Going Nuts with Bike/Ped at the expense of roads

[realjd]

the problem with people isn't that they're "entitled to own their piece of land"; it's that they feel entitled to use a car to go 0.6 miles down to the grocery store, purchase two items, and return.

Assume a 30 MPG car, a 1 mile drive to grocery store @ 30mph, a 3mph walking speed, and $3/gal gas. That works out to 20 cents to drive to the store round-trip with 4 minutes travel time vs. a 40 minute walk round-trip for free. It's not that I feel entitled for the short trip, it just makes economic sense to me to pay the 20 cents to save 36 minutes of time.

This assumes that you own a car anyway and need it for other reasons. If you wanted one solely to drive to the store, the other costs of ownership would need to be factored in and would greatly change the situation. This also doesn't factor in the environmental cost.

Not that walking and bikes are bad. I bike to work frequently in the winter when we have nice weather here. I just disagree that shorts trips are necessarily due to a sense of entitlement. And FWIW, I own my house on a 1/2 acre of land both because I can afford to and because it makes financial sense long-term for me, not because I feel entitled to it.

[agentsteel53]

if you can make a mile and back in four minutes, you are not living in Suburban Hell.  I'd spend four minutes at the first traffic light alone.

Comparing 30 minutes of stress and aggravation to a pleasant 40 minute walk, I know which one I'd choose every time.

[froggie]

Even if you already own a car, you need to account for all the other mileage-related costs of the car.  Regular maintenance, oil changes, tires, brakes, etc etc.  Not necessarily a significant increase, perhaps another 10-20 cents/mile, but one far too often forgotten by people.

In my case, including insurance and purchase price, I calculated my total car cost out to about 33 cents/mile.  So that theoretical 2 mile round-trip to the grocery store is a $0.66 trip.

Also, unless you're buying a huge amount of groceries, another mode you didn't consider for your theoretical store trip was bicycling.  Minimal maintenance cost (especially compared to cars).  At a 10mph average, you're looking at 12 minutes round-trip travel time.

[agentsteel53]

Not necessarily a significant increase, perhaps another 10-20 cents/mile, but one far too often forgotten by people.

In my case, including insurance and purchase price, I calculated my total car cost out to about 33 cents/mile.

that "not necessarily a significant increase" is 30 to 60 percent of your total car costs!

(there is a damn good reason why I do not own a car, and that is because I'd hate to be changing my oil every other weekend.)

[route56]

(there is a damn good reason why I do not own a car, and that is because I'd hate to be changing my oil every other weekend.)

You would drive 1500-3000 miles per WEEK if you owned a car?

[Scott5114]

It's Jake. He's been known to drive 1500-3000 miles per DAY.

If they built bike lanes around here I would probably rarely use them, and even then only for recreational purposes–there is nothing but a gas station and housing within biking distance, my job is rather far away (and there is no housing within walking distance even if I wanted to live near to it), and frankly, it's worth not only the time savings but also the respite from the elements to drive rather than attempt to bike. Being outside in Oklahoma is simply a pain in the ass for 75% of the year, and my car can handle a 40 MPH headwind a lot better than I can on a bike.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

It's Jake. He's been known to drive 1500-3000 miles per DAY.

1500 miles/24 hrs = 62.5 miles per hour. (3,000/24 = 125 miles per hour)

I think you need to do some walking or biking Scott, you're getting too much carbon monoxide from your car/truck.

[agentsteel53]

You would drive 1500-3000 miles per WEEK if you owned a car?

per weekend.  I work during the week.  when I did not have a day job, I was putting in 5000 regularly per week. 

[Scott5114]

It's Jake. He's been known to drive 1500-3000 miles per DAY.

1500 miles/24 hrs = 62.5 miles per hour. (3,000/24 = 125 miles per hour)

I think you need to do some walking or biking Scott, you're getting too much carbon monoxide from your car/truck.

You've never been on a roadtrip with Jake driving, have you?

[agentsteel53]

You've never been on a roadtrip with Jake driving, have you?

and neither have I.

[KEK Inc.]

I rather see more bike paths.  Frankly, sharing the road is a pain in the ass, especially in Portland.  I volunteered in Downtown Portland for a while, and I almost collided with 3 bicyclists, all of which went through a stop sign. 

Also, Portland was the first city to put these up:

[realjd]

if you can make a mile and back in four minutes, you are not living in Suburban Hell.  I'd spend four minutes at the first traffic light alone.

Comparing 30 minutes of stress and aggravation to a pleasant 40 minute walk, I know which one I'd choose every time.

