FLCC> Bike lane for uphill state st?
Mike Mike
rbrmike at hotmail.com
Sat Sep 15 10:32:52 EDT 2007
I have been an avid biker for about 32 years. Have ridden quite a bit in Upstate NY, NC and Florida.
Asked my friend about a bike lane. He does not bike, does not workout and was surprised to find out he thought bikes should NOT be on the road. That if you want to ride your bike the road. I was dismayed that he felt this way as he has come to my bike races and triathlons and cheered me on. Then I asked him about bike lanes and he said yea sure if there is a sperate bike lane he had no problem with people riding their bikes on the road.
This of course is N=1 but this is the typical person driving a car out there.
Mike
> From: wlodico at stny.rr.com
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:59:13 -0400
> To: pmonkman at twcny.rr.com; flcc at icycle.org
> Subject: Re: FLCC> Bike lane for uphill state st?
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FLCC mailing list
> FLCC at icycle.org
> http://icycle.org/mailman/listinfo/flcc_icycle.org
_________________________________________________________________
Can you find the hidden words? Take a break and play Seekadoo!
http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://icycle.org/pipermail/flcc_icycle.org/attachments/20070915/084afa5f/attachment-0001.html
More information about the FLCC
mailing list