bikelane flamebait and going right

I know bikelanes are sometimes controversial but there is an interesting
debate in Guelph lately. There is street - Elizabeth that will be
reconstructed and there was a debate as to whether it should have bikelanes.
those that oppose want on street parking. So please understand the choice is
between bikelanes and on-street car parking.

My question: if you are generally opposed to bikelanes as a cyclist in that
they ghettoize bikes, would you at least prefer them to a road with onstreet
parking? If those are your two choices which would you take?

Understand that 'no bikelanes and no onstreet parking' is not an option. The
street will either have cars parking or a bikelane.

Thoughts?


The 'going right' part: I find on MUPs when meeting oncoming pedestrians I
want to 'go right' like a vehicle. Of course the oncoming pedestrians usual
instinct is to go left hence the difficulty of mixing bikes and peds. Not
much to be done about it.

Usually with meeting up with oncoming bikes we both instinctively go right
so no problem. But on Saturday I was coming back from the grocery store
loaded up on my ute, making use of a non-road connection between a
residential road and a non-public parking complex of streets and lots. This
route is preferable to avoid the heavy traffic of the main street, as the
commercial area is deserted on weekends.

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=3254700

Anyways, coming through this area I face an oncoming bike. We are both
approaching each other at an angle as I am coming out of one lot turning in
to the road and he is doing similarly from another. My instinct was to swing
wide to 'cross paths' so that I would take him to the right rather than
passing each other to the left. I thought my intentions were clear. But his
seemed to as well which was to pass each other on the left. When I saw his
plain intetnion I ceded and took him on left but it did not feel right...
errr... correct.

I can see some logic in avoiding crossing paths by taking each other on the
left but I would prefer to do so so that we do both go right.

Thoughts?

recycled wrote:
My question: if you are generally opposed to bikelanes as a cyclist in
that they ghettoize bikes, would you at least prefer them to a road with
onstreet parking? If those are your two choices which would you take?

Understand that 'no bikelanes and no onstreet parking' is not an option.
The street will either have cars parking or a bikelane.

Thoughts?

I would much rather have the road with onstreet parking. This way,
there are obstacles much larger than a bicycle rider convincing some
buttwipe driver to stay the hell in their own lane.

In the city where I live, designated bike routes may, or may not, have a
striped bike lane. If I have to duck someone's door, I'd much rather be
able to move a couple of feet further left in a lane I am already
occupying, rather than have to transition from a "bike lane" to a "car
lane" and pop in front of some driver who's not expecting a bike in
their lane. (It's also not unknown for the bike route to have a striped
lane for a few blocks, then no lane for a few blocks, then maybe
no-lane, no-parking for a few blocks, depending on the width of the
roadway at that point.)

(In the city I formerly lived in, the presence or absence of bike lanes
doesn't make a damn bit of difference. They are considered by drivers
to be additional traffic lanes or convenient double-parking areas.)

I know this subject is a tinder box, but as it's just beginning it is a
valid question, so I will answer it in a civilized manner.

I grew up and learned to ride by commuting to/from school in
metropolitan Los Angeles, CA, during rush hour, in the beginning of the
1970s. IOW, I was considered an annoyance at best. So I know how to
handle traffic, but when I see a bike lane put onto a street ESPECIALLY
one where parking was allowed, I have learned to avoid that street like
it was paved with HIV.

As you pointed out, bicyclists become segregated whel bike lanes are
added, they are expected to ride inside that lane regardless of it's
condidion or cleanliness. And drivers treat me like I belong on "their"
street even less. This has been true for El Lay, and I'm seeing it here
in SC as well. whenever a road is re-paved with a shoulder (not a bike
lane, a shoulder - 20 inches of asphalt right of the line) the normal
practice of moving over to the adjacent lane to pass (just as if I were
another automobile) suddenly becomes a couple of feet.

The more common these "bike friendly" streets become, the less friendly
motorists become overall, regardless of what street they're on. I have
seen this change occuring just over the nine years I've been here.

I now leave Y'all to turn this into yet another 1200 post flame thread.
:-3)

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website (final month):
http://geocities.com/czcorner

"It's Chris" wrote in message
...
I know this subject is a tinder box, but as it's just beginning it is a
valid question, so I will answer it in a civilized manner.

I grew up and learned to ride by commuting to/from school in
metropolitan Los Angeles, CA, during rush hour, in the beginning of the
1970s. IOW, I was considered an annoyance at best. So I know how to
handle traffic, but when I see a bike lane put onto a street ESPECIALLY
one where parking was allowed, I have learned to avoid that street like
it was paved with HIV.

This is not the situation I outlined. The choice for this street is EITHER
bike lanes OR on-street parking.


As you pointed out, bicyclists become segregated whel bike lanes are
added,

No I did not. I said some people feel bikelanes ghettoize cycling. I am an
agnostic on the subject. I have seen quite desirable and even luxurious bike
lanes as well as lanes that are worse than none.

