Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My previous posts were referring to a blatant and deliberate disregard for road rules commonly made by cyclists, not the unintentional forced errors that we all make everyday. Sorry if I my writing wasn't clear, but I thought that was intuitively obvious.
Isn't it nice how disregarding the "inconvenient" traffic laws is an "unintentional forced error" for drivers in a car but it is "blatant and deliberate disregard for road rules" for a driver on a bike???
Let's call it like it is--we have developed poor and dangerous habits both behind the windshield and behind the handle bars, and none of us would be happy if all those laws were to suddenly actually be enforced to the fullest! Just look at the outrage over red light cameras when "red means stop" is a pretty basic traffic rule that even kids get. It's really no different than cyclists getting mad when the cops give us tickets for blowing through stop signs. But in the end the only real solution is education and consistent enforcement. In Europe people have to go through a bicycle component to get a driver license. Guess what, their bicyclists tend to behave better. I think it's a good way to both get bicyclists to behave better and also to help drivers understand how things look and feel from behind the handlebars.
Look, just because "we all disobey the law everyday" doesn't take away from the fact that we as drivers (and bicyclists too--fully agree with you there!) are in fact blatantly disobeying traffic laws en masse.
Traffic has been a problem in cities since the dawn of time and likely will be unless someone devises some method of travel that does not take up volume between starting location and destination.
Given that the road was unknown to and unused by team cyclists until the bike lanes were added, I don't suppose the city was aware an insufficiency would result or that they should have designed it to accommodate a daily peloton.
Fair enough. I did not realize this was a new phenomenon that only came about after the road re-striping included a new bike lane.
Actually, it's kind of academically interesting to see induced demand in bikes.
Still, pointing out that current demand--even if it is new demand--isn't met by a standard 3' bike lane doesn't seem controversial. Traffic engineers wouldn't bat an eye at the suggestion that a single vehicle lane isn't meeting demand.
Fair enough. I did not realize this was a new phenomenon that only came about after the road re-striping included a new bike lane.
Actually, it's kind of academically interesting to see induced demand in bikes.
Still, pointing out that current demand--even if it is new demand--isn't met by a standard 3' bike lane doesn't seem controversial. Traffic engineers wouldn't bat an eye at the suggestion that a single vehicle lane isn't meeting demand.
It is more complicated than that. The problem here is too many bikers riding at once. The lane could be empty 23 hours a day but when a group of cyclist decide to ride at once there is a problem. What causes lanes to be added is if there is space available and if there is too much demand outside of peak.
Fair enough. I did not realize this was a new phenomenon that only came about after the road re-striping included a new bike lane.
Actually, it's kind of academically interesting to see induced demand in bikes.
might be bicyclists all shifting to the road with the bike lane.
Quote:
Still, pointing out that current demand--even if it is new demand--isn't met by a standard 3' bike lane doesn't seem controversial. Traffic engineers wouldn't bat an eye at the suggestion that a single vehicle lane isn't meeting demand.
Sounds like it's not the volume of cyclists overwhelming the bike lane, but a group of bicyclists riding side by side in group rides.
Isn't it nice how disregarding the "inconvenient" traffic laws is an "unintentional forced error" for drivers in a car but it is "blatant and deliberate disregard for road rules" for a driver on a bike???
Let's call it like it is--we have developed poor and dangerous habits both behind the windshield and behind the handle bars, and none of us would be happy if all those laws were to suddenly actually be enforced to the fullest! Just look at the outrage over red light cameras when "red means stop" is a pretty basic traffic rule that even kids get.
"red" might mean stop but it doesn't imply that the justice system should be whored out to private vendors, that the accused should be deprived of state and federal constitutional protections, denied trial, denied the right to confront witnesses, denied the right to jury, denied the right to have plaintiff bear the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and a litany of other protections. Your red light camera analogy is way off base. There are plenty of reasons to protest the camera and fee splitting schemes set up by the likes of Redflex and American Traffic Solutions which go well beyond the scope of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992
It's really no different than cyclists getting mad when the cops give us tickets for blowing through stop signs.
To the contrary it is really different. It's a criminal offense and you get to make a plea, request a jury, engage in discovery, confront the witness, and have a trial. You can even appeal if the trial doesn't work out. Why should bikers get due process while drivers are denied the same?
might be bicyclists all shifting to the road with the bike lane.
Fair point and it could be. But, as UNC4ME describes it, it's a group that was induced to use the new infrastructure because it existed. It doesn't seem to be a description of commuters opting for a better route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Sounds like it's not the volume of cyclists overwhelming the bike lane, but a group of bicyclists riding side by side in group rides.
