A sharrow is a road marking (generally two chevrons and a bike silhouette) indicating to all users that a particular lane is for multi-modal bike/car use. Sharrows can be used where road width doesn’t allow for traditional bike lanes. They are starting to appear in a few U.S. cities, including here in Denver. http://www.bikedenver.org/denver-news/denvers-sharrow-era-begins-on-bike-to-work-day08/
it’s exactly because no city would build bike lanes everywhere (and there are not bike lanes everywhere even in places like denmark or holland) that bike lanes will be useful in getting more bikers on the roads.
say you’re a new biker.
you always follow the bike lanes as much as possible.
you’re still forced to ride in traffic in order to get where you need to be, to some extent.
eventually, that distance away from the comfortable bike lane gets greater and greater, because you decide it’s not wirth the extra three blocks out of your way if you can just ride in traffic down a non-bike-lane street to get to your destination.
or maybe you take a LAC safety course.
either way, you are becoming accustomed to riding in traffic. and drivers are becoming accustomed to more bikers.
and as we all know, the more bikers on the road, the safer we all are.
When I was a kid, there were no such things as bike lanes (and thank heaven for that). We learnt how to ride on the road. Many of us at school had a chance to do a thing called the ‘cycling proficiency test’ Back then, cycling on the pavement, sidewalk for those in Leftpondia was for little kids. Cycling on road was a rite of passage – it meant you were a proper cyclist. I remember the day I passed my cycling proficiency test… freedom! Cycle training is back on the UK agenda, with kids being taught to cycle on road with ‘Bikeability’ using Franklin’s ‘Cyclecraft’ book as the basis for the skills needed. I will always recommend new cyclists to read & inwardly digest the contents of Cyclecraft – apply those and you won’t go far wrong. I taught my son to cycle using those principles. He used to have a 26-mile round trip to cycle to school & back, which he did entirely on road in all weathers.
@wafflycat,
We had those tests back in my day too. Unfortunately they have fallen by the wayside. There is also the large question of driver distraction and competency, especially in the US. It takes very little to get and maintain a license in the US. If the person even has one to begin with. In many areas nearly 1/3 of the drivers on the road at any given time may be unlicensed, uninsured/under insured or a combination. Also the number of distractions behind the wheel have increased exponentially in the past 30 years. My first car had an AM radio and a heater. It was also a stick shift, so you had to pay attention to driving.
I’m all for cycle (bike) lanes, the more the better. It does get new riders on the road, gain confidence and then they can ride wherever they want.
I think that the argument against lanes is a bit selfish. Give people a choice. Want to brave the traffic? Do it. Want to ride off road w/o traffic lights and lots of traffic? YOu can do it, too. It doesn’t have to be one way or the other.
I wouldn’t want to cycle on heavy traffic in the middle of the road. I will never be as fast as a car, and I certainly don’t need the harrassment. I wonder how many cyclists that object lanes are male and how many are female….. Just a thought.
Sharrows. Finally, Yehuda’s on to a decent idea, provided the sharrows are positions properly to guide cyclists far enough out into the lane; sharrows that create “gutter bunnies” aren’t significantly better than bike lanes.
Sharrows: Bike lane markers on steiroids without the bike lane. One community to the north (Oceanside) painted them on a very popular (for cyclists) two lane beach front road. I’ve not been “honked” or “buzzed” there since the stencils were laid down.
I SURE wish sharrows were painted on the four lane “Bike Route” with on-street parking that is where I ride to/from grocery shopping. As soon as my city buys the stencils, I’m calling the traffic department.
The bike lane arguement: Chickens and eggs. Really. On the advocacy side, have you tried to sell teaching people how to ride a bike? They wonder iwhat’s YOUR problem as they blithely ride wrong way through the stoplights and hit the curb cuts…..
Re: despondent: It often makes one despondent when forced to question something one has previously and unquestioningly held sacred. Hopefully, the original ideal is not ultimately abandoned in despair but tempered with more insight, wisdom, and flexibility.
here in Holland we are fortunate to have bike lanes in al kind of forms, I myself ride my bikes (a recumbent and an ATB) alot and am also a driver. As a cyclist I know what car drivers are up to and vice versa, it is sharing the infrastructure and letting (as a cyclist) them (the car drivers) that you are there and what you’r about to do (turning signals and so on)
About letting cardrivers know that there are cylists, check this out: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/October2008.htm
and take a look at the other facilities.