Traffic isn't quite as bad here in my quiet corner of Florida as it is in San Diego. There's only 1 light between my house and the closest Winn-Dixie. Our weather is less consistent than yours also.

Even if you already own a car, you need to account for all the other mileage-related costs of the car.  Regular maintenance, oil changes, tires, brakes, etc etc.  Not necessarily a significant increase, perhaps another 10-20 cents/mile, but one far too often forgotten by people.

GSA mileage reimbursement is currently set at $0.50 per mile. It tends to track gas mileage, so at 30mpg and $3/gal gas that would be $0.40 per mile in costs above gas alone. Congratulations! Your $0.33 per mile cost is significantly better than the federal reimbursement rate.

[agentsteel53]

Our weather is less consistent than yours also.

I did the walking thing in Boston too, which features basically Florida's rain and oppressive humidity ... and also a little thing called snow every so often!

[Duke87]

Also, Portland was the first city to put these up:

What is that? Some sort of left turn lane for the bikes?

[NE2]

Also, Portland was the first city to put these up:

What is that? Some sort of left turn lane for the bikes?

Yes - it's a "bike box", an attempt to reconcile cyclists' desire to stay in the bike lane with their necessity to turn left never mind - it's only in the rightmost lane. It can be dangerous if one enters it just as the light changes. (By the way, Portland may have been the first US city to use them, but I think, like most "experimental" facilities, they're from overseas.)

[jjakucyk]

The important thing about bike boxes is the ability for cyclists to get in front of waiting vehicular traffic, which reduces the chance of a vehicle turning right and swiping a cyclist who's going straight.  The green paint acts as a caution zone for turning vehicles, but the important part is having the queue space in front of motor vehicles so the cyclists can get going before any vehicles have a chance to turn into them.  On a wide oneway street like the one pictured, the bike box is basically useless for left turning cyclists, but it still benefits from the protections against right turning vehicles, which is one of the most common accidents.

[NE2]

The important thing about bike boxes is the ability for cyclists to get in front of waiting vehicular traffic, which reduces the chance of a vehicle turning right and swiping a cyclist who's going straight.  The green paint acts as a caution zone for turning vehicles, but the important part is having the queue space in front of motor vehicles so the cyclists can get going before any vehicles have a chance to turn into them.  On a wide oneway street like the one pictured, the bike box is basically useless for left turning cyclists, but it still benefits from the protections against right turning vehicles, which is one of the most common accidents.

This is only "necessary" in states like Oregon where motor vehicles cannot enter the bike lane to turn right. In Florida, the bike lane is treated as part of the roadway, and right turns are made from it:

For this reason, a motorist approaching a corner to make a right turn should - after yielding to any cyclist present - approach the right-hand curb or edge, even where a bicycle lane is present. Doing so emphasizes the driver's intent to turn and establishes the order in which the driver and any overtaking cyclist will enter the intersection, so as not to surprise the cyclist with a sharp "right hook" turn at the corner. Approaching the right curb or edge also partially removes the driver from the path of overtaking motor vehicles.

Of course drivers rarely do this, but signs would educate them as to the proper method of turning right.

[realjd]

So what are everyone's opinions here on bike lanes? Personally I like them, but I know a large number of hard-core cyclists don't. I haven't figured out if they have a valid reason for not liking them other than the fact that some cycling-activists would rather ride in traffic and smugly slow down cars.

[jjakucyk]

Painted bike lanes have a place in the transportation hierarchy, but they're not a fix-all solution.  There's two main issues that must be dealt with whether an avid cyclist or not.  The first is that when motorists see that there is a bike lane or a side path or whatever, they assume that cyclists must use it and they get angry at cyclists who don't.  There's several legitimate reasons for a cyclist not to use a bike lane, such as avoiding debris, preparing to make a left turn, or to overtake illegally parked delivery vehicles.  The second problem is that debris.  Since cars don't drive in the bike lane, they tend to sweep road debris into it which makes it nearly useless for cyclists.  Monthly street sweeping is inadequate to keep up with this.  

More experienced cyclists would rather ride in the travel lane for the reasons stated above.  Also because, quite frankly, it is usually safer.  Storm drains are not a problem in the travel lanes, and it forces motorists to observe and wait for a safe opportunity to pass rather than buzzing by someone in the bike lane.  There's nothing smug about it, and any cyclist who appears to be blocking traffic from passing is usually doing so because they know passing would be unsafe.  

[agentsteel53]

the smug bike behavior for me isn't the use or non-use of the bike lane.  it's the running of red lights, or not stopping at all for stop signs.

