7 ms·

Bikelanes are for cyclists. Blocking them even for 30 seconds endangers the cyclists, how will have to merge into car traffic. That your mayor does not understa

Bikelanes are for cyclists. Blocking them even for 30 seconds endangers the cyclists, how will have to merge into car traffic. That your mayor does not understand this, is testament to his ignorance of the issue.

nostromo 9y ago
It's not that simple. In most cities cars are supposed to merge into unprotected bike lanes when turning right. This is safer for everyone.
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Not sure where your at, but this is generally considered poor road design, and even on 2 lane streets you'll add a bike box to keep drivers separated from bikes. Having 2 ton boxes of metal and glass interact with bikers unpredictably is risky!
  - nostromo 9y ago
    I'm only familiar with this on the west coast, but yes, you're usually required to merge into the bike lane to turn right. Here's an image: http://www.sfbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Right-Turn.jpg http://www.sfbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Right-Turn.... From CA directly: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/turns https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/turns > To make a right turn, drive close to the right edge of the road. If there is a bike lane, drive into the bike lane no more than 200 feet before the turn. This is also true in Washington State. Not sure about Oregon.
    - StudentStuff 9y ago
      Up here in Seattle, SDOT got rid of this style of bike lane over the past few years. Outlying suburbs keep the edge of the bike lane solid at turns (not like the dashing shown). Portland has gone the same direction, separating bicyclists from drivers as much as possible. Having spent some time in Cali, I very much appreciate our infrastructure up here. Lots of law and order type politics down there, but when it comes to actual issues like public health, its given nary a glance till upper middle class people are dying.
    - rootusrootus 9y ago
      In Oregon, moving into the bike lane to make a turn will get you a ticket. I see people do it pretty often however, and I have only ever known one person who got caught.
StudentStuff 9y ago
Blocking a bike lane is potentially causing severe injury to a bicyclist, as now your car is blocking their path and they could end up smashing into your illicitly parked vehicle. I've had friends end up going through the rear windshields of cars, getting doored, etc here in Seattle, so even though I don't bike, I make a point to go and harass people illegally parked in bike lanes (which is really common north of the ship canal). What if a bike can't stop in time coming down the hill? They're going to likely get horribly injured due to your illegal parking job. The bike lane is for bikes exclusively, even in the suburbs.
- wkearney99 9y ago
  If you can't control your vehicle (bicycle or otherwise) you have NO business being on a city street. Or are you ignoring the potential for all other manner of obstacles to be present in the roadway? Strollers, pedestrians, debris, etc. Can't stop for those either? As for getting doored, well, how are motor vehicles avoiding this? Oh, right, by WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON. Noticing brake lights in parked vehicles, or someone seated in the vehicle. Can't see? GIVE ROOM. Honestly, I'm willing to give considerable support for cyclists, but the blithe way they often completely ignore the traffic laws pulls their own rug right out from under them.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    > As for getting doored, well, how are motor vehicles avoiding this? Oh, right, by WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON. Motor vehicle drivers don't have to worry much about being doored, as they're way more visible and it isn't life-threatening for them if it does happen. The person opening the door is way more likely to be injured in such a scenario than the driver of the oncoming vehicle. Also, if we biked the same way we drove cars, that is, in the middle of a full lane, then we wouldn't be at risk of being doored either. I do that on occasion as necessary, but you would not believe how furious drivers get when they're stuck behind a cyclist going much slower than them that they cannot pass. How about this -- You can make it the cyclists' fault if and only if you can get all drivers to be OK with cyclists taking full lanes of traffic, away from all car doors. This will likely reduce the max speed of vehicle traffic to around 12 mph.
wkearney99 9y ago
Which COMPLETELY ignore the recklessness continuously perpetrated by the CYCLISTS. There's no endangering here, certainly not at the speeds the cyclists should be operating their bikes in a congested situation.
- URSpider94 9y ago
  How fast do you really think they are going? 15 mph is a pretty good clip on a recreational (non-racing-style) bike. Most people I’ve run across are doing 12-15 tops. I don’t notice any complaint in your post about how cars are flying along recklessly at more than twice that speed.
  - isostatic 9y ago
    When I regularly rode in London I'd do 7.4 miles in 35 minutes on a Brompton, average of 12.5mph, but factor in red lights, hills etc and peak speed must have been 20.
    - URSpider94 9y ago
      Sure, on downhills I expect you’re getting up to 25 mph or more.
- mikelward 9y ago
  Whataboutism. A wrong by one side does not excuse a wrong by the other.
Retric 9y ago
Roads are mostly 2D which prevents such simple rules from working. If nothing else people and cars need to pass bike lanes at intersections. On top of that almost every bike lane I have seen has had parking one side with the only way to park a car is for the car to also use the bike lane. EX: 3rd google image for bike lanes: https://bikesiliconvalley.org/wp-content/uploads/Veterans-Blvd.-buffered-bike-lane-20111.jpg https://bikesiliconvalley.org/wp-content/uploads/Veterans-Bl... Going 3d with dedicated bike skyways can solve this problem, but bikes are 3rd/4th class citizens in most places because they get a relatively small fraction of overall transportation. (Cars, walking, subways or other public transit, then biking.)
- daveFNbuck 9y ago
  Crossing a bike lane isn't the same as stopping in it. You can check that there aren't any bikes in the bike lane before crossing it to park. You can't check that there won't be any bikes in the lane for the next 30 seconds before stopping to load some groceries.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Parallel parking takes most people a while. Bikers can easily show up in that timeframe.
    - daveFNbuck 9y ago
      Good point. I guess bicyclists just have to stop and wait like a driver would on a street without a bike lane. We accept that but not double-parking.
anonu 9y ago
> Bikelanes are for cyclists As a regular biker in NYC I would agree. But there is a cultural gap that we have not bridged yet. NYC was designed for cars (as were most cities in America). The biking ecosystem has made huge strides in NYC in the last decade - from CitiBikes, to dedicated bike lanes, to the massive increase in daily bikers.
- andrewem 9y ago
  It's pretty difficult to argue that NYC was "designed for cars" in the same way as Houston when much of it was designed in the pre-car era. See for instance Manhattan's street grid designed in the 1800s, and large parts of the other boroughs. It's true that parts were REdesigned for cars to some extent, taking away street space, adding highways, etc. Source: researching my ancestors' addresses in NYC from 1880 onward and seeing how many of the streets from then still exist now. (Re biking in NYC, it's great to see the changes.)
brudgers 9y ago
The mayor's view is consistent the engineering rationals for bikelanes. Bikelanes are for cars. Not in the sense that cars are meant to drive in bikelanes. In the sense that bikelanes exist to relegate bicycles to second class road use for the sake avoiding inconvenience to motorists. Ticketing cars for standing in bikelanes would inconvenience motorists.
andersnolsen 9y ago
I believe the biggest problem is due to the design of bike lanes. They are often narrow and squeezed between car lanes and car parking. Due to this design bike lanes are also more often subject to being blocked by construction and forced to merge with car traffic. The visibility on bike lanes are way poorer than regular car lanes due to the above factors. In cities you also have to deal with the loading and unloading of goods. This means large, tall vehicles blocking the sight and often crates and people moving in your lane. How often do you experience your whole lane blocked by the content of a whole appartement? In Stockholm where I live snow, and ice make bike lanes hard to see and also makes them inaccessible. I really agree that you shouldn't keep a speed where you can't control your vehicle, but so common design flaw puts an unreasonable amount of responsibility on the biker compared to heavier vehicles misusing the bike lane.