Dutch Rowingbike / Recumbent riders were shocked to hear that one (Joeri Gorter) was killed while on holiday in the USA, he was riding his Thys 222 rowingbike: http://www.ligfiets.net/fotos/foto.php3?type=nieuws&id=2216&file=bnG8baHH.jpg
Apparantly on a Highway he was ran over by a truck and died immediately.
Best regards and keep up the good comic and the debate,
“I think that the argument against lanes is a bit selfish.”
Bike lanes are used to lure the very cyclists who fall for the false sense of security and don’t understand how to deal with the added complication they create. There is a growing list of people who have followed the bike lane stripe to their death.
So who’s selfish? The people who place mode share above the well-being of novice cyclists, or the people who want to educate those cyclists in the best practices of cycling which help them avoid collisions and conflict?
Using a flawed system to get more butts on bikes is unethical.
All the energy and funding diverted to mindless advocacy for things that enhance motorist convenience at cyclist expense is money and energy not being used to change the culture to make it better for cycling.
@rageahol
We should be so lucky that cities would not try to stripe bike lanes everywhere. We should be so lucky that bike lanes encouraged people to learn to ride properly. The reality is, they don’t. Cyclists nursed on bike lanes are dependent on them. They don’t learn proper intersection positioning, they don’t learn the proper distance to ride from parked cars, and they cry for more lanes and they cry for their lanes to be striped through intersections. The momentum to create a “complete network” becomes a road to hell with insanely dangerous applications of paint. Those innocuous bike lanes you started with were just the camel’s nose under the tent… its ass will always follow.
The only bike lane on my commute is through a very dangerous section of road, about a 1/4 mile that would be impossible to navigate without it. I’m glad it’s there, I use it, but it’s the only place on my ride that I need it.
It was put there for a specific purpose, which it serves. Other then that I ride in traffic like I’m suppose to.
So I think lanes have their place, but education I think (both bikers and cagers) would solve the greater issue.
I’m very ambivalent about bikelanes and even sharrows.
Bikelanes – study after study has shown that bikelanes do not increase safety and may even decrease it. So bikelanes give a false sense of security. Many advocates claim that in the long run lanes create more riders and more riders make it safer.
First, I have a problem ethically with convincing bicyclists who feel it is too unsafe on the roads to get out on these roads by building a facility these cyclist think is safer,even when it’s not, just to get more people out on the road. You may even get those who lack street skills killed by luring them out on the roads.
Second, I’m not convinced that the theory of more cyclists equal more safety has been shown to be realistic. I’m not even sure that these facilities get more bicyclists out on the road. The cities like Davis and countries like Netherlands and Denmark had high rates of bicycling long before lanes and other facilities were put in. It’s not at all clear that these facilities really increased bicycling ( or maintained the number of bicyclists) or that the large numbers increase safety. It just may be that towns with large numbers of bicyclists are, in the case of Denmark and the Netherlands, old cities that don’t support fast movement of cars.
Sharrows – I can’t see what harm they do except they may convince both bicyclists and auto drivers that you shouldn’t “control the lane” where you don’t see sharrows.
wow! joes’ right! no community would build bikelanes on all roads.
cities like portland, with 10 percent accomodated roads, has the highest % of bike commuters of any large city in america. yet 90 percent of city streets are unmodified and with no bike lanes!
A cityscape with 510 percent bike laned and otherwise ‘bikeified’ streets encourages cycling across the city, not just on bike laned streets.
KC: We have seen that bike trails increase ridership. I’ve observed that many of these become commuters and such if only because they get tired of hauling their bikes around and of the limited scenery. If even trails give us greater presence, something I don’t like, imagine what we can gain with Sharrows. I think a simple show of hands from this list would show that many came to ride in the street, on the road or whatever, from experience on trails and such. At the moment, I am finding my shift to supposedly less safe side streets (more people pulling out of drives, door dangers…) is working well for me, but it might be nice to knock that extra five minutes off my commute if I could use one of the unused among four lanes on our two major, one way arteries through town.
