t2p

t2p

rarely rode/ride in areas with bike lanes - but avoided bike lanes and the sides of the roads that are often in poor condition and/or littered with crap

Inusuit

I'm fortunate that the roads immediately adjacent to my rural house have wide paved shoulders. I do ride regularly on local dirt/gravel roads that have no bike lane or marked shoulder. Traffic on those is so light that I can ride miles without being passed or meeting a vehicle.

I don't ride on the type of roads in the pictures by preceding posters simply because there aren't many of them in my area.

SoSmellyAir

This statement has been proven false so far.

Eric F 

They won't? Have you actually read the previous responses? This is my 3rd post in this thread. I've commented that the pic in the OP doesn't look bothersome to me, and about a recent experience avoiding a bike lane. Since this is the 'road cycling" section, I'll stick to just the kind of riding I do on my road bike. My rides are most often on urban/suburban streets, with the occasional 2-lane mountain road mixed in for some variety. There are some sections of paved MUPs that sometimes get mixed in occasionally, as well. I'm comfortable and confident riding next to cars, and will take the lane for myself, if I need to for my safety. For the most part, I loathe bike lanes that are adjacent to car lanes for the same reason others have commented about in this thread - accumulated debris. Clean bikes lanes are great, but they don't exist very much in my world, and I wouldn't change my intended route based on the existence of a bike lane or not.

merlinextraligh

You're missing the point about self selection bias. If half the posters here say they only ride on roads with a bike lane and half say they wouldn't limit themselves to that, it doesn't mean the split in the population of cyclists is 50-50.

My point is that people that people who buy the premise of the thread will be more likely to respond. Just based on personal observation of other cyclists, I would wager very few people that would identify as cyclists limit themselves to just bike lanes, almost certainly fewer than a simple count of posts in this thread would suggest..

SoSmellyAir

You are missing the point that this thread is not a statistically relevant survey. And there is no premise in the original question; to the extent that you feel there is one, the feeling suggests a bias on your part. ​​Speaking of bias, you also seem to have another whereby one's identify as a (road) cyclist is somehow linked to the non-use of bike lanes? It seems common sense that whether one rides on a bike lane (or not) depends on a whole host of factors: whether there is one at all, the condition of the bike lane vs. the remainder of the road, traffic, etc.

merlinextraligh

Then was is the point? Presumably it was to get a measure of others risk balancing with regard to where they will ride, and my point is that it fails to do that for the reasons stated, and moreover, is a counterproductive focus on potential dangers.

I don't think handwringing about the dangers of riding without bike lanes gets us anywhere.

So given that I think the thread is basically worthless and counterproductive, I'm out. Obviously feel free to carry on the handwringing, but it might be more appropriate and find a more receptive audience in A&S

Eric F 

Based on many years of participating in online discussion forums covering a variety of topics, it is apparent to me that...

- Online discussion forum responses are not an accurate source for calculating statistics. About anything.

- Online discussion forum topics are highly likely to include responses contrary to the topic/premise of the thread. Sometimes, the "me, too" group is bigger than the "not me" group. Sometimes not. I wouldn't dare predict either way.

Eric F 

The OP asked a question and indicated some concerns. Other folks who were inclined to do so, shared their opinions and experiences. Discussion was had. That's generally how these places function.

Maelochs

The "point" was the next 85 posts, and counting.

Zaskar

just saw this thread. Before I go on and on with what is likely to have already been stated, I'll ask: Does anyone else HATE bike lanes?

ussprinceton

ussprinceton

Calsun

I avoid bike lanes as much as possible. At least in the United States they often are right alongside parked cars where people often open their doors without looking for bicyclists or ignore them. Parked cars also block sight lines for both bicyclists and for motorists pulling out in to the street.

With bikes as with driving a car it is important to have an escape option when someone opens a door or pulls out onto the road in front of you. With bike lanes that becomes very dangerous to do as motorists do not have time to respond if a bicyclist suddenly goes into their lane. A a slow moving vehicle on a street they can see me from a distance and have time to decide how to get around me.

CAT7RDR

Not a big fan of bike lanes because they are usually in densely populated areas where fallible humans abound.
I am more concerned about the density of traffic and type of vehicles.
I prefer riding in commercial free zones or zones that ban vehicles over 6K+ lbs.

Zaskar

I hate bike lanes. In a perfect (okay, better) world, roads would be constructed with the right lane wide enough for a bike lane, but without the additional lines painted.

I live in Atlanta. Our traffic ranks in the top 10 worst in the country. We're a metro population of 6M people - all of whom refuse to use public transportation. My observations with dedicated bike lanes:

1. They are FULL of dirt, gravel, glass, trash... Cars are very good at blowing crap out of the lanes. And since they stay in their "car lanes", they do a great job pushing that debris into the bike lane. So, we have to ride to the left of the bike lane to avoid all that crap. That leads to point #2.
2. Motorists seem to view that white line that separates the car lane from the bike lane as an impenetrable 6' tall wall. They make almost no effort to move left as they overtake cyclists in the bike lane. I get it. It's psychological. Without the line, drivers feel the need (fortunately) to give us space - they're (fortunately) afraid of hitting us. But with that magical line, they know if they stay to left of it. A. They probably won't hit the cyclist and B. If they do, it won't be their fault... probably.