On Oct 12, 5:44*am, "recycled" wrote:
*I know bikelanes are sometimes controversial but there is an interesting
debate in Guelph lately. There is street - Elizabeth that will be
reconstructed and there was a debate as to whether it should have bikelanes.
those that oppose want on street parking. So please understand the choice is
between bikelanes and on-street car parking.
--- snip---
*Thoughts?

If on-street parking is currently available on that street (IOW,
before any "re-construction") then I'd say definitely go with the on-
street parking. Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing but when one takes away
one group's perks to provide a perk to a different group one is
inviting discord and resentment, hardly the ideal recipe for fostering
any "share the road" mentality. OTOH, if on-street parking is *not*
currently allowed there then it's a tossup in my mind.
Regards,
Bob Hunt

I used to live near Albany, New York, which at the time had one street
with bike lanes and lots of streets with on-street parking.

I had little or no difficulty with the streets that had on-street
parking. (No difficulty that was the fault of the on-street parking,
that is!)

I would go miles out of my way to avoid using the part of Western
Avenue with bike lanes on it, and if I couldn't figure out a way to
get there without using Western, I just didn't go.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

On Oct 12, 6:44*am, "recycled" wrote:
*I know bikelanes are sometimes controversial but there is an interesting
debate in Guelph lately. There is street - Elizabeth that will be
reconstructed and there was a debate as to whether it should have bikelanes.
those that oppose want on street parking. So please understand the choice is
between bikelanes and on-street car parking.

*My question: if you are generally opposed to bikelanes as a cyclist in that
they ghettoize bikes, would you at least prefer them to a road with onstreet
parking? If those are your two choices which would you take?

I'll take the on-street parking. And I'll stay way out of the door
zone.

The only advantage I see to bike lanes is that lots of people seem to
think they can't ride a bike unless there are bike lanes. As much as
I'd like to promote cycling, that advantage doesn't outweigh the
disadvantages.

If bike lanes absolutely were to be put in, I'd fight like hell to
make sure their use would never be mandatory, and that everybody
(traffic planners, motorists, cops, judges, juries) knew that very,
very well.

- Frank Krygowski

recycled wrote:

I know bikelanes are sometimes controversial but there is an interesting
debate in Guelph lately. There is street - Elizabeth that will be
reconstructed and there was a debate as to whether it should have
bikelanes. those that oppose want on street parking. So please
understand the choice is between bikelanes and on-street car parking.

My question: if you are generally opposed to bikelanes as a cyclist in
that they ghettoize bikes, would you at least prefer them to a road with
onstreet parking? If those are your two choices which would you take?

Understand that 'no bikelanes and no onstreet parking' is not an option.
The street will either have cars parking or a bikelane.

Thoughts?

I pretty much agree with just about everything that has been said. It's
a difficult choice. Experienced riders are less likely to favor lanes.
There's the "ghetto-ization" issue, and the motorists losing parking,
which becomes especially galling if the lane becomes very lightly used.
On the other hand, novice cyclists seem to like segregated facilities,
so lanes might bring in new riders. Bike lanes send (at least) two
messages: "Bikes belong!", and "Bikes belong over there!". Pick your
poison.

That said, I feel a good bike lane can be better than no bike lane, but
it depends on circumstances. If the road is currently difficult for
cycling because of inadequate width to share, removing the parking and
replacing with a lane might be an improvement. In that case, a bike lane
is little more than a wide lane with a guideline warning cars, or a
paved shoulder with a fog line. A bad bike lane -- poorly laid out, not
kept clean, too narrow or with double parking can be much worse than the
unimproved version of the street.

On Oct 14, 3:10*pm, Peter Cole wrote:

If the road is currently difficult for
cycling because of inadequate width to share, removing the parking and
replacing with a lane might be an improvement.

The operative word here is "share". Removing a convenience to one
group completely to increase another group's convenience- and that's
exactly what taking away existing parking spaces in the above
situation would be doing- isn't "sharing". It is one group claiming
primacy over another.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On Oct 14, 7:18*pm, Bob wrote:
On Oct 14, 3:10*pm, Peter Cole wrote:

If the road is currently difficult for
cycling because of inadequate width to share, removing the parking and
replacing with a lane might be an improvement.

The operative word here is "share". Removing a convenience to one
group completely to increase another group's convenience- and that's
exactly what taking away existing parking spaces in the above
situation would be doing- isn't "sharing". It is one group claiming
primacy over another.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Good thread. An added problem with bike lanes is that they have a
tendency to disappear and reappear, e.g. approaching intersections
where motorists need the right lane for turning purposes. For that
and the reasons stated by others, I'm no fan of bike lanes.

When I started my trip last August from Vancouver to Milwaukee, I
observed an interesting way to accommodate bikes. The Adanac bikeway
in Vancouver used a regular street, and restricted auto traffic via
periodic signs forbidding autos to drive straight ahead, restricting
through traffic and leaving most of the street available to bikes most
of the time. I didn't experience it long enough to have an opinion
about it but it was at least fascinating.