I am a firm believer in physically separated paths. I have had too many friends who ride like Forester i.e. taking the lane, etc. who were hit at intersections due to drivers not wanting to wait for them.
In Portland, Or we have bike lanes in many places. We also have maps availble that indicate to rides some of the safer ways to traverse the metro area. Portland also has implemented sharrows on narrow streets in the downtown area and something called Bicycle Boxes that are designed to allow cyclists to be more visible to the motoring public. http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?c=46717
It’s not a perfect world, and there are no perfect solutions, but there are compromises, and there are ways to share and find common ground.
Share the road.
I think many folks against bike lanes are speedier cyclists. Slowpokes like me travel considerably under car speed on just about every road. Taking the lane in those circumstances feels very different than taking the lane when you’re close to traffic speed. Would the anti-bike-lane contingent argue against bike lanes on highway-speed roads?
AnnInSF, I hear you entirely. On my commute, I have mostly neighborhood roads (one with bike lanes, most without), but one major road going highway speeds (55mph posted).
Generally, I take the road, except in these cases
1- When there’s a bike lane. I’m pretty sure that’s by law. And I like them. I get extra space and courtesy.
2 – On a steep uphill. There’s a long steep grade with a very wide sidewalk. There’s nearly no traffic on street or sidewalk, but I’m going so slowly, I feel I’m a better fit on the sidewalk.
3 – On the highway. The shoulder is very wide, and I feel much better being away from the traffic. I do take the lane at intersections, though, so as not to be confusing.
“using a flawed system to get more butts on bikes is unethical”
i disagree. all systems are flawed. working with limited options means you have to take the least bad of many bad options.
since
a) biking is safer, per person mile traveled, than driving a car
b) it has been demonstrated that as ridership increases, per-capita deaths fall (as an example, SF continues to have one to two deaths per year, despite a fairly consistent 10% or so year-over-year ridership increase – figures are from memory, so i can find sources if you’d like)
this means that, far from being unethical, it is in fact a moral imperative to use any means available to increase ridership.
bike lanes are good, because they actually reduce overall transportation deaths. QED.
With California passing the “Equal Streets” legislation there is now the opportunity for much more bike friendly roads in California. Though I lived in the greater Portland area and loved how easy it was to use my bike there.
More newbs would ride if provided bike lanes. More riders leads to more attention to bike laws. More attention to bike laws leads to more riders out side of bike lanes. More riders outside of lanes leads to more badass riders.
And more bad ass riders leads to the dark side.
As for sharrows, they don’t change the law (here in WA), but I do like to ride over them when a car is being an ass.
Poor Yhuda! I hope he doesn’t get discouraged. Bike lanes are only one piece of the picture, but they are a part of the solution. Just b/c they are not the ultimate goal doesn’t mean we should give up and say we’re okay with it the way it is. If our streets worked so well, lots of people would be biking. Our streets don’t work well for bikes, we do need to make changes, and we have to start somewhere.
No no no. You’ve got it all wrong. We need to sneer condescendingly at lesser riders and tell them if they can’t take the heat, then get a car. That’s the one true way to increased ridership.
Bike lanes can be helpful, on roads that have relatively high speeds, and relatively high traffic volumes. However often they are either two narrow, or cars use them for on-street parking. I also sometimes see people riding on sidewalks, even when there are bike lanes available. I sometimes think cyclists should be licenced, as that would make sure that cyclists are at least competent at riding.
VC is for using bad infrastructure. Good infrastructure provides a place to ride away from cars, and places bikes such a way that prevents cars from making right or left turns across bile lanes or paths as much as possible. More bikes on roads makes VC safer, but getting bikes on the roads places newby riders at risk until they learn to become effective VC riders.
Solution: have Phys Ed programs in schools teach VC as part of the core curriculum, and put VC questions on the exit exam from 8th grade. In TX if you don’t pass the T-acronym test of the year then you don’t pass to the next grade or graduate, depending on the test. This will make sure people know how to ride safely in the street, which will reduce the costs of infrastructure. We end up with more butts in recumbent seats and on wedgie saddles (In case you couldn’t tell I have a strong personal bias in favor of recumbents) that are 90% of the way to being effective VC riders before they ever set tire to the street.