So, since we're not changing ^that^, we do the following:

1. Note the use of "we're" and "we". Yeah. I ride in groups - almost exclusively. My club mates largely feel the same. Five guys with headlights and blinky tail lights are MUCH more visible than one rider. When there are 10-15 of us, we look like a Christmas tree on a tow truck.
2. During the week, we ride from 5:45 to 7:00am. That probably eliminates 80% of the traffic issues.
3. The weekday route was designed to avoid as much traffic as possible (and still have a good ride) - based on flow toward/from the city, right turns, etc.
4. Lights - at least one 30+ lumen tail light, headlights are also mandatory in the summer when we have daylight at the end of the ride - 1000 lumen strobe.

10 Wheels

Yes.

add

Maelochs

^ Why I am afraid to buy a trike, by the way .....

10 Wheels

SHE has 200,000 Safe Miles

Maelochs

Lots of people do it .... I see them do it .... I am still a little afraid .... I also see the <ahem> fine ladies and gentlemen who are always so cautious and attentive in traffic around here.

It isn't trucks on the highway .... it is people trying to make right turns while looking left to see what's coming, people trying to squeeze past other cars who ignore my when I am perched almost four feet in the air on a diamond frame, people looking past me when they pull out of strip-mall parking lots .... .... it is pick-up trucks and SUVs with hoods so high a trike wouldn't come up to the bottom of the grille, with drivers assuming that whatever they couldn't see didn't matter ....

One day maybe I will master my fear and buy what I really want but so far ..... ..... Kudos to the person who is riding that trike.

prj71

Mostly ones that were put in after the fact as an after thought. There is one in a city about 20 miles away from me. Basically they threw in a bike line about 10 ft.wide on each side of a 4 lane two way road which did nothing but squeeze the cars into a narrower lane. Due to the high amount of traffic on this 4 lane road, I will never ride it.

Calsun

The statement about those who "refuse to use public transportation" makes a number of false assumptions. After World War II a new corporation was created and funded by General Motors, Firestone Tire, and Standard Oil, that then bought up all the electric street car lines in the country and permanently dismantled them by ripping up the tracks, buring the trolley cars, and relinquishing the right of ways. Even within the past two years the Republicans have stopped 8 cities from adoping light rail public transit, acting on behalf of the oil companies that these public officials serve. In the late 1800's large cities started to fund and build electric powered street car lines as an effective way to reduce severe traffic congestion.

One hundred later the countries of Europe have terrific public transit systems in their cities and high speed electric trains linking the cities across the continent. The difference is that these countries are for the most part, true democracies and not a plutocracy as with the United States where the Koch brothers and the oil companies decide what transportation systems are funded by the federal government.

In my state of there is the California Transportation Commission and for more than half a century its members have been people whose inccomes are derived from construction companies, real estate businessses, auto dealerships, and similar businesses that directly profit from the state building more highways exclusively.

When elected officials depend on campaign contributions to get elected to office they do not turn to the local bike shops or the non-existent light rail operators but rather to real estate developers and auto dealers and large construction companies other such businesses. In my county less than $30,000 in contributions can control the board of supervisors.

When traveling around in Europe my wife and I travel 100% on foot or on light rail or subways or on the bullet type trains and it is delightful. Major cities have streets where motor vehicles are prohibited during daylight hours and so they are safe for bicyclists and pedestrians. The government planners in Europe are not in the pockets of the oil and auto industries as they are in the United States.

Where I live the population and traffic volumes have more than doubled and most roads are no longer safe for bicyclists. It has been made even worse with the law enforcement people not enforcing the hands free phone laws and so the majority of drives are holding a phone and looking at it instead of the road. The number of motorists drifting off the road and killing bicyclists has been increasing as a result. School children are all driven by their parents or buses to schools starting with kindergarden and continuing through high school which is great for the oil, tire, and car and coach manufacturers but decidedly unhealthy for the children or the environment and there is a much higher economic burden on their families.

I have many friends that used to bicycle to work or for recreation who after being hit one or more times by motorists have given up bicycling entirely. No other activity entails as much risk to life and limb as bicycling. It is part of the reason for the increase in popularity of mountain and gravel bikes where the rider can avoid the hazards of motorists entirely.

prj71

Not everyone like to travel by train, subway or bus. Some of us prefer to drive our cars where we don't have to share space with a bunch of stinky people, coughing people or crying kids.

mschwett 

share public space with kids !!! the horror!

but most americans have no access to good public transit, so the point is sort of moot.