cooker

How was I wrong? Looking for spirited and congenial debate, not a fight.

Maelochs

Cooker ... I assume you read most of my posts and have at least some clue of what I am talking about.

I think you can understand that i use sarcasm and exaggeration to make points.

I am sure you can invent anything you want---you seem like a bright person---and I am sure you can take Any part of Any person's post completely out of the context both of the post and the conversation, and inbue it seemingly with any meaning you care to.

I see this a lot on tweh internet. people forget that we can scroll up. people forget that while This Moment is all there is, we can in this moment go back and see the span of moments,a nd the wealth of discussion, which has gone on before.

Some people, it seems, read a post looking for some "Gotcha!" phrase they can ropy loose and attack---and seem to forget that everyone else is not fixated on winning an internet debate with some other poster, is not totally focused on those few words, and are instead following a flowing conversation across time.

it leads to things like people pretending we cannot understand the difference between a sidewalk and an MUP, and other posts which I have (semi-humorously) labeled as "Jump the Shark" moments---points at which the debate has wended so far from sense or reality, and the thread of the conversation so totally tangled between a couple of posters trying to gain the merest dialectical edge over the other, that the posters have forgotten common sense, external reality, fact, and honesty.

Read from the start of whichever thread you plucked those quotes from, to the end ... see if you cannot figure out for yourself what I might have been trying to make. if you still cannot, read a bunch of other threads in which i have posted.

I mean, yeah, i think differently than some folk, but i speak English and I think i use the language pretty effectively. I don't see where you have ever had a problem understanding me before this.

maybe you were just bored and looking for a loose thread to unravel so you'd have something to type about? Sad to say, i have done that in the past.

Or whatever. i still value your contributions, by and large.

tandempower

I heard of this road/lane configuration recently, and it seems to solve the problem of emergency traffic etc. on narrow-yet-bike-friendly roads by making the road wide enough for one car in either direction overall, but then striping it so that the middle lane is the MV lane and cars are only really supposed to go into the bike lane as necessary, and not if it interferes with a cyclist.

Maelochs

In that picture both cars are obviously and unnecessarily in the bike lane. i'd have to say, based on the evidence, that it doesn't work worth a darn.

McBTC

That road is not what I'd call a triumph in human factor engineering, although you could perhaps justify bike lanes occupying that much of the road if all of the bikers were old ladies.

cooker

My guess is that there is an oncoming car, and they are getting out of it's way. Or, you can see behind them there is an island in the middle of the road, so they may be drifting to the right to avoid something similar.

Maelochs

At first glance I couldn’t see if the cars on the right were approaching or receding.

If that is a two-way street … that is insane.

What that means is that cars will be moving at random and at will into the bike lanes depending on when they see and how they judger the speed of oncoming vehicles.

At least with current bike lanes, I can be pretty sure a car won’t encroach unless something really serious is happening on the other side of the road. Even the most obnoxious drivers don’t generally drive through the bike lane just to be obnoxious, and most roads with painted bike lanes are wide enough that two cars can pass without needing to use the bike lanes.

This means people in the bike lanes can relax a little bit and actually feel like they have a place to ride.

On that road, the bike lane means nothing. Riders know cars will be swerving into the bike lane not based on when there are bikes there, but based on when there are cars coming.

This sort of accentuates that the bike lane is illusory safety—not only is there no proscription against cars crossing that stripe of paint, it is Expected that cars will fully take the bike lane when they see fit.

What I the point of marking a road that way? There really is no “bike lane.” And bikes have the same rights and restrictions as they would if the road were painted to reflect that reality.

A “Bike Lane” should be a part of the road were cars should not ever operate—and just a drivers can be trained to not randomly cross a yellow line, they could be taught to respect a bike lane white line (in fact, drivers are not supposed to cross solid whit e lines either.)

This sort of road marking Encourages drivers to cross solid white lines and to do so at their discretion.

It is a pair of totally illusory, unenforced and thoroughly Not dedicated bike lanes. They serve no purpose I can see. Simply riding on the road with No lines would be just the same functionally.