Dear Friends: I had a very pleasant exchange with a gentleman on the Wenatchee Valley Transportation Council. He actually invited me to refer cyclists to him for input on upcoming changes. I saw some of their plans on line, accidentally, and commented on the lack of cycling comment. If you are from that area, please let me know and I will get your information to this person. Write me at Mhendri961@gmail.com
Mark Hendricks:
I have seen that bike trails increase riding, too. Quite a few of the commuters in my town make use of a good trail. I’m not opposed to trails (on their own ROW) which bring cyclists in from the burbs and allow them a little peace and quiet in the process. I am opposed to those trails becoming enlarged sidewalks—that sends the wrong message to everyone and decreases safety.
I like sharrows. They can be placed improperly, so the placement must be watched carefully by cyclist advocates. But essentially, they do no harm. They help cyclists feel legitimate in the lane. Then encourage good lane position. They reinforce cycling education, whereas bike lane often contradict it.
Bike lanes offer no advantage over a wide curb lane. What the pavement width giveth, the stripe taketh away. They leave you with: debris-filled space; reduced attentiveness from passing motorists; reduction of legitimacy to reposition for hazards or speed; increased difficulty for merging (because motorists expect you to stay there). It’s a horrid joke on cyclists perpetrated by those who enjoy patting themselves on the back for being oh so progressive.
Think carefully about what you advocate. If you advocate bike lanes, you’ll end up with every serviceable wide curb lane converted into a trash-filled gutter lane for your benefit. You’ll get bike lanes shoehorned in next to parked cars. You’ll see them everywhere it’s cheap and easy to paint them… and then when you want something helpful (like a path spur to connect some gawdawful broccoli subdivisions, or bike racks downtown), there won’t be any money left… and “gee, we already gave you all those bike lanes.”
In the meantime, you’ll still have the same diseased, speed-dominant, car-centric, selfish, us-v-them culture festering under the paint.
if any readers out there in cyberland have such an interest, i would love to get a national/international discussion about lanes, sharrows and such going on my radio show sometime.
the problems raised here by joe, yehuda, and the councilman are problems with which many communities wrestle, and if we can get a bunch of viewpoints–pro and con–from all over the cycling world, perhaps it would give those of us who will need to engage in this discussion a greater insight to the yeas and nays of both sides.
you may reply here, or shoot me an email at kimwest@kxno.com
although i tend to agree pretty much whole-heartedly with joe, i also realize that more lanes are likely to be built in my town. seriously, we have just TWO in a city of 200,000+/metro 500,000+.
yup, two lanes, about 1/4 MILE total.
the city isn’t ruined yet!
There is one infrastructure problem in my area that is not being addressed in particular, that’s bike parking. As I posted in my blog today if there isn’t anything to lock a bike to when you get somewhere it’s about like having valet parking by convicted car thieves. Or hanging “Steal me” signs to the bikes, because that’s what is going to happen. And in my previous post bile lanes was a typo, not a freudian slip.
When I was in Israel this past summer, I saw the whole gamut of options, MUPs, Bike Lanes and Sharrows, sometimes in combination. Where a road crossed a MUP, there were often signs (and in some cases traffic lights) inticating an intersection.
It all seemed to work well, mostly because Israeli drivers expect them. Drivers in Israel make New Yorkers look positively laid-back, but there are still very few bike/car collisions. (Car/car collissions are common, I could make a ton of money running a body-and-fender shop!)
Two grown, fit, men riding their bikes are not the demographic that bike lanes are designed for. My mom, who used to be an avid cyclist, cannot easily ride 20mph+ on a road in the V.C. way. A bike lane network is an incredibly cheap and effective way to make bike riding a viable transportation option to large swaths of a community that are currently turned away for various reasons.
