahead (safely, prudently, signaling, looking over shoulder, with plenty of gap
to move in) as "giving bikers a bad name!"  Like the Banditos didn't do that
for me?  I explained the reason to move left.  He thought I did it 'too soon,'
he shouted, which I can take only to mean that the stripe gets to decide
what's safe, in his mind.]

"3. Sometimes cyclists will stay in a bike lane when they need to leave 
it due to an obstruction or intersection approach. This is a sign of bad 
bike lane design in most cases and can be overcome, but is hard to get 
right, judging from how often it's done wrong.

"4. Sometimes cyclists will stay in a bike lane when they should be 
leaving it to turn (the "turn left out of the far right lane" 
phenomenon). The problem here is that I see this happen on wide curb 
lanes fairly often as well. The only solution here is heavy enforcement."

[There is a real problem of riders on both types of roadways.  It seems to me
that the stripe increases the problem, however.  The solid stripe is a traffic
control device whose first and plainest meaning is "do not deviate from this
lane."  With a solid striped bike lane leading right up to an intersection,
the overtaking driver is justified in presuming that the cyclist will not pull
left and the inexperienced cyclist is justified to presume that she is not
allowed or is discouraged from moving left.  From where does she turn left,
then?  Given that this is a 'bad design' feature, and given that you concede
that bad designs are frequently what we see on the roadways, let me ask how
the inexperienced rider the bike lane is built to attract is supposed to
distinguish the one safe facility from the six facilities designed to get her
killed? (Hyperbole alert--but I'm making a point)  Then we get to the unlikely
enforcement solution--the jackboots?  No, just note that turning left from the
right is self-enforcing:  either one gets killed or maimed or one decides that
riding is not safe enough to get places.  Door zone bike lane?  You just
attracted someone, but we can't tell who just yet, to her death.  Bike lane to
the right of right turning traffic?  Same deal.  Does the bike lane encourage
one to pass on the right slower or stopped automobile traffic?  The stripe is
telling the inexperienced cyclist that's proper without educating her why it's
dangerous.  Hell, I do that when in a hurry, but I recognize and watch for the
danger.  What about the new cyclist it's built for?  Bad design can be
overcome?  Maybe so.]

5. Bike lanes supposedly encourage wrong-way cycling. (Whatever happened 
to painting arrows, by the way? Jollyville didn't get them...) - again, 
I see this often with wide curb lanes too. Heavy enforcement and more 
arrows.

[Arrows seem a logical way to minimize that risk.  Others' experience
experimenting with arrows and sharrows, mentioned on this list before, shows
they might not work anyway.  I think elementary school P.E. classes on cycling
safely might spread the word.]

Glad to be having the discussion.  The thing is, as any Foresterman knows,
under the law, and by applying the principles that apply to all traffic under
the law and by tradition, every lane IS a bike lane by virtue of a bicyclist
being legitimate operator in traffic.  Use all of your bike lanes wisely and
don't try to create special rules for bicycles as if they were second-class
traffic.  We can choose to delegitimate cycling in traffic, but I, for one,
don't choose that path.  (Not that you ever said that, Mike.)

Jeff (with apologies to Forester and any disciple of same with whom I may
differ on cycling safety matters)