I hate encountering the same bicyclist block after block - does he not realize that if he lets me pass once, he doesn't ever see me again, but if repeatedly we keep running into each other, at some point (just by the inevitability of statistics) I will literally run into him???

also, riding up the sidewalk in the wrong direction.  that's just frightening as a pedestrian because you just never expect anyone to be doing that - silently and out of nowhere, some bike passes inches from you doing 15mph on a narrow sidewalk.  

Salmoning as a pedestrian is fine (and is in fact recommended, so you can keep an eye out for vehicular traffic nearest to you) but on a bike it's just antisocial.

[J N Winkler]

the smug bike behavior for me isn't the use or non-use of the bike lane.  it's the running of red lights, or not stopping at all for stop signs.

I would go with that stricture where stop signs are concerned, but not red traffic lights.  I don't really have an objection if a cyclist, having taken full advantage of adequate visibility, sees that he can cop a free right turn or pass along the top of a tee junction without conflicting with other traffic and without interfering with the behavior of other, law-abiding, road users.

I hate encountering the same bicyclist block after block - does he not realize that if he lets me pass once, he doesn't ever see me again, but if repeatedly we keep running into each other, at some point (just by the inevitability of statistics) I will literally run into him???

Look at it from his point of view:  he has no way of knowing if he will catch up with you at a stoplight or stop sign, thus starting the passing tag all over again.  As a general rule, this situation doesn't lend itself to mutually beneficial tit-for-tat.

My personal impression, as someone who has driven for 18 years and has been a daily cycle commuter for 11, is that lots of motorists devote unnecessary energy to passing bicyclists because they don't want bicyclists in their blind spots, where it is more difficult to judge the distance between the cyclist and the car and where any sudden unexpected movements are likely to go undetected until it is too late to avoid an accident.  I can understand this behavior as an attempt at defensive driving, but personally I think it puts the cart before the horse.  The better and more robust approach is to assume that cyclists won't stay overtaken, and to avoid positioning oneself in such a way that a cyclist has nowhere to go (e.g. by deliberately moving so close to the curb that the cyclist can't pass).

When I am on a cycle, I try to follow a rule of minimizing the angle between my path of movement and the general direction of traffic, especially when I pull out to overtake parked cars.  This improves my visibility to motorists and helps avoid situations where a motorist can't see me until the absolute last minute.  As a motorist I have had cyclists whip out of my blind spot just as I am about to run into them, so I fully understand how discomfiting the experience is for motorists.  But for as long as there are a significant proportion of cyclists who are naive to life behind the wheel of a car or an even larger motor vehicle, motorists have to be prepared for unexpected behavior.

also, riding up the sidewalk in the wrong direction.  that's just frightening as a pedestrian because you just never expect anyone to be doing that - silently and out of nowhere, some bike passes inches from you doing 15mph on a narrow sidewalk.

Cyclists on the sidewalk are a major nuisance, especially on typical American suburban sidewalks which tend to be narrow (I think the standard width in Wichita is 3' or 4').  It doesn't really matter whether the cyclist is moving head-on or in the same direction.  As a general rule, I think cycling on the sidewalk should be either banned or effectively discouraged except for young children or novice cyclists, exceptions being limited to sidewalks where an engineering evaluation has showed that shared use can be safely accommodated.  In Britain pavement cycling is flat-out illegal except on certain tracks which are explicitly signed as being open to cyclists.

I don't even like to encounter other pedestrians when I am walking down a typical suburban sidewalk.  The paved width is so narrow that it essentially accommodates only one pedestrian "lane," which makes it very hard to avoid unwanted staring matches when someone is approaching from the opposite direction.  In other countries where pedestrian pavements are a more important and more heavily used part of the overall transportation system, there is almost always enough width for at least two pedestrians to walk abreast, and the entirety of the width between the curb and some architectural feature which delimits the boundary between public and private--outside wall of a high-rise building or a garden wall, say--is paved.  

Salmoning as a pedestrian is fine (and is in fact recommended, so you can keep an eye out for vehicular traffic nearest to you) but on a bike it's just antisocial.

I wouldn't consider that an universal rule--contraflow cycle lanes have been used successfully in Britain to give cyclists enhanced mobility on one-way streets and false culs-de-sac in city-center districts.