Someone please define sharrows objectively before the thread turns into a rant
A sharrow is a road marking (generally two chevrons and a bike silhouette) indicating to all users that a particular lane is for multi-modal bike/car use. Sharrows can be used where road width doesn’t allow for traditional bike lanes. They are starting to appear in a few U.S. cities, including here in Denver. http://www.bikedenver.org/denver-news/denvers-sharrow-era-begins-on-bike-to-work-day08/
i dont understand why yehuda seems despondent.
it’s exactly because no city would build bike lanes everywhere (and there are not bike lanes everywhere even in places like denmark or holland) that bike lanes will be useful in getting more bikers on the roads.
say you’re a new biker.
you always follow the bike lanes as much as possible.
you’re still forced to ride in traffic in order to get where you need to be, to some extent.
eventually, that distance away from the comfortable bike lane gets greater and greater, because you decide it’s not wirth the extra three blocks out of your way if you can just ride in traffic down a non-bike-lane street to get to your destination.
or maybe you take a LAC safety course.
either way, you are becoming accustomed to riding in traffic. and drivers are becoming accustomed to more bikers.
and as we all know, the more bikers on the road, the safer we all are.
keep striping lanes, yehuda.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/09/bike_lanes_vs_sharrows
There is a nice photo there showing a bike lane on the right and sharrows on the left.
When I was a kid, there were no such things as bike lanes (and thank heaven for that). We learnt how to ride on the road. Many of us at school had a chance to do a thing called the ‘cycling proficiency test’ Back then, cycling on the pavement, sidewalk for those in Leftpondia
was for little kids. Cycling on road was a rite of passage – it meant you were a proper cyclist. I remember the day I passed my cycling proficiency test… freedom! Cycle training is back on the UK agenda, with kids being taught to cycle on road with ‘Bikeability’ using Franklin’s ‘Cyclecraft’ book as the basis for the skills needed. I will always recommend new cyclists to read & inwardly digest the contents of Cyclecraft – apply those and you won’t go far wrong. I taught my son to cycle using those principles. He used to have a 26-mile round trip to cycle to school & back, which he did entirely on road in all weathers.
@wafflycat,
We had those tests back in my day too. Unfortunately they have fallen by the wayside. There is also the large question of driver distraction and competency, especially in the US. It takes very little to get and maintain a license in the US. If the person even has one to begin with. In many areas nearly 1/3 of the drivers on the road at any given time may be unlicensed, uninsured/under insured or a combination. Also the number of distractions behind the wheel have increased exponentially in the past 30 years. My first car had an AM radio and a heater. It was also a stick shift, so you had to pay attention to driving.
Aaron
I’m all for cycle (bike) lanes, the more the better. It does get new riders on the road, gain confidence and then they can ride wherever they want.
I think that the argument against lanes is a bit selfish. Give people a choice. Want to brave the traffic? Do it. Want to ride off road w/o traffic lights and lots of traffic? YOu can do it, too. It doesn’t have to be one way or the other.
I wouldn’t want to cycle on heavy traffic in the middle of the road. I will never be as fast as a car, and I certainly don’t need the harrassment. I wonder how many cyclists that object lanes are male and how many are female….. Just a thought.
Sharrows. Finally, Yehuda’s on to a decent idea, provided the sharrows are positions properly to guide cyclists far enough out into the lane; sharrows that create “gutter bunnies” aren’t significantly better than bike lanes.
Sharrows: Bike lane markers on steiroids without the bike lane. One community to the north (Oceanside) painted them on a very popular (for cyclists) two lane beach front road. I’ve not been “honked” or “buzzed” there since the stencils were laid down.
I SURE wish sharrows were painted on the four lane “Bike Route” with on-street parking that is where I ride to/from grocery shopping. As soon as my city buys the stencils, I’m calling the traffic department.
The bike lane arguement: Chickens and eggs. Really. On the advocacy side, have you tried to sell teaching people how to ride a bike? They wonder iwhat’s YOUR problem as they blithely ride wrong way through the stoplights and hit the curb cuts…..
Re: despondent: It often makes one despondent when forced to question something one has previously and unquestioningly held sacred. Hopefully, the original ideal is not ultimately abandoned in despair but tempered with more insight, wisdom, and flexibility.
poor Yehuda – from prophet to icon – his message is drowned by the bickering of extremists on both sides.
Rageahol: That was a perfectly brilliant post! It really helped settle the issue for me and I was actually starting to lean the other way.
There are two things that have changed since Forrester issued his book. 1. 65 million more people. 2. At least 65 million more cars.
