invisiblehand

Roughly -- I think we all agree that there are lot of weirdo situations -- high speed arterials.

randya

that's just VC fear-mongering

njkayaker

Random comments:

* Motor vehicles get special facilities (eg, restricted access highways) that don't keep them from having "general access" to the roadways.

* Transportation planners probably see MUPs and most bicycle paths as bicycle-specific "transportation" facilities, when, usually, they are "recreational" facilities.

* Bicycles need "general access" to roadways because bicycle-specific facilites don't go everywhere cyclists need/want to go.

* Many people like bicycle-specific facilities. Many people would not ride without these facilities.

* Recreation is a legitimate purpose/use for bicycles.

* Bicycle lanes in "complicated' traffic situations (eg, urban, lots of intersections) likely fail because motorists and bicyclists might tend to think that that is the place bicycles "belong".

* Sharrows might work better because they are more "suggestive" than bicycle lanes are.

* As genec said, bicycle lanes might work fine in (and be appropriate for) situations with few interersections and where there is a large difference in speed.

* Bicycle-specific facilities don't really eliminate the need for cyclists (and motorists) from dealing with being in traffic.

invisiblehand

I don't know about the VC adjective, but I think it is highly unlikely.

joejack951

Between myself and a few other cyclist friends who have had collisions with motorists, all of us were treated fairly without a hint of bias simply because we were on bikes. Outside of collisions, my experience has of course been different but that's a different discussion.

In this grand scheme to make cyclists untouchable road users, who else gets untouchable status? Is it the lack of a cage? Relative size?

joejack951

You don't see the potential for resentment anywhere in this far-fetched scenario? When you kill a drunk, ninja cyclist you won't be the least bit upset when your insurance carrier drops you after having to pay out millions in a settlement?

genec

If the cyclist is both drunk and riding without lights at night, I dare say that some fault could easily assigned to their illegal behaviour... and it is highly unlikely that a jury would award "millions" to such a scofflaw.

How about a realistic scenario... such as a motorist losing control and plowing into a tandem riding couple well off the side of the road and killing them and leaving their daughter without parents... What I want to know is how a motorist can "lose control" in such a situation, and what the legal outcome of that case will be.

Or how about a motorist that plows into a grandfather and grand daughter and walks away from the courts because "that's his driving style."

Are these indications of perhaps some bias in the system against cyclists?

randya

It seems pretty straightforward to me that the more risk your vehicle poses to others, the greater your responsibilities are to operate it in a cautious and safe manner, and that the least protected users are obviously the most vulnerable.

I-Like-To-Bike

Both JoeJack and I were referring to bicycle riding and the potential (and probably legal) restrictions on that activity that would be likely reactions to implementation of the nutty guilty until proven innocent proposals espoused on BF.

Case law about intra and/or interstate travel in no way shape or form has ever been stretched to encompass some sort of constitutional right or guarantee to travel by bicycle.

randya

In the same way that motorists seem to believe that they have a constitutional right to travel anywhere and harass cyclists at will?

I-Like-To-Bike

You seem to confuse Internet ranting, letters to the editor, and shock radio with the law.

invisiblehand

I find it hard to believe that such an extreme interpretation will be the norm. Just like certain things -- not having a reflector on your bike while riding at night -- can be prima facie evidence of negligence, one can still rebut it.

My understanding is that, roughly described, the onus is on the driver in various European countries to demonstrate that they are not negligent. Real question: Are cases like the one described above the norm?

invisiblehand

Constitutional right? Guarantee?

No. But it made it unlikely that cyclists will encounter a major "roadblock". Cycling would have to become pretty popular for such a law to be passed.

randya

No, I do know the difference between all of those things and the reality of what happens on the street and in the courts

danarnold

I'm relieved to hear someone sees a difference.

danarnold

BTW, I mentioned I was happy to see some consensus. I'm just as happy to see we are not devoid of controversy.

I mentioned the possibility of a law that would create a rebuttable presumption that if a car struck a bicyclist the motorist would be liable. This would not be much of a change if from existing tort law. The key here is 'rebuttable.' If the cyclist caused the accident or was contributorily negligent, that would rebut the presumption. The law uses many such presumptions to favor the vulnerable. They even use them in criminal law, to disfavor the accused. An example is that if a trespasser is in someone's house, he is presumed to be there to commit a crime. The presumption is rubuttable and frequently is.

I'm not wedded to this idea, or to the wording of such a presumption. As I said, I don't think it would change the law much, but it would serve as a caution to drivers. As in much of the law, the benefit of its serving as a warning is the most powerful benefit.

Bekologist

is the consensus bikelanes on high speed arterials are kosher?

the qualitative implementation of bikeways would include installation guidelines similar to what already exists as federal roadway design guidelines for bikeways:

low speed, low volume streets: as they stand

low speed moderate volume streets: sharrows and class III designations with minor enhancements.

moderate speed, higher volume streets and collectors without viable alternate routes: class II bikeways

higher speed arterials: class II bikeways

and quality implementations of class I bikeways for both transportation and recreation across communities.

and better shoulder treatments in rural areas.

these can serve as starting points for common ground behind which all american cyclists should be able to get behind.