I thought Canadians were more sensible than Americans. I guess politics and its bad ideas know no boundaries.

Mobile 155

I think it happens when a committee comes up with an idea and doesn't consult the populace or the builders. Thinkers need to talk to builders and doers before placing their plans to paper. Because we have the bus part of this topic I am not sure two buses could pass on that road and clear the mirrors. Maybe they could but it would seem close. We have a city in LA county trying to move up on the bike friendly list. They decided to put in protected bike lanes with a curb separating the bike lane from traffic. It was a city project and was published with much fanfare. The lanes were pretty wide, about 8 feet or more. There was one small problem however, drop off mail boxes. Yes the big blue ones with the funnel like part for dropping your mail in while sitting in your car. Those being federal were left on the sidewalk side of the bike lane. You may guess that if a car pulled into the bike lane to use the mail box they couldn't get back out of the lane for at least a block because there was a curb on both sides. Yes it could garner a driver a ticket but it was also dangerous for unsuspecting bike rides. I believe they had to get the post office to move the boxes onto side streets without bike lanes, but I am not sure.

Maelochs

perfect.

Planner who cannot envision any outcome for their plan except the one they started with ... never actually thinking, "What would it really be like, if this project were built?" yeah, wonderful. One person with a strong personality swayed five others on a planning board, no one bothered to think it through ... oops.

Best part of bike lane design is how much of it is done by people with agendas to shape social habits and is vetted by people who haven't ridden a bike for four decades or more.

I-Like-To-Bike

The picture is not of a Canadian highway scheme. Look at the license plates, probably is NL. Whatever though, the road is no better for cyclists than if the road had no markings at all, it is a narrow street, unsuitable for handling anything but slow traffic in residential areas for vehicles of limited size and with no on street parking, except at the cutouts as shown in the photo.

tandempower

I think the point is to designate a safe space where drivers can be sure not to hit a cyclist if there are cyclists coming in both directions. Basically, it's a bike road with space for cars if they drive very carefully and respect cyclists as having ROW.

Notice the speed limit is 30kph. That is about how fast the fastest cyclist goes, so the lady in the photo would not be passed by a car/MV at a speed faster than she would be passed by a fast cyclist. So the message, I think, is that MVs are free to use this road as long as they conform to the speed and passing norms of cyclists on the same road.

So it is basically "share the road" where the bike road is being shared with the cars/MVs.

If an ambulance or other emergency vehicle needs to get through quickly, all the MVs and cyclists can pull over to the same side of the road and stop and wait until the ambulance passes before returning to their natural positions.

cooker

It's a way of taking an existing narrow two lane street and optimizing it for bikes. instead of having to keep to the side to avoid blocking two way motor vehicle traffic, or assertively taking the lane to block cars from overtaking and pinching them to the side when oncoming traffic approaches, the cyclists are given most of the road. Cars going one way can take the middle lane, and if two cars approach each other, it is obviously their responsibility to find a gap in bike traffic where they can squeeze by each other like Model Ts.. This also will discourage motor vehicle traffic on that road. Of course the proof is how it will work in real life.

Maelochs

Yeah, you say the cars will wait for a gap in bike traffic ... maybe where you live.

Everywhere i have ever been, the cars will force their way into the bike lanes and create gaps--sometimes by hitting cyclists---when they see other cars.

We shall see.

Mobile 155

Picture this, rush hour in San Fernando. A street designed like that with 65 cyclists booking down the street heading for work. at the same time 120 cars, 60 each way are coming down the street in the other direction. They all come upon a UPS truck making a delivery to one of the homes along the street. That is real life an a real Monday morning. By the way 30 KMPH is just a bit over 18 mph, Most new road bikes can cruise at 18 easily. put 10 guys in a row on that street and they would all get speeding tickets. We won't see that here. In the real world someone needs to look at real streets and real traffic.