OK,
here in Holland we are fortunate to have bike lanes in al kind of forms, I myself ride my bikes (a recumbent and an ATB) alot and am also a driver. As a cyclist I know what car drivers are up to and vice versa, it is sharing the infrastructure and letting (as a cyclist) them (the car drivers) that you are there and what you’r about to do (turning signals and so on)
About letting cardrivers know that there are cylists, check this out:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/October2008.htm
and take a look at the other facilities.
Dutch Rowingbike / Recumbent riders were shocked to hear that one (Joeri Gorter) was killed while on holiday in the USA, he was riding his Thys 222 rowingbike:
http://www.ligfiets.net/fotos/foto.php3?type=nieuws&id=2216&file=bnG8baHH.jpg
Apparantly on a Highway he was ran over by a truck and died immediately.
Best regards and keep up the good comic and the debate,
Cycling is more fun and healthy.
Mark
“I think that the argument against lanes is a bit selfish.”
Bike lanes are used to lure the very cyclists who fall for the false sense of security and don’t understand how to deal with the added complication they create. There is a growing list of people who have followed the bike lane stripe to their death.
So who’s selfish? The people who place mode share above the well-being of novice cyclists, or the people who want to educate those cyclists in the best practices of cycling which help them avoid collisions and conflict?
Using a flawed system to get more butts on bikes is unethical.
All the energy and funding diverted to mindless advocacy for things that enhance motorist convenience at cyclist expense is money and energy not being used to change the culture to make it better for cycling.
@rageahol
We should be so lucky that cities would not try to stripe bike lanes everywhere. We should be so lucky that bike lanes encouraged people to learn to ride properly. The reality is, they don’t. Cyclists nursed on bike lanes are dependent on them. They don’t learn proper intersection positioning, they don’t learn the proper distance to ride from parked cars, and they cry for more lanes and they cry for their lanes to be striped through intersections. The momentum to create a “complete network” becomes a road to hell with insanely dangerous applications of paint. Those innocuous bike lanes you started with were just the camel’s nose under the tent… its ass will always follow.
The only bike lane on my commute is through a very dangerous section of road, about a 1/4 mile that would be impossible to navigate without it. I’m glad it’s there, I use it, but it’s the only place on my ride that I need it.
It was put there for a specific purpose, which it serves. Other then that I ride in traffic like I’m suppose to.
So I think lanes have their place, but education I think (both bikers and cagers) would solve the greater issue.
I’m very ambivalent about bikelanes and even sharrows.
Bikelanes – study after study has shown that bikelanes do not increase safety and may even decrease it. So bikelanes give a false sense of security. Many advocates claim that in the long run lanes create more riders and more riders make it safer.
First, I have a problem ethically with convincing bicyclists who feel it is too unsafe on the roads to get out on these roads by building a facility these cyclist think is safer,even when it’s not, just to get more people out on the road. You may even get those who lack street skills killed by luring them out on the roads.
Second, I’m not convinced that the theory of more cyclists equal more safety has been shown to be realistic. I’m not even sure that these facilities get more bicyclists out on the road. The cities like Davis and countries like Netherlands and Denmark had high rates of bicycling long before lanes and other facilities were put in. It’s not at all clear that these facilities really increased bicycling ( or maintained the number of bicyclists) or that the large numbers increase safety. It just may be that towns with large numbers of bicyclists are, in the case of Denmark and the Netherlands, old cities that don’t support fast movement of cars.
Sharrows – I can’t see what harm they do except they may convince both bicyclists and auto drivers that you shouldn’t “control the lane” where you don’t see sharrows.
wow! joes’ right! no community would build bikelanes on all roads.
cities like portland, with 10 percent accomodated roads, has the highest % of bike commuters of any large city in america. yet 90 percent of city streets are unmodified and with no bike lanes!
A cityscape with 510 percent bike laned and otherwise ‘bikeified’ streets encourages cycling across the city, not just on bike laned streets.
what dishonesty (or ignorance) from joe.
