Originally Posted by
mcours2006
Good luck convincing your typical moto-commuter the benefits of bike lanes. The only thing the short-sighted motorist sees is that cyclist on the bike lane in front of him hindering his upcoming right turn.
I think you have this the wrong way ‘round. Motorist, in general, would like to see bicyclists relegated to bike lanes and bike paths...preferably a long distance from any road and never intersecting with any road. In other words, they would like to never have to deal with them. But if they do have to deal with them, relegate them to the bike lane ghetto.
And the article mentions Lawrence Solomon. Pfff! That guys is a piece of work...environmentalist my a$$.
He's a lobbyist for big oil.
I can see your point about Solomon. I’m not a fan of anyone who denies science but
this article does make a good point. I don’t have a problem with traditional painted lanes running next to parked cars (or curbs), i.e. the old “unprotected” lane. If there is something in the lane like a debris or a pothole or an opening car door, it’s relatively easy to move out of the lane into the travel lane away from the obstacle.
Protected lanes, on the other hand, bug the crap out of me. I hate them with a burning passion. They are narrow, often crammed up against a curb, run over the top of all kinds of holes (man hole covers, poor patch jobs from plumbing repairs, potholes, etc.), are filled with debris and, in the case of floating parking lanes, hide bicyclists from motorists until the intersection. Some in my city are even two way flow for a (roughly) 8 foot wide lane. I’ve witnessed and experienced many close calls at those intersections. I simply refuse to use them.