nostromo 9y ago

It's not that simple. In most cities cars are supposed to merge into unprotected bike lanes when turning right. This is safer for everyone.

StudentStuff 9y ago
Not sure where your at, but this is generally considered poor road design, and even on 2 lane streets you'll add a bike box to keep drivers separated from bikes. Having 2 ton boxes of metal and glass interact with bikers unpredictably is risky!
- nostromo 9y ago
  I'm only familiar with this on the west coast, but yes, you're usually required to merge into the bike lane to turn right. Here's an image: http://www.sfbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Right-Turn.jpg http://www.sfbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Right-Turn.... From CA directly: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/turns https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/turns > To make a right turn, drive close to the right edge of the road. If there is a bike lane, drive into the bike lane no more than 200 feet before the turn. This is also true in Washington State. Not sure about Oregon.
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    Up here in Seattle, SDOT got rid of this style of bike lane over the past few years. Outlying suburbs keep the edge of the bike lane solid at turns (not like the dashing shown). Portland has gone the same direction, separating bicyclists from drivers as much as possible. Having spent some time in Cali, I very much appreciate our infrastructure up here. Lots of law and order type politics down there, but when it comes to actual issues like public health, its given nary a glance till upper middle class people are dying.
  - rootusrootus 9y ago
    In Oregon, moving into the bike lane to make a turn will get you a ticket. I see people do it pretty often however, and I have only ever known one person who got caught.

StudentStuff 9y ago

Blocking a bike lane is potentially causing severe injury to a bicyclist, as now your car is blocking their path and they could end up smashing into your illicitly parked vehicle. I've had friends end up going through the rear windshields of cars, getting doored, etc here in Seattle, so even though I don't bike, I make a point to go and harass people illegally parked in bike lanes (which is really common north of the ship canal). What if a bike can't stop in time coming down the hill? They're going to likely get horribly injured due to your illegal parking job. The bike lane is for bikes exclusively, even in the suburbs.