KC: We have seen that bike trails increase ridership. I’ve observed that many of these become commuters and such if only because they get tired of hauling their bikes around and of the limited scenery. If even trails give us greater presence, something I don’t like, imagine what we can gain with Sharrows. I think a simple show of hands from this list would show that many came to ride in the street, on the road or whatever, from experience on trails and such. At the moment, I am finding my shift to supposedly less safe side streets (more people pulling out of drives, door dangers…) is working well for me, but it might be nice to knock that extra five minutes off my commute if I could use one of the unused among four lanes on our two major, one way arteries through town.
I am a firm believer in physically separated paths. I have had too many friends who ride like Forester i.e. taking the lane, etc. who were hit at intersections due to drivers not wanting to wait for them.
In Portland, Or we have bike lanes in many places. We also have maps availble that indicate to rides some of the safer ways to traverse the metro area. Portland also has implemented sharrows on narrow streets in the downtown area and something called Bicycle Boxes that are designed to allow cyclists to be more visible to the motoring public.
http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?c=46717
It’s not a perfect world, and there are no perfect solutions, but there are compromises, and there are ways to share and find common ground.
Share the road.
I think many folks against bike lanes are speedier cyclists. Slowpokes like me travel considerably under car speed on just about every road. Taking the lane in those circumstances feels very different than taking the lane when you’re close to traffic speed. Would the anti-bike-lane contingent argue against bike lanes on highway-speed roads?
AnnInSF, I hear you entirely. On my commute, I have mostly neighborhood roads (one with bike lanes, most without), but one major road going highway speeds (55mph posted).
Generally, I take the road, except in these cases
1- When there’s a bike lane. I’m pretty sure that’s by law. And I like them. I get extra space and courtesy.
2 – On a steep uphill. There’s a long steep grade with a very wide sidewalk. There’s nearly no traffic on street or sidewalk, but I’m going so slowly, I feel I’m a better fit on the sidewalk.
3 – On the highway. The shoulder is very wide, and I feel much better being away from the traffic. I do take the lane at intersections, though, so as not to be confusing.
KC:
“using a flawed system to get more butts on bikes is unethical”
i disagree. all systems are flawed. working with limited options means you have to take the least bad of many bad options.
since
a) biking is safer, per person mile traveled, than driving a car
b) it has been demonstrated that as ridership increases, per-capita deaths fall (as an example, SF continues to have one to two deaths per year, despite a fairly consistent 10% or so year-over-year ridership increase – figures are from memory, so i can find sources if you’d like)
this means that, far from being unethical, it is in fact a moral imperative to use any means available to increase ridership.
bike lanes are good, because they actually reduce overall transportation deaths. QED.
With California passing the “Equal Streets” legislation there is now the opportunity for much more bike friendly roads in California. Though I lived in the greater Portland area and loved how easy it was to use my bike there.
More newbs would ride if provided bike lanes. More riders leads to more attention to bike laws. More attention to bike laws leads to more riders out side of bike lanes. More riders outside of lanes leads to more badass riders.
And more bad ass riders leads to the dark side.
As for sharrows, they don’t change the law (here in WA), but I do like to ride over them when a car is being an ass.
Poor Yhuda! I hope he doesn’t get discouraged. Bike lanes are only one piece of the picture, but they are a part of the solution. Just b/c they are not the ultimate goal doesn’t mean we should give up and say we’re okay with it the way it is. If our streets worked so well, lots of people would be biking. Our streets don’t work well for bikes, we do need to make changes, and we have to start somewhere.
@Nickie
No no no. You’ve got it all wrong. We need to sneer condescendingly at lesser riders and tell them if they can’t take the heat, then get a car. That’s the one true way to increased ridership.
Bike lanes can be helpful, on roads that have relatively high speeds, and relatively high traffic volumes. However often they are either two narrow, or cars use them for on-street parking. I also sometimes see people riding on sidewalks, even when there are bike lanes available. I sometimes think cyclists should be licenced, as that would make sure that cyclists are at least competent at riding.
VC is for using bad infrastructure. Good infrastructure provides a place to ride away from cars, and places bikes such a way that prevents cars from making right or left turns across bile lanes or paths as much as possible. More bikes on roads makes VC safer, but getting bikes on the roads places newby riders at risk until they learn to become effective VC riders.
