How do we treat people who park in the lane for cars? Do we tow them or merely ticket them? Probably should treat the bike lane parkers the same.

I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but if you implement performance parking (vary parking meter prices so you have just enough empty spaces), you'll cut down on double parking and parking in bike lanes because people don't get "desperate" after circling five blocks to find an empty space.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 20, 2008 6:02 pm  

These bike lanes create some interesting situations as these pictures illustrate. For example, if you happen to live on the side of the street where a bike lane has been painted in, are you no longer allowed to pull over in front of your own home to pick up and drop off heavy packages, groceries, elderly family members? If you need to make a turn through the lane, are you supposed to block the traffic behind you as you come to an almost complete stop to ensure there isn't a bicylist in your in your blind spot as you make a very wide and abrupt turn at the very end of the block (and not a foot before)?

My overall gut feel is that these painted bike lanes create hazards for bicyclists rather than reducing them. The bicyclist gets a false sense of security. False because the painted lanes don't really provide any safety and false because as these pictures illustrate so well, it's nearly impossible for drivers to keep completely out of these lanes at all times ... Even if they wanted to. Even if they tried.

As a bicyclist, I much prefer knowing that I have equal rights to the SAME lanes as the traffic ... especially in a city like DC where I can easily keep up with traffic on most streets. Giving me a segregated bike lane takes away my right to share the regular lanes. And forces me into a lane which is far from safe.

Real separated lanes such as those we have for our bike paths (such as the Mount Vernon trail) are fantastic, workable, and safe. Painted bike lanes in the city aren't.

by Lance on Jun 20, 2008 10:03 pm  

Lance hints at the argument that John Forester, a longtime bicycle advocate and curmudgeon, has been making for decades. I used to trust Forester completely, and the vehicular cycling model he puts forward convinced me that it was possible to cycle-commute through downtown DC. But Forester is a traffic engineer, and I've come to distrust traffic engineers, and bicycle-minded urban planners tell me that bike lane networks are one of the most effective ways of getting people on their bikes.

by thm on Jun 21, 2008 9:15 pm  

@Lance: "If you need to make a turn through the lane, are you supposed to block the traffic behind you as you come to an almost complete stop to ensure there isn't a bicylist in your in your blind spot as you make a very wide and abrupt turn at the very end of the block (and not a foot before)?"

Bike lanes are just like traffic lanes but they are narrower and have restrictions on what traffic can use them. As such if bike lanes go for more than a single block, they will merge with right turning traffic some distance before an intersection. Usually you would see the bike lane expand to regular lane size, the solid white line on the left becomes dashed and the solid white line on the right ends along with there being no more parking to the right. If there was no parking to begin with then usually the bike lane merges in with the right most traffic lane as it approaches the intersection. If the approach to the intersection is long enough then usually a bike lane is established some short distance before the intersection, between the traffic lanes for traffic going forward and the dedicated right turn lanes. If there is a traffic lane that allows both forward moving and right turning traffic then there will not be a bike lane at the intersection but rather forward going bicycles must use this lane and not share it (lane split) with any cars (since there's no way for the bicyclist to position themselves to split the lane with a car a guarantee no conflict of movement). Right turning bicycles can always just stick to the right most part of the street without worrying about conflicts with cars. There are some times when a bike lane does continue uninterrupted down the right side on the street. This occurs when a bike route turns right at the intersection and the bikes sticking to such a lane must make the right turn (if they don't, then they are probably breaking traffic law). Usually there will be another bike lane waiting for them after they make the turn. When I was in Los Angeles, there was just such a bike lane that I used to get to class all the time.

In any case, my point is that on properly designed roads with bike lanes, the bicycles on the road will be like any other vehicular traffic, just that they'll be sticking to the right most of the time (except when making left turns). As such the circumstance you described should not occur. Bad designs, however, do occur sometimes, and if you encounter it, please complain to the proper authorities. However, the far more likely situation where what you described would happen would be if the bicyclist is riding at typical bicycle speed on the SIDEWALK. Now, wouldn't you much rather have the bicyclist on the road? (or if on the sidewalk, moving at jogger speed at the most)? I would think the bike lane would actually encourage the bicyclist to use the road rather than the sidewalk and hence improve safety overall. Some food for thought.

I myself have recently moved back to NoVa from L.A. and while in L.A. I rode my bike just about everywhere on both streets with bike lanes and streets without. I had my car which I mostly just moved from one side of the street to the other twice a week due to street cleaning. My experience with riding a bicycle in a city comes from my time in L.A. One difference I should probably mention between L.A. and the DC area is that it's illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk in California. There you must dismount when getting to the sidewalk. Although many people rode on the sidewalk nonetheless.