wkearney99 9y ago
If you can't control your vehicle (bicycle or otherwise) you have NO business being on a city street. Or are you ignoring the potential for all other manner of obstacles to be present in the roadway? Strollers, pedestrians, debris, etc. Can't stop for those either? As for getting doored, well, how are motor vehicles avoiding this? Oh, right, by WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON. Noticing brake lights in parked vehicles, or someone seated in the vehicle. Can't see? GIVE ROOM. Honestly, I'm willing to give considerable support for cyclists, but the blithe way they often completely ignore the traffic laws pulls their own rug right out from under them.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  > As for getting doored, well, how are motor vehicles avoiding this? Oh, right, by WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON. Motor vehicle drivers don't have to worry much about being doored, as they're way more visible and it isn't life-threatening for them if it does happen. The person opening the door is way more likely to be injured in such a scenario than the driver of the oncoming vehicle. Also, if we biked the same way we drove cars, that is, in the middle of a full lane, then we wouldn't be at risk of being doored either. I do that on occasion as necessary, but you would not believe how furious drivers get when they're stuck behind a cyclist going much slower than them that they cannot pass. How about this -- You can make it the cyclists' fault if and only if you can get all drivers to be OK with cyclists taking full lanes of traffic, away from all car doors. This will likely reduce the max speed of vehicle traffic to around 12 mph.

wkearney99 9y ago

Which COMPLETELY ignore the recklessness continuously perpetrated by the CYCLISTS. There's no endangering here, certainly not at the speeds the cyclists should be operating their bikes in a congested situation.

URSpider94 9y ago
How fast do you really think they are going? 15 mph is a pretty good clip on a recreational (non-racing-style) bike. Most people I’ve run across are doing 12-15 tops. I don’t notice any complaint in your post about how cars are flying along recklessly at more than twice that speed.
- isostatic 9y ago
  When I regularly rode in London I'd do 7.4 miles in 35 minutes on a Brompton, average of 12.5mph, but factor in red lights, hills etc and peak speed must have been 20.
  - URSpider94 9y ago
    Sure, on downhills I expect you’re getting up to 25 mph or more.
mikelward 9y ago
Whataboutism. A wrong by one side does not excuse a wrong by the other.

Retric 9y ago

Roads are mostly 2D which prevents such simple rules from working. If nothing else people and cars need to pass bike lanes at intersections. On top of that almost every bike lane I have seen has had parking one side with the only way to park a car is for the car to also use the bike lane. EX: 3rd google image for bike lanes: https://bikesiliconvalley.org/wp-content/uploads/Veterans-Blvd.-buffered-bike-lane-20111.jpg https://bikesiliconvalley.org/wp-content/uploads/Veterans-Bl... Going 3d with dedicated bike skyways can solve this problem, but bikes are 3rd/4th class citizens in most places because they get a relatively small fraction of overall transportation. (Cars, walking, subways or other public transit, then biking.)

daveFNbuck 9y ago
Crossing a bike lane isn't the same as stopping in it. You can check that there aren't any bikes in the bike lane before crossing it to park. You can't check that there won't be any bikes in the lane for the next 30 seconds before stopping to load some groceries.
- Retric 9y ago
  Parallel parking takes most people a while. Bikers can easily show up in that timeframe.
  - daveFNbuck 9y ago
    Good point. I guess bicyclists just have to stop and wait like a driver would on a street without a bike lane. We accept that but not double-parking.

anonu 9y ago

> Bikelanes are for cyclists As a regular biker in NYC I would agree. But there is a cultural gap that we have not bridged yet. NYC was designed for cars (as were most cities in America). The biking ecosystem has made huge strides in NYC in the last decade - from CitiBikes, to dedicated bike lanes, to the massive increase in daily bikers.

andrewem 9y ago
It's pretty difficult to argue that NYC was "designed for cars" in the same way as Houston when much of it was designed in the pre-car era. See for instance Manhattan's street grid designed in the 1800s, and large parts of the other boroughs. It's true that parts were REdesigned for cars to some extent, taking away street space, adding highways, etc. Source: researching my ancestors' addresses in NYC from 1880 onward and seeing how many of the streets from then still exist now. (Re biking in NYC, it's great to see the changes.)

brudgers 9y ago

The mayor's view is consistent the engineering rationals for bikelanes. Bikelanes are for cars. Not in the sense that cars are meant to drive in bikelanes. In the sense that bikelanes exist to relegate bicycles to second class road use for the sake avoiding inconvenience to motorists. Ticketing cars for standing in bikelanes would inconvenience motorists.

andersnolsen 9y ago

I believe the biggest problem is due to the design of bike lanes. They are often narrow and squeezed between car lanes and car parking. Due to this design bike lanes are also more often subject to being blocked by construction and forced to merge with car traffic. The visibility on bike lanes are way poorer than regular car lanes due to the above factors. In cities you also have to deal with the loading and unloading of goods. This means large, tall vehicles blocking the sight and often crates and people moving in your lane. How often do you experience your whole lane blocked by the content of a whole appartement? In Stockholm where I live snow, and ice make bike lanes hard to see and also makes them inaccessible. I really agree that you shouldn't keep a speed where you can't control your vehicle, but so common design flaw puts an unreasonable amount of responsibility on the biker compared to heavier vehicles misusing the bike lane.