FLCC> Bike lane for uphill state st?
William Lodico
wlodico at stny.rr.com
Sat Sep 15 09:59:13 EDT 2007
Well, Paul, you confirm I'm not preaching to the choir. If there are
cyclists on this listserve who support bike lanes, I've got work to do.
Let me start with this question: how does a bit of paint protect a
cyclist from drivers who don't fit into the "non-aggressive,
attentive, reasonable, patient, competent" mold?
I've found that a bike lane makes it harder for me as a cyclist to
deal with drivers of whatever ilk or tendency. It can also make it
harder for me as a motorist to deal with cyclists.
My opposition to bike lanes does not rest on the premise that there
are no problems without them.
My opposition to bike lanes rests on the well supported and so far
unrebutted argument that the solutions they pretend to provide (and
some of the problems they pretend to solve) are illusory, and that
almost always they aggravate problems (or create them) rather than
solve them.
There are solutions to real problems with the bike/motor interface
that actually have a chance of working, including "shared lanes" and
signage that reminds both motorists and cyclists how to conduct
themselves. Bike lanes draw resources and attention away from those
solutions; and they delude bike-ped committees and traffic planners
into believing they're taking concrete steps to improving things for
bicyclists, when they're really making things worse. More cynically
stated: Bike lanes let authorities take credit where credit is not
due, for the price of a few gallons of paint.
The idea of isolating bike traffic from motor traffic is attractive,
but a bike lane only pretends to do that. It really can't achieve
that goal. It's a futile, counterproductive goal anyway, and when we
go after it, we're grasping at straws.
My opposition to bike lanes is also based on my experience as a
motorists. Cyclists in bike lanes are encouraged to believe and act
as if their occupation of a bike lane protects them from my car.
They don't have to worry about whether I want to turn right or left
or enter from a cross street or driveway. They don't have to worry
about whether I can see them. They don't have to let me know what
they're doing. Because they're in a bike lane!
The left turn maneuver you suggest is a whole lot easier for me on my
bike if I can use the whole roadway and move over and claim my space
when an opening permits rather than being confined to the bike lane
until I get to (or near) the intersection.
Your suggestion of using fatter tires makes sense for short commutes
in town, bike lane or no, and I sometimes use them for that purpose.
But I and a lot others have no interest in trading our efficient,
high pressure 23mm tires for softer 35's or 45's (assuming our bikes
can accommodate them) just so we can ride through the hazards in a
five foot bike lane somewhere along a training ride or a tour, which
is what we do most of the time on our bikes. Long commutes are not
exactly a fat tire opportunity, either.
As for 3 feet of clearance between cyclist and traffic lane, do the
math. Put me in a 5 foot bike lane. My moderately wide-body
construction occupies 2 feet elbow to elbow. (I've measured it.) To
maintain 3 feet of space between me and the right edge of the motor
traffic lane, which is where motorists are expecting to be able to
drive, I've got to ride with my tire a within one foot of the curb.
Grate city, and I'm brushing telephone poles with my right elbow.
It's hard for me to see traffic (including pedestrians and other
bikes) entering from the right and it won't see me, since I'm hiding
by the curb. If the bike lane goes by parked cars, I'm confined to
the opening-door zone, which can have painful, even fatal consequences.
The NY Vehicle and Traffic Law requires me to ride in a "usable"
bicycle lane. There may be some out there, but I've yet to see a
truly usable bike lane. I've got lots of pictures of the three bike
lanes in Chemung County clearly demonstrating that they aren't
usable: broken pavement, garbage and broken glass, weeds and shrubs,
broken tree branches and rocks, tire-eating drainage grates, cyclists
riding the wrong way (posing a clear hazard to cyclists riding the
right way), barriers, etc etc. I'm sure I'd have little trouble
convincing police officers that I don't have to ride in them, and
less trouble convincing judges. Nevertheless, many otherwise
reasonable motorists are going to expect me to stay in these boggle-
headed abominations, just because they're there -- and it's the
motorists, not the police officers or judges, that worry me.
I'm not alone in this, thank God. Do a google on bicycle lanes and
you'll turn up all sorts of commentary critical of them, with some
pretty good illustrations and arguments -- even an occasional report
on how a bike lane was a major factor in a fatal accident.
Bill Lodico
On Sep 14, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Paul Monkman wrote:
I'd like to chime in on this one, not because I'm interested in a
protracted email discussion but because I think it's a important
topic. Bill, your arguments against this bike lane are all good and
well, but they assume non-aggressive, attentive, reasonable, patient,
competent drivers who believe there is such a thing as cyclists
"rights". I'd agree that a large fraction of the drivers probably
more or less fit that description most of the time. It's the small
remainder that'll get you. Those are the guys/gals that I prefer to
be as far from as possible.
Regarding wobble room, I think most of us can stay well within a five
foot lane. Heck, if MTB riders can routinely negotiate 6"
singletracks strewn with rocks, roots etc. I'm betting that most
riders can easily keep 3' or so between themselves and a passing car
in a five foot lane. Even clutsy types like myself!
Fatter tires can reduce the need to dodge every little stone, bit of
glass, etc. I know others may disagree and that's fine, but over the
years I've found myself migrating to about an 1.5" high pressure tire
mounted on sturdy wheels for practical riding. Hardly ever get
flats, last forever, cheap, plenty fast, haven't trued a wheel in
years, plus you can ride dirt roads and moderate trails on a whim.
Left hand turns: Check for traffic behind you, wait for a break,
stick out your left arm, move into the car lane and take your turn.
Piece of cake.
