Originally Posted by
DropDeadFred
asking that the mods leave this in the 41 for a bit because I specifically want an answer from them then I will go to the safety forum later as well.
I've been pushing our mayor to push for bike lanes* in our city, we currently have zero. She seems to think that we as a community believe we are safer without them. I understand that there are pros and cons but i think the pros far out weigh any of the cons. The awareness it brings to drivers that cyclists belong on the road, the extra room and its amazing how much that white line helps protect us on some of the busier roads.
We have quite the cycling community and more and more people are starting to commute or consider it, the problem is, its quite dangerous. We are in the south (columbus, ga) and full of rednecks who don't understand we pay taxes and have rights to the road as well.
thoughts?
Do you prefer riding on roads without bike lanes* or with??? (I'm not talking about deep downtown where there are tons of parked cars...
Bike lanes can be a mixed blessing, for all some folks talk like they are the bane of the roads and others talk like they are the ultimate solution to cycle safety they aren't really either.
On a busy road a designated area for cyclists to use can be reassuring for everyone - an area that's specifically earmarked for cyclists and with the road marked so it's clearly wide enough for a motor vehicle to pass a bike in the bike lane without crossing into the other lane. They also provide a specific lane that cyclists can use to pass heavy traffic and, depending on your local laws, the very existence of such a lane may mean that doing so is perfectly legal as opposed to something that's just considered normal.
Some drivers will cut into bike lanes as they go round corners, if they are passing something that's turning across traffic etc. Sometimes a car will pull into a bike lane without warning to let an emergency vehicle pass, which is great in theory but creates another emergency if there was a bike alongside them at the time.
Bike lanes, by their nature, will typically be at the kerbside of the road. That means you get to ride through the patch where all the debris tends to end up, the side of the road usually breaks up before the main body of the road, the street drains are at the side of the road, and so on. For good measure a bike lane can create the impression among motorists that bikes belong in the bike lane rather than on the road. The kerbside of the road is also where people will park, so you potentially end up having to keep merging in and out of traffic anyway, which is awkward if the traffic regards cyclists as mobile obstacles that don't belong in the road.
If the bike lanes are added as an afterthought and the road isn't really wide enough to support them then they are less likely to offer much benefit, as a bit of paint on the road doesn't create any more space. If you've got nice wide lanes that can easily take a cyclist and a huge SUV with room to spare it's not a problem; if you end up with a lane that's not wide enough for a large vehicle then people will drive in the bike lane anyway because there's no other option, in which case the paint on the road is a waste of paint.
Another potential issue is that if as a cyclist you need to turn across the traffic you have to get right across the lane, which can be tricky in heavy traffic. There's a road near me that has a bike lane (with many of the issues I've described above - potholes, drain covers etc) and getting across the lane to turn right across the traffic sometimes feels like playing Russian roulette with the traffic. Normally I'm going close enough to the prevailing traffic speed to be able to push my way across reasonably easily but someone going more slowly would struggle.