FLCC> Bike lane for uphill state st?

[William Lodico]

Paul, two observations:

1.  Interesting that you should cite Boulder, with its plethora of  
bike lanes.   The only bike-car collision I've witnessed in roughly  
800,000 miles of motoring and about 80,000 miles of cycling was in  
Boulder.  The cyclist was in a bike lane, with his tires about a foot  
from the curb.  He was clipped from behind by an SUV that just didn't  
see him over there and failed to allow sufficient clearance.  Had he  
been squarely in her traffic lane, she would have seen him.  She  
would also have got to the next red light a lot more quickly, since  
she would not have had to stop for the accident.  The motor traffic  
behind her, including me, would also have got to the next red light a  
lot more quickly.

2.  As to whether we are required to ride as far right as is safe:   
the pertinent NY statue is Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1234.   
Subsection (a) says we should ride (in the absence of a usable bike  
lane)  "near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a  
usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue  
interference  with the flow of traffic" and then provides exceptions  
for left turns and to avoid potentially unsafe conditions, and gives  
a long, though hardly exhaustive list of examples, including, most  
significantly, almost universally applicable, the situation where the  
traffic lane is too narrow to allow bicycle and motor vehicle to  
travel safely side by side.  (NY DOT share the road literature  
suggests that cyclists ride 3 to 4 feet left of the curb or roadway  
edge which gives them room to avoid road hazards by moving away from  
traffic rather than toward it.)  Subsection (b) prohibits riding more  
than two abreast in the roadway, which obviously means  we can ride  
two abreast and one of the two can ride to the left of the cyclist  
riding "near the right edge", which is clearly left of "as far right  
as is safe."  I think a better way to put it is that we are required  
to ride in a manner that avoids unduly interfering with the flow of  
traffic, which means we have to give traffic a reasonable opportunity  
to pass us on the left (and sometimes on the right, as when we are  
slowing in a lane to go straight and right turn traffic is proceeding  
in the curb lane) when conditions are safe for such passing.  This  
usually, though not always,  means riding toward the right side of  
the traffic lane, though not necessarily toward the right edge or  
curb of the roadway.  We should avoid putting ourselves at risk just  
to get out of the way of motor traffic.  We are allowed to duly  
interfere with the flow of traffic, just as any other legal traffic  
is.  Since we may be going quite a bit slower than most motorists  
want to, they may have to slow down for us now and then, and some  
less enlightened drivers may feel that our due interference is  
undue.  We don't have to buy into that.

Bill



On Sep 15, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Paul Monkman wrote:

Ok, I'll be sucker and respond to this for the last time even though  
I know this is a debate with religious like devotion on both sides.   
I, by the way, do not whole heartedly support, or use, bike lanes or  
paths in every case.  They aren't the best solution to every traffic  
situation.   But they aren't evil incarnate for every case either. I  
think State Street is one of those cases where adding some paint and  
restricting a very modest amount of parking would be helpful both to  
the cyclists and drivers.

Now to respond to Bill's points:

Paint:  The paint can help because it defines the space for the  
cars.  Just like on the open highway, most people do actually stay  
between the lines.   (Might be all those years of coloring in  
elementary school ...)

Shared lanes:  That can definitely work in many cases, but not all  
cases.  For almost all downtown riding, I agree that it's the way to  
go.  Take your space and follow the rules of the road.  But on open  
highways with high speed traffic, or crawling up a steep hill like  
State St., you're really asking for it to stick yourself in front of  
cars going so much faster.  Plus it's just rude if there is a way to  
safely travel without causing an obstruction.

Left turn:  As far as I  know nobody's saying a bike can't move into  
the car lane in order to make a left hand turn as far as I know.  All  
you've got to do is wait for a break in the traffic.  That's not a  
big deal 99% of the time here in little Ithaca.

Effect of separating cycling facilities:  Perception is important.   
Many beginning riders, and some not so beginning riders, are  
intimidated by traffic and having seperate facilities can be helpful  
in some situations.  Not all.   My wife and I were lucky to live in  
Boulder, CO for 10 years, using our bikes exclusively for our  
transportation, and believe me, the network of interconnected bike  
paths and lanes were very heavily used, and were very useful.  That's  
not to say they couldn't be improved or that they were the best  
solution in every case, but I do think they are one important reason  
Boulder has a reputation as a cyclists haven.  From what I hear,  
other successful cycling cities in the US also provide some separate  
facilities.  Then there is the example set by Holland ...  Obviously,  
any facilities have to be thoughtfully designed or they can be a real  
hazard.

Fatter tires:   Fatter tires actually have lower rolling resistance  
than the equivalently constructed thin tire pumped to the same  
pressure.  Any reduction in rolling resistance with increasing tire  
pressure drops off pretty darn quickly over about 70 psi.   There are  
plenty of inexpensive tires in the range of 1.5" that can take 80  
psi. Of course the point isn't that 1.5" is some magical number -  
just that fatter tires in general tend to be more robust.  They do  
have more air drag of course, but when people are biking around town,  
air drag really isn't a concern, especially for non-racers, i.e., the  
vast majority of the people using bikes in Ithaca.   And most  
practical riders I see in town are using MTBs, so it's pretty safe to  
assume that for the vast majority of users, for whom the lane is  
presumably being designed, avoiding minor obstacles isn't a big deal.

Lane Width:  I'm going to have to believe you that 5' isn't enough  
for you.  I think most would disagree.  I know I feel down right  
relaxed whenever I have a shoulder in that ballpark.

Useable bike lane:  That's not a new problem.  We are required to  
ride as far to the right as is safe now aren't we?  Motorists still  
may not be able to understand why it may not be safe to ride further  
to the right than we are.

That's all I've got to say.  Here's to safe and happy riding no  
matter what part of the lane you occupy ...


Paul