Additionally, I thought you all might want to know why I rode my bike instead of driving. It's simple really: it all came down to parking, parking, parking. While I certainly had to lock my bike to fence, sign, or railing a number of times, the parking situation with driving was worse. At many places there would either be a shortage of automobile parking or it would cost a good bit of money. I went to USC and lived nearby. On weekdays and football game days all free parking would get taken up and the available university parking was $8 per day or $5 per day at the parking deck across the freeway (the latter of which would be worthless anyway because I'd be no closer to class than from my apartment and would have to walk through a less pleasant area). Ultimately, since I would park on the street outside my apartment, if I drove somewhere on weekdays I'd lose my spot and have to hope to find one somewhere not too far. If I didn't I would would more likely find a spot on a particular street that had 4-hour parking 8am-6pm Monday-Friday which would mean having to keep an eye on the clock. In addition parking in the Financial District downtown (where the Central Library is, a place which I would go to once a week or so) was $3 per 15 minutes, $36 per day flat rate. All of which was a hassle (and/or cost) I'd much rather avoid if I could. As such I would bike to places that were within 2 or 3 miles of my apartment. By the end of my time there I had even figured out how to do my grocery shopping coming and going by bike (It did help that my bike had a basket), meaning I didn't have to wait for the weekend to go grocery shooping. It was also good that most of University Park had bike racks around, including lots of bike racks at USC itself (though never quite enough for all the bikes). The Central Library also had a bike rack. If it didn't I would have just continued taking the DASH. And although there were bike lanes on two routes, I don't think they actually make all that much of a difference there in L.A. If the right lane was wide enough (wide enough to accomodate a bike lane), it seemed to work just as well. It was when the right lane was narrow when it'd be a problem (I would then ride in the center of the lane, both as the law allowed and so cars don't get any ideas, at which point drivers might get frustrated).

by Mario on Jun 22, 2008 12:39 am  

Yes, I can understand why the drivers would get frustrated if you were driving in the center of a regular lane if you were on a road where you couldn't keep up with vehicular traffic speeds. (i.e., you'd be clogging traffic like any slow moving driver). However, that shouldn't be the case on DC's streets where the traffic normally flows at a speed easily attainable by bicyclists. It sounds like the conditions you are describing are those in places like LA or in Arlington where traffic can easily flow at 50 mph and parked cars on the side of the road aren't an issue. I would agree that painted bike lanes in those areas are a good idea. (Like the completely separated bike trails we have in the area.) Where I think they are inappropriate (and dangerous) are under "city" conditions ... i.e., where you have parked cars (and opening doors) to worry about (which is where the bike lane forces a bicyclist to ride when he/she is segregated into their own lane), and where the bicyclist can otherwise just as easily flow with traffic in normal lanes. Under these "city" conditions bike lanes are also impractical (as well as unnecessary) for a number of other reasons including short stretches (i.e., intersections where the complicated merging situation between cars and bikes must then occur as you so well describe), drivers needing to be able to pull over to the far right of the road as they would for many reasons including emergency stops, and of course the "car door" problem mentioned earlier.

Bike lanes under suburban conditions are a good idea. Where bicyclists can't keep up with traffic speed, it is a good idea to give them their own lane. And this lane works well because there aren't intersections every 1,000 feet and there aren't a row of parked cars to contend with. Under city street conditions, bike lanes are a bad idea in that (1) the bicyclist CAN keep up with traffic speed and enjoy all the privileges of using the same lanes as cars and (2) pushing the bicyclist into a separate lane makes the bicyclist vulnerable to a number of issues in addition to the car door problem (e.g., cars having to pull into the right lane for any number of legitimate reasons including many of those mentioned above.)

In sum, I think painting bike lanes on to city streets is taking what was a good solution for a problem in the 'burbs (i.e., bicyclists couldn't keep up with traffic and needed their own lanes) and trying to apply to conditions where there wasn't a problem to begin with ... and in so doing creating a whole new slew of problems for bicyclists and motorists alike.

by Lance on Jun 22, 2008 8:03 am  

But Forester is a traffic engineer, and I've come to distrust traffic engineers, and bicycle-minded urban planners tell me that bike lane networks are one of the most effective ways of getting people on their bikes.

You forgot to add: "...effective ways of getting people on their bikes, and 'doored.' Or run over by garbage trucks. etc..."

by ibc on Jul 16, 2008 3:33 pm