Where curbside cycle lanes are concerned, I am agnostic.  In 11 years there has been just one occasion where I have been yelled at for using the road instead of a parallel cyclists-only facility, and the facility in question was actually a parallel separated cycle track rather than a curbside cycle lane.  (In this particular case, I opted to cycle in a bus lane instead of using the cycle track, because I wanted to avoid dealing with driveway crossings, and a bus driver pulled up next to me in the general-purpose lane and opened the door so he could yell at me for using "his" lane.  I don't think he realized that the bus lane signs clearly indicated that cyclists could use the bus lane and therefore my use of it was perfectly within the law.)  Drain gratings, debris, and water ponding due to fallen leaves clogging the drains are all real problems with cycle lanes, but in my experience motorists are sensible enough to realize that if cyclists are using the general-purpose lane instead of the cycle lane, it is for a good reason which normally is visually evident.

[jjakucyk]

In most states it IS illegal to ride on the sidewalk anyway, at least for people older than 16.  Bicycles are considered vehicles, and it's illegal to operate a vehicle on sidewalks.  This is something that's made Segway adoption difficult.  They're too fast to operate safely on sidewalks, especially since they're so quiet, but too slow to really operate on the roads too. 

[J N Winkler]

It is also worth remembering that a cyclist/pedestrian collision can seriously injure or kill both parties, and in Britain at least there are examples of cyclists who have received lengthy custodial sentences for fatally running down pedestrians.  (Threads discussing such incidents are a bit of a specialty on SABRE, where it is not uncommon for motorists to complain that cyclists get off lightly compared to motorists guilty of similar offenses.)

[agentsteel53]

I would go with that stricture where stop signs are concerned, but not red traffic lights.  I don't really have an objection if a cyclist, having taken full advantage of adequate visibility, sees that he can cop a free right turn or pass along the top of a tee junction without conflicting with other traffic and without interfering with the behavior of other, law-abiding, road users.

going along the top of the Tee or doing a free right turn are fine by me, because indeed you get great visibility on a bike, and can see the situation unfolding as you approach at a relatively slow rate of speed.  I mean zooming through a red light at a standard X intersection.

Look at it from his point of view:  he has no way of knowing if he will catch up with you at a stoplight or stop sign, thus starting the passing tag all over again.  As a general rule, this situation doesn't lend itself to mutually beneficial tit-for-tat.

by about the fourth encounter, he should have some understanding of what is going on - and he should quickly figure out that it's his scofflaw attitude that is 100% responsible for the problem.

blind spots

a pretty significant problem with vehicle design, wouldn't you think?  the problem is extra disconcerting to me because I rent a different car every week, so part of the learning curve is figuring out where one's blind spots are and how much I have to crane my neck to get around them.  My '89 Escort had little fisheye mirrors (similar to what you'd find on a box truck) stuck to the main rear-view side mirrors, and that really helped matters out greatly.  On a rental car, I tend to just take the headrests off.  as I tell people: I'd rather avoid an accident than survive one.

I can see the practical impossibility of preventing blind spots in large vehicles (especially those with no rear windows), but why exactly do compact cars come with them?  Maybe that's what the feds should be focusing on, as opposed to requiring an active parking camera.  I'd rather avoid a high-speed collision on the arterial road than a 3mph collision in my own driveway.  "oops, hit the planter again" is nothing compared to blowing away a bicyclist.

It doesn't really matter whether the cyclist is moving head-on or in the same direction.

head-on, you can at least see them coming.  That, to me, is a big difference!

As a general rule, I think cycling on the sidewalk should be either banned or effectively discouraged except for young children or novice cyclists

I sense a flaw with that reasoning.  What if I were to propose that novice drivers be permitted to drive the wrong way down a one-way street?

I don't even like to encounter other pedestrians when I am walking down a typical suburban sidewalk.  The paved width is so narrow that it essentially accommodates only one pedestrian "lane," which makes it very hard to avoid unwanted staring matches when someone is approaching from the opposite direction.

in my experience, the sidewalk tends to accommodate two lanes.  One in each direction is generally comfortable, unless someone has a British moment and we attempt to pass each other on the left, resulting in an "after you - no, after you" moment of awkwardness.

the real trouble comes when a pair of people walking two astride refuses to merge into one lane.  That's just overstepping your right of way.

I wouldn't consider that an universal rule--contraflow cycle lanes have been used successfully in Britain to give cyclists enhanced mobility on one-way streets and false culs-de-sac in city-center districts.

oh, I had meant salmoning on the sidewalk.  If there is a specific contraflow bike lane, then I'll assume there's a good reason for it and wont begrudge your right to use it. 

[agentsteel53]

This is something that's made Segway adoption difficult.  They're too fast to operate safely on sidewalks, especially since they're so quiet, but too slow to really operate on the roads too. 

also, the fact that they make you look like an entitled asshole.