I-Like-To-Bike

This is the LCF list, leave any expectation of rational thinking or relationship with the real world at the door before entering. This is the location for those seeking a support group for daydreamers with altered/alternate concepts of reality that jibe with their personal agenda.

Mobile 155

I suppose after the time I have been here I should realize that some live in a real world and adapt to it and some do not.

cooker

That is a real street! It's designed to accommodate and presumably encourage higher bike volumes and less car traffic. Sixty cars each way are not going to be able drive it. It's also designed for cycling little old ladies, guys in suits, children etc. - not for pacelines. If they exceed the speed limit they should be ticketed, as they are a hazard.

wphamilton

I think I like this. It looks like traffic is moving slowly, probably at normal bicycle speed, which is probably one of the main points of the idea.

If you imagine regular speed traffic, with bikes trying to fit in somehow as best they can, then maybe not but this street is the other way around. It needs more bikers on it though.

Mobile 155

I-Like-To-Bike

Why?

Maelochs

I see your points, both of you … and agree.

That street is designded to slow vehicles traffic and minimize vehicle traffic … even to discourage it.

And so long as everyone in cars is willing to drive at 15 mph, and to stop and wait for a chance when another car comes in the other direction … it might work.

But … at anything but Exceedingly low traffic volume it becomes a nightmare.

If there are too many cars going in opposite directions and regular bike traffic, then the cars would have to spend a lot of time stopped in the center lane, waiting for a safe chance to block the bike lane. Then the bikes would all have to stop and wait for the cars … and if there were a couple cars each way, things get dicey, because the cyclists can’t see all the cars and the cars in back cannot see the cyclists parked on the side of the road ahead.

Enough such traffic jams, and there will start to be jams on side streets accessing this street.

Drivers will get impatient, cyclists will start looking for holes to slip through because once they start going, the cars won’t stop to let the bikes through … and won’t be able to because of the car coming the other way forcing both cars to use the whole road.

Absolutely.

This layout is fine in a low-traffic area where people don’t live close together … because it is Not suited for high traffic, Mass transit, delivery vehicles …. It is a great Village or Hamlet street …. Just imagine rush hour in the morning, with school buses and a full load of commuters …. and a bunch of kids riding their bikes to school.

In any kind of the high-density development some people tout as the best future for mankind, that street would be a great way to lower the population of cyclists.

wphamilton

I think that with a low relative density of bikes to cars, drivers will be less inhibited from staying in the bike lanes, treating it like a two-lane street without lane markings. More bikes, they'll become accustomed to traffic patterns where there are bikes on both sides. Like old fashioned one-lane roads, where you pull to one side to allow on-coming traffic to pass.

Of course you could say that if there are very few cyclists using that street, the lane markings ARE pointless, but if I were to ride on it I would prefer that there were enough bikes in general that it would be utilized as intended.

Mobile 155

tandempower

This gets into the essence of how driving is culturally constructed as the dominant mode and cycling is constructed as subordinate. If bikes are expected to get out of the way of drivers, it puts pressure on cyclists; but if drivers are expected to respect cyclists as fully-legitimate road users, then they have to respect their speed and only pass them/us when it's safe to do so. In fact, why shouldn't drivers simply drive at biking speed whenever they are not on a highway?

As I say this, I know that there will ensue debate for the purpose of culturally subjugating cycling to driving, because probably the thing automotive-centrists hate the most is the idea that any other form of transportation should set the pace on the roads besides the top speed they can muster.

tandempower

Why shouldn't all in-town traffic go 30kph or less? It is done on university campuses and those areas end up being safer and more pleasant for everyone, including drivers, who don't have to worry about congestion because traffic can't speed up enough to pile up.

Also think how much less pavement damage would be caused if not only acceleration and braking were reduced, but also the frequency of starting and stopping because less traffic lights and stop signs would be needed if speeds were kept low throughout a city. People racing around to get caught in congestion and at stoplights is just a waste. Not only does their average speed go down because of the congestion and lights, the stopping and starting from and to higher speeds puts more lateral stress on the pavement.