Paul
On Sep 14, 2007, at 2:27 PM, William Lodico wrote:
> Is a bike lane on the State Street Hill such great news?
>
> A five foot wide bike lane isn't very wide, especially for riders
> struggling to go uphill.
>
> I occupy about two feet, elbow to elbow, on my bike. If there's a
> bike lane I'm expected to stay in the bike lane. I should be aiming
> at keeping my tire on a line about 3 feet from the right curb, to
> give myself wobble room and a chance to avoid hazards by going to the
> right without hitting the curb, since if I go the left, I'll be
> suddenly in motor traffic that is expecting me to stay in the bike
> lane. Even without the inevitable going-slow-uphill-side-to-side-
> wandering this gives me only about one foot between my right elbow
> and a vertical drawn from the bike lane stripe (as long as nothing
> forces me farther left). Everything to the left of the bike lane is
> for cars only.
>
> I haven't ridden up State Street in a long time, but the last time
> was about midway through a 400k, and I was going about 5 mph, if
> that. Without bike the lane, I was able to claim my space, make sure
> traffic accommodated my interest in having it pass me slowly giving
> me wide berth. With the bike lane, traffic will feel free to pass me
> at 35 mph (a 30 mph differential), without worrying about how close
> they are, as long as they are not in the bike lane. Many motorists
> will probably consider themselves to the left of the bike lane if
> their right tires are to the left of it, which will put fenders, door
> handles within inches of my left elbow, and mirrors possibly into my
> left shoulder. I can have my tire to the right of the bike lane
> stripe and not be clear of traffic to the left of it.
>
> Is the City of Ithaca committed to daily sweepings of the bike lane?
> Is it committed to removing all potential hazards, including manhole
> covers? Is it committed to maintaining the bike lane above standards
> for the rest of the road, so there are NO pot holes, cracks, broken
> glass, stones, loose bits of pavement and other debris, that will
> force cyclists out of the bike lane when traffic is expecting them to
> stay in it? I'll bet the answer is no, no, and no again.
>
> And is there going to be appropriate and effective signage telling
> motorists they have to give room to cyclists making left turns,
> avoiding hazards in the bike lane, etc? Throw in another no.
> Remember, they've been forced to give up five feet of otherwise
> available roadway.
>
> The real effect of bike lanes (and maybe their real purpose) is not
> to help cyclists. It's to confine them to what is often the most
> dangerous and hazard ridden part of the road. It might also be to
> "promote" cycling by making cyclists feel safer because there's a
> quarter of a millimeter of paint on the road that's supposed to keep
> cars from hitting them. Actually, bike lanes make it harder for
> motorists to accommodate bicyclists and vice versa, since both have
> lost accessibility to sizable chunks of roadway.
>
> It's just way better to try to get motorists to learn to accommodate
> cyclists, to give them room, to see them as equally entitled users of
> the roadway -- and to get cyclists to learn how to ride in traffic --
> than to start cutting up the roadway into little pieces that
> ultimately everyone is going to fight over anyway.
>
> I'm doing my best to kill bike lanes in Chemung/Schuyler/Steuben.
> It's up to you-all to kill the bike lanes in Tompkins.
>
> Bill Lodico
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Wayne Gottlieb wrote:
>
> This is great news! Thanks for sharing. Now there's
> no excuse not to bike up that hill. I'm sure after
> they put the new lane in people will be abandoning
> their car in droves. But, seriously, I've often chosen
> to go up Buffalo or Court instead because it's so hard
> to turn left onto 366 . I wonder how they're going to
> solve that problem. Wayne
> --- Amanda and Mark Shenstone <gardens at lightlink.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This just in from Ithaca Journal:
>>
>>
>> Part of the State Street hill may become more
>> bike-friendly
>>
>> The Ithaca city Board of Public Works is
>> considering making bicycle-friendly improvements
>> to the part of State Street from the vicinity of
>> the Commons to Mitchell Street. Among improvements
>> being considered is an uphill bike lane.
>>
>> The city Board of Public Works is
>> considering a plan that includes five-foot-wide
>> uphill bicycle lane for the street, also known as
>> state Route 79, from the Tuning Fork area, where
>> State Street, Green Street and Seneca Way come
>> together, to Mitchell Street, which at that point
>> is also Route 366.
>>
>>
>>
>> This segment of State Street has been
>> identified as a good place for improvement because
>> it has a lot of traffic, is a link to key
>> destinations, and has a relatively gentle slope.
>>
>> According to the city engineering office,
>> the proposal before the Board of Public Works
>> includes:
>>
>> A 5-foot wide uphill (eastbound) bicycle
>> lane to allow bicyclists to ride at their own pace
>> without obstructing motor vehicle traffic or
>> feeling like they are obstructing motor vehicle
>> traffic.
>>
>> . Relocation of centerline striping to
>> create a wide downhill (westbound) travel lane
>> that allows motorists and bicyclists to have
>> adequate shared maneuvering space.
>>
>> . Consolidation of parking on the south side
>> of the street and revision of on-street parking
>> regulations.
>>
>> . Installation of bicycle-related signage
>> and crosswalks.
>>
>> The Board of Public Works is taking public
>> comment through the end of September and may vote
>> on the project on Oct. 10. Comments and feedback
>> can be directed to Tim Logue as above or at
>> timlo at cityofithaca.org.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Amanda and Mark Shenstone
>> Graceful Gardens
>> PO Box 100
>> Mecklenburg, NY 14886
>> 607.387.5529
>> http://www.gracefulgardens.com
More information about the FLCC
mailing list