Has everyone read Roger Geller's "The Four Types of Cyclist"

the four types of cyclist

bicyclists that can look at a 45 MPH roadway and say to themselves "bikelanes there? I can take em or leave em, maybe i don't want them" are NOT the majority user group being considered in bikeways planning.

We are NOT the majority of road users that bikeways planning is concerned with. we are part of the populace just not the majority populace.

danarnold

I may be odd man out here. I ride a lot on a 10 mile stretch of road with a 50 mph limit on most of it. There is a lane stripe generally 3 feet from the curb, but sometimes less. Due to gravel and debris or my anticipation of it, I generally ride within a foot of line, just to the right of it. This works out fine 99% of the time, but there is the occasional SUV that zooms by within a foot of me, then when past, moves on to the line, or over it.

These clowns make me want to ride the middle of the lane the whole time, but it's a 50 mph arterial. If this were a proper bike lane, that is wider, maybe I wouldn't mind it so much, but as it stands, I'd prefer sharrows or even no line at all.

I-Like-To-Bike

Any particular reason for your belief that riding in the middle of the road would alter the behavior of the 1%'ers who zoom too close for your comfort?

BTW, for the last 7+years I rode in the 10' wide lane of 55mph road for six miles each way to/from work (approx 3 feet to the left of the right edge paint). I'd estimate that 99% of motorists gave me at least 7 feet clearance by changing lanes completely before passing at full speed. Maybe 0.99% passed with 3 to 7 feet of clearance, and there are the 0.01%'ers who are dim bulbs who pass too damn close for comfort. When traveling in the traffic lane, I'm far more concerned about those dim bulb full speed motorists that don't begin to pass until the last second, which is a far bigger mind "messer" for this cyclist than excessive lateral clearance.

danarnold

Good points. I guess you're saying 'claiming the lane' does not necessarily do any good? I think we all agree we need to claim the lane, then the lane including shoulder is too narrow to share. For me the 'bike lane' or fog line stripe is the monkey wrench that is thrown into the works when I try to calculate what drivers behind me will do when I am at X distance from the curb.

I-Like-To-Bike

Yes, that is what I am saying. I am also saying that those who claim that there is a measured reduction in overall risk by routinely taking the lane (vice other techniques) should either produce some credible evidence or stop fooling themselves. Foresteronian claims of what is "likely" based on crystal ball analysis do not qualify as credible.

danarnold

I agree, I'd like to see good data on this, but it isn't just John Forester who recommends 'claiming the lane' when it isn't wide enough to share. Allen and... well everyone I've read suggests this. More importantly to me I came up with this on my own when I started to ride in the street on a regular commute on Wishire Blvd in LA more then 30 years ago. MOST riders I know who've discussed this, came up with this same technique independently.

It's intuitive and based on the notion that it will dissuade some, maybe most motorists from making the close call. As you say, there's no guarantee when they move over they will completely change lanes. But once they are forced out of the 'this is MY lane' mode, they will give more room even if they don't completely change lanes. 'Tho not definitive, the studies that show motorists give more clearance when there is no lane line, supports this psychology.

Bekologist

why is this such a problem for a guy accustomed, or purports himself to be comfortable with , 50mph traffic?


and by the way, the 'take it or leave it' cyclist is recofgnized by the FHWA as always going to be in the minority of bicyclists.

a very, very small minority of the bicyclists. federal transportation policy recognizes this. one thing that needs to frame the discussion of common ground is 'who is the design bicyclist?'

it sure the heck isn't advanced, traffic tolerant cyclists with overblown concerns about the monkey wrench of pavement striping!

njkayaker

Hadn't seen that.

The more doctrinaire "vehicular cyclist" advocates appear to give the impression that the only legitimate cylists are the "strong and fearless" type. Other bicycle advocates appear to think that everybody lives in Portland.

https://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles.../contents.html

I think there's a perceptual problem exists that isn't solved by "taking the lane". This perceptual problem is increased with higher speeds and is related to the lack of experience that drivers of cars have with cyclists. That is, if drivers had routine and regular interaction with cyclists, their learned behavior would compensate for the perceptual problem.

While some people (not you) say so, I doubt that taking the lane is universally safer (ie, safer on every street). I'm guessing that Wilshire Blvd is an active, complicated urban street where a lot of things are happening. On such a street, drivers might be perceptually more aware of exceptions (pedestrians/cars pulling out) in their direct path.

I don't think people consider perceptual issues enough. It's possible that the motorists get accustomed to aligning themselves to the line and the reality of the cyclist doesn't register fully in the driver's perception.

I-Like-To-Bike

I share your, and others', intuitive notions about taking a lane in appropriate circumstances.

I do not have any trust in the quantitative safety claims of the VC zealots who make all sorts of safety claims (including risk reduction benefits about lane position) based on dogma combined with gross statistical manipulations of mystical safety records of vaguely defined groups of "lawful competent cyclists."