Either way, it points to a mismatch.
And this has all been, at its core, an argument about how much is enough bike infrastructure. Riding 2 abreast wouldn't be a problem except that, if this is a standard lane, it's only really large enough for one rider; there's not really room to ride side-by-side.
So, what happens when people ride together? Not even, necessarily, a riding club, but maybe just two people who commute together. Would we expect two people walking together to walk staggered or single-file? Would we expect two people in a car to sit one behind the other? No, but in the case of riding in a bike lane, that is necessarily the case (if there is any traffic in the vehicle lane).
So, in the case of what's happening where UNC lives, it is very easy to overwhelm the available capacity. And, as with anytime the demand for infrastructure exceeds the supply, there are negative overflow effects.
Fair point and it could be. But, as UNC4ME describes it, it's a group that was induced to use the new infrastructure because it existed. It doesn't seem to be a description of commuters opting for a better route.
Either way, it points to a mismatch.
And this has all been, at its core, an argument about how much is enough bike infrastructure. Riding 2 abreast wouldn't be a problem except that, if this is a standard lane, it's only really large enough for one rider; there's not really room to ride side-by-side.
So, what happens when people ride together? Not even, necessarily, a riding club, but maybe just two people who commute together. Would we expect two people walking together to walk staggered or single-file? Would we expect two people in a car to sit one behind the other? No, but in the case of riding in a bike lane, that is necessarily the case (if there is any traffic in the vehicle lane).
So, in the case of what's happening where UNC lives, it is very easy to overwhelm the available capacity. And, as with anytime the demand for infrastructure exceeds the supply, there are negative overflow effects.
Interesting analysis. So what's your solution? More bike capacity? It seems that when that's applied to cars 1) Urbanists don't like it; 2) the extra capacity quickly becomes overwhelmed itself as in adding lanes to roads; 3) the excess capacity is only needed sometimes and the Urbanists complain, as in parking lots.
Are you actually interested in what would be a solution to the topic or just expressing irritation at "urbanists"?
If the bikers are all concentrating on one road because it has a bike lane, makes more sense to add a bike lane to another road. If it's road club cyclists dunno if it'd help. It's not worth the space to increase bike capacity, IMO, similar to (1) and (3) for cars. I've seen few if any bike lanes over-capacity and they'd be in crowded cities, which I assume UNC doesn't live in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
Either way, it points to a mismatch.
And this has all been, at its core, an argument about how much is enough bike infrastructure. Riding 2 abreast wouldn't be a problem except that, if this is a standard lane, it's only really large enough for one rider; there's not really room to ride side-by-side.
So, what happens when people ride together? Not even, necessarily, a riding club, but maybe just two people who commute together. Would we expect two people walking together to walk staggered or single-file? Would we expect two people in a car to sit one behind the other? No, but in the case of riding in a bike lane, that is necessarily the case (if there is any traffic in the vehicle lane).
No, but a bicycle is one vehicle. It's not worth it most cases to build a bike lane wide enough to handle 2 riders side-by-side, let alone more than 2 [which is what some are describing]. People usually commute alone, by car or bicycle.
I get why drivers get irritated by cars get irritated by 2 bicyclists cycling side-by side. But when the traffic isn't too heavy, it's not that hard to pass. I feel like a lot of drivers are too impatient.
might be bicyclists all shifting to the road with the bike lane.
Sounds like it's not the volume of cyclists overwhelming the bike lane, but a group of bicyclists riding side by side in group rides.
Exactly. It's the team cyclists who ride in a large groups side by side. Other cyclists use the road as well, but there's never an issue with them since they seem to understand the law and if riding side by side will revert to single file in the bike lane if cars need to pass.
Once the bike lane was added, groups of team cyclists decided it was the perfect place to ride together. This would be no problem if they followed the laws and didn't impede traffic every time they use the road. I suspect it's more than one group doing this given that I've been behind them at 10 am in the morning, then at 2 pm and then again at 7 in the evening, but I could be wrong since I have no idea what type of training schedules they keep.
The entire issue hinges on them riding en masse and 2-3 abreast. They take up half of the car lane and there's only 1 car lane in each direction so cars are forced to ride for long stretches until they can turn off and find another route. I have no idea whether that style of riding is something integral to their sport or just their preference. Regardless, IMO they either need to learn to share the road and obey the law or they need to find some land and build a private cycling loop where they can ride however they wish.
If they were cyclists commuting, I'd say the city needs to rethink the road and expand the bike lanes. Since that's not the case, I don't. Taxpayer transportation monies should not be spent to accommodate people's hobbies.
Last edited by UNC4Me; 08-16-2016 at 09:51 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