Solution: have Phys Ed programs in schools teach VC as part of the core curriculum, and put VC questions on the exit exam from 8th grade. In TX if you don’t pass the T-acronym test of the year then you don’t pass to the next grade or graduate, depending on the test. This will make sure people know how to ride safely in the street, which will reduce the costs of infrastructure. We end up with more butts in recumbent seats and on wedgie saddles (In case you couldn’t tell I have a strong personal bias in favor of recumbents) that are 90% of the way to being effective VC riders before they ever set tire to the street.
Dear Friends: I had a very pleasant exchange with a gentleman on the Wenatchee Valley Transportation Council. He actually invited me to refer cyclists to him for input on upcoming changes. I saw some of their plans on line, accidentally, and commented on the lack of cycling comment. If you are from that area, please let me know and I will get your information to this person. Write me at Mhendri961@gmail.com
I believe I was the first to coin the phrase: “Sharrows shuck.”
Mark Hendricks:
I have seen that bike trails increase riding, too. Quite a few of the commuters in my town make use of a good trail. I’m not opposed to trails (on their own ROW) which bring cyclists in from the burbs and allow them a little peace and quiet in the process. I am opposed to those trails becoming enlarged sidewalks—that sends the wrong message to everyone and decreases safety.
I like sharrows. They can be placed improperly, so the placement must be watched carefully by cyclist advocates. But essentially, they do no harm. They help cyclists feel legitimate in the lane. Then encourage good lane position. They reinforce cycling education, whereas bike lane often contradict it.
Bike lanes offer no advantage over a wide curb lane. What the pavement width giveth, the stripe taketh away. They leave you with: debris-filled space; reduced attentiveness from passing motorists; reduction of legitimacy to reposition for hazards or speed; increased difficulty for merging (because motorists expect you to stay there). It’s a horrid joke on cyclists perpetrated by those who enjoy patting themselves on the back for being oh so progressive.
Think carefully about what you advocate. If you advocate bike lanes, you’ll end up with every serviceable wide curb lane converted into a trash-filled gutter lane for your benefit. You’ll get bike lanes shoehorned in next to parked cars. You’ll see them everywhere it’s cheap and easy to paint them… and then when you want something helpful (like a path spur to connect some gawdawful broccoli subdivisions, or bike racks downtown), there won’t be any money left… and “gee, we already gave you all those bike lanes.”
In the meantime, you’ll still have the same diseased, speed-dominant, car-centric, selfish, us-v-them culture festering under the paint.
if any readers out there in cyberland have such an interest, i would love to get a national/international discussion about lanes, sharrows and such going on my radio show sometime.
the problems raised here by joe, yehuda, and the councilman are problems with which many communities wrestle, and if we can get a bunch of viewpoints–pro and con–from all over the cycling world, perhaps it would give those of us who will need to engage in this discussion a greater insight to the yeas and nays of both sides.
you may reply here, or shoot me an email at kimwest@kxno.com
although i tend to agree pretty much whole-heartedly with joe, i also realize that more lanes are likely to be built in my town. seriously, we have just TWO in a city of 200,000+/metro 500,000+.
yup, two lanes, about 1/4 MILE total.
the city isn’t ruined yet!
There is one infrastructure problem in my area that is not being addressed in particular, that’s bike parking. As I posted in my blog today if there isn’t anything to lock a bike to when you get somewhere it’s about like having valet parking by convicted car thieves. Or hanging “Steal me” signs to the bikes, because that’s what is going to happen. And in my previous post bile lanes was a typo, not a freudian slip.
To reiterate, bike parking now!
When I was in Israel this past summer, I saw the whole gamut of options, MUPs, Bike Lanes and Sharrows, sometimes in combination. Where a road crossed a MUP, there were often signs (and in some cases traffic lights) inticating an intersection.
It all seemed to work well, mostly because Israeli drivers expect them. Drivers in Israel make New Yorkers look positively laid-back, but there are still very few bike/car collisions. (Car/car collissions are common, I could make a ton of money running a body-and-fender shop!)
Two grown, fit, men riding their bikes are not the demographic that bike lanes are designed for. My mom, who used to be an avid cyclist, cannot easily ride 20mph+ on a road in the V.C. way. A bike lane network is an incredibly cheap and effective way to make bike riding a viable transportation option to large swaths of a community that are currently turned away for various reasons.