Comments on: Pushing the Limits of Absurdity

By: Brian in So Cal

Brian in So Cal — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:47:37 +0000

When I visited Dallas a couple of months ago, I noticed the suburban club rides didn’t ride roads with bike lanes – they used the whole outside lane on multilane roads, police passing by didn’t seem to have a problem with it.

But in my area, to oversimplify things, north Orange County (California) doesn’t have many bike lanes, while in south Orange County almost every main road has a bike lane. The roadies tend to be on the bike laned streets here – now that could be a function of the demographics, or that the bike laned roads have longer stretches with fewer traffic lights. But I know of many cyclists who live in North County who put their bikes in their cars and drive to South County to ride.

By: P.M. Summer

P.M. Summer — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:14:15 +0000

Here’s the solution for that road.

http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2009/04/dream-mutcd.html

By: ChipSeal

ChipSeal — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:54:24 +0000

However, while roadies don’t seek out and use bike lanes, they are not very thoughtful about infrastructure issues. They tend to favor the mindless advocacy of bike lanes on a emotional level. It’s not really sociably acceptable to be against such a slam-dunk positive safety issue, even if it is for the newbies and commuters!

By: Keri

Keri — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:52:32 +0000

I suspect there are regional differences. Many groups around here will default to any marginal pavement to the right of a white line. I’ve seen them wind in and out of an intermittent shoulder at 20+mph.

By: ChipSeal

ChipSeal — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:47:57 +0000

Roadies avoid bike lanes as a rule. Their goal is to maintain an above twenty MPH average. The restrictive and narrow bike lanes become an impedance to that effort. They tend to avoid urban core areas as well, seeking long stretches of roads without signal lights.

By: Keri

Keri — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:52:55 +0000

Andrew asked: “Do “roadies”, as a group, favor bike lanes? If so – why?”

Good question. I suspect they do and probably because of their experience on the road — because groups are a larger visual presence, they don’t experience as many of the common crossing conflicts exacerbated by bike lanes. OTOH, they experience far more hostility from motorists than individual cyclists. Bike lanes make them feel “legitimate” and out of the way.

Unfortunately, the debris that collects in bike lanes creates a greater hazard to groups than individuals. Due to the hazard of braking and the increased difficulty of merging, it can be more dangerous for a paceline to relinquish a lane control position than it is for a solo cyclist.

By: andrewp

andrewp — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:36:56 +0000

Do “roadies”, as a group, favor bike lanes? If so – why?

By: Keri

Keri — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:54:53 +0000

The second reason is exactly what’s happening… they don’t want the residents to “hijack” the money and use it for something worthwhile because the money was allocated for the bike lanes. This is a special interest being territorial rather than thinking of the greater good.

The homeowners’ motives might be completely selfish, like the ones who fought bike lanes on A1A in South Florida. Or they might be legitimately concerned about increased traffic speeds in front of heir homes (a side-effect of widening the road). Or they might want to see better pavement on a lot more miles of road in their town.

Regardless of their motivations, logic and fiscal responsibility are on their side. Bike lanes on that street are a poor use of public money. There are busier county roads in that area where completing the shoulders would be of greater benefit to cyclists (I am not a fan of riding in the shoulder, but it is optional).

By: andrewp

andrewp — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:44:01 +0000

AndrewP said: No need for a bike lane –I see a nice, safe sidepath for all those roadies who are afraid of riding on the road …

Darnit! Missed my “tongue-firmly-in-cheek” after-quote ….

By: andrewp

andrewp — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:42:15 +0000

No need for a bike lane –I see a nice, safe sidepath for all those roadies who are afraid of riding on the road …

Seriously, not to say there aren’t situations where a bike lane can make sense and can be done right. But the reasoning behind this situation sounds a lot like “you have to have a bike lane in order to be safe” and “we have the money allocated, so before they take it away let’s spend it”. The first reason is not statistically true, the second is wasteful no matter how you frame it.

This one is …. “bike-lame”